PDA

View Full Version : How would you react to these houserules?



Proven_Paradox
2008-10-22, 09:21 PM
(Yes, another thread about houserules. And yes I expect it will devolve into a flamefest regarding the Tome of Battle in one page, but I hope to gain useful feedback before that happens.)

I'm just testing the waters on a couple of things I'm considering telling players to some games I run in the future.

On the one hand, I ask my players to do their best to make strong characters--I'm not talking about d2 crusaders and DMM persisting clerics with a stack of Nightsticks, but I like characters to be strong so I as a DM can construct interesting and challenging encounters without killing them. Also note that leveling happens faster to reflect the increased challenge level.

On the other, there are the big five--able to easily overwhelm everyone else if played properly, and at the same time involve a lot of bookkeeping that I find cumbersome.

So, here are some things I'm considering.

-- Wizards, (cloistered) clerics, archivists, and artificers exist. However, adventuring characters of these classes do NOT exist: they're too busy studying in their towers/churches/libraries/laboratories to adventure, and as such are not available as player characters. They may be encountered as allies, enemies, or other. They (rarely) may join the party temporarily, but afterwards they will return to their respective hide-outs.

-- Druids may choose to either have an animal companion (no wild shape) or take the PHBII shapeshift variant. Those who wish to have an animal companion AND be able to change into animals (as the iconic druid archetype often does), we will negotiate some spells to produce this effect. They cast spells spontaneously, based on wisdom, using the spells known/spells per day chart of a favored soul.

-- Favored soul spell save DCs are based on charisma--no more dual casting abilities for them.

-- Melee characters are encouraged to use the Tome of Battle in creating their characters or use re-balanced versions of classes (subject to approval; there are dozens floating around and I'm open-minded about them). This is not required, but if a character finds themselves falling behind, I am not responsible for the consequences.

-- I will gladly give optimization advice to any who aren't adept in such matters. Possibly unbidden, but always when asked.

Thoughts?

_Puppetmaster_
2008-10-22, 09:26 PM
I like them. But if your going to make the favored soul go SAD, you should probably buff the sorcerer up wth some class features mirroring the favored soul to make the arcane and divine spontaneous casters more even.

Neon Knight
2008-10-22, 09:26 PM
I certainly can't find anything wrong with them. They seem in line with your desire for strong characters without the overpowering levels that a tricked out wizard can perform at. They seem reasonable, given that you have made your expectations and desires apparent first.

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-22, 09:29 PM
I like them. But if your going to make the favored soul go SAD, you should probably buff the sorcerer up wth some class features mirroring the favored soul to make the arcane and divine spontaneous casters more even.

That... is actually a decent point, but I'm not convinced that having access to a superior spell list isn't enough of a class feature to make up for that. Others thoughts on this?

Riffington
2008-10-22, 09:30 PM
If you need to make the Favored Soul SAD, I'd consider making it Wis-based rather than Cha-based. Mainly since all arcanists will need Cha.

Actually the Sorcerer buff I like best is to give them 4 skill points/level and add a few social skills to the class skill list. They're certainly *powerful* enough as is, but adding a bit more versatility is nice.

elliott20
2008-10-22, 09:31 PM
-- Wizards, (cloistered) clerics, archivists, and artificers exist. However, adventuring characters of these classes do NOT exist: they're too busy studying in their towers/churches/libraries/laboratories to adventure, and as such are not available as player characters. They may be encountered as allies, enemies, or other. They (rarely) may join the party temporarily, but afterwards they will return to their respective hide-outs.

-- Druids may choose to either have an animal companion (no wild shape) or take the PHBII shapeshift variant. Those who wish to have an animal companion AND be able to change into animals (as the iconic druid archetype often does), we will negotiate some spells to produce this effect. They cast spells spontaneously, based on wisdom, using the spells known/spells per day chart of a favored soul.

-- Favored soul spell save DCs are based on charisma--no more dual casting abilities for them.

-- Melee characters are encouraged to use the Tome of Battle in creating their characters or use re-balanced versions of classes (subject to approval; there are dozens floating around and I'm open-minded about them). This is not required, but if a character finds themselves falling behind, I am not responsible for the consequences.

-- I will gladly give optimization advice to any who aren't adept in such matters. Possibly unbidden, but always when asked.

Thoughts?

The barring the full caster classes might not go over well with the players and will probably draw more flak than encouraging ToB. If you want that to be their justification for not adventuring, you need to make it mechanical so it doesn't feel ENTIRELY like a GM fiat. (unless, of course, your players are the sort who can be understanding, then no problem) i.e. wizards/clerics have their responsibilities that really does tie them down to their respective institutions.

i.e. a tower whose entire structure is supported by magic and requires that mages come in everyday and pour a certain number of their arcane powers into it. (represented by having them expend spell slots) this means that most days, their spell cache is already drained and they really wouldn't be all that useful except as guides or source of knowledge.

ocato
2008-10-22, 09:33 PM
If you are SADing characters, the spirit shaman needs it too.

Raum
2008-10-22, 09:57 PM
(Yes, another thread about houserules. And yes I expect it will devolve into a flamefest regarding the Tome of Battle in one page, but I hope to gain useful feedback before that happens.)

<snit>

-- Wizards, (cloistered) clerics, archivists, and artificers exist. However, adventuring characters of these classes do NOT exist: they're too busy studying in their towers/churches/libraries/laboratories to adventure, and as such are not available as player characters. They may be encountered as allies, enemies, or other. They (rarely) may join the party temporarily, but afterwards they will return to their respective hide-outs.This is the only rule which makes me...wary. Even then I don't have anything against banning the class. It's just I've had some...experiences with a DM using NPCs significantly more powerful than the PCs. I prefer to avoid those types of campaigns now. Have you considered simply banning them altogether?

elliott20
2008-10-22, 10:04 PM
This is the only rule which makes me...wary. Even then I don't have anything against banning the class. It's just I've had some...experiences with a DM using NPCs significantly more powerful than the PCs. I prefer to avoid those types of campaigns now. Have you considered simply banning them altogether?

well, if you really must think of it that way, can't you really say the same for any monster the GM uses?

Bassikpoet
2008-10-22, 10:11 PM
If you have any players that want to play anti-undead PCs, then you just put them out of luck by taking away the cleric (and the ability to turn undead effectively). You could fix this by upping the power of the paladin, but that would take quite a bit of homebrew.

Raum
2008-10-22, 10:25 PM
well, if you really must think of it that way, can't you really say the same for any monster the GM uses?Perhaps you'd have to see it to believe, I'll simply say she owned Reading, Short Line, Pennsylvania, and B&O.

As I said above, it's simply something which makes me 'wary'. It's not necessarily a game killer.

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-22, 10:30 PM
If you need to make the Favored Soul SAD, I'd consider making it Wis-based rather than Cha-based. Mainly since all arcanists will need Cha.

Actually the Sorcerer buff I like best is to give them 4 skill points/level and add a few social skills to the class skill list. They're certainly *powerful* enough as is, but adding a bit more versatility is nice.

That's something I would be open to, I think. [edit] And by "that" I mean both suggestions.


The barring the full caster classes might not go over well with the players and will probably draw more flak than encouraging ToB. If you want that to be their justification for not adventuring, you need to make it mechanical so it doesn't feel ENTIRELY like a GM fiat. (unless, of course, your players are the sort who can be understanding, then no problem) i.e. wizards/clerics have their responsibilities that really does tie them down to their respective institutions.

i.e. a tower whose entire structure is supported by magic and requires that mages come in everyday and pour a certain number of their arcane powers into it. (represented by having them expend spell slots) this means that most days, their spell cache is already drained and they really wouldn't be all that useful except as guides or source of knowledge.

Nitpick: I'm not barring full-casters. I'm barring PREPARED full-casters. A subtle but important difference.

Frankly, I'm okay with it feeling like GM fiat. There are plenty of examples of wizardly types who gain power by remaining at all times in their labs or libraries studying, and if a player really stirs a stink about that, I'd cite that as further justification. Plus, to me, making their lairs supported by their presence also feels like GM fiat--perfectly acceptable, but none-the-less GM fiat.


If you are SADing characters, the spirit shaman needs it too.

Heheh, sprit shaman needs more than that... Regardless, it's a class I don't see in play often, so I didn't mention it. But if a player wanted to run one, I'd do at least that and may make a couple of other tweaks.


This is the only rule which makes me...wary. Even then I don't have anything against banning the class. It's just I've had some...experiences with a DM using NPCs significantly more powerful than the PCs. I prefer to avoid those types of campaigns now. Have you considered simply banning them altogether?

The "joins the PCs" bit would be extremely rare, and the caster in question probably wouldn't be the best suited to battle anyway. At the same time, I want to leave myself the option of throwing a wizard enemy at the players. I use the same justification for me being allowed to use a wizard while the players can't as I do for me being allowed to use a dragon while the players can't.


If you have any players that want to play anti-undead PCs, then you just put them out of luck by taking away the cleric (and the ability to turn undead effectively). You could fix this by upping the power of the paladin, but that would take quite a bit of homebrew.

Paladin re-writes would be among the re-writes I mention in the fifth point--there are a lot of them: I have two that I use regularly and really enjoy. Among their capabilities is improved turning abilities. There're also several ways for favored souls (and possibly druids) to get turn undead, and if a player goes that route I would probably allow their divien caster levels stack with the PrC levels for turning strength; using turn undead to -actually- turn undead is usually a rather weak tactic anyway.

Frosty
2008-10-22, 10:34 PM
Good to see you active again Paradox! Does it man we'll be continuing play soon? :smallsmile:

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-22, 10:37 PM
Good to see you active again Paradox! Does it man we'll be continuing play soon? :smallsmile:

God, I wish. I just had a slight lull that's billowed into full-blown procrastination at the moment. Right now, I'm trying to settle things so that Talmirah can start going sometime in mid-November. No promises.

Hal
2008-10-22, 10:37 PM
I like them. But if your going to make the favored soul go SAD, you should probably buff the sorcerer up wth some class features mirroring the favored soul to make the arcane and divine spontaneous casters more even.

Well, Favored Soul fluff gives them divine-like properties. You could give the Sorcerer fey or dragon like properties along the same lines.

elliott20
2008-10-22, 10:41 PM
well, paradox, none of your houserules I think would break the game for me, per se. So, just saying it MIGHT be a problem with players who want to play prepared casters.

I do think people have a point with the SADs though. I wonder what you'd do to change up the paladin and the other half-casters.

Frosty
2008-10-22, 10:42 PM
God, I wish. I just had a slight lull that's billowed into full-blown procrastination at the moment. Right now, I'm trying to settle things so that Talmirah can start going sometime in mid-November. No promises.

I also hope sometime we could do a high level game, like level 15 or 17. I wanna play a Tank-sader sometime.

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-22, 10:50 PM
well, paradox, none of your houserules I think would break the game for me, per se. So, just saying it MIGHT be a problem with players who want to play prepared casters.

I do think people have a point with the SADs though. I wonder what you'd do to change up the paladin and the other half-casters.

If by "half-casters" you count casters focused in a specific type of magic, like bard, beguiler, dread necromancer, and so on, they generally get class features that help them catch up in usefulness; I generally don't consider them to be in need of change.

If by "half-casters" you mean classes like ranger, paladin, and others that are melee characters with a side of gimped casting, I think most archetypes represented by those in core are better represented by ToB classes--or at least make up a lot of ground with an appropriate dip level or two. Also, they would fall under the "use re-balanced version" clause of point five. Paladins, for example, get to choose between this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=761045) or this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33551).

elliott20
2008-10-22, 11:07 PM
oooh fax_celeste's paladin. now that's some yummy goodness right there!

but yeah, I personally think going ToB is just an easier option. I wonder how well crusader synergizes with paladin though...

Zeful
2008-10-22, 11:23 PM
Well, Favored Soul fluff gives them divine-like properties. You could give the Sorcerer fey or dragon like properties along the same lines.

This is a bad idea. There is very little dragon fluff to the Sorcerer. There is one line, which is then handwaved away as "boasts" in the next sentence. Making an entire class' powers based from exceptional heritage makes other classes with greater heritage seem silly (how is a half-dragon fighter weaker than a Sorcerer with forced draconic heritage? After all he's got much more dragon in him, he should be able to everything the sorcerer can and more).

Eclipse
2008-10-23, 12:15 AM
I'd react with joy, since the Favored Soul no longer suffers from mad and I like spontaneous divine casting. Or really any spontaneous casting. As such, your rules don't really negatively effect anything I'd be itching to play. Of course, this means I'm biased, but I do think they look pretty solid, and I'd likely enjoy a game with those houserules.

BardicDuelist
2008-10-23, 12:27 AM
I'd play what I think is probably the best design in 3.x mechanics: the Factotum. Since that's the case, it wouldn't break the game for me. Then again, I can see how it would piss off several people I know.

monty
2008-10-23, 12:34 AM
This is a bad idea. There is very little dragon fluff to the Sorcerer. There is one line, which is then handwaved away as "boasts" in the next sentence. Making an entire class' powers based from exceptional heritage makes other classes with greater heritage seem silly (how is a half-dragon fighter weaker than a Sorcerer with forced draconic heritage? After all he's got much more dragon in him, he should be able to everything the sorcerer can and more).

You could also ask why the 36 HD great wyrm white dragon is only as good as the 13 HD sorcerer. That's just the way it works.

MeklorIlavator
2008-10-23, 12:47 AM
I Like most of them, though I'm not sure about the Druid, and that's mostly about the spell list. My only big worry for the game would be that you don't have a good way to have access to the morning after spells. Besides that, what about Psionics?

Oh, and for the sorcerer, why not give him wizard bonus feat progression+1 at first level with the following choices added: Draconic, Fey, Fiendish, Celestial and Infernal heritage feats+Eschew Materials. If you don't want to give them a free first level feat, give them Eschew Materials.

Devils_Advocate
2008-10-23, 04:16 AM
-- Wizards, (cloistered) clerics, archivists, and artificers exist. However, adventuring characters of these classes do NOT exist: they're too busy studying in their towers/churches/libraries/laboratories to adventure, and as such are not available as player characters. They may be encountered as allies, enemies, or other. They (rarely) may join the party temporarily, but afterwards they will return to their respective hide-outs.
Powerful spellcasters who are powerful spellcasters because they spend time practicing spellcasting and studying magic instead of killing monsters? The magic-item-making specialists explicitly put into an NPC role? The people equipped to live comfortable lives and hold positions of power within society actually functioning within society, and rarely running off on weird "quests", because they have better things to do?

What are you trying to do, create a D&D setting that actually makes sense?!


That... is actually a decent point, but I'm not convinced that having access to a superior spell list isn't enough of a class feature to make up for that. Others thoughts on this?
Is familiar progression enough to make up for not taking a full casting prestige class?

Sorcerer needs actual class features if you want to make taking its later levels worth it. Assuming you're allowing prestige classes.

Hal
2008-10-23, 05:05 AM
This is a bad idea. There is very little dragon fluff to the Sorcerer. There is one line, which is then handwaved away as "boasts" in the next sentence. Making an entire class' powers based from exceptional heritage makes other classes with greater heritage seem silly (how is a half-dragon fighter weaker than a Sorcerer with forced draconic heritage? After all he's got much more dragon in him, he should be able to everything the sorcerer can and more).

Okay, so I'm not talking about turning him into a great wyrm at 20. Grab some of the Dragon Disciple class features and make them part of the sorcerer's progression. Focus on the Fey angle, there are feats that work with it.

Eldariel
2008-10-23, 05:13 AM
These rules are fine. Banning Clerics, Archivists, Wizards and Artificers would probably be cleaner, but this works too. Although I agree that the Sorcerer needs class features: Draconic Heritage and bonus Draconic feats seems logical enough. I'd probably just use the Pathfinder Sorcerer - it has flavourful abilities (and gets to choose its bloodline!) and doesn't totally suck all the way to 20.

Also, it's kinda dumb that players assume they should get access to every class in PHB. I mean, WoTC has screwed up a ton of things - why should every game be plagued by WoTC's failures, like most PHB classes?

kamikasei
2008-10-23, 05:20 AM
How's about psions? Are they considered spontaneous enough to escape your wrath? Erudites?

Also, the change to Druid casting seems a bit harsh. What about giving them something like the Spirit Shaman, so that they can still get the benefit of their less-frequently-used spells at a day's notice?

Tengu_temp
2008-10-23, 05:21 AM
What are you trying to do, create a D&D setting that actually makes sense?!


Preposterous, ain't it?

Those houserules look mighty fine to me. They do away with roughly 50% of cheese in DND.

goram.browncoat
2008-10-23, 05:55 AM
Seems a bit over the top to me. I always have problems when entire classes are banned, not for setting reasons but just because the DM has a problem with them.

"DMM with a bag full of nightsticks is overpowered"
--> "Lets ban clerics" .. huh? overgeneralize much?

Its also not terribly consistent. A sorceror can just as easily be broken with incantatrix for example as a wizard. Granted he'll be less over-the-top broken than the wizard as he doesnt benefit from the int synergy as much. But he'll still be far-far-far more powerfull than any wizard/druid/cleric/archivist that chooses to play a non-op build.

Instead of just banning things in broad strokes, just discuss with your players beforehand what they plan to do (like you intend to do for druids). If nobody even mentions nighsticks or god knows what else you have problems with, then dont worry about it. No need making problems of things before its nessecary to do so.

I find it especially weird that you ban half the caster classes and then heavily recommend (to the point of nigh-insisting) on ToB. Now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying ToB is overpowered. I think its a fine book that performed miracles for the melee archetype in dnd. I just think its weird to ban a bunch of full casters and insisting on making your melee players .. well .. casters (initiators .. tometo tomato).

Anyhow, just My2c

Starbuck_II
2008-10-23, 06:09 AM
-- Wizards, (cloistered) clerics, archivists, and artificers exist. However, adventuring characters of these classes do NOT exist: they're too busy studying in their towers/churches/libraries/laboratories to adventure, and as such are not available as player characters. They may be encountered as allies, enemies, or other. They (rarely) may join the party temporarily, but afterwards they will return to their respective hide-outs.


So only Cloistered Clerics are banned?

Tengu_temp
2008-10-23, 06:10 AM
It's been already established in numerous discussions that even without using major cheese, the classes Proven_Paradox is banning (+druid, whom he is modifying heavily) are much stronger than the others.

Cheesegear
2008-10-23, 06:10 AM
-- Wizards, (cloistered) clerics, archivists, and artificers exist. However, adventuring characters of these classes do NOT exist: they're too busy studying in their towers/churches/libraries/laboratories to adventure, and as such are not available as player characters. They may be encountered as allies, enemies, or other. They (rarely) may join the party temporarily, but afterwards they will return to their respective hide-outs.

I have this rule in effect in my games as well. Mostly as part of the background of the world. 'Written' Magic doesn't exist, therefore, no wizards, or archivists. Magic, as a whole is abhored, therefore, no artificers. And my Gods are a bit weird, so, no clerics.
Sorcerers don't exist. Not for any real reason.
But Warmages, Beguilers and Duskblades, taking the place of sorcerers.


Favored soul spell save DCs are based on charisma--no more dual casting abilities for them.

Wow. Great minds think alike. Instead of Druids, though, I have Spirit Shamans, who, by giving up their Spirit Guide (not their spells though, just the free concentration checks and stuff), can gain access to Shapechage (as per the Druid in PHB-II), or they have their Spirit Guide made manifest into an Animal Companion.


Melee characters are encouraged to use the Tome of Battle in creating their characters or use re-balanced versions of classes (subject to approval; there are dozens floating around and I'm open-minded about them). This is not required, but if a character finds themselves falling behind, I am not responsible for the consequences.

Since magic in my world is a bit f*ed up, I can't, in good conscience use the ToB. Since most of the maneuvers are weird (That's not to say I don't like the ToB. It's very useful. But, it just doesn't fit in my world). But, I have transposed the Warblade/Crusader/(Unarmed) Swordsage abilities onto the Fighter/Paladin/Monk class. The fighter, for instance gets bonuses at 3, 5, 7, 9 etc. Characters are allowed to take 'Gain Maneuver' or whatever the feat is, that lets non-Adept characters use them. But, whatever is selected has to be pre-approved.
Also, characters have Quick Draw for any weapon they have Weapon Focus for. This also counts as pre-requisites for any PrC that needs QD. Since Fighters can change their WF (as per the Warblade ability), this is very helpful.

Given that there are no longer 'Big 5' classes, melee characters can almost catch up, even without the ToB.


I will gladly give optimization advice to any who aren't adept in such matters. Possibly unbidden, but always when asked.

I should hope so.

goram.browncoat
2008-10-23, 07:20 AM
It's been already established in numerous discussions that even without using major cheese, the classes Proven_Paradox is banning (+druid, whom he is modifying heavily) are much stronger than the others.

"(+druid, whom he is modifying heavily)" .. exactly .. modify where nessecary, dont flatout ban imho.

Not every single wizard build or cleric build is infinitely more powerfull than every ToB build. So why does ToB get to play and casters dont?

kamikasei
2008-10-23, 07:27 AM
"(+druid, whom he is modifying heavily)" .. exactly .. modify where nessecary, dont flatout ban imho.

Not every single wizard build or cleric build is infinitely more powerfull than every ToB build. So why does ToB get to play and casters dont?

You will note that Paradox has specifically pointed out that all the classes he's banning are prepared casters. Druid is being made spontaneous. I would infer that his concern is not merely power but flexibility, of the "bad" sort that make a character a Swiss-Army-knife of solutions to any possible problem the DM can come up with that isn't utterly contrived. A game consisting of Sorcerers, Favored Souls, Psions, ToB classes, etc. is easier to DM for, even if the characters are still very powerful, because you know what they're capable of and their capabilities stay much the same throughout the adventuring day (they may run out of spells or abilities, but won't ever have most of their spells left yet be unable to use the single magic bullet the encounter requires).

@Cheesegear, I make in passing the obligatory note that you can probably fit a Warblade into virtually any low-magic setting without messing up the tone.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-23, 07:49 AM
It's an interesting idea to make the most powerful classes available only for NPCs, I like it.
You'll use sorcerers and favored souls as the main spellcasting classes available for PCs, I take it. Ok, SAD-ific the FS, and give more skill points to the sorcerers as people mentioned, and I think it'll be fine. Also have them all have Schew Materials for free, so no one needs to keep track of non-valuable components.

For others adjusts in classes, I suggest checking the Ultimate Classes http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes Lot's of good stuff there.

Saph
2008-10-23, 09:55 AM
Not bad. I'm guessing you mostly run campaigns at mid to high levels? These rules seem designed to even things out in the 11-20 band.

That said, this way of running a campaign is also a LOT of work, first for the DM (checking builds, finding rebalanced versions of lots of different classes, building souped-up opponents) and to a lesser degree for the players (learning the houserules about what they can/should play). But you seem to know what you're doing, so I assume you've budgeted for that.

- Saph

goram.browncoat
2008-10-23, 09:56 AM
You will note that Paradox has specifically pointed out that all the classes he's banning are prepared casters. Druid is being made spontaneous. I would infer that his concern is not merely power but flexibility, of the "bad" sort that make a character a Swiss-Army-knife of solutions to any possible problem the DM can come up with that isn't utterly contrived.

Fine, but i still dont get _why_ he feels he need to ban all prepared casters. Theyre not overpowered in and off themselves. You can limit spell selection.

There is an immense multitude of perfectly viable prepared caster builds that can contribute to party success without being the overpowering 'always in the spotlight' character.

He did ask for opinions on the houserule, well this is mine. Broadbrush banning is bad. Targetted banning of specific problems is good.
(for example: wizard too swiss army knife? make it so he cant leave open slots to prepare later when he needs something specific. this is a heavy nerf to wizard versatility, but at least you didnt ban the whole class.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-23, 10:06 AM
Fine, but i still dont get _why_ he feels he need to ban all prepared casters. Theyre not overpowered in and off themselves. You can limit spell selection.

There is an immense multitude of perfectly viable prepared caster builds that can contribute to party success without being the overpowering 'always in the spotlight' character.

He did ask for opinions on the houserule, well this is mine. Broadbrush banning is bad. Targetted banning of specific problems is good.
(for example: wizard too swiss army knife? make it so he cant leave open slots to prepare later when he needs something specific. this is a heavy nerf to wizard versatility, but at least you didnt ban the whole class.)This is true. I have a char sheet open in another tab for a heavy-armor cleric with high-Cha and DMM. The reason I doubt it will be an issue? I took Chain Spell. The party will love me, and I guarantee you I won't overshadow any of them.

newbDM
2008-10-23, 10:17 AM
(Yes, another thread about houserules. And yes I expect it will devolve into a flamefest regarding the Tome of Battle in one page, but I hope to gain useful feedback before that happens.)

I'm just testing the waters on a couple of things I'm considering telling players to some games I run in the future.

On the one hand, I ask my players to do their best to make strong characters--I'm not talking about d2 crusaders and DMM persisting clerics with a stack of Nightsticks, but I like characters to be strong so I as a DM can construct interesting and challenging encounters without killing them. Also note that leveling happens faster to reflect the increased challenge level.

On the other, there are the big five--able to easily overwhelm everyone else if played properly, and at the same time involve a lot of bookkeeping that I find cumbersome.

So, here are some things I'm considering.

-- Wizards, (cloistered) clerics, archivists, and artificers exist. However, adventuring characters of these classes do NOT exist: they're too busy studying in their towers/churches/libraries/laboratories to adventure, and as such are not available as player characters. They may be encountered as allies, enemies, or other. They (rarely) may join the party temporarily, but afterwards they will return to their respective hide-outs.

-- Druids may choose to either have an animal companion (no wild shape) or take the PHBII shapeshift variant. Those who wish to have an animal companion AND be able to change into animals (as the iconic druid archetype often does), we will negotiate some spells to produce this effect. They cast spells spontaneously, based on wisdom, using the spells known/spells per day chart of a favored soul.

-- Favored soul spell save DCs are based on charisma--no more dual casting abilities for them.

-- Melee characters are encouraged to use the Tome of Battle in creating their characters or use re-balanced versions of classes (subject to approval; there are dozens floating around and I'm open-minded about them). This is not required, but if a character finds themselves falling behind, I am not responsible for the consequences.

-- I will gladly give optimization advice to any who aren't adept in such matters. Possibly unbidden, but always when asked.

Thoughts?


Just checking, this is 3.5, right?

And I personally like the wizard, clerics, etc houserule. I have done something similar with my houserules, and I am quite happy with the results.

The Druid I think will need something so the PC(s) don't feel they are now underpowered, since having both the companion and shaping are both supposed to be part of the class to make it balanced. Personally I do think Druids can become way over powered if done right, so that is one reason why they are not a playable class in my games, but many players won't know/realize this and feel cheated.

As someone who personally dislikes optimizing, that is the only think I would react poorly to. I feel for me role-playing is more important than roll-playing, so I had problems in a few groups that I assume are like your style where I was constantly bugged and annoyed by the rest of the players (and even the DM!) for my characters being "too weak". However, I learned that to each his own, and I just avoid such groups now.

Kesnit
2008-10-23, 10:20 AM
It's been already established in numerous discussions that even without using major cheese, the classes Proven_Paradox is banning (+druid, whom he is modifying heavily) are much stronger than the others.

They can be. That doesn't mean they are. For a campaign I ran not long ago, I put together a DMPC cleric focused entirely on healing and turning undead (named "Healbot." The BBEG was a Lich.) I went to great lengths to make sure she didn't overpower the others by not cheesing her out with gear, feats and spells. She spent almost every battle running between the other PCs to heal them. (Other than when, in an attempt to not kill the other PC's, I had the BBEG cast charm person on her. She had to roll a 5 to make her save, and she rolled a 3. Since I made her rolls openly, I couldn't even fudge it.)

Granted, not all players want to play like that. This is just an example to show that clerics do not have to overpower the party, esp if the DM takes control and limits cheese.

Also, as was pointed out before (forgot who), taking away prepared casters takes away morning after spells. Same campaign as above, an enemy Sorc managed to curse a player. Healbot didn't have remove curse prepared, so the party rested until the next day. Healbot prepared remove curse and the party moved on. That would not be possible without prepared casting. (Players would either have to buy lots of scrolls, the DM would have to provide them, or the players take major hits to their capability.)

Hal
2008-10-23, 11:39 AM
He did ask for opinions on the houserule, well this is mine. Broadbrush banning is bad. Targetted banning of specific problems is good.
(for example: wizard too swiss army knife? make it so he cant leave open slots to prepare later when he needs something specific. this is a heavy nerf to wizard versatility, but at least you didnt ban the whole class.)

Fair enough. Personally, I have no problem with it, but then I tend to prefer not to play prepared casters. Too much book-keeping. I'm currently playing a Beguiler, and even that is too much back-and-forth spell checking for me. I can't imagine having to do it with the entire spell list (and that's before you throw in Spell Compendium).

I think it's an interesting thing to do for a setting, whether it's for the purpose of balance or just to try something new. Even if it means the other classes have to be tweaked as a result, I don't think that's going to be a huge deal. Just be upfront with your players in the beginning about what changes you intend, and then you go from there about what further changes need to be made.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-23, 11:56 AM
Fine, but i still dont get _why_ he feels he need to ban all prepared casters. Theyre not overpowered in and off themselves. You can limit spell selection.

There is an immense multitude of perfectly viable prepared caster builds that can contribute to party success without being the overpowering 'always in the spotlight' character.

He did ask for opinions on the houserule, well this is mine. Broadbrush banning is bad. Targetted banning of specific problems is good.
(for example: wizard too swiss army knife? make it so he cant leave open slots to prepare later when he needs something specific. this is a heavy nerf to wizard versatility, but at least you didnt ban the whole class.)
Because he *wants* to? Sounds like this is how magic works in his campaign setting, and he's asking for suggestions for others classes, and limiting some for NPCs only.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-10-23, 12:52 PM
-- Wizards, (cloistered) clerics, archivists, and artificers exist. However, adventuring characters of these classes do NOT exist: they're too busy studying in their towers/churches/libraries/laboratories to adventure, and as such are not available as player characters. They may be encountered as allies, enemies, or other. They (rarely) may join the party temporarily, but afterwards they will return to their respective hide-outs.
I prefer when DMs ban broken options & combos, even if the banning happens mid-campaign, rather than entire classes that can be broken. But if the DM is cool about moding other classes, as you seem to be, it's not a deal-breaker. I'd probably play a sorc/FS mystic theurge in your game, especially if I could talk you into editing out those silly 1-level delays for sorc/FS spell levels. And I'd want to use the PHBII variant that lets sorcs use metamagic normally--for both my casting progressions, in exchange for giving up my familiar and those FS goodies that I'd probably forget anyway.

TS

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-23, 01:05 PM
I'd walk out, I'm always the wizard.
There is altogether too much meddling in what the player chooses to be, DM's should run the world not the character sheets. If something isn't broken the DM shouldn't have a say in it.

Riffington
2008-10-23, 01:37 PM
I don't think the "don't ban it, there are specific cases where it's fine" argument really applies here.

1. Not every class works in every world. If you don't want a world with starmetal, then you won't allow Green Star Adepts. Sure, they aren't broken. But they don't fit the world.

2. Lots of things do fit into a world but shouldn't be PCs. For example, many DM's ban Chaotic Evil characters (but allow NPCs to be Chaotic Evil). Yes, certain ones *can* fit into a good party (Jayne), but many DMs would rather not bother. There is no substantive difference between saying "A chaotic evil character won't fit in" and "a wizard won't fit in"

3. Contra Weiser_Cain, the DM must absolutely have a say in every character. She is, after all, coming up with plot hooks involving each character. If a character takes ranks in Forgery, that gives the DM an obligation to make Forgery a useful skill in the campaign. If she wants to run a dungeoncrawl instead, then she should forbid the character from taking the skill.

ashmanonar
2008-10-23, 01:40 PM
They can be. That doesn't mean they are. For a campaign I ran not long ago, I put together a DMPC cleric focused entirely on healing and turning undead (named "Healbot." The BBEG was a Lich.) I went to great lengths to make sure she didn't overpower the others by not cheesing her out with gear, feats and spells. She spent almost every battle running between the other PCs to heal them. (Other than when, in an attempt to not kill the other PC's, I had the BBEG cast charm person on her. She had to roll a 5 to make her save, and she rolled a 3. Since I made her rolls openly, I couldn't even fudge it.)

Granted, not all players want to play like that. This is just an example to show that clerics do not have to overpower the party, esp if the DM takes control and limits cheese.

Also, as was pointed out before (forgot who), taking away prepared casters takes away morning after spells. Same campaign as above, an enemy Sorc managed to curse a player. Healbot didn't have remove curse prepared, so the party rested until the next day. Healbot prepared remove curse and the party moved on. That would not be possible without prepared casting. (Players would either have to buy lots of scrolls, the DM would have to provide them, or the players take major hits to their capability.)

Heh, in a 3.5 campaign we were playing last year, our DM had introduced an NPC cleric as a sidenote (just to provide a lesser resto, i believe.)

We then shanghaied said cleric, and brought him with us for the rest of the campaign. Poor guy didn't even get a say in it. :D

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-23, 01:46 PM
Ha, it's my time she wants to play with. If she wanted someone that would just jump through her hoops without questioning she should have wrote a novel instead of a module.
And if she didn't want wizards in the campaign she shouldn't have called me or have a better reason than 'I said so', like 'there are no wizards'.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 01:53 PM
Ha, it's my time she wants to play with. If she wanted someone that would just jump through her hoops without questioning she should have wrote a novel instead of a module.
And if she didn't want wizards in the campaign she shouldn't have called me or have a better reason than 'I said so', like 'there are no wizards'.

Proven has provided a reason: "Prepared casters don't typically adventure as their power is based around their governmental positioning and their laboratories."

So, I suppose if you really feel like it, he could mildly alter the wizard's ability to "May only learn new spells and prepare spells in their laboratory," which certainly puts a damper on their ability to adventure.

Riffington
2008-10-23, 01:58 PM
if she didn't want wizards in the campaign she shouldn't have called me

Assuming your sig is accurate, this is certainly true :)
As to the rest, Fax Celestis gives a good explanation.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-23, 01:59 PM
Proven has provided a reason: "Prepared casters don't typically adventure as their power is based around their governmental positioning and their laboratories."

So, I suppose if you really feel like it, he could mildly alter the wizard's ability to "May only learn new spells and prepare spells in their laboratory," which certainly puts a damper on their ability to adventure.


Magic can be expensive...

Greg
2008-10-23, 02:09 PM
Have you considered the Dead Level (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) variant? Second article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x).

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 02:10 PM
Magic can be expensive...

...and you can make your money by selling your crafting/casting services to adventurers. Much safer, and probably more lucrative.

hamishspence
2008-10-23, 02:11 PM
the problem is getting the XP needed to Craft things.

Which means you have to houserule that Working gives you XP- maybe all that time spent reading spell research books.

valadil
2008-10-23, 02:21 PM
I'd play with these houserules. Probably wouldn't use them myself, but I'd certainly play with them.

FWIW my suggestion for DMM is to make nightsticks only work for turning undead instead of adding to your turn attempts.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 02:26 PM
the problem is getting the XP needed to Craft things.

Which means you have to houserule that Working gives you XP- maybe all that time spent reading spell research books.

Or perhaps you use the Craft Pool variant in UA. Or perhaps they get XP from other methods--souls are 1000 xp, remember. Or perhaps they use the XP of the client.

hamishspence
2008-10-23, 02:36 PM
the rule that allows you to combine forces to make an item is in Epic handbook.

But, apart from variants, getting the XP in the first place can be tricky. And remember: no-one can spend XP in such an amount as to go down a level, for spellcasting, or crafting.

Riffington
2008-10-23, 02:58 PM
Perhaps wizards get most of their XP from killing spellthieves...

/ducks

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-23, 07:37 PM
I'd play what I think is probably the best design in 3.x mechanics: the Factotum. Since that's the case, it wouldn't break the game for me. Then again, I can see how it would piss off several people I know.I don't know about the best, but factotum is certainly a solidly designed class, and perfectly welcome in my group.


I Like most of them, though I'm not sure about the Druid, and that's mostly about the spell list. My only big worry for the game would be that you don't have a good way to have access to the morning after spells. Besides that, what about Psionics?

Oh, and for the sorcerer, why not give him wizard bonus feat progression+1 at first level with the following choices added: Draconic, Fey, Fiendish, Celestial and Infernal heritage feats+Eschew Materials. If you don't want to give them a free first level feat, give them Eschew Materials.Access to the morning after spells? I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

As for psionics, I honestly don't know enough about them to say for sure. As I understand things, I -might- have to apply the first point to psions, but I'm not sure. I normally ask players to steer away from psionics for flavor reasons--I'm one of those people who think of psionics as the magic one sees in science fiction. A good friend of mine has been effectively advocating their use to me lately, though, so I'd be open to psionics in future games. I hope to look the psionic rules over during a break from college sometime soon; at that point I'd be able to get back to you on this for sure.

It sounds to me like you're getting sorcerer confused with warlock on the bonus feats... Also, that's FAR more of a boost than sorcerers actually need. Plus it keeps people from finding a more innate, human access to spells that I find appealing, flavor-wise. Eschew Materials makes a lot of sense though, and I'd probably give that to all of the spontaneous casters.


Powerful spellcasters who are powerful spellcasters because they spend time practicing spellcasting and studying magic instead of killing monsters? The magic-item-making specialists explicitly put into an NPC role? The people equipped to live comfortable lives and hold positions of power within society actually functioning within society, and rarely running off on weird "quests", because they have better things to do?

What are you trying to do, create a D&D setting that actually makes sense?!Heh, well, any setting where someone can wave their arms around, speak some gibberish, and in the process turn someone into a frog doesn't really make sense. Consistency is perhaps a better word for the goal. Still, yes, I think you understand what I'm getting at perfectly.


Is familiar progression enough to make up for not taking a full casting prestige class?

Sorcerer needs actual class features if you want to make taking its later levels worth it. Assuming you're allowing prestige classes.Heh, familiar progression isn't even close to enough. I usually get rid of my familiar to take the Metamagic Specialist ACF in PHBII (I think). Still, I don't have a problem with sorcerers taking prestige classes--I highly recommend it, even.


How's about psions? Are they considered spontaneous enough to escape your wrath? Erudites?

Also, the change to Druid casting seems a bit harsh. What about giving them something like the Spirit Shaman, so that they can still get the benefit of their less-frequently-used spells at a day's notice?Re: psions--Like I said to Meklor, I honestly don't know the psionic rules well enough to say yea or nay to this. I'd -probably- allow them, but I'm not certain.

As for druid... I'm giving them more spells per day and letting them pick between one of two very strong class features. They're still going to be very strong. I'm not convinced druids need more than what I'm giving them, and I'd like to let the spirit shaman keep one of its two defining class features unique to it.



If I -do- give them more, I would probably say that it would be that they get one more spell known for each spell level that is automatically used for Summon Nature's Ally.


Seems a bit over the top to me. I always have problems when entire classes are banned, not for setting reasons but just because the DM has a problem with them.

"DMM with a bag full of nightsticks is overpowered"
--> "Lets ban clerics" .. huh? overgeneralize much?

Its also not terribly consistent. A sorceror can just as easily be broken with incantatrix for example as a wizard. Granted he'll be less over-the-top broken than the wizard as he doesnt benefit from the int synergy as much. But he'll still be far-far-far more powerfull than any wizard/druid/cleric/archivist that chooses to play a non-op build.

Instead of just banning things in broad strokes, just discuss with your players beforehand what they plan to do (like you intend to do for druids). If nobody even mentions nighsticks or god knows what else you have problems with, then dont worry about it. No need making problems of things before its nessecary to do so.

I find it especially weird that you ban half the caster classes and then heavily recommend (to the point of nigh-insisting) on ToB. Now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying ToB is overpowered. I think its a fine book that performed miracles for the melee archetype in dnd. I just think its weird to ban a bunch of full casters and insisting on making your melee players .. well .. casters (initiators .. tometo tomato).

Anyhow, just My2c

See, this kind of is for setting reasons too. See my conversation with Devil's Advocate for the reasoning there.

Another thing is that I like to see players playing their classes not-stupidly. The only way to make a wizard not dominate high level play is to play one poorly--you don't have to OMG OPTIMIZE the classes I'm restricting to put them above everyone else. If the only way to avoid dominating a game is to play poorly, the class is too powerful.

And comparing any of the ToB classes to wizard is... kind of a stretch in my mind. A lot of a stretch actually. Casters can do anything. ToB classes are mostly limited to the equivalent of blaster casters. The difference there is huge.


So only Cloistered Clerics are banned?Ah, no. I was unclear about that. Clerics as a whole are banned, including cloistered. Also, in my games, most clerics encountered by the party are going to be of the cloistered variety, but that's a setting specific thing more than anything.


Wow. Great minds think alike. Instead of Druids, though, I have Spirit Shamans, who, by giving up their Spirit Guide (not their spells though, just the free concentration checks and stuff), can gain access to Shapechage (as per the Druid in PHB-II), or they have their Spirit Guide made manifest into an Animal Companion.That's another way to go about it, but I would prefer to have druid and spirit shaman remain seperate classes. The spell retreival bit about spirit shaman is different enough that I think it deserves its own spot.


Given that there are no longer 'Big 5' classes, melee characters can almost catch up, even without the ToB.If they're heavily optimized perhaps, but without good rules/splatbook fu, they're going to fall far behind the full-casters still. The ToB packs plenty of fixes into a single book and the classes require far less optimization to stay relevant. This assumes the casters are doing their thing well, though; if they're mostly blasting, the ToB characters would actually outclass them. (In Soviet Russia...)


"(+druid, whom he is modifying heavily)" .. exactly .. modify where nessecary, dont flatout ban imho.

Not every single wizard build or cleric build is infinitely more powerfull than every ToB build. So why does ToB get to play and casters dont?No, not every wizard or cleric build is more powerful. But any that aren't blasting or healing focused are. At that point, it's the player doing poorly, and I want my players to do it well.

I'm not saying that blasting doesn't have a place; it certainly does. But that place isn't wizard or cleric.

Not bad. I'm guessing you mostly run campaigns at mid to high levels? These rules seem designed to even things out in the 11-20 band.

That said, this way of running a campaign is also a LOT of work, first for the DM (checking builds, finding rebalanced versions of lots of different classes, building souped-up opponents) and to a lesser degree for the players (learning the houserules about what they can/should play). But you seem to know what you're doing, so I assume you've budgeted for that.

- SaphYeah, I'm usually running in the 6-15 range. I'd be willing to go higher without the party wizard re-writing the world, though. Still, 9th level spells are going to be devastating no matter who is casting them, and I don't want to touch epic with a 10 mile pole. Note that I'm of the opinion that balances shifts to the caster's favor at level 1 (grease, color spray, sleep, ect). I think the these rules even things out along a broader range.

The "work" that you mention is actually quite enjoyable for me. Discussing game balance is interesting to me (when everyone remains civil about it at least), and finding a re-balanced class I like is a very enjoyable experience. I think the players have a pretty easy time of it; the most complicated change is to the druid, and I think it's pretty self-explanatory in the end.


This is true. I have a char sheet open in another tab for a heavy-armor cleric with high-Cha and DMM. The reason I doubt it will be an issue? I took Chain Spell. The party will love me, and I guarantee you I won't overshadow any of them.If you're not using nightsticks and/or persist, I generally don't have a problem with DMM. DMM chain is indeed a very good way to spend some turn attempts.


Just checking, this is 3.5, right?

And I personally like the wizard, clerics, etc houserule. I have done something similar with my houserules, and I am quite happy with the results.

The Druid I think will need something so the PC(s) don't feel they are now underpowered, since having both the companion and shaping are both supposed to be part of the class to make it balanced. Personally I do think Druids can become way over powered if done right, so that is one reason why they are not a playable class in my games, but many players won't know/realize this and feel cheated.

As someone who personally dislikes optimizing, that is the only think I would react poorly to. I feel for me role-playing is more important than roll-playing, so I had problems in a few groups that I assume are like your style where I was constantly bugged and annoyed by the rest of the players (and even the DM!) for my characters being "too weak". However, I learned that to each his own, and I just avoid such groups now.Yes, this is 3.5.

I'm of the opinion that by giving the druid something to feel not-underpowered, you go right back to being overpowered. In my mind, the core druid class is a case of WotC completely failing to balance their classes properly. The problems with clerics and wizards are in their spells and to some extent in splatbooks (I'm still of the opinion that the core three are too strong without any splatbooks though); the problems with druid are in their spells AND their class features. This class gets a harsh nerf because I'm of the opinion that they need one. If a player feels that my druid nerf is -too- harsh, they're going to have to give a convincing argument as to how this is so. As Strongbad once said, too much of a good thing is an AWESOME thing, but too much of an AWESOME thing is sucky (or something like that).


They can be. That doesn't mean they are. For a campaign I ran not long ago, I put together a DMPC cleric focused entirely on healing and turning undead (named "Healbot." The BBEG was a Lich.) I went to great lengths to make sure she didn't overpower the others by not cheesing her out with gear, feats and spells. She spent almost every battle running between the other PCs to heal them. (Other than when, in an attempt to not kill the other PC's, I had the BBEG cast charm person on her. She had to roll a 5 to make her save, and she rolled a 3. Since I made her rolls openly, I couldn't even fudge it.) (Emphasis added)

That you had to do that indicates that the class is too strong, I think. You were playing the class poorly in order to allow the others to still feel useful. This is bad design, which I dislike.


Also, as was pointed out before (forgot who), taking away prepared casters takes away morning after spells. Same campaign as above, an enemy Sorc managed to curse a player. Healbot didn't have remove curse prepared, so the party rested until the next day. Healbot prepared remove curse and the party moved on. That would not be possible without prepared casting. (Players would either have to buy lots of scrolls, the DM would have to provide them, or the players take major hits to their capability.)Ah, so THAT'S what was meant by "morning after" spells. In that case, yes, that will be an issue. I don't feel this is a bad thing; if the party fails to properly equip themselves--including scrolls of basic things like remove curse--they should feel the consequences.


I prefer when DMs ban broken options & combos, even if the banning happens mid-campaign, rather than entire classes that can be broken. But if the DM is cool about moding other classes, as you seem to be, it's not a deal-breaker. I'd probably play a sorc/FS mystic theurge in your game, especially if I could talk you into editing out those silly 1-level delays for sorc/FS spell levels. And I'd want to use the PHBII variant that lets sorcs use metamagic normally--for both my casting progressions, in exchange for giving up my familiar and those FS goodies that I'd probably forget anyway.

TSPerfectly reasonable, and I quite like those ACFs myself.


I'd walk out, I'm always the wizard.
There is altogether too much meddling in what the player chooses to be, DM's should run the world not the character sheets. If something isn't broken the DM shouldn't have a say in it.Then we have opposing views on how the game should be played, and it would be for the good of everyone involved that you go elsewhere. I'm not going to try to please everyone with this.


I don't think the "don't ban it, there are specific cases where it's fine" argument really applies here.

1. Not every class works in every world. If you don't want a world with starmetal, then you won't allow Green Star Adepts. Sure, they aren't broken. But they don't fit the world.

2. Lots of things do fit into a world but shouldn't be PCs. For example, many DM's ban Chaotic Evil characters (but allow NPCs to be Chaotic Evil). Yes, certain ones *can* fit into a good party (Jayne), but many DMs would rather not bother. There is no substantive difference between saying "A chaotic evil character won't fit in" and "a wizard won't fit in"

3. Contra Weiser_Cain, the DM must absolutely have a say in every character. She is, after all, coming up with plot hooks involving each character. If a character takes ranks in Forgery, that gives the DM an obligation to make Forgery a useful skill in the campaign. If she wants to run a dungeoncrawl instead, then she should forbid the character from taking the skill.This is an excellent summation of several of my opinions on the matter.


Have you considered the Dead Level (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) variant? Second article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x).Ah... I'm having a hard time taking this article seriosuly because of this:


The monk is the only other core class, aside from the barbarian, that has no dead levels. Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, which boasts the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes.I had to suppress laughter at this.

Regardless, the abilities granted in these articles are by-and-large useless. There are a few things there that are worthwhile, but overall it's far too little, far too late.


the problem is getting the XP needed to Craft things.

Which means you have to houserule that Working gives you XP- maybe all that time spent reading spell research books.It's never made sense to me that the only way for a class that is based on gaining power from knowledge to become stronger is to kill things. Wizards/clerics and company gain power through hours of study/prayer. I'm also of the opinion that soldiers should have a way to gain levels through something other than mass murder--like training.



Tangent: In one game I ran, there was a wizard player who conveyed similar doubts to me, and we reached a compromise. During downtime, all party members could spend time training/studying to gain some XP between fights. Not much, but XP nonetheless. I suggested that this XP be used for crafting (I allowed other party members to supply XP for item crafting) and it went over quite well. For a while, they contemplated starting a business that began with the party rogue doing some tumbling performances to get some starter money while the wizard studied up, and then doing a loop of selling items and then studying/training for more gold gain. They didn't do it, but I crunched some numbers later and found that they could have made a -lot- of money with that. And I would have been all right with it; it would have been a creative and useful thing to do, and I would have let them reap the benefits.

Plus, I'd have the opportunity to let the BBEG let them know that they crafted the sword he's using before shoving it through their ears. >8D

Devils_Advocate
2008-10-23, 08:13 PM
I find it especially weird that you ban half the caster classes and then heavily recommend (to the point of nigh-insisting) on ToB. Now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying ToB is overpowered. I think its a fine book that performed miracles for the melee archetype in dnd. I just think its weird to ban a bunch of full casters and insisting on making your melee players .. well .. casters (initiators .. tometo tomato).
It is weird to say "I'm banning the ZOMGWTFBBQ top-tier classes that can do any damn thing they want, but in their place I'm allowing a wide variety of lower-powered spellcaster and caster-like classes." It's more common to say "I'm allowing all of the core classes, but not Tome of Battle, because martial characters shouldn't be allowed to do crazy awesome stuff." Despite the former making about a thousand times as much sense as the latter.

It's refreshing.


"(+druid, whom he is modifying heavily)" .. exactly .. modify where nessecary, dont flatout ban imho.
But he's already including modified, spontaneous versions of the wizard and the cleric: the sorcerer and the favored soul.

A prepared spellcaster essentially gets to swap out most of his build options on a daily basis. That's absurdly useful and and entirely too good. Yes, it's possible to play a prepared spellcaster without breaking the game. It's probably even possible to play a character who can grant three free wishes a day and isn't overpowered in practice because he's super-reluctant to use them. It's still ridiculous, IMO, to give a player that much game-breaking potential. And it's extremely legitimate to be wary of a player who whines about not being allowed some manner of game-breaking potential.

Proven_Paradox, I gather, would ideally like to run a game with options that allow everyone to optimize and roleplay characters who make intelligent use of their resources, without having to hold back and follow an overarching metarule that you aren't allowed to do things too well. That seems to me like the reasonable way to do things. That's certainly how I'd prefer to be limited as a player.

There's nothing unusual about not letting players play certain things which nevertheless exist in the game world. Most DMs wouldn't let you play a beholder. Nor is it terribly odd to not allow all printed classes. It's unusual to ban core classes, and to restrict some classes as well as races to NPCs, but that doesn't make it bad. But it seems like some folks are maybe criticizing PP for banning things in an unconventional way, even though he's clearly willing to be permissive about allowing non-cheesy stuff.

That's silly.


Additional note: While eliminating prepared spellcasting helps to bring magic down to a saner power level, it's not enough on its own. There are spells (like gate and polymorph, to give some obvious examples) and prestige classes that should be banned, too. Offhand, I'd guess that more than a few uber PrCs can be balanced just by costing caster levels instead of giving +1 level of spellcasting in an existing class at every level.

MeklorIlavator
2008-10-23, 08:44 PM
Ah, so THAT'S what was meant by "morning after" spells. In that case, yes, that will be an issue. I don't feel this is a bad thing; if the party fails to properly equip themselves--including scrolls of basic things like remove curse--they should feel the consequences.
The only problem with this is the shear number of Morning After spells and the feasibility of having enough scrolls. Having multiple high level scrolls for each member of the party is going to cost alot, so you should plan your encounters accordingly.


As for psionics, I honestly don't know enough about them to say for sure. As I understand things, I -might- have to apply the first point to psions, but I'm not sure. I normally ask players to steer away from psionics for flavor reasons--I'm one of those people who think of psionics as the magic one sees in science fiction. A good friend of mine has been effectively advocating their use to me lately, though, so I'd be open to psionics in future games. I hope to look the psionic rules over during a break from college sometime soon; at that point I'd be able to get back to you on this for sure.
The Psion is similar to a Sorcerer, limited powers know but he can cast them without preparation. His ability to blast things is slightly better without optimization, but he also lacks many real gamebreakers(and those that are there are copy pastes of Arcane spells). I would recommend not allowing the Euridite, as it would cause the same problem as prepared casters.


It sounds to me like you're getting sorcerer confused with warlock on the bonus feats... Also, that's FAR more of a boost than sorcerers actually need. Plus it keeps people from finding a more innate, human access to spells that I find appealing, flavor-wise. Eschew Materials makes a lot of sense though, and I'd probably give that to all of the spontaneous casters.

Only the Fey and Fiendish Heritages can be taken by non-sorcerer's, the others are all sorcerer specific, and are found in the Complete Arcane(draconic) or the PHB 2(Celestial and Infernal). Of course, if you prefer Human connections then they'd be somewhat inappropriate. But how precisely is giving them 4 or 5 bonus feats way too much power? Especially in the way they're spread out over the levels? Not familiar with the favored soul, but I seem to remember that they got useful class features, so why not give some to the sorcerer as well?
How is that a huge boost?

Tequila Sunrise
2008-10-23, 08:54 PM
Perfectly reasonable, and I quite like those ACFs myself.
I don't suppose you're planning to run an online game? Seriously, now I really want to try this sorc/FS mystic theurge.

TS

Cuddly
2008-10-23, 09:12 PM
I like it.
Though I've always wanted to run a low magic campaign where you can't have more casting than a bard gets.

newbDM
2008-10-23, 09:12 PM
Yes, this is 3.5.

I'm of the opinion that by giving the druid something to feel not-underpowered, you go right back to being overpowered. In my mind, the core druid class is a case of WotC completely failing to balance their classes properly. The problems with clerics and wizards are in their spells and to some extent in splatbooks (I'm still of the opinion that the core three are too strong without any splatbooks though); the problems with druid are in their spells AND their class features. This class gets a harsh nerf because I'm of the opinion that they need one. If a player feels that my druid nerf is -too- harsh, they're going to have to give a convincing argument as to how this is so. As Strongbad once said, too much of a good thing is an AWESOME thing, but too much of an AWESOME thing is sucky (or something like that).


I see. To be honest, the Druid is the only core class I have yet to really see (if ever I think) either as a player or DM, since I started playing three years ago. Hence, all I base my opinions on is what I read in the PHB, read on forums, and based on what I see of rangers.

However, I would suggest taking a few moments to explain this and your reasoning/feelings about all this to any player who desires to play this class. I learned the hard way that not doing so beforehand often leads to problems and even hard feelings.

And I believed you mentioned allowing the players to obtain both in game as an option? I personally really like that idea. Maybe you can make them feat trees, high-level items/artifacts, or possibly divinely given blessings/gifts? While thinking about this I got an idea/scene I am really enjoying for some reason, about a druid doing a heroic quest/deed/whatever to save an entire ancient forest, so his/her nature deity decides to reward him/her with a powerful animal companion who appears to him/her from that very forest (basically a side-quest for it's god).



And for the psionics talk, as a player (and now DM) whol loves psionics, I beg you to please not judge it based on what you hear.

Yes it has a bad rap, but that is mainly for two reasons:
Some/Many players often take advantage of DMs who do not know the system, or like in my case in the early days I was always the only person to know a thing about it (and this was just starting out) so I made honest mistakes without knowing it. So in this case, I agree. Do not allow it in your games unless you are willing to a least take the time and read through the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
The older editions of psionics were messed up to one extent or the other. For example, although it was slightly before my time (I started D&D exactly when the 3.5 core books were just released), I hear that 3.0 psionics had the amazing quality of being both broken and underpowered at the same time.


But to be 100% honest, from my experienced, the very limited options of psionic material makes it so you can never hope to break psionics like you can magic. I have never player in a game with an arcane magic counterpart where I was able to outshine him/her. However, since I prefer role-playing to roll-playing, that has always been fine with me. Let the "silly magic user" be the glass canon who gets all the attention, I settled to my own roles in the group, which were usually much more fun (usually crowd-control. Deja-Vu how I love tee. :smallbiggrin:).

Again, just please don't judge it simply based on word of mouth.

Jayabalard
2008-10-23, 09:18 PM
If you have any players that want to play anti-undead PCs, then you just put them out of luck by taking away the cleric (and the ability to turn undead effectively). You could fix this by upping the power of the paladin, but that would take quite a bit of homebrew.If your only ocmplaint is the lack of turning,then that's trivially easy to fix... just give paladins the same turn undead progression that clerics ordinarily have, and BAM, you'vefixed that problem without "quite a bit of homebrew."

Raum
2008-10-23, 10:10 PM
And for the psionics talk, as a player (and now DM) whol loves psionics, I beg you to please not judge it based on what you hear.

Yes it has a bad rap, but that is mainly for two reasons:
Some/Many players often take advantage of DMs who do not know the system, or like in my case in the early days I was always the only person to know a thing about it (and this was just starting out) so I made honest mistakes without knowing it. So in this case, I agree. Do not allow it in your games unless you are willing to a least take the time and read through the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
The older editions of psionics were messed up to one extent or the other. For example, although it was slightly before my time (I started D&D exactly when the 3.5 core books were just released), I hear that 3.0 psionics had the amazing quality of being both broken and underpowered at the same time.I've seen the first reason often enough. For some reason 'psionics' often gets equated with 'science' or at least science fiction and rejected from a game because it isn't 'fantasy'. Shrug, ok it's pseudo science at best but if it doesn't fit a particular world vision, no big deal.

As for older versions (2nd ed mostly) of psionics being messed up, that really only happened in worlds (settings) which hadn't planned for them to start with. Non-psionic characters were often given absolutely no defenses against mental attacks, not even a Will save. The problem was less about psionics being 'overpowered' than it was about a separate mechanic which hadn't been accounted for in the original system. Settings such as Athas which did account for psionics had far fewer problems than settings which didn't.

D&D 3.5 (and possibly 3.0, I seldom played it) unified most of the mechanics to the point where non-psionicists had innate defenses against psionic attacks. That made it much less powerful relative to casters.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-23, 10:30 PM
Then we have opposing views on how the game should be played, and it would be for the good of everyone involved that you go elsewhere. I'm not going to try to please everyone with this.

Hey, you asked I told, why the attitude?

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-23, 10:57 PM
[snip]Yeah, we definitely see eye-to-eye on this issue. That said, no need to get aggressive about it...


The only problem with this is the shear number of Morning After spells and the feasibility of having enough scrolls. Having multiple high level scrolls for each member of the party is going to cost alot, so you should plan your encounters accordingly.

I think Panacea rolls a lot of the standard "morning after" spells into one, and it's a good choice to sink a favored soul spell known into. As for the rest: I'm rather liberal with treasure, so they shouldn't have troubles with that unless they touch the obviously curse-bestowing item over and over again.


The Psion is similar to a Sorcerer, limited powers know but he can cast them without preparation. His ability to blast things is slightly better without optimization, but he also lacks many real gamebreakers(and those that are there are copy pastes of Arcane spells). I would recommend not allowing the Euridite, as it would cause the same problem as prepared casters. I'll keep that in mind as I read over the classes.


Only the Fey and Fiendish Heritages can be taken by non-sorcerer's, the others are all sorcerer specific, and are found in the Complete Arcane(draconic) or the PHB 2(Celestial and Infernal). Of course, if you prefer Human connections then they'd be somewhat inappropriate. But how precisely is giving them 4 or 5 bonus feats way too much power? Especially in the way they're spread out over the levels? Not familiar with the favored soul, but I seem to remember that they got useful class features, so why not give some to the sorcerer as well?
How is that a huge boost? "Way too much" may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but they have access to the most powerful spell list in the game. I'm of the opinion that one doesn't need much more of a boost than that. Favored soul gets energy resistances, weapon focus/specialization with their deity's favored weapon, wings at level 17, and some DR at level 20. The energy resistances are useful, I grant, but the wings come long after you need access to a reliable means of flight, and the DR at level 20 isn't enough to affect much. There's a favored soul ACF in PHBII that gives temporary HP to targets of your helpful spells in exchange for weapon stuff that's actually quite good--but all that and the cleric spell list is still weaker than access to wizard/sorcerer spells in most cases.


I don't suppose you're planning to run an online game? Seriously, now I really want to try this sorc/FS mystic theurge.

TSHeh, right now there's no way I'd have time to run a game. I've got two groups on hold right now that I plan to get going again as soon as I have the time (that's the one Frosty was talking about earlier in the thread). That's a full load for me even with adequate free time. I'll keep you in mind if we need a replacement though.


I see. To be honest, the Druid is the only core class I have yet to really see (if ever I think) either as a player or DM, since I started playing three years ago. Hence, all I base my opinions on is what I read in the PHB, read on forums, and based on what I see of rangers.

However, I would suggest taking a few moments to explain this and your reasoning/feelings about all this to any player who desires to play this class. I learned the hard way that not doing so beforehand often leads to problems and even hard feelings.

And I believed you mentioned allowing the players to obtain both in game as an option? I personally really like that idea. Maybe you can make them feat trees, high-level items/artifacts, or possibly divinely given blessings/gifts? While thinking about this I got an idea/scene I am really enjoying for some reason, about a druid doing a heroic quest/deed/whatever to save an entire ancient forest, so his/her nature deity decides to reward him/her with a powerful animal companion who appears to him/her from that very forest (basically a side-quest for it's god). I would certainly lay out why the druid is overpowered to a player who feels it's not in a calm and logical fashion. I mean... its animal companion is going to be stronger than most fighter--that's a single class feature outclassing an entire class. It's not a hard case to make to a reasonable person I think.

And what I was talking about before was something like allowing them to take a spell that would allow them to transform as one of their spells known. Something like "lesser animal form" to give access to wolf, eagle, and some kind of shark for example. I would be flexible on that. However, items and feats are both totally valid ways to do it too; if the player didn't want to spend spells known on it, we'd hammer out a way to do something else with it.


And for the psionics talk, as a player (and now DM) whol loves psionics, I beg you to please not judge it based on what you hear.

Yes it has a bad rap, but that is mainly for two reasons:
Some/Many players often take advantage of DMs who do not know the system, or like in my case in the early days I was always the only person to know a thing about it (and this was just starting out) so I made honest mistakes without knowing it. So in this case, I agree. Do not allow it in your games unless you are willing to a least take the time and read through the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
The older editions of psionics were messed up to one extent or the other. For example, although it was slightly before my time (I started D&D exactly when the 3.5 core books were just released), I hear that 3.0 psionics had the amazing quality of being both broken and underpowered at the same time.


But to be 100% honest, from my experienced, the very limited options of psionic material makes it so you can never hope to break psionics like you can magic. I have never player in a game with an arcane magic counterpart where I was able to outshine him/her. However, since I prefer role-playing to roll-playing, that has always been fine with me. Let the "silly magic user" be the glass canon who gets all the attention, I settled to my own roles in the group, which were usually much more fun (usually crowd-control. Deja-Vu how I love tee. :smallbiggrin:).

Again, just please don't judge it simply based on word of mouth.This is very similar to what said friend who's advocating psionics to me has said in the past. I'm definately planning to give psionics a fair chance--as soon as I have time to sit down and really read the rules around it.


Hey, you asked I told, why the attitude?We very clearly have conflicting opinions about the way the game is to be played, and us playing together would cause unnecessary conflict. I'd rather just avoid that all together by not playing with you--it's better for everyone involved, including you. I'm not going to restrict how you play in your games, but if you're playing in my game, it's best if you're willing to go with my rules.

That's all I meant by that--no attitude, no disrespect.

Devils_Advocate
2008-10-24, 01:31 AM
Proven_Paradox, it looks to me like when you wrote "it would be for the good of everyone involved that you go elsewhere", you meant that Weiser_Cain shouldn't play in your games, but it's easily read as a snippy request to stop posting in this thread. It's not obvious (to everyone) that you're speaking hypothetically there.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-24, 07:40 AM
I don't suppose you're planning to run an online game? Seriously, now I really want to try this sorc/FS mystic theurge.

TS
Hah. Funny. After reading a bit about spontaneous casters this week, I've been thinking about making a sorc/FS/mystic theurge myself.

Kesnit
2008-10-24, 09:02 AM
That you had to do that indicates that the class is too strong, I think. You were playing the class poorly in order to allow the others to still feel useful. This is bad design, which I dislike.

Actually, it was very easy. Of course, the campaign was LVLs 10-11, so I wasn't getting into high level spells. All I did was stay away from DMM.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-24, 09:07 AM
Hah. Funny. After reading a bit about spontaneous casters this week, I've been thinking about making a sorc/FS/mystic theurge myself.

You mean the Never run out of spells but always be behind the rest in damage dealing-erer?

Kesnit
2008-10-24, 09:29 AM
You mean the Never run out of spells but always be behind the rest in damage dealing-erer?

No, that would be a Sorc/Warlock/Eldritch Therge. :smallbiggrin:

Swooper
2008-10-24, 04:09 PM
This is very similar to what said friend who's advocating psionics to me has said in the past. I'm definately planning to give psionics a fair chance--as soon as I have time to sit down and really read the rules around it.
That's me, isn't it? :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, your rules are stricter than I'm used to, and stricter than what I'd impose myself, but I'd still play it, especially since I already know you're a great DM.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 04:14 PM
I'd walk out, I'm always the wizard.
There is altogether too much meddling in what the player chooses to be, DM's should run the world not the character sheets. If something isn't broken the DM shouldn't have a say in it.

Wizards are broken. Good Morning!

As to the house rules, I think I like 'em, overall. Are you giving Clerics the same treatment as Druids? ..Would that just be making them Favored Souls? And out of vague curiosity, how much help would you be giving someone new?


The only problem with this is the shear number of Morning After spells and the feasibility of having enough scrolls. Having multiple high level scrolls for each member of the party is going to cost alot, so you should plan your encounters accordingly.
Conceivably, one could reduce the need for Morning Afters by simply not inflicting spells that require them, yes? Notwithstandign thsi Panacea spell, which I know nothing of.

Curmudgeon
2008-10-24, 06:29 PM
While I think toning down the pure spellcasters is good, I don't think you should boost the Favored Soul by making it SAD instead of DAD. The class has plenty of abilities that compensate. By making Charisma a dump stat you've immediately freed up Strength to make the class an easy combat powerhouse -- with careful selection of deity to get a good exotic weapon like bastard sword (Eilistraee, Finder Wyvernspur, Helm, and others) or spiked chain (Kossuth). After that, as soon as the FS can cast Divine Power it's ready for anything.

It's just inequitable to boost the Favored Soul while doing nothing for classes like the Rogue or Paladin. Maybe you could allow those classes to multiclass with your NPC classes -- but at a maximum of 1/3 of total levels.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-10-24, 08:14 PM
You mean the Never run out of spells but always be behind the rest in damage dealing-erer?
A smart MT doesn't deal damage, or have more than three offensive spells; smart MTs buff up their buddies and fling utility spells.

TS

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-25, 12:07 AM
Proven_Paradox, it looks to me like when you wrote "it would be for the good of everyone involved that you go elsewhere", you meant that Weiser_Cain shouldn't play in your games, but it's easily read as a snippy request to stop posting in this thread. It's not obvious (to everyone) that you're speaking hypothetically there....Re-reading my post, I see what you mean. That certainly wasn't my intent; apologies for any offense caused and damn text for failing to convey the more subtle nuances carried in language.


That's me, isn't it? :smallbiggrin:Yes, yes it is. I swear, I'm gonna look up psionics over one of my breaks. Just keep pestering me about it until I do.

Also, flattery will get you nowhere. <<


Wizards are broken. Good Morning!

As to the house rules, I think I like 'em, overall. Are you giving Clerics the same treatment as Druids? ..Would that just be making them Favored Souls? And out of vague curiosity, how much help would you be giving someone new?


Conceivably, one could reduce the need for Morning Afters by simply not inflicting spells that require them, yes? Notwithstandign thsi Panacea spell, which I know nothing of.Yeah, clerics get just changed to favored souls. As for how much help; it'd depend on how much help they need. If they want, I'm willing to hold a newbie's hand through all of writing up a sheet, and I'll explain why things work out the way they do--why toughness is a terrible feat and why power attack is awesome, why blasting is a bad idea and why Grease is best first level spell EVAR. If I know it, and they want to know it, I'll tell 'em. Heh, I might do that even if they don't want to know it. I've run into several who think that they're making a strong character, then proceed to make a monk. *Shrug*

As for Panacea, I looked it up not long after I said that, and it turns out I was mistaken. It's not much of a morning-after spell in truth. It ends a lot of negative conditions, but none are long duration. For some reason I thought it included a remove curse effect. It's still a good choice for a spell known, but more because it can put someone who failed against a save or suck back into the fight. They'd still need scrolls. Which I would provide means to obtain.


While I think toning down the pure spellcasters is good, I don't think you should boost the Favored Soul by making it SAD instead of DAD. The class has plenty of abilities that compensate. By making Charisma a dump stat you've immediately freed up Strength to make the class an easy combat powerhouse -- with careful selection of deity to get a good exotic weapon like bastard sword (Eilistraee, Finder Wyvernspur, Helm, and others) or spiked chain (Kossuth). After that, as soon as the FS can cast Divine Power it's ready for anything.

It's just inequitable to boost the Favored Soul while doing nothing for classes like the Rogue or Paladin. Maybe you could allow those classes to multiclass with your NPC classes -- but at a maximum of 1/3 of total levels.I boost paladin by telling players to make crusaders--when lawful good, their flavor is so similar to that of a paladin that I don't see a need to make a distinction--or use an online re-write. I've got such re-writes available for paladins and fighters, monks are better represented by unarmed swordsages, and rangers who want to be archers will be encouraged to go scout/ranger with Swift Tracker.


A smart MT doesn't deal damage, or have more than three offensive spells; smart MTs buff up their buddies and fling utility spells.

TSThis man is correct; mystic theurge will still be weaker than a straight favored soul or sorcerer, but when played as he suggested they can still be quite effective, especially in drawn-out encounters.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-25, 12:29 AM
A smart MT doesn't deal damage, or have more than three offensive spells; smart MTs buff up their buddies and fling utility spells.

TS
I knew that actually.

Curmudgeon
2008-10-25, 06:26 AM
I boost paladin by telling players to make crusaders--when lawful good, their flavor is so similar to that of a paladin that I don't see a need to make a distinction--or use an online re-write. I've got such re-writes available for paladins and fighters, monks are better represented by unarmed swordsages, and rangers who want to be archers will be encouraged to go scout/ranger with Swift Tracker. So you're changing full casters, beefing up or substituting melee types, and ignoring utility players entirely? Seems like pretty poor treatment for someone who wants to play a Rogue or Factotum.

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-25, 07:32 AM
So you're changing full casters, beefing up or substituting melee types, and ignoring utility players entirely? Seems like pretty poor treatment for someone who wants to play a Rogue or Factotum.

Rogue could use a boost in combat ability--which is quite easy to do with a swordsage dip, and I encourage those who want to play combat-focused rogues to do just that. Factotum is absolutely fine where it is without change. Same for beguiler. Scout is already solid when done as scout/ranger with swift tracker. I have a homebrewed ninja class in my signature for those who don't want to make their ninja a swordsage.

Basically, I'm not fixing what isn't broken. The skill-monkey classes are mostly okay without change in my mind.

Fishy
2008-10-25, 08:52 AM
The Wizard is dead! Long live the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warlock and Warmage!

I enjoy these rules, and entirely understand your reasoning. In fact, I'd consider going ahead and banning the Sorcerer as well, just so you don't end up in the position of the most powerful class left in your game being the most boring. My one complaint is about Archivists: While prepared spellcasting from any divine source anywhere is icky and broken, Dark Knowledge is a wonderful and flavorful thing. For my money, nothing else in 3.5 really captures that feeling of "You are more powerful because I knew something". Would you consider making it an alternate class feature for something, so the scholarly PCs could have somewhere to go? Maybe Bard, to replace Bardic Music?

Dublock
2008-10-25, 08:56 AM
I, myself do enjoy these rules. To me, without even knowing anything else about your campaign you already have displayed some thought into trying to balance out classes, in your own world.

As I favor RP, and story more then just hack and slash this creates curiosity then anything else.

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-25, 09:48 AM
The Wizard is dead! Long live the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warlock and Warmage!

I enjoy these rules, and entirely understand your reasoning. In fact, I'd consider going ahead and banning the Sorcerer as well, just so you don't end up in the position of the most powerful class left in your game being the most boring. My one complaint is about Archivists: While prepared spellcasting from any divine source anywhere is icky and broken, Dark Knowledge is a wonderful and flavorful thing. For my money, nothing else in 3.5 really captures that feeling of "You are more powerful because I knew something". Would you consider making it an alternate class feature for something, so the scholarly PCs could have somewhere to go? Maybe Bard, to replace Bardic Music?I personally find sorcerer to be far from the most boring class in the game, but to each his own. That reasoning doesn't really work for banning the class.

As for Dark Knowledge, something like that could be hammered out, sure. Alternatively, characters who want to get that kind of advantage could pick up the Knowledge Devotion (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Knowledge_Devotion,all) feat.