Let's take on the spellcasting system

[ambu]

Greetings to my fellow posters. I have read and participated in many threads about the fixes needed to DnD to make it more balanced/enjoyable etc etc. Time and time again, the discussion is stuck in the magic system. Ah the re are other issues like unequal races and unequal classes but most of the other problems seem to be able to be tackled (Shapechange instead of wildshape, cloistered cleric, fighter fixes, the works). However, the spellcasting system is always a bulwark.

NOTE:IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE ABOVE, THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR YOU! DON'T GET AGGRAVATED OR ANYTHING!

Luckily, I believe that only small (but numerous) changes are needed for a complete fix. Mainly, ALL the spells that make the wizard the master of everything need to be addressed. To emphasize me points, I will start (edited to include ideas heard in the forums):

Level one
Charm person: The spell enables the caster to make a diplomacy check even in the middle of combat with a bonus equal to 5+level, as described by the GiantITP. The character starts as friendly
Color spray: The results are based according to the differenve between the caster and the subject of the spell

Level two
Protection from arrows: The caster imposes a -10 to all ranged non magical attacks against him
Knock: The caster gets to use the skill Open Locks even untrained and gains a +10+1/2 levels to all open locks tests. He/she cannot take 10 or 20 in the test. Stuck doors continue to be opened etc etc
Spider climb: The caster gets +10 to climbing tests
Glitterdust: The opponent is outlined a gets a -2 to his attack rolls due to the flashes in front of his eyes.
Blindness: The character sees through a misty haze. He loses his Dex to armor, gets a -3 to attack rolls and a -5 to spot checks. He can still see shapes and volumes so his opponents do not have concealment.
Fly: Has a casting time of 1 minute so as not to make it so useful in combat. Alternatively, it can be casted as a standard action but lasts 1 round per level.


Teleport: It can only work between two specific places, who have been prepared before in a 8 hour ritual. But it can teleport object.
Geas, Lesser Geas, Contingency, Forcecage: Under constuction

and so on and so on. The main idea is that there are no more automatic success and that all save-or-else spells are weakened. Combined with a better will save for fighter like classes, I believe that most problems will be gone.

What do you think?

[SpiderBrigade]

So your plan is to...rewrite every spell that exists? I'll check in in a few years and see how you're doing. Especially since, on these boards, we can argue for 20 pages about the balance level of a single spell...

[Thomas]

Shouldn't you just, you know, remove knock, since as you've written it, it's only useable by rogue-wizards? Open Lock is trained only.

It's too much work. People can just play a game with better balance (there's a bunch of d20 games like that, so those who feel insecure away from familiar systems don't need to go out of their way to learn a better game).

[ambu]

*Sigh*

Well that was a nice start.
Spider: Not I do not plan to rewrite every spell in existence. In fact, the spells above are the ONLY ONES I believe need rewriting in the appropriate levels... and maybe hypnotism.

Thomas: Yes there are other RPGs. There are even other d20 which do a better job (Arcana Evolved). But, IF someone wants to make DND more fun to play, more exciting, would it be a nice start to rewrite SOME spells? That is the question. Per Raw, I believe only three or four spells need touching up, banning etc. And as for the Knock thing. I should have said it allows the skill use untrained. I will edit it know.

[Emperor Tippy]

Who said rebalancing the magic system would make D&D more fun to play?

Show me where in fantasy a fighter type can stand up to a caster type without some serious deus ex machina and/or magic of his own. It doesn't happen/exist.

When one character can ignoring the laws of the universe they will be inherently superior to the guy who has to obey those laws (in terms of power).
The simple fact is that if the players are good then the caster will limit himself/herself and not win every fight in 1 round.

[Whamme]

Who said rebalancing the magic system would make D&D more fun to play?

Show me where in fantasy a fighter type can stand up to a caster type without some serious deus ex machina and/or magic of his own. It doesn't happen/exist.

When one character can ignoring the laws of the universe they will be inherently superior to the guy who has to obey those laws (in terms of power).
The simple fact is that if the players are good then the caster will limit himself/herself and not win every fight in 1 round.

If magic of his own includes magical equipment, there's quite a few examples. Apparently the problem is that magical swords that make you immune to magic aren't allowed in D&D (I'm thinking of two examples here).

Actually, there's quite a few different ways. All of them are rooted in magic having it's limits. In the Soldier Son series, for example, iron breaks magic, so the country with a heavy industry and gunpowder has a combative edge against the magic using peoples - especially given that magic has a price in that setting (uses food energy, has a will of it's own). Or the same author's first three trilogies under that penname - the main character has magic (which can control minds, heal bodies, or do just about anything, really) but faces trouble because he can't just casually 'win' conflicts. Most of the time he has to use mundane means for things because using magic is risky, strenuous, and not strictly better at everything.

Heck, the way D&D magic get's novelized it's not an 'I win' button, because wizards have to conserve their magic, they are typically physically frail (often as part of the price of learning magic), and there are ways around their spells.

OOH! Conan! Versus like, EVERY evil sorceror he ever faced!

No, it is not inherent that magic just wins. It's quite, quite genre for them to fall to muscle and skill.

[Thomas]

I'm not Matthew!

I'm not sure whether to be flattered that I would be confused for him.

Rebalancing spells is ultimately pretty dang easy. I just say to my players, "Hey, that looks pretty broken. How about we don't use it?" They say, "Sure." It's all internal gaming-group agreements anyway. Just make sure your players into the habit of consulting with you about builds and ideas and how the rules interact with them. Much easier than going over all the spells and taking them down a notch.

[Wehrkind]

And the resounding chorus for ambu's ambitious rallying cry:

Meh... too much effort.

I know my heart stands uplifted...

[ken-do-nim]

Rebalancing spells is ultimately pretty dang easy. I just say to my players, "Hey, that looks pretty broken. How about we don't use it?" They say, "Sure." It's all internal gaming-group agreements anyway. Just make sure your players into the habit of consulting with you about builds and ideas and how the rules interact with them. Much easier than going over all the spells and taking them down a notch.

My players aren't so easy-going. They cherish their spells! So my plan is to use these spells against them and see how they like it.

Man, every one of the people I play D&D with has such a different take on game balance, ranging from "It might be broken but I don't care" to "It's not broken at all because I've never seen it abused" to "Wizards are insanely powerful!". Yes, believe it or not, I asked a friend of mine to rank the classes in power order, and he put druids at the bottom, shrugging and saying their spell list looked weak. Again the only way to prove it to him that things are otherwise is for me to play a druid and show him. Unfortunately I rarely get the chance to game with him.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, we could go through the spell list and try to tame things, but we're going to piss some people off. For instance, everyone who plays a wizard that I know LOVES Evard's black tentacles. Do we ban it? Nerf it? How about ray of enfeeblement? A 10th level spellcaster's dream spell, considering the payoff vs. the resource usage.

My vote for fixing spells is to adopt the psionics way of doing it. Use power points, and if you want a more powerful version of the same spell (like ray of enfeeblement doing 1-6+5 instead of just 1-6) you have to spend more power points. But again, that's a lot of work (unless someone has already done it?)

[ambu]

First of all:

THOMAS I AM SORRY! That comes from posting deep in the night. I will fix it immediately.

To get back in track:Well I know some people do NOT believe that DnD needs fixing. It's OK as long as they have fun. But that is irrelevant in this thread isn't it? It is aimed at people who DO believe that it is bad for the wizard to own everything in sight after some level.
I severely dislike the fact, for example, that some spells do what a rogue does without any chance of failure. Why have a rogue for the locks when a wand of knock is available? That is bad design, in my opinion. And the save-or-else spells are also bad. That is what I am talking about.

In that light, is it really so much bother to alter thirty or so spells? I believe that the first two spell levels are OK now. I will go on now, to demonstrate what I mean:

Third level spells:
Blindness: The character sees through a misty haze. He loses his Dex to armor, gets a -3 to attack rolls and a -5 to spot checks. He can still see shapes and volumes so his opponents do not have concealment.
Glitterdust: The opponent is outlined a gets a -2 to his attack rolls due to the flashes in front of his eyes.

[Rigeld2]

Blindness: The character sees through a misty haze. He loses his Dex to armor, gets a -3 to attack rolls and a -5 to spot checks. He can still see shapes and volumes so his opponents do not have concealment.

Losing thier dex bonus means that the rogue that is now required in the party can viscerate them. That, and being able to see shapes and volumes doesnt mean targets dont get concealment... if you dont want them to have concealment, they dont get it.

[ambu]

That's it Rigeld. They do not get concealment and I was just trying to rationalize this.

[Ikkitosen]

Your basic premise is good Mr. OP. One of the core concepts of 3.x was to remove flat "set to" or "succeed" spells/items and replace them with bonuses.

This was to avoid the wimpy bow using ftr/rog from putting on Gauntlets of Ogre Power and instantly becoming stronger than the meleeist. In 3.x you get a bonus to what you have, so you can't immediately surpass other regardless of initial skill/whatever.

They seemed to ignore this good idea when writing many spells though, as you say. Knock is, to many locks, an instant success, which makes Mr. +35 Open Locks look like a bit of a schmuck, considering how much effore he put into getting that skill level.

A good idea, but at this stage of the game's release I believe trying to fix all the spells may be an exercise in futility.

[Rigeld2]

That's it Rigeld. They do not get concealment and I was just trying to rationalize this.

So youre okay with the spell still being "You Lose." simply because the now required Rogue can drop sneak attacks on the target all day long with no fear?

[Yakk]

For Blindness-like status effects, how about a save every round for (concentration+1d6 rounds), and if you fail 3 rounds in a row it becomes Permanent.

[Morty]

Who said rebalancing the magic system would make D&D more fun to play?

Show me where in fantasy a fighter type can stand up to a caster type without some serious deus ex machina and/or magic of his own. It doesn't happen/exist.

When one character can ignoring the laws of the universe they will be inherently superior to the guy who has to obey those laws (in terms of power).
The simple fact is that if the players are good then the caster will limit himself/herself and not win every fight in 1 round.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
First, I personally think it makes more fun if magic system isn't unbalanced and full of spells that are just plain dumb, even if not unbalanced. And I don't really think it's good if wizard can do everything he wants. Fantasy with omnipotent wizards is bad fantasy.
Second, ignoring the laws of the universe is the biggest problem of D&D magic. Wizard should break/bend laws of physic instead of ignoring them, which is difference. Not to mention many spells in D&D ingore not only laws of physic, but also logic, common sense and playability. Like MMM, Rope Trick, Greater Teleport and maaaany other.
Third, just because you can cast magic doesn't mean you should be pwning in combat. In fact, you should be weaker in battle, because you're weak, fragile and don't know how to hold a weapon.
Of course, these points don't have anything to do with high-level D&D as it looks now. But that's how it should look.
As for OP: yeah, rewriting all spells is plain too much work. Such rewriting should begin by making list of spells that are too strong- which is hard, since people can argue for five pages if spell is overpowered or not.

[barawn]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Fantasy with omnipotent wizards is bad fantasy.

I definitely agree there.

Not to derail the thread, but in one of the other threads, I realized that part of the problem also is that with 8 hours rest, poof, casters are essentially at full strength again, regardless of how weak they were originally. This is emphatically not the case for melee types, at all.

In that thread I suggested tweaking the amounts that you heal by per day (really: does it make sense that a first-level wizard heals up to 25% of their hit points in a day whereas a first level fighter heals as low as like, 7% or so?) but that's a different point.

One thing I thought of is: well, if preparing spells requires 8 hours of rest so they can clear and focus their mind - doesn't it make sense that this would be harder if your body was beat to utter hell? So you could imagine something like a Spellcraft (for wizards), Concentration (for sorcerers), and I have no idea (for clerics) check, with a DC of 10+number of HP below full.

I still think the OP is right that there are pretty much very few spells which need to be tweaked, but they do need to be tweaked.

Doing it in one thread might not be that smart, though. You want to be really smart? Start a Wiki for it. That way each spell could get its own page with pages and pages of notes.

Blindness: The character sees through a misty haze. He loses his Dex to armor, gets a -3 to attack rolls and a -5 to spot checks. He can still see shapes and volumes so his opponents do not have concealment.

The effects of Blindness are fine to me, but it should have a Duration of 1 round/level for Blindness, probably 2 rounds/level (or 5 rounds/level) for Deafness. I don't know what odd crack people were on when they thought it should be a Permanent duration. It's not that much different from Hold Person - if there's a rogue in the party, Blindness is an instant kill, and unlike Hold Person, Blindness doesn't get multiple saving throws. No reason it shouldn't be 1 round/level.

[Were-Sandwich]

Maybe use the Spell Point system from UA, which is basically the psionics rules, but with magic. However, rather than restoring all SP when resting, they are simply restored an equal number of SP as they would heal HP. Doesn't apply to magical healing.

[Telonius]

Okay, tinkering with a couple of the more egregious spells that make casters pwn no matter what...

Glitterdust: Add "Reflex negates." It's possible to duck out of the way of the incoming dust.
Contingency: Add XP cost of 100 x level of the contingent spell.
Forcecage: Is now a level 9 spell. Same stats otherwise.

[Golthur]

And the resounding chorus for ambu's ambitious rallying cry:

Meh... too much effort.

I know my heart stands uplifted...

Yes, very heartening. The thunderous battle cry of "meh" fills the air.

Anyway, back on topic.

Generally ambu's opinion is right on the money here. Low-level magic shouldn't replace skills - because that's bad for skill-monkeys. The only way it doesn't suck is if you live in Trapworld^TM, where there are 10 or 12 traps/locks/whatever per 100' of corridor. Changing it from "it always works" to "boosts your skill and lets you use it untrained" goes at least part of the way to fixing it - if you get the numbers right. There are still spells like fly and friends, though.

The second culprit is save-or-die/save-or-lose, and my personal opinion on how to fix these is the same as ambu's - change them to be more gradual; e.g. save and you're fine, miss the save by 5 or less and a small bad thing happens, miss the save by 10 through 6 and a bigger bad things happens, and so on. This makes it so that they end up mostly being somewhat potent debuffs against equivalent-level foes, instead of "I win". Against mooks, yeah, they're "I win".

[barawn]

Geas should have a saving throw, ditch the "remove curse must be two levels higher", and put a maximum of 1 day/level. The idiotic "open ended task" can be avoided using the stupidest wording imaginable ("travel the world for the next 20 years, staying at least 5 miles from this location" isn't open ended, nor is it a task that's not accomplishable by the geased character). Ditto with lesser geas (it already has a saving throw).

[barawn]

The second culprit is save-or-die/save-or-lose, and my personal opinion on how to fix these is the same as ambu's - change them to be more gradual; e.g. save and you're fine, miss the save by 5 or less and a small bad thing happens, miss the save by 10 through 6 and a bigger bad things happens, and so on.

For the save-or-lose types with permanent changes, I think you're right. Just a generic change could be all Permanent effects with a save instead are 1 round/level for missing by 5 or less, 1 minute/level for missing by 6-10, 1 day/level for missing by 11-15, and permanent for missing by more.

Might need to be tweaked a bit, but that'd work for me.

[ken-do-nim]

Someone should mention freedom of movement too, which takes several major components of the game (grappling/movement-limiting spells like solid fog & web/underwater limitations, etc.) and makes them instantly overcome, no questions asked.

[ambu]

That's it people that's the spirit! And I do not have great experience in greater level spells so any suggestions are welcome.

And I do not believe that ALL spells are unbalanced. Only two or three per spell level, which everybody knows are 'too good'...I will have more suggestions tomorrow

[Telonius]

Geas should have a saving throw, ditch the "remove curse must be two levels higher", and put a maximum of 1 day/level. The idiotic "open ended task" can be avoided using the stupidest wording imaginable ("travel the world for the next 20 years, staying at least 5 miles from this location" isn't open ended, nor is it a task that's not accomplishable by the geased character). Ditto with lesser geas (it already has a saving throw).

I think the casting time (ten minutes) on Geas already limits it. There's a pretty small chance that you're going to be able to pull one of those off in battle. It's basically for dealing with captured foes, paroled prisoners, things like that. At that point, the target is pretty much at your mercy anyway. I think that the wording of Geas is fine as it is, though it might be good to bump it up to a 7th-level spell.

For Lesser Geas, I'd say that, "Until discharged or 1 day/level, whichever happens first," would be a better duration.

[barawn]

I think the casting time (ten minutes) on Geas already limits it. There's a pretty small chance that you're going to be able to pull one of those off in battle.

Unless, of course, you're hiding, and the battle never starts. It's only got a verbal component, so if it's Silent Spelled, the target might never know it was going off in the first place. No save means only Spell Resistance will save the person. Bit too much for a 7th level spell to be able to take out anyone, without a save, for an arbitrary amount of time.

And, of course, ah, Contingency. Granted, you have to be 18th level for that.

It's a bit too powerful, in my mind. At the very least, the silly "no matter how long it takes" restriction should be eliminated - cap the Geas at 1 day per caster level, period. Oh, and in addition, add "the geas ends if the caster is killed." That's a house rule of mine, and it's great for adding a bit of risk to the spell. It means using Geas on a powerful subject is really, really stupid. They'll just suck the damage for avoiding the geas, and find you and kill you, regardless of what the geas is.

Of course, you could always say "Save: Will, see text. A successful save means the geas will last only 1 day per caster level of the caster, minus the amount that the saving throw succeeded by. Failing the Will save implies the geas lasts until completed."

[Telonius]

Well, if we bump it up to 7th level we don't have to worry about Contingency (which can only set off spells up to 6th level).

I'm not sure that a Silent Geas would work. From the wording of Lesser Geas:

The creature must have 7 or fewer Hit Dice and be able to understand you.

If you're silent spelling it, the target isn't going to be able to understand you, so the spell would fail.

EDIT: Yep, it's a language-dependent spell.

A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.

[barawn]

Good point. 7th level also makes sense given that it's the location of the first spell that can undo it freely.

I still like the "the geas ends if the caster is killed", though. But that's just me. :D

[Yakk]

Geas should have a saving throw, ditch the "remove curse must be two levels higher", and put a maximum of 1 day/level. The idiotic "open ended task" can be avoided using the stupidest wording imaginable ("travel the world for the next 20 years, staying at least 5 miles from this location" isn't open ended, nor is it a task that's not accomplishable by the geased character). Ditto with lesser geas (it already has a saving throw).

Casting time 10 minutes, and range is close (50 ft at L 20).

So the only real worry is that some caster casts the spell while you are sleeping.

[Emperor Tippy]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
First, I personally think it makes more fun if magic system isn't unbalanced and full of spells that are just plain dumb, even if not unbalanced. And I don't really think it's good if wizard can do everything he wants. Fantasy with omnipotent wizards is bad fantasy.

LoTR is bad fantasy? Raymond E. Feist writes bad fantasy? Robert Jordan? Terry Goodkind? Every one of those has at least 1 magic user who is nigh omnipotent and is basically a demigod. Gandalf, Pug (and a good number of other people), The Aes'Sedai? Richard Rahl or most casters in the sword of truth series.

Second, ignoring the laws of the universe is the biggest problem of D&D magic. Wizard should break/bend laws of physic instead of ignoring them, which is difference.

Ignoring and breaking are not different. And I can justify any D&D spell under the guise of physics. If I wanted to kill catgirls.

Not to mention many spells in D&D ingore not only laws of physic, but also logic, common sense and playability. Like MMM, Rope Trick, Greater Teleport and maaaany other.

MMM? How exactly does it ignore logic, common sense, or playability? It just creates a portal to a small, easily mutable demiplane and mutates it into a mansion in the layout the caster wants. Yes it makes wizards untouchable whenever they feel like it but it is a 7th level spell. Above about level 10-11 dungeon crawls should be very rare. You are dealing with more important things and long term quests. The fact that you can sleep safely isn't broken.

Rope Trick is a bit on the low level side for what it does but not by much. Again, how does it break logic or common sense. Maybe playability but even then it doesn't mess it up to much.

Greater Teleport? Teleportation is one of fantasy's most common spells. How is it not logical or ignores common sense? And as with MMM, its a high level spell. At those levels you should not be giving your parties quests/missions in which they have to get to x location quickly. The higher the level in D&D the more roleplay is required. The players aren't the scouts for an army any more, they are the generals and the planners. The mage isn't dealing with goblins, he is dealing with inter-planar problems.

Third, just because you can cast magic doesn't mean you should be pwning in combat. In fact, you should be weaker in battle, because you're weak, fragile and don't know how to hold a weapon.

Reread your fantasy. When non casters kill a caster it is almost always due to one of the following; the caster is out of magic, the caster is distracted, the caster did something incredibly stupid, or the caster was asleep.

Throughout fantasy wizards destroy whole armies at once (if not opposed by other mages). Yes, the wizard can't and shouldn't be able to cross swords with the fighter but that doesn't mean that he can't or shouldn't ba able to kill the fighter 50 different ways with a thought.

Of course, these points don't have anything to do with high-level D&D as it looks now. But that's how it should look.

Not if you are looking at high fantasy that involves magic.

/sorry for going off on a tangent
//back to your regularly scheduled thread