Minimally invasive caster fix

[Anthrowhale]

I wanted to run a minimally invasive fix to caster dominance by folks to see what they think. The fix is very short, it's just:

The ability to cast spells interferes with the ability to be affected by spells. For most spells, the caster level of a spell affecting a target is upper bounded by the hit dice minus the caster level of the target. There are three exceptions: Instantaneous-only spells, explicitly SR:No spells (not personal spells), and divinations have their normal full effect.

Unpacking that:

1. This is a far more simple change than most have proposed.
2. This leaves a party still able to heal and transport.
3. Blasting-based spellcasters are fine.
4. This deeply nerfs spellcaster self-buffing, but leaves buffing of many gishes and non-spellcasters intact.
5. This creates a more cooperative form of play, because a good party will often consist of buff targets and buffers.
6. This makes spellcasters more item dependent (since they benefit from items) and mundanes less so (since they are the natural target of buff spells).
7. There is no effect on Su/SLA users, so warlock, etc... are unmodified.
8. Noninstantaneous SLAs, because they create spell effects, do not apply to spellcasters.
9. SLAs, because they are not spells, do not affect spell application to their user.
10. Su effects are not altered by this, so casters can be affected by non-instantaneous Su effects.
11. This has an effect on only spellcasting monsters. They become harder to minionize, but also unable to self-buff. As a consequence, a dragon will want buffable minions (for example).
12. Looking through the tier list here, everything except an artificer and a Psion are nerfed from tiers 1&2. Tier 3 is varied. Tiers 4&5 have a few losers (i.e. spellthief), but generally benefit from being the valid buff targets.
13. Every effect in the game is still available, although using personal-only spells requires things like a ring of spell storing.

I don't think this is a complete fix, but I believe it provides excellent "mileage" in the sense that it goes a long ways with a clear minimal change while leaving most classes still capable of contributing reasonably.

Edit: V2: Made SR:No explicit, handled read magic, and imbue with spell ability. V3: Made personal spells more explicit. v4: Add divination and gish variations.

[King of Nowhere]

it's simple, but arbitrary and nonsensical. not to mention very invasive. I mean, you are forbidding any form of self-buffing, and effectively banning all spells with a personal range. plus, you are also arbitrarily giving casters an immunity to most status conditions. unless spells with a duration don't work only when cast on themselves, in which case a caster pair where each one buffs the other is as fine as ever. and there's no reason to forbid casters from buffing themselves. and you'd lose all the nonbroken buffs.

plus, it does nothing to limit offensive power. a mailman would be more squishy for lack of protective buffs, but he'd still be able to explode anything remotely close to level appropriate as an immediate action. a minionmancer would still be able to summon a planar army, or an army of clones, or of simulacri.
this is no different from banning a bunch of spells, except you only restrict your banning to some, and you remove a lot of legitimate stuff with it.

[Ignimortis]

I wanted to run a minimally invasive fix to caster dominance by folks to see what they think. The fix is very short, it's just: Only instantaneous spell effects apply to spell casters.

In the proposed form, spellcasters also ignore any non-instantaneous debuffs placed on them through spells. Just thought you'd want to know.

[Trandir]

Wait so you can see thought your magical magical darkness and use stinking cloud centered on yourself with no downside? Amazing


This does feel pretty invasive tho, there are self only spells that have a duration that becomes situationally usable with this change

[Rebel7284]

5th edition sort of did this with the whole "can only concentrate at maintaining one buff at a time" rule.
Perhaps try adopting that instead of trying to ban buffing (also rangers and paladins count as spellcasters, and they REALLY don't need to be nerfed)

[Trandir]

5th edition sort of did this with the whole "can only concentrate at maintaining one buff at a time" rule.
Perhaps try adopting that instead of trying to ban buffing (also rangers and paladins count as spellcasters, and they REALLY don't need to be nerfed)

3.5 also has a concentration mechanic where you have to spend a standard action to keep up a spell with a duration with concentration

[Rebel7284]

3.5 also has a concentration mechanic where you have to spend a standard action to keep up a spell with a duration with concentration

Sure, but that's a different mechanic and very few spells use it. 5th edition is a free action, if I recall correctly, that applies to most spells with a duration and is needed to maintain it.

So in effect, you can't have more than one thing with a duration going at the same time (buff OR debuff)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Suddenly there's no such thing as Detect Magic or Read Magic, or See Invisibility or True Seeing, as those only affect the caster. A Pixie spellcaster can't be seen by any magic that would reveal invisible creatures, and is immune to Glitterdust and Faerie Fire and Invisibility Purge and anything else that could reveal them.

This ruins Paladin and Ranger and Spellthief and Hexblade and any other underpowered partial casters. It also obliterates the entire gish archetype as they don't really use any instantaneous spells at all. Clerics can still use Magic Vestment on their armor and shield and Greater Magic Weapon on their weapon every day. Druids will say screw you guys and use up all their buffs on their animal companion.

This makes every spellcaster 100% immune to all forms of crowd control and spells that affect the environment, save a select few instantaneous ones (Wall of Stone, Call Avalanche, etc.). Run into the middle of the enemies holding a torch and cast Pyrotechnics smoke cloud version. Walk through your own or the opponent's Web, Sleet Storm, Black Tentacles, Cloudkill, Solid/Freezing Fog, Prismatic Wall/Sphere, etc. completely unhindered and unharmed. Walk around with Obscuring Snow cast and be able to see through it. Or just cast Antimagic Field and the entire game becomes spellcasters vs spellcasters since they're the only ones immune to it and the nonspellcasters are too nerfed to matter.

Imbue with Spell Ability becomes an offensive spell to nerf buffed enemies, or a defensive spell to completely negate any debuffs or crowd controls hindering an ally. But wait, gaining its effect makes them immune to its effect, but becoming immune to its effect makes them benefit from its effect, so you make a loop that crashes the universe.

Dragons and enemy spellcasters won't have buffable minions, because they'll just get targeted by all the crowd controls.

All this really does is force everyone to play two characters. Every mid to high level PC will be a spellcaster with an animal companion or wild cohort or leadership cohort that they buff, or a nonspellcaster with a leadership cohort spellcaster who buffs them. Or find some kind of shenanigans to bypass the limitation and be able to buff yourself without being a spellcaster.

[Anthrowhale]

it's simple, but arbitrary

I disagree here---it's well recognized that the classes are not particularly balanced, so a house rule creating more balance isn't arbitrary.

and nonsensical.

You can make up some fluff to go with it. Something like: "Learning the discipline to channel magic into a spell makes your body and soul reject spells."

not to mention very invasive.

I was using 'invasive' here in the sense of 'invasive to the rules'. Other fixes of similar level of comprehensiveness that I've seen involve much more complex houserules.

I mean, you are forbidding any form of self-buffing,

Yep.

and effectively banning all spells with a personal range.

A ring of spell storing is a core item, so I'm sure such spells would still see use.

plus, you are also arbitrarily giving casters an immunity to most status conditions.

This doesn't seem correct. Spells causing status condition exist, but there are plenty of other ways to achieve status conditions. Immunity to negative spells with a duration is a real plus for the casters.

unless spells with a duration don't work only when cast on themselves, in which case a caster pair where each one buffs the other is as fine as ever.

Nope.

and there's no reason to forbid casters from buffing themselves.

I disagree here. The reason why spellcasters are so dominant is because they can use spells to do the job of other classes. Clerics get full BAB as a spell and can easily get +35 on skill checks via Guidance of the Avatar and Divine Insight. Wizards can Draconic Polymorph into a War Troll and clobber things while picking up fighter feats on the fly via Heroics. Any balancing must by definition leave nonspellcasters capable of things that spellcasters cannot do as long as spellcasters can do things that nonspellcastsers cannot.

and you'd lose all the nonbroken buffs.

The problem with buffs is not really the few broken ones. Instead, it's the accumulation of buffs which is broken. This rules change makes accumulation more difficult.

plus, it does nothing to limit offensive power. a mailman would be more squishy for lack of protective buffs, but he'd still be able to explode anything remotely close to level appropriate as an immediate action.

A mailman certainly remains very potent. My general thought here is that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Applied here, perfect balance amongst classes should not be the enemy of better balance.

a minionmancer would still be able to summon a planar army, or an army of clones, or of simulacri.

There is a quantity vs. quality tradeoff with minionmancy. Many summons are weak or stupid. Others are expensive or subject to DM interpretation.

this is no different from banning a bunch of spells, except you only restrict your banning to some, and you remove a lot of legitimate stuff with it.

This doesn't seem legit, in the sense that no spells are banned, just some applications of them.

In the proposed form, spellcasters also ignore any non-instantaneous debuffs placed on them through spells. Just thought you'd want to know.

Yep.

Wait so you can see thought your magical magical darkness and use stinking cloud centered on yourself with no downside? Amazing

I was imagining 'no', in the sense that the effects that these create do not target "you" (they are SR: No).

5th edition sort of did this with the whole "can only concentrate at maintaining one buff at a time" rule. Perhaps try adopting that instead of trying to ban buffing

Interesting---I haven't read 5th much. This seems like it devalues buffs much more. If you have 4 combats/day, that means at most 4 buffs. I'm a bit hesitant here, because many of the mundane classes can really benefit from more than one buff to keep up with 3.5 monsters.

(also rangers and paladins count as spellcasters, and they REALLY don't need to be nerfed)

Rangers and Paladins would be something like fighters until they get spells (or if the spell-less variant is used). After they get spells, offensive spells would still be pretty useful and they could occasionally provide a buff to more vanilla fighters. I guess the question is: would a Ranger/Paladin with spells really fall behind a fighter? I expect not. A fighter under heavy buffing support would eclipse them but also be inherently more vulnerable to dispel/dominate.

[Trandir]

Sure, but that's a different mechanic and very few spells use it. 5th edition is a free action, if I recall correctly, that applies to most spells with a duration and is needed to maintain it.

So in effect, you can't have more than one thing with a duration going at the same time (buff OR debuff)

Close it's no action at all and hits lot of spells. Not every spell with duration tho. And yes mostly buffs have it but almost no debuff has it.

[Anthrowhale]

Suddenly there's no such thing as Detect Magic or Read Magic, or See Invisibility or True Seeing, as those only affect the caster.

Of these, 'Read Magic' seems particularly important to address for Wizards/Wu Jen, thanks.

Detect magic is partly covered by spellcraft, which spellcasters have access to. See Invisibility has various work-arounds with flour, glitterdust, etc... True Seeing can be partially compensated with Spellcraft. All of these abilities can be acquired via a ring of spell storing or an item with a continuous version of them.

A Pixie spellcaster can't be seen by any magic that would reveal invisible creatures, and is immune to Glitterdust and Faerie Fire and Invisibility Purge and anything else that could reveal them.

Glitterdust is SR:No, so it would reveal the pixie. Invisibility Purge could be cast through a ring of spell storing and would work because it offers no spell resistance to the pixie. Faerie Fire would indeed not work. Mundane approaches using flour would work. Potentially, spellcraft would work.

This ruins Paladin and Ranger and Spellthief and Hexblade and any other underpowered partial casters. It also obliterates the entire gish archetype as they don't really use any instantaneous spells at all.

Well, let's check. Hexblade has the smallest list and Spellthief the largest. Looking at Hexblade because it's more tractable, they can use as normal:
1. Armor Lock, Augment Familiar, Bloodletting, Catsfeet, Death's Call, Distract Assailant, Mage Burr, Peace Bond, Phantom Threat, Reaving Aura.
2. Animate Weapon, Arcane Turmoil, Bothersome Babble, Crisis of Confidence, Divest Essentia, Magical Backlash, Shadow Double, Soul Blight, Suppress magic, Swift Ready
3. Fracturing Weapon, Hood of the Cobra, Hound of Doom, Nightmare Terrain, Phantasmal Strangler, Rend Essentia, Trance of the Verdant Domain, Unbind Chakra
4. Cursed Blade, Early Twilight, Fear, Finger of Agony, Horrid Sickness, Phantasmal Killer, Spell Theft (partially), Suppress Legacy

You lose direct use of (but can still buff an ally with):
1. Detect Weaponry, Karmic Aura
2. Adoration of the Frightful, Karmic Backlash
3. <none>
4. Karmic Retribution, Spell Theft (partially), Unseen Strike

Based on this, I disagree. The immunity to enemy spells and SLAs substantially compensates for the spells that aren't directly usable.

Clerics can still use Magic Vestment on their armor and shield and Greater Magic Weapon on their weapon every day. Druids will say screw you guys and use up all their buffs on their animal companion.

These remain solid classes, but I don't think they eclipse a cleric using magic vestment on the fighter (for example).

This makes every spellcaster 100% immune to all forms of crowd control and spells that affect the environment, save a select few instantaneous ones (Wall of Stone, Call Avalanche, etc.).

Not what I had in mind---there are many SR:No crowd control spells.

Walk around with Obscuring Snow cast and be able to see through it.

Snowsight does not work on you if you are a spellcaster.

Or just cast Antimagic Field and the entire game becomes spellcasters vs spellcasters since they're the only ones immune to it and the nonspellcasters are too nerfed to matter.

I'm quite skeptical here. Generally mundanes do better in an Antimagic Field. Can you explain what you have in mind?

Imbue with Spell Ability becomes an offensive spell to nerf buffed enemies, or a defensive spell to completely negate any debuffs or crowd controls hindering an ally. But wait, gaining its effect makes them immune to its effect, but becoming immune to its effect makes them benefit from its effect, so you make a loop that crashes the universe.

This does need to be handled, thanks.

Dragons and enemy spellcasters won't have buffable minions, because they'll just get targeted by all the crowd controls.

I'm not following this.

All this really does is force everyone to play two characters. Every mid to high level PC will be a spellcaster with an animal companion or wild cohort or leadership cohort that they buff, or a nonspellcaster with a leadership cohort spellcaster who buffs them. Or find some kind of shenanigans to bypass the limitation and be able to buff yourself without being a spellcaster.

Effectively playing two characters may be important for solo play, but it seems far from required for group play.

[DeAnno]

I have a more elegant version of this rule for you to consider:

Whenever a creature casts a spell, all ongoing spell effects on that creature are automatically dispelled.

I think this handles the edge cases a lot better. It lets a caster buff themselves (with for example, fly) if they're willing to stop casting after, and prevents layering self-buffs. It means that gishes and partial casters don't end up in a weird spot in the rules. It means that spellcasters aren't automatically immune to SR: Yes debuffs, especially those that incapacitate them. It lets Read Magic work properly. Basically, a lot of incoherency goes away when you don't have two varieties of creature, but instead one rule that applies to all creatures who cast spells.

Orthogonal to this point, I think most Target: Self spells should be touch in this system, and the effect should also apply to psionics.

The main issue is that it makes a tiny amount of partial casting (especially swift action casting) very useful to non-casters, to the point that debuffs which don't incapacitate become a little toothless. But let's be honest with ourselves: single target debuffs that don't incapacitate were already a bit useless.

[NigelWalmsley]

I don't really understand why you'd want to attack self-buffing. For the most part, self-buffing is fine. It's genuinely not a problem that the Wizard can cast Overland Flight on himself at 9th level. It seems like this is mostly intended to provide role protection for martials, not to address the real balance issues in the game.

Blasting-based spellcasters are fine.

Blasting-based spellcasters aren't nerfed. That doesn't make them fine, because they weren't fine to begin with.

This creates a more cooperative form of play, because a good party will consist of buff targets and buffers.

I don't think that's actually true. The self-buff routines casters apply typically involve a large number of Personal spells. If you tell the Cleric he can't walk around with Divine Power up 24/7, he's not going to cast it on the Fighter. He can't do that, and it wouldn't do much for the Fighter if he could. "Buff the Fighter" isn't dominated by "buff yourself", it's dominated by "cast combat spells on the enemies directly".

Noninstantaneous SLAs, because they create spell effects, do not apply to spellcasters.

This seems like mostly a buff to casters. I personally would love to have Mind Flayers be unable to use their Charm Monster SLA on me. Arguably this makes you immune to Mind Blast too (it's unclear if it is an effect with a duration, or an instantaneous effect that imposes a condition with a duration like Orb of Fire).

[Thunder999]

If you want to kill self buffing builds this would certainly do that, but what's the point?

Self buffs aren't really a problem (not in general at least, there's certainly problematic buffs, like shapechange), this gives martials a bit of role protection in the same way that trapfinding does for rogues, but doesn't change the fact that casters are the only ones with meaningful non-combat abilities, and doesn't stop casters rendering the martials superfluous in combat (you can't buff yourself and pretend to be a fighter, you can still summon one, fire off some save or lose, nuke everything as a mailman etc.).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Of these, 'Read Magic' seems particularly important to address for Wizards/Wu Jen, thanks.

Detect magic is partly covered by spellcraft, which spellcasters have access to. See Invisibility has various work-arounds with flour, glitterdust, etc... True Seeing can be partially compensated with Spellcraft. All of these abilities can be acquired via a ring of spell storing or an item with a continuous version of them.

Glitterdust is SR:No, so it would reveal the pixie. Invisibility Purge could be cast through a ring of spell storing and would work because it offers no spell resistance to the pixie. Faerie Fire would indeed not work. Mundane approaches using flour would work. Potentially, spellcraft would work.

RAW, there's absolutely zero chance of Spellcraft working the way you've described unless the person using the skill is also using Detect Magic.

Well, let's check. Hexblade has the smallest list and Spellthief the largest. Looking at Hexblade because it's more tractable, they can use as normal:
1. Armor Lock, Augment Familiar, Bloodletting, Catsfeet, Death's Call, Distract Assailant, Mage Burr, Peace Bond, Phantom Threat, Reaving Aura.
2. Animate Weapon, Arcane Turmoil, Bothersome Babble, Crisis of Confidence, Divest Essentia, Magical Backlash, Shadow Double, Soul Blight, Suppress magic, Swift Ready
3. Fracturing Weapon, Hood of the Cobra, Hound of Doom, Nightmare Terrain, Phantasmal Strangler, Rend Essentia, Trance of the Verdant Domain, Unbind Chakra
4. Cursed Blade, Early Twilight, Fear, Finger of Agony, Horrid Sickness, Phantasmal Killer, Spell Theft (partially), Suppress Legacy

You lose direct use of (but can still buff an ally with):
1. Detect Weaponry, Karmic Aura
2. Adoration of the Frightful, Karmic Backlash
3. <none>
4. Karmic Retribution, Spell Theft (partially), Unseen Strike

Based on this, I disagree. The immunity to enemy spells and SLAs substantially compensates for the spells that aren't directly usable.

These remain solid classes, but I don't think they eclipse a cleric using magic vestment on the fighter (for example).

You've split the game into two types of characters: Spellcasters who can't receive buffs because they've got awesome spells, and nonspellcasters who don't have spells but can receive buffs. The Ranger, Paladin, Spellthief, Hexblade, and any other partial casters are neither of those. They aren't powerful spellslingers, and they can't get buffed by the party's spellcasters. They're effectively not worth playing since they get hit by the spellcaster nerf without receiving the collateral buff to nonspellcasters.

Not what I had in mind---there are many SR:No crowd control spells.

EVERY PERSONAL RANGE SPELL IS SR: NO, due to its lack of an entry showing SR: Yes, and due to the RAW of spell resistance: "A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities."

Spellcasters will ignore every noninstantaneous spell, or only the ones that allow for SR, not a mix of the two. If the former, no crowd control will ever work on them. If the latter, they can still buff themselves completely unhindered, but can't buff each other.

Snowsight does not work on you if you are a spellcaster.

You don't need Snowsight because as a spellcaster you're immune to the effect of Obscuring Snow, and can see through it unhindered because of the rule you've proposed. See above for SR: yes/no issues.

I'm quite skeptical here. Generally mundanes do better in an Antimagic Field. Can you explain what you have in mind?

Spellcasters get to ignore the AMFs because they're noninstantaneous, which means their magic items stay active and their spells continue working unhindered. Nonspellcasters get their magic items turned off as well as their buffs, so they're nerfed by it while it doesn't bother the spellcasters one bit.

I'm not following this.

You've created a game in which nonspellcasters who are inevitably going to be buffed are the only ones targetable by crowd controls, so they'll be crowd controlled by the other team's spellcasters. Whereas spellcasters can just walk through the crowd controls like they don't exist, so careful targeting to not hinder one's own party is at least partially out the window. Powerful monsters would only have spellcaster minions in order for their enemies to not be able to use a good portion of their arsenal, or even waste actions trying to crowd control immune creatures. The dragon and his minions will fill the area with crowd control effects that they all ignore, severely hindering around half of the attackers if the party has characters who can receive buffs.

[NigelWalmsley]

Self buffs aren't really a problem (not in general at least, there's certainly problematic buffs, like shapechange)

I would also draw a distinction between the Wizard who walks around two or three buffs (like Greater Mirror Image + some flight spell) and the Incantatrix stacking a dozen spells for total invulnerability. The former is totally fine, the latter is a problem. This nerf is just the latest in the endless march of "what if <sweeping change>", and it turns out that, as always, the answer is "that probably wouldn't solve the problems that exist, and would almost certainly create a bunch of other problems".

I think on some level fixing imbalance by poking at casters is simply the wrong way of going about things. Most of the ways in which casters differ from non-casters are ways in which they are better for the game. Having a variety of abilities is better than not doing that. Having utility options that effect the plot is better than not doing that. Getting new abilities on a regular schedule is better than not doing that. So if you want a quick fix, it seems like the simplest one would be "non-casters get Sorcerer/Favored Soul casting at level-N" where N is something between 2 and 4.

[King of Nowhere]

[*]This creates a more cooperative form of play, because a good party will consist of buff targets and buffers.

ok, i know this forum is all up talking about how the figther should not get buffs because he is not entitled to use another class resources, and how the cleric should cast all the buffs on himself because they are HIS spells, and screw you, how do you dare to play a fighter and expect a cooperative game!
but seriously, how often does it happen in practice?

If you are trying to obviate that situation by forbidding the cleric from buffing himself, then it won't work. because if that situation happens, it means at least one player at the table is being a jerk. possibly more than one. and you'd be trying to solve an ooc problem with an in-game solution

I have a more elegant version of this rule for you to consider:

Whenever a creature casts a spell, all ongoing spell effects on that creature are automatically dispelled.

on the other hand, the casters still can cancel all their debuffs with a feather fall. and i can envision martials also taking one level in a caster class to gain this "remove debuff" ability. or getting it from imbue magical ability or something similar.

Blasting-based spellcasters aren't nerfed. That doesn't make them fine, because they weren't fine to begin with.

it looks like you are arguing that a mailman is weak, which is... well, if you consider a mailman build weak, i would not want to play at your table. it's certainly stronger than anything my group would allow, and people among us who play in other groups report that we already maximize more than they do.
or i am misreading you and you are saying that you can still break the game with a blaster. in which case i fully agree, i made the same point myself.

[Anthrowhale]

I have a more elegant version of this rule for you to consider:

That's certainly a simpler rule. I'm a little bit worried: Is it to effective? Can a reasonably-but-not-well-optimized party handle level-appropriate challenges?

"Buff the Fighter" isn't dominated by "buff yourself", it's dominated by "cast combat spells on the enemies directly".

I don't believe this is correct, particularly if you are going after something like a dragon which would be immune to direct spell application.

Self buffs aren't really a problem (not in general at least, there's certainly problematic buffs, like shapechange),

I disagree. Persistomancy is really buffomancy. Using it, you can make an ECL 1 creature able to take on a CR20 encounter. Even just a party making good use of core-only buffs can turn most level-appropriate encounters into cake walks.

but doesn't change the fact that casters are the only ones with meaningful non-combat abilities,

I disagree here---diplomancy and other social skills are actually pretty useful. Casters would certainly maintain a monopoly on many things (teleport, heal, etc...)

...you can still summon one...

Summons are actually pretty lame compared to a fighter with level-appropriate equipment. You can go for quantity over quality, but that's not always particularly effective.

...fire off some save or lose...

...which would now not work on enemy spellcasters.

...nuke everything as a mailman etc...

Agreed here. The mailman approach does still work and is broken-good at higher levels. That would require a separate treatment.

RAW, there's absolutely zero chance of Spellcraft working the way you've described unless the person using the skill is also using Detect Magic.

You're right here.

You've split the game into two types of characters: Spellcasters who can't receive buffs because they've got awesome spells, and nonspellcasters who don't have spells but can receive buffs. The Ranger, Paladin, Spellthief, Hexblade, and any other partial casters are neither of those. They aren't powerful spellslingers, and they can't get buffed by the party's spellcasters. They're effectively not worth playing since they get hit by the spellcaster nerf without receiving the collateral buff to nonspellcasters.

Gishes are spellcasters, implying that they effectively have SR infinity vs. enemy spells as well. That has some significant benefits which noncasters like Fighters or Barbarians do not enjoy.

EVERY PERSONAL RANGE SPELL IS SR: NO

Do you have some rules quote for this? As far as I know, there is only your quote, which doesn't say that personal spells are SR:No. I'll make this more explicit.

Spellcasters will ignore every noninstantaneous spell, or only the ones that allow for SR, not a mix of the two. If the former, no crowd control will ever work on them. If the latter, they can still buff themselves completely unhindered, but can't buff each other.

The semantics here is: spellcasters ignore every spell that is noninstantaneous and not explicitly SR:No. Personally spells are not explicitly SR:No.

Stated the other way, all instantaneous spells apply to casters and all explicitly SR:No spells apply to spellcasters. So, no ignoring walls of stone, for example.

Is that semantics clear?

... you're immune to the effect of Obscuring Snow...

Not under the proposed semantics, because Obscuring Snow is an explicit SR:No.

Spellcasters get to ignore the AMFs because they're noninstantaneous, which means their magic items stay active and their spells continue working unhindered.

AMF has independent effect on spells, items, and creatures. Nothing in the proposed houserule alters the interaction of AMF with spells or items.

... spellcasters can just walk through the crowd controls like they don't exist...

I believe there is a miscommunication about the semantics here. Under the proposed semantics, this isn't correct. Is it clear enough given the above? Let me see if I can figure out how to state it more clearly...

[NigelWalmsley]

it looks like you are arguing that a mailman is weak, which is... well, if you consider a mailman build weak, i would not want to play at your table.

The Mailman is not really a central example of what people mean by "blaster caster". Can you put a bunch of metamagic in a pile and use it to turn anything you happen to encounter into a fine red paste? Sure. But you can also do way less complicated things to get way more power as a caster. However powerful a Mailman is, a comparably optimized caster who optimized in a better tactic will be more powerful still. That doesn't mean the Mailman isn't powerful, but it's like pointing to weird Pugilist cheese as a reason the Fighter is competitive.

I don't believe this is correct, particularly if you are going after something like a dragon which would be immune to direct spell application.

The Dragon isn't immune to direct spell application. It just has some spell resistance. Dragons are a tough nut to crack, but buffing isn't really an optimal strategy, because the dragon has spellcasting of its own, a giant pile of magic items, and is very likely substantially more powerful unbuffed than whoever your party's melee combatant is.

...which would now not work on enemy spellcasters.

Some of them would. Finger of Death, for example, is instantaneous. This change would result in different death spells being used, and would make determining whether your opponent technically counts as a spellcaster or not an important bit of tactical information, but it doesn't make death spells any less desirable of a tactic.

I believe there is a miscommunication about the semantics here. Under the proposed semantics, this isn't correct. Is it clear enough given the above? Let me see if I can figure out how to state it more clearly...

The problem is you're never going to be able to define the semantics in a satisfying way. The game does not have a category that matches up to what you're trying to communicate.

[Crichton]

I disagree. Persistomancy is really buffomancy. Using it, you can make an ECL 1 creature able to take on a CR20 encounter. Even just a party making good use of core-only buffs can turn most level-appropriate encounters into cake walks.

Seems to me what you're trying to address is your personal problem with persistomancy, but for some reason instead of targeting the abilities that allow large numbers of Persists, you're just nuking all of self-buffing and some other things. I don't understand why.


More importantly, you posted this asking what the community thinks, and every single respondent so far has said it's not a good idea and/or they don't understand why you'd want to do this. So there's your answer. The community thus far thinks it's not a great idea. Rather than continue to respond to every single reply that comes in with variations of "but that's not what I meant" or "no, I disagree" perhaps you could take the feedback you explicitly requested, and have thus received, and either scrap or refine your idea.


As for my personal assessment? This proposal is neither 'minimally invasive' nor a 'caster fix' and the 'problem' it seems to be intended for isn't really that big an issue, outside of tangentially related exploits of Persistent Spell. Players spend their character's daily resources on the things they deem important, and if they want to use their limited spell slots to buff themselves, then that's the playstyle they enjoy, and nuking that entire option from orbit is the only way to be sure they can't have their badwrongfun. On the other hand, if you have a problem with a player at your table overshadowing all the other players, that's an OOC issue that doesn't really need IC intervention. As many here like to use as a mantra: balance to the table.

[Anthrowhale]

If you are trying to obviate that situation by forbidding the cleric from buffing himself, then it won't work. because if that situation happens, it means at least one player at the table is being a jerk. possibly more than one. and you'd be trying to solve an ooc problem with an in-game solution

I've certainly seen games where one player's character was ineffectual and unfun. I'm not sure it's fair to call the other player's jerks though.

The Dragon isn't immune to direct spell application. It just has some spell resistance.

Under this house rule "some" is effectively infinite, unless the spell has instantaneous duration.

Some of them would. Finger of Death, for example, is instantaneous.

In my experience, "Save or Lose" is used to describe status effects short of dead. Usually, people use "Save or Die" for those. I agree that death effects would remain effective for spellcasters.

... either scrap or refine your idea.

Actually, it has been refined---see the edits.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Do you have some rules quote for this? As far as I know, there is only your quote, which doesn't say that personal spells are SR:No. I'll make this more explicit.

The semantics here is: spellcasters ignore every spell that is noninstantaneous and not explicitly SR:No. Personally spells are not explicitly SR:No.

Stated the other way, all instantaneous spells apply to casters and all explicitly SR:No spells apply to spellcasters. So, no ignoring walls of stone, for example.

Is that semantics clear?

Not under the proposed semantics, because Obscuring Snow is an explicit SR:No.

AMF has independent effect on spells, items, and creatures. Nothing in the proposed houserule alters the interaction of AMF with spells or items.

I believe there is a miscommunication about the semantics here. Under the proposed semantics, this isn't correct. Is it clear enough given the above? Let me see if I can figure out how to state it more clearly...

RAW, spell resistance never applies to spells you're casting on yourself. RAW, personal range spells can only be cast on yourself. Thus, RAW SR will never apply to personal range spells, because they're always cast on yourself. They don't need an entry for it, adding another line to every personal range spell would have added more pages to every book that contains spells, but if they did include it, it would say SR: No.

Regarding Antimagic Field, your attended items are an extension of your character, as are your spells. If your character is immune, that carries over to your items and spells as well.

[King of Nowhere]

Regarding Antimagic Field, your attended items are an extension of your character, as are your spells. If your character is immune, that carries over to your items and spells as well.

going offtopic here, but is that so?
if somebody is trying to sunder an item i'm wearing, having cast stoneskin on myself does not protect the item with it. Seems a strange interpretation.

[Anthrowhale]

RAW, spell resistance never applies to spells you're casting on yourself. RAW, personal range spells can only be cast on yourself. Thus, RAW SR will never apply to personal range spells, because they're always cast on yourself. They don't need an entry for it, adding another line to every personal range spell would have added more pages to every book that contains spells, but if they did include it, it would say SR: No.

I agree with this. Pesonal spells are not explicitly SR:No though, right? Perhaps it's clearer if I just say spellcasters are subject to nonpersonal SR:No spells.

Regarding Antimagic Field, your attended items are an extension of your character, as are your spells. If your character is immune, that carries over to your items and spells as well.

Do you have a rules quote for this? I'm aware of none, and it would dramatically change my understanding. My understanding comes from reading AMF, which says:

...it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

implying that it directly affects items and spells. Hence, a Selective Spell[You] Antimagic Field keeps you from winking out if you are an incorporeal undead, but your spells and items are suppressed.

Separately, I've been debating divination spells. Maybe it's better to extend an exception to all of them, rather than just Read Magic? It does seem awkward for See Invisibility to become available after Invisibility.

[Crichton]

Actually, it has been refined---see the edits.

THAT's all you took away from my response? Perhaps you should read it again.



You asked what the community thinks of this alteration, with the stated intent that it 'fix' the 'problem' of caster dominance. But as many others have said, it doesn't fix or prevent that at all. Honestly, if self-buffs are what you perceive to be the root cause of casters being stronger than martials, maybe you need to take a closer look at magic in 3.5. As I said before, if your problem is really a problem with overuse of Persist, then perhaps you should address that more specifically, instead of telling players that a huge swath of spells and classes are the 'wrong' way to play D&D. But what it really sounds like is that you have OOC problems with *players*, not with characters.


Either way, you asked what we all thought of the proposed alteration, and the overwhelming response was that it's not a very good idea, and that it doesn't accomplish what it was intended to do. No amount of tweaking the wording to clarify your intent is going to change that.

[Thunder999]

Since it seems the real problem is stacking loads of persistent spell, may I suggest just putting a limit on how many persistent spells you can have or banning it outright (though personally I think allowing a single persistent spell is more fun, if a cleric wants to blow most or all of their turn undead uses and three feats to have a buff up all day then that's honestly fine if you ask me)

[Buufreak]

Whenever a creature casts a spell, all ongoing spell effects on that creature are automatically dispelled.

I think the more elegant thing would be any caster can have only 1 active duration spell at a time. Really cleans up the "BuFf EvErYtGiNg" mentality.

[Doctor Despair]

I think the more elegant thing would be any caster can have only 1 active duration spell at a time. Really cleans up the "BuFf EvErYtGiNg" mentality.

Hopefully including crafted contingent spells in some way

[Piggy Knowles]

Alternately, make the maximum non-instantaneous duration 1 rd/level and eliminate any way to persist or quicken buff spells. The spells aren't banned, can still be used on themselves or their allies, but they can't be stacked and pretty much always have an opportunity cost (namely the action required to cast them in combat). This is going to mean that spells with dramatic effects like haste or polymorph will likely still see play, retaining the role of the iconic role of the buffer mage/transmuter, and leave most blasters and utility mages largely untouched, but keep mages from becoming unkillable or completely outclassing every other role via the use of several self-buffs.

[Kayblis]

If you call this "minimally invasive", you don't know what the word 'invasive' means. Your fix may be 3 lines long or something like that, but it pretty much changes the whole game. It's like saying "magic doesn't exist" is a minimally invasive fix because it is 3 words long and doesn't explicitly overrule other rules text.

So, you got rid of what, one fifth of all spells in the game? More than half of the good ones? Made a lot of the best tactics either impossible or seriously worse? And you think that's "minimally invasive".

To me it's pretty clear that it's not a fix for power, or versatility, or balance. It's a rules rewrite because of a personal dislike for a tactic that other people like. If your problem was with people having tons and tons of buffs, just limit the amount of buffs. If you really want to create castes of "better, buffable people" and "worse, unbuffable people" you could still have it by setting different limits to the total buffs based on spellcasting, like "If you cast spells, you're limited to 2 active buffs. If you're not, you can have up to 5." Change the numbers to your liking. Hell, do as everyone else and just ban Polymorph/Shapechange, as they're the big offenders. You still limit the tactic you don't personally like, and people can still play D&D without having to re-learn the system because of poorly thought out homebrew.

The fact you think it's all miscommunication, even when no one thinks this is a good idea in principle, makes me question if this is a honest attempt at improving. You can't make an idea better if all you do is find fault in your critics.