Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?
TS
|
I think it has more to do with niche protection than anything, to be honest. If the spells are designed correctly, the same level spells for the different casters should be about equal in relative strength, so if you wanted to open up the lists as a house rule, I don't think you'd screw up the game.
Yeah I have to agree there. I think spell lists are more to keep the fluff" separated and the niches "clean". I never actually considered that they broke down spell types for each class to help balance, but it's also something to consider.
Can I infer that you had something in mind? I could definitely see clerics of some gods getting druid or wizard spells. Not sure about the whole list though. I'd love to hear what you have in mind.
Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?
TS
Without trying it I wouldn't be able to tell if it's game breaking or not but there would be a shift in power. I would say off the top of my head you would be increase the power of the already powerful Wizard/Sorerer. I don't think its the curing that's the issue (there are always potions for that) it more the buff spells that suppossed to make Cleric more in line with Fighter for short periods of time. Any of the Divine spells (Divine Power etc) add a lot to the combat ability of say a Displaced wizard. Sure you could say the number of spells per day would be a limiter for a wizard but the Sorcerer gets a lot of spells per day. Sure they only know so many but considered a Mage Armorer, Barkskinned, Shield of Faithed sorcerer with Displacement or Improved Invisibility. They could then blast away and be relatively safe with the BaB of a fighter on ranged touch spells. It could get out of control quickly. I was looking at Cleric spells from the Spell Compendium yesterday and noticed the number of damage dealing spells they have added to Clerics lists. It's dangerously close to making them out power the wizard. The lists are there to make the party roles more distictive. If you don't care or maybe in the case of a small party with not enough people to cover all the roles it wouldn't be an issue. Otherwise I would keep the lists as they are.
Can I infer that you had something in mind? I could definitely see clerics of some gods getting druid or wizard spells. Not sure about the whole list though. I'd love to hear what you have in mind.
This is (sort of) what the old domains did. That's one of the reasons I advocate replacing Spontaneous Cure/Inflict with Spontaneous Domain Spells.
Thanks everyone. I didn't start this topic so much to gauge any particular house rule, just to get an interesting discussion going and find out how people view the purpose of spell lists. Although I think an experimental game involving open spell lists would be fun.
TS
|
I do think it would rather interesting, that is for sure.
I have often wondered why clerics do not get access to wizard spells. After all, they petition their god for their spells, and apparently the GODS are incapable of granting Magic Missile. Even the God of Magic is incapable of granting Magic Missile!
On the other hand it makes sense that purely divine spells would not be available in an arcane version, if the only source of the the spell is through the Deities.
Personally I think the spell lists just need to be reworked from scratch. Some spells appear much too soon and some much too late. And there is no rhyme or reason to learning spells. You can cast fireball even if you cannot create a fire... yeah ok.
I would think it could be fun though to open up the spell lists for specific games for specific purposes.
Thanks everyone. I didn't start this topic so much to gauge any particular house rule, just to get an interesting discussion going and find out how people view the purpose of spell lists. Although I think an experimental game involving open spell lists would be fun.
TS
It's a real bad idea. I understand the impulse, but reserve that for all casters-beer and pretzels campaign.
11th level Cleric wearing plate armor, using Righteous Might and Tenser's Transformation.
Benefits: BAB 11, size large (+8 size bonus to Strength, -1 AC and attacks, -2 size to Dexterity, +4 size bonus to Constitution, +2 size bonus to natural armor), +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, +4 enhancement bonus to Dexterity, +4 enhancement bonus to Constitution,+2 enhancement bonus to your natural armor, +4 natural armor bonus to AC, DR 6/evil or 6/good, a +5 competence bonus on Fortitude saves, and proficiency with all simple and martial weapons.
Total:
Melee attack with base strength 10 produces: +16 (normal great sword 3d6+9)
AC: normal full plate mail with base Dex 10 produces AC 26
DR 6/evil
HP: +44
Saves--add: +9 to Fort, +1 Reflex
Wild shaped druid using the nukes of the wizard spell list and the summoning of the druid.
This is (sort of) what the old domains did. That's one of the reasons I advocate replacing Spontaneous Cure/Inflict with Spontaneous Domain Spells.
Yeah, but the domain spells, while being a step in the right direction, still don't seem to give me the flavor I want from a cleric. I've houseruled them a bit to give me more of what I want. But I do like the personalization provided by domains.
Creative Director
|
To me, spell lists aren't about balancing classes at all. They're about giving classes a different feel. If there was only one list for every spellcasting class, then every spellcaster would start to feel the same. That clerics have lots of healing, druids lots of nature magic, wizards/sorcerers lots of violence, and bards lots of sound-based magic is cool.
The only reason I could see to get rid of spell lists would be because we got rid of all the spellcasting classes and replaced them with a single "Spellcaster" class. And that's a different game entirely, and not necessarily one I want to play or write for or edit.
If you gave divine spellcasters access to the whole arcane spell list, who would bother playing a wizard? Even if you imposed the arcane spell failure chance to keep them from casting meteor swarm in plate, a 3.5 cleric with full access to wizard spells is just plain superior to a 3.5 wizard, with better BAB, better weapon choices, better hit points, two good saves instead of one, more spells a day, the ability to turn undead, spontaneous cure spells, and not having to keep a vulnerable-to-fate spellbook.
Now, the other way around? Letting a sorcerer/wizard cast cleric/druid spells still leaves CODzilla his overpowered self.
Would it unbalance the game? I think not.
Would it make the game boring? I think so.
There are many seemingly pointless rules in D&D (i.e., alignment restrictions, multiclassing restrictions, spell lists, bonus feat lists, etc.) that could easily be changed a zillion different ways or even gotten rid of entirely. But the point isn't balance; it's identity. If every adventurer just picks X number of skills and abilities and advances in them the same way, that's not D&D. That's Elder Scrolls. And while I truly love those games, it isn't for their character creation system. As a matter of fact, I think it's kind of lame. I would much rather have concrete options which truly differentiate one character from another. Thus, spell lists.
Now, I whole-heartedly accept that certain elements of spell lists are arbitrary above and beyond the others, to the point of really limiting rather than defining. Others are less integral to the identity of the class. Still more can create attractive new identities if they are changed. I think these cases are all very good reasons for altering and customizing parts of any class' spell list; but rarely, if ever, would I support whole-sale open spell lists.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Am I misunderstanding the question? If you got rid of spell lists, wouldn't that destroy the need to play a wizard? The cleric has a better HD, better BAB, can cast in armor, can turn undead, etc. Why would you play a wizard if you could play a cleric with access to the wizard's spell list?
I don't think it would be a problem to give the wizard spells from the cleric list, but the opposite seems like it should be highly problematic.
This thread has made me really want to run a game where all PCs are gestalt warblade-sorcerers with access to all spell lists.
To me, spell lists aren't about balancing classes at all. They're about giving classes a different feel. If there was only one list for every spellcasting class, then every spellcaster would start to feel the same.
There are many seemingly pointless rules in D&D (i.e., alignment restrictions, multiclassing restrictions, spell lists, bonus feat lists, etc.) that could easily be changed a zillion different ways or even gotten rid of entirely. But the point isn't balance; it's identity.
Do you really think that if, for example only one caster class existed with access to all spells, but with only limited spells known, that all casters would play the same? You don't think some would focus on blasting, others on buffing, etc.?
TS
This thread has made me really want to run a game where all PCs are gestalt warblade-sorcerers with access to all spell lists.
To me, spell lists aren't about balancing classes at all. They're about giving classes a different feel. If there was only one list for every spellcasting class, then every spellcaster would start to feel the same.There are many seemingly pointless rules in D&D (i.e., alignment restrictions, multiclassing restrictions, spell lists, bonus feat lists, etc.) that could easily be changed a zillion different ways or even gotten rid of entirely. But the point isn't balance; it's identity.Do you really think that if, for example only one caster class existed with access to all spells, but with only limited spells known, that all casters would play the same? You don't think some would focus on blasting, others on buffing, etc.?
TS
Simply choosing different spells than another member of the same class is already possible within the game, and it does add an immense amount of customization. Yet at the same time, they're both members of the same class and will have an element of sameness to them because of it. Having different mechanics for the classes, including spell lists, truly gives them a unique feel. Or at least it enforces it in the mind of the player. It really establishes an identity for the class and all the PCs (and NPCs) who are a member of it.
So in answer, I do think that one caster class with a universal spell list, even if there was a limit to the number of spells known and thus mandatory differentiation from most fellow members of the class; in relation to the diversity in both cruch and fluff currently found within the game, would be boring and bland.
|
|
I see a big plus AND a big minus with spell lists.
The big plus is that they very much do reinforce the flavor of various classes (Bards concentrating on music and influencing spells, Hexblades and the like concentrating on more combat oriented spells ... we all get the idea). If you eliminate customized spell lists for various classes, you lose an important method of showing their differences.
The big MINUS I have always had with these same spell lists is that, because new spells are always coming out after the class is published, those spell lists are more or less obsolete as soon as they are written. This means that, every time a DM introduces new spells into the game (from a new book, an adventure, a magazine etc) he has to go through and decide which class spell lists these new spells should be on.
I really don't have a big solution to any of this, and I don't think I would like to see the spell lists go away necessarily ... I guess this seemed like a good place to vent about my pet peave regarding these lists ...
The big MINUS I have always had with these same spell lists is that, because new spells are always coming out after the class is published, those spell lists are more or less obsolete as soon as they are written. This means that, every time a DM introduces new spells into the game (from a new book, an adventure, a magazine etc) he has to go through and decide which class spell lists these new spells should be on.
I really don't have a big solution to any of this, and I don't think I would like to see the spell lists go away necessarily ... I guess this seemed like a good place to vent about my pet peave regarding these lists ...
I hear you there. We're all familiar with the typical response to this problem: limiting the books and sources available. The spells in the PHB, PHB II, and Spell Compendium should (in theory) be enough to last a gaming group's lifetime. But even if that works, it really is just a bandaid; not really solving the problem, but rather ignoring it. It's a minor point, but the irritation is totally understandable. One of the few good things I see in WotC's digital initiative is the potential to create an online resource with all the spell lists and other similar features in a centralized location which is continuously updated. But then, I don't ever go to the WotC site; and even if I did, it would be 4e, which I still haven't tried (though a friend is encouraging me to give it a whirl).
|
|
For those interested, I recommend a quick look at the Spellcaster general class from Unearthed Arcana. Here's a quick link:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#spellcaster
|
|
I forget, did they take the "research a new spell" option out of 3x/PfRPG? I always loved coming up with new stuff back in the day...If it's out, I'll be crusading to make sure it's back in by Gen Con. Researching new spells is good fun!
Excellent! I love having PCs come up with spells that get famous (after they've faded into the mists of legend) like the "Bigby" and "Tenser" spells from Greyhawk!
Too bad I have to change all of Abraxas Abacab's spell names if I introduce them to a Golarion campaign...
This thread has made me really want to run a game where all PCs are gestalt warblade-sorcerers with access to all spell lists.
To me, spell lists aren't about balancing classes at all. They're about giving classes a different feel. If there was only one list for every spellcasting class, then every spellcaster would start to feel the same.There are many seemingly pointless rules in D&D (i.e., alignment restrictions, multiclassing restrictions, spell lists, bonus feat lists, etc.) that could easily be changed a zillion different ways or even gotten rid of entirely. But the point isn't balance; it's identity.Do you really think that if, for example only one caster class existed with access to all spells, but with only limited spells known, that all casters would play the same? You don't think some would focus on blasting, others on buffing, etc.?
TS
Simply choosing different spells than another member of the same class is already possible within the game, and it does add an immense amount of customization. Yet at the same time, they're both members of the same class and will have an element of sameness to them because of it. Having different mechanics for the classes, including spell lists, truly gives them a unique feel. Or at least it enforces it in the mind of the player. It really establishes an identity for the class and all the PCs (and NPCs) who are a member of it.
So in answer, I do think that one caster class with a universal spell list, even if there was a limit to the number of spells known and thus mandatory differentiation from most fellow members of the class; in relation to the diversity in both cruch and fluff currently found within the game, would be boring and bland.
I'm not following your logic here. You agree that characters of the same class can already differentiate themselves by choosing different options, yet you think that having even more options would make them less differentiated?
I understand the class identity thing, but D&D has such a wide scope of narrow to broad class identities...we have generic classes like fighters and rogues but we also have ultra-specific classes like paladins and monks. I guess if D&D were to choose a single identity scope and stick with it for every class, I'd be able to buy the importance of spell lists as class identifiers. But when's the last time someone said "I'm a wizard" or "I'm a sorcerer" and you knew what role they were going to play in a group other than 'do magicky stuff'? IME, the real identity tag is the second part of those statments: "I'm a wizard/whatever, with a focus on blasting/buffing/whatever."
TS
I'm not following your logic here. You agree that characters of the same class can already differentiate themselves by choosing different options, yet you think that having even more options would make them less differentiated?
No, I just think that pooling all those options together in a general class would, well, generalize them. Lessen the options rather than augment them. I think the restrictions which currently exist serve as good basic parameters around which character development and self-identification are fostered more than they are hindered; and that to remove these parameters would destroy more structure than it opened up room for.
yes; I do
I maintain that arcane casters must follow the same walk before you run sequence in spells that we do in school going from math to algebra to calculus; so a arcane cast must learn a spell like burning hands before ray of fire before fireball before wall of fire and so on.
so; higher level spells have prereqs in my game; thus maintaining a spell book and studying is important. With this sequence; mages working to research a spell is a natural and reasonable step as they have all the previous knowledge as a base to work from to attain the new spell.
Where and what lists a new spell that is not in the book fits has never been a difficult issue.
As for balance; well, you could treat it all like divine magic and open it up and balance wouldnt be affected; as long as the pc's and npc's (monsters) all have the same rules; it wont make a difference other than the perception that the classes are stronger; if you stop having arcane casters have to study spells at the rates they did in first ed; that really changes the game and at levels 10+ they just lay waste to everything ,but with all the changes to spells in the 3.5 + editions; I havent really play tested the higher levels to see how balance has been affected and thus have not made adjustments yet.
Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?
TS
If anyone is interested, I decided to write up a few priest classes to replace the generic cleric and its obscenely generalized spell list: The Priest Project
I maintain that arcane casters must follow the same walk before you run sequence in spells that we do in school going from math to algebra to calculus; so a arcane cast must learn a spell like burning hands before ray of fire before fireball before wall of fire and so on.
That actually makes a lot of sense!
opening up the spell lists so players can pick and customize their spell list
sounds sorta like playing DOTA pen and paper style
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but here's what I did. The spells in the Players Handbook were a free for all, for the class they are intended for. All clerics have the spells off the cleric spell list, wizards can get everything on the wizard spell list, you know play it the way it was written.
Then I took the splat books and did not make those automatic for the classes. What I did is I took the cleric spells and selected which ones the deity of death would give the rest were tossed out and unavailable for that religion. I did this for every deity. Thus the initial PH spell lists were the same, but the spells from the splat books were very much oriented towards the characters religon.
When it came to other types of characters, such as wizards, I would do the same. Most every school did teach those available in the PH. After that, they narrowed their focus of teaching to a particular kind of magic (usually broken down by schools). If you went to that school, that is what they taught their students.
The player knew what kind of spells a school taught before enrolling so it isn't like there were any suprises. They knew what that school offered before considering joining. I then spread the schools around the World of Greyhawk. This made wizards from one learning establishment different from another.
This type of arrangement was nice for world building and when multiple clerics or wizards got together, you really would see differences between them. If one chose to they could do the same thing with the spells in the Players Handbook.
I think eliminating the spell lists entirely would dilute the individualism that the game offers or that which could be had as above.
|
|
I had considered allowing sorcerers access to any list before. Not in any kind of well thought out way- just to make a bigger thematic feel. Since their magic is inherent anyways I thought let them break the spell list rule. They won't know so many spells, but might end up with interesting sets. Anyways- I'm no rules guru it was just a passing "what if".
But I really like Eileen's idea above. A lot.
So, can anybody tell me just where to find the current rules on spell research? I am sure I am just overlooking them, but I can't for the life of me find them anywhere!