Other than not liking the rule because you find these spells fun to cast, I'm curious what you folks feel would be the main effects of the following house rule, both for high level play and E6:
Save or Suck, Save or Fail and Save or Die spells are not allowed. All mind effecting spells such as hypnotism or charm person suffer a -5 to their DC when cast on characters that have made the decision to enter combat.
In return, all spontaneous casters gains two additional spells of each spell level per day. Memorization casters gain one additional spell per spell level per day.
Wow that kills off like 1/3 of the wizard's spell list. Why so much wizard hate?
With the update from 3.5 to Pathfinder, pretty much all for the Save or Die spells are gone. Also, you're going to have to define Save or Suck. Any spells that offers a save is going to suck more if you fail it than if you pass it. Direct damage spells (generally considered the least optimal of spells to cast) tend to deal damage regardless of a save, it just sucks more when you fail it.
At my table, we sort of have a "gentlemen's agreement" about super-powerful spells. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; if the players start using lots of enchantment effects to peel away my forces, then I start doing the same or if they start using very optimized tactics and feat/class/whatever combinations, then I start amping up my optimization too.
If you are having trouble with your players doing this, talk to them about it rather than throwing out a rule. If you already went through this talk with your players, then start throwing it back. In my experience, as a DM, you've got thousands of options at your disposal from monsters, to feats, to weapons, to classes, to spells, which you can change between every fight almost on your own whim. Your players are sort of stuck with their options until they either start a new campaign or roll up a new character.
My biggest problem with this rule comes from the lack of definition of the first three terms in your first sentence. The other problem is that it seems to only treat the symptoms and not the real problem: are these spells hurting the fun at your table for everyone or just you or just your players? If it hurts everyone, then you don't need a rule. If it's just them, then stop using them. If it's just you, talk to your players.
so not slow though? A lot of those spells aren't as game breaking as you think. The point of the wizard is to help control the battlefield for the party and you're taking that away from the class almost, basically making them into a worse blaster/buffer. What about cleric spells?
Would never play under such a system, and honestly I'm not sure why you are playing Pathfinder, given you seem to want to reduce most characters to blasting.
so not slow though? A lot of those spells aren't as game breaking as you think. The point of the wizard is to help control the battlefield for the party and you're taking that away from the class almost, basically making them into a worse blaster/buffer. What about cleric spells?The list above isn't exhaustive. I basically just came up with it in like 2 minutes. Of course Slow would be on it.
I'm sure there are cleric spells I'd want to kill, but people play clerics so rarely I haven't ever thought about it. I could make a +12 hackmaster a first level class feature for clerics and my players still wouldn't play them.
That's kind of one of the points i was making though. because this list ISN'T exhaustive, no one would ever play a wizard because even the spells you just listed would make the main class role pointless. They'd begin to play clerics, and then you'd nerf the clerics until everyone's playing melee characters
Nigrescence, we always ban ideas in Role Playing Games. I don't let players play goblins or kobolts? Doesn't that trample on the people that want the 200' +16 stealth at 2nd level?
Banning something people like is par for the course. I loved my second level goblin barbarian / rogue, but I wouldn't expect to be allowed to play it in anyone's game.
How do you get that with those races?
Now that we have criticized the thread's premise, lets try to criticize its actual content...
I think that such a rule would have a lesser impact in E6, and a huge impact in a full-fledged 20 level game (or even a more "tamed" 15-level game). The higher level you get, the tougher the monsters get and the more resistant to spells that are not "save or disable" they are.
Spells that disable opponents to various degrees are for good or ill, a significant part of a caster's arsenal, and from a designer's perspective, an expected resource required to defeat the CR appropriate encounters.
This makes it hard to evaluate accurately what impact it will have without knowing what else you'd change/restrict in your game, but my initial reaction is that the game's experience will change exponentially with the characters levels. Past a certain level, things get to fly, to resist fire and electricity easily, to detect invisibility, etc. I could go on but I think you get the idea.
Thus my reaction would be that it would work relatively well for an E6 game, less so in other cases.
Also as a player, I would react a lot better to a home-made spell list (from which you have removed the spells you don't want) than to a published spell list with a bunch of spells crossed in red ink. It turns out to be the same, but subconsciously it isn't.
'findel
Yeah, if your going to take what "you" think are the best spells away from the arcane casters then you might want to also limit weapon choices for other classes as well.
I mean archer's love Composite Longbows/Shortbows, so they must be broken. Best limit them to Crossbows and Slings since that would open up options for them and rid them of that terrible "best" weapon. Etc.
|
Also, I totally had the image of Hulk Hogan bodyslamming wizards from the thread title.Macho Man Randy Savage, here.
I loved the episode of Dexter's Laboratory with him. :)
|
I loved the episode of Dexter's Laboratory with him. :)Also, I totally had the image of Hulk Hogan bodyslamming wizards from the thread title.Macho Man Randy Savage, here.
And Space Ghost Coast to Coast!
He'll always be my Kord.
Kurgess is a friendlier Heavy Weapons Guy
Wow that kills off like 1/3 of the wizard's spell list. Why so much wizard hate?Other than not liking the rule because you find these spells fun to cast, I'm curious what you folks feel would be the main effects of the following house rule, both for high level play and E6:
Save or Suck, Save or Fail and Save or Die spells are not allowed. All mind effecting spells such as hypnotism or charm person suffer a -5 to their DC when cast on characters that have made the decision to enter combat.
In return, all spontaneous casters gains two additional spells of each spell level per day. Memorization casters gain one additional spell per spell level per day.
CW does not like the affect wizards have on his games. He had similar threads up a while back. I don't remember all the issues, but reading his old threads sheds some light on the issue.
|
From a GMing standpoint, low-level encounter design is a pain in my butt, because I can't use color spray or sleep for the 1st or 2nd level enemy Sorcerer (too high a chance of a TPK, particularly if he can spam it more than once to catch anyone who didn't drop on the first casting), and at those levels, burning hands and magic missile are just really bad jokes.
I'd prefer to chop those sorts of spells down by making them work like slow or similar spells, affecting up to 1 target / level, in addition to other limits (although, in the other direction, I've never liked self-obsoleting spells with HD caps, followed X levels later by one with a higher cap, or no cap. That's just crap design, IMO, if your spell automatically requires a better version of itself at higher levels to remain viable.).
Tweaking the spells, rather than outright forbidding them, feels better to me, since some of them are fairly iconic magic stunts. Just banning anything that wasn't designed terribly well, instead of fixing the specific issues I have with them, feels like a step towards creating a game where magic isn't 'magic' and is just a meaningless descriptor for 'nothing that anyone else can't already do without magic.'
|
|
On that note, slapping reasonably affordable mundane or magical deterrants to teleport doesn't exactly break my heart either.
Keeps it functional, but puts a stop to scry-and-die going in either direction between players and GMs.
I kinda miss the bizarre and arbitrary limitations on astral and ethereal travel (can't pass through living matter, can't pass through X amount of lead, etc.) from 1st edition. Setting up similar Supernatural-style mundane solutions to some tactics, such as lead-lined walls in meeting chambers, could be fun.
On the other hand, the 'mysterious underdark radiation' being able to protect Drow communities from reliable divination or teleportation felt cheap, to me.
Then again, just about everything about the Drow felt cheap, to me, with their 'everybody has magic resistance' and 'our awesome magic weapons turn to crap in your hands' and 'we see in the dark, and make it dark' and 'we have a poison that doesn't affect us, is ten times better than what you have, and is *dirt cheap.*'
From a GMing standpoint, low-level encounter design is a pain in my butt, because I can't use color spray or sleep for the 1st or 2nd level enemy Sorcerer (too high a chance of a TPK, particularly if he can spam it more than once to catch anyone who didn't drop on the first casting), and at those levels, burning hands and magic missile are just really bad jokes.
I'd prefer to chop those sorts of spells down by making them work like slow or similar spells, affecting up to 1 target / level, in addition to other limits (although, in the other direction, I've never liked self-obsoleting spells with HD caps, followed X levels later by one with a higher cap, or no cap. That's just crap design, IMO, if your spell automatically requires a better version of itself at higher levels to remain viable.).
Tweaking the spells, rather than outright forbidding them, feels better to me, since some of them are fairly iconic magic stunts. Just banning anything that wasn't designed terribly well, instead of fixing the specific issues I have with them, feels like a step towards creating a game where magic isn't 'magic' and is just a meaningless descriptor for 'nothing that anyone else can't already do without magic.'
You are nicer than one of my GM's. He dropped sleep on the entire party once. Luckily everyone made the save.
|
At my table, we sort of have a "gentlemen's agreement" about super-powerful spells. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; if the players start using lots of enchantment effects to peel away my forces, then I start doing the same or if they start using very optimized tactics and feat/class/whatever combinations, then I start amping up my optimization too.
+1.
If the PCs are smart enough to figure things out, the high-Int, high-Wis mastermind bad guys can too, and if they can, they'll pass choice bits of it on down to their minions, because who doesn't like making their own side more awesome?
Doing this in my game improved it immensely. We can make use of every option in the game, and the game gets a vicious as my players want it to be. Which is usually pretty vicious with my players.
But it increases verisimilitude by a lot if the smart and/or well-connected people of the world are all optimizing. When your life and wealth and master plans are on the line, why not?
As far as SoS spells go, it's an *awful* risk to use them, and that is a kind of balance. Using an SoS spell in a fight risks giving up a whole turn for no effect (1 turn is still a HUGE cost in 3.5/PF), and using one out of combat, like a charm, means that anyone with half a brain who DOES save will probably take their next turn to skewer the mage responsible.
EDIT: Another side effect of just allowing the optimization arms race on both sides is that Saves will likely be maxed out before long. In my own game, most characters have saves so good that it's usually a waste of time and spell slots to just drop an SoS on someone - they'll more than likely save. An SoS becomes a last-ditch effort, a way to knock a significantly lower-level foe out of the fight, or, most entertainingly, a finishing move that is laid out after several rounds of tactical debuffing.
|
|
You are nicer than one of my GM's. He dropped sleep on the entire party once. Luckily everyone made the save.
For me, it was Death in Freeport, and an encounter with a mercenary band was like the second or third in the game (and in the first session), and I felt like it would be pretty sucktacular to TPK the group in the first session of a new campaign. :)
I did manage to redesign the Yellow Shield dudes so that each member of the party was at zero hit points at different points in the fight, which, for me, was the gold standard of dice rolls and encounter balance coming together for a nail-biter.
|
|
Thus my reaction would be that it would work relatively well for an E6 game, less so in other cases.
Also as a player, I would react a lot better to a home-made spell list (from which you have removed the spells you don't want) than to a published spell list with a bunch of spells crossed in red ink. It turns out to be the same, but subconsciously it isn't.
'findel
Thanks for the advice.
In the house rules thread, someone suggested limiting wizards by forcing them into a specialty by making smaller spell lists for them. I agree that the red ink method doesn't feel good.
Personally, I really like the idea of the short spell lists druids and priests have compared to the wizard, and feel like there is a kind of fun opportunity to write up more focused ones for a few different types of wizards.
I'm contemplating a low-magic game set in a real world historical period. I want Wizards to be playable, but not awesome. My solution will be to make adding spells to a spellbook a major chore. Scrolls, like any other magic item in a low-power/low-magic world, cannot be purchased, and it will be hard to find other Wizards for a "spellbook swap" because commoners fear them and the priests of most faiths distrust or outright hate them. The two spells at each level up will be what most Wizards are stuck with for most of their careers.
...and then there's the Dragon Age way, where anybody using mind affecting spells is considered worse than a serial killer by most of society.
Just a suggestion. Setting details can do with ease what changing the RAW could do with a lot of headaches.
Changing the RAW usually results in a RAW/House Rules holy war around my table. I got my one favorite rule through (Armor grants DR instead of increasing "dodge") and none others. It's an uphill battle...and don't say spell points around me, not unless you want a fight on your hands... : P
|
|
Wow that kills off like 1/3 of the wizard's spell list. Why so much wizard hate?Other than not liking the rule because you find these spells fun to cast, I'm curious what you folks feel would be the main effects of the following house rule, both for high level play and E6:
Save or Suck, Save or Fail and Save or Die spells are not allowed. All mind effecting spells such as hypnotism or charm person suffer a -5 to their DC when cast on characters that have made the decision to enter combat.
In return, all spontaneous casters gains two additional spells of each spell level per day. Memorization casters gain one additional spell per spell level per day.
Here is a sample spell list under this house rule for a 5th level, non-specialize wizard in this setting:
1-Mage Armor
1-Shocking Grasp
1-Enlarge Person
1-Gravity Bow
1-Obscuring Mist
2-Protection from Arrows
2-Invisibility
2-Daze Monster
2-Acid Arrow
3-Dispel Magic
3-Tongues
3-Lightning BoltI feel like this is a perfectly fine wizard and not at all unbalanced. I'm sure you could make a lot of fun wizards - diviners, summoners, invokers - which are all a touch more fair and fun for everyone else playing.
Sense you don't have the "best spells" that are the most important to account for and control, casting more per day isn't that big of a deal.
I could even raise the number of bonus spells.
Okay so the first bolded spell is a no save, just suck spell and that's okay?!? The second one is a save or suck...but daze isn't so bad so it's okay?!? Not to mention that divine casters will still have hold person, entangle, sleet storm, ice storm, spike stones, baleful polymorph, finger of death, slay living, holy word line, symbol spells, etc etc. Basically your change = not doing a damn thing at all since divine casters can do all that you seem to have issues with...only using real weapons and wearing armor. You know what I would do in your game? I'd play a druid and make you cry. And then when you nerf that, I'd do it with the cleric. The issue isn't the arcane spell list.
|
|
I almost always run "low magic" settings. Something I've found is that there isn't really any point in making it harder for wizards to get their spells equipped. You can make it seem more special by making new spells Macguffins to center the story around, but you can't REALLY keep them from getting one or two of their choice, and if you make sure they only know a couple, you are going to have an even worse situation of them spamming the same crap all the time.
As far as the society thing, that works as long as you are willing to kill their characters with it, but in my experience most players hear, "if you cast good spells you will become outlaws," as, "this will be an outlaw game."
I imagine it could be made obvious that being an outlaw is a bad, bad idea. Just make the law look too competent for the PCs to defeat easily. A few cutscenes of hardcore bounty hunters bringing in rogue spellcasters with ease and dedication might "scare them straight" as it were.
As far as spamming, I think there are built-in ways to punish them for relying on one strategy. If they have no blasts, a few encounters with mindless beings should set them straight. No debuffs? A single, high-level boss monster with awesome saves will make life difficult. The same if they rely on crowd control, and canny enemies who know that Wizards with AoE spells exist will alter their formations and tactics to keep too many fighters from being caught in them.
Angry Reply
Well, I have as many players as I want so if you brought that sour attitude to my game, I'd just be really hard on you until you got upset and then show you the door; you wouldn't ever get to the second class.
A nasty player is a nasty player and of course none of my house rules can be implemented effectively if the players cry, drag their feat, or feel that their entitlements aren't being met. My players always go along with my house rules because they like how I run the game, so I don't have to appease whiners.
While he did not say it nicely his point was that with the druid and cleric still being able to do the things you don't like, that you have not solved anything.
If your players agree with your idea they just won't use those spells. No need to even make a rule, the same way my group does not spam SoS spells. If the do like them then they will migrate to a class that still has them as an option.|
|
Well, I have as many players as I want so if you brought that sour attitude to my game, I'd just be really hard on you until you got upset and then show you the door; you wouldn't ever get to the second class.
An nasty player is a nasty player and of course none of my house rules can be implemented effectively if the players cry, drag their feat, or feel that their entitlements aren't being met. My players always go along with my house rules because they like how I run the game, so I don't have to appease whiners.
Sorry...but your system mastery is too weak to go really hard on me unless you start to resort to DM fiat (at which point, you already lost). If you honestly can't see the system balance issues with your proposed houserule, then you really are too clueless to win against me in a system mastery contest.
And no I'm not being nasty...I'm teaching you a valuable lesson.
It's your game, do what you want...but when a bunch of people say it's a bad idea...a hint, it just maybe a bad idea.
|
|
Here is the rule again, slightly modified. Sense this rule isn't going to be published in a book, but used by one group in the spirit of which it was written, there isn't any way to find a loophole.
"Debuffs and Save or Lose spells are not allowed. Questionable spells can be allowed on a case by case basis. All mind effecting spells such as hypnotism or charm person suffer a -5 to their DC when cast on characters that have made the decision to enter combat.
In return, all spontaneous casters gains two additional spells of each spell level per day. Memorization casters gain one additional spell per spell level per day."
How is mind effecting spells not save or lose?!? You fail a dominate spell and you lost. And no debuffs at all. Or crowd control. So basically blast away or buff up...so play 4e wizard you say. Yeah I don't play 4e for this exact same reason...and if I was okay with casters working in this manner, I would have moved onto 4e and not to PF thank you very much.