|
Obviously I'm not a systems master. DM fiat only makes you a loser if you care about the smugness of a kid on his way out the door, singing the last word song (;
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.
No DM fiat makes you a loser because it makes you a BAD DM. If your trying to "win" as a DM, your bad enough...when you have to use DM fiat to get that "win" your pretty much the epitomy of LOSER. I can come on any RPG board, tell the sorry story of how you had to fiat a "win" and we can all point and laugh. Childish? Yes...but pointing and laughing at such epic fail is still pretty dang fun.
|
|
Eh, I don't know that I feel like I have to throw the baby out with the bath water here.
But in effect, you are. Wizards get a few things that let them win encounters with a single action. You want to take those away, and leave them with options that take just as long to win the battle as the fighters swinging swords. There's not much left to the class after that.
|
|
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.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."
I actually like that about 4e. There were four things that kept me from ever buying into it:
Daily powers for martial characters, the core race list, the load out in Monster Manuel 1, and the handling of diagonal movement.
So go touch up 4e and play that then. You have a MUCH smaller issue with 4e then you have with magic in PF. You like the MMO on paper it seems...so go do that. Sheesh.
|
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.
I agree that those are solutions, but I never ever tailor encounters to the party's weaknesses. It kills the organic, sandbox feel for me.
Same with the bounty hunters. Usually my parties are the strongmen of the land - that's why they are needed. If there were lots of other groups that could kill many times their number, PCs wouldn't have much of a point (and the ecology of the world would make no sense).
You don't need to tailor - statistically, one day, the characters will run into something that has good defenses against their best tricks. If you have a varied field of opponents, the PCs will have to have varied strategies to defeat them all. I try to make sure every opponent is strong against *something*. Most characters and enemies are. Fighting an evil cult, full of clerics and other divine spellcasters with high wis and will save progression, is just as likely to put the hurt on control spells as zombie hordes. Blasts, on the other hand, are a great idea since they'll never make the reflex saves.
But that's only one encounter. The same cult could have an assassins' society, making control spells a fantastic idea, and blasts near-useless.
As to the second point, that's a difference of narrative strategy, I suppose. For me, if the ultra-competent bounty hunter is busy with rogue mages, he's out of town when the orcs show up...cue the PCs, because bounty-hunter-dude won't be back for a week. If the PCs only cast the acceptable spells, bounty-hunter-dude will come back in a week and shake their hands. If they use the nasty spells, when he comes back, he'll be back with a vengeance.
I ran one too many games where the PCs were the only strong characters on the side of law and good. When they went bad and decided that it was easier to join the enemies preying on the weak, they had the setting under their thumb a bit too quickly. Since then, I make the good guys competent, but too busy to handle the latest threat.
|
|
So go touch up 4e and play that then. You have a MUCH smaller issue with 4e then you have with magic in PF. You like the MMO on paper it seems...so go do that. Sheesh.
Does he tell you how to play your games? This thread was reasonably positive until you joined. May I ask you to not poison threads you don't like in the future?
|
I'm pretty much mirroring other people. If you want to go low magic just cutting out spells based on your preferences are about the worst way to go. Immediately as a player I would feel that out as a "my way or the highway" and be instantly demoralized. And what about classes with less spells to their character? Paladins don't have a huge amount to start with and are they gonna be cut down more?
Really it'd be better to have a storyline drug that's becoming massively widespread and reducing the effects of some magic spells like compulsion effects. At least then you can make a side quest for it.
But I repeat the others. Taking versatility from wizards = wizards suck. They're no reason thinkable to choose a limited wizard, even if he is a blaster, for any blaster sorc.
|
|
Does he tell you how to play your games? This thread was reasonably positive until you joined. May I ask you to not poison threads you don't like in the future?
So go touch up 4e and play that then. You have a MUCH smaller issue with 4e then you have with magic in PF. You like the MMO on paper it seems...so go do that. Sheesh.
How is this poisoning the thread? He listed 4 things that are pretty easily dealt with (diagnal movement...really that's even an issue?!?) with 4E...vs pretty much the magic system of PF.
I suppose he could just carve out magic all together and only allow fighters, barbarians and rogues (no magic talent of course)...but he has admited he likes 4E system better. Telling him that playing the system he likes better and tweaking that isn't a bad idea here.
CW what I'm wondering is why you started this thread? I mean you asked for opinions and got an overwhelmingly negative response, and the responses were generally well thought out and argued (and btw for for as much as it matters I agree with them). When it did not go the way you were hoping, you seemed to throw everyone a figurative raspberry with a "well imma do it how I want anyway". so I guess what I'm asking is, if that was going to be your atttitude why did you bother to bring it up. My group makes house rules all the time but we don't bring them here unless we need input to settle a conflict, or are particularly proud of it (got one coming btw).
|
|
How is this poisoning the thread? He listed 4 things that are pretty easily dealt with (diagnal movement...really that's even an issue?!?) with 4E...vs pretty much the magic system of PF.
Because everything you've said is basically 'you're playing Pathfinder wrong, go play 4E' which has nothing to do with the thread. Unlike other people who have been able to point out the flaws without disparaging the OP or mentioning an unrelated game.
I don't mind you saying '4E handles this better, you know'. I mind you saying 'shut up and play 4E, jerk'.
Does he tell you how to play your games? This thread was reasonably positive until you joined. May I ask you to not poison threads you don't like in the future?
So go touch up 4e and play that then. You have a MUCH smaller issue with 4e then you have with magic in PF. You like the MMO on paper it seems...so go do that. Sheesh.How is this poisoning the thread? He listed 4 things that are pretty easily dealt with (diagnal movement...really that's even an issue?!?) with 4E...vs pretty much the magic system of PF.
I suppose he could just carve out magic all together and only allow fighters, barbarians and rogues (no magic talent of course)...but he has admited he likes 4E system better. Telling him that playing the system he likes better and tweaking that isn't a bad idea here.
We can't read tone of voice, but your choice of words seems to have venom behind it. Of course that may not be the case.
As an example look at what you told him before I paraphrased it.You know what I would do in your game? I'd play a druid and make you cry.
That is very aggressive language.
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......
I think you had the same idea, but it was the way you said it.
|
|
Because everything you've said is basically 'you're playing Pathfinder wrong, go play 4E' which has nothing to do with the thread. Unlike other people who have been able to point out the flaws without disparaging the OP or mentioning an unrelated game.
People tried the nice way to explain why his idea is a mechanical flop. He ain't listening so I went the not so nice way. He replied he likes the way 4E handles things better. The assertion that 4e is a better staring point for the style of game he wants seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me...not sure why your in such a foul mood over coming to the conclusion that CW's style of gaming maybe better off with 4E if he enjoys that style of system...sheesh.
CW what I'm wondering is why you started this thread? I mean you asked for opinions and got an overwhelmingly negative response, and the responses were generally well thought out and argued (and btw for for as much as it matters I agree with them). When it did not go the way you were hoping, you seemed to throw everyone a figurative raspberry with a "well imma do it how I want anyway". so I guess what I'm asking is, if that was going to be your atttitude why did you bother to bring it up. My group makes house rules all the time but we don't bring them here unless we need input to settle a conflict, or are particularly proud of it (got one coming btw).
This is a good point. CW you did ask how we would like it, and the majority of posters here would most likely agree with us, that we would not like or even play in the game.
If you came here looking for ideas for a low magic(spell-wise) game there are plenty of threads on that, but if you don't like their solutions asking "how can I do _____" is more constructive than asking "do you agree with ____" if you are just going to do it anyway.
I would just officially say the new topic is how can I do ______, and then put out a list of what you are trying to do with example of how playing the game by the normal rules has messed up your game.
If I remember correctly from your other threads a while back you have 1 or 2 combats a day which allows casters to blow their highest spells, without worrying about it.
I don't remember our entire conversation from back then, but relisting the problems here might be a good idea.
|
|
He ain't listening
Which means all your posts are for naught. If someone isn't listening, yelling isn't going to change that.
I don't like how wraithstrike keeps bringing up CWs old posts on wizards in a negative light either, but at least he's using it constructively. You just keep harping away uselessly. It really lowers the tone.
|
|
We can't read tone of voice, but your choice of words seems to have venom behind it. Of course that may not be the case.
As an example look at what you told him before I paraphrased it.
Actually, not arguing that my previous posts had venom in it...it did...on purpose. The nice way of it's a bad idea mechanically wasn't sinking in so I went the rude route and it did kinda work as it made him FINALLY stop and think about divine casters with your input.
What I don't get is why TOZ jumped me for suggesting that 4E maybe better for CW to start off from since it seems like he likes that system's set up better and the 4 major points he had are much easier to deal with then the entire PF magic system.
|
|
I'd posit that your posts did not actually make him stop and think, it was other people like wraith that were discussing reasonably. But that's impossible to prove, so I'm willing to leave that argument there.
Basically, you sounded like Mister Green and all the other negative posters, who I am sick to death of. Yes, it's my problem. But I'm still going to ask you to stop.
|
|
He ain't listeningWhich means all your posts are for naught. If someone isn't listening, yelling isn't going to change that.
Not true...yelling did in fact make him stop and think about divine casters (well after wraith explained a bit anyways). Sometimes yelling is needed...other times it's counter productive. However I'm pretty good at yelling so when others have tried the talking, I'll be around to yell a bit and see if it works. But can't yell too much...otherwise I may start acting civil towards RD again(that whole period was wierd for both of us)...have only so much venom and vitrol after all it seem(course it took a katana thread to run me dry).
|
On a side note, how much more damage do you think Evocation spells need to be to be attractive? Sense so many things went up a die type on HP, raising the die type on all the blaster spells would probably help them.
Sure, the ancient red dragon used to have 88 hit points, and now has *ten times as many hit points as the Drow goddess had*, and the fireballs and lightning bolts do *less* damage (due to lower caps) than they did back then, but it's not as simple as just increasing the power of evocation spells by X number of hit points.
[Indeed, I'd be more inclined to just remove Spell Resistance from any spell that is subject to Energy Resistance. I'm not a fan of a creature having three or four possible lines of defense against a spell...]
The problem with balancing damage dealing spells is how the Vancian fire-and-forget system interacts with the number of encounters a GM is capable of throwing at the party.
The Fighter is going to be able to do X damage per round, all day long.
The spellcaster, using finite spell slots, should do significantly more damage with those expendable resources, to be able to compete in a game with multiple encounters per day. But that never seems to happen the way it's planned out, as the party finds ways to do the 15 minute adventuring day (hiding in rope tricks, etc.) allowing the spellcaster to 'nova' his biggest and most potent spells and combinations in a few rounds, and then sit around until they recover, leaving the fighter looking like a complete chump, since his special advantage of being able to deal X damage / round, all day long, is never actually relevant to the game.
Games like M&M and D&D4e fixed this by making magical and martial characters do the same sorts of damage, just using different descriptors. GURPS fixed this by having spellcasters quite able to blow all of their mana in round one, and not even come close to ending the encounter, leaving them hiding behind the warrior types for the hour or so it takes their fatigue to recover (or days, or even weeks, it might take their powerstones to recover).
With Vancian magic, IMO, there is simply no solution to this. If evocation spells do significantly more awesome damage than a fighter, then there is nothing to prevent players from gaming the spell slot / spells per day mechanic to adventure in short spurts of activity, other than a GM who, increasingly adversarially, keeps interrupting or spoiling their attempts to rest between battles, turning it into a war between GM and player for who can screw the intent of the game harder.
[philosophical tangent]
The only real 'fix' for Vancian slot magic is to agree ahead of time between GM and player not to degenerate into this sort of behavior.
It's not a thing that can be balanced mechanically, IMO, but only through a group sitting down and agreeing not to game the system or play adversarially, but to instead work competitively.
This is a glaring design flaw, to some, that the 'rules' can't enforce common sense or fair play or good company.
This cuts to the very core of what cooperative gameplay is meant to teach, to others.
Despite the loaded nature of the above two sentences, I can see both sides, and the fact that the rules *can* be used to enforce equality in GURPS, M&M (more or less) and / or D&D4e is a credit to their design.
Clean balanced rules can make for a more pleasant gaming experience, *especially* at a convention or gaming with people you don't know very well, but even when gaming with friends who may end up not being friends after some bad gaming experiences.
On the other hand, if you end up needing games with rules specifically crafted to prevent other players from being jerks and abusing the system and ruining the fun for others, maybe there's really no amount of rules that can help you, since the problem is not with the game, but with the players.
[/tangent]
He ain't listeningWhich means all your posts are for naught. If someone isn't listening, yelling isn't going to change that.
I don't like how wraithstrike keeps bringing up CWs old posts on wizards in a negative light either, but at least he's using it constructively. You just keep harping away uselessly. It really lowers the tone.
You are not allowed to disagree with me. <Cast dominate monster on ToZ.>
|
|
This may help you understand my view. I'm surprised it didn't get more notice.
Is that why the tone of your posts have changed recently...too bad, I liked the old ToZ. If nothing else, you made me laugh at the small barbs you tossed. Not sure why people thought you were mean spirited...never seemed that way to me. But then again, as you can tell, I am a pretty big prick :P .
|
|
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.
i am going to go out on a limb here and say you play an MMO, most likely WOW?
Pathfinder and 3.5 and under casters are not about blasting... although that is still an option. Its about using your brain to maximize return with your limited resources/spells per day.
If you wish to play like you suggest i would recommend an MMO. They have all the pointless blasting your looking for. If your heart is set on a pen and paper game... try 4th edition dnd. Its nothing but mindless crap like your suggesting making the game into.
just my 2cp :)
(ps: nothing personal and kudos for sharing on the forums, hopefully before you implement the rules. We are blunt because we care :) and strong sentiments help get how truly bad this idea is across to us)
I don't see the use of the save or suck spells as being any brain work at all. Wizards are pretty easy to run mindlessly:
If fight likely to finish with <10% HP lost, cast no spell.
If fight finished with 10% - 25% HP lost, cast Control spell.
If fight finished with less HP or potentially lost, or if named NPC appears, cast good spell.
It is a no brainer to cast glitterdust on something and walk around, or hold person on the named fighter. It isn't exactly chess.
Taking out the easy rocket tag spells so you have to time the use of your buff spells or use tactics to set up a good AOE attack is more brain...
You missed the point. A caster has LIMITED resources at their disposal. They have a limited amount of spells per day, a limited spell selection (sorcerers get less spells but can cast more often and a wizard gets more choice but with less casting) its in THIS that brain work comes in.
All GOOD caster players don't throw spells around mindlessly like its a "no brainer" as you put it. Knowing WHEN, WHERE, WHAT AND IF you should put spells down is the key here. Your quick little % ratings on whether to cast spells is highly inaccurate. It might work for NPCs in a pc game or MMO but in pen and paper its not gonna cut it.
On top of all these things is the chance a spell won't work. If all the spells had no saves i would agree with you (to a degree) but they don't. A level appropriate encounter should give a spell around 50% hit rate (depending on factors such as what save type to what enemy class/monster your throwing at, feats spent on focuses, class specializations and so on).
You may think that some of these spells you name are to powerful, but they aren't unlimited and they aren't guaranteed to work. If your finding your mages are landing their spells and wrecking your game to often when running by core i would suggest you look at your DMing style and realize that its whats going wrong. To even out such things give higher CR monsters for them to fight, use monsters with higher <insert save here> to mix things up or even throw immune monsters. The game is balanced by RAW in conjunction with all the other RAW factors including monster CR's.
Also don't forget that monsters or npcs can use these spells to. Which may just temper down your players enthusiasm for a certain spell if they get hit with it often if they throw it often. Banning or restricting things that are raw shows a plain failure in DM skill. Work with your players, change the module, create custom creatures, make sure your players are playing according to the rules...
save or suck/save or die spells AREN'T brainless. Not to mention every spell is to an extent save or suck..that's the POINT. If a spell helped an enemy the caster would be useless. But assuming you mean ones that do A LOT to reduce an enemy remember that they are limited. Fighters can hit all day without penalty, Rogues and Bards can use skills all day without penalty. Not to mention both those have a better chance of working than some spells. If your really truly concerned that some spells are unbalanced i would suggest changing 1 simple aspect of those spells rather than removing them, their duration. Cut the time down drastically if you have to. Its a lot better for your players to have choice (and it will steer your party to use the spells you want more to).
as a side note: if your players are being cheeky and throwing direct counters such as will saves at fighters then why not be cheeky your self? Use your own mages to put illusions up so their mages throw spells at illusions? Hide a fighters class by making him look like a cleric? Ambush their casters? nothing = dead mage better than a fighter within 5 feet of a mage or better yet use your own will saves on their groups fighters. The ways around your problem are almost endless and require some through, banning things is a cheap and often harmful way to play a game.
But in effect, you are. Wizards get a few things that let them win encounters with a single action. You want to take those away, and leave them with options that take just as long to win the battle as the fighters swinging swords. There's not much left to the class after that.
Eh, I don't know that I feel like I have to throw the baby out with the bath water here.
That was the first concern I have... For some reason when I roll Hp for my wizards, i roll LOW....
My mage of Halrua in 2e is 9th level with 24 hp... He's got some POWERFUL spells though. Basically any battle with him will be over in about 3-4 rounds... One way or another.
Wizards aren't MEANT to go toe to toe with people in combat. My sorcerer was nearly killed by a shadow in 2 rounds because he didn't have a good spell for it... PF likes to deal with 'stat' draining stuff... Wizards can't weather that for long either.
They really NEED Save or Suck stuff...
Of course my sorcerer has been restricted to only Core rulebook spells... but having come from 2e, I've been pretty disappointed with the variety of spells AVAILABLE to him... I couldn't imagine having half of those choices cut. I'll always be in favor of MORE choices never LESS...
Though more spells per day is something I would get behind....
Like others have said I would take a long hard look at the wizard spell list after you remove the banned spells. Keep in mind even if you somehow dont think they are save or lose/debuff spells enchanment spells are more or less getting removed also, that -5 to a school that already has an absurd amount of the population of dnd world particularly resistant to it means as a school it is literally feeble.
So really most of what wizards in your game will do will be blowing things up, or buffing, the narrower focus isnt really an issue to play but it isnt what a wizard was built for. He gets like 3 class features because of the huge variety of spells he gets. If you are going to take a big axe to that variety, I would take a look at the classitself. Something like the 3.5 warmage would be better then having a wizard in the party because they at least are good at what they do (blowing stuff up). You might want to consider also creating something like the warmage for tranmutation, and then call it done. There is already a summoner class (which is most of whats left of conjuration). So personally if I were to remove the spells you name, I would go that route and split up the wizard, but also make sure they have fun class abilities that will keep things fresh with the reduced spell list.
In regards to your modified vancian system,
I usually don't ask for feelings, but how would feel if the Vancian casting system was modified so that casters had many more spells per day, but there highest level spells could only be cast every d4 rounds, like a breath weapon?
I think this would probably improve prepared casters and weaken spontanoues ones. Usually a prepared caster isnt spamming their top level spells except in really dire circumstances. Where as spontaneous casters have more of them, and often are casting them more frequently. For instance a 3rd level sorceror who can only cast his 1st level spells every d4 rounds is going to have issues.
Second question, same as above, but in the context of house rules and etiquette that let minions and pcs effectively guard a wizard?
What do you mean exactly? I dont think being protected will make a difference, its not the saftey of the wizard that is in question here (or at least not mostly) it is the wizards ability to contribute to the combat. So being able to protect him effectively isnt neccessarily going to help.
Curious, what did you but your second stat in? A +2 con bonus would have nearly doubled those hp. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but it sounds like you put the game on hard mode yourself (;
What if other rules or etiquette were put in place that let other players and minions effectively shield the wizard? Would you still feel like you need the save or lose spells or could you make due with buff and blast?
Well... Garathel was a 2E character, and they didn't GET stats that would raise. Plus the kit 'Wizard of Halrua' gave him a -2 to Str, Dex, Con... but a +4 save vs magic and opponents got a -4 penalty to his saves. Yeah... the kit is a BIT broken, But hp for him has been a serious issue.
Honestly... I don't think 'shield the mage' would make much difference to me. It basically means that my character only gets to live if YOUR character does HIS job.
I'd prefer my character to be able to defend himself and be useful member of society. Besides... if the meat shields are back here on defense... who's actually HURTING the enemy? Is the mage blasting everything in sight while the fighters just form a protective circle?
Now the fighter players aren't having any fun either?
|
|
@Set, thanks for the post.
I'll try not to let my next reply turn into a novella... :)
I usually don't ask for feelings, but how would feel if the Vancian casting system was modified so that casters had many more spells per day, but there highest level spells could only be cast every d4 rounds, like a breath weapon?
You could even put a delay equal to the spell level minus 1, so that a 1st level spell could be cast each round, but there'd be a 1 round delay between 2nd level spells, a three round delay between 4th level spells, etc.
Hm. Perhaps not, that sounds like a pain in the rump to keep track of, with the different spell levels having differing 'cooldown timers.'
Maybe a number equal to one's spellcasting modifier, per round, with overage cutting into next rounds spells. (So a 20 Int wizard could cast a 5th level spell every round, but if he cast a 6th level spell, he'd be limited to a 4th level spell or lower the next round.)
Meh. Not loving that idea either. I'm sure there's some option floating around I haven't considered.
Just bumping the casting time of spells of your highest level to a full round action, instead of a standard action, might make it necessary to throw a lower level spell you've 'mastered' instead of your biggest kaboom, in a tight situation when you have to move-and-cast, or otherwise can't afford a full round action...
Second question, same as above, but in the context of house rules and etiquette that let minions and pcs effectively guard a wizard?
AoOs and the cover/concealment rules for bodies in the way are pretty much the official options, but making bodyguard / in harm's way feats easier to qualify for and more useful, could also help.
Or allowing for an improved aid other feat that only affects defensive uses (+2 AC) and doesn't cost the fighter ally anything other than a move or swift action, could work, as well as making existing 'Shield Ally' style feats more attractive.
In either event, the option shouldn't restrict or take away from the current role of the fighter, since I don't think we want Ars Magica, where the 'grogs' exist solely to stand between the wizards and danger...
The biggest issue with your proposal is that suggested CR for any given creature or types of creatures takes into account the full complement of all the spell casting classes. This is especially true when you start forming CR by using multiples of creatures rather than one big bad guy- but even the big bad guys assume that your party will have at its disposal some manner of debuffs going on. This is because they assume you aren't fighting the last guy at 100% but rather at 70 or 50 or 40% because you had to slog through a bunch of crap to get to the guy.
So whats the point?
The point is that you are going to have to alter the encounter design of any AP or adventure you run and even if you aren't doing prefabs you are still going to have to eyeball CR very very carefully because you are altering one of the fundamental mechanics of the game and CR system: which spells are available. While it is true that any one spell is probably not a big deal, erasing entire classes of spells (either directly or by giving them such a heavy penalty that no one will ever use them) will be problematic to the math that the game supports.
Now does this mean its bad/wrong to do it? No, not at all. Its your game, do what you want.
What you DO have to be though is aware of the consequences of your actions. If you remove all available crowd control and such then you are going to have to alter/modify the encounters you generate to throw at the party to compensate and you will also have to balance that carefully against how many encounters they have since it'll take that many more resources to deal with what you Do throw at them.
Change what you want- but be aware of the total ramifications of any such broad sweeping alterations to the game.
-S
I removed some posts. Be constructive, please.
I would personally NOT do this, because save or sucks encompass such a wide variety of spells where some are extremely powerful, some are decently balanced (obscuring mists), and some suck (phantasmal killer).
However, some spells CAN be problematic in some groups and I won't try to tell you "don't do this"; playtesting will show the effects. Personally, I'd just give a penalty to save DC's/bonus to saves across the board rather than this.
However, my suggestion is that if you're going to take, also give: Not only spells per day, but wider spell list in some other cases.
Since you're writing up new spell lists, rather than just red-inking out the old one, think about adding a few spells from other classes. Since you're into houseruling and are (from what it seems) experienced players, you might find it worth it to make custom spell lists for for example different specialists - consider adding non-wizard spells to those. A conjurer might learn Wall of Thorns, Summon Nature's Ally and Cure spells, becoming sort of a nature/white mage. A diviner might learn Commune, even though he's not a cleric. A necromancer learning animation spells at the same rate as a cleric, and so on, and so on.
And I'd seriously consider giving some specialty of wizards save or sucks, at least limited ones such as Daze (Monster), Charm Person and the likes. Some people really like those spells, and granting them in exchange for other basic wizard tricks like mage armor and the like might be a worth trade.
@Set, thanks for the post.
I usually don't ask for feelings, but how would feel if the Vancian casting system was modified so that casters had many more spells per day, but there highest level spells could only be cast every d4 rounds, like a breath weapon?
Second question, same as above, but in the context of house rules and etiquette that let minions and pcs effectively guard a wizard?
I agree with phantom about the shielding idea. Best case scenario the party better be ready to see a cowardly wizard at the table if I am playing him.
PS:What is to stop a smart tactic like trying to sneak around to the wizard from behind or another method of bypassing the party such as flying over the melee types?
I gave serious replies to people bringing up real mechanical issues best I could through the choirs of other people whining.
One person's whining is another person's legitimate complaint.
As to the idea of getting more higher level spell if you only run 1 or 2 encounters a day, and the spells I already get are enough to make go to houserules then the extra spells are not really a benefit.
As an example if I only need 100 dollars to buy item X, and you give me 200, but the extra 100 can not be pocketed then it really has no appeal.
PS:This is based on my memory of you doing less than 4 encounters a day typically.
PS2:The value of extra spells really depends on playstyle so that is why I feel that is a legitimate factor.
The biggest issue with your proposal is that suggested CR for any given creature or types of creatures takes into account the full complement of all the spell casting classes. This is especially true when you start forming CR by using multiples of creatures rather than one big bad guy- but even the big bad guys assume that your party will have at its disposal some manner of debuffs going on. This is because they assume you aren't fighting the last guy at 100% but rather at 70 or 50 or 40% because you had to slog through a bunch of crap to get to the guy.
So whats the point?
The point is that you are going to have to alter the encounter design of any AP or adventure you run and even if you aren't doing prefabs you are still going to have to eyeball CR very very carefully because you are altering one of the fundamental mechanics of the game and CR system: which spells are available. While it is true that any one spell is probably not a big deal, erasing entire classes of spells (either directly or by giving them such a heavy penalty that no one will ever use them) will be problematic to the math that the game supports.Now does this mean its bad/wrong to do it? No, not at all. Its your game, do what you want.
What you DO have to be though is aware of the consequences of your actions. If you remove all available crowd control and such then you are going to have to alter/modify the encounters you generate to throw at the party to compensate and you will also have to balance that carefully against how many encounters they have since it'll take that many more resources to deal with what you Do throw at them.Change what you want- but be aware of the total ramifications of any such broad sweeping alterations to the game.
-S
Thanks I was just about to tackle that since he asked about E6 and higher level games.
|
|
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?
And why you buff the spells available to spontaneous spellcaster by a larger number?
Waht happen to spell like Holy word? remved?
|
|
interesting piece on the 15 minutes/day adventuring
The 15minutes/day adventuring is bad, but on the other hand I feel that the DM is doing some serious error if it allow it to work. There is no need to start a war between players and masters, but unless they are exploring some static dungeon that approach has problems (and at that point it work for all the spellcasters, the cleric can heal/buff everyone and when he run out of spells they leave).
If you kill the guards of a group of NPC and then leave to whittle them down again the next day the targets will start moving around in pairs and triplets, staying within shouting distance or, if hard pressed enough, relocate.
In several adventures you have a time limit and so on.
If the players decide to operate in 15 minutes bursts of high power the NPC will try to nullify that tactic, it is part of how reality work. Some thing can be resolved that way ;I the goal is to remove the dangerous wolf population in an area it work perfectly, the wolf will not be capable of realizing what is happening. If the goal is to kill/disable most of the high level characters in a barony to allow a easy invasion attacking one of them each day will have them increasing security by big steps and will probably end badly for the players.
I appreciate how WoW the RPG works in that every arcane and divine caster has a universal list to draw spells from and a special list of spells for the class of their choice.
Arcane:
Mage(elementlist)
Warlock(summoner)
Necromancer
Divine:
Priest(cleric)
Druid
Shaman
They each get some powers to complement their class spells, which makes for thematically interesting casters.
Limited lists make the spells easier to control and you can be a bit more liberal with their granted powers. I'd probably add a few casters to the list, possibly a witch and a seer, more restricted by theme than by school specialization.
|
|
I still have no idea why you have issues with some spells when the top tier spells like fogs spells, grease, sleet storm and various no save, just suck spells seem okay to you. No really, you think color spray is bad? Well played grease spells should be making you cry then. At least color spray has a save. Yeah I can compete with that spell list...only because you failed to see some of the most powerful spells as the most powerful spells. You take those out and no, not really. Like I said...you lack enough system mastery to be dicking around with these things...but don't let that stop you. You have pretty much said you won't listen...so not sure why you feel it important to ask others for their advice if your not gonna listen.
I kind of have to agree, at least partially, with Cold Napalm here. Grease is a reaaaally strong SoS, as is Ray of Exhaustion.
I don't agree on fogs though - while they are great, they're mostly defensive and still require other characters to win the battle. They work for battlefield control, not "save or lose".
I still have no idea why you have issues with some spells when the top tier spells like fogs spells, grease, sleet storm and various no save, just suck spells seem okay to you. No really, you think color spray is bad? Well played grease spells should be making you cry then. At least color spray has a save. Yeah I can compete with that spell list...only because you failed to see some of the most powerful spells as the most powerful spells. You take those out and no, not really. Like I said...you lack enough system mastery to be dicking around with these things...but don't let that stop you. You have pretty much said you won't listen...so not sure why you feel it important to ask others for their advice if your not gonna listen.
I gotta agree here.
I will also add that Color Spray becomes pretty useless after a while. Those fog spells can stay useful for a long time. I am looking at you Stinking Cloud. I also noticed the summon spells are still around.|
|
I'm sure this is just a dead horse I'm beating, but I for one wouldn't play with this rule. The out right ban on spells is unfortunate, but the capricious caveat of -5 to DCs on spells the GM doesn't think are fun. I'm not a fan of telling players how to have fun, nor telling players how to play there characters. The uncertainty factor is the worst, knowing I can build my character only to have success in one encounter lead to penalties in the future, I just couldn't agree to something like that.