D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] An experiment to nerf the full casters

[Particle_Man]

Replace Cleric with Healer

Ban Druids

Allow only spells of the school of illusion for Wizards and Sorcerors.

Assuming we are using core classes only (well except for the Healer), would this work to stop the full-casters from dominating high-level play?

 

[Theroc]

It would also serve to make a sorceror far more competitive with the wizard, since the flexibility the Wizard enjoyed would be effectively neutered.

 

[Dandu]

Replace Cleric with Healer

No one wanted to play healbots in 2E. What makes you think people will want to play healbots in 3.5E?

Ban Druids

Sure, go for it.

Allow only spells of the school of illusion for Wizards and Sorcerors.

Because...?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Sorry, but every single one of those is a terrible houserule.

I still remember the last time there was a healer in the party. It was a Final Fantasy 1 game, and the DM strictly defined the class choices (and no multiclassing) -- White Mage had the Healer class features and spell list, but Favored Soul spontaneous casting. The spell list and class features were so atrociously bad and the poor player felt so worthless in combat, to the point she was ready to quit, that literaly the entire group threatened to leave the game if the DM didn't lighten up and give her access to the friggin' cleric spell list.

Horrible class. Proved to me that just "casting spells" in and of itself doesn't make a class fun or powerful.

 

[Dandu]

Why don't you try it this way?

1. Replace Cleric with Favored Soul or Cloistered Cleric. In either case, restrict Divine Power, Righteous Might, etc to the War domain. Ban other problematic spells. Don't allow Divine Metamagic.

2. Replace Druids with the Shapeshifter variant in the PHB2 or the Spirit Shaman.

3. Use the Dread Necromancer/Beguiler/Warmage instead of Sorcerers and Wizards.

 

[HoboGod]

Replace Cleric with Healer

No one wanted to play healbots in 2E. What makes you think people will want to play healbots in 3.5E?

Couldn't be more true.

Ban Druids

I'll admit that druids can be cheesy, but even if you don't want cheese in your games, snatching it away isn't the answer. The fastest way to have disgruntle players is to say "I'm going to choose what you're going to play."

Allow only spells of the school of illusion for Wizards and Sorcerors.

If you have a problem with save-or-die spells, extend their casting times beyond a single round. If you have a problem with metamagic feats making evocation spells unleash massive damage, restrict metamagic feats. Completely gimping an overpowered class isn't going to make them balanced, it's just going to completely gimp them.

Assuming we are using core classes only (well except for the Healer), would this work to stop the full-casters from dominating high-level play?

Be careful where you tread. In your pursuit of stopping full-casters from dominating high-level play, you'll simply ensure that non-casters dominate high-level play. If this is your intention, feel free. If it is not, then I would less extreme measures.

 

[Slife]

You do realize that the school of illusion alone is enough to rip most mundane characters a new one, right?

Aside from the obvious shadowcraft magus abuses ("Oh god! It's realer than I am!"), there are still spells like Illusory Script which are incredibly good. You don't get wall of force, but you do get dark way, which is almost as good. You don't get gate or polymorph, but you have simulacrum and ice assassin, which are no slouches themselves

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you want to weaken mages in high-level play, it's better to slow access to high-level spells than to limit which high-level spells they can take. One book (not remembering which) suggested limiting characters to no more than 1/2 their levels being caster classes, which would seriously limit high-level spell access. You could also change the general progression of spells, or add a more serious cost to spellcasting (hit point damage, ability damage, one game I ran had a finite limit on how many spells a character could ever cast).

Trailblazer has some ideas on limiting casters and (more importantly) adding prowess to high-level warriors.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

One idea I had a little while ago, which on its own doesn't solve matters much, but still just feels good to try and implement is varying save modifers based on spell type. Direct damage with no other effects (fireball, lightning bolt...) get +4 to save DC. Direct damage with minor secondary effects, whether minor in magnitude or duration (Orb spells, Shatterfloor...) get +2 DC. Save or "die" (Finger of Death, Flesh to Stone, Hold Person...) has -4 save DC. Save or suck (Glitterdust, Slow...) has a -2 save DC.

I realize save or die is still an issue even if it becomes a "Johnny needs a nat 1!" crapshoot, and also that the line between die/lose and suck can be blurry and subjective (after having seen melee brutes like bears continue to PUMMEL melee PCs after becoming blind and supposedly helpless, I don't consider that as bad as paralysis, for example). But god it always bothered the hell out of me that the game basically says for the exact same save DC, you can either do full damage with your fireball or win the combat.

If you want to weaken mages in high-level play, it's better to slow access to high-level spells than to limit which high-level spells they can take. One book (not remembering which) suggested limiting characters to no more than 1/2 their levels being caster classes, which would seriously limit high-level spell access. You could also change the general progression of spells, or add a more serious cost to spellcasting (hit point damage, ability damage, one game I ran had a finite limit on how many spells a character could ever cast).

I always liked the 1/2 caster idea, but it's sort of complicated if I were to really add it to a game. I suppose paladins, rangers, hexblades, etc... with 4 spell levels can get a "they're already half casters" pass. But what about Bards? They get up to level 6, and if you nerf them to half the levels ou of Bard, they suddenly suck utterly and royally. But if you let them do Bard to 20, they have the highest level spells in the game now. And some of those high level spells are VERY nice: Greater Dispel Magic (every other sucker's CL 10 max, commence with evil laughter) at 5; Otto's Irresistable Dance (save or lose minus the pesky save part) at 6...

And I'll just assume you ban Sublime Chord, otherwise Bards, ironically, completely break the whole game. Of course, this applies to other casters with similar spell level progressions, like Duskblade. If Duskblade gets full level advancement, I would NEVER play an evoker or sorcerer over one of them.

EDIT: On second thought, a 1/2 CL game basically makes evocation unplayable anyway. 10d6 damage, save for half at level 20? Way to make me into an unoptimized Warlock... You'd probably have to say damage spells do 2d6 per CL (for example) or something just to balance things out.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I always liked the 1/2 caster idea, but it's sort of complicated if I were to really add it to a game. I suppose paladins, rangers, hexblades, etc... with 4 spell levels can get a "they're already half casters" pass. But what about Bards? They get up to level 6, and if you nerf them to half the levels ou of Bard, they suddenly suck utterly and royally. But if you let them do Bard to 20, they have the highest level spells in the game now. And some of those high level spells are VERY nice: Greater Dispel Magic (every other sucker's CL 10 max, commence with evil laughter) at 5; Otto's Irresistable Dance (save or lose minus the pesky save part) at 6...

And I'll just assume you ban Sublime Chord, otherwise Bards, ironically, completely break the whole game. Of course, this applies to other casters with similar spell level progressions, like Duskblade. If Duskblade gets full level advancement, I would NEVER play an evoker or sorcerer over one of them.

EDIT: On second thought, a 1/2 CL game basically makes evocation unplayable anyway. 10d6 damage, save for half at level 20? Way to make me into an unoptimized Warlock... You'd probably have to say damage spells do 2d6 per CL (for example) or something just to balance things out.

Bards already suck.

Obviously this would weaken damage-based casters the most, but that's the point. With the 1/2 level solution, the evokers would be able to do something other than fireball, maybe even pick up a weapon. Spellcasting would be situationally useful, but not obligatory, which is the goal of this kind of rule. I should preface these kinds of suggestions, however, by saying that I've never used these kinds of rules, as I haven't seen the kind of imbalance that would require them (and prefer to give fighters more options rather than casters less).