Design Question - Wizards' Spells

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I think the overall expansion in spell lists provided by supplements such as the PHB2 and Spell Compendium would alleviate any concerns about unduly crippling wizards. Obviously if you eliminate entire schools, you need to deal with specialized wizards -- giving up a non-existant school is a very small price to pay.

 

[mmadsen]

I just think that D&D has reached the point where there are so many spells that if you were to remove many of the main ones from the game, there would still be enough spells out there to fulfill the important roles.

Victim's toolbox analogy is spot on, but, as you point out, the more tools in the toolbox, the less you'll miss any one of them.

Incidentally, this works the other way too. Spellcasters grow (slightly) more powerful as more spells are published, even if each individual spell is no more powerful than the previous spells.

 

[arscott]

If your thinking about adding or subtracting tools to a toolbox, you're thinking from the wrong end of the problem. "What abilities do these characters have at their disposal?" is the wrong question to be asking. You need to be asking "What challenges can these characters overcome with the abilities they possess?".

Various characters solve problems in different ways. And sometimes, the DM feels that the characters shouldn't be able to solve those problems. For example, you don't like the fact that the characters can quickly travel across vast distances. But because you focused on the tool (teleportation spells) instead of the challenge, you didn't realize that the tool in question was invaluable in surmounting a different challenge (escaping from grapple).

And just as you can be overlimiting, you can also be overpermissive. Say you didn't like the fact that high-level D&D characters can shrug off a gigantic fall. "Just because that barbarian can take the 15d6 hp damage," you think, "doesn't mean he shouldn't have his head smashed in when he jumps off a hundred and fifty foot cliff." So you might say "instead of taking 1d6 damage per 10 ft. fallen, you take 1d6 for the first 10 feet, 2d6 for the next, and so forth." So that pesky 335 hp barbarian is taking an average of 420 damage for that plummet, instead of a measly 52.

But you don't account for the fact that the monk, ranks in tumble and jump and the slowfall ability, treats that cliff as a 40 foot tumble. The 10d6 damage he takes from that fall doesn't amount to much.

So you need to be saying "should I get rid of characters' ability to travel quickly?" or "should I get rid of their ability to survive falls?" rather than "should I eliminate the teleport spells?" or "should I increase falling damage?".

 

[CharlesRyan]

Spellcasters grow (slightly) more powerful as more spells are published, even if each individual spell is no more powerful than the previous spells.

I think this is a really cogent point, and it's not limited to arcane casters. Are fighters in your game stronger if they have access to every combat feat ever published? Are they weaker if you only allow the feats from the PHB?

Diversity of options is a strength; tightly limiting options creates a weakness. But between the extremes is a huge range in which the flavor of the game might be affected much more dramatically than the power levels of the characters. I think as long as the players understand the restrictions and have a reasonable grasp on their ramifications and your intent, there's a lot you can do that won't really hamstring your casters.

 

[Hussar]

Another option, which would require more work, but would possibly serve you better might be to look at the Tome of Magic. The Shadowcaster makes for a fantastic template for making alternative casters. Start with a theme and then build the new Shadowcaster from there.

I thought that a SC elementalist would be very cool for example. Just a thought.

 

[satori01]

If arcane casters could only cast from, say, Necromancy, Enchantment, and Divination, would they really be WEAKER than their unlimited counterparts, or just different in focus?

They would be weaker, with out a doubt. Being limited to those three schools means a less versatile character. Undead are Immune to Enchantment. Necromancy, while it has some nice spells, has quite a few very specialized spells, and lets face it... a lot of people object for pure taste issues on animating corpses. Clerical Divination spells are more potent and useful than Arcane Divination, and if you look through the supplements, you will find the most neglected school is Divination.

You are also increasing the amount of work a Wizardly or Sorcerous player has to apply to making his character 'effective'. In the example given of no Fireball but there is Lightning Bolt, the quintessential area effect spell is removed. Unlike Computer D&D games, I find monsters rarely queue up in a line. Thus by effect you are encouraging builds with Arcane Thesis Lightning Bolt and the Widen Metamagic feat.

Of course players have to have the knowledge and the time to research, devise, and plan for such contingencies, and conditions. Conditions their warrior counterparts do not have to go through.
Think about removing all Martial Weapons from the game...would a fighter or barbarian be impacted? The answer is yes.

Would it destroy the game. The answer is no, because at it's heart D&D is a shared creative activity, and as long as people buy in it works, but it might hurt someones enjoyment.

I personally love Teleport spells, I love the fact the books like PHB II have more limited Teleport spells like Regroup, or reactive short range Dimension doors. Something about Instantaneous Molecular Transport just tickles me...dont ask me why. So while I would play in a game that did not allow them, some of my enjoyment would be diminished.