House rules to keep my "Thieves Guild" campaign from getting out of control

[Azlan]

In this thread, http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153775, I presented my "Thieves Guild" campaign. Our first session for this campaign will be this coming Sunday afternoon.

Someone mentioned to me that maybe D&D 3.5 wasn't ideal for such a campaign. I think maybe that someone is right. However, my players (half of whom are not veteran role-playing gamers) really like D&D 3.5, and they're averse to going out and buying new books for a different role-playing system. So, I'm having to make do with D&D 3.5.

Even so, as I prepared for this campaign I realized I needed to make major changes to D&D 3.5 in order to keep this particular campaign, with its special setting and constraints, from getting out of control.

The first major change I made is to increase the level of certain spells by one. These spells include...

- All locomotion and transportation spells, e.g. Jump, Levitate, Fly, Dimension Door, and the various teleport spells.

- All invisibility spells.

- All spells that change a person's form and/or appearance, including Giant Growth, Disguise Self, Alter Self, and Polymorph.

- All spells that create something useful and permanent, from out of thin air. These spells include Create Water, Create Food, and Minor/Major Creation. (While these spells may seem innocuous, in this campaign they could wreck havoc on the city-state's economy and job market.)

- Fireball

- Charm Person

These spells are too powerful, as is, to allow in a campaign that is entirely contained within a city-state, where interaction with NPC's will be far more common, and confrontations with monsters far less common, than in a typical D&D campaign. By increasing the levels of these spells by one (for example, by increasing Fireball from a 3rd level to a 4th level spell), I make them more difficult to attain.

Magic items that provide powers based on these spells will have their costs increased.

Can you think of any other spells I should do likewise with? What about the various illusion spells, such as Silent Image, Minor/Major Image, and Hallucinatory Terrain? These spells could be very powerful in a city setting.

Also, I'm wanting to discuss here other major changes to D&D 3.5 that I made, or that I should make, in order to keep my "Thieves Guild" campaign from getting out of control.

 

[Azlan]

I want to point this out: In increasing the level by one of so many spells, I don't think I'm making spell casters less powerful in this campaign than they are in a typical D&D campaign. Yes, I'm making these particular spells more difficult to attain; and, yes, if the spell casters in this campaign were somehow transported to, say, the Forgotten Realms, they would be less powerful indeed. But once these spells are attained in this campaign, the players will find them far more useful, with greater application, than these spells are in a typical D&D campaign.

 

[General Barron]

Heh heh heh... I ran into this same dilemma when planning for my upcoming campaign, which, like yours, will not be combat-based, but more skill/thinking based. Suddenly, a 1st lvl spell like 'charm person' becomes incredibly powerful, when dealing mostly with humans. Same goes for basically every other non-combat spell.

I would suggest doing what I did: make magic extremely rare in your setting. DO NOT allow PC's to take spellcasting classes, and make NPC spellcasters rare and powerful.

Simply increasing the levels of game-breaking spells like charm, invis, et al will not solve the problem; it will just delay the inevitable time when the party wizards/clerics become more useful than anyone else, and you as a DM have to stretch further and further to find a reasonable way to challenge the PCs.

Bear in mind you can still give the PC's magic, in the form of magic items, or wands/scrolls/etc (making the use-magic-device skill extremely important). But YOU will be in control of what spells you give them and when, not the PC's. Don't let the PC's buy magic items, however, without your strict approval (limiting it to curatives might be smart).

This is a very simple solution to your problem, which requires no alteration to the existing rules.

 

[Psimancer]

Instead of tweaking specific spells, my suggestion would be to modify all magic across the board (preserving spell versus spell balance) and shift the game in favour of non-spell-casters. My suggestion to achieve this is to increase all spell casting times (by a constant, multiplier or magnitude).

Although it won’t target the spells you have mentioned specifically, it will decrease the number of players taking spell-casters and hence reduce there occurrence.

 

[Azlan]

...my suggestion would be to modify all magic across the board (preserving spell versus spell balance)

Do you realize that, in D&D, spells of a same level are not necessarily balanced with one another? For example, Magic Missile is a more reliable if not more powerful offensive spell than is Burning Hands or Shocking Grasp, thus making Magic Missile the offensive spell of choice for astute players with low level wizards. The designers of D&D 3.0/3.5 have admitted in interviews that they knew this, yet kept it that way because they didn't want to kill too many sacred cows of 1st and 2nd Editions D&D.

So, I don't think my increasing the levels by one of all the spells on my list won't necessarily break any game balance that might have been in place.

 

[Azlan]

I would suggest doing what I did: make magic extremely rare in your setting. DO NOT allow PC's to take spellcasting classes, and make NPC spellcasters rare and powerful.

Can't do that.

For one, the source material that I'm using for this campaign is a city-state that is rich with magic. However, certain magicks that the players take for granted, such as invisibility, fly, and charm person, are not as readily available in this world as they are in a typical D&D world. (This source material is from the out-of-print "Thieves Guild" series, which used its own role-playing system. While I do not have the core rulebooks for that system, I do have all the adventure modules, as well all the material for the city-state itself.)

For another, at least two of the players in this campaign have already expressed a strong interest in being wizard/rogues, and a third player wants to be a bard; and these players have already begun coming up with background stories and personality traits for their characters. So, for me to totally take away those choices from them now would be a crushing blow.

 

[Psimancer]

Do you realize that, in D&D, spells of a same level are not necessarily balanced with one another?

Of course; I’m not saying otherwise.

I’m talking about maintaining the EXISTING balance, whether right or wrong, fair or unfair. By changing select spells, all you do is confuse the players and they will need to go in and re-evaluate EVERYTHING for themselves all over again. By taking a holistic approach to the change, the players can bring their existing (spell) knowledge to bear.

If the only change is a spell-caster vs non-spell-caster one, you can at least cushion the player’s response into accepting your changes; if all you do is go in and change specific spells, the player will see it as arbitrary and prejudicial.

And as for the new players, it will simplify it for them in the long run: a) they can still use the PHB spell section without having to refer to which spells you have altered – they will just need to remember 1 rule; doubled casting times (for example), and b) it’s not going to taint their long term exposure to the game by altering their spell vs spell balance perception (in your game vs another game, Magic Missile is still more powerful than Burning Hands, for example)…

And last but not least; you are making it hard for yourself. Remember the KISS rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid); less changes, simple changes make the game more predictable, rules-wise. More predictable equals player acceptance. Surprise your players with plot, not mechanics.

And your players will find ways to subvert your tactics anyway (it’s just the lot of a DM …). I know what you are trying to do; have wanted to do it myself. Whatever you decide on, good luck and enjoy.

 

[General Barron]

I don't see how increasing casting time would help this situation, unless you turned it into a matter of days, instead of seconds. The problem isn't round-by-round combat, it's the simple fact that a bunch of low-level spells completely outclass pretty much every mundane skill.

Spells are generally infallible, while skills take skill checks. In a campaign where those mundane skills are going to be relied upon heavily, suddenly those spells become game-breaking. Especially if the players are going to have time to plan ahead.

For one, the source material that I'm using for this campaign is a city-state that is rich with magic. However, certain magics that the players take for granted, such as invisibility, fly, and charm person, are not as readily available in this world as they are in a typical D&D world.

Err.. so what kind of magic is this world rich in, exactly? It already seems like you are already discounting a good portion of the spells out there; that is, the ones that make mundane skills obsolete. So what is left? Combat magic, healing, and buffs? If that is the case, perhaps remove the offending schools (alteration, illusion, perhaps others), and basically leave only the spells that this world is rich in.

Like I said before, simply increasing the level of campaign-breaking spells will only delay the problem; not solve it.

Leave the magic to the very rich and very powerful in the city. A bunch of mundane thieves and street urchins who have to compete with that would make for a good campaign. It all depends on your setting, I suppose. If nothing else, just rule that the offending spells/schools do not exist in your world.

For another, at least two of the players in this campaign have already expressed a strong interest in being wizard/rogues, and a third player wants to be a bard; and these players have already begun coming up with background stories and personality traits for their characters. So, for me to totally take away those choices from them now would be a crushing blow.

It wouldn't be a crushing blow if you explained the circumstances, gave them alternatives, and told them why it was for the better. I had a player who really wanted to be a wizard, but I shut him down. Now I'm making a spell-free bard variant for him, and he is completely happy. I'm not sure what exactly those wizard/rouges want to do with their magic that wouldn't break the game, but perhaps let them be rouges who get cantrips instead of trap sense, or a few select low level spells.

You are the DM, not your players. They don't know what kind of adventures you are planning, nor do they have to consider what you have to worry about when making them. So it should be your call what kind of classes you allow in your game, not the players.

 

[Psimancer]

I don't see how increasing casting time would help this situation, unless you turned it into a matter of days, instead of seconds. The problem isn't round-by-round combat, it's the simple fact that a bunch of low-level spells completely outclass pretty much every mundane skill.

All it would do is make the spell-casting option less attractive compared to non-spell-castering ones, but without crippling magic entirely. It wouldn't stop players from taking the spells in question, but it would hopefully decrease the number of PC spell-casters.

The mechanism used, IMHO, should affect all magic, regardless of what it is (increased casting time, increased spell level, caster level checks, etc).

 

[General Barron]

The mechanism used, IMHO, should affect all magic, regardless of what it is (increased casting time, increased spell level, caster level checks, etc).

That would be simplest. That's why my solution is to cank PC magic entirely .