What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?
I agree with all of this. The idea that a druid of any meaningful level would have trouble persuading its bear companion to follow it underwater strikes me as bizarre (a bird might be a different matter - but put it in a cage inside the bag of holding until you actiate an Airy Water zone).
I would expect a druid to be able to get at least as much action out of an animal companion as The Phantom gets out of Devil and Hero, and does any doubt that they'd follow The Phantom underwater if they weren't in danger of drowning?
This 100%. Your class features shouldn't be within the remit of the action resolution rules - rather, they're the resources you as a player draw on to engage the action resolution rules. If using them is going to break the action resolution rules, then take them away from the get go.
The idea that you would balance a class by making it mechanically over-powered, but then saying "when you're in a desert or underwater you have half hit points and get a -5 penalty to all your d20 rolls" strikes me as pretty bad design. Which seems to be what these proposed ways of balancing animal companions amount to.
I can't ait until EnWorld switches to its new server. I have been timing out all day long.
I did not multi quote because I lost that post twice so I am just going to skip that and keep my finger crossed this go through.
I am going to disagree with the entire ides that having access to a big variety of spells is the issue. If you only get two spells every level then any others come from other sources like scrolls then that takes time, gold and a spellcraft check to add them to your spellbook. And I have played enough wizards to know that even with a maxed out spellcraft you can fail the roll and can't add that spell until you level and put another rank on spellcraft. Plus you need to keep track on if you have the room in your spellbook.
It is easier to limit how many spells a day a wizard can cast it dose not matter if you know 100 spells if you can only cast say six. The argument that there is a spell for everything is just plain nonsense in my book of course there is a magical fix for most things the reason they are in the game is to help parties that are lacking that skill. Take knock the spell that is usually used as an example. I in 30 years of playing have never once ever seen this spell abused in a way to stomp all over the rogue. The only time I have seen it used by mages is when the party does not have a rogue to open locks. A wizard who memorizes this spell gives up other better useful spells so why bother when you have a rogue who can pick locks all day long until the cow comes home.
I have heard the argument why would a wizard not get a wand of knock because it is so much better than a rogue ability. If the game was real life and death then that would be true but we are playing a game and as much as I like a lot of realism in the game there are times to have self imposed limits. So a player taking knock and just stepping all over the rogue is being a dick. And the DM is letting him by not saying no and talking to him out of game.
But having a spell like knock allows DMs to have locked doors when there is not a rogue in the party.
Then there is the argument that fighters just point pointy things at people and mages move mountains. Boo Hoo sorry but magic is supposed to be special and powerful and moving mountains seems rather epic level and epic level fighters can mow down most armies. If players want to move mountains then don't play a fighter. A fighter's job is to protect the squishy team members and go toe to toe with big bad ugly things. If you think fighters are unfun to play then make them fun give them more things to do but stop blaming the wizards and magic on that.
The druid argument about the bear and swimming for a prolonged time underwater makes me go huh. I don't care if the druid can talk to the bear it has the intelligence of what 2. It can not grasp complicated explanations like I will make you able to breath underwater bears don't understand that. Instinct guides them and getting them do something they would not normally do is very difficult. Now as a DM I would rule you can't take your bear, wolf , riding dog underwater unless you have spent timing training them to do it.
They trained dogs to swim underwater in scuba gear but it was a step by step process first they had to teach the dog to wear the gear, then to swim with it on and finally it took a while to get the dog underwater they literally had to force it under and where it panicked even though it could breath and headed back to the surface. It took months of training for the dog to swim underneath the water happily.
I don't know where the idea came in that your ability has to always be allowed in the game for every session. It would be simpler to let the bear go and call a water companion. It is not like druid's take penalties for doing this.
It makes sense to me that certain companions would not be allowed in cities at least without precautions because people would be afraid of them also whose to say that all animal companions would want to be in certain environments. As for the companion not attacking fellow party members I put that down to the druids control over it and the fact that the druid would not keep a companion around that got stressed around people. And when I DM I take certain things into consideration like horses have to be handled not to panic around predators like wolves and mountain cats. And it takes a lot for the druid to keep control of the animal around its natural prey. If a druid has a cat companion then a mage with a mouse or rat familiar has to be very careful and on their toes around it.
I absolutely disagree that are not times that you can't take abilities away from the players. There is nothing wrong with having anti magic zones, wild magic zones. zones where healing does not work , Eberron has an entire area that healing does not work in and spells act wonky. There should be things rogues can' sneak attack and times wizards need to figure out what do with a familiar.
This is not bad DMing at all. Some of the best times of play for me was when we were in situations where some or a lot of our abilities had been nerfed or taken away and we had to be creative and work together to make it through. In one game the druid had a snow leopard we knew we were going to have difficulty getting it in past the city guard so the wizard cast shrink to make it smaller so it looked more like a large house cat. Another time invisibility was cast on it.
I did not multi quote because I lost that post twice so I am just going to skip that and keep my finger crossed this go through.
I am going to disagree with the entire ides that having access to a big variety of spells is the issue. If you only get two spells every level then any others come from other sources like scrolls then that takes time, gold and a spellcraft check to add them to your spellbook. And I have played enough wizards to know that even with a maxed out spellcraft you can fail the roll and can't add that spell until you level and put another rank on spellcraft. Plus you need to keep track on if you have the room in your spellbook.
It is easier to limit how many spells a day a wizard can cast it dose not matter if you know 100 spells if you can only cast say six. The argument that there is a spell for everything is just plain nonsense in my book of course there is a magical fix for most things the reason they are in the game is to help parties that are lacking that skill. Take knock the spell that is usually used as an example. I in 30 years of playing have never once ever seen this spell abused in a way to stomp all over the rogue. The only time I have seen it used by mages is when the party does not have a rogue to open locks. A wizard who memorizes this spell gives up other better useful spells so why bother when you have a rogue who can pick locks all day long until the cow comes home.
I have heard the argument why would a wizard not get a wand of knock because it is so much better than a rogue ability. If the game was real life and death then that would be true but we are playing a game and as much as I like a lot of realism in the game there are times to have self imposed limits. So a player taking knock and just stepping all over the rogue is being a dick. And the DM is letting him by not saying no and talking to him out of game.
But having a spell like knock allows DMs to have locked doors when there is not a rogue in the party.
Then there is the argument that fighters just point pointy things at people and mages move mountains. Boo Hoo sorry but magic is supposed to be special and powerful and moving mountains seems rather epic level and epic level fighters can mow down most armies. If players want to move mountains then don't play a fighter. A fighter's job is to protect the squishy team members and go toe to toe with big bad ugly things. If you think fighters are unfun to play then make them fun give them more things to do but stop blaming the wizards and magic on that.
The druid argument about the bear and swimming for a prolonged time underwater makes me go huh. I don't care if the druid can talk to the bear it has the intelligence of what 2. It can not grasp complicated explanations like I will make you able to breath underwater bears don't understand that. Instinct guides them and getting them do something they would not normally do is very difficult. Now as a DM I would rule you can't take your bear, wolf , riding dog underwater unless you have spent timing training them to do it.
They trained dogs to swim underwater in scuba gear but it was a step by step process first they had to teach the dog to wear the gear, then to swim with it on and finally it took a while to get the dog underwater they literally had to force it under and where it panicked even though it could breath and headed back to the surface. It took months of training for the dog to swim underneath the water happily.
I don't know where the idea came in that your ability has to always be allowed in the game for every session. It would be simpler to let the bear go and call a water companion. It is not like druid's take penalties for doing this.
It makes sense to me that certain companions would not be allowed in cities at least without precautions because people would be afraid of them also whose to say that all animal companions would want to be in certain environments. As for the companion not attacking fellow party members I put that down to the druids control over it and the fact that the druid would not keep a companion around that got stressed around people. And when I DM I take certain things into consideration like horses have to be handled not to panic around predators like wolves and mountain cats. And it takes a lot for the druid to keep control of the animal around its natural prey. If a druid has a cat companion then a mage with a mouse or rat familiar has to be very careful and on their toes around it.
I absolutely disagree that are not times that you can't take abilities away from the players. There is nothing wrong with having anti magic zones, wild magic zones. zones where healing does not work , Eberron has an entire area that healing does not work in and spells act wonky. There should be things rogues can' sneak attack and times wizards need to figure out what do with a familiar.
This is not bad DMing at all. Some of the best times of play for me was when we were in situations where some or a lot of our abilities had been nerfed or taken away and we had to be creative and work together to make it through. In one game the druid had a snow leopard we knew we were going to have difficulty getting it in past the city guard so the wizard cast shrink to make it smaller so it looked more like a large house cat. Another time invisibility was cast on it.
I believe [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point was that these two things appear to be in tension. Why does the druid's control override the instinct of eating tasty hobbits and gnomes, but not the instinct of keeping its head above water.
If I may ask, how does it do that in a nutshell?
That is a very easy one most bears don't chose to eat humans that is not their normal prey at all. When you do see attacks on humans it is usually because the bear is sick, has cubs or the humans are in its territory. And when a bear kills because of cubs or territory it does not always eat the human it has mauled.
Why would a well fed bear or any companion animals for that part turn and eat party members that is ludicrous. These animals have a bond with the druid who has nature magic it is not like the druid is just an animal wrangler like say Sigmund and Roy who showed that even wild animals raised in captivity from babies can still be dangerous to their handlers.
The reason I tend to hand wave that aspect away is because of the power of magic. I certainly would not hand wave it away of the party had pet wolves and no druid in it.
Ravellion
serves Gnome Master
First, non-spellcasters are buffed (rogues and fighters most spectacularly). There is a 10 minute rest mechanic that recovers 50% of hit points, but only a select few other resources. This nearly forces the spellcasters to be more frugal with spells. Druids are severely nerfed (no natural spell, no animal companion).
But I am now summarizing a 90 page book in two lines. I really suggest anyone to check it out, as it is something that could easily be "draped" over pathfinder and 3.5 alike, even somewhat modularly.
Well, I did mention the tasty hobbits and gnomes rather than humans. Mmm, bite size! Still, I think the real issue is something else:
I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point is that exactly the same reasoning should explain the bear companion's willingness to stick and keep its head underwater.
If I may ask, are there any other notable fixes Trailblazer made to spellcasting?
I've also heard of a Magic Point thing that all classes get that aids with spellcasting if a spellcaster were to multiclass. Care to give me the skinny of that too?
Sorry, but I am genuinely curious. I don't need exact numbers, just a concept will do.
delericho
Legend
Is the Heal skill not an adequate fallback?
Also, what about the case where the party don't have an appropriate scroll available?
(Basically, I take the view that there will always be cases where the PCs might not have a suitable resource available to save a fellow PC... and that's okay. But if there are any cases where they might not have a suitable resource, I don't see it as unreasonable to require them to have a spell slot available to power a slot.)
(Incidentally, one thing I considered was allowing any caster to burn a spell slot to power any scroll of the same level - thus allowing even the party Wizard to cast that scroll of cure light wounds in extremis. But, of course, only to cast it - they wouldn't get to add the spell to their "known" list!)
I don't disagree with your logic here, but it's not the standard assumption in the DMG, which spells out that even in a smallish settlement it should be possible to find multiple instances of most low-level scrolls.
I decided to risk it.
Fair enough. What about the Cleric and the Druid?
Funnily enough, in my current campaign the Rogue has a magic item infused with the knock spell which he uses to bypass his own skills. And very useful it was too, when I recently put in a riddle-locked door and forgot to put in a solution to the riddle. (Oops! Not my best moment.)
Actually, there's a much better solution to the "locked door and no Rogue" problem - for every door in the place include at least one key!
As for the wider issue with knock, generally speaking I agree. However, as has frequently been said, just because you can house rule an issue away doesn't mean it isn't bad design. Or, in this case, just because table convention can remove an issue doesn't mean it isn't bad design.
The problem is that too often the Wizard gets to move his mountains and then, when the fight against the "big bad ugly things" comes up (to give the Fighters their chance to shine), the Wizard pulls out some save-or-suck spell and renders that challenge meaningless as well.
I don't really want to weigh in on the "bears underwater" argument, but I do agree with the above. Provided it's done occasionally this is fine. What isn't fine is where the DM is constantly looking for ways to negate the abilities of the PCs (or, even worse, one PC in particular).
Last edited:
Similar Threads
