D&D 3E/3.5 3.5e Magical Offenders - Most Overpowered Spells & Fixes

[kitcik]

Has anyone thought that instead of bringing down casters to the level of fighters, to raise fighters to the level of casters?

From what I've heard, (not an expert on the Bo9S) Tome of Battle does this really well.

Well now that you've said that in two threads, I thought I would correct you. As you can see here, while most non-casters are tier 4-5 and Bo9S brings that up to 3, this is not close to the full casters in tier 1.

 

[Hunter99]

If you're looking for a tier 1 fighter, the cleric and the druid fill this role nicely.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you're looking for a tier 1 fighter, the cleric and the druid fill this role nicely.

I have no response to this.

 

[Hunter99]

If you're confused, by this I meant that druid and cleric are tier 1 melee classes as opposed to characters who don't get involved in melee.

Of course they are also considered casters, which they are.

 

[kitcik]

If you're confused, by this I meant that druid and cleric are tier 1 melee classes as opposed to characters who don't get involved in melee.

Of course they are also considered casters, which they are.

So you gave up on nerfing casters, you gave up on improving melee characters, and you have finally landed on: "everyone play a caster, just play them differently."

I don't think that is what the OP is looking for. Of course, you knew that.

I think my new policy will simply be "ignore posts by Hunter99 as if they were not made at all." That will hopefully keep me out of trouble.

As far as nerfing casters, I really think going back to a 1E level of unreliability (i.e. where a large portion of spells which you attempt to cast are interrupted and ruined) is the best way. No "banned list" will ever work to balance the classes, while the possibility of interruption simultaneously makes casters more fragile and melee types more useful.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have found that eliminating the following lines has done wonders at lessening the power level of wizards. (It doesn’t solve the imbalance of Clerics and Druids, however.)



Edit: Apparently the strike-through-text does not work on Enworld; I bolded the parts to strike.

So basically you are saying that wizards get little choice on what spells they get it comes down to DM fiat.

I can't see how playing a wizard would be any fun at all. Unlike the other classes who get to have free choice of their abilities via feats and skills the wizard would be totally dependent on the whims of the DM.

A better way if you feel the need to limit spells is to just create a list of spells allowed in your game.

 

[Elf Witch]

As far as nerfing casters, I really think going back to a 1E level of unreliability (i.e. where a large portion of spells which you attempt to cast are interrupted and ruined) is the best way. No "banned list" will ever work to balance the classes, while the possibility of interruption simultaneously makes casters more fragile and melee types more useful.

You can do that with smart NPCs I do it all the time when I DM. I have my NPC hold actions to either hit the caster with a weapon or a spells as they go to cast. I make good use of counter spelling.

I add in more spell resistance creatures. I use magic items on the NPCs like broach of shielding to help stop magic missiles.

I make good use of mage killing monks who can move get up on the caster and try and grapple them or knock them down.

I would like to add something here you have to be careful if you do it to much and the spellcasters are missing more than they are hitting you end up just frustrating the player and making them have a miserable time.

I don't believe it is good play to punish one player to make another player feel better.

I think you

 

[Dandu]

I make good use of mage killing monks who can move get up on the caster and try and grapple them or knock them down.

Heh. I always find those funny. In a sad kind of way.

 

[kitcik]

I would like to add something here you have to be careful if you do it to much and the spellcasters are missing more than they are hitting you end up just frustrating the player and making them have a miserable time.

I don't believe it is good play to punish one player to make another player feel better.

That has not been my experience. I visualize a spellcaster as performing a complex (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the spell) ritual that results in the warping of normal physics. Interruptions of this ritual waste its use. Completion of the ritual results in a supernormal effect that was worth the risk and is greater than what a non-caster could perform. The balance between the two is the ability to interrupt the caster. This is not a punishment, but a natural balance, without which everyone would want to be a caster (not players, who have RP reasons for doing otherwise - I mean "actual" people in the D&D world --> why carry a sword when I can learn to cast spells with impunity?).

In 1E, at least within our group, spells were interrupted and ruined about 50%-60% of the time. This did not make the casters miserable or feel punished - it motivated them to work with the melee PCs to protect them and gave them an appreciation of the melee PCs which I sometimes find lacking in 3E casters.

However, I admit this would be a difficult mechanic to build in. You would have to nerf Concentration for one thing.

 

[Dandu]

why carry a sword when I can learn to cast spells with impunity?

That's like asking why people drop out of highschool when anyone can graduate from a college.