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

[kitcik]

I am not a mathematical inclined so I was wondering how often does a fighter miss swinging his sword? If it is 50% to 60% then disrupting spells that often could be a balance but if it is lower then you basically punishing people for playing a spell caster. I would not enjoy a game where every round I had a higher chance of failure than anyone else.

At higher levels when fighters are getting a chance to hit a target more than once and spellcasters are still only doing one spell having that spell disrupted over and over while the fighters are barely missing is not going to be fun. No one wants to feel like they can not contribute to the game.

I would like to add when I played a wizard in 1E magic was more powerful so it was worth losing spells in combat and often starting the game with only 1 hit point and being afraid of house cats.

Yes, the whole argument here is that you "hit" less often than a fighter, but when you do you "hit" with more effectiveness ("save or suck"). If you feel that magic is underpowered in 3E vs 1E, then maybe this route is not for you. Personally, I find magic just as powerful in 3E. OK, Sleep was nerfed, but there are tons of "save or sucks." I doubt a full caster would ever feel they can not contribute, although it would be funny to turn the tables and see it just once...

 

[Elf Witch]

Yes, the whole argument here is that you "hit" less often than a fighter, but when you do you "hit" with more effectiveness ("save or suck"). If you feel that magic is underpowered in 3E vs 1E, then maybe this route is not for you. Personally, I find magic just as powerful in 3E. OK, Sleep was nerfed, but there are tons of "save or sucks." I doubt a full caster would ever feel they can not contribute, although it would be funny to turn the tables and see it just once...

Actually I think the magic system is just fine in 3E which is why it is my game of choice for most games.

If a caster has never been in the situation where they cannot contribute then I blame poor DMing. I have played with a lot of great DMs who really know how to challenge a party.

As I caster I have had to keep going even when I have run out of spells and I had an AC of 12 and I had to defend myself with a rapier.

I have played a caster in a dead magic zone where again my AC was 12 and I was shooting arrows then hiding behind a rock.

I have played a caster who had two mages on me holding their actions so if I tried to cast they would hit me with spells forcing me to abandon my magic and trying to use a bow to take them out.

I played a wizard killed by a monk.

The party was captured once and I went three sessions without my spellbook and had no way to memorize new spells.

So with the right challenges you can really make a mage suffer.

 

[RedTonic]

For us, I already had a few alterations set before I posted here (just for general interest). These are known to the players. Currently, we don't have any arcanists. We have a paladin, a cleric, and a ranger: the full extent of our casters, currently, and the paladin isn't of level for spells.

1. There are no magic shops per se. Magical items, except some potions, are not available on the general market for coin. You have to trade other items, services, or "other" value to obtain that sort of thing.

2. Certain spells like Permanence are basically trade secrets.

3. Offensive magic is not very prevalent and the long arm of the law grasps at folk who take too keen an interest without greasing the proper palms.

4. There are spells the gods don't grant. The players knew coming in that there wouldn't be any raise magic. So far, that doesn't seem to have stifled RP even in the slightest. We've had two straight RP sessions and they play on the pbp, too.

5. Due to the nature of the setting, there are no planar/transdimensional spells available. (Summoning spells are under some alteration to make them still useful.)

I do like Marley's spellbook fix, but I admit, it seems somewhat unfair compared to sorcs and other spontaneous casters. I was considering using the UA variant (I think it was UA) where sorcs etc. needed to bargain with someone/thing else to obtain new spells.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

4. There are spells the gods don't grant. The players knew coming in that there wouldn't be any raise magic. So far, that doesn't seem to have stifled RP even in the slightest. We've had two straight RP sessions and they play on the pbp, too.

not sure how access to raise magic stifles role play. Seems that by taking away raise to incentivize avoiding death inducing events, so avoid it by rp. *shrug*

 

[Elf Witch]

For us, I already had a few alterations set before I posted here (just for general interest). These are known to the players. Currently, we don't have any arcanists. We have a paladin, a cleric, and a ranger: the full extent of our casters, currently, and the paladin isn't of level for spells.

1. There are no magic shops per se. Magical items, except some potions, are not available on the general market for coin. You have to trade other items, services, or "other" value to obtain that sort of thing.

2. Certain spells like Permanence are basically trade secrets.

3. Offensive magic is not very prevalent and the long arm of the law grasps at folk who take too keen an interest without greasing the proper palms.

4. There are spells the gods don't grant. The players knew coming in that there wouldn't be any raise magic. So far, that doesn't seem to have stifled RP even in the slightest. We've had two straight RP sessions and they play on the pbp, too.

5. Due to the nature of the setting, there are no planar/transdimensional spells available. (Summoning spells are under some alteration to make them still useful.)

I do like Marley's spellbook fix, but I admit, it seems somewhat unfair compared to sorcs and other spontaneous casters. I was considering using the UA variant (I think it was UA) where sorcs etc. needed to bargain with someone/thing else to obtain new spells.

If your group is fine with no raise spells than that is great.

Have you been playing long enough for them to get attached to their characters and have you had any deaths?

They might change their minds as the game goes on. It could also depend on often PCs die.

When we played in our low magic campaign there were no raise spells and we all agreed to it. A year later when two characters got killed we changed our minds. The thought of losing our characters that we loved with chance of bringing them back didn't seem very fun.

In that game DM found a way to do it that worked.

I played in another game with no raise dead. It was a pretty gritty game and PC death was common. I started to notice that people stopped putting as much background into their characters and the role playing went down. I think the attitude became why bother really role playing or getting to attached to just have to start over.

I also noticed that we got less daring and more timid. We were not so heroic any longer.

It also got to the point where we stopped even trying to come up with a reason for the new PC to join the party. It really became like the joke from the movie The Gamers. You look trustworthy join us.

But every group is different so your group may not have these issues.

For me I have found that I don't enjoy DnD with out some way to come back from the dead.

Enjoy your game.

 

[RedTonic]

Heh, this is actually the first time we've played a game with an option for any type of resurrection, no matter how remote. I've run standard 3.5e with other groups before, but not this group (mainly consisting of people I've played with for nearly a decade).

 

[RedTonic]

not sure how access to raise magic stifles role play. Seems that by taking away raise to incentivize avoiding death inducing events, so avoid it by rp. *shrug*

Someone mentioned that they thought it would stifle RP, so I brought up our experience. I prefer my players to act more prudently anyway...

 

[Hitman187]

This is more based off people complaining about the caster vs non casters...
Honestly after one session a DM has an idea of what a player can do with his character, and a good DM will design campaigns around that, like someone said earlier anti-caster monks, my personal favorites for higher level games invisible archers that only ready actions to interrupt casters, a melee enemy with a potion of silence, spell resistance, counter casters that use anti-magic field or a wand of dispel magic, all of these really make casters less of gods at higher levels but don't only hurt the caster.
The only cheap thing I have experienced (and by cheap I mean no great thought process involved and not a OMFG that is so awesome you just though of that) is one player in our group when playing a wizard always has a wand of greater invisibility and some form of reusable flight so he can fly around invisble raining hellfire, which has been banned because of its overuse.
Again I understand the original post about limiting/eliminating spells the wizard acquires per level for free but with balancing of casters compared to non casters, what is honestly more fun the role playing of a game or who can meta game the best to break each encounter?

 

[Dandu]

Should I even begin to point out how many rules are trampled upon when someone uses the suggested tactics?

 

[kitcik]

Should I even begin to point out how many rules are trampled upon when someone uses the suggested tactics?

Yes.



EDIT: Ha! I responded before you could edit.