Jimlock
Adventurer
Can't XP yet... So true.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 3E/3.5 3.5e Magical Offenders - Most Overpowered Spells & Fixes
- Thread starter RedTonic
- Start date
Can't XP yet... So true.
I have played in several low magic campaigns and imo DnD really does not lend itself to that style of role playing without some major changes.
Take magic items in a low magic world they are uncommon sounds good right well not if you have any casters in the party. What happens is that casters use their spells to make their character better. Mundane characters without access to magic items still fall behind.
I saw this when I was playing a fighter in a low magic game that also had a paladin. Because I had no access to magic items I could not get my armor class above an 18 the paladin cast a spell on himself that raised his AC higher meaning he took less hits and lasted in combat longer.
He also could make his weapon magical with a simple spell. So often I was standing there unable to really effect certain monsters.
If you are going to play a low magic campaign you are going to need to really scale back magic. One way to do that is to force all casters to multiclass in a non magical class.
Another thing to do is ban certain spells that you feel overpower the classes. Or just ban certain classes.
Another way to scale back magic is change scrolls make them harder and more expensive to make so that casters can't just put all their utility spells on them and save their big spells for casting everyday.
Also if you are scaling back magic you have to be careful with the monsters you throw at the party and the CR threats because a party with limited magic may not be able to handle the monster and are considered a lower level than normal for CR threats.
I honestly don't believe that DMs who are inexperienced should really tinker drastically with the game. Without the experience you may not be able to judge the impact the changes actually have on being able to make the game playable.
One thing to remember about rise dead is that it allows the player to keep playing a character they love without it you may find that the players invest less in the role playing. Or they become timid and paranoid and try to plan everything out as carefully as possible. It can bog the game down.
How I handle raise dead in my campaign is that it is hard to find a cleric who can cast it. If you do it is not free and by that I mean the god who does the raising ask for something from the party or the PC a quest that has to be preformed.
What is easier is to find a druid to cast reincarnation.
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.
There are some ways to make spellcasting harder in combat. Get rid of the five foot step. I housed ruled that in 3.0 and have never looked back.
Get rid of being able to cast defensively that alone makes it harder to get spells off and makes working with the fighters more important.
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.
But it was also frustrating at times when at lower levels you cast your one or two spells and then you hid for the rest of the encounter darting out to pull knocked out party members bodies to safety.
As for the argument why swing a sword instead of doing magic well that is easily answered. Unless you have the intelligence to be a wizard and the discipline to master it then that would eliminate a lot of people.
And unless you have magic running through your blood like say sorcerers then you can't do it.
Jacob Marley
Adventurer
I am going to address your post a little out of order.
Nope, not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is a cost associated with the acquisition of new spells. This cost is paid out of the wizard's portion of the treasure through the acquisition of scrolls and are then scribed into her spellbook. Spells can be acquired by adventuring and finding scrolls or spending gold at a magic item shop. When I stated that a DM has some measure of control on availability I meant that he determines where treasures are placed in a dungeon and where magic items can be bought in cities. This is the same control that the DM already had with respects to non-casters.
The thing is, we do not want to eliminate any spells from the game - that's the point. We can leave every spell in the game.
First, I am not DMing this campaign - I am playing the wizard. I know how fun it is to play under this system. I would not have brought it up here if I did not enjoy it.
Second, I have never found myself wanting for a particular spell. If I need a spell I can just go to Greyhawk and purchase the spell (assuming I have the time and coin for it).
Third, I don't consider a wizard's spell casting to be like a fighter's feat progression. Rather, I think it is closer to a fighter's arms and armor - which the fighter has to pay for out of his share of the treasure. It seemed only fair that the wizard should do the same.
Fourth, when we considered making this change it was done through group consensus. It was discussed and agreed to as the most elegant way to fix what we felt were the problems with the wizard.
Fifth, we have been a gaming group for over ten years now. We are all adults and are mature enough not to be passive-aggressive or go on any power trips. I don't really worry at all about the DM screwing my character over or deciding some spell does not exist based on a whim or a lark.
Sixth, this is not the only rules change we have made over the years. Monks have been given full B.A.B., fighters have had their skill lists opened and their skill points added to. Discussing the wizard alone is taking things a little out of context but it was the solution we found that works best for what we want to do. If people like it and want to try it - so be it. If not, it is no skin off my back. I know that it works well for us.
Seventh, there may be a happy medium somewhere where the wizard acquires one free spell a turn rather than two. Perhaps our solution is more extreme than some gaming groups can handle, but I do think the idea holds merit.
Eighth, Happy Gaming!
Nope, not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is a cost associated with the acquisition of new spells. This cost is paid out of the wizard's portion of the treasure through the acquisition of scrolls and are then scribed into her spellbook. Spells can be acquired by adventuring and finding scrolls or spending gold at a magic item shop. When I stated that a DM has some measure of control on availability I meant that he determines where treasures are placed in a dungeon and where magic items can be bought in cities. This is the same control that the DM already had with respects to non-casters.
The thing is, we do not want to eliminate any spells from the game - that's the point. We can leave every spell in the game.
First, I am not DMing this campaign - I am playing the wizard. I know how fun it is to play under this system. I would not have brought it up here if I did not enjoy it.
Second, I have never found myself wanting for a particular spell. If I need a spell I can just go to Greyhawk and purchase the spell (assuming I have the time and coin for it).
Third, I don't consider a wizard's spell casting to be like a fighter's feat progression. Rather, I think it is closer to a fighter's arms and armor - which the fighter has to pay for out of his share of the treasure. It seemed only fair that the wizard should do the same.
Fourth, when we considered making this change it was done through group consensus. It was discussed and agreed to as the most elegant way to fix what we felt were the problems with the wizard.
Fifth, we have been a gaming group for over ten years now. We are all adults and are mature enough not to be passive-aggressive or go on any power trips. I don't really worry at all about the DM screwing my character over or deciding some spell does not exist based on a whim or a lark.
Sixth, this is not the only rules change we have made over the years. Monks have been given full B.A.B., fighters have had their skill lists opened and their skill points added to. Discussing the wizard alone is taking things a little out of context but it was the solution we found that works best for what we want to do. If people like it and want to try it - so be it. If not, it is no skin off my back. I know that it works well for us.
Seventh, there may be a happy medium somewhere where the wizard acquires one free spell a turn rather than two. Perhaps our solution is more extreme than some gaming groups can handle, but I do think the idea holds merit.
Eighth, Happy Gaming!
I am going to address your post a little out of order.
Nope, not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is a cost associated with the acquisition of new spells. This cost is paid out of the wizard's portion of the treasure through the acquisition of scrolls and are then scribed into her spellbook. Spells can be acquired by adventuring and finding scrolls or spending gold at a magic item shop. When I stated that a DM has some measure of control on availability I meant that he determines where treasures are placed in a dungeon and where magic items can be bought in cities. This is the same control that the DM already had with respects to non-casters.
The thing is, we do not want to eliminate any spells from the game - that's the point. We can leave every spell in the game.
First, I am not DMing this campaign - I am playing the wizard. I know how fun it is to play under this system. I would not have brought it up here if I did not enjoy it.
Second, I have never found myself wanting for a particular spell. If I need a spell I can just go to Greyhawk and purchase the spell (assuming I have the time and coin for it).
Third, I don't consider a wizard's spell casting to be like a fighter's feat progression. Rather, I think it is closer to a fighter's arms and armor - which the fighter has to pay for out of his share of the treasure. It seemed only fair that the wizard should do the same.
Fourth, when we considered making this change it was done through group consensus. It was discussed and agreed to as the most elegant way to fix what we felt were the problems with the wizard.
Fifth, we have been a gaming group for over ten years now. We are all adults and are mature enough not to be passive-aggressive or go on any power trips. I don't really worry at all about the DM screwing my character over or deciding some spell does not exist based on a whim or a lark.
Sixth, this is not the only rules change we have made over the years. Monks have been given full B.A.B., fighters have had their skill lists opened and their skill points added to. Discussing the wizard alone is taking things a little out of context but it was the solution we found that works best for what we want to do. If people like it and want to try it - so be it. If not, it is no skin off my back. I know that it works well for us.
Seventh, there may be a happy medium somewhere where the wizard acquires one free spell a turn rather than two. Perhaps our solution is more extreme than some gaming groups can handle, but I do think the idea holds merit.
Eighth, Happy Gaming!
Thanks for taking the time to explain it. And bravo for finding solutions that work with your group. I personally prefer that approach then changing the basic rule setting to fix issues that groups have.
In my group we have never felt the need to fix wizards unless it was in a low magic game. So for a standard style game we leave it alone.
My issue with your way of doing it is that you are penalizing the wizard treasure wise every time they want a new spell. It does not quite equal the same as a fighter buying weapons and armor he is not doing that every level.
I had an issue with this in a Shadowrun campaign. If you ever played then you know it is expensive both money wise and karma point wise to play a mage or a shaman. I was expected as the party mage to summon and bind elementals for runs. Not only was it deadly fail the rolls and there is a good chance of dying but I had to spend my money for the spell ingredients.
When I complained about how it should be a group expense I was voted down on the argument that the street sams had to buy ammo for their weapons. Though the cost was nowhere near the same and I had to buy ammo as well. I did feel really resentful after awhile about it.
The way you guys play it could lead to the same kind of feelings. If you are not careful. The rest of the party has more treasure to spend on cool things like better weapons, magic items while the wizard is being forced to take treasure and put towards an ability they should normally get for free.
Also the DM in that kind of system can make it hard for the wizard to get spells just by limiting the scrolls found as treasure and the ability to purchase them. It makes it kind of hard to tailor what you want your wizard to be able to do unless the DM really works with the player.
I do have a question do you also do this for sorcerers or are they free to pick their new spells?
One way I think you could make it a little more to my taste is to allow the wizard to pick one spell and then roll for the other one. Or divide spells into categories and only allow one from each category to be picked. Like one blaster spell and one utility spell.
The other issue I have is this just seems to single out wizards. I have seen druids and clerics outshine everyone at the table with their bab, special abilities and spells.
In my group we don't have cross class skills so you have more freedom to design your characters skill set. I found that this works and contrary to people's fears it does not hurt the rogue because he has so many more skill points at creation and level then say a fighter.
Just to make this clear since it is the internet. I don't think your way of doing it is bad or wrong it works for your group and that is what counts.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Some things that can bring melee classes nearer to spellcasting classes.
- An action point system that (among other tricks) gives all characters a bunch to use on bumping saves, rerolling saves, making second chance saves on following rounds.
- Allow classes to recharge their "per day" class abilities after a modest rest, say a few arbitrary minutes (smites, rage, quivering palm, lay on hands, wholeness of body, bard music . . .). The only spells to recharge with this rest would be single target spells with duration of 1 min/level or less, that don't cost XP (divination/commune, raise dead, teleport need not apply). Other spells require the next day as normal.
- After that short rest, all harmful and beneficial spell effects become dispelled (except instantaneous and permanent effects).
- Trailblazer has something called Combat Reactions that add a handful of additional actions characters can do on other characters' turns in addition to Attacks of Opportunity. Including using a reaction to gain a dodge bonus to AC of 1/2 BAB against melee and ranged attacks. Including ranged touch.
- An action point system that (among other tricks) gives all characters a bunch to use on bumping saves, rerolling saves, making second chance saves on following rounds.
- Allow classes to recharge their "per day" class abilities after a modest rest, say a few arbitrary minutes (smites, rage, quivering palm, lay on hands, wholeness of body, bard music . . .). The only spells to recharge with this rest would be single target spells with duration of 1 min/level or less, that don't cost XP (divination/commune, raise dead, teleport need not apply). Other spells require the next day as normal.
- After that short rest, all harmful and beneficial spell effects become dispelled (except instantaneous and permanent effects).
- Trailblazer has something called Combat Reactions that add a handful of additional actions characters can do on other characters' turns in addition to Attacks of Opportunity. Including using a reaction to gain a dodge bonus to AC of 1/2 BAB against melee and ranged attacks. Including ranged touch.
Last edited:
Jacob Marley
Adventurer
No problem! I like these sorts of discussions. They have a way of pointing out other perspectives that we, in our little Ivory Tower, were unable to see. I welcome that.
In regards to 3.5, I play in this group and another that runs things pretty much RAW. I find both very enjoyable and have no problems with the game as is; hence why I qualified my usage of "problem" and "fix" in my previous posts. Both games challenge and entertain me in their own, unique sort of way.
Assuming that the wizard always learns her new spells at her highest spell level the wizard should have 6 (assuming an 18 Int to start) 1st-level spells, 4 spells each of 2nd-8th levels and 8 9th-level spells. Over the course of twenty levels those spells represent roughly 67,850 gold in scrolls and 21,800 gold in ink. By comparison a +5 equivalent sword is roughly 50,000 gold and +5 equivalent armor is 25,000 gold. The difference is the wizard will have to make multiple, smaller purchases while the fighter makes less total purchases but requires larger sums of coin.
The numbers worked out close enough to convince me of how valuable that class feature is.
I am unfamiliar with Shadowrun, but I do see your point.
I agree. And if I did not trust the DM I would not be interested in this sort of house rule. Luckily, I have the privilege of playing with two great DMs!
We have left the sorcerer alone, for now. The one class level delay in spell level in conjunction with the minimal number of spell's known is enough of a deterrent when compared to a wizard.
If you ever find your way to Minnesota and happen upon our group, we would certainly entertain the idea.
Yeah, that's why they're Tier One along with the wizard! I did single out the wizard in my original post as it was a clean fix for us. Just eliminate two sentences from the rulebook and we're done.
With druids we opted for the Shapeshift alternate class feature from the PHB II. It dealt with both the Animal Companion and the Wildshape class features. We did not feel the overall druid's spell list was out of line.
Clerics have been a tougher nut to crack. I admit that we have not found any solution that really appeals to all of us.
We made this same change.
Thanks. I was a bit shocked to see some of the responses at first as the solution has worked so well for what we want. Lots of house rules discussions are really YMMV.
Last edited:
I have to admit I never looked at the cost that way before. When you put it like that I can see your point.
I am all for finding ways to tweak the game for different effects. I like a low magic game down and then and I am the first to admit that mages can really make it hard to play one.
Cutting back on amount of spells wizards get can make a difference.
The only issue I would really have is that last time I played a wizard I kept flubbing my spellcraft check to add new spells from scrolls and had to wait until the next level to do it. I am not sure what you could do with this except maybe house rule that the wizard can add 1 spell without a spellcraft check each level.
That and the DM kept us so busy that I often did not have the time. So the DM would need to make sure there was downtime. Otherwise it might be possible for the wizard to fall behind the rest of the party in power levels.
I am trying something with clerics for a special campaign I want to run. I want to run a Xena/Hercules style game set in ancient Greece but the gods are real and there is some magic and monsters. I have a D20 book that does that but I was not totally happy with it.
For example magic is to powerful so I got rid of most of the classes except for bards and a witch class.
Clerics were my biggest headache I wanted priests and I wanted them to have some magic. So what I am doing is making priests of each gods and they get special abilities and spells based on who there god is. To make there spell list I am picking both divine and arcane spells for example clerics of Aphrodite get the spell charm person.
I have been thinking of doing something similar with DnD Clerics. Your choice of armor, weapons, healing, spells depends on the god you choose to worship.
For example not all clerics will be able to spontaneous heal for example clerics of St Cuthbert would have to actually memorize heals. Clerics of Pelor on the other would get spontaneous healing.
I also want to change druids I never liked them mainly because they seem to be some kind of weird bastardization of a nature cleric and a Celtic druid who were not actually nature worshipers.
I am just not sure yet how I am going to do it.
I may ask questions about a house a rule and may think that it would be a bad RAW rule because it would not work with the majority of groups. But I never tell people you are wrong and that is just terrible.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
