A simple fix to balance fighters vs. casters ?

[kitcik]

Well, yes, RAW does state that the DM can make any ruling. I guess under this interpretation, ANY house rule is actually RAW. However, that kind of kills the basis for discussion.

Your entire argument is based on this - that any house rule is RAW because the rules say the DM can do whatever they want.

As I stated, this kills the basis for discussion.

You clearly know this and are trolling.

Therefore, you may blithely respond as frequently as you wish. The point is made. If you choose to ignore reality in your vain attempt to "win," that is your choice. Have at it!

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Some DM's also think a Fighter needs to spend weeks of downtime training to learn his feats. Or that a Rogue who just spent 5 weeks in a desert and leveled up, and wishes to put ranks in swim for their upcoming naval adventure canot because he was "unable to practice swimming" over the last level.

Hurray for DM fiat, the cause of, and solution to, all of gaming's problems!

[sblock]In case you can't tell, I think that's a horrible idea. A DM arbitrarily limiting the wizard in his spell research, not because a spell is deemed overpowered, but merely to give him a hard time in some stupid attempt to "balance" him with the Fighter is awful. I would leave the game. Even if I was the Fighter he was trying to "help."[/sblock]

 

[TheEvil]

Semantics

One could argue that the entire purpose of this thread is to discuss houserule suggestions, but anyhoo...

I would definately suggest that any GM who feels they need to restrict spell acquisition make it clear up front what those restrictions are, since being told on a case by case basis that you can't have something can feel rather arbitrary. Additionally, if you have not approached the problem in a systematic way prior to a player asking for the spell, it is unlikely that you are doing something balancing. Few things feel less fair then an on the fly 'you can't have that' that doesn't have a well thought out explaination. Another problem is that some builds rely on the availability of specific spells or at least don't work well without them, and if you have been building toward something and are told at the last minute that you can't have it, it would be understandably frustrating.

I am currently in a game that heavily restricts what spells a wizard or sorcerer can cast, roughly, all wizards are restricted one of 6 six 'wizard schools', each of is restricted to (roughly) 3 schools of spells plus some universal ones. Sorcerers can only get spells from the PHB except by spending a feat per spell from another source but suffer no school restrictions.

Additionally, Cleric spellcasting is a full round action for all spells that are not healing or domain spells.

The GM has stated that he is doing this to reduce that power of spell casters in the game.

No one at the complains since we know what the rules are ahead of time. No one is playing a arcane spellcaster either.

I was in another game where access to teleportation magic longer range then dimension door was heavily restricted, and acquiring it carried certain risks due to the likely attention of a very power NPC.

He specifically wanted it to take time to travel from place to place as part of the campaign. Never have I gotten so much use out of phantom steed.

Again, this was all fine with the players because it was known ahead of time.

The gist of all of this is that the GM sets the restrictions and the players will respond by playing what they feel will be fun within that framework. That said, there will still be people who play characters that are more powerful then others, it will just change what that is.

 

[Dandu]

Sorcerers can only get spells from the PHB except by spending a feat per spell from another source but suffer no school restrictions.

You know, I can't help but feel there's going to be a slight problem with that rule.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Your entire argument is based on this - that any house rule is RAW because the rules say the DM can do whatever they want.

No, it doesn't. But if that's your way to "win" the argument, more power to you.


A house rule, by definition, is one that deviates from RAW. If RAW does not expressely forbid something, then doing it is not house ruling. Show me a single sentence anywhere in any of the books that require every single spell or magic item be available..in every splatbook.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Some DM's also think a Fighter needs to spend weeks of downtime training to learn his feats. Or that a Rogue who just spent 5 weeks in a desert and leveled up, and wishes to put ranks in swim for their upcoming naval adventure canot because he was "unable to practice swimming" over the last level.

Hurray for DM fiat, the cause of, and solution to, all of gaming's problems!

And you think it makes sense that character who has never put a rank in Swim...has never swam in any adventure, has spent his whole life in the desert, by his own discription...is going to spontaneously learn how to swim?

Hurray for player fiat.

 

[Dandu]

A house rule, by definition, is one that deviates from RAW. If RAW does not expressely forbid something, then doing it is not house ruling.

1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.
2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry.

This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.
-Caelic, the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization

And you think it makes sense that character who has never put a rank in Swim...has never swam in any adventure, has spent his whole life in the desert, by his own discription...is going to spontaneously learn how to swim?

Perhaps he practiced in an oasis.

 

[TheEvil]

You know, I can't help but feel there's going to be a slight problem with that rule.

You noticed I said no one is playing an arcanist, but what specifically did you have in mind?

 

[Dandu]

You noticed I said no one is playing an arcanist, but what specifically did you have in mind?

Allow me to demonstrate.

 

[TheEvil]

Allow me to demonstrate.

Nice build to keep in mind, though the lack of a spell list hampers the analysis. Was there something you were trying to point out besides that being restricted to PHB isn't that bad? Not trying to be snarky, it has just been a long day and my brain is on a bit of auto-pilot.