Anyone tried no offensive spellcasting?

[Quartz]

Has anyone tried a 3E/3.5E campaign where magic cannot directly affect people against their will? So no Fireballs, no Lightning Bolts, not even Magic Missile. Nor Charm Person nor Sleep. But divinations, buffs, and summons are fine.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not sure I see the impetus for doing this, other than as a different flavor to one's campaign.

It's not terribly uncommon for players to do this de facto and either play martial characters and/or support casters. It works fine. It makes certain situations, like large groups of enemies, swarms, and incorporeal enemies more daunting, but in general is no big deal.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure I see the point. Are you going for a world were magic is more subtle than default, or is this an attempt at balance?

In 3.X especially, offensive magic tends to be more balanced and less problematic than divinations, buffs, and summons. And of the offensive magic, fireball and magic missile tended to be balanced and less problematic than the 'save or suck' action stealing debuffs.

I currently have a player whose character is a sorcerer who is only choosing spells with subtle effects for his character, to the extent that many in the party don't know IC that he's a spellcaster.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Has anyone tried a 3E/3.5E campaign where magic cannot directly affect people against their will? So no Fireballs, no Lightning Bolts, not even Magic Missile. Nor Charm Person nor Sleep. But divinations, buffs, and summons are fine.

I don't think that would be much fun for the caster. They're basically being turned into NPCs. It wouldn't suit 3rd Edition balance either.

 

[Quartz]

I'm not sure I see the point. Are you going for a world were magic is more subtle than default, or is this an attempt at balance?

It's mainly a thought experiment, but mostly the former and a smidge of the latter, and harking back to writers such as REH.

 

[Quartz]

I don't think that would be much fun for the caster. They're basically being turned into NPCs.

How so? You've still got Divinations, Summons, Illusions, etc.

It wouldn't suit 3rd Edition balance either.

Well obviously. Spellcasters would be much weaker in fights, of course, so fighter-types would come to the fore, but is that such a bad thing? And spellcasters would still have their areas of expertise.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Well obviously. Spellcasters would be much weaker in fights, of course, so fighter-types would come to the fore, but is that such a bad thing? And spellcasters would still have their areas of expertise.

It's a bad thing at low-levels. High-level spellcasters dominate the game, but low-level casters do not. If you're going to apply a rules fix, it should be a fix.

Also, things like Glitterdust, Hold Monster and Charm Person are part of a wizard's expertise.

 

[fjw70]

I have thought about doing something like this in D&D in general. I would beef up their weapon skills to compensate for the lack of offensive spells. I haven't thought of it as a balancing thing, just as a flavor thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've tried using magic without flipping the bird and grabbing my junk and lolling my tongue out, but with all the curse words that make up the spell's verbal components, I personally find inoffensive spellcasting functionally impossible.

Ya daft badger.

 

[TwoSix]

It's a bad thing at low-levels. High-level spellcasters dominate the game, but low-level casters do not. If you're going to apply a rules fix, it should be a fix.

Also, things like Glitterdust, Hold Monster and Charm Person are part of a wizard's expertise.

It's not a rules fix if it's done purely for flavor.

Although, have just considered removing wizards and sorcerers and using beguilers in their place? Less house-ruling required.