Banning Fly, Improved Invisibility, Dimension Door, and Teleport

[Valesin]

Honestly I'm a bit surprised.

I find the implication that the arcane casters would somehow be completely crippled and broken without these specific spells to be completely absurd. As is the implication that the player is now somehow short changed with their loss as if there aren't 800 other spells they can take, some of which do similar things. I've actually had arcane players thank me for getting rid of some of those spells as they then feel like they are freed to take up things more to their liking.

This is exactly what I was about to write. You could disallow 3/4s of the spells in the game and still have more spells than the PHB. No one has a problem with a DM disallowing non-core spells, but touch the 'core' (i.e., developed when the game was in its infancy and no one really understood how broken/annoying they could be) and people pitch a fit.

In fact, I have had spellcasters ask me to remove spells from the game that they thought were overused/no fun, knowing that if the spells were available and he didn't take them the rest of the party would never shut up about it.

Get rid of those spells if you want. Hell, get rid of about a dozen more. I bet your spellcasters still manage to find useful spells at every level.

 

[charlesatan]

What I'm wondering with this post is if a lack of Fly and Improved Invis will break the game. Does D&D require that a party have the Fly spell? Or can D&D cope with a party that has, say, alter self, or summoned flying mounts, or a person with Leap of the Clouds, and so on?

Again, one of my fears is that it's in the context of the Savage Tide and if the previous adventure paths (Shackled City, Age of Worms) are any indication, it's a pretty tough adventure.

Greater Invisibiltiy I can do away with. It's an extra edge but it's not in the territory of "we've got no Cleric in the party" or "we got no Rogue to search for traps" (but neither is it broken as say, Wraithstrike).

Fly you'll need to do some adjustments. For example, you're fighting a true dragon and he's flying. Spellcasters and ranged attackers are fine. But what happens to your Fighter? Sure, he might pick up a bow too but he's not necessarily optimized for it, either the AC will be too high or his damage will be too paltry -- he'll need to go melee with the flying creature.

Of course if the dragon never flies (or doesn't choose to fly) then that's not an issue. But it's the same scenario you have to run with other flying creatures.

Flying mounts, a carpet of flying, etc. are great for overcoming obstacles but not necessarily efficient in combat (that flying mount better have lots of hit points). Leap of the Clouds helps if it's something like in the city and the opponent is on top of the highest building. Your character can leap until he's on the same level as the opponent. It doesn't help if the opponent is hovering above you (you can get it probably one attack but not the full attack).

 

[Zaruthustran]

Again, good comments. Especially the bit about the weird sanctity of the PHB spells. Got a smile out of that one.

The advantage of the Adventure Path is that all the players know it's an adventure path, and before the first game we all talked openly about how everyone is expected to help keep the party along that path. Everyone understands this isn't a freeform campaign where the players can just up and decide to, say, ditch the Isle of Dread in favor of exploring the north pole. Everyone instead understands that the AP is a bit like improvisational theater: the lines can be adjusted, choices can be made, but all the players are supposed to act in such a way as to further the plot and not get too far off-tangent.

Which means that I know exactly what monsters and obstacles they'll be facing, in what terrain, when. Right now they're in the middle of the second adventure (Bullywug Gambit). I think the AP is a good four or five issues ahead, and I've got all the issues of Dungeon. They're taking about 2 five-hour sessions to get through each adventure, and we play about twice a month. At this rate we'll finish around November or so, given that I'll have to put the game on hold for August due to planning for the Penny Arcade Expo.

At this point I'm comfortable looking ahead, making sure the party isn't screwed due to the choice the arcanist and I have made about those four spells. If it looks like the higher level adventures require one of the spells, I'll have plenty of time--as in, literally months of real-world time--to figure something out.

-z

 

[Legildur]

I personally dislike nerfing core spells, but I understand where you are coming from.

However, I do suspect that you'll inadvertently make the group a little more powerful in direct combat. I say this because the arcanist knows he can't select certain spells, and therefore will likely select more direct damage dealing spells.

However, this is not likely to be a problem given the typically tough combats in these APs.

 

[Piratecat]

What I'm wondering with this post is if a lack of Fly and Improved Invis will break the game. Does D&D require that a party have the Fly spell? Or can D&D cope with a party that has, say, alter self, or summoned flying mounts, or a person with Leap of the Clouds, and so on?

Well, it would break my game, but that's only because I've predicated a ton of adventuring on fast travel. If I changed that DMing style starting at first level, I don't think it would break a thing - and I have no doubt that's true for you, too. The fact that you're closely communicating with your players and checking the adventures means that I have no doubt you'll be fine.

Interesting note: When Sagiro nerfed Flicker's ring of blinking, he didn't have to do so permanently. He had an in-game event (ethereal parasite thingies) scare the hell out of all of us in-character. Even when those parasites no longer were nearby, we've still been extremely hesitant to use it for fear of attracting them. Thus, Sagiro accomplished what he wanted - giving us an extremely effective item that we'd definitely use in an emergency, but which we were cautious about using casually. It was the best of both worlds for him as a DM, and we had no objections as players.

 

[Storyteller01]

Basically, banning is a lazy fix.

Tell that to Iron Kingdoms. No resurrection or true res. Raise dead was boosted to 9th level. Spells that span into other dimensions are also rarer.

 

[werk]

Tell that to Iron Kingdoms. No resurrection or true res. Raise dead was boosted to 9th level. Spells that span into other dimensions are also rarer.

Dear Iron Kingdoms, banning is a lazy fix.

I don't feel that is true in your case, but someone asked me to tell you that.

Thanks,

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Have you thought about giving out extra skill points to make up for the extra emphasis on terrain and skills?

In just about every party there is 1 or 2 characters that had to use INT as their dump stat, and as a result are only getting a couple of skill points every level. The most athletic but stupid fighter in the world isn't going to be able to proficiently jump, swim, and climb.

Having an encounter based around climbing a cliff face is sorta fun and exciting when you are low level and your guys is just starting out...but when CONAN, SLAYER OF MILLIONS is trotting off to dispatch an evil demigod, its just sort of anticlimactic that he drowns in a small river on the way there.

DS

 

[James McMurray]

Dragon Magazine #341 has an article about high level wilderness exploration that might help.

 

[pallandrome]

4. The arcanist (a sorcerer) agrees that those spells are cliche, and okayed the change. I'm a collaborative DM; I'd never impose a restriction without the consent of all players.
-z

This right here is all you needed to say. I'm fully behind ya now.