Brainstorming on spell fixes

I don't see a lot of need for revised spell progression charts, but I'm totally on board with you on moving spells to their appropriate level.

A 20 level progression has some advantages:
  1. It's more intuitive- I know most of us are used to the levels of spells not matching PC level, but it remains a stumbling block for new players
  2. It gives you more precison when re-leveling spells. A must-have 1st level spell might still be overpowered as a 2nd level spell, but would be just right at third, for example. This also gives more room in the game for lesser/greater versions of spells.
  3. If done right, it may also serve so flatten the slope of the power progression of casters vs non-casters, leading to a bigger "sweet spot."

There may be other advantages, but that's all I have right now.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I could get behind a 20-level progression for spells. The advantages are compelling for me.

Related to spells, the obnoxiousness of the buff-debuff routine makes high-level game play in 3.x nearly onerous enough that many fans of 3e stop campaigns before they ever get to those levels. Even at low levels a dispel magic tossed at a party, or anti-magic brought upon a mid-level party causes far more pain to the players than is necessary. The pain comes from having to recalculate buffs that have been applied to attributes (bulls's strength, enlarge, etc.), AC (protection from evil, haste, enlarge, etc.), attack rolls (heroism, haste, enlarge, etc.), hit points (false life, etc.), saves (haste, etc.) . . . not to mention size modifiers!

IMO, this deserves discussion for potential remedy. Maybe that means reducing the number of characteristics that can be boosted by magic (spells or items). Maybe it means reducing the number of magical means that boost characteristics. Maybe it means revising dispel magic and anti-magic.
 

If people want to hear possible proposed fixes for spells, here's a few fixes I was considering that I wanted some feedback on:

Polymorph[sblock]Polymorph effects change you completely into the target form in every way, such that you simply grab the appropriate monster entry and sub it for your character sheet. Any effects currently active on you are negated while polymorphed, you don't retain any abilities, you are for all intents and purposes the target creature...with two exceptions.

1) You retain your own Int score; this allows polymorphing into animals and mindless critters without needing edge-case rules, and prevents players from turning into high-Int creatures to take advantage of high Knowledge modifiers (not a game-breaker, but something aesthetically undesirable).

2) Any limited-use abilities of the form are unavailable, "limited-use" being defined as any abilities not able to be used every round all day without limitation, such as dragons' 1d4-round-recharge breath weapon, binders' every-5-rounds abilities, monster 3/day SLAs, and so forth.
  • Alter self is a polymorph effect allowing you to change into a creature of your type of 5 HD or fewer.
  • Polymorph works as normal regarding restrictions on the forms able to be assumed, but the HD limit is reduced to 10 HD.
  • Polymorph any object functions as polymorph, except that it additionally allows transmutation of creatures into objects and vice-versa, has a HD limit of 15 HD, and has a duration of 1 hour regardless of the form assumed.
  • Shapechange functions as polymorph, except that there are no limitations on type or composition of forms assumed, the HD limit is raised to 20 HD, the caster can change forms as a swift action, and there is a 1,500 gp material component.

Pros:
  • Ease of use (just pull out the MM and adjust Int-based skill modifiers and you're done)
  • Low abuse potential (most polymorph abuse IME comes from abusing wish or similar SLAs or stacking creature abilities with your own)
Cons:
  • Still vulnerable to bad monster design (adamantine horror, I'm looking at you)
[/sblock]
Summoning/Calling[sblock]Summoning and Calling effects prevent the creature summoned from using any "limited-use" abilities (see the polymorph fix above) instead of just barring their own summoning abilities from use.

Summon monster/nature's ally/etc. spells don't have a fixed list; instead, upon learning a summoning spell, the caster chooses [15-spell level] creatures meeting the spell parameters (outsiders for SM, animals and fey for SNA, etc.) of a CR no higher than [spell level+1] to be his or her list of summoned creatures for that spell. This allows for greater customizability based on a character's "theme" or preferences in exchange for less breadth due to fewer summonable creatures.

When the caster uses the "1 creature of appropriate level" option, the spell requires concentration to maintain, preventing the caster from spamming creatures of equivalent or higher CR to their level at lower spell levels; when the caster uses the "1d3 creatures of a lower level" option, this may be "chained" to summon 1d3 creatures from the level X-2 list, 1d3*1d3 creatures from the X-4 list, 1d3*1d3*1d3 from the X-6 list, etc. rather than simply 1d3 creatures from the level X-1 list, allowing the caster to summon many weaker minions at once (this part is a flavor fix rather than a balance fix).

Pros:
  • Customizability (self-evident)
  • Lower abuse potential (if you're going to spam summoned monsters, they aren't going to be as powerful)
  • More flavorful ("minion master" types get to flood the battlefield with weaker creatures if desired without their turn taking too long)
Cons:
  • Still a time sink (summoning creatures in any way other than simply using summoning as "special effects" à la Final Fantasy or early 4e "summons" will always take extra time on the caster's turn)

Calling spells do not allow the caster any control over the called creature, and any offensive act against the called creature or potentially harmful order by the caster while it is being bargained with or while it is carrying out the agreed-upon service(s), such as debuffing or enchanting the creature or ordering it to fail a save, immediately ends the spell. Also, gate's HD limit is reduced to CL rather than 2*CL.[/sblock]
Skill-Related Spells[sblock]Any spells that outright replace skill checks (knock for Open Lock, discern lies for Sense Motive, invisibility for Hide, etc.) don't automatically succeed; instead, they simply allow the caster to make a Spellcraft check instead of the associated skill check. Any additional effects not directly related to their skill replacement remain (overcoming arcane lock for knock, blocking LoS for invisibility, etc.)

Spells that give ridiculous bonuses to skills (jump, glibness, etc.) instead simply let the subject take 20 on the appropriate skill checks for the duration; they let the subject perform consistently at their best rather than outdoing what they could normally achieve.[/sblock]
On an unrelated note, what does everyone think of the Alexandrian's changes to teleportation and scrying?

IMO, this deserves discussion for potential remedy. Maybe that means reducing the number of characteristics that can be boosted by magic (spells or items). Maybe it means reducing the number of magical means that boost characteristics. Maybe it means revising dispel magic and anti-magic.

While it isn't strictly a spell-related fix, my solution to this might help you with your own fix.

In my games, there are a grand total of 4 bonus types: insight, inherent, enhancement, and circumstance. Any bonuses from races, templates, and permanent magic are considered inherent bonuses; any bonuses from class levels, skills, feats, or other "training"-type sources are insight bonuses; any bonuses from equipment (mundane or magical) or temporary magic are enhancement; any other bonuses are circumstance bonuses.

This means that (among other things) any given attribute is going to have exactly one bonus coming from magic or equipment, the enhancement bonus. If your armor is removed, or your shield is sundered, or your mage armor is dispelled, there's only one bonus to remove, and given that you should only have 3 modifiers to a given attribute (a dwarf's attack bonus against an orc might look like +5 BAB [insight] plus +2 greataxe [enhancement] plus +1 racial bonus vs. orcs [inherent], for instance) calculating the changes should be simple. This also has the added benefits of contracting the range of modifiers in the system, discouraging adding lots of trivial little bonuses, and several other things, but those aren't strictly germane to the discussion.
 

IMO, this deserves discussion for potential remedy. Maybe that means reducing the number of characteristics that can be boosted by magic (spells or items). Maybe it means reducing the number of magical means that boost characteristics. Maybe it means revising dispel magic and anti-magic.

Personally, I haven't seen it to be an issue. One thing that springs to mind, though, is analogous to what goes on with gear: limit the number of boost or debuffs that can be active on any one creature* at any one time. Targeting a creature with a boost or debuff beyond that total results in spell failure.







* in addition to only one boost/debuff of a given type at a time, of course.
 

I don't try to weaken magic by "fixing" powerful spells.

Magic in my view is supposed to be like technology, it is supposed to be more powerful than the mundane, or in the case of technology, than the absence of technology.

My view of magic in D&D is that it is a force that spellcasters master and by shaping this force they produce effects of varying power and they will be more powerful than those who cannot shape this force.

I don't try to weaken magic in my game because the fighters abilities have become obsolete. Just as I would not try to weaken industry because certain pre-industrial groups and practices are made obsolete through industry and technology.

I am not interested in "balancing" magic and non-magic, just as I am not interested in "balancing" technology and the absence of technology.
 
Last edited:

Technology can go to the moon. Overpowered? I'd say so. In need of fixing? No.

If someone said that we should "balance" technology so that it can't go to the moon and that we "fix" many of the more advanced and more powerful technologies you would look at the person like he was insane.

You would not for one second entertain such a thought of "balancing" and "fixing" technology.

The only rule I have about magic is this:

"Wishing won't make it so" that means that I don't allow pun-pun, the ominficer and infinite loops.

I do however allow the concept of magic and fully develop its potential and all of its implications.
 
Last edited:


I am not interested in "balancing" magic and non-magic, just as I am not interested in "balancing" technology and the absence of technology.

Then, why are you posting in this thread? What possible interest could you have in it except telling those people who are interested that they are having (in your opinion) 'badwrongfun'? You are welcome to your views and I hope that they work for you. However, they aren't very constructive in this venue.
 

I do not think they are having badwrongfun, although I would not find it very fun to play in such a game.

As to my post not being constructive, I guess if your focus is fixing spells and not questioning the underlying premises then my post would not be considered constructive.
 

I don't try to weaken magic in my game because the fighters abilities have become obsolete. Just as I would not try to weaken industry because certain pre-industrial groups and practices are made obsolete through industry and technology.

I am not interested in "balancing" magic and non-magic, just as I am not interested in "balancing" technology and the absence of technology.

This is a very, very unsound way to think about things. I mean, by this note, why not give everyone near unlimited power? I mean, you can do anything you want. Why not give everyone God-pistols that shoot IWINs at other people?

It's because we can set limits, including limits on power. We can do anything we want when we're revising, and bringing power down from where its maximum potential is is a very valid option. It is nothing like impacting the real world via your industrial example. After all, this is just an imaginary, creative outlet for us.
 

Remove ads

Top