Effects of banning "flashy" magic

[ARandomGod]

Clerics and Druids also are banned from these schools except that healing is still possible.

Umm.
THAT one is simple, just put the healing schools back into necromancy where they belong. Alternatively you can put them in "universal".

The hype that healing is NOT necromancy is just predjudicial superstition anyway.

I think you're hurting wizards more than clerics and druids (the two strongest classes in DnD). Wizards lose staples like Fireball, Teleport and battlefield control. But druids get to keep it in the form of Entangle. And clerics retain their two mightiest spells - Righteous Might and Harm.

Oh yea, this definitely completely nerfs wizards... unless you manage to come up with a lot of custom spells to cover the gap. Clerics and Druids never were much for those classes of spells anyhow.

Also, I'm not eliminating all their combat spells, just the most direct. Illusion, Enchantment, Necromancy and Trasmutation all have powerful attack spells

But I think you have a point. I've made the classes less sexy (for some types of players), although I'm not necesarily sure they're less powerful. So what do you recomend to correct this? More skillpoints for spellcasters maybe, more feats?

You could increase the power of illusions (without making it "shadow" or partially real, I always dissaproved of that flavor), and it would do a lot to make up for it. The current "power" of illusions is largely up to the GM in question, so you wouldn't even have to increase the overall power level much, just the assumed interpretations. (Like: What does "interacting" mean?)

 

[tarchon]

If flashy magic is banned, only flashers will have magic.

 

[iwatt]

You could increase the power of illusions (without making it "shadow" or partially real, I always dissaproved of that flavor), and it would do a lot to make up for it. The current "power" of illusions is largely up to the GM in question, so you wouldn't even have to increase the overall power level much, just the assumed interpretations. (Like: What does "interacting" mean?)

Actually I already do that. Traditionally in our games illusions have been very powerful. Maybe I should introduce something like the sytem shock of 2e when you failed a will save against an illusion that seemed to be about to kill you. I'd probably add something in the order of a Fort Save with a +4 Bonus to avoid been knocked unconcious (kinda of a watered down Phantasmal killer effect).

By the way, I totally agree on the flavor issues of necromancy/healing. And illusion/shadow just doesn't make sense: "Ok, you're really good at tricking people through the use of light tricks, therfore you're also good at summoning stuff from another plane."

 

[VirgilCaine]

By the way, I totally agree on the flavor issues of necromancy/healing. And illusion/shadow just doesn't make sense: "Ok, you're really good at tricking people through the use of light tricks, therfore you're also good at summoning stuff from another plane."

It's just "shadow-stuff", until the wizard shapes it into a facsimile of something. Thus, the connection between making highly detailed illusions of creatures including heat, sight, sound, and smell, and making a creature that is real on some level, but is still mostly just illusion. Duh.

 

[Ze]

Still, the whole banning of almost half the Transmutation school scares me a bit. So what do I give the wizard?

1) An extra spell per level above and beyond the one they gain from specializing?

2) More skill points? better skill list as well (adding social skills)?

3)something else?

Yes, more skill points, it would go well with the flavor you're giving to your campaign.
And consider allowing them some sort of "double specialization" - specializing in two schools at the same time, getting 1 extra spell each...

 

[Celebrim]

Evocation is one of the weakest schools in magic in 3.0 edition. By banning evocation/conjuration magic you are in no way hindering arcane spell casters. I'd much rather be a Transmuter, Enchanter, Illusionist, or Necromancer anyway.

And since when are Illusions not flashy?

Unlike 1st edition, where the flashy magic was the good stuff, in third edition too many opponents have energy resistance and almost all of your opponents of your CR have high ammounts of hitpoints relative to evocation's ability to do damage. Plus you have things like Evasion that just make Reflex save spells alot less important.

Fireball is just not uber the way it used to be.

If you go around banning all the 'flashy' stuff, you're just going to make Enchanters or Necromancers more and more uber, or if you nerf them then you are going to make Transmuter Buffers into the uber class. All three types are more powerful than evocation specialists built using the SRD already, so what's the point in reducing the impact of magic in the campaign by banning the weak stuff?

If you want to make magic more subtle in your campaign, you'll have to invent a whole new spell list and dozens of sutably subtle spells with longer term payback, or wider areas of effect, but less raw power. High level spells will have to become more and more broad in effect rather than deep - essentially accumulating the effects of alot of lower level spells. You can't go about it buy just knocking out spells with highly visible effects, because what makes a spell powerful isn't its visibility but its capacity to disable an enemy, overcome obstacles, or improve the damage output or survivability of the party tanks.

 

[iwatt]

And since when are Illusions not flashy?

Yeah, well... In hindsight I should have chosen a more appropriate word.

I agree with you that evokers are less powerful than other wizard specialists. But they'er still extremely popular with people. There something very fun about making things go boom Personally, after having played an artillery mage once, I now play Ilussionists and Summoners instead.

But for my campaign I wanted to make creation/evoking a no-no. As a flavor thing. And make summoning something more ritual based than a tactical option.

 

[diaglo]

what about Light?

simple spells involving providing the means to see in the dark. or even create the dark now in 3.11ed for WOrkgroups.

 

[iwatt]

what about Light?

simple spells involving providing the means to see in the dark. or even create the dark now in 3.11ed for WOrkgroups.

Light....... ..... Illusion

 

[Celebrim]

By the way, I totally agree on the flavor issues of necromancy/healing. And illusion/shadow just doesn't make sense: Ok, you're really good at tricking people through the use of light tricks, therfore you're also good at summoning stuff from another plane."

In my campaign world, Illusions are made up of dream stuff summoned from the Dreamworld. An illusion is not completely unreal, or else you couldn't see it or hear it or anything else. It's just mostly unreal. 'Shadowstuff' is merely Dreamstuff with a greater degree of reality in it, and hense when shaped takes on a more solid form.

Just as occasionally, when you summon up a fire elemental and something goes wrong you accidently let something like a Fire Bat or Mephit through the portal with it, occassionally when you conjure up an illusion and something goes wrong you bring a nightmare or other rogue dream fragment into the world with your illusion.

At present, there is no practical game effect of this flavor, but its there in case I ever want to have the player's come upon the scene of some poor illusionist who muffed an arcane spell check or who was researching a new spell and fumbled the spellcraft check or whatever.