How would you houserule (nerf) magic at high levels.

[billd91]

You used to roll to see how many hit points you gained, at least up to a certain level.

Psst, we still do.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I have no problem with Spider Climb being better than using the Climb skill because it is a limited resource that has 2 costs:

1. It is limited by duration, whereas Climb is not.
2. It has a bigger opportunity cost. If you cast it, you can't cast something else
3. it IS magic, after all.

Re: that last point: I could see it- and many other spells- being rewritten so that instead of it being über right out of the box, its potency varied over time. That could be linear- it gets better as the caster levels up- OR it varies with each casting, with the power of the magic depending on a Spellcraft check.*









* if this were done, Spellcraft would be dependent upon class casting stat for it's bonus, not just Int only.

There's also another limitation.

It's magic.

Dispel Magic and Anti-Magic fields and Magic Dead Zones will put the hurting on that and many other spells.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It is limited by duration, whereas Climb is not.

It's 10 min / level. How long are you climbing?

It has a bigger opportunity cost. If you cast it, you can't cast something else

It's a level 2 spell. A wizard who plays smart leaves spell slots open to refill later in the day as needed. Or they just use a scroll, since that's hardly difficult to make.

It IS magic, after all.

That is an excuse, not a reason.

Eh?

How many people were in Beowulf's party?

I'm really trying to understand the significance of this example and can only come up with none.

Fighters should not require a wizard attached to their hip to do things.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

There's also another limitation.

It's magic.

Dispel Magic and Anti-Magic fields and Magic Dead Zones will put the hurting on that and many other spells.

Things that counter melee: Magic, other melee, archery, sneakiness, etc, etc.

Things that counter archery: Magic, melee, other archery, sneakiness, etc, etc.

Things that counter magic: Other magic. Nothing else.


This is the problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's 10 min / level. How long are you climbing?

That depends on the situation.

It's a level 2 spell. A wizard who plays smart leaves spell slots open to refill later in the day as needed. Or they just use a scroll, since that's hardly difficult to make.

Oddly enough, not every spellcaster makes magic items, even if they get the feat for free.

That is an excuse, not a reason.

Normally, I agree with this sentiment, but in this case, I don't.

Magic breaks all kinds of rules and overwrites them with the will of a sentient being. That Spider Climb is better than Climb because its magic, to me, not the issue- the magic of the Fly spell lets you fly better than you can by flapping your arms, after all. That it may be overpowered by dint of its level may be an issue, but not it innate magical superiority.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Things that counter magic: Other magic. Nothing else.

Failing a Concentration check will counter magic as well, and that can be done by melee or archery as well.

 

[Mort]

I have no problem with Spider Climb being better than using the Climb skill because it is a limited resource that has 2 costs:

1. It is limited by duration, whereas Climb is not.
2. It has a bigger opportunity cost. If you cast it, you can't cast something else
3. it IS magic, after all.

I don't mind the mage doing stuff like knock and climb, but I do mind the ridiculous ease of it. I hate the fact that the mage can knock a door in 6 seconds, faster than the rogue can pick it! I hate the fact that the mage can cast spider climb (again 6 seconds) and can make faces at the rogue from the top of the wall as the rogue struggles to catch up. Yes the mage's resources are limited and the rogue's technically are not. But how many "must pick" locks and/or "must climb" walls is the DM inserting per adventure?

This is why I like rituals. With them, yes the mage can do it, but it takes time, significant resources and sometimes other costs (knock costs a healing surge, meaning the mage might actually be reluctant to use it). This means the rogue (or other guy with good thievery skills) is the goto guy, and the mage is the in a pinch guy (and frankly has better things to do).

 

[Elf Witch]

A lot of a wizard's power is based on the DM. How much downtime does the party get. I play a wizard in an Age of Worms game I am now 5 th level. I have not scribed one scroll because I have not had a break.

I have not found any scrolls or spellbooks to get new spells from. So all I have are the spells I get when I level.

On paper a wizard looks super powerful but that is assuming that the DM is running the game in a way that allows the wizard to make use of his abilities to make scrolls and items and allows them to find extra spells.

Any way I don't think I have much more to say on this subject. I feel that magic should be powerful and it should allow the caster to bend the laws of nature.

I personally have not found wizards to be more powerful than the other classes except for fighters but then I feel every other class is better than the fighter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have no problem with Spider Climb being better than using the Climb skill because it is a limited resource that has 2 costs:
It is limited by duration, whereas Climb is not.
It has a bigger opportunity cost. If you cast it, you can't cast something else

The first problem is partially where you get into the intricacies of "actual play" vs. "theoretical play."

Theoretically the Rogue can climb walls all day, and the wizard can do so once per day for about an hour.

Actually, sessions that involve 10+ climb checks within one hour of game time are tedious on the face of it, and will likely involve at least a few failures, while spellcasters can always supplement their 1/day with various feats and magic items (a wand gives you 50 in 3e. 50!), and they don't risk failure of their abilities.

The wizard should be able to do something wizardly vs. any challenge in the game they encounter, no matter how long the adventuring day is. Not that they always have their nova powers, but they should probably always have at least some low-key effects they can rely on.

The wizard should face failure when they're doing something wizardy that doesn't respond well to wizardyness, such as climbing a wall.

The rogue (or whoever the designated explorer is), by counterpoint, should NOT face failure, and shouldn't have to roll 10d20 to get one of their defining features to work.

it IS magic, after all.

Which is why your warriors need access to pseudo-magical abilities, too. Okay, the rogue can get up that cliff because she IS the rogue, after all, and her skill and practice would let her climb up crumbling ice walls coated in grease. Her climbing grace is nearly supernatural. Perhaps she is the secret daughter of the spider-god.

Re: that last point: I could see it- and many other spells- being rewritten so that instead of it being über right out of the box, its potency varied over time. That could be linear- it gets better as the caster levels up- OR it varies with each casting, with the power of the magic depending on a Spellcraft check.*

* if this were done, Spellcraft would be dependent upon class casting stat for it's bonus, not just Int only.

That's a good first step. You now have spells that scale like skills, with a definite chance of failure. Spider climb doesn't just let you climb walls, it only lets you climb walls with a good enough skill check.

Only, if they all key off of one skill that the mage has training in, you suddenly reach a point where the mage effectively has training in everything the party does. Everyone make climb checks, except the Wizard (Spiderclimb). Everyone make Diplomacy checks, except the Wizard (Charm Person). Everyone make Perception checks, except the Wizard (True Sight). Everyone make attack rolls, except the Wizard (Magic Missile). Everyone make a Heal check, except the Wizard (regeneration). The wizard gets to use one skill for this that he's always at a bonus with.

You could solve this problem by breaking the spells up into different skills, but then you just overlap the skills system that already exists, and raise the question of, well, my Rogue is very charismatic, why can't he try to Charm Person?

You're on the right track, though. Making magic not an auto-success is an important first step toward a more balanced narrative control, especially at high levels.

A lot of a wizard's power is based on the DM. How much downtime does the party get. I play a wizard in an Age of Worms game I am now 5 th level. I have not scribed one scroll because I have not had a break.

I have not found any scrolls or spellbooks to get new spells from. So all I have are the spells I get when I level.

On paper a wizard looks super powerful but that is assuming that the DM is running the game in a way that allows the wizard to make use of his abilities to make scrolls and items and allows them to find extra spells.

That's part of the problem, though. A wizard should not have to depend on a DM's whims and style any more than a rogue does. There's no reason your Age of Worms wizard shouldn't be gaining new spells without requiring the DM to drop them as treasure (or, alternately, no reason the game shouldn't make it automatic that the DM drops them as treasure).

Any way I don't think I have much more to say on this subject. I feel that magic should be powerful and it should allow the caster to bend the laws of nature.

I personally have not found wizards to be more powerful than the other classes except for fighters but then I feel every other class is better than the fighter.

I agree that magic should be powerful and it should allow the caster to bend the laws of nature.

However, I believe that player characters should be powerful, and they should be able to bend the laws of nature.

Or that they should not be powerful, and thus they should not be able to bend the laws of nature (more 4e's response).

Let fighters break reality, too.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Dumb? Gygax didn't think so in his designs.

I'll take "Appeal to Authority for $100, Alex."

There are many things which Gygax included which, in fullness of time, we have decided are no longer fantastic ideas.

This is one of them.

While I was discussing the old rule to model the purely mental process of continuing energies that violate the rules of physics, I'll say that it potentially makes sense in other areas as well.

So apply it there, as well, and, like the 1E and 2E fighter who got stuck with consecutive 1s for his hit point rolls, the "cursed with suck" character will quickly find his or her way into a local character-destroyer, to be replaced in 2-3 minutes with a suspiciously similar character who didn't roll quite so poorly.

The reason why a 3 HP + Con fighter "worked" in early editions is because:

1) Nearly all* character creation decisions were made at the get-go, and the count of those decisions was very low.

2) Because of this, character creation can be accomplished in, as mentioned, 2-3 minutes for anything.

3) Characters didn't have meaningful backstories; "He's Joe IX the Fighter, and he uses a longsword and wears platemail" was the extent of characterization. Therefore, there was no need to fit a character into an ongoing story.

Once any of those things changes, disposable characters - those who fail to roll meaningful hit points, those who don't learn their spells, those never pick up a point of BAB - are no longer appropriate.

* Okay - humans could, somtimes, elect to dual class. Eventually, people got weapon proficiency points every X levels, and the occasional extra NWP.

While we could use such a rule to model the everyday stuff, it doesn't make sense to do so given the abstraction of the system.

This is wiffle-wording of the lowest sort. The magic system is equally as abstracted as the combat system, or the skills system, or the ... system. Any justification for applying this rule would apply equally well to any of them.