SAVE MY SPELL SLOTS!!!

[Rune]

I agree with your DM--but only as far as primary casters are concerned. Secondary casters have it tough enough, already, but primary casters are already far too powerful at high levels, as it is. Your DM's house rule would curb that slightly.

See, primary casters generally only need one good stat, anyway (which is easy acquire), and they get rewarded for it twice--once through extra spells and again through higher spell DCs.

Take away those bonus spells and they'll still be the most potent characters in the game at higher levels, just slightly less so. Seems a step in the right direction to me.

 

[N'raac]

The main problem is that spellcasters aren't incentivized to max their casting stat, and many will turn to Dex and Con instead, producing an army of oddly athletic wizards.

This is especially an issue for clerics who focus on buffs, healing, etc. and not on spells the enemy saves against. The only reason to buff WIS is to get those bonus spell slots, and to access the highest spell levels. As the GM is changing the ground rules, do you get to reconsider your stat allocation? That seems like a fair compromise. Since you won't have as many spell slots to buff yourself or other party members, you can focus less on a high WIS and more on physical stats.

It means bards and other casters that start with 0 spells known are severely redused in power. I expect the effect on wizards and clerics to be less severe.

Quite true.

As a player, I wouldn't argue against it. I would ask for some kind of compensation, though - something that boosts casters at lowest levels and helps them keep the magical flavor with decreased number of spells available.

Maybe unlimited cantrips (like in Pathfinder), or bonus 1st level slots equal to casting stat modifier, or something similar.

True, although it sounds like the game in question is beyond those low levels anyway. I don't like bonus L1 spells equal to casting modifier - our Sorceror has quite enough Sleep spells at first level already, thanks.

See, primary casters generally only need one good stat, anyway (which is easy acquire), and they get rewarded for it twice--once through extra spells and again through higher spell DCs.

It's also mandatory to access spells - 16 WIS means no L7, 8 or 9 spells.

However, "max one stat at the expense of the other five" relies on some GM leniency as well. High CON is nice for hp and saves. High DEX is nice for AC (less so if you wear heavy armor), initiative, saves and ranged attacks. Dumping STR? Maybe the GM needs to take a closer look at encumbrance - especially if you dumped DEX because you'll wear heavy armor . Low INT? No skill points. One skill maxed (two for a human) is pretty narrow for any character. Low CHA? Make sure the character has to engage in NPC interaction, not hide behind the party face, once in a while. Not so bad if they used some skill points on diplomacy, but your dumped INT and CHA?

 

[N'raac]

When I last played 3E, having reached 13th level my paladin received +1 bab and 7 hps. The Cleric received 3 7th level spells and 8 hps.

OK, tyhat Cleric must have a 24 WIS - what do his other stats look like, compared to the Paladin's? Cleric alaso got a L4 and L2 slot at 13th, to be fair. I assume your INT's are equal, so you each got the same skill points. Paladin's Lay on Hands also went up by CHA modifier. And 13th seems a level chosen (accidentally or intentionally) to be a good level for a spellcaster (new spell level at odd numbers) and not a great one for warrior tyles (common dead level).

Our group has always looked at the party strength more than an individual character. The cleric, especially, tends to use a lot of resources for teammates (that extra L2 spell is a Bull's Strength for the Paladin). In my view, Pathfinder leveled the field better (nothing is perfect) by giving the Paladin a lot more additions than the Cleric - I think the Paladin is a tough one in 3rd, needing 4 stats (STR and CON for combat, not DEX so much due to heavy armor, plus CHA for paladin abilities and some WIS for paladin spells), and having pretty weak special abilities relative to spells or even other classes, though.

But I don't see those bonus spell slots correcting the balance, so we agree there.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Now I know that this not a good idea but for the life of me i can't seem to be able establish a reason why this is so, thus I have turned to you folks to help me in this dilemma. So thank you in advance for any and all help your able to provide me!

Thanks Falleniblis

If I was on your side ( I am not) I would argue for a free reserve feat from complete Mage in its place... My argument would be that his rule incurages 5 min work days

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

OK, tyhat Cleric must have a 24 WIS - what do his other stats look like, compared to the Paladin's? Cleric alaso got a L4 and L2 slot at 13th, to be fair. I assume your INT's are equal, so you each got the same skill points. Paladin's Lay on Hands also went up by CHA modifier. And 13th seems a level chosen (accidentally or intentionally) to be a good level for a spellcaster (new spell level at odd numbers) and not a great one for warrior tyles (common dead level).

The characters had similar stats, i.e. the Pal had a modified 20 something strength too. The stats were on par, no problem there. You're right, at level 13 there was this ridiculously pronounced difference of essentially a dead level (cha to LoHs? puhlease) and a primary spellcaster getting three 7th level spells. Back in 2E 13th level used to be a highly anticipated level for warrior types.

To be honest it was these sorts of developments that resulted in a majority of players losing interest & subsequently ending the campaign. So yes the spellcaster was very very mighty, but so much so that they weren't.

So yeah, to the OP I ask are you really aware of what the DM thinks is (rightly imo) at stake here?

 

[Blackbrrd]

Who cares at higher levels as a full caster in 3e? You are way overpowered anyway and will still be way overpowered after this nerf. Most likely you won't use all of your spells anyway and won't notice the change unless the DM also stops you from resting the whole campaign.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Respond back with "If I have less spells per day, I will need to rest more often and be done with the adventuring day".

If this is not truly the case, then you'll be ok without them.

 

[N'raac]

The characters had similar stats, i.e. the Pal had a modified 20 something strength too. The stats were on par, no problem there. You're right, at level 13 there was this ridiculously pronounced difference of essentially a dead level (cha to LoHs? puhlease) and a primary spellcaster getting three 7th level spells. Back in 2E 13th level used to be a highly anticipated level for warrior types.

While I do perceive the issue, selecting L13 in isolation when it's a dead level for some classes and not others overstates the case. A Paladin with a 24 or 26 CHA sttrikes me as being virtually iincapable of failing a save (+7 or +8 to all saves is pretty spectatular).

To the OP, I think the question of what the GM hopes to accomplish with this change is a good one.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I wouldn't get hung up on the level 13 thing. By about level 9 onwards, every time the primary spell caster gets a new spell level it's just crazy as whoop as. Level 11 was pretty bad but you know, you just suck it up and have faith that relative balance is around the corner.

Nup.

Level 13 - Boom!

I imagine by level 15 & 17 we're just talking over kill

 

[N'raac]

I found the 3.0/3.5 Paladin a bit unerwhelming, actually. Not just compared to spellcasters (that issue exists for most non-spellcaster classes), but compared to other fighting classes as well. I prefer the Pathfinder approach - modification of all classes, with more augmentation of the weaker 3.0/3.5 classes. Comparing the two SRD's, after L10, the Paladin can look forward to three more uses of Remove Disease and two more Smites, plus a few L3 and L4 spells between now and L20 (plus the regular BAB, save and hp, of course, and LoH). Not much compared to L6 through 9 spells.

The Pathfinder paladin can look forward to similar spells, BAB, saves and hp, 3 Smites (which have more abilities and longer durations), 5 more uses and 5d6 more healing per use from Lay on Hands, 3 more conditions that LoH can remove, enhancements to their mount (or bonded weapon), and four Aura special abilities. The Cleric got to trae in Turn Undead for Channel Energy (a healing ability), and lost his proficiency in heavy armor.

To me, that goes a lot further to leveling the playing field than taking away bonus spell slots. So, again, I think the OP and GM (probably the group) need to discuss the objective of stripping away those extra spell slots. If the object is to level the playing field with non-spellcasters, then I think we agree it will not work.