Dandu
First Post
It doesn't have quite the same impact,
Stats scaling past 18/19
- Thread starter kingius
- Start date
"Given the power of spellcasting and such, I'd say any more limits on strength and such would be a very bad nerf to the whole thing. Mundanes are already shafted when it comes to high level play, and you want to screw them even more? "
A couple of points to talk about here.
Limiting buffs would actually help limit spell casters too (you might have missed my later post where I toy with this idea, but the basics of it is that no two bonuses can stack and so the highest gets priority instead). It needs a lot of thought as I'm unsure at this point what other affects to the core game might result from tryign this.
The second point is the myth that seems to have always been around that fighters are not so good at high level. It's time to bust that myth. A fighter with 4 or 5 attacks per round and a +3 strength bonus, armed with a great sword +5, is a wonder to behold. The mage runs out of spells but the fighter pumps out MASSES of damage every single round and never gets tired, never run outs of his multiple attacks and has some pretty good saving throws too. And I'm being fairly conservative in my example with the numbers.
Lastly, I'm not asking this to try and simulate reality or out of some misunderstanding of what fantasy is supposed to be about. Remember, there are as many fantasies as there are people. We've all read fantasy books with high magic and with low magic, with heroes who cannot be stopped and with heroes who struggle against the tide and win their victories against the odds. No one persons approach is wrong or right, better or worse. Some want to play Superman, some think Superman is a bit silly.
A couple of points to talk about here.
Limiting buffs would actually help limit spell casters too (you might have missed my later post where I toy with this idea, but the basics of it is that no two bonuses can stack and so the highest gets priority instead). It needs a lot of thought as I'm unsure at this point what other affects to the core game might result from tryign this.
The second point is the myth that seems to have always been around that fighters are not so good at high level. It's time to bust that myth. A fighter with 4 or 5 attacks per round and a +3 strength bonus, armed with a great sword +5, is a wonder to behold. The mage runs out of spells but the fighter pumps out MASSES of damage every single round and never gets tired, never run outs of his multiple attacks and has some pretty good saving throws too. And I'm being fairly conservative in my example with the numbers.
Lastly, I'm not asking this to try and simulate reality or out of some misunderstanding of what fantasy is supposed to be about. Remember, there are as many fantasies as there are people. We've all read fantasy books with high magic and with low magic, with heroes who cannot be stopped and with heroes who struggle against the tide and win their victories against the odds. No one persons approach is wrong or right, better or worse. Some want to play Superman, some think Superman is a bit silly.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
Limiting buffs will take casters down a little in some areas, but make them more effective in others. If an enemy's defenses are toned down, spells that don't needs the caster to be buffed will quite handily mop the floor with the now-weaker enemy.
If the only benchmark is damage, then fighters might be decent at high levels. There are also builds that can do over 6,000 damage per round, IF they can meet certain requirements such as being able to charge.
Yet that pales in comparison to the fact that casters can literally alter reality with a thought. The fighter might kill dozens or hundreds during a battle, but the wizard can shut down the entire battlefield and barely bat an eyelash. At the time a fighter gets his 4th iterative attack, a cleric can plane shift and challenge gods. A DM might cry foul if a fighter made a 100 point attack against a dragon that he had to spend several feats to get, but a caster can essentially kill one with just one 3rd level spell called Shivering Touch and have no repercussions because of caster power. Which one should be nerfed?
Are you aware of the Tier system? It is basically a measure of the power level of various classes. JaronK's Tier list for classes. is the most recent discussion of that. It basically highlights the nuances of D&D 3.5, most of which are essentially "casters rule."
It would certainly be an interesting thought exercise to nerf stat scaling and buff stacking, but the real problem of 3.X is casters, not the stats themselves. Like I said, mundanes need those stats and buffs to even remotely keep up with well-played casters. Take away those buffs and the casters are laughing even harder at the smoldering pile of a fighter because he simply can't do much against even nerfed caster defenses.
Last edited:
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
A few years ago, I'd have said that the uncapped stat scaling was a good thing. Now I'm not so sure.
My reconsideration has nothing to do with any sort of "realistic" gradient for how well humans (and demihumans) can develop their physical and mental abilities...heck, except for Strength (with the encumbrance rules) and Intelligence (using the old "1 point of INT is equal to 10 points of IQ," though I've heard arguments both for and against that shorthand) there's now way to objectively measure what the ability scores represent anyway.
What's brought me down in regards to unlimited ability score advancement is how it seems to play towards power-creep. I had to really lean on my current gaming group to get them to adopt rolling their ability scores (4d6 drop the lowest) rather than point-buy in our games. The reason I wanted them to change? Because I was tired of seeing every (non-Multiple-Attribute-Dependent) class start out with a 20 in their primary ability score (point-buy an 18, raise to 20 with their +2 racial modifier) at freaking first level.
Yes, this hit them in other stats, but the characters had specialized so well that it often didn't matter. The alchemist with a 20 Int and a 7 Strength was going to stay the heck away from melee to begin with (usually spider climbing onto the ceiling), and it's hard for other characters to used ranged attacks at him when the Strength 20 barbarian (then raging for Strength 24, and later 26) is in their midst dealing obscene amounts of damage.
None of these are unsurmountable problems, and I certainly was able to challenge the party; what I didn't like was that this was the new normal. Characters who started with an 18 in their primary stat were considered "imperfect, but workable," while those with a 16 were as underpowered as anyway was willing to go - anything less was unacceptable.
Admittedly, some of that comes from differing player expectations. I'm of the opinion that heroes start as ordinary folks who rise up to do great things. My players believe that heroes are heroes because they start out "a cut above" the ordinary people.
Even so, however, I think that uncapped stats are part of the issue with higher and higher ability score bonuses - stat-boosting spells and items, ability points every fourth level, inherent bonuses, and on and on. It doesn't help that they're mandated now, thanks to spellcasters needing them for their higher-level spells.
Personally, I'd much prefer to leave the system uncapped (as a closed system means that you need to cover the entire spectrum of power in a finite limit - how much stronger is Tarrasque's Strength of 25 than a storm giant's strength of 24? etc.) and eliminate virtually all stat boosts that aren't racial bonuses or specialized class abilities (e.g. a barbarian's rage).
Capping a system brings it's own problems; I'd much rather do with ways that are used to promote upward-stat-mobility.
My reconsideration has nothing to do with any sort of "realistic" gradient for how well humans (and demihumans) can develop their physical and mental abilities...heck, except for Strength (with the encumbrance rules) and Intelligence (using the old "1 point of INT is equal to 10 points of IQ," though I've heard arguments both for and against that shorthand) there's now way to objectively measure what the ability scores represent anyway.
What's brought me down in regards to unlimited ability score advancement is how it seems to play towards power-creep. I had to really lean on my current gaming group to get them to adopt rolling their ability scores (4d6 drop the lowest) rather than point-buy in our games. The reason I wanted them to change? Because I was tired of seeing every (non-Multiple-Attribute-Dependent) class start out with a 20 in their primary ability score (point-buy an 18, raise to 20 with their +2 racial modifier) at freaking first level.
Yes, this hit them in other stats, but the characters had specialized so well that it often didn't matter. The alchemist with a 20 Int and a 7 Strength was going to stay the heck away from melee to begin with (usually spider climbing onto the ceiling), and it's hard for other characters to used ranged attacks at him when the Strength 20 barbarian (then raging for Strength 24, and later 26) is in their midst dealing obscene amounts of damage.
None of these are unsurmountable problems, and I certainly was able to challenge the party; what I didn't like was that this was the new normal. Characters who started with an 18 in their primary stat were considered "imperfect, but workable," while those with a 16 were as underpowered as anyway was willing to go - anything less was unacceptable.
Admittedly, some of that comes from differing player expectations. I'm of the opinion that heroes start as ordinary folks who rise up to do great things. My players believe that heroes are heroes because they start out "a cut above" the ordinary people.
Even so, however, I think that uncapped stats are part of the issue with higher and higher ability score bonuses - stat-boosting spells and items, ability points every fourth level, inherent bonuses, and on and on. It doesn't help that they're mandated now, thanks to spellcasters needing them for their higher-level spells.
Personally, I'd much prefer to leave the system uncapped (as a closed system means that you need to cover the entire spectrum of power in a finite limit - how much stronger is Tarrasque's Strength of 25 than a storm giant's strength of 24? etc.) and eliminate virtually all stat boosts that aren't racial bonuses or specialized class abilities (e.g. a barbarian's rage).
Capping a system brings it's own problems; I'd much rather do with ways that are used to promote upward-stat-mobility.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Limiting stat scaling is one way to exert some control over spellcasters relative to their opponents' defenses. Take away the wizard's buffed Intelligence and save everyone else's saving throws from being outpaced. The fighter's iron will bonus to his will save gets a lot more mileage when the wizard's intelligence bonus caps at +6 (or so).
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
This assumes the caster is even using spells with saves. I mentioned Shivering Touch specifically because it doesn't have a save, though a fighter had better have a higher touch AC than a dragon. Funny enough, one of the ways dragons have around that spell is one of their own called Scintillating Scales, which might not even work if the nerf to stacking various modifiers went into place.
When one side has ways around a nerf that the other side doesn't, the nerf isn't going to be as effective. Simply put, nerfing various buffs will hurt mundanes a lot more than it will casters and thus further widen the gap between them.
A quick counterpoint here:
"A DM might cry foul if a fighter made a 100 point attack against a dragon that he had to spend several feats to get, but a caster can essentially kill one with just one 3rd level spell called Shivering Touch and have no repercussions because of caster power. Which one should be nerfed?"
Shivering touch affects dexterity. In my 3.5 Rules Compendium it states that a creature with 0 dexterity cannot move, it doesn't actually kill anything. It's also a touch spell; it's extremely risky putting a 5th level wizard toe to toe with a dragon. It is also a spell for a specific campaign and not intended for use outside of it, whereas the Fighter we were discussing works in every campaign. That's not to say that mages are not very powerful; they always have been, but that somehow the fighter is a poor choice at high levels is the myth I'm busting. I've been playing D&D for a very long time, incidentally, and there's something I've noticed... the mages run out of spells, given enough encounters... but the fighter is as effective every single round of every single battle. He's Mr Endurance.
Edit to add some further thoughts: Hold Person paralyses opponents too. Its a devasting spell at low levels that I like my villainous clerics to use. The difference between the two spells being discussed would be a saving throw, but Hold Person works at a distance, wouldn't work on a dragon (of course) and does not requires an attack roll to hit. Later on, there is Hold Monster as well, which is also less risky to use because it works at a distance.
Back on track though, to limit spell casters a bit, perhaps the rule that allows players to choose their own spells on leveling up is at fault. If mages have to find the damn things in dungeons to learn new ones it would be fairly easy to DM police overpowered spells. Does anybody do this?
"A DM might cry foul if a fighter made a 100 point attack against a dragon that he had to spend several feats to get, but a caster can essentially kill one with just one 3rd level spell called Shivering Touch and have no repercussions because of caster power. Which one should be nerfed?"
Shivering touch affects dexterity. In my 3.5 Rules Compendium it states that a creature with 0 dexterity cannot move, it doesn't actually kill anything. It's also a touch spell; it's extremely risky putting a 5th level wizard toe to toe with a dragon. It is also a spell for a specific campaign and not intended for use outside of it, whereas the Fighter we were discussing works in every campaign. That's not to say that mages are not very powerful; they always have been, but that somehow the fighter is a poor choice at high levels is the myth I'm busting. I've been playing D&D for a very long time, incidentally, and there's something I've noticed... the mages run out of spells, given enough encounters... but the fighter is as effective every single round of every single battle. He's Mr Endurance.
Edit to add some further thoughts: Hold Person paralyses opponents too. Its a devasting spell at low levels that I like my villainous clerics to use. The difference between the two spells being discussed would be a saving throw, but Hold Person works at a distance, wouldn't work on a dragon (of course) and does not requires an attack roll to hit. Later on, there is Hold Monster as well, which is also less risky to use because it works at a distance.
Back on track though, to limit spell casters a bit, perhaps the rule that allows players to choose their own spells on leveling up is at fault. If mages have to find the damn things in dungeons to learn new ones it would be fairly easy to DM police overpowered spells. Does anybody do this?
Last edited:
Sekhmet
First Post
[sblock]No one argues that Fighters can't deal damage. The typical argument is that dealing damage isn't that important, and that Fighters can only do that one thing doesn't make them useful.
Fighters are forced to overspecialize in one area (dealing damage or tripping or grappling, typically) and are weak when it comes to anything outside of that specific realm.
Especially considering just the Book of Nine Swords (not even any casters), Fighters are bottom of the barrel when it comes to being useful, right next to the Knight.
Shivering Touch can be delivered at range via Familiar, Spectral Hand, Ocular Spell, etc, etc, etc. Reducing it's Dexterity to 0 allows the Wizard to CDG the Dragon to death at his leisure, with his puny 1d4 dagger. Dealing a large amount of damage doesn't matter when your opponent can't fight back.
If your mages are running out of spells after about level 5, they're doing something terribly wrong. [/sblock]
Last edited:
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
Shivering Touch + Spectral Hand = paralyzed dragon. Paralyzed dragon = helpless dragon = coup de grace on it, which kills it. This is countered if the dragon is psionic or can otherwise take purely mental actions to defend itself (or if it's immune to Cold spells like Whites are), but against most dragons it's quite effective.
Shivering Touch is from Frostburn, which is an environmental book and thus not a specific setting like Eberron is. I don't see how it is setting specific unless one argues the entire campaign is supposed to occur in such terrain, which is far too restrictive. The same is true for all of the environmental books like Cityscape, Dungeonscape, Sandstorm, etc.
Few characters will be effective every single round of every single combat. Got a flying opponent? Unless your fighter has decent ranged capabilities and/or flight, he's pretty well useless. Invisible? Better hope he has some sort of See Invisibility or other good ways to sense the target. That's somewhat unlikely since listen and spot aren't class skills for a fighter, but supposedly the party skillmonkey or caster can cover for that. Of course, a caster is only effective when he has the right spells available, but that can be quite easy to accomplish. And if a caster is running out of spells, he's doing something wrong.
Spells might be limited sometimes, but there are ways around that even. Incantatrixes for instance can make an easy skill check to persist not only their own buffs, but other casters' buffs too regardless of spell level. 24 hour spells tend to help when it comes to saving the slots.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I don't agree with the "Tier list" concept at all. I find that it's the sort of thing that makes for great armchair theorizing but has very little practical application where actual game-play is concerned.
People keep coming up with these incredible combos of spells/magic items/feats/etc. and saying "See? With just a few buttons, you can down any foe? Broken!"
This is a spherical cow of the highest order. It assumes many, many things, and changing just one of them makes the so-called "instant-win combo" fall completely apart.
What if the DM hasn't allowed X supplement (yes, not everyone allows every first-party supplement!)? What if your character hasn't taken it? What if they've already used it and then face another encounter? What if your touch attack fails/check to overcome spell resistance fails/they make their save? What about counterspells? rods of absorption? Illusions? Enemies that ready an action to attack when you do your broken combo?
It's for reasons like this that I just can't get worked up about how fighters are a crippled class because wizards can throw down a solid fog spell with the Invisible Spell metamagic feat on it, and so blind and almost-paralyze every enemy with inherent true seeing. Things like that are touted as rock-solid, when in fact they're as fragile as a snowflake.
People keep coming up with these incredible combos of spells/magic items/feats/etc. and saying "See? With just a few buttons, you can down any foe? Broken!"
This is a spherical cow of the highest order. It assumes many, many things, and changing just one of them makes the so-called "instant-win combo" fall completely apart.
What if the DM hasn't allowed X supplement (yes, not everyone allows every first-party supplement!)? What if your character hasn't taken it? What if they've already used it and then face another encounter? What if your touch attack fails/check to overcome spell resistance fails/they make their save? What about counterspells? rods of absorption? Illusions? Enemies that ready an action to attack when you do your broken combo?
It's for reasons like this that I just can't get worked up about how fighters are a crippled class because wizards can throw down a solid fog spell with the Invisible Spell metamagic feat on it, and so blind and almost-paralyze every enemy with inherent true seeing. Things like that are touted as rock-solid, when in fact they're as fragile as a snowflake.
Similar Threads
