|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 3:16AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
D&DN isn't enough like 3.5 and I want a module for my overpowered spellcasters or I am gonna throw my toys and rage quit the game.
No I was not being serious. The power levels of spells in 3.5 has often been criticised since around 2001 maybe 2000. Is it somhitn you see as vital to the system or did you like 3rd ed despite the problems the spellcasters caused.
One thing I did otice with them that the power level of the spellcasters was not noticed by the casual players. They thought throwinig a fireball was a great idea even if things like suggestion, haste or fly was a better idea. I often ended my 3rd ed games around level 10 or so due to power creep associated with the spellcaster although this is starting to bleed over into Pathfinder with non spell casters as well. The monsters can't keep up with a fighter using a critical hit build with a falchion let alone spellcasters.
In my current game the setting has the following rules.
1. You can't start as a spellcaster. One has to find a mentor and multicass into them at level 3 XYZ 2/Wizard 1 for example).
2. THe gods are dead/absent. Divine casters also have to find a power source (in addition to 1).
3. Casting level 7+ spells or a spell a bard or duskblade may result in assassins being sent after you if word gets around.
Basically I nerfed the primary spellcaster hard. Bards, duskblades and artificers are the default spellcasters.
How this relaed to D&DN I was wondering how the 3.5 crowd feels about changes to things like the cleric who can no longer stack spells and to thigs like at wills being added to wizards and arcane magic generally being weakened comapred to 3.5. I like the changes to the cleric class and there is a nice 3.5 influence with domains not to worried about wizard power level being nerfed and at wills added as spellcasters were a major dislike of mine in the 3.5 system.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 3:45AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2012
|
You should start a poll. Hit the home button, then blog, then my polls. Create a poll, then copy the html code and edit your first post in this thread and hit the html button, then past the html code into the top of it.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 3:48AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Ummm, kind of fells like an invitation to edition war >.>
That said, I feel that the last go about of playtest mods to the caster was pretty brutal. The stuff that but sounds like it coming down the pipe seems a lot better. I really hate the 'concentration' spells because disruption is pretty easy and it severely limits the use of spells.
I honestly preferred the 3.5 mechanic of only the spell with the best modifier helps (though I wasn't a huge fan of tracking the billion spells that were cast as a result of that). I don't mind spell stacking but really want to avoid bonus stacking (if that makes sense). That said it isn't the worst balance. Like I said tracking all 10 spells your cleric (or wizard for that matter) cast is a bit of a headache. I feel like you do lose a bit of the strategy of knowing your spellbook and cleverly using your spells in combination though when some of those spell become impossible to cast in tandem without multiple characters. For me all of this is balancing complexity and fun more than wanting more power.
I actually really like your 'has to have a teacher' rule for wizards. I try to approach it that way most of the time though I don't require multiclassing usually. I think all and all I prefer the other IC penalities as well.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 3:52AM
#4
|
|
|
Versatility and power are major reasons to play 3.5/PF (and not just play casters). If I want to play a boring game I'll just play [Redacted edition cause it might make some fans cry].
Nerfing D&D is a mistake. The designers shouldn't take options away from players/DMs. Players/DMs should decide that between themselves. Designers should stick to D&D's tradition of power instead of listening to the people who QQ cause they were jealous cause they were noit the most powerful PC in their group. If they listen to those people they'll just get another commercial failure like [Redacted edition cause it might make some fans cry].
République du Plateau, Montréal, Québec
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 3:58AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
I usually ended my 3rd. campaigns before 11 or 12th level so I never really had a problem with over powered casters. But im kinda glad they put a limit on how many buffs one caster can be providing. I also used a crit chart for weapons and some spells that made fighters and whatnot alot deadlier.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 3:58AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Ummm, kind of fells like an invitation to edition war >.>
That said, I feel that the last go about of playtest mods to the caster was pretty brutal. The stuff that but sounds like it coming down the pipe seems a lot better. I really hate the 'concentration' spells because disruption is pretty easy and it severely limits the use of spells.
I honestly preferred the 3.5 mechanic of only the spell with the best modifier helps (though I wasn't a huge fan of tracking the billion spells that were cast as a result of that). I don't mind spell stacking but really want to avoid bonus stacking (if that makes sense). That said it isn't the worst balance. Like I said tracking all 10 spells your cleric (or wizard for that matter) cast is a bit of a headache. I feel like you do lose a bit of the strategy of knowing your spellbook and cleverly using your spells in combination though when some of those spell become impossible to cast in tandem without multiple characters. For me all of this is balancing complexity and fun more than wanting more power.
I actually really like your 'has to have a teacher' rule for wizards. I try to approach it that way most of the time though I don't require multiclassing usually. I think all and all I prefer the other IC penalities as well.
Thats why I specifically directed it at 3.5 fans and how they felt about the current playtest in regards to spells and magic.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 4:02AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
The main thing for me about 3e isn't so much the spell power 'cause I regard anything like that as 100% relative. If the players are rocking out with a lot of crazy spells, I'll just make sure there are monsters that exploit the weaknesses of the party enough to challenge them. I kind of see this as true in any game I play; the only reason I've given so much thought and time over to analyzing the balance in this playtest is because it's a playtest. As for your nerfs... eh. I prefer to balance things on the DM side of things rather than hit players with a nerf bat.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:23AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Your question is a little vague, but if your asking about the general direction, then it is good. Primary spell casters in 3e games took a very good DM to balance out. Fixing the fundamentally broken spells and making the spell casters easier for DMs to handle in the game are good. Different editions mean differences in the game and mechanics, I don't expect any class to play exactly the same.
I will be unhappy if the 5e wizard doesn't play closer to the 3e wizard then the 4e wizard, but I won't rage quit over one class.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:47AM
#9
|
|
|
I've never noticed the whole spellcasters to powerful, boo hoo, thing. At least until I spent time on these boards. The fact that 3.5 had excellent versatility in character creation is why I really like it. Currently my favorite edition, despite flaws.
The only problem I have had with powerful Wizards is that come around the 6th level spells, they just have too many to pick from and I get players, even veteran ones, that have to spend far to long deciding what to pick. Honestly, the biggest problem I've seen a player have with a Wizard was when I gave her all the spells in the PHB from 1st through 5th or 6th, don't exactly remember, as a major story reward. I've never had a problem exploiting types of casters' weaknesses. Especially if they start getting out of control. I don't treat nova casters very kindly. Blow your load in a basic encounter, you may regret it in a following encounter.
This style seems to have cut out the whole 5MWD issue in any of my games. There is no "I blew all my spells on those 6 orcs. We have to rest," whining from casters. And if there is, the group usually lets them learn the hard way not to do that again.
I think I'm off of my original train of thought, but since that derailed apparently I don't remember what that was now.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 10:43AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
I've never noticed the whole spellcasters to powerful, boo hoo, thing. At least until I spent time on these boards.
Agree. Niether have I. I've played alot of games, with alot of different people, over 30+ years. Great games - terrible games, and everything inbetween. And none of that real world xp matches up with ANYTHING close to what the anti-caster crowd goes on about here online.
The only real problem we ever had with casters? Our MUs only getting only 1 spell at 1st lv & 1st lv. clerics not getting any spells until 2nd lv back in the days when we played Basic.
Leads me to believe that they (the anti-caster posters) are to blame for whatever problems they keep having, not the system.
When they can't handle something then they want to remove the option for everyone...
I mean, how do you take this contingant seriously when they'll often complain about the knock spell existing??? Nock - Wish, & whatever else. Seems it's all the same to these people.
|
|
|
