[3.5] My own attempt at rebalancing casters

[RobbyPants]

Good saves = +(level+stat+2), poor saves = +(level+stat). Monster saves = +(HD+stat).

DCs scale at a rate of one point per two levels or HD. You won't want saves scaling at a 1:1 rate with levels or HD.

[tussock]

Good saves = +(level+stat+2), poor saves = +(level+stat). Monster saves = +(HD+stat).

DCs scale at a rate of one point per two levels or HD. You won't want saves scaling at a 1:1 rate with levels or HD.

Monster DCs are about +1 per +1 CR for the heavier ones. HD rises faster than CR and key stats go up too.

Player's DCs (NPCs, spellcasting monsters) are a touch slower, but not much, and the effects at higher level are nasty things like everyone save or die.

With saves = level or HD, you end up with them about +8 over what they start at vs equal challenges by 20th level (on core stat/save boosts only). Instead of needing 10+ on a strong save and 15+ on a weak one like at 1st level, it's 2+ or 5+. Where it should be when your godlings are facing mass instant death (or worse) on a single save.

Again: if you want to limit spellcasters, you need to stop them instantly winning against major opponents with whatever their best spell is. When everyone's highly resistant to magic the Fighters regain purpose.

[wotmaniac]

Again: if you want to limit spellcasters, you need to stop them instantly winning against major opponents with whatever their best spell is. When everyone's highly resistant to magic the Fighters regain purpose.

As I've said before -- I have no problem compensating for any one thing that might be broken. Hell, I can fairly easily handle 3-4 crazy-ass abilities at a time. Once things go beyond that is where I start having problems. And the problems usually involve either simply forgetting about some of the characters' abilities (because of sheer volume), or there is just too much stuff for which to compensate at a given time (well, at least not without being overly contrived).
As things are, I eventually feel like I'm playing a game of whack-a-mole, and eventually there are simply too many moles for you to be able to whack at a given time.

So, I guess my objective is not to fix a discreet list of broken things; but simply to reduce the amount of whack-a-mole that I have to play. The death by a thousand cuts is ... well .... killing me.

[RobbyPants]

Play lower level?

[...You Lost Me]

Play lower level?

The man has a point. Maybe you should play E6, bro.

Alternatively, you could make 1 level into 3-4 "levels", and as such make yourself feel better.

[wotmaniac]

Maybe you should play E6, bro.

incedently, this is actually what I'm planning for my next game (still in the world-building stages at this point).

However, I would like to go in the exact opposite direction for the game after that -- at which point, I'm probably gonna need a plan for some sort of restructuring. (yes, that's a completely different can o' worms -- but that's a whole other discussion)

Play lower level?

I guess I did say that at the top of the thread, didn't I?

As I have experienced things, reducing the # of win buttons that any particular character can have access to is tantamount to reducing power level(s) of the game. I really don't mind a character having that one thing that is just super-silly (or even 2-3 things) -- it's fun to be able to do some stupid-silly stuff from time to time, and as long as I can account for that, then everything is cool. I do mind when a player dumpster-dives to put every super-silly thing in to his regular repertoire. Just like the concept that no single raindrop is responsible for the flood -- a little bit of rain is good, but you can't determine the exact point where too much is too much. Sure, I could say "only spells from *these* sources"; but (as we all know) that simply doesn't do the trick. I guess I could rewrite/eliminate all the busted bullshit; but that has 3 problems: 1) that's just way too tedious (never mind that I can't possibly get everything) ; 2) turns the game towards padded sumo. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that the game is that binary.
What am I missing here?

[KaNT]

...3 problems: 1) that's just way too tedious (never mind that I can't possibly get everything) ; 2) turns the game towards padded sumo. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that the game is that binary.
What am I missing here?

A number 3?

[Kaelik]

Maybe you should play E6, bro.

incedently, this is actually what I'm planning for my next game (still in the world-building stages at this point).

However, I would like to go in the exact opposite direction for the game after that -- at which point, I'm probably gonna need a plan for some sort of restructuring. (yes, that's a completely different can o' worms -- but that's a whole other discussion)

Play lower level?

I guess I did say that at the top of the thread, didn't I?

As I have experienced things, reducing the # of win buttons that any particular character can have access to is tantamount to reducing power level(s) of the game. I really don't mind a character having that one thing that is just super-silly (or even 2-3 things) -- it's fun to be able to do some stupid-silly stuff from time to time, and as long as I can account for that, then everything is cool. I do mind when a player dumpster-dives to put every super-silly thing in to his regular repertoire. Just like the concept that no single raindrop is responsible for the flood -- a little bit of rain is good, but you can't determine the exact point where too much is too much. Sure, I could say "only spells from *these* sources"; but (as we all know) that simply doesn't do the trick. I guess I could rewrite/eliminate all the busted bullshit; but that has 3 problems: 1) that's just way too tedious (never mind that I can't possibly get everything) ; 2) turns the game towards padded sumo. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that the game is that binary.
What am I missing here?

The more you talk, the more obvious it is that you decided on the one thing that is guaranteed to disappoint you.

Your goals are to limit power to a smaller subset of things, and the way you want to achieve that is by playing at high level in 3.5 D&D with only Wizards/Clerics/Druids.

You have rejected playing at low levels, you have rejected using various Snowscaper style classes, you have rejected using Beguiler style classes. You have rejected every possible means of reducing the number of crazy things that can be done, and instead, you've give Wizards -1 to all DCs, a few fewer spells per day, and a lower Dex modifier.

Because making Wizards MAD is totally going to solve the problem of Stun Ray (Every other no save game winner), Genesis (MM, Rope Trick), Gate (Planar Binding), Shapechange (Polymorph), Wall of Stone (Every other Wall that isn't ass) and various AoE save or win spells being too much for you to handle all at once.

[wotmaniac]

The more you talk, the more obvious it is that you decided on the one thing that is guaranteed to disappoint you.

not necessarily the case. I'm trying to see if I can make a given idea work.
evidently no one here thinks so. and I'm okay with that. No traction = I'll move on.
still looking for input on my various cleric ideas; but whatever -- I'll move on. no harm, no foul.

Your goals are to limit power to a smaller subset of things, and the way you want to achieve that is by playing at high level in 3.5 D&D with only Wizards/Clerics/Druids.

I'm only addressing full casters in this thread. My other ideas for the other classes and other areas of the game are their own thing, and are for other discussions (it'd be a little impractical to try addressing the entire game in just one thread). As things get hammered-out, then I can start consolidating things in to single threads.

You have rejected playing at low levels,

Yet I explicitly stated that this is my plan for the now.
However, I recognize the fact that I'm eventually gonna want to move past the low-level mode of play at some point in the future.
I generally get about 500 hours of table time out of my campaigns, so I've got some time to play around with ideas.

you have rejected using various Snowscaper style classes,

and so has each and every single player that sits my table. If my players were up for it, I might be inclined to reconsider.

you have rejected using Beguiler style classes.

No -- I have explicitly stated that not only had such been considered, but was also still a consideration .... I was just hoping to be able to figure out a less labor-intensive way to accomplish similar results.
While I do have a few reservations, I also understand that there has to be some give-and-take; thus, I'm still open to this being what I go with.

You have rejected every possible means of reducing the number of crazy things that can be done,

no -- I'm just trying to figure out different ways.
unless you're trying to say that "every possible means" has been explored -- which implies that your default position is that there are no more good new ideas to be had. That would certainly be disappointing.

and instead, you've give Wizards -1 to all DCs, a few fewer spells per day, and a lower Dex modifier.

oh, I think I've done a little more than that.

Because making Wizards MAD

has absolutely nothing to do with the meat of my concept. It was an afterthought -- every other non-core caster class does this, so I thought that maybe there might be some merit in following suit.
the fact that you've homed-in on this and continue to hammer it leads me to believe that you're not even paying attention.

is totally going to solve the problem of Stun Ray (Every other no save game winner), Genesis (MM, Rope Trick), Gate (Planar Binding), Shapechange (Polymorph), Wall of Stone (Every other Wall that isn't ass) and various AoE save or win spells being too much for you to handle all at once.

which means that you have misread my point (or at least part of it).
this may be a failing on my part to effectively articulate my thoughts; but I've tried 3 different ways, so I don't know how else to say it.
it may be a failing of the medium, since there has been no such miscommunication when I've explained this to people in person.
it may be that you simply don't care -- which is implied at several points. and that's fine (though it makes me wonder why you still bother).

Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate the input thus far. As a matter of fact, I found your assessment of druids to be quite enlightening.
However, this whole post just seemed like an excuse to imply that I need to simply STFU. Not sure what the point was.

[wotmaniac]

...3 problems: 1) that's just way too tedious (never mind that I can't possibly get everything) ; 2) turns the game towards padded sumo. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that the game is that binary.
What am I missing here?

A number 3?

I forgot, mid-keystroke; and was too lazy to go back and change the "3" to a "2".

[...You Lost Me]

Well, if you'd like assistance, I saw these classes on GitP, and thought they might be of use.

(psionicist) http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211806
(priest) http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189564
(planar mage) http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... p=10461008

One is psionic, the other is divine, the third is arcane. He made the highest level spell 7th, and tossed a bunch of class features in their place. It's basically the Beguiler fix, but maybe it'll help you.

[wotmaniac]

Thanks.

Incidentally, for the last 2-3 years, I've been toying with the idea of capping spell levels at 7 (using the bard progression and then adding 7th-level spells at 19th level). I'm still on the drawing board (as well as the fence) with that one.

I had thought about GitP (given the nature of their homebrew) -- however, I have a visceral hatred for that site.
I guess if I just stay on the homebrew section, and work really hard at going out of my way to avoid the mods, then I should be okay.

[...You Lost Me]

'tis a pity you house such hatred. If you ignore the mods and the people sucking their dicks, it's a nice site.