The Gaming Den

preface:
Pretty much every attempt I've seen that aims at rebalancing the classes tends to use wizards (or other full casters) as the standard to which to elevate everyone else. I, however, feel that this way lies folly; I feel that the overall balance point should probably be set a bit lower (it's really just a matter of personal preference, but whatever). Basically, I’d like to make things a little easier on the DM. With this in mind, I present the following.
Okay, so I've pitched this idea elsewhere, but I've decided to see what you guys can do with this (keep in mind that I do realize that none of this is meant to exist in a vacuum or to be an end-all-be-all – some spells need to be written, other classes need some adjustment, etc. ; also, my focus is on core classes -- the stuff of splat books can be dealt with another time). Also keep in mind that I typically prefer to manipulate things within the existing system, as opposed to developing all new systems. I guess what I'm really looking for is how do the proposed changes mesh with the existing 3.5 system:

First, the analysis of the elements that allow casters to wreak so much havoc:
- busted spells/unintended use of spells -- while the worst offenders can (and should) be rewritten, it is simply impossible (or at least impractical) to filter through all the possible spell combinations to see what all can be done that was unintended. If you find something unexpected that completely shatters the basic game expectations, then you get to do it once -- after that, we'll have to slap in a patch.
- versatility and variability -within the same character- is what really boosts wizards, clerics, and (to a lesser degree) druids.

So, my conceptualization of "fixing" casters involves a multi-pronged approach.
First, the general stuff:
all primary casters = dual-stat casting. It seems to work well enough for many of the non-core casters; so why not for the core casters?
- CHA = DC and spells/day
- highest spell known:
-- arcane = INT
-- divine = WIS
Obviously, this requires a rewrite of some of the fluff, but this is (to me, at least) a non-issue and is easily dealt with.
Now, I understand the typical argument(s) against dual-stat casting; however, in my experience, most of these seem to ring (at least a little) hollow. Yes, they are still able to do their broken stuff -- however, it's been my experience that if you can limit the # of times that broken stuff can be done, then the player will tend to hesitate to pull the trigger on it (besides, I’ll be re-writing the worst offending spells). This limitation also forces more use of lower-level spells -- which means that the martial characters don't always have to be left feeling quite so small in the pants. Again, this is based on my own actual experiences.

Next, the classes:
Cleric:
This is the one with which I've struggled the most (and as such, the one with which I'm the most open for new ideas). The only big thing that I've come to is to restrict them to using some sort of "prayer book". The implementation of dual-stat casting does necessarily boost # of turn attempts, but a simple rewrite of the DMM feat fixes any problems that this may cause (btw, this is a rewrite I did as soon as that feat was published, so I probably won't notice a difference).
I’m also considering putting him on a similar matrix as the one that I’m proposing for the wizard (below).

Druid:
I really like the shapeshift variant in PHB2 -- and I mean really. So much so that I'm not entirely convinced that dual-stat casting is even necessary to tone it down any more.

Sorcerer:
This class upsets me. Not in and of itself (mechanically speaking); but when you combine the existence of the wizard and the dissociation of the sorcerer’s crunch-fluff, it almost makes me want to just scrap this thing,
However, I’ve decided to give him the Versatile Spellcaster feat for free.

Wizards:
Ah, the King of Classes. Fuck this guy.
Okay, much discussion has been had about the major difference between how casters and martials gain new abilities. If a 12th level wizard wants to add a new ability, he just chooses a new level-appropriate ability; however, if a fighter wants a new shtick, he has to start over with taking a 1st-level ability (I do have some minor contention with this assessment, but it’s not significant enough to warrant further debate). While this is a no-brainer, and has been beaten in to the ground, I mention it so as to provide some context for the following:
School-levels:
There are (if you count “universal”) 81 “school-levels” (well, 90 if you count 0-level spells; but those will be handled differently, so they to don’t get figured in to the equation). School-level nomenclature is nothing more than joining the name of the spell school with the spell level in question; e.g., “transmutation-2”, “necromancy-8”, etc. While it may initially seem silly to point this out, I do so because it is this nomenclature that has become the base of the new class design.
So, wizards are specialists – if you want to be a generalist, go play a sorcerer. Like standard, you choose a specialty school at character creation, and gain the standard benefits for that school. Also like normal, you start with access and knowledge of all 0-level spells. However, unlike standard, you don’t have any restricted schools.
At first level, you start with access to 1st-level spells from your specialty school and “universal”; and access to these 2 automatically increase at every odd level (capping at 9th-level spells at 17th level). At every level (starting at level 1), you also get 2 school-level slots; and these slots are used to purchase access to school-levels.
All school-levels have a prerequisite – must have access to the previous associated school-level. For example, you can’t buy necro-5 unless you already have necro-4, which you can’t have unless you have necro-3, etc.
For example: a 1st-level illusionist could use his school-level slots to get access to trans-1 and necro-1 – at which point, he would have access universal-1, illus-1, trans-1, and necro-1 from which to draw spells for scribing in his spell book. At level 2, he could then add abjuration-1 and conjuration-1. At 3rd level, he automatically gains universal-2 and illus-2, and could use his other 2 slots to either pick-up enchantment-1 and evocation-1, or he could get abjuration-2 and necro-2; or whatever.
At 20th level, this character would have a total of 58 school-levels, and the 2 extremes of school-level customization would look like this:
1) he would have 9th level spells for 6 schools, 4th level spells in a 7th, and only 0-level spells in the last 2 – this is really just kinda the half-way point between “specialist” and “focus specialist” in the official literature.
2) 9th level spells in universal and his specialist school, 6th level spells in 5 other schools, and 5th level spells in the remaining 2.
Making power and versatility have a direct inverse relationship.

It’s a work in progress.


Much feedback is encouraged.
Thanks.

While it's obvious that you've put some real thought into this and your goals are laudable - I'm gonna rate this "failure at first premises."

It's more work and less effective at achieving balance than just writing entirely new classes. The concept of school-levels is presupposed on the idea that schools are somehow balanced or thematic - which they really aren't. (examples of how not inside spoiler).

For balance Daze Monster is a 2nd level Enchantment, of which there are 3 - compare to Hypnotic Pattern, a 2nd level Illusion, of which there are 7. Both are medium range mind-affecting action denial spells. One is single target with a fixed HD cap of 6 and only denies a single round, the other is multi-target with a HD cap of at least 2d4+3 and denies 2 rounds more than concentration.

For lack of theme, Fireball is evocation, Fire Trap is abjuration, Flame Arrow is transmutation - so which school does my Fire Mage want to specialize in?

Furthermore, it's head-scratchingly complex for any potential players to grok. So complex that you can't even communicate your school level concept the way you intend - unless you actually want a Necromancer 3 to have access to 5th level necromancy spells - which I really don't think you do, but your above text doesn't prevent.

Really, the solution for the problem of Wizard, Druid, Cleric and Sorcerer being too powerful is banned from use.

You can write 4 new classes that do what you want these classes to do without reinventing the icosahedron, or you can swipe classes other folks have already posted under the OGL. Personally, I really don't see the need to have the sorcerer and wizard as playable classes when I can use the more-thematic, easier to understand and less-prone-to-loophole Fire Mage, Snowscaper, and Green (Wind) Mage to fill the blaster + utility magic class role. And if those are still too strong for you, it's easy enough to just line item veto out any powers you don't like. I'm not quite as happy with my replacements for the Cleric and Druid, but the general methodology is the same.

The changes you're proposing work to reduce individual caster versatility. It doesn't really cope with the fact that single spells or one or two spells are massively game-warping all by themself. Of course, you talk about rewriting spells, but that's the part of this effort that defines whether you succeed or fail, independently of all your other ideas. Limiting wizards to three schools (or 9/6/6/6, whatever they do) will just restrict them to their favorite ridiculous spells instead of all ridiculous spells ever.

So... yeah. The real meat of your changes will be in how you rewrite the spells, and where those individual spells compare to the balance point you are aiming for, and who all is at that balance point.

And at that point, like Josh said, the work you have in front of you is so monumental you may as well just write your own classes with their own abilities. Write an abjurer class that focuses on abjuring things with your own abjuration ability write ups. Do the same a few more times with different schools/types of casters you want. It'll be less of a headache then rewriting spells individually.

Well, I thank you for your candor.
You'll have to excuse me while I defend my position.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Furthermore, it's head-scratchingly complex for any potential players to grok. So complex that you can't even communicate your school level concept the way you intend - unless you actually want a Necromancer 3 to have access to 5th level necromancy spells - which I really don't think you do, but your above text doesn't prevent.

I can see that -- of course, I think I prefer the word "tedious" (just as a nit-pick). However, judging from the handful of people to whom I've pitched this (in person), once you get your head wrapped around the initial concept, it should be fairly intuitive and easy -- the only real tedium should be away from the game table (which is that way for casters anyway, so ...).
And yes, I guess I'd have to add the caveat that max spell level (and thus, highest school-level) are still dictated by the normal class level restrictions. (I was operating from the understanding that this was implied, and, thus, would be inferred)
To be honest, the entire verbiage could probably use some cleaning-up. However, I must lament at the fact that converting my thoughts in to articulate, concise verbiage is one of my weak points.

And you're right -- the schools aren't balanced between themselves. Hell, WoTC even comes straight out and tells you this (between the whole "diviners only have 1 restricted school", and the banned school variant in T&B). I had considered realigning and restructuring the whole schools-of-magic concept, but that would have been completely ridiculous (of course, the more I think on it, the less ridiculous it gets). At the end of the day, I just say "fuck it -- you get enough versatility that the differences don't really matter".

And as for theme .... you're right, again. And the same could probably be said for just about any character concept -- you'd have to dip in to 2-4 schools to get all of the spells that fit your theme. But fluffed correctly, that may not be a failing in and of itself (not saying that it necessarily wouldn't be; just that it may not be).
And there's nothing restricting that in my model. At first level, you have universal+3 schools; and universal+5 schools at 2nd level. From 2nd level through 18th level, you could literally be completely indistinguishable from a focused specialist (in terms of school access and/or spells in your spell book -- you would have 1 less spell/day/level, but that's part of the power-down) ; and if you want ultimate versatility, then you only get to do one thing really well. I really can't say that it would play much differently as it does normally; nor do I want it to. A wizard plays pretty much the same as a sorcerer, even though they are very different classes -- a bystander (or another player, as the case may be) can't tell the difference -- the only real difference that is really noticed is what takes place away from the game table.
The intent of my model was so that a 13th level wizard couldn't go "well, I know that I've never cast a single necromancy or death-effect spell in my life (or even have one in my spell book), but I'm going to take Finger of Death this level" -- it simply doesn't make sense for a wizard's learning model (i.e., methodical and academic). The idea is that any given character has to trade general power if he wants general versatility. But more on this in just a second ...

DSMatticus wrote:The changes you're proposing work to reduce individual caster versatility. [...] Limiting wizards to three schools (or 9/6/6/6, whatever they do) will just restrict them to their favorite ridiculous spells instead of all ridiculous spells ever.

actually, that's pretty much the specific goal I had in mind. (again, sorry about my articulation)
I don't necessarily have big problems with the power cap; my problems lie more in how many different ways a given character can hit that cap.
As a point of comparison, the 2 most problematic characters I've ever had in my games was a True Necromancer and an Arcane Hierophant -- it had nothing to do with power level, but with the fact that they always had an answer for everything. I'm actually having less problems with this party's SCM than I ever did with the previous 2 (and the SCM's player is the same as the AH -- so I've somewhat eliminated that variable).


As for stuff like Fire Mage, etc. .... while they certainly look cool and and are definitely very thematic (read: oozing and dripping with flavor); that whole design philosophy simply doesn't resonate with me. They just seem way too over-specialized. Without actually playing one (or seeing one in action), I can only assume that they play much like a warlock -- which I loath. I've played a warlock, and have vowed to never play one again -- all the flavor in the world is worth bupkis if the class is (mechanically) boring as hell to play. Seriously, I have more fun playing a straight vanilla fighter (either melee or archer).
However, that being said, I'll admit that mostly boils down to personal preference -- but it's not an uncommon preference.
I like the general theme of how 3.5 casters work. If I was going to rewrite classes, I'd probably use something similar to the model set forth by stuff like Dread Necromancer and Beguiler. I just figured that if I reworked how spell advancement worked in general, I could eliminate the need for generating pages of new classes; as the player himself could customize as he wished and get a similar effect.


As for spell rewriting ...
I think that before I can start rewriting spells, I must first do something about metamagic. Namely, get rid of all the MM economizers -- those shenanigans piss me the hell off. There is no way in hell that I should be able to take a 1st-level evocation and wring several thousand damage out of a single casting (as an example). I can see leaving in either MM School Focus -or- Arcane Thesis, but that would be the full extent. Alternatively, I can see leaving them all in, but restrict a given character to only taking 1, once.
And that would take care of a lot of shenanigans that aren't even related to the spells themselves. I would say to completely eliminate all economizers, but then the juice will never be worth the squeeze, and then you might as well do away with MM altogether. I've even thought about linking use of MM effects being linked to Spellcraft; but that just opens a barrel of worms that I don't even want to think about.

Spells:
there are 2 basic categories of spells that I find problematic: 1) spells that are just plain borked ; 2) spells that replace other classes and/or invalidate entire character concepts. Now, just off the top of my head, some of the ones that come immediately to mind:

borked spells:
- Planar Binding -- this is the genesis of harvesting effreti for their wishes. Being able to do this (loads of wishes, that is) without significant cost is bullshit; and being able to get that at 9th level is exponentially more so. This one is easy -- effreti are Lawful planar creatures .... well, effreti Law dictates that anyone who attempts to harvest wishes will be smited, regardless of how much diplomancy and haggling/bartering is used. It's infused in to there very existence, and there's nothing you can do about it.
- Polymorph, et.al. -- this one's been fairly well addressed. Burlew set forth a pretty good model over at GitPG ; PXY over at BG did something similar ; so have a number of other people. Point being, it's been done. All that's left is to snip the original spells out of the book. Bite of the Were-"x" is now part of the polymorph subschool, and so is pretty much any spell that changes your form that isn't already relegated to that subschool. This keeps you from stacking multiple form-changing spells for synergistic effects (and if that didn't, well, it does now).
- Contact other Plane/Commune -- as much as I see bitching about these spells, I simply don't have the same problem. There is more than enough wiggle room for the DM to not let this spell get out of hand, and I've never had a single player complain over how I've handled it. Done.
I'm sure that I'm missing a boat-load; but like I said, this is just what is coming immediately to mind without flipping through books.

spells that replace other classes and/or completely invalidate entire character concepts:
Many of these involve "you just do <this>", where "<this>" is something at which everybody else must be skilled and make a roll. I think that most of these need to simply give some sort of caster-level-based bonus. Spider Climb? Check. Detect Secret Doors? Check. Knock? Check Freedom of Movement? Check. And the list goes on. (not sure if True Strike falls in to this category, but it definitely should fall under the same type of rewrite)
Now, since these types of spells (like all other types of spells) are of varying level, there should be some sort of matrix for determining how much bonus is applied based on spell level. Maybe something along the lines of a bonus = spell level + caster level, capped at 10*spell level (that's just idle speculation at this point).


Like I said, I'm sure I've missed a boat-load. I didn't think it would have been necessary at this point, but I guess I do indeed have some more space on the drawing board to fill.


and I'm still all ears.

wotmaniac wrote: borked spells:
- Planar Binding -- this is the genesis of harvesting effreti for their wishes. Being able to do this (loads of wishes, that is) without significant cost is bullshit; and being able to get that at 9th level is exponentially more so. This one is easy -- effreti are Lawful planar creatures .... well, effreti Law dictates that anyone who attempts to harvest wishes will be smited, regardless of how much diplomancy and haggling/bartering is used. It's infused in to there very existence, and there's nothing you can do about it.
- Polymorph, et.al. -- this one's been fairly well addressed. Burlew set forth a pretty good model over at GitPG ; PXY over at BG did something similar ; so have a number of other people. Point being, it's been done. All that's left is to snip the original spells out of the book. Bite of the Were-"x" is now part of the polymorph subschool, and so is pretty much any spell that changes your form that isn't already relegated to that subschool. This keeps you from stacking multiple form-changing spells for synergistic effects (and if that didn't, well, it does now).

Both of these have the same root problem: you get to dumpster-dive through sources until you find something you want. Nerfing efreeti patches one hole (sort of. you could still just summon "outcast efreeti" and murder them afterwards, or whatever), but you can still call things that are way, way outside your power level:
- anything with class levels to forge for you/thought bottle up some xp for you
- anything with poison or gear
- extraplanar aboleths to just win for you
- extraplanar dragons for super-awsome transport
- noble djinni also hand out wishes, "to any being who captures it
- Mind flayer
- Guardian/spirit naga to scribe you some priest spells as arcane
- farming night hags for their heartstones (explicitly salable, so you don't even have to argue about what gear something has)
- rust monsters ruin everyone's day
- shadow to inherit a spawn chain that is downright nasty
- Giant Frog
- Vampire if you're into that
... and absolutely anything which can't inform you that it's task is complete (and so doesn't ever get dismissed).
That's just from quickly skimming the core book. There's always much better in splats.

It's basically the same problem Pun-Pun has, though less obvious.

wotmaniac wrote:As for stuff like Fire Mage, etc. .... while they certainly look cool and and are definitely very thematic (read: oozing and dripping with flavor); that whole design philosophy simply doesn't resonate with me. They just seem way too over-specialized. Without actually playing one (or seeing one in action), I can only assume that they play much like a warlock -- which I loath. I've played a warlock, and have vowed to never play one again -- all the flavor in the world is worth bupkis if the class is (mechanically) boring as hell to play.

Ignoring the Fire Mage for one second, I challenge you to get bored playing a Snowscaper, Storm Lord, Time Mage, or Sand Mage.

You should probably not assume that classes that were designed by the den are like classes that are balls terrible, and regularly made fun of on the den.

This one is easy -- effreti are Lawful planar creatures .... well, effreti Law dictates that anyone who attempts to harvest wishes will be smited, regardless of how much diplomancy and haggling/bartering is used. It's infused in to there very existence, and there's nothing you can do about it.

This doesn't really work, because "infinite free wishes" are still game breaking for characters much stronger than Efreeti. So you don't haggle with the Efreet, you just go and beat the crap out of it until it gives you the wishes. Or for that matter, you use a method like Simulacrum / Dominate Monster / Gate to make it give you free wishes.

I was going to fall in to the trap of going through and re-evaluating all of the "trouble" spells, and then make considerable effort to fix what could be fixed, and then toss the rest.
Hell, I could go so far as to go through and rewrite literally every single spell in the game, close every single potential loophole, and prevent every possible unexpected combination ...... and I would've done absolutely nothing to address my problem.

Yes, just like at every table, there are certain spells that have proven to be problematic (and for various reasons) -- and those are patched as needed. However, as I mentioned above, my biggest challenge with casters is the breadth of versatility (note my comparison of a SCM character and a AH character -- played by the same player no less). I've lost count of how many times I've been like "when did you get that spell", or "where the hell did that spell come from". Sure, I could restrict spells to just Core, or Core+handful; but that doesn't even work, because there is still enough versatility with just that to still give me more headaches than I care to have.

I don't have a power issue, or a <specific-broken-thing> issue -- that's easy to deal with. I have a versatility issue. (and this is the very core of understanding my position)

Yes, Storm/Fire/Ice/Time/whatever Mage does present a "fix" for that (and I do sincerely appreciate the suggestions and links). However, while there is nothing inherently wrong with those classes, the using that particular design principle as a replacement for traditional casting simply does not resonate with me (and for various reasons).
I'm not knocking it -- it's just not for me.


So, I'm looking at a way to keep the idea of a "wizard" (sorry -- it's not D&D without spellbooks, etc.), but to narrow down the versatility. Like I said, I could write a bunch of classes that mirror the Dread Necro or Beguiler design concept (or whatever), but I'm not trying to write a pile of classes (complete with unique class features, specific spell lists, etc.) -- it just seems like more trouble than it's worth.

The idea for this was actually inspired by something I read in Tome (no, seriously, it was). It had something to do with why feat chains suck so bad, especially when juxtaposed with how a wizard gains spells. So the thought occurred to me that maybe I could make spell acquisition more closely resemble how feat chains work -- enter school-levels (and the associated prerequisites)
The actual # of school-levels is largely irrelevant to me -- so long as the # chosen accomplishes the goal. Maybe 58 is too many (18 auto-advance + 40 bonus)? Maybe they only get 30 bonus -- whatever.
Maybe reintroduce the idea of opposed schools (a la 2e), and have them cost double?
The point is, I think I have a kernel of an idea that can be built upon. I guess I'm really just trying to brainstorm here.




Switching gears a little:
Clerics: I've recently been tossing around the idea of reversing the spell slot allotment in respect to general spells vs. domain spells -- i.e., the first # is reserved for spontaneously casting domain spells, and the "+1" (as well as any bonus spells from high stat, etc.) would be for spells off the general cleric list.
Like I said -- just a thought.

Now, I understand the typical argument(s) against dual-stat casting; however, in my experience, most of these seem to ring (at least a little) hollow. Yes, they are still able to do their broken stuff -- however, it's been my experience that if you can limit the # of times that broken stuff can be done, then the player will tend to hesitate to pull the trigger on it

No. It means the players will rest more often. 4 min workday.

Druids being the only mon-stat casters is sort of lame for everyone else.

Sorcerer- I scrapped wizards instead for my home games. Seems either or, and sorcerer is less crazy.

Wizard change ups - This means that instead of 7 broken things, they have 2. They also have less uses per day of their broken things thanks to dual stat. This fits in with the 4 min work day. I don't think the shorter day is what you had in mind though.

I think the best options are thematic redesigned classes, and scrapping the "everything" casters. You want a necromancer, play a dread necro. Illusionist, beguiller. Evoker, [fire] Mage. Then simply don't include the biggest offending spells, while rewriting the other spells.

Krusk wrote:No. It means the players will rest more often. 4 min workday.

Again, I've had experience that says otherwise. However, I will admit that it takes some coaching to get players that are new to my group to get on board; but once they get it, they get it. One of the main keys is to build trust (unfortunately, there are enough douche-bag DMs that this trust is sometimes hard to come by).

Druids being the only mon-stat casters is sort of lame for everyone else.

yeah, the more I think on this, the more I agree with you. I was really posing that as more of a question -- I just wasn't sure if that would have been too much of a kick in the teeth for druids or not.

Wizard change ups - This means that instead of 7 broken things, they have 2. They also have less uses per day of their broken things thanks to dual stat. This fits in with the 4 min work day. I don't think the shorter day is what you had in mind though.

Again, I have found that this is an issue of setting expectations for your players, and building the trust -- you have to break them out of the paradigm that has been built by 30 years of gygaxian dicks. I only have 1 guy who still isn't with the program in this regard -- but that's only because he's a dick as a DM, and refuses to believe that I'm not secretly out to fuck over the group (because that's what he does, and can't wrap his head around any competing concept). And that's fine, because this current game is about to end in the next month, and then he's moving away.
However, if you want to be a dick DM, then you can never break that 4 minute work day. However, there is a huge space between "gygaxian dick" and "padded sumo" -- the key is to find the sweet-spot that is somewhere in that middle ground.

I think the best options are thematic redesigned classes, and scrapping the "everything" casters. You want a necromancer, play a dread necro. Illusionist, beguiller. Evoker, [fire] Mage.

I understand the conventional wisdom here -- and I think that you're fairly spot on.
However, I was trying to conceive a way to do this by letting the player be able to customize things themselves -- otherwise, I've either gotta write yet another class each and every time someone wants to play a concept that I didn't think of, or they're stuck with whatever list I might have happened to arbitrarily settle on. I thought it might be better to hack a plug-n-play template that lets the player customize it as desired.
If it's not workable, then it's not workable. I'm just not quite ready to concede that point yet.

Then simply don't include the biggest offending spells, while rewriting the other spells.

which I've already always done, as needed.

I would also like to address the whole "spells" issue (just in general -- not towards any one person):
A mechanic is only broken in how it interacts with a particular game (i.e., a specific set of players at a specific game table in a specific campaign). What may be completely borked for one may be perfectly acceptable for another (with varying degrees in between). As such, you can't really set down a definitive list of discrete spells that must be abandoned/rewritten. I'm not going to waste my time trying to un-break planar binding -- not because it's not broken (or even just breakable), but because it's not causing me any trouble. Teleport causing problems with mid-action knot-cutting? Okay, it now has a 10 minute casting time. Player-controlled shadows running amuck? Slap down chain-of-command restrictions -- done (and I have a couple of ways of doing this). But those work for my games, and are specific to my issues. Trying to fix shit that isn't causing be problems is just a complete waste of time.



Anyways -- thanks for the input thus far.

I promise -- I'm not actively trying to be a contrarian.

wotmaniac wrote:

Druids being the only mon-stat casters is sort of lame for everyone else.

yeah, the more I think on this, the more I agree with you. I was really posing that as more of a question -- I just wasn't sure if that would have been too much of a kick in the teeth for druids or not.

Well, if you're using the shapeshifting variant from PHBII, then you already rely heavily on Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Why throw Cha in there as well?

RobbyPants wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:

Druids being the only mon-stat casters is sort of lame for everyone else.

yeah, the more I think on this, the more I agree with you. I was really posing that as more of a question -- I just wasn't sure if that would have been too much of a kick in the teeth for druids or not.

Well, if you're using the shapeshifting variant from PHBII, then you already rely heavily on Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Why throw Cha in there as well?

Good point; and one which I had forgotten about when I was reading Krusk's post.
So, are you saying that being the only single-stat caster wouldn't be lame for everyone else? (all things considered, of course)

I wonder if I can figure out a way to tack INT in there as well.

It would just mean that Druids would be mediocre at levels 1-6ish, and then, would be the absolute best spellcasters from then on, and none of them would waste even a second using their stupid shifting crap.

Kaelik wrote:It would just mean that Druids would be mediocre at levels 1-6ish, and then, would be the absolute best spellcasters from then on, and none of them would waste even a second using their stupid shifting crap.

now, this is something that I have yet to consider. good call.

This poses 2 questions:
1) is this dynamic not offset by both the fact that the spell list is generally weaker, and the fact that they get fewer spells/day?
2) given that druids get so many no-save spells (proportionally speaking), would it not be worth it to spread the stats around so as to make the shapeshifting worth having?


------------------


okay, here's yet another cleric re-tread idea:
change the spells/day to mirror that of a focused specialist wizard? where the extra "specialist slots" being reserved for domain spells?
total spells/day don't actually change; but not only does this limit daily versatility, this also makes domains more important.
again, still just brain-storming on this one.
(yes, I'm still stuck on trying to make the current basic spellcasting model work)

wotmaniac wrote:This poses 2 questions:
1) is this dynamic not offset by both the fact that the spell list is generally weaker, and the fact that they get fewer spells/day?
2) given that druids get so many no-save spells (proportionally speaking), would it not be worth it to spread the stats around so as to make the shapeshifting worth having?

1) Fewer spells per day is why they aren't the best spellcasters at lower levels. At higher levels, they will have the same spells per day as people who haven't been pumping one attribute to the exclusion of all others, and they have a better spell list, so how the fuck is a weaker spell list going to make clerics better casters than Druids with their better spell list?

2) No, because fighting in combat with shifting is still fucking ass. If you made a new class, and that class had shifting, and it also had random buffs stacked on that that equaled the buffs a druid could cast, that class would still be shittier in combat than a Druid casting spells. Plus, if I were going to make my stats matter, it would be by not ever shifting anyway, because Bite of the X provides a greater enhancement bonus to stats than that shitty shifting mechanic anyway.

The druid is two classes. A shapeshiftig wilderness warrior And a nature caster. Someone needed to cut space and made them the same class. Split them back up. That's how I loon at it

Kaelik wrote:Plus, if I were going to make my stats matter, it would be by not ever shifting anyway, because Bite of the X provides a greater enhancement bonus to stats than that shitty shifting mechanic anyway.

How about Core spells? The Bite of the X spells are nice, but at this point, he was talking about weird class changes and a (presumably) fixed list of spells later on.

With just the core buffs available, is shifting still worth while? I agree it sucks at high level because you just don't get any good forms at those levels, but I had some pretty decent experience playing one of these up through the ferocious predator form (level 8). I don't remember ever using the plant form when I got to the right level, though. At higher levels, I used forms for their movement modes only, and strictly cast spells.

RobbyPants wrote:

Kaelik wrote:Plus, if I were going to make my stats matter, it would be by not ever shifting anyway, because Bite of the X provides a greater enhancement bonus to stats than that shitty shifting mechanic anyway.

How about Core spells? The Bite of the X spells are nice, but at this point, he was talking about weird class changes and a (presumably) fixed list of spells later on.

The entire point is he doesn't want a fixed list of spells class like the Beguiler. So it really does mean Bite of the X.

RobbyPants wrote:With just the core buffs available, is shifting still worth while? I agree it sucks at high level because you just don't get any good forms at those levels, but I had some pretty decent experience playing one of these up through the ferocious predator form (level 8). I don't remember ever using the plant form when I got to the right level, though. At higher levels, I used forms for their movement modes only, and strictly cast spells.

No, because with just core buffs there is never any goddam reason to engage in melee as a shifter. Which is exactly why you just cast spells. There is no reason on a 3/4ths BAB chasis, where you have to split your stats between Str/Dex/Con/Wis, and you get an enhancement bonus that is barely better than item bonuses, and you lack buffs spells that give you anything a melee combatant doesn't have, to ever engage in melee at higher levels. Yes, at level 1-6, you might run out of spells, and go ahead and shift to fight things, and yes, if you ever face armies of 20-50 minions level monsters, you greater ECL bonuses might justify shifting and beating up on them instead of using spells if you don't have any AoE ones, but ultimately, the situations in which it is ever worth shifting for combat are basically nill. Hence, you not doing it, and me writing it off as an option at all after level 7.

Kaelik wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Kaelik wrote:Plus, if I were going to make my stats matter, it would be by not ever shifting anyway, because Bite of the X provides a greater enhancement bonus to stats than that shitty shifting mechanic anyway.

How about Core spells? The Bite of the X spells are nice, but at this point, he was talking about weird class changes and a (presumably) fixed list of spells later on.

The entire point is he doesn't want a fixed list of spells class like the Beguiler. So it really does mean Bite of the X.

I re-read the OP. He was talking about core and non-core classes, not spells. My bad.

Edit: When I said "fixed list of spells", I meant that the spells were fixed, not that the list was static. Still, it's moot; I misunderstood part of the premise of the thread.

so, shape-changing buffs should just be left to spells?
I think I might be able to live with that.
also I can see what you're saying about the level-range of viability for shapeshifting.

Kaelik wrote:yes, if you ever face armies of 20-50 minions level monsters, you greater ECL bonuses might justify shifting and beating up on them instead of using spells if you don't have any AoE ones, but ultimately, the situations in which it is ever worth shifting for combat are basically nill. Hence, you not doing it, and me writing it off as an option at all after level 7.

I think you underestimate this as a viable scenario. My players like slogging through chaff; they expect it.
I think I'd put this on par with the likes of [reserve] feats (from CMage) -- not terribly effective against same-CR creatures, but against lower-level ones, you might as well use options that don't drain your finite resources.

Also, Kaelik: so you're saying that the druid spell list is better than the cleric's?
I've always considered it the other way around. Sure, druid has a handful of stand-out spells, but so does the cleric; so that part is largely a wash. Additionally, cleric seems to have greater versatility.
What am I missing?

Krusk wrote:The druid is two classes. A shapeshiftig wilderness warrior And a nature caster. Someone needed to cut space and made them the same class. Split them back up. That's how I loon at it

I largely agree with that.
I've already decided to go with my own take on Wildshape Ranger (changes include giving up animal companion, and possibly spells for added wildshape options -- i.e., taking combat styles out of the trade-off equation). Incidentally, I also endorse including the alternate combat styles for ranger in drag.mag.326. Another alternate of the WS ranger could be to indeed give up combat style, but to replace it with shapeshifting at 1st level (i.e., no actual WS) ... it could probably use a little tweaking, but you get the basic idea.
However, I do like the flavor of the druid being able to morph in to various forms ..... but, like I said at the top, I'm willing to concede this to being relegated to spells.

That being said, if I strip down druid to just a spellcasting class (i.e., stripping away WS and AC, while keeping its other class abilities), do there need to be any other consideration within the context of the rest of the spellcasting dynamic?
I guess I can get closer to answering that question once I'm able to see some quantification concerning my question about comparable quality of spell lists (from above).

wotmaniac wrote:Also, Kaelik: so you're saying that the druid spell list is better than the cleric's?
I've always considered it the other way around. Sure, druid has a handful of stand-out spells, but so does the cleric; so that part is largely a wash. Additionally, cleric seems to have greater versatility.
What am I missing?

The part where you justify that with anything not pulled directly from your ass?

I mean, a short list of things Druids spells do better than Cleric spells:

Save or Dies, AoE attacks of any goddam kind, Offensive Self buffs, Defensive Self buffs, utility of everything except answering direct questions that do not pertain to an individual, Offensive group buffs, summoning.

Here's a list of things Cleric spells are better at: Answering direct questions not about a specific person, defensive group buffs.

Kaelik wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:Also, Kaelik: so you're saying that the druid spell list is better than the cleric's?
I've always considered it the other way around. Sure, druid has a handful of stand-out spells, but so does the cleric; so that part is largely a wash. Additionally, cleric seems to have greater versatility.
What am I missing?

The part where you justify that with anything not pulled directly from your ass?

fair enough -- my assessment is largely based on anecdotal "evidence", much of which isn't much more than passing observation.

I mean, a short list of things Druids spells do better than Cleric spells:

Save or Dies, AoE attacks of any goddam kind, Offensive Self buffs, Defensive Self buffs, utility of everything except answering direct questions that do not pertain to an individual, Offensive group buffs, summoning.

Here's a list of things Cleric spells are better at: Answering direct questions not about a specific person, defensive group buffs.

Well, my "versatility" assumption is largely based on size of spell lists.
side note: clerics make better necromancers than necromancers -- in this regard, druid has bupkis. IMO, planar ally has more potential than SNA. Don't forget miracle (and its little cousin, anyspell). I'd also have to say that cleric can do de-buffs better. Domain selection can be a huge difference maker.
Many of the druid's ZOMG buffs only work on his animal companion -- making it very niche. Also, once you fix the complete abomination that is morphing spells, where does druid out-buff the cleric? (yes, I now that this ties back to fixing spells in general -- but I mean, come on, I'm talking about morphing here ... this has got to be a little different in consideration than the idea of fixing spells in general)
Though, I do concede that the druid is generally more offensively oriented, while the cleric is generally more defensively oriented; and that, in and of itself, may be a difference maker.

wotmaniac wrote:side note: clerics make better necromancers than necromancers -- in this regard, druid has bupkis.

Minions are minions. Skeletons and undead are not any different from Charm Animal + wild Empathy for your minions. They are both stupid, they are both relatively weak but numerous, and you can't travel with them. Druids minion up just as damn well as Clerics.

wotmaniac wrote:IMO, planar ally has more potential than SNA.

SNA: Summon some cool outsiders or big animals that all benefit from the Druids super animal buffing stuff.

Planar Ally: At level 11 (because the Lesser version is ass) you can spend XP, and light a large amount of money on fire to ask your DM to pretty please send you the creature you want, and he still doesn't have to, and then the creature might do something for you for that money that is still only one task, and even more money if it's a long task.

Yes, it has more "potential" in the since that if you are level 11, and your DM considers "fight every battle with me for the next 11 days" one task, and he thinks that that task is sufficiently in line with alignment to waive the 12,000gp you have to set on fire to do it, it's totally better.

But frankly, if I thought my DM was just going to hand me a 12HD outsider cohort, I could be playing a fighter. Since he probably won't fucking do that, it means you are spending XP and gold for some task like delivering a fucking message, or fighting in one battle, which is fucking shit.

Spells which ask for your DM to pretty please be nice to you are not real spells.

wotmaniac wrote:I'd also have to say that cleric can do de-buffs better. Domain selection can be a huge difference maker.

That's because you are stupid. Druid have better AoE debuffs at every level, and you get confused because you are not realizing that dead is the best debuff. Yes, when Druids get Save or Dies, the Cleric has, at the same level, better Single Target Debuffs, if you ignore the fact that dead is a better debuff.

wotmaniac wrote:Don't forget miracle (and its little cousin, anyspell). I'd also have to say that cleric can do de-buffs better.

I won't forget that When Clerics get Miracle, Druids get infinite free wishes that don't cost spell slots, along with infinity other things.

Nor will I forget that anyspell is a) only if you choose one specific domain b) once per day c) not that fucking good.

People love anyspell in theory, but in practice, do you actually ever pull anyspell out to be spontanoues, or do you usually know that it will be either heroics or heroism, whichever level 2 Wizard buff best fits your character, followed by at level 11 being some level 5 Wizard BC that is not better than Control Winds anyway.

wotmaniac wrote:Also, once you fix the complete abomination that is morphing spells, where does druid out-buff the cleric? (yes, I now that this ties back to fixing spells in general -- but I mean, come on, I'm talking about morphing here ... this has got to be a little different in consideration than the idea of fixing spells in general)

Um... WTF? I mean, I guess if you start from the assumption that you are going to nerf all Druid spells, but not all Cleric spells anything could fucking happen, but... so what? I could just say that Clerics suck if you start from the assumption they don't cast spells. I mean, I guess if you ban shapechange but not Gate, Clerics are better at level 17, but I'm not sure why that matters, because level 17 doesn't matter, and Druids don't get morphing spell other than Animal Shapes and Shapechange that are in anyway broken. I mean, they get access to those total replacement spells that are still terrible, except for casting on your AC to turn them into a Beholder, but, those don't need nerfing, they need buffing.

But yes, if you say "I'm going to nerf all AoE debuffs" that would make Clerics better relative to Druids in the sense that Clerics don't get any AoE debuffs, and Druids do.

touché

Just fix the saves, and give everything that does anything useful a save (or two). Diplomacy? Will save, and again if you're trying to win with it. Oh, and ditch everything that reduces metamagic costs.

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

Done. Efreeti gets a new save every scene and things get a save against it's Wish. Fighter is not dominated all the time. Item saves vs Disjunction. Easy enough patch to work with on the fly. Have to beat up Dragons with steel, making Fighters worth carrying around.

Until you fix the saves, there'll always be something your cut-back Wizard (Cleric, etc) can use to win D&D every time they cast it, because high level D&D spells are awesome.

Nothing wrong with splitting the class up a bit though, 2nd edition was heading for Elementalist, Necromancer, Illusionist, Sage, and Transmuter until they kicked out EGG.