What to ban to make 3.0E and/or 3.5E playable and fair?

[Drolyt]

I'm confused, your solution is to ban stuff that messes with the plot but leave all the stuff that allows casters to dominate in actual play?

No, you both missed my attempt at a point, so I'll try again.

Fact: Monsters in 3e are really good, other than their saving throws.

Result: Becoming or controlling a monster of your choice is too good. It worked in AD&D for twenty years because the Fighter was much better than the monsters and so no one much cared. But now, you can't let people have pet monsters, or be monsters, not because you can do interesting things with it (which you totally can and is quite fun), but because they're all much better Fighters than the actual Fighters.

So you only play full casters and make your own Fighters as need be, or ban monster control and polymorph and let people play Fighters as PCs instead.

I have never actually had a problem with charm/dominate in any game I have ever played in, regardless of which side of the DM Screen I am on. But yes, I now understand where you are coming from with banning it.

Fact: 3e teleport (in combination with various things) wins D&D.

Result: everyone pretends they won't use it that way, the DM doesn't murder all the PCs in their sleep, and you don't completely ignore everything he offers and go murder the final boss in their sleep. It's cool, but just ban it. Traveling montages don't actually take up game time, and there's plenty of in-game time-critical ways to move around without it, a lot of them are even super-fun and full of RP goodness.

Scry and die isn't a real issue because in any sane setting where it is possible everything important will be warded like Hogwarts, except harder to attack.

So you house-rule it out of existence. "No one does that because we pretend it doesn't work." I was just honest enough to ban it.

And don't fucking well nerf scrying. I hate when people mess with divination in D&D, it's about the best part of playing a spellcaster is being able to solve the puzzles. Even if you have to scry on some minion and then scry who he meets and so on, you can eventually find Bin Laden and flying-carpet your way in to kill the bastard.

Obvious if you can't do that the DM will just have to tell you where Bin Laden is anyway, but fuck that for a game. May as well play 4e and start session with an initiative check.

House rule? The Stronghold Builder's Guidebook has rules for permanent dimensional locks and mind blanks that fill rooms, and forbidance is permanent to begin with. Any place with the money and the need should be warded if your setting makes any sense at all.

Charm and dominate don't work well in combat

Planar Binding, Dominate Monster, and Charm Monster are all variously enabled forms of having a pet who is a better Fighter than the Fighter. You can ban Fighters, or ban the charms. Take your pick.

Fine. Ban the fighters.

, and polymorph... well, it is broken as written, but I think the correct response is not to ban it but to fix it.

It's been 13 years and no one has even come close to fixing Polymorph for d20 without effectively banning it and replacing it with a convoluted combo of Claws of the Wolf, Bull's Strength, and Fly with a tiny duration. You fix the fucking thing if it's so easy.

There are lots of polymorph homebrews, take your pick. But I forgot the point of the thread was WotC only, so actually go ahead and ban it, if it is causing problems in your game or expected to.

<snips>
But in general the question was how one does D&D with minimal banning and that must include Fighters who mash on the low-punch key all day and Wizards who can actually end fights with a single spell (Wall of Stone or whatever) when things get tough. Because that is D&D. Love everyone's fantasy heartbreaker ideas and shit, but the question was about banning stuff for 3.0 (and 3.5).

Actually banning fighters doesn't violate the rules the OP gave us, and I'm liking that answer more and more.

Edit: Also, who cares if spellcasters get extra spell slots? They already have enough to act every turn at high levels, and at low levels it is bullshit that they don't get to act every turn.

Oh, cry me a river Mr "I had to use a scroll or two today". Fucking hell people are whining bitches about their Wizards.

Here's the thing, casters by default (at mid-high levels) have too many slots with too high DCs that all recover too quickly, and a quick patch on that is to not make it any worse. Just say'n.

Doesn't make it any better.

And yes, as Kaelik says, I home-use DC 15 for all saves and such forever, so my high level monsters and fighters make some saves and that does change things. But another solution is to use so very many monsters all the time that casters run out of save-or-lose spells and it becomes efficient to work on damage promotion in the party because that is something that needs to happen anyway.

This is totally something you should have mentioned to begin with, because without it your "fix" does shit-all. Polymorph might very well be the strongest spell below 9th level, but banning just the worst spells does very little, and banning all spells that make wizards better than fighters guts the game. I don't know about the OP, but I'd far sooner ban the damn fighters.

And I also know that the highest level casters can't run out of spells in 3.5, but I did suggest you burn them for building endless extra spells. Banning the purchase of extra spells as scrolls and potions and wands and shit wouldn't hurt either, but it's just not a huge deal to have a small spread of low-level options that can go all day, and I like giving them out as treasure all the time anyway (especially for the monsters to zap away with during battle).

Again, I like that spellcasters can actually cast a spell every turn at high levels. Making it so spellcasters can only win a few times per day doesn't fix anything, it just makes the game less fun for everyone and encourages five minute workdays. And if you've already fixed it so spellcasters can't just win with a single spell than you need this "fix" even less.

[Kaelik]

Fact: Monsters in 3e are really good, other than their saving throws.

See what I mean, he thinks monsters have bad saving throws.

[Wulf]

The basic underlying math of 3.5 works (more so then 4th edition), BAB vs AC, Saves vs Spells, Damage vs Hit-points. (average survival is 3 rounds). Even iterative attacks do their trick (although more elegant solutions could be found for more weapon damage per round).

However, it is also very fragile so when things change or add to it, balance starts breaking down. Which means some feats do and the biggest breaker of them all is ofcourse....*magic spells*. And then you have feats that breaks the balance of magic even further (metamagic feats).

Since checking each spell and its effect on the underlying balance is a gigantic task and boring as hell to do....best to do as Frank advices

- play up to level 10, as spells get really crazy at spell level 6 and higher. Damage can still be controlled if spells are kept to spell level 5 or lower.
- Suggest players to take martial adept classes. Not because they are more powerful, but simply cause finicking with special techniques is more fun then "attack with my axe" for 15 times in a single battle or forcing yourself into one-trick pony like a tripster or charger.
- Give artifact weapons (or other equipment with special abilities) to martial types around level 5-6.

[...You Lost Me]

metamagic feats break the balance further than spells?

[Drolyt]

metamagic feats break the balance further than spells?

He means that they make spells even more broken. Although that's only really true if you min/max, most of the time metamagic isn't worth the increase in spell level.

[Wulf]

metamagic feats break the balance further than spells?

He means that they make spells even more broken. Although that's only really true if you min/max, most of the time metamagic isn't worth the increase in spell level.

It is as you say. Although to do be more precise, the thing that breaks magic even more is the range of abilities/classes that cheapen metamagic to ridiculous levels. Incantatrix is the biggest example of it. But yeah, magic doesn't need metamagic to break the game, but with cheap metamagic, almost any spell can become broken. Yes, even evocations.

[tussock]

tussock have you considered playing 4e instead, Srsly.

Seriously: yes, and rejected the idea. Though I'd probably play it if anyone local would run (there being ways and means to shorten fights these days). Please note that removing OP monsters from team player is much less than what 4e did to Wizards, and I also despise Fighters who can't kill things and various other aspects of it.

for example, a lazy BBEG might only proof his deepest inner sanctum against teleports

And never get out of bed, so who gives a fuck. I'm not sure what you're arguing for. My point is that SBT skips the actual game of D&D for boss fights only and as such is bad and so banning it helps. That there's a few expensive-ass tiny-area cock-blocks avaiable to very few NPC types and almost no monsters I super-don't-care because it's still 90% huge problem and 10% slightly smaller problem.

Unless you arbitrarily house-rule up Teleport not working like it clearly does, in which case custom house rules can be better than banning. But banning is what was asked, so I suggest one bans Teleport.

and banning all spells that make wizards better than fighters

and Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. You can dominate stuff that's a better Wizard than you are and make it bark like a dog for the entertainment of commoners.

There's CR X monsters with X- HD that cast spells as full-caster X+ and are also better Fighters than every class in the PHB. And you can make them your bitch. Most players and DMs won't abuse that, but rather than everyone just playing like it's banned, ban it. All of it. Except the actual class features like bear-whirlwinds of course.

And if you've already fixed it so spellcasters can't just win with a single spell

I have not suggested any such thing, nor would I recommend it. Casters win, that's what they do, accept it and play the game. Just don't bypass the whole game or make some pet monster into the main protagonist.

And yes, with much easier saves for monsters you can leave the charms in place, but that's not what was asked here. Note that there's buckets of spells in 3e to win that don't give saves. No-save: just lose. It's fun, and I promote it.

Actually banning fighters doesn't violate the rules the OP gave us, and I'm liking that answer more and more.

Full-casters only is a valid method of balancing up your 3e games. It's quite tough at times if you start at 1st level, and you can go totally nuts with all the bullshit options later and not leave anyone behind.


Oh, ban anything that loops. Wishes can't make wishes, the bound can't bind, henchmen can't have henchmen, etc, etc, etc.

@Metamagic, yeh, the cost-reduction stuff is the issue. The base costs are situationally useful with only minor amounts of cheese. Divine Metamagic is a crime against nature.

[zugschef]

Divine Metamagic is a crime against nature.

i'd say with all these spells with a one minute duration, it's mandatory if you don't want to die due to iterative probability.

[NineInchNall]

A good portion of those one-minute and one-minute-per-level spells started as and should go back to being one-hour-per-level. Hell, a flat 24-hour duration on shit like Bull's Strength would be nice.

[Whatever]

The duration for long term buffs should really be "until the caster refreshes spells."

[Drolyt]

It is weird that you have limitations both in duration and in how often you can cast spells. One or the other should be fine.

[NineInchNall]

Sometimes you want finite durations for dramatic purposes (e.g., "this will only last for a few minutes; be quick!") or for spells that are cast during combat-time. Having a wall of fire's duration options be limited to instantaneous or until the caster gets a full night's sleep is kinda shitty.

[Drolyt]

Sometimes you want finite durations for dramatic purposes (e.g., "this will only last for a few minutes; be quick!") or for spells that are cast during combat-time. Having a wall of fire's duration options be limited to instantaneous or until the caster gets a full night's sleep is kinda shitty.

Sorry, I meant buffs specifically.

[tussock]

Combat-length and exploration-length buffs can introduce interesting choices to the game. Not all of them do, of course, and 3e is fiddly about it even then, but they can.

A Barbarian's Rage is a combat-length buff, for instance, as might be a stance power from Bo9S or late-4e that doesn't overlap. That can be written in a way that gives interesting choices to the party, though it's not particularly so in 3e past low levels. Very short buffs can effectively have an action cost (or advantage of surprise) to activate, so they can be compensatingly awesome in return, which is nice (but switching those to all-day is then broken).

Sure, what 3.5 did to buff durations was horrible, and 3e spell durations in general don't interact well with the pace and timing of the rest of the game, but it can be better than that.


e.g. Mentzer Basic spells are all set up to run for a few turns regardless of level, where the whole game is structured so your non-combat actions (like moving around and searching and trying for surprise and resting and so on) all take some defined number of turns (usually 1) each, and all that in turn interacts with the wandering monster structure in hot zones.

So in that there's advantages for speed, for caution, for buffing early and for waiting, and it's all nicely situational and you have to pay attention to maximise it. But it's also super-easy to game because everything's on the same schedule, even kids can do it.

[Whatever]

There are two kinds of buff spells/effects: ones that are supposed to take an in-combat action to activate, and ones that don't. Spells that take an in-combat action should be super awesome, like Haste, because you're giving up one action to boost the value of other actions. That's a harsh tradeoff.

But spells that don't take an in-combat action to activate are different. These are what I meant by "long-term buffs" above. If the intent is that you cast Mage Armor or Bull's Strength, and then go wander around the dungeon for a bit, you shouldn't get a huge advantage for the spell, because you gave up only the spell slot, not the combat action. If you want to play a very fiddly game of tracking durations vs encounters where sometimes your buffs last for 3 fights and sometimes they last for 1 fight, you can do that, but it's kind of awful.

If you want your system to actually be balanced, you should avoid having weird moments when it's unintuitively advantageous to cast your buff spells. Casting a spell before you ambush an enemy is fine, assuming you ambush them when they're generally ready for a fight. You get a "free" combat action because you caught them by surprise (this breaks down when you can scry and teleport to kill them in their sleep). But casting your spells, charging in to fight, and then charging on looking for more fights "while your buffs are running" is awful. Likewise, casting your spells before bedtime, resting, and having full spell slots plus buffs is awful. In both cases, the game designer loses control over how powerful the characters are expected to be in the average encounter.

Make long duration buffs last until the caster refreshes spells, while in-combat buffs require either an in-combat action or a successful ambush if you want them running during a fight.

None of this would apply to other spells, like Wall of Fire.

[tussock]

But casting your spells, charging in to fight, and then charging on looking for more fights "while your buffs are running" is awful.

Yes. So I'll elucidate. In Mentzer, your fight takes one turn (10 minutes, because most stuff is measured in turns and 1 is the smallest number of them). Running ahead gets you instantly lost, the DM stops you at a random place in the map or at the exit and throws crap on you for being stupid. And that was also one turn. Moving while mapping is slow at a determined rate, moving using a map is faster at a fixed rate. Searching a large area adds a turn. It's really simple kids stuff, works well. Rest 1 in 6 turns or suffer penalties.

So turns are also a measure of distance, shortened by fights and cautious movement, lengthened by maps and guides. When the designers made maps for that they could (and did) totally calculate how far various spells would last.

Yes, in 3e there's nice stuff lasts seven minutes or some crap and you have to run around like a bunch of loons to use it. But the game can be written so that can't happen, and there's an old D&D game where that's true as proof of concept.

You may not appreciate the exploration mini-game because 3e made it suck ass and be all REALITY-based instead of properly gamist, which is fine. But it's totally possible to build one that provides interesting choices for the player and supports moderate-duration spells being a part of that. Fly? 6+1d6 turns, which is not far, but should be useful when you hit high ceiling caverns or a rope bridge over a crevasse.

Then: all-day flight is a pain in the ass for monster and module design, but limited flight is fine and empowers players who trigger it sensibly. Tiny-duration fight sucks again because you can't use it to check down a sink-hole or something.