PDA

View Full Version : Alternate Magic Setting - Nerfing High level spells Advice/Opinions needed



Mauther
2010-02-12, 02:08 PM
I was hoping to get some feedback on a primary houserule/nerf for a 3.5 campaign. I'd like to ask that we all start from a pre-arranged position, and take that as a given so we have a baseline in discussing whether the "fix" is balanced or not. I realize, that not everyone will agree with that position, but in order to keep the discussion on task and to avoid repeating a long standing D&D argument I'd like to keep that given as "accepted", at least as it concerns the gaming group in question. I am reasonably certain my players agree with the central conceit, its been the center point of numerous discussions over the years since the initial launch of 3.0 but we as a group have never attempted to address it mechanically.

I would humbly ask that we take as a given (at least for this argument) that a) high level spells dominant gaming sessions, b) characters with high level spells dominate their team, c) the power offered by high level spells effectively disincentivizes players from playing any class/multiclass/prestige class that's not a full progression caster. In simple terms, a) most people would agree that spells like Power Word, Trap the Soul, Imprisonment, Time Stop, Resurrection, Gate, and Implosion reliably and directly dictate the way a game develops, much more than +4 magic device or any class ability; b) high level casters can replicate and surpass many if not most of the party roles handled by other characters (example: Ethereal Jaunt (Rogue), Discern Location (Ranger), Legend Lore/Vision (Bard), Tenser's Transformation (Fighter), etc.); and c) unless a prestige class offers a massive payoff in its special abilities, the tactical and utilitarian advantages of a full caster means that a player who forgoes that ability is less effective individually, as part a party, and with regards to the expected party ability (that's to say an EL 15 encounter may assume a party has access to Banishment or Greater Restoration, the absence of which greatly increases the difficulty of the challenge). For the reasons listed above, assume that a group has agreed that higher level magic needs to be restricted.

The basic nerf is this: spells of a certain level and higher are not automatically learned with level advancement. Spell slots are still gained so they can be filled with lower level spells or used for metamagic effects or whatever other use might be available. Additionally, high level spells may be learned, but they must be purchased with gold and experience. Essentially each spell would be handled like a separate custom magic item, but once learned it would function as normal. This would restrict the availability of high level spells, but still allow their participation in the adventure. But high level spells become a signature ability rather than swiss army knives of apocalypse. A high level cleric would be renown for his ability to control the weather or to kill evil with a single holy word, rather than that being something any old 13th level cleric can do. It also inhibits the Batman spell list, the ability with sufficient preparation to kill anything with the right customizable combo of spells. A character might compile a dragon-slayer spell list in order to kill Rhindle the Red Dragon, but this would require significant effort and sacrifice, instead of the current method of sleeping for the night to reset spells or dropping a few hundred gp at the market to add them to your spell book. Additionally, this keeps high level spells available as plot devices, PCs may choose to go to a specialist NPC rather than learn an expensive but rarely used high level effect. Obviously, an effect this big would be a major plot point, in fact it’s the lynch pin of the entire campaign. So its intended to be noticeable so I'm not looking for a seamless change.

The question, do you think this is fair or playable rule change? Additionally, what level do you think would be a good cut-off? I'm bouncing between 5th and 7th level spells myself, leaning towards the former. Additionally, what do you think would be a good pricing structure? I'm looking for something prohibitive but not exclusionary, probably based on spell effect magic items. I want it to be a sacrifice to gain the spell ability. So maybe (Spell Level x Caster Level x 1800/50) = (SL x CL x 36xp) & (XP x 25gp). So Forcecage (7th level evocation = 3276 xp & 39,312gp) I think that might be a little too much even.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-02-12, 02:17 PM
I like the concept of spells-as-magic-items, but be sure not to make the pricing too steep, lest the pendulum of balance swings in the other direction.

As for the cutoff, I'd say "two highest spell levels you could cast" - so Wizard level 16 gets spells level 1-6 normally but must work hard for 7 and 8. Once he advances to 17, he gets normal access to spells level 7, but must work hard for his 9th level slot.

Spells level 1 for characters level 1 are of course the exception to this.

lightningcat
2010-02-15, 01:17 AM
You might also consider making the upper level spells into incantations (see the d20 modern SRD for ideas), with the additional requirement of spending an appropriate level spell slot.

Twilightwyrm
2010-02-15, 01:52 AM
I actually think this is a great idea, but I have a feeling my players might resent such a house ruling. I have a different alternative though. Since a wizard in particular can only automatically add two spells of a given level they can cast to their spell book per level, I am thinking I will generally make higher level scrolls very hard or next to impossible to find, and cost a lot. Wizards will then be thus limited, and sorcerers will be similarly limited and unlikely to "toolbox" spells, since they will end up either spreading themselves thin or only have one "toolbox" for a particular situation. Admittedly this will do nothing to help stem the spell casting of most divine casters, but I think I can probably find a solution to that.

Mauther
2010-02-15, 12:18 PM
... Since a wizard in particular can only automatically add two spells of a given level...

While I am concerned about arcane casters, in my opinion, divine casters have actually been more troublesome, at least from the Batman approach. Since most divine casters have access (with preparation) to all class spells, they can customize to a ridiculous extent. I had one high level party who would retreat at the first sign of heavy resistance, teleport to a secure location, recustomize during prayer time, then return the next day with a customized silver bullet list of spells. The only way to counter was to railroad the players and metagame the NPCs, which is an uncool solution; you can justify a paranoid or ultra-clever response every now and then but too often and it looks like a Bond movie.

Drolyt
2010-02-15, 04:13 PM
Why not make high level spells only available in scroll/staff form? That's more or less what you are going for. Make a feat that allows you to spend your own slots instead of consuming a scroll you created. Much simpler than trying to write the rules out yourself. As for which spell level to use as a cut off, you could go ahead and do this for all spell levels, giving wizards only their original two spells per level and clerics only their domain spells unless they scribe scrolls. You might want to give clerics scribe scroll as a bonus feat if you do this, or you might not, weakening them further. As for sorcerers you probably want to let them ignore this limitation.