PDA

View Full Version : My homebrew rule to nerf tier 1 - thoughts?



Mathemagician7
2011-07-28, 04:59 PM
Hey playgrounders. I am an optimizer, and I am getting sick of every interesting/wonky build I come up with being overshadowed by the Tier 1 classes. I made up a new rule to try to nerf primary casters a little, and I would appreciate your thoughts.

I think cleric/druid/wizard are ok through at least lvl 5, but by lvl 15 they just can't be compared to. The wizard might even be a little weak for the first few levels. My idea was to come up with a single, relatively simple mechanic which would not interfere with them at low levels, and then delay/impare their higher end spells more and more as the power gap between them and other classes grows.

Here's what I came up with:

to cast a spell two checks need to be made, both against a DC = 3*spell level.
Edit: people keep pointing out that the check is too low to do anything other than waste time with pointless rolls. Assuming the DC were set a little higher, like 3*SL + 5 or even 4*SL - what then?

1 check is a casterlevel check + relevant casting stat mod (wis for divine, cha/int for sorc/wiz).
the other is a spellcraft check.

if either check fails, the action is wasted. If both checks fail, the spell/ spell slot is wasted as well.

Notes:
natural 1s do NOT auto-fail
natural 20s do NOT auto-succeed

you may NOT take 10 on the caster level check.
you may NOT take 10 on the spell craft check during combat/tense situations, (except if you have a special ability like the rogue/exemplar skill mastery which explicitly grants this)

Out of combat, if extra time is spent, you may take 10 on the spellcraft check.

The caster level check takes into account bonuses from things like the granted power of the healing domain (+1 caster level for heal spells) and similar powers.

It also allows for things like practiced caster to add to the check result (for multiclass characters)

Special bonus: If you have previously attempted (but failed) the same spell earlier in the same day, you get a +2 circumstance bonus to succeed on your check (haven't decided which check to add the bonus to, probably caster level). The bonus is +4 if you have successfully cast that spell earlier in the day.

Specialist wizards also add their spellcraft bonus to the spellcraft check for casting spells in their specialty school, just as they would to learn the spell.

Interaction with metamagic:

The checks are made at the base spell level's DC, rather than the 3*level of the spell slot used.

EFFECTS:

this would make metamagic much more practical, even without incantrix/DMM cheese. I always thought it was weird that most spells augmented with metamagic are completely overshadowed by higher level spells, even though you have to spend a feat and (in the case of a spontaneous caster) spend longer casting the 'augmented' spells.

quick examples: shocking grasp --> chain lightning.

CL is a 5th lvl spell if I remember correctly. To get SG anywhere near the effectiveness, you'd need empower or max to raise its damage, spell reach, and chain spell. It's still way worse after all that, but you've spent at least 3 feats and are using at least an 8th level slot . . . hmmm

just look at flame burst (lvl 2) and greater flame burst (lvl 5) from CArc. the 5th level is like a widened, twinned, empowered, heightened 2nd level spell. Something doesn't add up.

Also, casters who use the same spell over and over gain a bonus to succeed, which helps solve the problem of Tier 1 --> tons of power AND versatility. If you specialize, you can cast much more reliably, reducing your versatility. If you stay versatile, you're less likely to succeed (at least on your high level spells) when it counts, lessening your power. This helps balance things.

Bards are virtually unaffected, as their level/max skill ranks pace the DCs of the checks almost exactly, and palladins and rangers won't usually have too much of a problem either (except for the poor paladin having to drop half his skill points into spellcraft).

This also makes lots of PrC that are unplayably (unplayable to a min-maxer anyway) sub-optimal viable, so long as you remember to grab the practiced caster feat, and keep dropping points into spellcraft.

What are your thoughts playgrounders?

Also, on an unrelated note, I thought up a variant stat generation rule:
Pick which stat you're rolling for before each roll, no rerolls. you get to roll 8d6 and keep the best 3 for one roll, 7d6 keep best 3 for another, then 6d6, then 5d6, 4d6, and finally 3d6 keep all for the last one. What do you think?
the average stats yielded are: 15.39, 14.90, 14.27, 13.43, 12.24, 10.50
Not too much higher than the Elite spread, but a lot more unpredictable. You could end up with a strong wizard or a very smart Barbarian - kinda makes things interesting, and it thwarts the heavy optimizers (read: me) a little.

what are your thoughts?

P.S. If you think this is a good rule, how should I handle UMD? I was thinking that the UMD check could replace the caster level part of the check, but what about still requiring the spellcraft check? I don't know - what do you guys think?

Flickerdart
2011-07-28, 05:03 PM
The checks are never relevant.

1st level spells - CL1, +4 stat modifier vs DC3 - never fails.
2nd level spells - CL3, +4 modifier vs DC6 - never fails.
3rd level spells - CL5, +5 modifier vs DC9 - never fails.
4th level spells - CL7, +6 modifier vs DC12 - never fails.
5th level spells - CL9, +7 modifier vs DC15 - never fails.
6th level spells - CL11, +7 modifier vs DC18 - never fails.
7th level spells - CL13, +8 modifier vs DC21 - never fails.
8th level spells - CL15, +9 modifier vs DC24 - never fails.
9th level spells - CL17, +10 modifier vs DC27 - never fails.

All this does is add more dice rolls and screw Paladins and Rangers over completely.

Mathemagician7
2011-07-28, 05:06 PM
wow - you caught that quick - I've been playing around with a couple different variations. I was thinking about 3*spell lvl plus 5 or maybe even spell level * 4, but that seemed a bit rough. I guess I hadn't double checked the math on this version. Good catch, thank you.

If the numbers were adjusted to make the checks relevant, though, what do you think?


oh yeah - Pallys & Rangers only get CL = 1/2 their level right? what's a good fix for that? maybe give them caster level = to class level - 3?

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-28, 05:06 PM
+26 bonus for spellcraft checks vs DC 27 at 20th level. All you need is max ranks in spellcraft, and skill focus or +3 intelligence modifier. +24 minimum for caster level checks as well, and high starting stats and stat boosting items have something to say. And the DCs go down by three per spell level. At level 1, the caster level check is +3 minimum unless you rolled really badly for stats. Minimum for spellcraft is +4. The checks are trivially easy to make, and all you need is a skill investment.

Edit: swordsage'd.

Aquillion
2011-07-28, 05:08 PM
Misses the point anyway. Even if the rolls were hard enough to work like you intended, it'd still be "make this roll and you break the game, fail and you do nothing." It's like an anti-magic zone -- it does exactly the wrong thing, making it so a player is alternatively game-breaking or useless. That's not a solution.

(It's also extremely unfun, since it forces the player to rely on luck constantly.)

Don't try and fix the existing tier 1 classes. The way they're designed, their basic concept -- exemplified in many of their iconic spells and abilities -- is game-breaking. Replace them with other classes, like the warmage, dread necromancer, favored soul, Beguiler, Wildshape variant ranger, etc.


oh yeah - Pallys & Rangers only get CL = 1/2 their level right? what's a good fix for that? maybe give them caster level = to class level - 3?Why are you fiddling with Pallys and Rangers? Are you trying to buff them, or are you talking about trying to apply your system to them?

They're not overpowered; they're actually kinda underpowered. The Ranger is tier 4 and the Paladin is tier 5. Do not do anything that would make them less powerful or restrict their spellcasting -- they need buffs, not nerfs, generally.

The Glyphstone
2011-07-28, 05:10 PM
Or target the real source of their brokenness - the spells - and systematically tone them down...but that's an ungodly amount of work. Wholesale replacement is the better answer in most cases.

Great Modthulhu: Also, belongs in Homebrew, moving.

Aquillion
2011-07-28, 05:12 PM
Or target the real source of their brokenness - the spells - and systematically tone them down...but that's an ungodly amount of work. Wholesale replacement is the better answer in most cases.My problem with targeting their spells is that several iconic spells that people are probably going to want to play the class to use are going to have to be removed (especially the teleport and polymorph lines). Telling your players "sure, you can play a wizard, but I'm taking away everything that makes them a wizard" is just going to lead to arguments in many groups -- I think it'd be better to just say "nah, don't play a wizard, play this instead."

Raistlin1040
2011-07-28, 05:15 PM
This isn't a good way to nerf a tier. Even if you get the numbers to a good area (which as Flickerdart says, completely screws over the Ranger and Paladin), you haven't lowered the power of the class. You've introduced a random element to the class, which means that some of the time they will succeed and some of the time they will fail, but in neither instance is it their fault.

Saving throws, rolling for damage, spell resistance, these are things that can make a spellcaster less effective. This nerf completely weakens Tier 1, which is your intent, but it doesn't nerf it reliably. Sometimes the classes will be as broken as ever, other times they'll be completely useless. That means OP spells like Polymorph, Time Stop, Celerity, etc still have a chance to work as intended, and spells that are less powerful, but have utility (See Invisibility, let's say) have a chance to fail, and make an encounter far harder than it should be.

The best way to nerf a spell casting class is to remove or change the most abusable spells. Introducing random factors like this doesn't solve the problem of "The Wizard is overpowered" and also introduces the problem of "I want to play an unoptimized Blaster Wizard, but now my spells fail half the time, so I suck". People that ALREADY optimize and min-max will find away around rules like these, while people who don't will just become less useful.

The Glyphstone
2011-07-28, 05:16 PM
I guess that depends on the group. My preference is indeed to rip out Polymorph, for example, but I then replace it with individual spells like those printed in PHBII, CM, and SC - Form of the Eye Tyrant, or Shape of the Hellhound, or whatever. You can still be the wizard who turns into monsters/animals iconically, but you have to prepare specific forms instead of a single generic jack-of-win-all-encounters spell.

this is kinda hijacking the OP's thread though.

DeAnno
2011-07-28, 05:16 PM
The spellcraft check is pretty much always going to be easier than the CL check, so you might want to drop that entirely. Also, remember that anything of this type isn't really targeting tier 1 classes, it's targeting all full spellcasting classes (which is most of Tier 1 and 2, not to mention Beguilers and Warmages and Dread Necros). If you want to limit tier 1 classes, you need to limit what makes them tier 1: their versatility.

One way is to drastically raise the cost or lower the availability of scrolls, making it harder for them to collect spells (whearas spontaneous casters learn them for free). Another might be to implement a "spells known" mechanic to prepared casters, where they're limited in the total amount of spells they can ever use (this would have to be substantially larger than the spells known of spontaneous casters, probably at least 3x as many).

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-28, 05:18 PM
Make generalists ban two schools, diviners ban three, and other specialists ban four. That should tone them down if you don't want to take away the iconic spells.

SowZ
2011-07-28, 05:19 PM
Another thing is that so many checks bogs down combat really quickly. Simpler solution is to give high tiers fewer point buy points, (32 for tier 4-5, 28 for tier three, 25 for tier 2 and 22 for tier 1,) and encourage veteran players to play in Tiers 3-4 and let the newer guys take the ubers. Or keep the whole party within one tier of each other and there is no need to worry about nerfing.

NichG
2011-07-28, 05:19 PM
Personally my fix would be to restrict all such primary casters to one school of spells, possibly a second progressing as the Bard progression, and ban multispells like Ltd. Wish, Wish, Shadow Conjuration/Evocation/Shades, Anyspell, etc.

Versatility is why they're so potent, so you have to address that directly.

sreservoir
2011-07-28, 05:33 PM
Personally my fix would be to restrict all such primary casters to one school of spells, possibly a second progressing as the Bard progression, and ban multispells like Ltd. Wish, Wish, Shadow Conjuration/Evocation/Shades, Anyspell, etc.

Versatility is why they're so potent, so you have to address that directly.

those spells aren't actually problematic, because they take up slots of higher levels and tend to have restrictions which suck -- xp cost, spell resistance, time; miracle is decent, I guess, but still too high level. it's the spells which have intrinsically flexible mechanics, and the ones which kill the action economy, which tend to break things.

Psyren
2011-07-28, 05:33 PM
My problem with targeting their spells is that several iconic spells that people are probably going to want to play the class to use are going to have to be removed (especially the teleport and polymorph lines). Telling your players "sure, you can play a wizard, but I'm taking away everything that makes them a wizard" is just going to lead to arguments in many groups -- I think it'd be better to just say "nah, don't play a wizard, play this instead."

Paring down God's toolbox only stops him from being God - he can still be a wizard just fine.

For example - just because you take away Teleport, doesn't mean you have to take away fast travel. Make them use Shadow Walk instead, so it's nice and dangerous and doesn't take them exactly where they're trying to go - then the choice between mundane and magical travel becomes much more meaningful.

Polymorph as-written is broken, end of story. Every DM is justified should they choose to nerf or ban it.

Limit the sources your players can get spells from, and then go through them tweaking as necessary. Then next campaign, add another book or two and tweak again. Even if they find some interaction you didn't foresee, adjust it on the fly, or just plain reward their creativity and build in a safeguard for next session, or even just talk to them out of game.

Gating off their class features ("you must be this tall to cast spells") is never the right answer, because it just takes a broken system and makes it binary broken.

Mathemagician7
2011-07-28, 05:48 PM
Wow, a lot of good responses. Thanks guys.

I don't think I like the altered point buy system too much, because any optimizer worth his salt will still take 18 int on his wizard and then polymorph into something with good physical stats.

Whoever mentioned Paladins and rangers - oops. I really forgot about them. Obviously this is a kick in the head to some classes that were already low tier. Completely unintentional. I was mostly looking to limit wizards, clerics and druids.

I think it really does come down to cherry picking the really broken spells, although I'll look into the spell school ideas - that's very interesting. My first response was to recoil with disgust at how much weaker my favorite classes would be, but then I remembered that's the whole point. I want to be able to choose something else without feeling like I'm sawing off my own foot. They are waaaay to mighty.

One school at full progression plus one at Bard progression might be neat.

2 banned schools for a mage, 3 for a diviner and 4 for a specialist is also pretty interesting.

What about clerics? I think the final solution is going to have to involve some spell removal. Poly is def too good. Righteous might is questionable. Divine power also has to go. At least tensors transformation prevents further casting and is lvl 6.

The class I was thinking about playing that made me realize how broken these guys are is an enlightened fist with arcane disciple and a domain that gives Divine power & righteous might. Then poly into a stone giant for 27 str, 15 dex, 19 con and 11 natural armor class. Why should a wizard be that much better of a fighter than the fighter? (and still be able to be a wizard to boot)

Mathemagician7
2011-07-28, 06:10 PM
Ok, new Idea. Banning wizards, clerics, and druids is a last resort, and going through the spells one by one measuring their power is too much work, but what about this:

Clerics pick two domains, and may ONLY prepare spells from those lists. Get rid of the 1 domain slot, and just make the domain spells their list of spells known.

Spontaneously swapping for cures/inflicts is still allowed.


this is just off the top of my head. Its probably terrible. Still not sure what to do about wizards or druids.

The Glyphstone
2011-07-28, 06:14 PM
That's a bit too far - 18 spells known over their entire existence is a third of what sorcerers get. at half the total casting ability.

My to-do- list includes a Cleric rebuild project along those lines, separating all cleric spells into spheres/domains and letting a player pick a select number of them, but it's too much work to undertake now.

Yitzi
2011-07-28, 06:35 PM
A major part of the problem is that unless you want to make it impossible to play an unoptimized wizard, you have to balance the spells against each other...and that does require looking at each one, or at least each group, among the overpowered ones to weaken them.

Mathemagician7
2011-07-28, 07:49 PM
::sigh:: I guess there are no easy answers. I really have to either ban the classes or go through, spell by spell, and try to mitigate/remove the most abuseable ones.

Thanks guys!

jiriku
2011-07-28, 10:56 PM
Welcome to 3.5's central conundrum. We've all been where you are right now. :smallsmile:


You're pretty much correct -- there are no quick fixes or band-aids that work. Really fixing the system requires rewriting either the classes, the spells, or both. I went with the class rewrite approach. It was... time-consuming. What you do will depend on the type of game you want to run.