PDA

View Full Version : DMing: Nerf vs. Exploit Weakness



KoDT69
2007-05-31, 12:15 PM
I have noticed in a lot of debate threads (recently the Druid over/underpowered debate) that offer ways to counteract a class ability or feature being overpowered. These suggestions are often said to be a nerf to the class or DM fiat. I think for the purpose of these debates we should try to use the correct terminology as to not confuse or derail the thread. I think we can all agree on the following:

Underpowered - Lots of weak points, not enough strengths.
Balanced - Equal, or close amount of strengths and weaknesses.
Overpowered - So many strengths that the few weaknesses don't matter.

Now, I also feel that we need to discuss the difference between "nerfing a class or ability" and "exploiting a weakness of a class or ability". We all know some classes are inherently overbalanced and need some form of interference to prevent the overturning of the campaign.

Nerfing - I see this as the act of the DM to impose arbitrary limits, restrictions, or inconveniences on a class or ability in order to lower their respective power level in the campaign. This would include gross misinterpretation of fluff to cause loss of class features, eliminating spells or class features completely, or using tactics that are meant to make a class completely useless. I disagree with nerfing in almost all cases. I tend to see it as negative and counterproductive to the player in question, the campaign, and the group's fun in general.

Exploiting a Weakness - This would be the act of using a strategy or tactic against the PC's that leave them with limited options compared to the normal encounter or situation. This would include using AMF on a caster, flying opponents against a core fighter, or using magical locks against the party rogue. This option is intended to make a situation more challenging without ruining anybody's fun or making them completely useless. I prefer this method.

I have seen a lot of suggestions for balance referred to as nerfing, but I have to disagree with a lot of them. Using a PC weakness against them is and should be common practice. Any smart BBEG should have a decent knowledge of the party and their strengths/weaknesses. An enemy caster dropping AMF, while rare I agree even though I like that tactic a lot, is definitely not a nerf, especially since it is a temporary hindrance. Dropping a Forcecage on a fighter is also not a nerf per se, but it is cheap :smallbiggrin: Scenarios like these can become nerfs if the DM in question uses them on an all-to-often basis. That is bad DMing and not fun. The writers of Superman literally nerfed him at every opportunity. There should have only been less than 1 pound of Kryptonite on the whole Earth, but like magic it was in every drug store, flea market, and pawn shop in Metropolis :smallyuk:

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 12:21 PM
It is a very fine line. For example, an undead encounter is not "nerfing" the rogue. If every encounter is an undead, a construct, or an ooze, however, then it becomes so.

The way I have commonly seen "nerf" used is to indicate a reduction of power caused by alteration of the way something as a whole works (for example, one could "nerf" a class by removing one of its class features or making it give smaller bonuses), and is a relatively neutral term (if one unpleasant to be on the receiving end of). "Exploiting a weakness", by contrast, would be malicious pandering to said weakness, beyond what is reasonable: for example, only un-sneak-attackable enemies when it makes little sense to have such enemies and no others in a given situation.

Spiryt
2007-05-31, 12:29 PM
Terminology question - making ecounters incidentally only with ranger's favored enemy's (without plot reason) is certainly not "nerfing everyone else":smallbiggrin:
Then we will call it ________ of ranger?

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 12:31 PM
"Pandering shamelessly to" would be the proper terminology there.

Saph
2007-05-31, 12:42 PM
Now, I also feel that we need to discuss the difference between "nerfing a class or ability" and "exploiting a weakness of a class or ability". We all know some classes are inherently overbalanced and need some form of interference to prevent the overturning of the campaign.

Well, not really. Most D&D campaigns don't feature widespread nerfing of the caster classes, yet last time I checked, they seemed to get on okay.

But your main point's accurate. Assuming the enemies the PCs fight are intelligent, they should exploit the PCs' weaknesses at every opportunity unless they have a good reason not to. The DM just has to set things up so that this makes the battles more fun, rather than less.

- Saph

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-31, 12:45 PM
How is an AMF not arbitrary and unfair? Its like saying that breaking an Fighters arms could lead to new role-playing experiences. I'm sure it would, but its probably not going to be fun.

In an optimal situation, the group balances itself out. Nobody tries to number crunch and steal the show. I'm not sure how many people on the board have this kind of group, my certainly isn't one.

melchizedek
2007-05-31, 12:52 PM
My opinion of nerfing would be a little different than yours. I would include any attempt to limit a class by changing game mechanics in this area. It would thus not have nearly the same negative conotations as your definitions. So long as players are informed of changes before the game starts, there isn't a problem, but I think some spells in particular need to be, at the very least, severely weakened. As a DM, I wouldn't allow any character to cast Shivering Touch. Perhaps this would be nerfing the classes that have the potential to cast it, but I don't think that would be a bad thing. Most caster classes are overpowered enough without spells like shivering touch.

Indon
2007-05-31, 12:58 PM
I think we can all agree on the following:

Underpowered - Lots of weak points, not enough strengths.
Balanced - Equal, or close amount of strengths and weaknesses.
Overpowered - So many strengths that the few weaknesses don't matter.


Not so fast.

D&D is such a game that a wide variety of levels of power are viable for a campaign; as such, what is overpowered or underpowered for the game can be quite subjective. Further complicating this is player skill or intent, which could take an 'overpowered' or 'underpowered' class and based on strategy of build or strategy in play, resolve the class as quite the opposite of its' power-oriented stereotype.

This combination of factors leads to only extreme examples of weakness or strength inappropriate for the game such as to be 'unbalanced' in an objective manner, and even then, a lot of it's arguable.

Meanwhile, to describe something as more or less powerful than something else is much easier to establish and work with. The druid in your game is not neccessarily 'overpowered', but if he's the most powerful PC then he probably needs to be toned down. Meanwhile, if he's the weakest PC in your group, he probably needs some help (or, someone else needs toning down, whichever).

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-31, 12:58 PM
An AMF, if you play it by the rules, is not arbitrary and unfair because it is simply a spell effect that is symmetrically available to the PCs and NPCs. There are ways to deal with AMFs and costs of employing them. AMFs may be more useful to PCs' enemies than to the PCs due to factors such as class distribution, but the same could be said for Save or X effects and traps.

Antimagic regions, planes, and enormous bubbles are something else. If you use DM fiat/some special ritual you made up for the occasion to create an antimagic field that violates the normal rules for them, that is arbitrary (unless it's a symmetric houseruled mechanic). Whether or not it's unfair depends on what you do with it, but it certainly might be.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 01:04 PM
Antimagic Field can be unfair--for example, a dragon casting Antimagic Field essentially destroys everything, because it is far more physically powerful than any opponent equal to or far above its Challenge Rating, and by and large immune to magic except instantaneous conjurations launched into the Antimagic Field--and a dragon can take quite a while to kill with those, especially if it can destroy you first.

Similarily, using a Candle of Invocation can be unfair (and almost always is), even though it is availible to everyone.

KoDT69
2007-05-31, 01:05 PM
When I say "exploiting weakness", I mean on occasion, not at every opportunity. Doing so at every opportunity becomes nerfing. Exploiting PC weaknesses can lead to more interesting encounters if done properly. Not every fight should be won by the party wizard casting quickened "enfeeblecheese" followed by a "exhausted from all the cheese" FTW. That gets just as boring as every monster having AMF items on them :smallconfused:

JaronK
2007-05-31, 01:06 PM
The thing is, I think nerfing ahead of time (Druids are allowed in my game, but they don't get spellcasting at all, for example) is more fair. The person playing the Druid in advance knows what they're getting in to, and if they don't want that, they won't do it. This is very different from making situations that constantly attack the weakness of the party member (Suddenly, another antimagic field decends, and your party is cramped in an area that can only fit medium sized creatures!).

It's like saying ahead of time "we're going to play chess, but you're really good, so we're going to remove two of your pawns for fairness... sound fair?" vs. waiting until halfway into the game and just grabbing two pawns away.

JaronK

Citizen Joe
2007-05-31, 01:13 PM
There is an unspoken pact between the DM and the Players that both will play within an accepted set of rules. Unlike board games, roleplaying games have a very mutable ruleset and do not include a preset 'Win condition'. The problem arises when one side or the other believes roleplaying games are a 'zero-sum game', meaning in order for one side to win the other side has to lose. This results in an arms escalation to avoid being the loser (at best) or extreme optimization in order to be the winner. Those that participate in this behaviour are missing the point of a role playing game where the point is to have fun with your friends. So if you find yourself on either side of this problem, just let the other guy win. In the case of an abusive DM, don't resist a TPK... don't bother raising dead or resurections (you can't force a soul back). This effectively kills the DM's whole campaign as there is nobody left to play his game. In the case of an abusive player, offer the character all sort of rewards and power, have his enemies cower before him. When the character accepts these rewards, tell the player congratulations, you win! With all this wealth, you retire into a blissful life without needing to risk your life every day. Take his character sheet and file it into your NPC file and hand him a blank sheet and some dice. If the whole group is pulling this stunt, then retire them all.

This is kinda passive aggressive so I recommend that you explain your feelings privately to the offending parties.

Saph
2007-05-31, 01:15 PM
Antimagic Field can be unfair--for example, a dragon casting Antimagic Field essentially destroys everything, because it is far more physically powerful than any opponent equal to or far above its Challenge Rating, and by and large immune to magic except instantaneous conjurations launched into the Antimagic Field--and a dragon can take quite a while to kill with those, especially if it can destroy you first.

Actually, the one I came up with was a dragon using Permanent Emanation with an Antimagic Field. Several dragon types get 6th-level spells around the time that their HD hits 20+, so it fits quite nicely. That makes the AMF switchable on-and-off with a free action. Turn it off during your turn, use a spell/breath weapon, turn it back on again!

The point is, though, that this came up in a thread specifically asking for ways in which a dragon could deal with a cheesed-out wizard. It's not remotely appropriate for any kind of normal party. As the DM, you can make the monsters as powerful as you like anyway, but that's not what your'e trying to do - the idea is to make the encounter fun. This can mean nerfing the PCs, but it can equally well mean nerfing the monsters.

- Saph

KoDT69
2007-05-31, 01:20 PM
Not so fast.

D&D is such a game that a wide variety of levels of power are viable for a campaign; as such, what is overpowered or underpowered for the game can be quite subjective. Further complicating this is player skill or intent, which could take an 'overpowered' or 'underpowered' class and based on strategy of build or strategy in play, resolve the class as quite the opposite of its' power-oriented stereotype.

This combination of factors leads to only extreme examples of weakness or strength inappropriate for the game such as to be 'unbalanced' in an objective manner, and even then, a lot of it's arguable.

Meanwhile, to describe something as more or less powerful than something else is much easier to establish and work with. The druid in your game is not neccessarily 'overpowered', but if he's the most powerful PC then he probably needs to be toned down. Meanwhile, if he's the weakest PC in your group, he probably needs some help (or, someone else needs toning down, whichever).

I stand by the fact those definitions are correct. While it is true that each is subject to interpretation, your campaign, and your perception of what is weak or powerful. Those are all relative. The game mechanics do not affect the actual definition of the word. While you could say a wizard is overbearing in your campaigns for reasons X, Y, and Z, another DM could say Monks are overpowered because they can slow fall like 30ft. In the wizard case, his spellcasting and versatility strengths are perceived far outweigh say the d4 HD. In the case with the Monk, the obviously less experienced DM sees the number of free abilities the monk has and decides that is too much. The definitions stand though. They simply compare one condition to another. If the player skill is being included in the debate, then the player's skill, experience, or strategies could be counted also as strengths or weaknesses of the overall character in question.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-31, 01:31 PM
Exploiting weaknesses doesn't make a character balanced. A Frenzied Berzerker is really easy to exploit by making him rage amongst his allies or hitting him with grease. This does not balance out the fact that he's a member of the most adept class at doing what's the best option for melee characters.

But on the same topic, not taking advantage of your strengths i similar to nerfing yourself. A wizard who relies on damage spells is nerfing himself since he's not using his most useful abilities.

Exploiting weaknesses and playing to your strengths are part of gameplay while nerfing is usually about the metagame. Dungeons and Dragons is a tactical game that should reward planning and exploits.

Having exploitable weaknesses isn't a nerf because they only matter if your enemy exploits them. A nerf should be reliant on yourself (even if it amounts to nothing more than agreeing to play in a game subject to a certain house rule) while exploiting weaknesses is a tactic of your enemy. Similarly not exploiting your opponent's weaknesses isn't nerfing yourself, it's being less tactical.

Indon
2007-05-31, 01:31 PM
I stand by the fact those definitions are correct. While it is true that each is subject to interpretation, your campaign, and your perception of what is weak or powerful. Those are all relative.

I agree, I just think that it's more productive to use clearly relative terms than to use terms that are effectively relative, but are used as if they are objective. It can lead to argumentation rather than constructive discussion.

Telonius
2007-05-31, 01:32 PM
Personally I think that if classes, spells, or anything else are going to be reduced in power, this should be noted at the start of the campaign and known to all. In this case it's as much houseruling as it is nerfing. It's not a bad thing, as long as it's skillfully done and mutually agreeable to everybody. Personally I don't think many players would cry foul if (for example) Forcecage, Divine Power, or Natural Spell were stricken from the game - provided, of course, that the DM tells them about it beforehand.

If, after agreening on the rules, the DM sets up encounters to deliberately weaken a particular class, that's also not necessarily bad. Taken in moderation, such challenges can make great gaming experiences. An AMF can get the wizard to think outside of his normal options. Forcing a social situation can give the Dwarf Barbarian an unfamiliar set of problems to deal with. As long as the game situations have some semblance of balance, allowing each party member to shine, there isn't a problem.

Problems arise when a particular class can excel in too wide a variety of situations, or conversely, excels only in very particular circumstances (or is outshined in almost all areas by other classes). These are instances of mechanical imbalance. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are generally the examples of classes that do well in too many situations. Monks are usually put forward as the class that excels in too few areas. The CW Samurai is another example of this. In all of those cases, a mechanical, system-wide nerf or boost is more appropriate than a strategic, situational power-adjustment by the DM's choice of encounters and monster tactics.

Jack Mann
2007-05-31, 01:34 PM
The problem with a lot of the weakness exploits is that they tend to make the classes all-or-nothing. Anti-magic fields, if used excessively (and I have heard some people recommend using them nearly all of the time, believe it or not), turn the wizard into a smarter-than-average commoner with a good will save. Forcing a druid to lose all of his powers by making him teach someone druidic is just as bad, since they become effectively useless until they can atone.

Another exploit is preventing the arcane casters from getting any rest. This has much the same effect. If you do it all of the time, they're completely useless. If you only do it some of the time, you've simply changed them from being overpowered all of the time, to being overpowered some of the time and useless the rest.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should never exploit a player's weaknesses. But when it's an all-or-nothing weakness, don't step on it too often, or it becomes unfair to the player. A good balance fix has both the casters and the fighter-types feeling useful for as much time as possible. And not just useful, but heroic. Remember, D&D is a game of heroic fantasy. Your players supposed to feel like Lancelot, or the Gray Mouser, or Ged when they play. As a DM, you should be helping to foster that feeling.

Foolosophy
2007-05-31, 01:41 PM
Whenever a player in my group overshadowed the other players in my group because his characters was - by the rules - way stronger than the rest...


...I have simply talked to the player and we have worked out a solution, usually simply the player deciding to take "a step back" even though by mechanics he could have continued dominating. I don't know wether this works for games with "strangers", but when playing with a group of close friends I have never encountered any balance problems that couldn't be solved that way.
And so far nobody has complained.

PS: We actually play very combat-heavy campaigns and drift into "beer & pretzles" d&d from time to time...so we are not a bunch of diceless roleplayers ;)

EagleWiz
2007-05-31, 01:43 PM
Superman is way overpowered. Overpowered to the point that you HAVE to nerf him.

barawn
2007-05-31, 01:45 PM
When I say "exploiting weakness", I mean on occasion, not at every opportunity. Doing so at every opportunity becomes nerfing. Exploiting PC weaknesses can lead to more interesting encounters if done properly. Not every fight should be won by the party wizard casting quickened "enfeeblecheese" followed by a "exhausted from all the cheese" FTW. That gets just as boring as every monster having AMF items on them :smallconfused:

Yeah, I fall heavily down on the side of "exploit party weaknesses" - by which, I really mean, an average (intelligent) opponent will know about certain class weaknesses, and will target them. A rogue will Sleight of Hand a wizard's spell component pouch away (or better yet, replace it with inappropriate materials - gee, that looks like bat guano...). He'll target a cleric's holy symbol. Wizards won't bother targeting Monks with spells with saving throws. Enemies would forceably shove a metal helmet on a druid. :smallbiggrin:

An extreme opponent might actually know about party weaknesses (from spies following the party around), but there you have to be a bit careful. The party will still usually win, unless they don't know how to work well together or aren't very well prepared.

I've always found the best answer here is "think like a villain." If you think like a DM, and try to exploit the party's weaknesses, it'll feel cheap, and will usually kill them. If you think like a villain, it'll be clever. And usually won't.

Tormsskull
2007-05-31, 01:50 PM
There will always be these kinds of debates and discussions, but I can appreciate trying to level the terminology so that we are all talking about the same thing.

In my opinion, overpowered means that something is generally more powerful than something else that it is supposed to be of comparable power.

Here are some of my general rules for DMs to limit overpowered characters:

1. Do not allow players to purchase every magic item they want. Carefully select each magic item that you place as treasure or as available for purchase. In so doing you will carefully regulate what magic items appear in the game world.

2. Enforce the rule that character knowledge /= player knowledge, and be very firm when a player attempts to circumvent this rule.

3. Mystery is the best tool a DM has to work with. If you introduce homebrewed/tweaked monsters, magic items, spells, enemy classes, etc, players will be forced to respond to the best of their ability rather than to the best of their memory.

4. Possibly the most important, don't lead players to believe that their characters are the most important people in the game world and that the world revolves around their actions. This is what causes a lot of trouble IMO.

Jack Mann
2007-05-31, 01:58 PM
The problem is that if you do these things too often, those members of the party you're targeting aren't any use. The wizard without functioning spell components (especially if you give him no way to knowing why his spells aren't working) is largely useless until he can buy another one. The cleric can't cast spells or turn undead. The druid's abilities are gone for at least 24 hours. The monk... Well, he's already useless. Why are you even going after him? Do you pick on small children as well?

Done now and again... Yeah, it can be fun to place the party in dire straits. But that is not a balancing factor. These are all-or-nothing weaknesses. Either the character is overpowering, or he's completely useless. Most people do not enjoy being useless.

If you want to fix the powerful classes, then find one that allows everyone to feel heroic most of the time. Not just sometimes, not just when the DM feels like it. As much time as possible, they should feel like they are the heroes of the story. You've reduced them to the occasional deus ex machina, still extremely powerful, but only when you feel like letting them be.

Counterspin
2007-05-31, 02:16 PM
I would say that characters are only over/underpowered in comparison to other characters. If the party as a whole is over/underpowered, the GM just compensates by shifting the CR of encounters. A member of the less powerful classes can be catered to, but only if you're in a situation where that is possible. I myself almost never run D&D when such foresight(CR shifting or catering) is possible, so the significant disparity in mellee/caster power level serves my DM style poorly because it makes it hard to determine appropriate challenges "blind" so to speak.

That said, I strongly encourage nerfing over consistently exploiting someone's weaknesses. A rogue stealing a wizard's spell pouch once is the basis of a great story, but doing it regularly will force the wizard to those crazy lengths of lunacy so often decried on these boards. I would rather be upfront with someone, and nerfing strikes me as being more, if not more "honest," then more player friendly.

There is the concept in Texas Hold 'Em of a hand "playing itself," and to a certain extent I would like D&D design to take that to heart. I would like two players using the same amount of effort, the same amount of experience, and the same level, to produce characters that are pretty close in power level, regardless of the class they choose.

barawn
2007-05-31, 02:25 PM
The wizard without functioning spell components (especially if you give him no way to knowing why his spells aren't working) is largely useless until he can buy another one.

You mean... like a rogue/bard versus undead? Or a fighter with the wrong type weapon against an enemy?

What do those guys do in those situations? They get creative. That's what the wizard, cleric, or druid would have to do. Get creative. Find a spell that doesn't require material components, scrounge, start yelling for aid. Get the party Druid/Ranger to cast Summon Nature's Ally II, grab a dire bat, and fling it at the enemy, and try to convince the DM that hey, it's got bat guano in there somewhere (of course, don't tell the Druid that you're going to do it!). If you're the cleric, get creative - draw a new holy symbol on the ground, quickly. Or something like this, even (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0352.html).

Rogues can steal things! That's what they can do! Parties have to be able to handle those sorts of things. If they say "that's not fair!" well, why don't you just go the whole route, and just say "OK, party wins" constantly? Why stop at just nerfing rogues?


These are all-or-nothing weaknesses. Either the character is overpowering, or he's completely useless. Most people do not enjoy being useless.

All classes are useless at certain points during battles or campaigns. You're not setting it up so they can't do anything - you're not dropping a rock on their heads. You're just taking away the "easy" route.

In fact, eventually, they'll get clever, and that's when the "think like a villain, not like a DM" comes into play. After the spell component pouch gets stolen once, the wizard's going to come up with a contingency for it. Maybe a backup spell component pouch, or something even more clever. But you have to have the villains then make the mistakes!

As an aside:

One campaign I ran had an interesting flavor to it, and it worked amazingly well. I didn't run the enemies. Guest players did. As a DM, I was a bit biased in trying to keep the party alive, but I wasn't going to nerf the villain at all - the one time a near TPK happened, I deus ex machina'd them out of it, which ended up being a great plot point for later. It was amazing how realistic those sessions were.

NullAshton
2007-05-31, 02:29 PM
A simple way to balance out said classes is for the players to not use overpowered abilities. After all, the players take as much of a part in creating the game as the DM.

Counterspin
2007-05-31, 02:32 PM
Null Ashton - And how do you differentiate those? It's totally arbitrary, from one player to the next. What do these boards teach us if not that no one agrees where that line should be drawn? And what of the new player who stumbles onto something? And what about the poor guy who despite the other players engaging in restraint is still nearly invisible because of how much more powerful the primary casters are than the melee folk? Yes people should engage in self restraint, but it's hardly even a partial solution.

Droodle
2007-05-31, 03:38 PM
You mean... like a rogue/bard versus undead? Or a fighter with the wrong type weapon against an enemy?Rogues don't need sneak attack to be effective. They still have UMD, they can still sneak, and they can still just make regular attacks. Sure they are weaker against undead*, oozes, and constructs, but not useless. A bard can cast cure spells on undead.....or might even have the feat that allows their songs to work against them (the name eludes me at the moment). Even if a bard doesn't have those feats, he can still buff the party or make regular attacks. He's far from useless. Most fighters carry multiple weapons. Even if they have the "wrong" weapon, they can always power attack to blast through damage reduction.

Putting a character in a situation where he isn't as strong as normal hardly qualifies as nerfing the character.

*If they haven't taken Requiem.

barawn
2007-05-31, 03:41 PM
Rogues don't need sneak attack to be effective.

Just like a wizard doesn't need to be able to use all of his spells, you mean.

Indon
2007-05-31, 03:44 PM
A simple way to balance out said classes is for the players to not use overpowered abilities. After all, the players take as much of a part in creating the game as the DM.

As a collorary to Counterspin's point: That strategy works if you have experienced, considerate, intelligent players, which most people aren't. It might work for your group, though.

Another thing that should be done is that more experienced players should guide less experienced players into roles where their mechanics are relatively simple yet their characters can be potent. Experienced players can even give inexperienced players optimization advice, if need be.

Droodle
2007-05-31, 03:44 PM
@Barawn: A rogue has a lot more abilities than sneak attack to fall back on (like 3/4 base attack progression, for example). If that was the only worthwhile rogue skill, no one would ever make Archer-Rogues since they can only sneak attack at the beginning of combat, when their enemies are blind, or when they are invisible. Without his spells, a wizard is useless.

barawn
2007-05-31, 03:56 PM
Without his spells, a wizard is useless.

I said all of his spells. A wizard who loses access to spells with a material component is hindered, but not useless. Unless a Wand of Silence is unfair, it's not much different.

NullAshton
2007-05-31, 03:57 PM
Null Ashton - And how do you differentiate those? It's totally arbitrary, from one player to the next. What do these boards teach us if not that no one agrees where that line should be drawn? And what of the new player who stumbles onto something? And what about the poor guy who despite the other players engaging in restraint is still nearly invisible because of how much more powerful the primary casters are than the melee folk? Yes people should engage in self restraint, but it's hardly even a partial solution.

The primary casters will be much more powerful in potential, yes. But in a good group, the caster should use said power to help the other party members. Why couldn't the casters do things like damage(thus helping the fighter kill monsters faster), or buff the party with nifty things like haste?

Arbitrarity
2007-05-31, 04:09 PM
Because nifty damage doesn't take the monster effectively out of the fight in one hit. The fighter can hit the guy running and sceaming "My EYES! AUUUGGHHHH!!!" better.

And haste is a great spell. Why wouldn't you use it?

Jack Mann
2007-05-31, 04:29 PM
All right, perhaps not entirely useless, as in an anti-magic field. He's still a lot worse off than a rogue without sneak attack. You're looking at taking out three-quarters of his spells. No protection from evil, no wind wall, no summon monster, no mage armor, forget any of the stat boosting spells, no alarm, no rope trick, no sleep, no identify, no web, no solid fog... Worse, this hits the entire party. He's still got some good spells, but he's going to have a hell of a time helping the party out. Most of the spells he uses for buffing require material components. No greater magic weapon or haste for you, Mr. Fighter!

All this will end up doing is frustrating the player for a session or two. And make certain that, when they return to town, they'll stock up on five or six spell component pouches to keep you from trying it again. Or, if you keep having every spell component pouch get found and stolen, he'll take eschew materials and become largely immune to the tactic.

Again, I'm not saying you should never do these things, but doing them regularly is just screwing over your players. It's a terrible idea for balance.

Good party balance means that everyone is useful in almost every encounter (whether combat, roleplay, or whatever they face). Forcing the druid, say, to be nigh useless half the time isn't fair to him. Making the fighter useless the other half of the time isn't fair to him.

You can't use these tactics all of the time, and whenever you don't, the old party imbalances come right back to the fore.

That's why good DMs either nerf casters or boost fighters (or both). That way, they can have a consistent level of power, and not continuously frustrate their players.

NullAshton
2007-05-31, 04:37 PM
Because nifty damage doesn't take the monster effectively out of the fight in one hit. The fighter can hit the guy running and sceaming "My EYES! AUUUGGHHHH!!!" better.

And haste is a great spell. Why wouldn't you use it?

Killing blind people isn't quite as satisfying as hitting an enemy that just got blasted by a fireball.

Saph
2007-05-31, 04:42 PM
That's why good DMs either nerf casters or boost fighters (or both).

Or just play at the low to low-mid levels, where it isn't a big issue.

- Saph

barawn
2007-05-31, 04:44 PM
All right, perhaps not entirely useless, as in an anti-magic field. He's still a lot worse off than a rogue without sneak attack. You're looking at taking out three-quarters of his spells.

Again: how is this different than a Wand of Silence? The only difference is that it's actually more appropriate for a rogue. If he had taken Eschew Materials, he'd be fine. That's the entire point. The only question is whether or not the rogue ticked him off enough that he wants to burn a feat. If he does, the rogue won't know that, and will waste an action. And then the wizard feels snarky and smart.


All this will end up doing is frustrating the player for a session or two.

Actually, it'll just hurt them during combat. That's the idea. I can't imagine that he'd have to go back to town to get most of the supplies.


Again, I'm not saying you should never do these things, but doing them regularly is just screwing over your players. It's a terrible idea for balance.

I completely don't understand your point here. It's a perfectly valid tactic for anyone with Sleight of Hand versus a wizard. It's one of the first tricks that a highwayman party who attempts to ambush a party at night does. Taking it away is essentially akin to saying "hey, those material component things? We didn't really mean to have them. Just ignore 'em." Why not get rid of sneak attack, too? Or Smite Good - that's just screwing the players over, too.

I really don't get it. In some sense, you're basically saying "you can't mess with the wizard! that's unfair! he's too fragile to be messed with!" Huh? He's a wizard. There is no way in the world he shouldn't be prepared to deal with the simple tactic of someone taking away his magic stuff.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-31, 05:03 PM
Rogues don't need sneak attack to be effective. They still have UMD, they can still sneak, and they can still just make regular attacks. Sure they are weaker against undead*, oozes, and constructs, but not useless. A bard can cast cure spells on undead.....or might even have the feat that allows their songs to work against them (the name eludes me at the moment). Even if a bard doesn't have those feats, he can still buff the party or make regular attacks. He's far from useless. Most fighters carry multiple weapons. Even if they have the "wrong" weapon, they can always power attack to blast through damage reduction.

Putting a character in a situation where he isn't as strong as normal hardly qualifies as nerfing the character.

*If they haven't taken Requiem.

Requiem is the feat that lets Bard Song affect undead. You got something mixed up.

NullAshton
2007-05-31, 05:07 PM
How does stealing a wizard's spell components hurt them for several sessions? They kill the person that stole the spell components. Wizard can cast spells again. YAY!

Indon
2007-05-31, 05:11 PM
How does stealing a wizard's spell components hurt them for several sessions? They kill the person that stole the spell components. Wizard can cast spells again. YAY!

Alternately, they buy a new spell component pouch for like, 1 gold.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 05:12 PM
Every paranoid wizard carries more than one. Some on him. Some with the party rogue. One in his codpiece, and believe me, you do not want to try to steal that pouch.

Saph
2007-05-31, 05:16 PM
Exactly - so reward the wizard for being paranoid. :) Or make him paranoid for next time. After all, what's the fun of having a paranoid character if no-one's out to get him? It'd be an awful waste for all of those security layers to go unused . . .

- Saph

Indon
2007-05-31, 05:19 PM
Every paranoid wizard carries more than one. Some on him. Some with the party rogue. One in his codpiece, and believe me, you do not want to try to steal that pouch.

You sunder that one.

NullAshton
2007-05-31, 05:30 PM
The problem with being paranoid, is that you have to roleplay being paranoid. Sleeping in a rope trick inside a magnificent mansion, casting detect magic on anyone they come across to make sure they're not an assassin, casting fireball at any sound that scares him in a dungeon... that sort of thing.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 05:47 PM
What happens if you cast Magnificent Mansion inside a Portable Hole (no, there is no explosion), exit the portable hole, pick it up, and Plane Shift into the Mansion with the hole? Then the entrance to the mansion is in the mansion...

melchizedek
2007-05-31, 05:50 PM
What happens if you cast Magnificent Mansion inside a Portable Hole (no, there is no explosion), exit the portable hole, pick it up, and Plane Shift into the Mansion with the hole? Then the entrance to the mansion is in the mansion...

As far as I can tell, you can't plane shift into the mansion.
Since the place can be entered only through its special portal, outside conditions do not affect the mansion, nor do conditions inside it pass to the plane beyond.
It doesn't sound like there is another way in.

NullAshton
2007-05-31, 06:03 PM
By the wording of the portable hole, you can close the portable hole from the inside.

Jasdoif
2007-05-31, 06:05 PM
What happens if you cast Magnificent Mansion inside a Portable Hole (no, there is no explosion), exit the portable hole, pick it up, and Plane Shift into the Mansion with the hole? Then the entrance to the mansion is in the mansion...Since plane shift deposits you a minimum of 5 miles away from your intended destination, that plane shift might be difficult to manage. So let's say you're using gate instead.

Nothing especially out of the ordinary would happen. If you laid the portable hole out in the mansion, entered its now-accessable extradimensional space, and went through the portal...you'd be inside the mansion again.

What happens when the MMM spell expires, though?