Houserule: supporting spells

[Morty]

Okay, after some thinking about nerfing spellcasters, I invented something like that:
Supportning spells. Thing is, that with this houserule when you cast some spell with effect that last some time- buffs, battlefield control(i hate that term, but...), debuffs and so on you have to support them. My idea was, that spellcaster can't support spells of level higher than higher level he can cast. Example: 7th wizard can cast up to 4th level spells. So he can cast fly and grease but not fly and solid fog. Spells of instant effects, like damage spells or knock, pyrotechnic and so on, aren't affected. Spells cast from scrolls that spellcaster can't prepare are treated like being the highest level spellcaster can cast. Spells that cause penalties or conditions may be treated like half of their level, I don't know yet.
What do you think? Is it worth anything? Are restricions too much? Or, more importantly, shouldn't that thread be in homebrew section?

[NullAshton]

Oh joy, a way to make casters less effective at helping the rest of the party members, and instead force them to use MORE save or die effects.

[Morty]

Point of that houserule is to limit spellcasters ability to buff themselves to heavens and making everyone unable to act via 'clouds and walls'.
Ah, and another thing: buffs cast on other people count as half of their level.
As for making spellcasters less effective: to make spellcasters really uneffective it'd take more than single houserule.

[NullAshton]

Point of that houserule is to limit spellcasters ability to buff themselves to heavens.
Ah, and another thing: buffs cast on other people count as half of their level.
As for making spellcasters less effective: to make spellcasters really uneffective it'd take more than single houserule.

Why not just have the BBEG cast greater dispel magic on the wizard first thing?

[Ashes]

Sounds to much like a pointless nerf. Why is it harder to buff yourself than others? I can see where you are coming from with this, but I can't see anyone playing a wizards reacting positively to it. It reeks of, "I nerf you because I can".

[jlousivy]

i like this. for clerics.
as for wizards/sorcerers, like Null was saying it would cause them to be even more selfish.
heck, i'd probably end up being an evoker(?!)
question, what would the wizards get back?
only the evoker isn't effected, and the debuffs aren't really the problem
house rule certain spells not the whole block in general imo, like eliminate the polymorph cheese and such, but why limit him from casting mage armour and haste? they still take actions

[Morty]

My main point was to prevent flying wizard trapping non-wizard in wall of iron and casting cloudkill inside of wall of iron. Or forceownage.
I'm still thinking about debuffs. I think that spells causing conditions- sleep, ray of exhaustion, etc. will be either unaffected by the rule or counted as half of their level.
Of course, that applies to clerics as well. 9th level cleric won't have Righteous Might and Divine Power at the same time.
As for 'not contributing to the party'- if wizard still helps in defeating enemies- and he does even with that houserule- he helps his party members. If fighter kill enemies, doesn't he help his team?

[Thomas]

So your main point is to prevent casters from having tactics or combat options?

... well, that sure seems... like a great idea.

[Piccamo]

DnD is not balanced around 1v1 combat. It doesn't matter that he can own a Fighter one v. one. What matters is that he can render the Fighter useless while they are on the same team. DnD is not balanced around 1v1 combat.

[Pegasos989]

My main point was to prevent flying wizard trapping non-wizard in wall of iron and casting cloudkill inside of wall of iron. Or forceownage.
I'm still thinking about debuffs. I think that spells causing conditions- sleep, ray of exhaustion, etc. will be either unaffected by the rule or counted as half of their level.
Of course, that applies to clerics as well. 9th level cleric won't have Righteous Might and Divine Power at the same time.
As for 'not contributing to the party'- if wizard still helps in defeating enemies- and he does even with that houserule- he helps his party members. If fighter kill enemies, doesn't he help his team?

Yes, but the game is overall more fun if wizard hastes the fighter before save-or-killing enemies as then both have more fun. Also, this limits spells like haste, greater magic weapon, teleport prevention spells, protection from elements... So it nerfs spellcasters most in helping their party but not nearly as much as killing enemies (overland flight is 5th level spell, I think. So 9th level wizard could have overland fight and greater invisibility on but he couldn't cast greater magic weapon or haste on the party)...

Always remember that warriors need their arcane buffs more than wizard does. With one or two buffs, wizard is strong enough, fighters need haste, fly, greater magic weapon, ability boosts...


EDIT: realized that it is not CL worth of buffs but highest spell worth of buffs. So 5th level wizard could cast one haste and and bull's STR on the fighter, nothing else on anyone. Too big nerf to noncasters.

[Morty]

So your main point is to prevent casters from having tactics or combat options?

... well, that sure seems... like a great idea.

My main point is to weaken the casters. And they will have tactical and combat options as long as they have spells. That houserule is meant to prevent them from becoming untouchable. And I don't know if it's good houserule. That's why I post it here. To know if it's good or bad and why
But you may be right, I think that maximum spell support level may be too low and restrict casters too much... maybe I'd make it max level spellcaster can cast + INT/WIS/CHA bonus.

DnD is not balanced around 1v1 combat.

But there are 1v1 combats. And if there are 1v1 combats, they should be balanced.

Yes, but the game is overall more fun if wizard hastes the fighter before save-or-killing enemies as then both have more fun.

Also, this limits spells like haste, greater magic weapon, teleport prevention spells, protection from elements..

I mentioned that buffs cast on other people/objects will either count as half of their level or won't count at all.

[Piccamo]

Why are there 1v1 combats? I cannot think of anyone who plays DnD to PvP; its a team game. If you're basing your idea off of MMORPGs or what people ask on a message board about who would win, you may have the wrong idea.

[Pegasos989]

Why are there 1v1 combats? I cannot think of anyone who plays DnD to PvP; its a team game. If you're basing your idea off of MMORPGs or what people ask on a message board about who would win, you may have the wrong idea.

Well, I have run a lot of solo campaigns. Also, there are often situations like gladiatoral matches, etc. so it would be really nice if 1v1 combat would be balanced.

That was answer to "why are there 1v1 combats?"

However, as most of DnD is in team, I do agree that if they decide to balance better either 1v1 or group combats, I would choose the latter.




Anyways, yeah, buffs to friendly characters shouldn't count. If you do that, there will be some balancing (wizard will choose ownage but less ownage is better than all of it... However, they will keep taking the most efficient ones then...).

Now, I think that one system could be:
You can have buffs worth of highest level you can cast + spellcasting ability mod.
Round/level buffs count towards this limit as full.
Minute per level count as half (rounded down)
10 minutes per level count as half (rounded up)
hour per level and higher count as third of their level.

But still, I do not think that the main problem with wizards is them being able to buff themselves (except contignency, polymorph, etc. which can be just taken away).

[Thomas]

No, can't really see any reason 1 vs. 1 combat should be balanced. Not everyone has to be equal in every situation. That's not balance, that's homogeneity.

[Morty]

Well, I have run a lot of solo campaigns. Also, there are often situations like gladiatoral matches, etc. so it would be really nice if 1v1 combat would be balanced.

That was answer to "why are there 1v1 combats?"

However, as most of DnD is in team, I do agree that if they decide to balance better either 1v1 or group combats, I would choose the latter.




Anyways, yeah, buffs to friendly characters shouldn't count. If you do that, there will be some balancing (wizard will choose ownage but less ownage is better than all of it... However, they will keep taking the most efficient ones then...).

Now, I think that one system could be:
You can have buffs worth of highest level you can cast + spellcasting ability mod.
Round/level buffs count towards this limit as full.
Minute per level count as half (rounded down)
10 minutes per level count as half (rounded up)
hour per level and higher count as third of their level.

But still, I do not think that the main problem with wizards is them being able to buff themselves (except contignency, polymorph, etc. which can be just taken away).

That houserule doesn't include only buffs. Besides, why longer lasting buffs should be less limiting?
That system is meant mainly to prevent Wizards from casting battlefield control spells- which I find powerful but boring- and buffs at the same time. So there won't be flying, invisible and wind-walled wizard casting Forceownage, Dimensional Anchor and Cloudkill. Besides, that single rule won't balance casters entirely, that'd require whole hell of houseruling, like getting rid of scry-and-teleport tactics(I don't think that'd be possible, but I suppose it sadly is), and so on.
I'm still not sure if it should include debuffs. Perhaps not, or they should count as half, or we'll have wizard standing around doing nothing.

No, can't really see any reason 1 vs. 1 combat should be balanced. Not everyone has to be equal in every situation. That's not balance, that's homogeneity.

Of course. But melee-types should have some chances against casters in fight, and on higher levels they have low chances at best. And fighting is only thing they do, they should be better in combat than casters- who can do whole lot on non-combat stuff already.

[Pegasos989]

That houserule doesn't include only buffs. Besides, why longer lasting buffs should be less limiting?
That system is meant mainly to prevent Wizards from casting battlefield control spells- which I find powerful but boring- and buffs at the same time. So there won't be flying, invisible and wind-walled wizard casting Forceownage, Dimensional Anchor and Cloudkill. Besides, that single rule won't balance casters entirely, that'd require whole hell of houseruling, like getting rid of scry-and-teleport tactics(I don't think that'd be possible, but I suppose it sadly is), and so on.
I'm still not sure if it should include debuffs. Perhaps not, or they should count as half, or we'll have wizard standing around doing nothing.

I would make long duration buffs take less as they are designed to be used together and all day (and are thus most of the time weaker). Sure, there are a few exceptions (polymorph spells, contignency, forcecage...) but the problem there is spells, not the class. And those spells should be the ones edited.

Of course. But melee-types should have some chances against casters in fight, and on higher levels they have low chances at best. And fighting is only thing they do, they should be better in combat than casters- who can do whole lot on non-combat stuff already.

At higher levels only? At lower levels, the only thing keeping them near is wizard's limited spells slots. (which is countered by scribe scroll. Anyone even mentioning the 1exp lost... :D)
"Mirror image and start casting sleep" is a decent way to win nearly any arena fight at 4th level in 2-3 rounds with no damage taken. At 5+, there is deep slumber, hold person, etc...
It is just that at high levels, they have enough slots to own 4 times a day without losing 12gp and 1xp for a scroll.

[Morty]

I would make long duration buffs take less as they are designed to be used together and all day (and are thus most of the time weaker). Sure, there are a few exceptions (polymorph spells, contignency, forcecage...) but the problem there is spells, not the class. And those spells should be the ones edited.

Agreed. Contingency, Forceownage and Polymorph should be edited. And hours/level spells indeed should take up less limit.
BTW, Mage Armor is the same thing as Shield, but it lasts hours/level, not minutes/level...

At higher levels only? At lower levels, the only thing keeping them near is wizard's limited spells slots. (which is countered by scribe scroll. Anyone even mentioning the 1exp lost... :D)
"Mirror image and start casting sleep" is a decent way to win nearly any arena fight at 4th level in 2-3 rounds with no damage taken. At 5+, there is deep slumber, hold person, etc...
It is just that at high levels, they have enough slots to own 4 times a day without losing 12gp and 1xp for a scroll.

On lower levels it's the fact that arcane spellcasters are fragile like hell and don't have enough spells to counter that. Besides, that just proves my point.
I haven't yet decided about spells that cause conditions- I think they shouldn't take up supporting limit, or we'd have wizards who cast few spells and now they're standing and doing nothing. They'd still be able to cast damage spells, though... but many people despise them(I don't, but I'm in minority here).

[Emperor Tippy]

Why do people insist on trying to balance the classes?

If the players are any good then it frankly doesn't matter because they will let each other have their moments. Not to mention that the DM should do something besides combat (which casters win). Roleplay not Rollplay.

And think about it. Look at everything D&D is based upon and all fantasy books. Name one where a fighter can reliably defeat a magic user. Ingame wizards are rare overall so they aren't that big of a problem.

[NullAshton]

...the Balor tied with a wizard.

[Aximili]

If the players are any good then it frankly doesn't matter because they will let each other have their moments. Not to mention that the DM should do something besides combat (which casters win). Roleplay not Rollplay.

Play a bard, it will basicly force the DM to do something besides combat.

Playing a bard not only helps you grow as player, but also helps your DM grow as one.

[Raum]

If you really want to "weaken" casters just make counterspelling easier. For example, make it an immediate action and use any spell of the appropriate level instead of requiring a readied action and a specific spell. You end up with two results, first the casters often use up their immediate / swift actions and so cast one less spell per round at higher levels. Second, the worst of the offensive spells will be countered by the opposing caster.

As a side benefit, you end up with most powerful spells not working in battle similar to many fictional sword & sorcery novels.

[Jestir256]

*snort* If casters are winning your combats, then you need to rethink your combatants and their tactics. Spellcasting is full of nasty little exploitable holes which SHOULD preclude lone casters from overcoming fighter types. Study some anticaster tactics, and I think you'll find that imbalance mostly lies in the uncreativity of the players.

[Morty]

Why do people insist on trying to balance the classes?

If the players are any good then it frankly doesn't matter because they will let each other have their moments. Not to mention that the DM should do something besides combat (which casters win). Roleplay not Rollplay.

And think about it. Look at everything D&D is based upon and all fantasy books. Name one where a fighter can reliably defeat a magic user. Ingame wizards are rare overall so they aren't that big of a problem.

You're basically right, but players can play non-casters as easy as casters, so spellcasters aren't elite. So they should be at least close to be equal- they won't be, as balanced RPG system is an oxymoron, but I'm trying. And in the fantasy novels I've read, wizards were just as vunerable(or more vunerable) to having their heads cut off- and in D&D they aren't.

If casters are winning your combats, then you need to rethink your combatants and their tactics.

And you need to read few threads about new, creative ways for spellcasters to screw non-casters. There are at least two of them on the first page.

[Piccamo]

What books do you read where Wizards aren't always prepared for whatever they're facing and it doesn't take hordes of enemies to defeat them?

[Ambrogino]

Name one where a fighter can reliably defeat a magic user.

Conan. Most Sword & Sorcery stuff has wizards going down like wheat in a threshing machine if they don't get the drop on a protaganist.

Edit: That seems to go for Piccamo too.

[Morty]

What books do you read where Wizards aren't always prepared for whatever they're facing and it doesn't take hordes of enemies to defeat them?

At least one serie of books, and two tomes of novels by the same author and in the same world, though I doubt you know them if you aren't Polish. In these books, wizards were powerful, but not omnipotent and ceratinly not so nigh-unkillable as in D&D. That's just one example. There is also 'Earthsea' by Ursula K.Le Guin, where wizards are powerful, but they aren't walking around doing what they want.

Conan. Most Sword & Sorcery stuff has wizards going down like wheat in a threshing machine if they don't get the drop on a protaganist.

And there's that, too, though I've never read Conan.
And the main point is, that these are books. And D&D is a game, where PC classes should be balanced. And, besides, just because you are wizard, you don't have to be able to pwn everything in combat.

[Piccamo]

If you want to play a game where everything is balanced for 1v1 combat you may want to try a different system. Mechanically everything is so intertwined that a change to one thing or a small group of things will affect everything else. "Winning" at DnD isn't accomplished by putting out the most damage; it is done by forcing a save or die / save or suck. Unfortunately only casters really have this option and thus non-casters are guaranteed to be at a disadvantage. If you want to take out all the save or lose spells you will have alot more work ahead of you trying to rebalance everything else.

[Marcotic]

how is this, maybe make all buff spells only castable on other people, then as a free (all caster's get it at level 1) metamagic feat make them castable on your self

[Matthew]

Whilst I approve of the sentiment, I don't think this is a great mechanical solution to the power of Spell Casters. Spell Point Systems always seemed like a better solution to me, especially with 'duration costs' attached.

[Morty]

Yeah, but I'm a fan on vancian magic system, and I despise point-based magic. Besides, vancian/point-based isn't really the difference. Also, I'm aiming into self-buffs and battlefield-control spells(though I'd rather delete the latter completely), which I think are the biggest issue of wizard's brokeness.
BTW, thanks to Marcotic for ressurecting my 6 month-old thread