Balancing 3.5: Martials as Anti-Magic?

[Quertus]

The intended topic of this thread was to open a discussion about the idea of if the mundane classes had generally-restricted abilities like Evasion and Mettle, or more novel/obscure abilities like a class feature version the Spellcutter enchantment, as a more common design, making such powers the rule rather than the exception for martials, and what it would do for those classes as a first step towards not neutering mundane characters for the high crime of "not having magic."

Personally, I'd like to see the Fighter get things that felt, well, thematic to being a Fighter, the Rogue to get things thematic to being a Rogue, and same for the Monk, Barbarian, etc.

But, my personal preferences aside? If you gave them the abilities you've discussed? Yay, they could participate in a fight vs a Beholder, or a Dragon. They'd still be dead weight vs mundane foes, or at a tea party. Or when traveling. Or... Well, any time that they weren't fighting something magical.

Some more broadly applicable skills and abilities are required to change people's opinions on muggles being dead weight.

EDIT: at least the Paladin bonuses to saves are good vs mundane things like poison; the Swashbuckler's AC bonus is good vs mundane opponents, too; etc.

[PhantasyPen]

Personally, I'd like to see the Fighter get things that felt, well, thematic to being a Fighter, the Rogue to get things thematic to being a Rogue, and same for the Monk, Barbarian, etc.

Part of the reason I opened this thread was that the initial idea kind of made me think about rebuilding the PHB classes from the ground up, along these lines, however I'm still a bit hesitant to try this, so I wanted to go over the smaller changes first. However seeing how this thread immediately got trashed, it appears if I wanted to do something like that, I would need to post the whole thing at once, which I didn't want to do.

[Nifft]

Part of the reason I opened this thread was that the initial idea kind of made me think about rebuilding the PHB classes from the ground up, along these lines, however I'm still a bit hesitant to try this, so I wanted to go over the smaller changes first. However seeing how this thread immediately got trashed, it appears if I wanted to do something like that, I would need to post the whole thing at once, which I didn't want to do.

Nah you don't have to do the whole thing at once, and even if you did you'd still get bad posters posting badly.

Don't let the bad posters chase you away. Respond to the good & productive ideas (e.g. mine whereby martials get stuff that works on both magic & non-magic).

[Quertus]

Part of the reason I opened this thread was that the initial idea kind of made me think about rebuilding the PHB classes from the ground up, along these lines, however I'm still a bit hesitant to try this, so I wanted to go over the smaller changes first. However seeing how this thread immediately got trashed, it appears if I wanted to do something like that, I would need to post the whole thing at once, which I didn't want to do.

Respond to the good & productive ideas (e.g. mine whereby martials get stuff that works on both magic & non-magic).

I mean, I like the idea of muggles getting nice defensive boosts, particularly when they're generally applicable, and not niche, especially niche anti magic. It's just... kinda like folding the laundry when the house is on fire, you know?

If you're looking at doing something that big though, how are you planning on fixing the horribly low floor on casters?

Dang it, now I've gotta join the meme.

[PhantasyPen]

Nah you don't have to do the whole thing at once, and even if you did you'd still get bad posters posting badly.

Don't let the bad posters chase you away. Respond to the good & productive ideas (e.g. mine whereby martials get stuff that works on both magic & non-magic).

Okay then, I did respond to it I believe but that post got buried so fast it isn't even funny.

Instead, consider removing some of the special dispensation that magic gets. For example:

- Magic attacks can be deflected and parried just like weapon attacks. That Monk with Deflect Arrow can also deflect melf's acid arrow or Bob's magic missile (... well the first one at least).

Now you just need some more rules for deflecting & parrying attacks on yourself and allies, and then a martial character can contribute by negating magical attacks on her friends, and can credibly protect them from legitimate threats at mid-level and up.

The hypothetical deflection-based character isn't anti-magic, she's anti-attack (including magical attacks).

I love this concept, I've loved it since I first picked up the PHB (I remember thinking that being able to make an attack roll to parry an opponent's attack was an actual official rule in my first campaign, wasn't like my DM knew any better, our only other campaign was a oneshot I had run the week before), the only reason I don't make something like permanent Melee Evasion/Wall of Blades a part of my regular houserules (possibly dispensing with the AC system altogether) is that it doubles the number of rolls made in combat, and martials make a lot of rolls already. Hmm, maybe tie it to the AoO system? Spend an AoO for the ability to parry as a special rule option?

If you're looking at doing something that big though, how are you planning on fixing the horribly low floor on casters?

Dang it, now I've gotta join the meme.

I'm probably talking around your complaint due to not understanding what you mean (I never break out a caster character without extensive research first.) but if I rewrote the system, I would turn all the core casters into themed fixed-list casters like the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage, which admittedly would massively inflate the number of classes in Core, but hey, it's more stuff to play with.

[Venger]

The intended topic of this thread was to open a discussion about the idea of if the mundane classes had generally-restricted abilities like Evasion and Mettle, or more novel/obscure abilities like a class feature version the Spellcutter enchantment, as a more common design, making such powers the rule rather than the exception for martials, and what it would do for those classes as a first step towards not neutering mundane characters for the high crime of "not having magic."

And we addressed that at length. Abilities like mettle and evasion already exist. Having them alone does not help characters without at least some magic contribute. Look at hexblade, for example. Even as a half-caster, he sucks despite his mettle ability. Even if you gave him free evasion, it wouldn't help him actually do anything. If you want mundanes to be able to do things, you need to give them at least some powers they can actively use to accomplish things, not not solely powers they can use to avoid having things done to them.

I've never heard of that weapon ability before. What issue of dragon magazine is it from and what does it do?

[Nifft]

able to make an attack roll to parry an opponent's attack was an actual official rule in my first campaign, wasn't like my DM knew any better, our only other campaign was a oneshot I had run the week before), the only reason I don't make something like permanent Melee Evasion/Wall of Blades a part of my regular houserules (possibly dispensing with the AC system altogether) is that it doubles the number of rolls made in combat, and martials make a lot of rolls already. Hmm, maybe tie it to the AoO system? Spend an AoO for the ability to parry as a special rule option?

Warhammer Fantasy RPG had Dodge / Parry / Block all as separate reactions, and if you had the right equipment & training you could do all 3 in a turn.

I don't like the idea of using AoOs for defense. I'd suggest making a separate resource silo for defenses.

[Florian]

Pathfinder martials have access to stuff like cut from the air or spellsunder, so they basically can block an incoming spell with their blade and smash that annoying iron guard / stone skin spell to pieces (also fun when you manage ranged sunder attempts). Works quite well.

[theblasblas]

One aspect that I didn't see people talking about from skimming the replies: Making Martials anti-magic by default will nerf casters as a side effect. That is, if in every fight about 70% of your enemies had both evasion and mettle in addition to their normal abilities then PC casters will have a harder time doing anything offensively, giving Martials a larger role. This can also be extended to outside of combat if, for example, martials were more resilient to mind-affecting spells or more perceptive against invisibility, it would allow characters who are mundanely good at diplomacy or stealth a chance to shine.

[Quertus]

I'm probably talking around your complaint due to not understanding what you mean (I never break out a caster character without extensive research first.) but if I rewrote the system, I would turn all the core casters into themed fixed-list casters like the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage, which admittedly would massively inflate the number of classes in Core, but hey, it's more stuff to play with.

... Conventional wisdom says that this is a good idea. I think it's a bad plan, and lowers the floor on wizards even further. Let me explain.

Conventional wisdom says that a Wizard who picks bad spells today can just pick better spells tomorrow. Which is small consolation to the player who is useless today, even smaller consolation to their dead Wizard.

Having only highly thematic spells makes it far too likely that your Wizard will be dead weight, unable to contribute at all. This is, IMO, exactly the opposite of what one should be aiming for when balancing the classes. Fighter is useless dead weight, so let's make everyone else useless dead weight, too? That's technically balanced, but doesn't sound terribly fun. IMO, is much better to aim to make everyone's abilities more universally applicable.

Also, on a personal note, I love the idea of the D&D Wizard (pre 3e) - the sage collecting scraps of arcane knowledge from the post-apocalyptic ruins of former civilizations. Your proposed changes would likely kill that archetype.

One aspect that I didn't see people talking about from skimming the replies: Making Martials anti-magic by default will nerf casters as a side effect. That is, if in every fight about 70% of your enemies had both evasion and mettle in addition to their normal abilities then PC casters will have a harder time doing anything offensively, giving Martials a larger role. This can also be extended to outside of combat if, for example, martials were more resilient to mind-affecting spells or more perceptive against invisibility, it would allow characters who are mundanely good at diplomacy or stealth a chance to shine.

How many monsters do you usually fight at a time? In my games, and the modules I've read, it's usually only one creature type at a time. So, 70+% of the fights, everything has evasion and mettle, and casters quickly learn to rely on minionmancy, animating the dead, buffing animal companions, and spamming summons, further relegating martial characters to the sidelines.

At least, that's how I'd expect that change to play out.

[theblasblas]

Better the fighter fighting alongside a summoned griffon, than just standing in the sidelines as the Wizard mops up with a Fireball or a Charm Monster. A large part of the utility of the Wizard is that most of their spells are good both inside and outside of combat, if they fill up their list with summon spells they won't have as much utility out of combat.

Of course, all of this is assuming that it's not a 15-minute adventuring day.

[PhantasyPen]

I've never heard of that weapon ability before. What issue of dragon magazine is it from and what does it do?

There are two versions that I've seen, neither of which comes from dragon magazine that I can recall.
The first version, and by far the better of the two, simply wraps the user's blade in an anti-magic field, and allows you to make a Reflex save to cut down a spell that is targeting you. Or you can do what my Dervish did and put that enchantment on an adamantine weapon and suddenly no obstacle in the world can bar your party's progress. (Hey look at that, a martial with utility and someone using the sunder rules? I really don't play the way the playground says )
The second version, and far less efficient, allows a spellcaster to stick a specific spell inside of the weapon, and the next time that someone casts that spell, the martial character gets to make a free (greater?) dispel magic check to counterspell that specific spell. Over all not very good save for making sure your friend's aren't dead when the DM decides to use your wizard's favorite spell against you all.

One aspect that I didn't see people talking about from skimming the replies: Making Martials anti-magic by default will nerf casters as a side effect. That is, if in every fight about 70% of your enemies had both evasion and mettle in addition to their normal abilities then PC casters will have a harder time doing anything offensively, giving Martials a larger role. This can also be extended to outside of combat if, for example, martials were more resilient to mind-affecting spells or more perceptive against invisibility, it would allow characters who are mundanely good at diplomacy or stealth a chance to shine.

This honestly just sounds like a good thing to me.

[Cosi]

Having only highly thematic spells makes it far too likely that your Wizard will be dead weight, unable to contribute at all. This is, IMO, exactly the opposite of what one should be aiming for when balancing the classes. Fighter is useless dead weight, so let's make everyone else useless dead weight, too? That's technically balanced, but doesn't sound terribly fun. IMO, is much better to aim to make everyone's abilities more universally applicable.

I agree that making people more like the Fighter (possessed of a narrow niche of mechanical prowess and worthless outside it) is bad, but that's not how thematic casters have to work. Consider, for example, the Necromancer. Sure, you could just give her negative energy blasts and some undead. But you could also add some divinations (speak with dead is obvious, but Necromancy was originally "divination via spirits), blasting effects to support Lord of the Uttercold shenanigans, plague themed debuffs, stinking cloud and friends for undead-friendly battlefield control, raise dead effects, teleport or plane shift effects mediated via the spirit world, or fear magic. All of that is on-theme for a Necromancer, but it's also a wide enough variety of things that you could plausibly trim one or two options and still have a character who has something to do in any situation, and there are other options you could add depending on exactly what kind of Necromancer you went with (shadow magic for someone focused on incorporeal undead, or melee options for a vampire type, or an entire line of magic jar shenanigans, or entropy magic, or disease magic, or any number of other things).

If you define your themes by flavor rather than mechanics, and you're generous with theme-adjacent options, it's very easy to produce casters that are both thematic and able to contribute in a variety of situations.

Also, on a personal note, I love the idea of the D&D Wizard (pre 3e) - the sage collecting scraps of arcane knowledge from the post-apocalyptic ruins of former civilizations. Your proposed changes would likely kill that archetype.

I don't think "seek the lost secrets of the ancients" requires you to be a generalist mage. The Necronomicon is a book of lost ancient lore, but it is specifically full of necromancy lore. Certainly, some classes are a better fit for it than others (it is, for example, unforgivable that the Truenamer has no reason to search through ancient ruins for lost words of power), but anyone could plausibly be motivated by ancient secrets. Also, if most characters are specialists, having a PrC/subclass/feat/whatever that gives you magic from other lists is more impactful than it would be otherwise.

[Venger]

There are two versions that I've seen, neither of which comes from dragon magazine that I can recall.
The first version, and by far the better of the two, simply wraps the user's blade in an anti-magic field, and allows you to make a Reflex save to cut down a spell that is targeting you. Or you can do what my Dervish did and put that enchantment on an adamantine weapon and suddenly no obstacle in the world can bar your party's progress. (Hey look at that, a martial with utility and someone using the sunder rules? I really don't play the way the playground says )
The second version, and far less efficient, allows a spellcaster to stick a specific spell inside of the weapon, and the next time that someone casts that spell, the martial character gets to make a free (greater?) dispel magic check to counterspell that specific spell. Over all not very good save for making sure your friend's aren't dead when the DM decides to use your wizard's favorite spell against you all.

That's interesting. Let us know if you recall where they're from. I assume they're homebrew. People dislike sunder primarily because you're destroying your own loot. The second one sounds more or less like a spellblade

[Anachronity]

My approach is almost always just to nerf magic, usually by decreasing the breadth of different effects any one character has access to (sure, you can fly, but you can't also AoE blind people with Glitterdust, turn invisible, or become immune to projectiles). Nerfing Vancian casting to the point where they aren't OP though is inadvisable just on a basis of effort required. You basically need to scrap the whole system at that point.

Spheres of Power for Pathfinder (relatively easy to port to 3.5) is an excellent alternative to Vancian casting that allows strong specialization (e.g. "I want to play an ice mage") at an earlier level (cold blasts, cold cones, cold beams, weaker ice walls, and limited cold-based weather control all by level 4), but gets rid of a lot of the random extra side powers that such characters have access to (like free Detect Magic or Fly). It's still very high T3 (breaking into T2 if Advanced Talents are allowed), but I consider it a marked improvement overall.


If you want Vancian casting as-is, then the only option is martial initiators; the only way that martials can keep up with the sheer breadth of options that Vancian casters have is to basically just become casters themselves.

In the end it depends very much on the type of game you want. Balance is relative, and fighters are only dead weight by comparison to wizards. If the party as a whole is hitting substantially below their weight class (or character level, in this case) then any reasonable GM will just tone down the challenge. The problem occurs when one party member can consistently and tremendously outperform the others, and therefore can't participate in the same encounter as everyone else without one or more players just not having any fun. There is definitely something to be said, though, about "move, swing, turn" fighters being boring. You probably shouldn't go that low on PC power unless you're playing with all new players.

[PhantasyPen]

I agree that making people more like the Fighter (possessed of a narrow niche of mechanical prowess and worthless outside it) is bad, but that's not how thematic casters have to work. Consider, for example, the Necromancer. Sure, you could just give her negative energy blasts and some undead. But you could also add some divinations (speak with dead is obvious, but Necromancy was originally "divination via spirits), blasting effects to support Lord of the Uttercold shenanigans, plague themed debuffs, stinking cloud and friends for undead-friendly battlefield control, raise dead effects, teleport or plane shift effects mediated via the spirit world, or fear magic. All of that is on-theme for a Necromancer, but it's also a wide enough variety of things that you could plausibly trim one or two options and still have a character who has something to do in any situation, and there are other options you could add depending on exactly what kind of Necromancer you went with (shadow magic for someone focused on incorporeal undead, or melee options for a vampire type, or an entire line of magic jar shenanigans, or entropy magic, or disease magic, or any number of other things).

If you define your themes by flavor rather than mechanics, and you're generous with theme-adjacent options, it's very easy to produce casters that are both thematic and able to contribute in a variety of situations.

Essentially this, it's not hard to build casters thematically, which would probably be the best way to avoid just rehashing the fixed-list casters that already exist, however at the same time, I don't think I would want to make one individual class significantly more powerful than the rest by virtue of too broad a "Theme"

That's interesting. Let us know if you recall where they're from. I assume they're homebrew. People dislike sunder primarily because you're destroying your own loot. The second one sounds more or less like a spellblade

So the anti-magic field version is from a book called Arms&Armor v3.5 by Bastion Press which is basically a martial character's wet dream if you're looking for a more comprehensive weapon list. I'm not sure where the second version is from, but I think it was probably somewhere in the Magic Item compendium or the second DMG.

Spheres of Power for Pathfinder (relatively easy to port to 3.5) is an excellent alternative to Vancian casting that allows strong specialization (e.g. "I want to play an ice mage") at an earlier level (cold blasts, cold cones, cold beams, weaker ice walls, and limited cold-based weather control all by level 4), but gets rid of a lot of the random extra side powers that such characters have access to (like free Detect Magic or Fly). It's still very high T3 (breaking into T2 if Advanced Talents are allowed), but I consider it a marked improvement overall.

I'm actually in a Pathfinder game right now that uses the Spheres system, I'm impressed with it so far, however one of the things I love so much about 3.5 is the idea that if you can think of it, you can build it (which might go against my fixed-list caster statement), and as versatile as the Spheres are, it's not quite at that level. Also I don't like back-porting Pathfinder stuff into 3.5.

[Anachronity]

one of the things I love so much about 3.5 is the idea that if you can think of it, you can build it (which might go against my fixed-list caster statement), and as versatile as the Spheres are, it's not quite at that level. Also I don't like back-porting Pathfinder stuff into 3.5.

In my experience, Vancian magic is substantially more constraining due to requiring level bloat to fulfill a lot of more specific concepts (other than maybe specifically a concept from the works of Jack Vance )

Add to that the very much compatible buff to fighters in Spheres of Might and you get a very satisfying balance level.
(I will admit I like the base mechanics of Path of War/Tome of Battle a lot. But I don't like the balance point of it, and I like SoP more than either of the martial fixes so I just go with the martial fix more in line with SoP's balance point.)