Author Topic: Why are so many great spells Personal only?  (Read 28773 times)

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2012, 02:55:24 AM »
And I bet that's the exact reason why spells like Mage Armor and Righteous Might are personal-only, because it feels right.

Mage Armor is not personal only.

Offline Ziegander

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 692
  • bkdubs123 reborn
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2012, 03:02:36 AM »
And I bet that's the exact reason why spells like Mage Armor and Righteous Might are personal-only, because it feels right.

Mage Armor is not personal only.

Pfft! Whatever.

Offline Endarire

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Smile! Jesus loves you!
    • View Profile
    • Greg Campbell's Portfolio
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2012, 03:16:37 AM »
Shield is Personal, though.

I understand your argument.  Still, what about using Spellguard of Silverymoon or another ability to change Personal to Touch, then use War Weaver or somesuch to make the buff affect the party?  Is this too powerful, just right, or other?

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2012, 03:48:53 AM »
The problem is not the range of the spell to begin with.
If the spell is too powerful, its too powerful whether its personal or touch.
Spells which are not too powerful are entirely fine to make touch range, which would make them fulfill a team role more.

You have several kinds of personal spells:
Personal recovery - which is a bit silly because for the times you REALLY need recovery you are unable to perform the action.
Personal combat augmentation - Which only goes to contradict team play, and is the worst offender for overpowered spells for their slot. Practically everything on this list goes into making CoDzillas and gishes what outmelee melee.
Personal ability expansion - Things like personal flight, water breathing, passwall, personal teleport etc, which would have issues if made available early to the entire party, as they can then entirely circumvent level inappropriate barriers, but can be safely made available to one party member...on short durations.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2012, 09:15:30 AM »
Ziegander and veekie: right on, I think you guys pretty much hit it on the head, but I want to touch up on what you said Ziegander: I think a more apt description of the result in some cases might be "we made this spell too powerful, let's use Personal Only as a limiting factor."  And it should be obvious what the problem with that is (hint: veekie said it)

Personal range doesn't need to go away, I just think the designers need to check what should be personal range again.  I don't think you can pin it on the type of spell (i.e., buffs, recovery, utility, etc.), it more depends on the type of spell.  For instance, and I know there's at least one spell like this, a buff spell that is personal only, but the effect is that you can improve others by taking actions, say, take a swift action to grant someone a morale bonus on their attacks for the round, you can do this for a number of rounds per caster level or something.  Or damaging spells that do something like that (there's a spell, Lunar Something, or Something Luna, the one that has orbs orbit your head that you can shoot out as damage as an attack action and grant protection based on the number of orbs left, but not much protection at all).  What about a spell like.....Swift Invisibility?  That one is designed to only be useful to the caster.  It's a case by case basis that you have to look for.  veekie probably explained this one better, the utility entry.

Not only that, I think it should be possible for a "selfish" caster archetype, a class that focuses on using spells for ones own benefit, that turns buffs and such into personal range.  You'd have to of course make sure it's not outshining the others capable of doing the things it does, but that shouldn't be TOO hard, right?

I guess my point is, all the personal spells right now are personal for the wrong reasons, but there are right reasons to have a personal spell.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2012, 04:16:03 AM »
A selfish caster type?  Psychic Warrior is what your looking for.  Personal effects are part of its theme and basically substitute for the usual plethora of (useless) class abilities a non-caster would get.  A good example of the Personal range used well.   A good template for any homebrew on the subject.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2012, 04:21:17 AM »
Well, Personal effects that make you better at what your core functionality is don't have much of a problem. If there was a personal spell that improves a wizard's Knowledge checks, thats cool, if there was a personal spell that increases the CL of your next spell, thats cool too.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #47 on: March 17, 2012, 10:59:52 AM »
Well, Personal effects that make you better at what your core functionality is don't have much of a problem. If there was a personal spell that improves a wizard's Knowledge checks, thats cool, if there was a personal spell that increases the CL of your next spell, thats cool too.

Agreed.  As long as the spell's bonus isn't too much, those examples are fine.  Don't really have a problem with the "gish classes" having personal buffs to enhance them in combat...though after such buffs they should ideally still be a bit inferior to the non-caster fighter or monk or whatever other class.  Since their spells afford them versatility the latter classes don't have.

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2012, 10:20:57 PM »
Monk and Fighter are terrible benchmarks, they're worst at what they do best.  How powerful is ok would really depend on availability.  If they can exceed the nonmagical benchmark in 1 or 2 fights a day, but are worse the rest, that's probably fine.  (Presuming the standard 4 a day.)

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2012, 02:13:13 AM »
By "ideally," I meant "if the noncaster classes were actually competent and decent."

If the Fighter was actually an unstoppable beast in combat like he should be, then having something like a psychic warrior that fights less well than him but w/ buffs can reach almost to the fighter's level, while also having the utility of...spells powers, that would actually be pretty balanced.

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2012, 05:12:16 AM »
Close enough for me to agree.

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2012, 07:29:19 PM »
What bothers me is that all bar 1 attempts to rebalance spellcasting to melee in DnD 3.5 have followed the doctrine of 'remove everything the wizard does'.  Often to the point where the wizard turns into a gish because the buffs are still there so he can 'help the fighter' (who still desperately needs help).

The one attempt to buff the fighter (3.Tome - there have been other attempts, but not part of a rebalancing, and honestly, those attempts fell laughably short of their goals - making the fighter a better tripper does not counteract the core problems with the class (inability to fight monster manual enemies due to being a mundane in a world of gods)) specifically didn't go as far as the designers wanted to because of fear of community pushback against a fighter class that can do conan-esque stuff.  And that's what they got.  Even with the weaker version.

The problem with personal spells, as well as the designers not really understanding what they should be for, is that even a weak spell completely outperforms entire mundane classes (Bite of the X > The Fighter), which is a failure of the mundane classes more than anything else.


Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #52 on: March 18, 2012, 07:47:34 PM »
If the wizard has so many options that break the game, why is it that taking away those options is "gimping the wizard"?  Why can't a rebalancing involve decreasing those classes that are too powerful and increasing the power of those that aren't?  A rebalancing isn't a one-way street, it's not "you are only allowed to reduce or increase power, not both".

That's why my favorite rebalancing attempts on the casters are those that reduce the power without really reducing options/flavor.  They end up with abilities that mesh well with other classes and themselves, better designed classes and by default PrCs, and less of an overshadowing of the mundane classes.  And then couple that with my favorite rebalancing attempts for mundanes, where the mundanes have a reasonable power boost that doesn't involve just a straight "Monk now does 10d13 unarmed damage at level 6 lololololol!" type number increase.  They end up making those classes capable of existing in the magic world.

And for the record: I hate the Tome series rebalancing.  I really think they didn't do a good job with it, and didn't address the actual reasons there was a discrepancy.  I just really don't like those classes.  I don't like the power level, I don't like the abilities, I don't like the character core changes.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #53 on: March 18, 2012, 09:07:30 PM »
The point is that while some wizard abilities break the game, most don't.  Glitterdust is a great spell, sure, but if the fighter could actually, y'know, hold his own in a fight, the wizard being able to blind a bunch of people for a couple of minutes wouldn't be such a game-changing effect.

Other than stuff like buff stacking, polymorph, nodes, crap like incantatrix/reserves of strength, some specifically broken spells (Shivering Touch), none of the wizard's abilities are a) outside his paradigm b) trivialize all encounters c) mean the wizard can't be harmed (astral projection does not count, because barring genesis, at that level, enemies come to YOU if they catch your astral projection fucking with them).  What it still does is d, ) completely make useless the abilities of other characters.  This is because the fighter is not good at fighting, the rogue is not good at roguing, and the sorcerer has nothing to differentiate him from a wizard except wings of flurry.  If you have a better fighter, better rogue, and better sorcerer, then that problem is solved as well.

Also, I don't know if you meant to or not, but you're misrepresenting 3.Tome considerably.  The entire design philosophy was that horizontal power was far better than vertical, i.e. options not numerical boosts (to damage or otherwise).  And the classes, all of them, reflect that.  If anything, they're less damage focused than your basic leap attack/dungeon crash fighter, the basic standard by which all 3.5 melee can be measured.

Also, can you link some of these rebalancing attempts?  The only one i've seen that I would say added any kind of power to a melee class without 'hur durr +damage hurr' was the Art of War Fighter over on GitP, and even that required careful optimizing to pass the SGT.

If you like a lower, more faerun level of play and power level, that's fine, but Tome caters to that too.  Focused spellcasting classes (Puppeteer, Pyromancer, Summoner, Plant Shaman, Initiate of the Nine) can be played a lot more simply than wizards, and out of the box with basic feats (weapon focus etc) the Fighter and Barbarian are both designed to function in that kind of group incredibly easily.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #54 on: March 18, 2012, 09:49:12 PM »
I want to point out the hilarious contradiction that arose when you said "Other than the one entire branch of spells, another similar but different branch of spells, another group of power, powerful PrCs, and a bunch of other spells, the Wizard's not powerful at all!"  Look, it's okay if you like that power level.  Just aknowledge that it is powerful.

As to your d) point: why should the wizard (or other caster, but this mostly pertains to the Wizard) be as powerful as any other class at what they do?  As it is now, wizards are capable of taking care of any situation with no trouble whatsoever.  If that's the goal for non-wizards, powerwise, wizards will STILL be the most powerful class by far, because not only are they capable of replacing, say, the Rogue for skill use, but the Cleric for healing/buffing, the Fighter for combat, the Monk for whatever it is the MOnk does, etc. all at the same time.  So they are as powerful as any one class at a task as that class is, but have the advantage of being able to do other things (as well as the classes that specialize in those things even).

As to your other points: that's the problem with the casters.  Unless you do fix the problems with overly powrful spells, they do indeed do those things.  No two ways about it.  So by default, they do definitely need to be nerfed....unless you want those points to still be a problem.  If you don't care, and want to bring everyone else up to that level, more power to you I guess.  But you can't argue that the casters are not the problem and then come around and say "they do have these things that make them overly powerful, but those don't count".

As for the Tome series, my memory of them isn't too hot, as it was a long time ago that I read them, but I remember a distinct design philosophy difference between me and Frank and K.  The way they designed things was not the way I prefer to design things, and it did indeed lead to a massive power creep for the mundanes.  They made everyone tier 2, when I prefer lower tier 3, as it's much easier to balance, much easier to challenge, and much more efficient at not breaking things.  As for feats, they have a bunch grant benefits at higher HD, effectively granting 3 feats for the price of 1.  I really do not like this.  I prefer more feats being granted, and each feat being useful at all levels.

For rebalancing attempts that don't just add numbers: me and EjoThims have a Monk, and Ejo's got a Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, etc. in Verold.  For rebalancing attempts on casters: I know Bauglir's been working on an interesting one, that one promises to be good.  RobbyPants as well.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #55 on: March 19, 2012, 10:12:40 AM »
Quote
If that's the goal for non-wizards, powerwise, wizards will STILL be the most powerful class by far, because not only are they capable of replacing, say, the Rogue for skill use, but the Cleric for healing/buffing, the Fighter for combat, the Monk for whatever it is the MOnk does, etc. all at the same time.
You mean one of this things and after a day of preparation, right? Because I doubt that even a Wizard can cover ALL the roles AT THE SAME TIME and highly outperform dedicated classes.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10717
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #56 on: March 19, 2012, 10:24:18 AM »
Because fighters can't have nice things.
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #57 on: March 19, 2012, 10:32:39 AM »
Because fighters can't have nice things.
I disagree. Fighters get all the best things, like BaB and lots of feats.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10717
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #58 on: March 19, 2012, 10:41:03 AM »
Because fighters can't have nice things.
I disagree. Fighters get all the best things, like BaB and lots of feats.
I hope that's sarcasm...
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #59 on: March 19, 2012, 10:45:56 AM »
You color blind?
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay