Author Topic: Why are so many great spells Personal only?  (Read 28743 times)

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #60 on: March 19, 2012, 11:21:44 AM »
You color blind?
The text is blue.  What does it mean that the text is blue?  Does that mean sarcasm?  Because it would be a lot easier to just stick a :p at the end.

In any case, the more toys the wizard gets per day, the closer the wizard comes to eclipsing the other classes all at the same time.  With some classes, it's not even that hard.  Persistent Greater Invisibility and fighting from more than 120' away (outside the ranges of most blindsenses and blindsights) just plain beats any hide check you can put together.  Knock makes Open Lock look silly, and Arcane Sight + Summon Elemental makes traps a negligible threat.  What's left for the Rogue class to do other than stab things with low AC and no Crit Immunity for mediocre damage?

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10717
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #61 on: March 19, 2012, 11:23:49 AM »
fighting from more than 120' away (outside the ranges of most blindsenses and blindsights)
And True Seeing, which seems to be often overlooked.
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 X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #62 on: March 19, 2012, 11:54:24 AM »
fighting from more than 120' away (outside the ranges of most blindsenses and blindsights)
And True Seeing, which seems to be often overlooked.
Arcane Sight, too.

Offline Halinn

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2067
  • My personal text is impersonal.
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #63 on: March 19, 2012, 12:59:56 PM »

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #64 on: March 20, 2012, 09:37:10 AM »
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.

'Buff stacking' is not the same as the transmutation school.  Pulling together 15 different bonus types from 15 different books is not the same as casting Bull's Strength and then Bear's Endurance.

Body of the Wolf and Trollform are not broken.  Polymorph is, as it allows dumpster diving.

Things that allow free persistent spell remove one of the few balancing factors to spells.  The difference between a wizard or cleric using those feats/classes and a wizard or cleric not using those feats/classes is colossal.

Nodes are broken, pun pun level of broken, that is all.

Shivering Touch and a few other offenders are save or dies without the save.  That is again, bad design that doesn't prove the rule.  There are few spells like this, and they can be and are spot-banned.

Quote
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).

My point was that wizards and clerics and archivists and sorcerers and erudites shouldn't be as powerful as other classes at that other class's major schtick.  You're assuming that the only way to do this is to nerf wizards.  My entire post was stating that I disagreed with that.  Did you even read what I wrote?

In Tome, for example, the Wizard can't replace the Fighter.  That's because the Fighter can do things the Wizard can't.  If the wizard fills all his spell slots and dumpster dives for stupid spells, he can possibly equal the fighter, although some capabilities he can't (BAB scaling feats).  I honestly think the Fighter is one of the less well designed and weaker Tome classes.

If you think a wizard can solo any encounter a fighter can survive, you're right, they can.  But if the Fighter is stronger, then the encounters that he can survive/defeat get stronger, too.  Then it's not that the wizard can solo everything, but rather, that he is on an even footing with the improved fighter, and probably even weaker in combat (utility in lots of situations vs being really good at fighting -> the ideal difference between the fighter and the wizard).  That's my argument for creating classes that are actually good at their roles instead of turning the wizard into a magic missile spammer and making the fights all boring hp-slogs, since that's all the PHB melee classes can actually handle without insane optimization.

Quote
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".

Other than the things I listed, all of which are things I have seen houserules limiting or abolishing in nearly any game of 3.5 i've ever played, there is nothing that the wizard can do that is 'overly powerful'.

Again, the problem is that when compared to stock MM1 enemies, the fighter, rogue, barbarian etc don't stand up very well, and certain other classes have lopsided power flow in terms of what abilities they're supposed to use and what they use (bard = dragonfire inspiration, spells, maybe some skill use for funsies, nothing else, no partial melee without sublime chord buffs, no other bardic music (countersong?) etc etc all that stuff is weak and is ignored) (druids = wildshape, pocket fighter (animal companion), handful of 'good' spells, no skill use or wild empathy or whatever, no-one cares about any of that).

You can nerf wizards and sorcs and clerics and anything else with a spell progression (and all the attempts to nerf spellcasters have been hilariously hamfisted and generally failed (pathfinder, numerous 'fixes' like 'one less glitterdust per day' which just shortens the adventuring day by 1 encounter)) but then the entire party is going to need optimizing to stand up to unoptimized encounters and combat is going to be boring (just like 4e).

I'd prefer to actually make the currently weak and boring melee classes have interesting and thematic abilities that make them good at what they do.

Quote
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.

The idea of those feats was that they were useful at all levels.. granting small abilities at lower levels and bigger/broader abilities at higher levels, like a feat chain without requiring additional feat expenditure.  If you want to customize it more, you could change each rank of the feat into a new feat as part of a chain and hand out more feats.  That's a personal preference thing, though, most people like the differentiation the feats provide 'my samurai has trained to fight in absolute darkness' etc as opposed to people cherrypicking the strongest feats out of the lot like in basic 3.5.

I'm not Tomesfan9999 but like I said of all the fixes i've seen, it's the only one to create relative power parity between the classes.  It's also the only one that has created classes and parties that pass the SGT (Same Game Test) i.e. that can handle the CR of stock encounters they're supposed to handle, without optimization.

Quote
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.

Do you have links for these?  I could possibly find them with the search function but I don't feel like trawling through it right now.

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #65 on: March 20, 2012, 09:52:38 AM »
In any case, the more toys the wizard gets per day, the closer the wizard comes to eclipsing the other classes all at the same time.  With some classes, it's not even that hard.  Persistent Greater Invisibility and fighting from more than 120' away (outside the ranges of most blindsenses and blindsights) just plain beats any hide check you can put together.  Knock makes Open Lock look silly, and Arcane Sight + Summon Elemental makes traps a negligible threat.  What's left for the Rogue class to do other than stab things with low AC and no Crit Immunity for mediocre damage?

Well, persistent anything becomes pretty silly, much less persistent 5th(6th?  7th?  I always forget what greater invis is) spells which should be a 12th level slot.

This is my argument as to why mundanes need to be better.  The start-of-a-class ranger I posted in that other thread could track any projectiles fired to a square regardless of invisibility and then fire arrows that ignored miss chances straight back. 

If I was writing a rogue, they'd get all kinds of movement related shenanigans up to and including Full Attack On The Run at like level 5, the whole 'ambush' line of feats as class abilities, eventually be able to hide as an immediate action, HiPS pretty early, initially while standing still and then while moving and then while attacking, schticks like having huge bonuses vs traps and being able to make Disable Device checks to activate traps in ways other than their makers intended, so turn traps on their creators, see traps without having to make search rolls (i.e. elf ability but for traps too), be able to lock/jam doors as a free action as part of a move action, parkour style movement with appropriate movement related checks, basically give them a suite of skill based abilities that depend on them having lots of ranks in the skill so they can specialize and be rewarded for that specialization, and a movement based combat style with lots of debuffs and lockdown, with a slight emphasis on melee fighting where the ranger has a slight emphasis on ranged combat.

Any extra damage wouldn't be sneak attack, it'd be adding int mod or doubling damage in certain situations (opponent prone, say) and getting lots of ways to screw people over when it's not your turn (debuff based lockdown).

Later levels you'd be disappearing from mental radars and divinations, automatically knowing people/have bribed people, moving through walls and other obstacles, being impossible to tie down or halt, draining magic with attacks, and countering enemy attacks as they happen(something similar to the Tome Fighter's foil ability).  As well as being able to dodge more and more exotic things (like imp. evasion but broader and spread out throughout the entire class).

If a class could use Open Lock to relock doors or jam doors behind them as they flee, bypass alarm spells and enter extradimensional spaces (or genesis'd planes at higher levels.. even those set to specifically keep them out), is it really overshadowed by Knock?

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #66 on: March 20, 2012, 10:27:00 AM »
In Tome, for example, the Wizard can't replace the Fighter.  That's because the Fighter can do things the Wizard can't.  If the wizard fills all his spell slots and dumpster dives for stupid spells, he can possibly equal the fighter, although some capabilities he can't (BAB scaling feats).
Pick Whispers of the Netherworld(courtesy of tome itself), auto-win against tome fighter as you drown them in uncorporeal undead spawns (or some good old allip draining). Wow, that was fast and easy after all!


Other than the things I listed, all of which are things I have seen houserules limiting or abolishing in nearly any game of 3.5 i've ever played, there is nothing that the wizard can do that is 'overly powerful'.

Then guess what, you're still nerfing casters! What makes spellcasters powerful are their spells, so if you remove/nerf the spells, you're nerfing the casters no matter how you look at it.

I'm not Tomesfan9999 but like I said of all the fixes i've seen, it's the only one to create relative power parity between the classes.  It's also the only one that has created classes and parties that pass the SGT (Same Game Test) i.e. that can handle the CR of stock encounters they're supposed to handle, without optimization.
So they're balanced because they steamroll everything else whitout optimization? Rigghhttt...

Also if by "power parity" you mean "play a demonic necromancer or be seriously left behind by those who do", you're completely right. Because you just need to have a nice charisma score and pick some tome necro feats to have your personal party that overshadows everybody else.

« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 10:33:07 AM by oslecamo »

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #67 on: March 20, 2012, 10:56:28 AM »
I was referring to the classes when I was talking about power parity.

The necromancy and leadership feats are explicitly and specifically optional and explicitly and specifically change the power level of the person using them.

This is spelled out in that section of the rules.

I don't really think that's the way necromancy should be handled personally.

But it doesn't change the fact that you're talking about an optional set of feats when i'm talking about the classes themselves.

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 #68 on: March 20, 2012, 11:43:24 AM »
Okay...did you read what I wrote?  My point in the first part (the "hilarious contradiction" thing) was that you took away a bunch of powerful things and yet cried foul when I spoke of nerfing the casters.  And then I went on to say that weak classes can be brought up in power, but casters definitely need to be brought down in power.  Which you apparently agree with, but will never admit, hiding behind a wall of "those things are too powerful!  They don't count!".  Which.....is not exactly good debate.

On the SGT thing, well, that's a load of bull.  We all agree that the Terrasque is not worth a CR 20 right?  Well, actually, I did a test years ago, with a standard core party, using tactics and builds that were around for the testing of 3.5, and guess what?  It was pretty much a CR 20 encounter.  I have a feeling that using the same tactics and build types would yield a party capable of doing the adequate jobs relative to CR.  NOte: this is the whole no-optimization thing.  Optimize, and it shreds CR.  Use good tactics, and it shreds CR.  Use monsters with tactis that actually reflect abilities, it shreds CR (some go high, some go low).

As for the homebrews, I've seen you around.  You aren't a newbie here, so surely you know who me, Ejo, Robby, and Prime are.  And if not, there's a very useful thread stickied in the Homebrew forums that lists various homebrews and remakes, the remake one is run by Ejo.  In addition, Verold is a sub-forum, it's Ejo's custom campaign setting, so you can find it there.  You know what, I'm a nice guy though, I'll do the work for you, so here's Verold.
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 #69 on: March 20, 2012, 12:57:29 PM »
Okay...did you read what I wrote?  My point in the first part (the "hilarious contradiction" thing) was that you took away a bunch of powerful things and yet cried foul when I spoke of nerfing the casters.  And then I went on to say that weak classes can be brought up in power, but casters definitely need to be brought down in power.  Which you apparently agree with, but will never admit, hiding behind a wall of "those things are too powerful!  They don't count!".  Which.....is not exactly good debate.

Putting words into someone else's mouth isn't exactly good debate either.

I specifically stated things that I consider CO/TO tricks (incantatrix, reserves of strength, nodes and metanodes), and spells that are banned/rewritten in the games of nearly every DM who understands anything about CO (shivering touch, polymorph (the subject of more official rewrites than anything else in the game), lahm's finger darts, etc).

If you think those are core concepts of the wizard, and that any test or SGT needs to incorporate them as part of the standard of wizard power level, then you and I play very different games and have very different ideas of conceptual balance.

Quote
On the SGT thing, well, that's a load of bull.  We all agree that the Terrasque is not worth a CR 20 right?  Well, actually, I did a test years ago, with a standard core party, using tactics and builds that were around for the testing of 3.5, and guess what?  It was pretty much a CR 20 encounter.  I have a feeling that using the same tactics and build types would yield a party capable of doing the adequate jobs relative to CR.  NOte: this is the whole no-optimization thing.  Optimize, and it shreds CR.  Use good tactics, and it shreds CR.  Use monsters with tactis that actually reflect abilities, it shreds CR (some go high, some go low).

And here we run into the subjective encounter problem.  You ran an encounter with a tarrasque.  It was a CR 20 encounter when you did that.  Okay.  I'll totally accept that.  However, without knowledge of how you optimized the encounter/'played' the encounter, the group's composition and optimization (funny how you did this core-only while saying that wizards should get access to every spell and prestige class in the game for the purposes of balance comparison...), that data is functionally worthless as an example.

If your group was 4 commoner 20's with longspears and you ran the tarrasque as trapped in a gully and unable to move, that would be exactly the same as the tarrasque wearing flying boots and being invisible and fighting a group of horizon tripper, CoDzilla, Druid, and G.O.D wizard.  Anecdotal evidence needs facts and numbers or it's kind of worthless.  With optimization you can make a CR 1 goblin a serious threat to a EL 20 party.  The only point of the SGT is that it's the same range of encounters for every class.  So it's a neutral yardstick to measure the classes against each other in adventuring situations.  Other than that it has no inherent value.

Obviously, a poorly played wizard can be outpowered by a really well played PHB fighter.  The point is, as it stands, if two equally optimizing players play a wizard and a fighter, the fighter is BMX Bandit and the wizard is Angel Summoner.  That's the entire point of the SGT and 'equal optimization' on the chassises compared to it.  To try to make sure the BMX Bandit/Angel Summoner thing isn't repeated.

Quote
As for the homebrews, I've seen you around.  You aren't a newbie here, so surely you know who me, Ejo, Robby, and Prime are.  And if not, there's a very useful thread stickied in the Homebrew forums that lists various homebrews and remakes, the remake one is run by Ejo.  In addition, Verold is a sub-forum, it's Ejo's custom campaign setting, so you can find it there.  You know what, I'm a nice guy though, I'll do the work for you, so here's Verold.

I'm 'around', yeah, but I don't post on the homebrew forums, either here or on the old site.  I also don't know whether the things you're referring to are here or still on the old site, on a private compendium site like the few that have sprung up, somewhere else by the same people (like wotc or gitp), what the thread is called etc etc.  That's why I asked for links.  Because it's late over here and I don't feel like searching through search results just to look at a few classes.

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 #70 on: March 20, 2012, 01:35:18 PM »
On the "words in your mouth" thing: when did I do that?  You said, in the same post earlier, that casters should not be brought down in power, and that they have a fine power level, and that they have tricks that make them overpowered.  I pointed out that taking away those tricks is the same thing as reducing their power (or "nerfing" them).  You're complaining that these homebrews bring them down in power while at the same time holding up the Tome series for not doing that, despite the fact that they totally did.

On my Terrasque encounter: the reason we did core only was because that's what the CR system was tested by.  The supplements did not exist when core 3.5 was released.  And I did actually explain what the party consisted of and how they fought: standard core assumptions.  That means a cleric, a wizard, a rogue, and a fighter.  Using damage based tactics, mostly of the "I run up and hit it" variety.  Feats and such that the typical core game expected.  This CR test we did was not an attempt at showing that any class was better or worse than any other, it was to show that, assuming the things the core testers did, and building things the way they did, the Terrasque was indeed a CR 20 encounter.  And actually, thanks to the way knowledge works, all they did was beat it until it was unconscious, and it rose again later, they had to think outside the box to actually take care of it.  My bringing it up was to show that your SGT thing doesn't matter...specifically because this is a very subjective thing.  Lots of factors play into it, and "no optimization" can mean so many different things.
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 #71 on: March 20, 2012, 01:52:17 PM »
Quote
"those things are too powerful!  They don't count!"

Is what I was specifically referring to.  If you want to talk about reducing the power of casters in theorycrafting and TO, then that's fine.  That's not what i'm talking about.  I'm talking about casters as played in the actual tabletop game of DnD, which is what I assumed this discussion was about.

On your assertion that the CR system is designed as, and should only be, a benchmark for a 'fighter rogue cleric wizard' party using DD tactics and no BFC or flight;  That's great.  But I don't really see what it has to do with this discussion or the game as it's played today.  To be honest, i'm hazy on what you originally intended this example as an example or 'proof' of.  That it's impossible to account for optimization or lack thereof?  Well no, actually.  If you test a class at high op and it's similar in power to another class and you test both classes again at low op, and they're both similar in power again, well hey, call it a day, you've just nailed down optimization as a variable within reasonable parameters.

I don't think any CR is absolute.  How a CR X creature is played completely changes it's CR, and since party power can run the gamut from 'oh god what is this' worse than 4 commoners with weapon focus all the way up to TO optimized tier 1 caster party, obviously the CR system is utterly useless as anything other than a general guideline(that is often wrong).

But that doesn't mean that it's somehow dark voodoo science to determine an approximate level of optimisation as 'average', another level as 'high' and another level as 'low' and then test a class against the kind of encounters statistical data has shown that real-world DMs use (the SGT) at 'average', 'high' and 'low' optimization and see how they rank up.

Offline Halinn

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2067
  • My personal text is impersonal.
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #72 on: March 20, 2012, 02:34:12 PM »
Is what I was specifically referring to.  If you want to talk about reducing the power of casters in theorycrafting and TO, then that's fine.  That's not what i'm talking about.  I'm talking about casters as played in the actual tabletop game of DnD, which is what I assumed this discussion was about.

Assuming that all DMs ban the same things that are banned in your games is not a good assumption in a discussion about class balance. I've played in plenty of games where the mentioned things would be or were allowed.

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 #73 on: March 20, 2012, 02:37:36 PM »
Okay, did you or did you not say that some things that casters get are overpowered?

And did you not also say that casters do not need to be brought down in power?
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 #74 on: March 20, 2012, 04:00:10 PM »
I said, initially, in my first post, that barring certain things that I class as 'broken game mechanics' wizards don't need to be brought down in power.

I basically said that 'wizard power level doesn't include pun pun, and not including pun pun, doesn't need to be nerfed'.

That's not actually a contradiction.  I don't consider broken spells like Shivering Touch to be part of a wizard's power.  I don't consider incantatrix to be part of a wizard's power.  I consider spells and classes that do those specific things (die, no save and Free Metamagic Forevar Lulz) to not be inherent to the wizard power level, and that was a basis for all my arguments and outlined at the start of my post.

If you consider those things as inherent to the wizard's power level, then removing/discounting them is a 'nerf' or whatever.  However I don't.  It's a trick of language at best.

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 #75 on: March 20, 2012, 04:03:40 PM »
If you cannot see the contradiction in that, then I cannot help you.

Look, you cannot just discount some stuff and say it's balanced.  The mere act of discounting stuff is changing the power level.  Your houserules=/=the actual class.
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 #76 on: March 20, 2012, 04:19:13 PM »
Take a look at games played not on CO boards.

That kind of stuff does not occur.

If you're designing classes for the CO boards, sure.  If you're designing it for the majority, you have to understand that lahm's finger darts is not a spell found on many spell lists, and if it is, isn't relying on a familiar with a wand to recharge fingers in time for your next shot and is instead the last ditch spell of a necromancer type character.

Incantatrix gets outright banned in a lot of games, and people playing one in non-CO games tend to break the power curve insanely quickly and either rejigger their character or get asked to leave by any mechanically competent GM(assuming they're not just not using their power and sitting there rp'ing while the fighters do fighter things).

Anyone who argues that free infinite metamagic is in line with the rest of the powers granted by PrCs or the power of spells in general is absolutely wrong.  Definitively, provably wrong.  Anyone who argues that Die, No Save spells are RAI is wrong.  Yes, original RAI was core direct damage, but the plethora of spells and abilities published since then indicate a general spell design philosophy that spells like that fall completely outside of both in terms of intent and in terms of just breaking the game in half.

So yes, I am changing the class from the RAW by discounting pun pun and friends.  That is not, however, what any single attempt to 'nerf the wizard' has ever done.  They've focused on things like IotSV and glitterdust and grease and web and planar binding.  I don't think of pruning the absolutely insane 'actually breaks the game mechanics in half' stuff as a nerf, because it's a common sense houserule used by a huge section of the community which largely includes the ones who are going to be reading and possibly using homebrew class replacements in any case.

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 #77 on: March 20, 2012, 05:30:09 PM »
If people are eliminating the overly powerful options, then they are making the class less powerful.  It's as simple as that.  Supporting the removal or adjustments of those options is supporting a reduction in power.  You can't say you don't support a reduction in power for casters and then come right back around and say "oh, but you should totally eliminate the overpowered stuff".  Which is pretty much what you've been saying.

What you can do is say you want to fix the casters, eliminate the stupid stuff, make the other stuff work better (regardless of power level), and then work on non-casters to make them more powerful.  This is a reduction in caster power, and it's the same one you support.  Personally I want to bring them down to a level where they can't match the power level of another class in any one area, but rather have their own shtick.  Whether that's power from versatility or power from straight numbers doesn't matter.  And where you say Tier 1 is the goal, I prefer to build towards low Tier 3: versatile enough to function in any situation, but not powerful enough to own every situation.  I prefer my classes to have a higher level of challenge when in combat, and a more simple power level, but again, versatile enough to handle any situation within reason.  My three classes that guide my power and design are Warlock, Warblade, and Dread Necromancer.  I aim for slightly above Warlock, and slightly below Warblade, but closer to Warblade than Warlock, and the DN is for design.
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 #78 on: March 20, 2012, 05:34:15 PM »
If you think T1 can handle every situation, you're fairly mistaken.

It takes very little to seriously challenge tier 1, even if you stick with same-CR.

I don't think removing obviously rules-broken abilities is the same as nerfing, but hat's a definitional issue so meh.

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: Why are so many great spells Personal only?
« Reply #79 on: March 20, 2012, 05:47:02 PM »
You can't say that no games outside CO boards use this stuff.  I've seen and heard about tons of games that allow these things.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.