Critique Please: Dower Mage

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote in message
> [Is there some reason you refuse to attribute quotations to their
> authors? Knock it off; it's rude.]

You're hardly one to talk about being rude.

> Every character has some moments. A spellcaster with unlimited
> spontaneous casting gets almost moment. Can't you see the imbalance?

That statement is flat out wrong.

> Did it not occur to you that spellcasters can step on the rogue's toes
> much easier when they don't need to choose between preparing a combat
> spell or an exploration spell?

Most of their spells that mimic rogue abilities are very low-level spells.
They can prepare wands and/or scrolls with extreme ease. No reason to think
they won't, unless the player chooses to ignore those abilities of his
character.

Having said that, it is correct that in this instance, it is undoutedly
easier for a wizard to step on a rogue's toes. However, the rules already
make this ridiculously easy, it is not a spontaneious-cast problem, its a
larger problem (IMO).

> Riiight. Just go ahead and ignore any evidence that doesn't fit in with
> your prejudices. It doesn't make you look stupid or anything.

I failed to recognize that your insults had anything to do with evidence.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> [Is there some reason you refuse to attribute quotations to their
>> authors? Knock it off; it's rude.]

Tristan wrote:
> You're hardly one to talk about being rude.

Your entire argument so far boils down to "I haven't noticed anybody
complaining." How are we supposed to take you seriously when you don't
respect basic rules of communication?

>> Every character has some moments. A spellcaster with unlimited
>> spontaneous casting gets almost [every] moment. Can't you see the
>> imbalance?

> That statement is flat out wrong.

I've played with the rule in effect, and it was true in my experience.
Perhaps you have some other factor in your game that balances it out,
but on its own it's a situation prone to problems.

>> Did it not occur to you that spellcasters can step on the rogue's
>> toes much easier when they don't need to choose between preparing a
>> combat spell or an exploration spell?

> Most of their spells that mimic rogue abilities are very low-level
> spells. They can prepare wands and/or scrolls with extreme ease.

But it's not free. I've played that style of wizard before, and all
those scrolls and wands add up. You pay for the extra flexibility with
lost opportunities (i.e., less money to spend on stat boosters,
defensive items, etc.).

> No reason to think they won't, unless the player chooses to ignore
> those abilities of his character.

Or unless they want to spend their money on battle magic.

> Having said that, it is correct that in this instance, it is
> undoutedly easier for a wizard to step on a rogue's toes. However,
> the rules already make this ridiculously easy --

Untrue, unless you ignore cost as you did above.

Furthermore, you said that you haven't seen a problem in 15 years of
play. For 10 of those years, wizards didn't have easy access to scrolls
and wands; unlimited spontaneous casting /would/ be the cause in AD&D.

Did you ever hear AD&D thief players complain about it? If so, you've
just contradicted yourself. If not, then either you had very unusual
players, or you tuned out the complaints.

>> Riiight. Just go ahead and ignore any evidence that doesn't fit in
>> with your prejudices. It doesn't make you look stupid or anything.

> I failed to recognize that your insults had anything to do with evidence.

That's right, only listen to what you want to hear.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tristan wrote:
> As to proof, I don't think you can prove it either way. But just
> saying a thing is so, doesn't make it so. Hence, if we are to have a
> discussion about whether it is balanced or not, some type of evidence
> of imbalance should be presented.

True. Since balance is subjective, player opinions are reasonable
evidence. I have seen many DMs and spellcasting experts claim that
unlimited spontaneous casting is balanced. I have seen warrior & rogue
fans complain that it's unbalanced. I've also seen it lead to games
where the only non-spellcasters are DM-run henchmen, except when new
players join and try out a non-spellcaster for a while until they
realize that it's just not viable to play one.

Do /you/ play warriors and rogues under those rules? If so, tell us how
you felt about it. If not, your "evidence" isn't worth much.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ok guys, thanks for all the comments. As I said, my DM is going to
allow the Spell Point system from UA combined with a few of the Spell
Point variants. So that question is resolved. No, its not exactly what
I was going for, but it'll do.

Anyway, I'm still looking for someone to come up with a write-up for a
base or prestige class for an arcane caster who casts spells
spontaneously from his book at the time of need, which takes longer
than normal time to cast.

I don't care if they don't get AS MANY spells as a straight Wizard, or
even if they can't cast AS OFTEN as a Sorcerer.

Can it be done?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Well, in that case, something similar to the Warmage core class in
Complete Arcane might be what you are looking for. Note, however,
that the Warmage's spell list is extremely limited.... more limited, in
fact, than a normal sorcerer.

You might persuade your DM (he seems to me a easy-going sort,
from what you've told us), to allow you to tweak the spell list for a
different theme -- illusion, necromancy, conjuring, enchantment etc.
As long as the theme is both very strong and *very* narrow, I think
it would still be fine balance wise.

Alternately, just use an Int-based 'sorcerer', reduce the spells-per
day by two per spell level, and add two extra spells known per spell
level. Then simply make up the flavor text to justify everything else.
(For example: Call it a special wizard that uses a special ritual spell
book to cast spells. The spell book can only hold X spells per level
Each time the wizard wishes to cast a spell, he pages through
his special spell book -- call it an special arcane focus, analogous
to a cleric's divine focus -- draws out the 'spell matrix' of the spell
embedded in the book, then forces the raw magical energy stored
in his mind through this 'spell matrix' to create the effects of the
spell.
Game mechanically, this is the same as spontaneous casting, the
only difference lies in the flavor text.)

Basically, as long as you do not ask for an *unlimited* number of
different spells at your disposal, the balance can be worked out
without much trouble. It is the unlimited nature of a wizard's known
spells that breaks things, because you can then create highly
specialized spells for each and every situation. As long as you can
not do that, an extra spell-slot per level for a wizard (see specialist
wizard) or an extra spell known for a sorcerer (basically, a free
feat every two levels), can be easily adapted for (you will have
to pay for it, though).
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tristan wrote:
> "WuYanei" wrote in message
> > Perhaps you are simply fortunate enough to have
> > a fine group of players, who don't try to abuse
> > the freedom you grant them. I envy you if that is
> > the case, but certainly we can agree that such
> > freedom is highly *abusable*, can we not?
>
> I am fortunate in my player base. I have 1 player (of 10)
> that is the kind of fellow that seeks to abuse the rules
> whenever he can. The others don't. That player doesn't
> play wizards though. He tends to play rogues although
> since the 3.5 Psionic Handbook came out he has not played
> any character other than a psion.
>
> <snip lots of good points>
>
> I will not refute any of those points you made. They all
> represent fashions that a spontaneous system could easily
> be abused. Perhaps I am just a lucky fellow (or maybe
> horribly unobservant) as I have never noticed my players
> taking advantage of the system.

Well then, I congratulate you on your good fortune and
register my envy. You lucky bast_rd, you. .^_^.

> One note... I do not think it is a bad thing that through
> spontaneous casting they can choose to use Fort spells
> against certain monsters and Will spells against others,
> etc.

On many D&D boards the issue of class smack-down comes up
once in a while, and the general agreement is that a well-
prepaired wizard would trump any other class, easily.

Allowing casters to match their spells against their op-
ponents' spontaneously is basically the same as 'always'
giving a wizard a full-day to prepair before any battle.
It might not be exactly *overwhelming*, but it would
certainly increase the wizard's combat power by at least
+2 or greater CR (ie. more than doubles their power).

It is not that a an intelligent caster would not try to
attack her opponent's weaknesses. It is that the opponent
should be allowed, with some planning, to lure or misguide
the caster into depleting her spells of a certain type.
With spontaneous casting, this will not happen until the
caster runs out of spells, which in turn will not (usually)
happen before the party runs out of hit points! (i.e.
before the party must rest.)

A skillful DM can adapt, so it might trouble you less, or
not at all. This is really up to you, so no real disagree-
ment here.

> > I do not know if you consider the above 'evidence of
> > imbalance'.
>
> IMO some of it is evidence of *potential* imbalance if
> the DM allowed it to get that way and some of it are
> features of a spontaneous system (specifically being
> able to pick the save type based on the critter your
> faced with).

Gaming styles vary greatly, so discussion of balance
on the Net will always be somewhat subjective. Since
I have found, to my dismay, that it is *far* more
difficult to take something (unbalancing) away from a
player than to prevent the inbalance from the outset,
I only allow potentially unbalancing abilities into
my games very relucently, if at all. I prefer to set
the rules clearly, then relax them gradually if they
are found to be too restrictive in play. This is
simply a difference in style, I suppose.

But I still would not allow spontaneous casting to
be combined with unlimited spell learning.

> There is no doubt that a spontaneous wizard is more
> resourceful than a non-spontaneous. And no doubt that
> the same wizard is more powerful. My observations
> have been that this change in power does not unbalance
> the game.

*nods* Then on the issue of power (and potential abuse),
we have agreement.

The latter part is probably more a function of playing
style than anything else. Especially on the highly
subjective issue of 'unbalance'.

There are many different playing styles, and none are
really *right* or *wrong*. If your players enjoy the
game your are DMing, all is well with the world. .^_^.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye"...

> Do /you/ play warriors and rogues under those rules? If so, tell us how
> you felt about it. If not, your "evidence" isn't worth much.

I play warriors almost 100% of the time when I am a player in a game. I
spend most of my time (about 70%) as the DM. All of the games in our group
run with the same house rules, so when I play a warrior it is with the
spontaneous-spellcasting rules for wizards. I have never thought that my
time was impinged upon by a spontaneous casting wizard.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"WuYanei" wrote in message
> Perhaps you are simply fortunate enough to have a fine group of
> players, who don't try to abuse the freedom you grant them. I envy you
> if that is the case, but certainly we can agree that such freedom is
> highly *abusable*, can we not?

I am fortunate in my player base. I have 1 player (of 10) that is the kind
of fellow that seeks to abuse the rules whenever he can. The others don't.
That player doesn't play wizards though. He tends to play rogues although
since the 3.5 Psionic Handbook came out he has not played any character
other than a psion.

<snip lots of good points>

I will not refute any of those points you made. They all represent fashions
that a spontaneous system could easily be abused. Perhaps I am just a lucky
fellow (or maybe horribly unobservant) as I have never noticed my players
taking advantage of the system.

One note... I do not think it is a bad thing that through spontaneous
casting they can choose to use Fort spells against certain monsters and Will
spells against others, etc.

> I do not know if you consider the above 'evidence of imbalance'.

IMO some of it is evidence of *potential* imbalance if the DM allowed it to
get that way and some of it are features of a spontaneous system
(specifically being able to pick the save type based on the critter your
faced with).

There is no doubt that a spontaneous wizard is more resourceful than a
non-spontaneous. And no doubt that the same wizard is more powerful. My
observations have been that this change in power does not unbalance the
game.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" ...
>> Most of their spells that mimic rogue abilities are very low-level
>> spells. They can prepare wands and/or scrolls with extreme ease.
>
> But it's not free. I've played that style of wizard before, and all
> those scrolls and wands add up.

I was not ignoring cost. In the specific example of a rogue, my point is
that many of the spells that mimic their abilities are very low level, and
therefore cheap to produce. Not free certainly, but cheap.

> Furthermore, you said that you haven't seen a problem in 15 years of
> play. For 10 of those years, wizards didn't have easy access to scrolls
> and wands; unlimited spontaneous casting /would/ be the cause in AD&D.
>
> Did you ever hear AD&D thief players complain about it? If so, you've
> just contradicted yourself. If not, then either you had very unusual
> players, or you tuned out the complaints.

No, my players did not complain during AD&D rules, they did not complain
during 3.0 rules and they are not presently complaining durnig 3.5 rules.
Despite your (apparant) belief, I do listen to the feedback of my players
and alter or eliminate house rules based on such feedback. In the area of
spontaneous casting, I have *never* heard any complaints from *any* of my
players.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> But it's not free. I've played that style of wizard before, and all
>> those scrolls and wands add up.

Tristan wrote:
> I was not ignoring cost. In the specific example of a rogue, my point
> is that many of the spells that mimic their abilities are very low
> level, and therefore cheap to produce. Not free certainly, but cheap.

The cost is high enough that a wizard can't casually emulate a rogue.
Also, the rogue can usually do the same thing cheaper or faster than a
magic item, and in the rare case that he can't, the rogue can use the
item himself via Use Magic Device. The potential for crowding a rogue's
niche is pretty low in by-the-book D&D3.

However, if you let wizards and sorcerers cast those spells freely, they
can match or exceed the rogue's flexibility, cost, and speed.

>> Furthermore, you said that you haven't seen a problem in 15 years of
>> play. For 10 of those years, wizards didn't have easy access to
>> scrolls and wands; unlimited spontaneous casting /would/ be the cause
>> in AD&D.
>>
>> Did you ever hear AD&D thief players complain about it? If so, you've
>> just contradicted yourself. If not, then either you had very unusual
>> players, or you tuned out the complaints.

> No, my players did not complain during AD&D rules, they did not
> complain during 3.0 rules and they are not presently complaining
> durnig 3.5 rules.

You're contradicting yourself. Either they did complain about the magic-
user vs thief problems in AD&D, or they remained silent despite real
balance problems in the game. If the latter is true, then they cannot be
trusted as evidence. If the former is true, then we cannot trust your
claim that nobody complained.

> Despite your (apparant) belief, I do listen to the feedback of my
> players and alter or eliminate house rules based on such feedback. In
> the area of spontaneous casting, I have *never* heard any complaints
> from *any* of my players.

Then how did you know about the magic-user vs rogue issue? Does it
impeach your players, or does it impeach you?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye"...
> You're contradicting yourself. Either they did complain about the magic-
> user vs thief problems in AD&D, or they remained silent despite real
> balance problems in the game.

No, I am not contradicting myself. I never maintained that players did not
complain about a wizards ability to emulate the rogue class. We have
crossed into a new line of conversation on that topic. The statement of
fact is that they have never complained about wizards being allowed to
spontaneously cast their spells.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tristan wrote:
> IMO some of it is evidence of *potential* imbalance if the DM allowed
> it to get that way --

A system that requires DM babysitting is not "balanced."
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> You're contradicting yourself. Either they did complain about the
>> magic-user vs thief problems in AD&D, or they remained silent despite
>> real balance problems in the game.

Tristan wrote:
> No, I am not contradicting myself. I never maintained that players
> did not complain about a wizards ability to emulate the rogue class.
> ... The statement of fact is that they have never complained about
> wizards being allowed to spontaneously cast their spells.

That's disingenuous, since the niche invasion is largely due to
spontaneous wizard spells!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" ...
> That's disingenuous, since the niche invasion is largely due to
> spontaneous wizard spells!

Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending? You have accused me
of two things to which you are guilty. Being rude and ignoring any argument
beyond those that support my stance.

Hello pot, I am the kettle.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> That's disingenuous, since the niche invasion is largely due to
>> spontaneous wizard spells!

Tristan wrote:
> Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending? You have accused me
> of two things to which you are guilty. Being rude and ignoring any argument
> beyond those that support my stance.
>
> Hello pot, I am the kettle.

WTF?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom