Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 10:17:49 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 09:59:23 PM
1E and 2E also limited the magic-user's capability to pull rabbits out of their hat for every occasion with a hard cap on spells a magic-user could learn.

I always liked the idea behind that rule, but yes, there were too many exceptions.

Here's a quick house rule: Magic-users have a 50% chance to fail to learn any particular spell, and they can learn 4 spells/level. Period. That means fireball isn't guaranteed, and you have some hard choices to make. Do you leave a slot open in the hopes you'll find a great new spell? I'd also allow them to use higher level spell slots, so even if you already know 4 3rd level spells, you could still pickup fireball as a 4th level spell.

Restricting # of spells known is probably the best way to keep old school mages in check. The 2e generalist mage spell list was a mistake.

Not sure if its RAW cause ive been doing it for a while, but i have a chance to learn roll and i makr then find the spells in the world.

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 10:18:18 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 29, 2021, 10:04:14 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 09:59:23 PM
Still, very few PCs were going to have 19 Intelligence or better.

Please, IME, when players are rolling 3d6 straight-up, they generate a 19 about 50% of the time. Unless someone is watching them roll...

I find hammers are a good solution. Dice or fingers, your pick.

Fingers, all of em, and I'm gonna look you in the eye the whole time, growing increasingly erect.

Greetings!

Yeah, well, I am not particularly concerned with ideas about "game balance" or having individual players cry. I generally enjoy crafting the game world to embrace a particular kind of flavour. In order to maintain that goal, a good number of standard spells, dynamics, and assumptions within the core rules must be ruthlessly purged, or otherwise nerfed, restricted, or modified. I don't have player characters of any class running around opening gates and traveling to different worlds and planes like catching a train at the train station. I also don't have players talking to their gods like they have them on speed dial, either. That's out. Raise Dead and Resurrection spells? They are also fucking gone, or otherwise carefully restricted. It is with a similar attitude that I approach Wizards and their brethren, in light of how D&D has typically expanded the magical spell powers to ever-expanding degrees from 3rd Edition to the present. As mentioned, though, I have restrictions on even AD&D spells and such dynamics. Having a campaign that embraces a more historical, mystical milieu, requires a different approach to building a standard campaign.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So much denial. We need to stage an intervention.

Quote from: SHARK on April 29, 2021, 06:57:39 PM
Achilles wouldn't bat an eye at facing a witch or a wizard. The Witch would try and cast a spell--boom! Achilles nails her with a crippling spear strike. She staggers from the blow, and, without her minions to protect her, Achilles is on her like a pouncing lion, plunging his sword into her, and finishing her! The Witch is fucking done. Lightning quick, savage, crippling damage. The Warrior must be like a mighty lion, faster than a witch's heartbeat. Wizards and such need to FEAR WARRIORS!!!

You answer your own question: just make Warriors immune to all damage - done!

FEAR WARRIORS!!!

I love the 5e Barbarian. A well-played one is terrifying to 5e casters.

Quote from: S'mon on April 30, 2021, 03:35:02 AM
I love the 5e Barbarian. A well-played one is terrifying to 5e casters.

Greetings!

I agree, S'mon! The 5E Barbarian is quite formidable!

I've seen people crying about how Wizards are unbalanced and dominate everything, and Warriors are pathetic cucks for years. Well, I don't think it is necessary to listen to WOTC and embrace every trinket and power they throw at Wizards, while ignoring or cutting the balls off of Warriors. I think that DM's have to be more aware, more in control of their campaigns, and take more proactive steps to create the kinds of campaigns that they want, instead of just allowing the campaign to become a superhero-like circle-jerk where Wizards are invincible and rule everything.

People have lamented that Warriors are like helpless cucks for years, but they don't do anything about the structural and magical dynamics which contribute to those dynamics.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I've always thought that warriors should get a hefty boost to their initiative. Being fighting types I imagine them to be quicker off the mark and better able to notice and pre-empt what's going on in a fight.

Quote from: Altheus on April 30, 2021, 06:13:53 AM
I've always thought that warriors should get a hefty boost to their initiative. Being fighting types I imagine them to be quicker off the mark and better able to notice and pre-empt what's going on in a fight.

5e Barbarian gets:

Feral Instinct
By 7th level, your instincts are so honed that you have advantage on Initiative rolls.

Additionally, if you are surprised at the Beginning of Combat and aren't Incapacitated, you can act normally on your first turn, but only if you enter your rage before doing anything else on that turn.

IME they're great mage killers.

5e Champion Fighters get half prof to Init via Incredible Athlete, but then so do 5e Bards via Jack of All Trades(!)

The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 10:17:49 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 09:59:23 PM
1E and 2E also limited the magic-user's capability to pull rabbits out of their hat for every occasion with a hard cap on spells a magic-user could learn.

I always liked the idea behind that rule, but yes, there were too many exceptions.

Here's a quick house rule: Magic-users have a 50% chance to fail to learn any particular spell, and they can learn 4 spells/level. Period. That means fireball isn't guaranteed, and you have some hard choices to make. Do you leave a slot open in the hopes you'll find a great new spell? I'd also allow them to use higher level spell slots, so even if you already know 4 3rd level spells, you could still pickup fireball as a 4th level spell.

Restricting # of spells known is probably the best way to keep old school mages in check. The 2e generalist mage spell list was a mistake.

Those rules keep getting watered-down because there are some basic utility spells (e.g. detect magic) that in a lot of campaigns any wizard would have.  My solution is that there are two tiers of spells--common ones that every wizard can learn if they want and rare ones that work more like what you've suggested.  You don't even need a 50% chance for those.  Ideally, they take a lot of questing and time and digging through old archives to even have a shot at learning.  Every GM will disagree about what goes into common/rare, but that should be set by campaign anyway.

For new or casual players this also has the huge benefit of shortening the spell lists.  You only give them the common lists and let them find a rare scroll eventually to learn that there are more.

Quote from: Omega on April 30, 2021, 07:00:24 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.

It's not the DPS, it's the other options wizards enjoy. The fight is more than DPS, you know.

Also, Steven Mitchell makes a good point. I'd strip read magic and detect magic from the spell lists entirely and make them skill checks.

  One issue I had with 5e was it seemed they pushed balance in an odd way (where so many classes had magic like abilities they could call on in combat) where I always thought 1e had a decent metric to balancing wizards.   They had a tiny hit point pool, and they took a great deal more xp to advance than other classes.  I think the real issue is, if you want warriors to be prominent, you are playing the wrong game in Dungeons and Dragons.  It is not Sword and Sorcery.  The old Conan using 3e rules had some metrics to give warriors an honest chance (but really, it makes sorcerers powerful, magic just had a price).  I think a darker fantasy settings (like WHFRP 2e (cant speak to other editions), DCC, and Elric) give some cost to using magic.  I have a Conan setting in GURPS and sorcerers are very powerful, but magic can cost them quite alot if the have a bad die roll and most spells are actually preparations in advance of material objects to function a specific way. 

     My suggestion would be to give a different game a try, even Savage worlds and GURPS have some tweaks that can give a more sword and sorcery or sword and sandal feel where the mighty thewed warrior can come out on top.  But it should be noted, in settings like that magic is much more rare, and on a relative scale much more powerful, and the people who come out on top of mages are not just fighter#3 at the inn, but heroes who have songs sung about them in every inn all over an entire region.

   I also am curious, is a tone change Shark is looking for or a means to change the basic landscape of D&D?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 30, 2021, 08:10:29 AM

Quote from: Omega on April 30, 2021, 07:00:24 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.

It's not the DPS, it's the other options wizards enjoy. The fight is more than DPS, you know.

Also, Steven Mitchell makes a good point. I'd strip read magic and detect magic from the spell lists entirely and make them skill checks.

   Correct, the Wizard can win a fight and not do a single point of damage.

Quote from: Omega on April 30, 2021, 07:00:24 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.

  We must have been playing a completely different 1st edition version of D&D then.  Because there is no way any fighter can compete with fireball and mobs of goons getting hit with it on the DPS meter.   But I think that was balanced with the squish of the wizard and the difference in XP to level.