What spells should I ban in 3.pf? So far I'm disallowing / nerfing glitter dust, color spray, and web. What others should I ban or heavily nerf?
Inb4 ban 3.pf
>>47117143
If you nerf or ban them, you're missing the point.
They're that powerful for a reason: They're actually about as good as things *should* be for the level of risk/reward and the difficulty of mobs at those levels.
What you SHOULD do is buff non-casters instead. They're the ones under the power curve. Alternatively, instead of nerfing spells, restrict their availability instead. Make getting the stronger abilities more difficult.
>>47117143
Dont ban any of them. Learn to be a dm who can roll with unknowns and allow people to have fun.
>>47117177
>What you SHOULD do is buff non-casters instead.
/thread
If you don't use it, I strongly suggest using Tome of Battle, and/or look up e6
>>47117196
Spells that are far, far too powerful for their level is not an "unknown to roll with".
It's shit game design that can't be worked around without overpowering the non-casters in the party.
"Oh, look at that, the Wizard decided to use Color Spray shut down every encounter. This is so random and unexpected and our game is now so much better!" -Said fucking no one ever.
>>47117200
It is literally and physically impossible to ever get a group to agree to play E6. It will never happen.
>>47117196
I am the definition of that. I love loose cannon players. But we've all agreed that web and glitter dust and especially color spray are SoDs that one shot encounters and make them boring.
>>47117250
No it's not. I've done it. Doesn't solve the web amd color spray issues.
>>47117274
Then don't use them.
Also there is a spell ban list as well.
Things such as the following appear:
>Raise Dead
>Resurrection
>True Resurrection
>Reincarnation
>Fabricate
>Simulacrum
>Paragon Surge
>Blood Money
>Planar Binding
>Gate
>Polymorph Any Object
>Foresight
>Fabricate
>Awaken
>All Summon Monster/Nature's Ally
And more
In addition I have:
>Bumped glibness, invisibility, and fly by 1 spell level
>>47117143
Just make those spells a spell level higher.
>>47117301
>Don't ban them, let players have fun!
>"But they're overpowered."
>Then ban them!
...why even post?
>>47117196
>Simulacrum by RAW is a fun spell
No, it isn't.
>>47117322
The other guy was not me.
>>47117309
That is fucking retarded.
>>47117228
Give noncasters a boost then via gear or monsters that are strong vs magic.
>>47117143
You're literally banning the least problematic spells on the list, dude. If you're going to ban those spells, might as well ban all of them.
Since every question has been asked before, here's some people's answers on a 3.5-focused forum: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=16518.0
>>47117301
That's what I'm doing. And asking for other OP spells I should remove.
May be trying to mop up a lake or whatever the phrase is here, 3.5 is pretty broken but I would like to atleast remove the worst offenders
>>47117375
>That is fucking retarded.
Why do you say that?
>>47117309
Thanks anon. Link for this list or is it your own?
>>47117414
How are they not problematic? They literally shut down encounters or ins the case of web turn them into slog fasts of shooting arrows at defenseless opponents. Color spray demands spread out enemies, it's a level 1 encounter wipe.
>>47117442
Thanks for that link. Reading now.
>>47117143
How do you feel about Rope Trick? Silent Image? Knock?
If you're going to start banning things, you need to look through each and every single spell in every single supplement (yes, even that one) and think long and hard about the implications they'll have on your game. Otherwise you're not accomplishing anything.
>wants even remotely balanced casters
>playing 3.pf
You've already failed, anon. But you should start by banning all vancian casters and using one of the alternative systems instead.
>>47117375
>Give noncasters a boost then via gear
Because we all know that spellcasters can't use gear.
>monsters that are strong vs magic.
CoDzilla.
>>47117541
I know this is a meme, but have you considered not playing a D20 game? Because combats are supposed to work like that by design, they are over because of one decisive strike by one side or another, if you don't want that then you don't want to play Pathfinder, 3E, 3.5, or any other game based on the d20 system. I'm sure other posters can suggest games that might be more fun for you (I've never had a group that wasn't composed of d20 fags though so I am nowhere near as familiar with how they play, unfortunately).
>>47117143
Ban Eschew Materials and make them keep track of all spell components.
>>47117970
>CoDzilla
Wow that sure was hard to beat.
ITT: 3.P nerds squabbling over how to fix their busted ass system because they think it's easier than playing a different game
>>47117970
That sounds like more of a pain in the ass for the DM than the players.
>>47117986
>A solution only solves many problems instead of every single one all on its own! That means it's SHIT and should be completely disregarded!
>>47118073
It doesn't solve anything so it's inherently a shit solution. Even as a Wizard, most broken spells have joke components that are extremely easy to get and it doesn't even touch two out of four full casters in fucking core.
Adding more bookkeeping doesn't make a game better or more balanced, it just makes it more annoying to play.
>>47118073
It actually solves zero problems. Many spells do not have spell components of the sort avoided by Eschew materials, and those that do are rarely the most powerful ones. They are essentially fluff: that's why a spell component pouch is assumed to have everything you need. The only thing your suggested change offers is more spotlight time for the wizard as he goes scooping bat poo and chasing butterflies.
On the other hand, this has been discussed to death on every forum already, so I know you are posting it as bait and not actual advice from a 3.5 player. Har har, my friend.
>>47117177
Fly, greater invisibility, can you still cast spells while under stoneskin in 3.PF? If so, that's a paddlin'. Stoneskin isn't that big of deal compared to fly and GI though. Anything that just completely circumvents a full caster's weaknesses and especially anything that lets them copy another class's ability but better, IE detect traps, knock, etc. These aren't as bad as they initially seem but they still need to be changed so that they don't just ball up and discard the rogue. Same goes for similar spells. Save or dies and many/most save or sucks unless you take the 4e/5e approach and require multiple failed saves.
And to anyone that's going to say "how would that know to prepare those?" Or "that just means they'll have fewer fireballs" remember that this is exactly the reason that wands, potions, scrolls, etc. exist.
But really OP, there are so many more than this that need to be changed that I PROMISE you it is not worth the work. This project was what caused me to finally drop 3.PF after 5 years of being one of those d20-only fags.
>>47117375
Unless the monster emits an anti-magic field, in which case the martials are completely fucked too since their class is completely dependent on gear, then there are less than a half dozen or so monsters "strong against magic" if you are allowing something other than core. The power creep from the splats means a ton of good spells got introduced that don't have a save and aren't affected by spell resistance.
>>47118233
Splats nothing, Solid Fog is in core.
>>47117143
When DMing I typically nerf Glitterdust (allow washing to restore eyesight) and polymorphy (more or less you don't gain benefits of additional limbs), buff Death Ward to protect from all instantly killing effects, and make Gate only bring in creatures without giving control over them. That and I always require asking for permission when picking out non-core spells, I vaguely remember not allowing some dex-draining spells, orbs and action economy breaking spells.
Never really had a problem with retarded wizard coming only to crash the campaign, so I never needed to ban anything else.
I ban:
Awaken
Blood Money
Gate
Permanency
Simulacrum, Lesser Simulacrum
Spellbane
While I am 100% sure my complaints and advice will fall on deaf ears, people should focus less on spells and more on powers or secondary abilities of Wizard characters.
You don't have to decide what million spells to take, instead sacrifice a spell slot for a bonus to saves. Sacrifice a spell slot for a minion to bring on the adventure, which doesn't come back if it dies. Allow spell slots to substitute for single use but powerful scrolls per adventure, or for subtle luck manipulating ritual spells (which mechanically do things like offering rerolls.)
Make the Wizard a Wizard, spells per day is very poor way to do it in my opinion.
>>47117143
Ban all spells.
>>47117177
>you SHOULD buff non-casters instead
Slippery slope, anyone with even a remote idea of some editions of dnd should know that series has been plagued by constant buffing and re-buffing of non-casters since greyhawk tried "patching" it back in the 70s. Blaming non-casters and blaming "enemies" is retardedly ridiculous considering tailoring enemies to your PCs is basic shit.
