PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Spellcaster Chains: Reigning in the Power, While Maintaining High Fantasy



goken04
2009-06-07, 05:58 PM
Purpose: I present to you for review, criticism, and hopefully adoption, three mechanical systems for the 3.5 edition of D&D rules. The purpose of these mechanics is to decrease the near-limitless power of 3.5 spellcasters while maintaining the magical staples of High Fantasy. It is not meant to bring Wizards on par with Fighters. If anything, the power level sought with these mechanical fixes is to be more balanced compared to Tome of Battle melee classes or a well-built Barbarian or Rogue. These three mechanics address the Wizard power in three different ways: MAD (Multiple Attribute Dependency), Limited Spell-Progression, and Item-Dependency.


Fix #1: The Mental Ability Scores
All melee characters must grant at least a passing nod to each of the physical ability scores, forcing the characters to strengthen one aspect of melee fighting to the detriment of another. By spreading out the functioning of all spellcasting over all three mental ability scores, we hope to see that casters balance themselves in such a way. This fix works best with a high-powered stat array or with generous rolling rules. I granted bonus spells much faster than normal as well as giving 0-level bonus spells in order to increase the importance of Wisdom when compared to Intelligence or Charisma under this system. I was afraid that a normal bonus-spell progression would cause the significance of Wisdom to pale compared to the other two stats (who cares about casting ONE more spell per level per day when I could be increasing my DCs or overcoming SR!)

All full-spellcasters rely on the three mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) to determine their spellcasting abilities. A full-spellcaster is defined as any caster whose class spell list includes 9th level spells, as well as the Bard. Ranger, Paladin, and Assasin spellcasting, for example, are unaffected.

Intelligence determines the highest level spell a spellcaster can cast, as well as how capable they are at overcoming the magic of others. A spellcaster cannot cast spells without at least an intelligence of at least 10. A spellcaster with an intelligence of 10 or higher is able to cast spells and overcome magical defenses according to the following table:

Intelligence Score Associated Ability
10 Able to cast 0-level spells according to their spellcasting class.
11 Able to cast 1st Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
12 Able to cast 2nd Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
13 Able to cast 3rd Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
14 Able to cast 4th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
15 Able to cast 5th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
16 Able to cast 6th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
17 Able to cast 7th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
18 Able to cast 8th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
19 Able to cast 9th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
20 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
21-22 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
23-24 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
25-26 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
27-28 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
29-30 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
31-32 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
33-34 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
35-36 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
37-38 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
39-40 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.

Wisdom determines the number of spells a spellcaster can cast. In addition to the normal number of spells granted to spellcasters by their class, spellcasters receive a number of bonus spells in accordance with their Wisdom score, as determined by the following table:

Wisdom
Score Bonus Spells (by Spell Level)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 1 - No Bonus Spells of this Level -
11 1 1
12 1 1 1
13 2 1 1 1
14 2 2 1 1 1
15 2 2 2 1 1 1
16 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
17 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
18 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
19 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
20 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
21 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
22 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
23 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
24 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2
25 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2
26 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
27 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3
28 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3
29 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3
30 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4
31 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4
32 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4
33 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4
34 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5
35 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5

Charisma determines the strength of the spells any spellcasters cast. The spellcaster’s Charisma modifier, plus ten, plus the spell level of the spell being cast is the DC to be overcome for any spell cast. Therefore, the DC for a Charm Monster spell cast by a wizard (a 4th-level wizard spell) with a Charisma of 20 is 10+4+5, or 19.

Fix #2: Spellprogression and Prestige Classes
The Cleric, the Wizard, and the Sorcerer grant few class features, if any. Now, it seems, the designers of 3rd edition intended for spellcasting to compensate for this. Instead, Prestige Classes were introduced and spellcaster power began to CREEP. This fix is intended to decrease the likelihood of a character casting 9th level spells by 17th-level, make high-level spells a rarer accomplishments, and even out the power level of many spellcasting Prestige Classes. This fix is quick and clean, but does little to limit the power of anyone who goes Wiz 20.

No Prestige Class grants full spellcasting progression to full-spellcasters. Instead, all existing Prestige Classes are assumed to be modified to grant either ½ spellcasting progression or ¾ in some cases. If one wishes to exchange levels in Wizard, Sorceror, Cleric, Druid, Bard, or any other full-spellcaster for levels in a Prestige Class, one is expected to exchange the ability to cast higher level spells for the benefit of the Prestige Class’s class features.

Prestige Classes with reasonably powerful class features grant only one-half spell progression. Prestige Classes such as Archmage, Contemplateive, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Malconvoker, and Mindbender are good examples of Prestige Classes that should receive one-half spell progression. In such cases, the first level of each prestige class does not grant spellcasting and neither does every other level thereafter. When dealing with a Prestige Class with an odd number of levels, round down the number of levels that grant spell progression. For example, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil should receive three levels of spell progression over the course of its seven levels.

Prestige Classes with weak or minimal class features should grant three-quarters spellcasting progression. Prestige Classes such as Effigy Master, Eldritch Knight, Loremaster, and Shining Blade of Heironeous are good examples of Prestige Classes that should receive three-quarters spell progression. When the number of levels in a Prestige Class do not evenly divide into quarters, round down the number of levels that grant spell progression. For example, Eldritch Knight should receive seven levels of spell progression over the course of its ten levels.

All Prestige Classes that grant their own spell-casting progression remain unaffected with the exceptions of those that grant 9th-level spells (such as The Sublime Chord and The Ur-Priest), which should be adjusted to the DM’s discretion.

Any Prestige Class that grants spell progression (whether ½ or ¾) grants full caster level progression. A Wizard does not lose caster levels by progressing as an Archmage or as an Eldritch Knight even though he will lose spell progression according to the class’s speed of advancement.

Fix #3: Implements
Things I like about 4th Edition: the use of implements in spellcasting. Things I do not like about 4th Edition: implements are the same as weapons. By making spellcasting more item dependent, we limit what the caster can do and the ease with which he can do it. However, I didn't want it to feel like your items were functioning the same way that weapons do.

All Full-Spellcasters are now required to have an appropriately designed and built implement in order to cast spells above level 0. For a divine caster, the implement takes the form of a holy symbol. For the bard, his musical instrument serves as his implement. For the wizard and sorcerer, they can use either an orb, a staff, or a wand as their implement.

All implements can be enhanced like magical weapons, for the same price increments. Unlike weapons, all implements are assumed to be of a quality that can be enhanced, as it takes great skill and knowledge to build a functional implement. The enhancement of an implement determines what level spells the caster can cast while using that implement.

A normal implement, that has not been enhanced, can be used to cast 1st and 2nd level spells. An implement with a +1 enhancement is required to cast 3rd and 4th level spells and can still be used to cast lower-level spells. An implement with a +2 enhancement is needed to cast 5th and 6th level spells and can be used to cast lower level spells. An implement with a +3 enhancement is needed to cast 7th and 8th level spells and can be used to cast lower level spells. An implement with a +4 enhancement is needed to cast 9th level spells or lower. An implement with a +5 enhancement is necessary to cast epic level spells and allows the caster to cast spells of 6th level or lower from another class list (that the caster has access to) with the same implement. For example, a Druid with a +5 Holy Symbol can cast 9th level Druid spells with that implement as well as 6th level Wizard spells he has access to while using the same implement.

Spells no longer require Material Components, as all spells now require Implements. Spells that require XP or material components equal to more gold than 100 x your caster level (2,000gp at 20th level) instead require you use an implement with an enhancement one greater than is typically required for the spell level. For example, Raise Dead cast by a 9th level Cleric does not require 5000gp worth of diamonds; instead, Raise Dead cast by a 9th level Cleric requires that the cleric use a Holy Symbol with a +3 enhancement, rather than a Holy Symbol with a +2 enhancement which is typically all that is required for a 5th level spell (such as Raise Dead). Spells that require material components that have no gold cost or a gold cost that is less than 100 x your caster level (such as Identify, cast by a 3rd-level Sorceror) merely require the use of an implement as is normal.

A bard who wishes to use his voice still requires a pitch pipe for use as an implement in order to fine-tune his vocal chords and, with higher level spells, grant his voice an appropriate enhancement bonus.

Drawing an implement is a move-action which can be done while a character moves his speed, like drawing a weapon. Putting away an implement is also a move-action. An implement can be drawn as a free-action if the character possesses the Quick Draw feat. A caster holding an implement (whether Holy Symbol, musical instrument, orb, staff, or wand) can be disarmed of their implement and the implement can be made the target of a sunder attempt by an attacker. Like a normal sunder attempt, the attacker must overcome the implement’s hardness and HP in order to destroy it. Implements still require the caster leave one hand free for somatic components to spells, unless the caster is using a spell that does not require somatic components.

Arcane Implements: Orbs, Staves, and Wands
All full arcane spellcasters, except the bard, use three different implements when casting their spells: orbs, staves, and wands. Each of the three arcane implements are associated with different magical schools.

The orb is associated with the Divination, Enchantment, and Necromancy schools. If one wishes to cast a spell from one of these three schools, one must be using an orb as an arcane implement. An orb with a +3 enhancement bonus can be used as a +1 wand. An orb with a +5 enhancement bonus can be used as a +3 wand or a +1 staff.

The wand is associated with the Conjuration, Evocation, and Illusion schools. If one wishes to cast a spell from one of these three schools (with the exception of Evocation), one must be using a wand as an arcane implement. A wand with a +3 enhancement bonus can be used as a +1 staff. A wand with a +5 enhancement bonus can be used as a +3 staff or a +1 orb.

The staff is associated with the Abjuration, Evocation, and Transmutation schools. If one wishes to cast a spell from one of these three schools (with the exception of Evocation), one must be using a staff as an arcane implement. A staff with a +3 enhancement bonus can be used as a +1 orb. A staff with a +5 enhancement bonus can be used as a +3 orb or a +1 wand.

This third fix only does little to limit Clerics, Druids, and Bards. However, these classes are casting off a much narrower spell list than Wizards and Sorcerers. Additionally, this allows the observant character to determine the power level of an NPC spellcaster by the apparent power of their implement. It also allows the observer to determine the favored schools of NPC Wizards or Sorcerers. Both these are fun and flavorful in my opinion. By making Wizards and Sorcerers rely on various implements, we limit their spell selection at any given time.

From here, Fix #3 can be expanded to include feats that allow you to dual-wield implements, special abilities for implements that cost enhancement bonuses akin to weapon special abilities that impact things like spell DCs and overcoming SR, and special weapons and shields that can also be used as implements and can be enhanced separately as implements and weapons.

Opinions? Are these fixes effective? Would you implement them in your own game? Are they simple enough to adapt, but still complex enough to limit spellcasting? Do they maintain the feeling of a High Fantasy game and avoid making the spellcasting classes too similar to the melee classes?

For a full fix of core spellcasters, I would suggest any of the various ways to nerf the Druid's class features and granting the Sorcerer Heritage feats every three levels. There's any variety of heritage feats that would work for the sorcerer: draconic, elemental, demonic, or even aberrant feats from LoM. Also, I would let the sorcerer specialize like a wizard. I applied all these fixes to the Bard, because he's bound to pump Charisma anyways and is likely to make Intelligence at least tertiary. Otherwise, the Bard would really be too powerful under this system.

purplearcanist
2009-06-07, 11:22 PM
Purpose: I present to you for review, criticism, and hopefully adoption, three mechanical systems for the 3.5 edition of D&D rules. The purpose of these mechanics is to decrease the near-limitless power of 3.5 spellcasters while maintaining the magical staples of High Fantasy. It is not meant to bring Wizards on par with Fighters. If anything, the power level sought with these mechanical fixes is to be more balanced compared to Tome of Battle melee classes or a well-built Barbarian or Rogue. These three mechanics address the Wizard power in three different ways: MAD (Multiple Attribute Dependency), Limited Spell-Progression, and Item-Dependency.


Fix #1: The Mental Ability Scores
All melee characters must grant at least a passing nod to each of the physical ability scores, forcing the characters to strengthen one aspect of melee fighting to the detriment of another. By spreading out the functioning of all spellcasting over all three mental ability scores, we hope to see that casters balance themselves in such a way. This fix works best with a high-powered stat array or with generous rolling rules. I granted bonus spells much faster than normal as well as giving 0-level bonus spells in order to increase the importance of Wisdom when compared to Intelligence or Charisma under this system. I was afraid that a normal bonus-spell progression would cause the significance of Wisdom to pale compared to the other two stats (who cares about casting ONE more spell per level per day when I could be increasing my DCs or overcoming SR!)

All full-spellcasters rely on the three mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) to determine their spellcasting abilities. A full-spellcaster is defined as any caster whose class spell list includes 9th level spells, as well as the Bard. Ranger, Paladin, and Assasin spellcasting, for example, are unaffected.

Intelligence determines the highest level spell a spellcaster can cast, as well as how capable they are at overcoming the magic of others. A spellcaster cannot cast spells without at least an intelligence of at least 10. A spellcaster with an intelligence of 10 or higher is able to cast spells and overcome magical defenses according to the following table:

Intelligence Score Associated Ability
10 Able to cast 0-level spells according to their spellcasting class.
11 Able to cast 1st Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
12 Able to cast 2nd Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
13 Able to cast 3rd Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
14 Able to cast 4th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
15 Able to cast 5th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
16 Able to cast 6th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
17 Able to cast 7th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
18 Able to cast 8th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
19 Able to cast 9th Level spells according to their spellcasting class.
20 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
21-22 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
23-24 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
25-26 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
27-28 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
29-30 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
31-32 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
33-34 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
35-36 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
37-38 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.
39-40 Gain +1 to Caster Level checks to overcome SR or when using Dispel Magic.

Wisdom determines the number of spells a spellcaster can cast. In addition to the normal number of spells granted to spellcasters by their class, spellcasters receive a number of bonus spells in accordance with their Wisdom score, as determined by the following table:

Wisdom
Score Bonus Spells (by Spell Level)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 1 - No Bonus Spells of this Level -
11 1 1
12 1 1 1
13 2 1 1 1
14 2 2 1 1 1
15 2 2 2 1 1 1
16 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
17 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
18 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
19 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
20 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
21 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
22 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
23 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
24 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2
25 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2
26 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
27 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3
28 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3
29 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3
30 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4
31 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4
32 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4
33 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4
34 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5
35 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5

Charisma determines the strength of the spells any spellcasters cast. The spellcaster’s Charisma modifier, plus ten, plus the spell level of the spell being cast is the DC to be overcome for any spell cast. Therefore, the DC for a Charm Monster spell cast by a wizard (a 4th-level wizard spell) with a Charisma of 20 is 10+4+5, or 19.

Fix #2: Spellprogression and Prestige Classes
The Cleric, the Wizard, and the Sorcerer grant few class features, if any. Now, it seems, the designers of 3rd edition intended for spellcasting to compensate for this. Instead, Prestige Classes were introduced and spellcaster power began to CREEP. This fix is intended to decrease the likelihood of a character casting 9th level spells by 17th-level, make high-level spells a rarer accomplishments, and even out the power level of many spellcasting Prestige Classes. This fix is quick and clean, but does little to limit the power of anyone who goes Wiz 20.

No Prestige Class grants full spellcasting progression to full-spellcasters. Instead, all existing Prestige Classes are assumed to be modified to grant either ½ spellcasting progression or ¾ in some cases. If one wishes to exchange levels in Wizard, Sorceror, Cleric, Druid, Bard, or any other full-spellcaster for levels in a Prestige Class, one is expected to exchange the ability to cast higher level spells for the benefit of the Prestige Class’s class features.

Prestige Classes with reasonably powerful class features grant only one-half spell progression. Prestige Classes such as Archmage, Contemplateive, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Malconvoker, and Mindbender are good examples of Prestige Classes that should receive one-half spell progression. In such cases, the first level of each prestige class does not grant spellcasting and neither does every other level thereafter. When dealing with a Prestige Class with an odd number of levels, round down the number of levels that grant spell progression. For example, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil should receive three levels of spell progression over the course of its seven levels.

Prestige Classes with weak or minimal class features should grant three-quarters spellcasting progression. Prestige Classes such as Effigy Master, Eldritch Knight, Loremaster, and Shining Blade of Heironeous are good examples of Prestige Classes that should receive three-quarters spell progression. When the number of levels in a Prestige Class do not evenly divide into quarters, round down the number of levels that grant spell progression. For example, Eldritch Knight should receive seven levels of spell progression over the course of its ten levels.

All Prestige Classes that grant their own spell-casting progression remain unaffected with the exceptions of those that grant 9th-level spells (such as The Sublime Chord and The Ur-Priest), which should be adjusted to the DM’s discretion.

Any Prestige Class that grants spell progression (whether ½ or ¾) grants full caster level progression. A Wizard does not lose caster levels by progressing as an Archmage or as an Eldritch Knight even though he will lose spell progression according to the class’s speed of advancement.

Fix #3: Implements
Things I like about 4th Edition: the use of implements in spellcasting. Things I do not like about 4th Edition: implements are the same as weapons. By making spellcasting more item dependent, we limit what the caster can do and the ease with which he can do it. However, I didn't want it to feel like your items were functioning the same way that weapons do.

All Full-Spellcasters are now required to have an appropriately designed and built implement in order to cast spells above level 0. For a divine caster, the implement takes the form of a holy symbol. For the bard, his musical instrument serves as his implement. For the wizard and sorcerer, they can use either an orb, a staff, or a wand as their implement.

All implements can be enhanced like magical weapons, for the same price increments. Unlike weapons, all implements are assumed to be of a quality that can be enhanced, as it takes great skill and knowledge to build a functional implement. The enhancement of an implement determines what level spells the caster can cast while using that implement.

A normal implement, that has not been enhanced, can be used to cast 1st and 2nd level spells. An implement with a +1 enhancement is required to cast 3rd and 4th level spells and can still be used to cast lower-level spells. An implement with a +2 enhancement is needed to cast 5th and 6th level spells and can be used to cast lower level spells. An implement with a +3 enhancement is needed to cast 7th and 8th level spells and can be used to cast lower level spells. An implement with a +4 enhancement is needed to cast 9th level spells or lower. An implement with a +5 enhancement is necessary to cast epic level spells and allows the caster to cast spells of 6th level or lower from another class list (that the caster has access to) with the same implement. For example, a Druid with a +5 Holy Symbol can cast 9th level Druid spells with that implement as well as 6th level Wizard spells he has access to while using the same implement.

Spells no longer require Material Components, as all spells now require Implements. Spells that require XP or material components equal to more gold than 100 x your caster level (2,000gp at 20th level) instead require you use an implement with an enhancement one greater than is typically required for the spell level. For example, Raise Dead cast by a 9th level Cleric does not require 5000gp worth of diamonds; instead, Raise Dead cast by a 9th level Cleric requires that the cleric use a Holy Symbol with a +3 enhancement, rather than a Holy Symbol with a +2 enhancement which is typically all that is required for a 5th level spell (such as Raise Dead). Spells that require material components that have no gold cost or a gold cost that is less than 100 x your caster level (such as Identify, cast by a 3rd-level Sorceror) merely require the use of an implement as is normal.

A bard who wishes to use his voice still requires a pitch pipe for use as an implement in order to fine-tune his vocal chords and, with higher level spells, grant his voice an appropriate enhancement bonus.

Drawing an implement is a move-action which can be done while a character moves his speed, like drawing a weapon. Putting away an implement is also a move-action. An implement can be drawn as a free-action if the character possesses the Quick Draw feat. A caster holding an implement (whether Holy Symbol, musical instrument, orb, staff, or wand) can be disarmed of their implement and the implement can be made the target of a sunder attempt by an attacker. Like a normal sunder attempt, the attacker must overcome the implement’s hardness and HP in order to destroy it. Implements still require the caster leave one hand free for somatic components to spells, unless the caster is using a spell that does not require somatic components.

Arcane Implements: Orbs, Staves, and Wands
All full arcane spellcasters, except the bard, use three different implements when casting their spells: orbs, staves, and wands. Each of the three arcane implements are associated with different magical schools.

The orb is associated with the Divination, Enchantment, and Necromancy schools. If one wishes to cast a spell from one of these three schools, one must be using an orb as an arcane implement. An orb with a +3 enhancement bonus can be used as a +1 wand. An orb with a +5 enhancement bonus can be used as a +3 wand or a +1 staff.

The wand is associated with the Conjuration, Evocation, and Illusion schools. If one wishes to cast a spell from one of these three schools (with the exception of Evocation), one must be using a wand as an arcane implement. A wand with a +3 enhancement bonus can be used as a +1 staff. A wand with a +5 enhancement bonus can be used as a +3 staff or a +1 orb.

The staff is associated with the Abjuration, Evocation, and Transmutation schools. If one wishes to cast a spell from one of these three schools (with the exception of Evocation), one must be using a staff as an arcane implement. A staff with a +3 enhancement bonus can be used as a +1 orb. A staff with a +5 enhancement bonus can be used as a +3 orb or a +1 wand.

This third fix only does little to limit Clerics, Druids, and Bards. However, these classes are casting off a much narrower spell list than Wizards and Sorcerers. Additionally, this allows the observant character to determine the power level of an NPC spellcaster by the apparent power of their implement. It also allows the observer to determine the favored schools of NPC Wizards or Sorcerers. Both these are fun and flavorful in my opinion. By making Wizards and Sorcerers rely on various implements, we limit their spell selection at any given time.

From here, Fix #3 can be expanded to include feats that allow you to dual-wield implements, special abilities for implements that cost enhancement bonuses akin to weapon special abilities that impact things like spell DCs and overcoming SR, and special weapons and shields that can also be used as implements and can be enhanced separately as implements and weapons.

Opinions? Are these fixes effective? Would you implement them in your own game? Are they simple enough to adapt, but still complex enough to limit spellcasting? Do they maintain the feeling of a High Fantasy game and avoid making the spellcasting classes too similar to the melee classes?

For a full fix of core spellcasters, I would suggest any of the various ways to nerf the Druid's class features and granting the Sorcerer Heritage feats every three levels. There's any variety of heritage feats that would work for the sorcerer: draconic, elemental, demonic, or even aberrant feats from LoM. Also, I would let the sorcerer specialize like a wizard. I applied all these fixes to the Bard, because he's bound to pump Charisma anyways and is likely to make Intelligence at least tertiary. Otherwise, the Bard would really be too powerful under this system.

Fix #1 looks like it does not completely solve the issue. A spellcaster can choose to dump charisma and focus on spells that don't involve a save, while choosing int to get the high level goodies, and wis if they want more. It really nerfs caster builds that use spells requiring saving throws, so casters will choose better routes.

Fix #2 looks like a crude fix for prestiege classes. But it seems to go too far, since 9th level spells are more tempting than most prestiege class abilities. That may be what you want.

Fix #3 looks like a problematic fix. To illustrate, I get a +5 implement for my wizard. Now, I can use wish without paying a stupid XP cost. This is a bad idea. If you want this nerf, I would require material or xp costs normally or do something else.

goken04
2009-06-08, 01:25 PM
Fix #1 looks like it does not completely solve the issue. A spellcaster can choose to dump charisma and focus on spells that don't involve a save, while choosing int to get the high level goodies, and wis if they want more. It really nerfs caster builds that use spells requiring saving throws, so casters will choose better routes.

Sure you could do that, but that will severely limit your spell selection. Or you could jack your save DCs and your INT and not worry about getting more spells per day since your spells are more effective than a caster with a high WIS and low CHA.

Would this fix be improved by slowing the rate of receiving bonus spells?


Fix #2 looks like a crude fix for prestiege classes. But it seems to go too far, since 9th level spells are more tempting than most prestige class abilities. That may be what you want.
Well, PrCs with 3/4 progression still get 9th level spells at 20th level. And since not every game goes to level 17, I have a feeling that people will still play PrCs. I mean, plenty of people still play PrCs where they lose spellcaster levels when they could choose a PrC where they wouldn't. When all PrCs lose spell progression, it's more acceptable to lose some spell progression. It's certainly a quick fix, but how is it crude?


Fix #3 looks like a problematic fix. To illustrate, I get a +5 implement for my wizard. Now, I can use wish without paying a stupid XP cost. This is a bad idea. If you want this nerf, I would require material or xp costs normally or do something else.
I don't see why that is a bad idea. It falls into the trap that all "pay XP to do X" does, which is, the more you lose experience, the further behind the rest of the party you fall, until you're a level below and then gain XP faster. It balances itself out a bit. Personally, I don't think that wish is something that should be in the party wizard's spellbook unless there is a greater price associated with it than just losing XP.

Would the fix be better if it didn't remove the need to pay XP, just gold? I actually included XP in it because more often than not my groups IRL don't use XP period.

Kornaki
2009-06-08, 01:44 PM
I don't see why that is a bad idea. It falls into the trap that all "pay XP to do X" does, which is, the more you lose experience, the further behind the rest of the party you fall, until you're a level below and then gain XP faster. It balances itself out a bit. Personally, I don't think that wish is something that should be in the party wizard's spellbook unless there is a greater price associated with it than just losing XP.

Instead, what? I need to get a +5 staff? That's only 18000 gold, not a big deal

goken04
2009-06-08, 01:51 PM
Instead, what? I need to get a +5 staff? That's only 18000 gold, not a big deal

No, I agree. I'm saying it doesn't make it much easier to cast Wish than RAW does. That aspect of the implement rules are less to limit spellcasting power, and more to get rid of a cumbersome mechanic I don't like the flavor of (XP/gold cost) by working it into the new implement system. "I can't raise him! I'd need a more powerful holy symbol if I wanted to try that." Sits better with me than, "Good thing I retroactively bought 5000 gold worth of diamonds. Although, so you know, this spell is gonna make me forget some stuff."

I'm saying that I would probably not allow a party wizard just to scribe Wish into their spellbook when they reach level 17. Not in a campaign where I've put in an effort to limit spellcaster godhood. Wish is fun and should still be part of gameplay, but it should not be so easily acquired in a game that hopes to keep spellcasters near the power level of any non-casters.

Omegonthesane
2009-06-08, 03:22 PM
No, I agree. I'm saying it doesn't make it much easier to cast Wish than RAW does. That aspect of the implement rules are less to limit spellcasting power, and more to get rid of a cumbersome mechanic I don't like the flavor of (XP/gold cost) by working it into the new implement system. "I can't raise him! I'd need a more powerful holy symbol if I wanted to try that." Sits better with me than, "Good thing I retroactively bought 5000 gold worth of diamonds. Although, so you know, this spell is gonna make me forget some stuff."

I'm saying that I would probably not allow a party wizard just to scribe Wish into their spellbook when they reach level 17. Not in a campaign where I've put in an effort to limit spellcaster godhood. Wish is fun and should still be part of gameplay, but it should not be so easily acquired in a game that hopes to keep spellcasters near the power level of any non-casters.

How about if your new Wish required three 9th level arcane spell slots from 3 different casters? Actually having to cooperate would have some nerfing effect. Or you could say taht Wish counts as Epic and thus cannot be cast at all until level 21, whereupon things get crazy anyway. That said the best fix is probably "You can scribe Wish if you complete a dangerous quest to obtain the legendary Spellbook of Wishing, written by the first Archmage of the Nine Realms" or whatever.

More to the point, Miracle is similarly powerful to Wish, never had an XP cost for its basic uses, and cannot be denied simply by not granting a scroll of Miracle to the party. What would you do about that?

goken04
2009-06-08, 04:21 PM
More to the point, Miracle is similarly powerful to Wish, never had an XP cost for its basic uses, and cannot be denied simply by not granting a scroll of Miracle to the party. What would you do about that?

"Feel free to prepare Miracle. Understand, however, that your god will only grant you the power to use it in only the most extreme circumstances. You may be better off with a scroll of it, actually."

Or you say that it's not the same as other 9th level spells and the caster has to find the ancient priest of [God's name] off in the dangerous, dangerous Mountains of Unspeakable Terror to teach it to them. Same as Wish.

However, what I would probably do for both Wish and Miracle is require a separate material component for the spells that is extremely rare and difficult to get a hold of. They have to quest for it and then still only get one or two casting's worth. After they use that, perhaps they can find some other way to obtain the component.

All this brings up a good point. None of these fixes allows the DM to stop thinking. In 3.5, for the game to maintain any semblance of balance, the DM has to know what he's doing. Hopefully, these fixes will just make his job of balancing the casters v. non-casters a little easier. He still has to be smart about it.

Pyrusticia
2009-06-08, 07:13 PM
I love fix #1. It makes a lot of sense, and adds a level of parity between casters and physical fighters.

Fix #2 seems unnecessarily punishing. Prestige classes are designed to be balanced. Wizards are giving up feats to get those prestige abilities. Clerics are giving up turning ability, and Bards and Druids give up all sorts of class abilities. The only place that it's really broken is with Sorcerers. I'd sooner address this from the Sorcerer end than punish all casters for it.

Fix #3 seems good, although I'm cautious about taking out material components altogether. I'd certainly remove any minor components (<10 gp). For greater ones, I'd recommend a charging system. You can charge your implement during downtime in the game, using a ritual that consumes whatever the DM thinks is fair (gold and xp, for most, although you can just use gold if you don't like xp costs). Think of it as infusing it with magic. Heavy drain spells (those requiring major gold/xp components) draw magic out of your implement. If your implement runs out of charges, it still functions as an implement of the same magical bonus, but you cannot cast any more heavy-drain spells until you get a chance to recharge it.

This would allow the DM to keep balance with the heavy-hitting spells, without requiring the spellcaster to be a walking store-room in order to have dozens of different components on hand. Thoughts?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-06-08, 10:58 PM
Fix #2 seems unnecessarily punishing. Prestige classes are designed to be balanced. Wizards are giving up feats to get those prestige abilities. Clerics are giving up turning ability, and Bards and Druids give up all sorts of class abilities. The only place that it's really broken is with Sorcerers. I'd sooner address this from the Sorcerer end than punish all casters for it.

To be fair, would you rather have (A) 1 metamagic feat, 4 turning levels, familiar advancement, etc. or (B) 4 levels of Fatespinner? Generally, the PrCs are good enough to make taking them more than worth what you lose. Now, perhaps only the first few levels should drop casting, to discourage 1-2 level dips, but I don't think taking away casting levels is at all too harsh.

Pyrusticia
2009-06-09, 02:00 AM
To be fair, would you rather have (A) 1 metamagic feat, 4 turning levels, familiar advancement, etc. or (B) 4 levels of Fatespinner? Generally, the PrCs are good enough to make taking them more than worth what you lose. Now, perhaps only the first few levels should drop casting, to discourage 1-2 level dips, but I don't think taking away casting levels is at all too harsh.

Tough choice, really. In an undead-heavy world, fatespinner wouldn't even come close to replacing 4 turning levels. For a more standard campaign, which is going to do you more good? The ability to heighten/maximize/whatever your spells at the cost of spell levels, or 2 rerolls/day (one for you and one for an enemy) plus 4 pts/day that can be used to adjust roll target #'s? That one could go either way, which to me says that they're pretty balanced. I have to admit, though, that the familiar advancement doesn't come close to comparison. Hence why I said that Sorcerers are where full-casting PrCs get broken. :smalltongue:

TSED
2009-06-09, 02:13 AM
I must throw in yet another voice nodding in agreement with fix #1.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-06-09, 08:00 AM
Tough choice, really. In an undead-heavy world, fatespinner wouldn't even come close to replacing 4 turning levels. For a more standard campaign, which is going to do you more good? The ability to heighten/maximize/whatever your spells at the cost of spell levels, or 2 rerolls/day (one for you and one for an enemy) plus 4 pts/day that can be used to adjust roll target #'s? That one could go either way, which to me says that they're pretty balanced. I have to admit, though, that the familiar advancement doesn't come close to comparison. Hence why I said that Sorcerers are where full-casting PrCs get broken. :smalltongue:

Excellent. The Fatespinner is often considered a low-end PrC, comparatively speaking.

Now, given the choice, would you take (A) 2 metamagic feats, 10 turning levels, or 10 levels of familiar advancement, or (B) 10 levels of Incantatrix, or 10 levels of Red Wizard, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 7/Fatespinner 3, or Archmage 5/Fatespinner 5?

rampaging-poet
2009-06-09, 11:03 PM
These are all great ideas. If I ever find a need to tone down spellcasters, this will be used. Also, anything that gives a wizard a reason to carry a staff is ok in my book.

I've just got one minor question regarding the "enhanced like magic items" part: how does it interact with weapon properties? If my wizard's staff gets the flaming property do I get to cast higher level fire spells? Do my fire spells get free metamagic?
Can I hit someone over the head with it for 1d6 fire damage? :smallbiggrin:

Incidentally, special implement properties might be a good way to provide prerequisites for really powerful spells. You can't use just any +5 wand to cast wish, it's got to be a +5 wand of wishing.

Lapak
2009-06-10, 10:52 AM
I like fix #1 a lot, as it hits the wizard where he is most unbalanced: in the save-or-dies. Either he can't cast as many, or the ones he can cast are easier to save against, or he loses access to the most dangerous ones. There are workarounds for each, but not for all three at once. I like that.

Fix #2 is a very good idea - how many spellcasting builds DON'T involve one or more PRCs these days? Not enough, honestly. The fix may be a little too harsh, though. Rather than straight-up 1/2 progression, maybe hit it in just the first couple of levels to prevent dips and add a serious cost? PRC level 1 - no progression, PRC level 2 - progression, PRC level 3 - No progression, full progression on all other levels?

Fix #3 I need to think about some more.

Nostri
2009-06-10, 05:21 PM
I like fix #1 (like everyone else it seems) though it may hurt a lot more then intended if someone's using stricter ability score generation. But then again everyone else will be a bit weaker as well so I guess it evens out.

Fix #2 is a good idea though I think it could go a bit more in-depth. For example- it's a bit up in the air as to when you loose the spellcasting levels from what I can see, are they spread out evenly or clumped up at the beginning, etc. Also what qualifies a casting PrC for being powerful enough to be dropped down to 1/2 progression vs 3/4?

I think fix #3 is my favorite. Reigns in caster power while being flavorful. Pairing different implements with different schools is also very interesting. I personally think clerics and druids should have their own set of three implements though, their spell lists are as narrow as a lot of people seem to think. Splitting things up by school wouldn't really work though for them flavor wise but putting them into themes might work, something to think about anyway.

Harperfan7
2009-06-10, 11:29 PM
I like fix #1, #2 doesn't really concern my group - we don't use prestige classes, #3 I don't like.

My only problem with fix #1 is that every caster who can cast 9th level spells is going to have 19 Int? With the ability scores no longer tied to each class, there isn't a whole lot that separates them.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-11, 12:28 AM
I must throw in yet another voice nodding in agreement with fix #1.

Yeah. Some warriors can dump Dexterity, some mages can dump Charisma. No big deal.
Although, as the Harper said, it does kill variety a slight bit.

Fizban
2009-06-11, 03:25 AM
Fix 1 is a pretty common idea, and it's good, but the only thing I don't like about it is that it feels like it's losing something. Right now, you can tell a lot about a caster by their magic: divine casters are wise, prepared arcanists are smart, and spontaneous casters are good leaders. With this change, it makes things a lot less certain by class, so the tropes don't apply as universally. In game though I'm sure it would be a lot better though.

Mechanically it looks sound. The int benchmarks mean that every caster needs a certain amount of intelligence, just like every fighter needs a certain amount of constitution, to even function (if you've ever seen a front liner with less than 10 con, show me), and after that it's just gravy (extra soak hp vs. extra SR/dispel). I'd also suggest that the int bonus applies to the DC for others to dispel your own spells. The choice between wis and cha means there can still be a lot of variation there, an could balance each other out (save-less spells usually aren't as potent, so you blow the extra slots making them stick). I'm not sure how they'd work out as you go, but it would be interesting to see. One thing I'm definitely concerned about is the sorcerer's niche: spontaneous casting is already gimped enough that it's main saving grace is extra spells per day, and the bonuses of high wisdom easily exceed that.

Fix 2 is also needed, but I agree with others above that it's too heavy handed. Losing more than 1 or 2 levels means you've lost a whole tier of spellcasting, and falling farther behind than that means you just can't compete with the monsters of your level on the magic field. I'd have all full progression classes lose a level at first, and if they're really good, again at 5th. I'd also take some classes that already lose casting and give it back in some places (the elemental savant for example, sucks), but that's by far the exception.

Fix 3 is the one that I most like and dislike. On the one hand, while I appreciate the solidarity and variation between the orb/wand/staff motif, I hate it. It's too restrictive, and makes all the good stuff use the exact same thing. Since conjuration is just about the most important school, arcanists are going to have a wand, even if you don't want them too. I like tying magic to powerful implements, and doing it by restricting spell level is pretty much the only way to do it, but just as all optimized fighters are shoehorned into a +x spiked chain, all casters are now shoehorned into a +x wand.

Aesthetically, I'd let a caster choose what form their implements take, or maybe base it on class. If you want the players to be able to tell them apart at a glance it wouldn't be hard The school groupings and level of investment would stay the same, as would the action and hand use economy, but I've never seen someone whip out an orb to cast an enchantment. And what about sorcerers? Aside from having a few more spells per day, one of the big attractions of the sorcerer is being able to wake up naked and still have 90% of your abilities intact. Considering how few spells known they get, and how much spread they need out of them, a sorcerer is only going to have a few spells he can cast with each implement, and unlike a wizard, if he loses his wand he can't prepare a staff spell while he tries to get it back. I'd be inclined to waive the whole thing for spontaneous casters, but then it's just a really big wizard fix.

The problem of losing it. Disarming a fighter is harsh, but he can still pick up another weapon if he needs to, or if nothing else swing an unarmed strike. An ubercharger without his weapons can still punch you into next week. The implement system has to allow for reduced casting on some level when disarmed. I'd suggest making everything count as a level or two higher. This doesn't jive well with prepared casters, so they'd have to have a mechanic to deal with it, such as preparing spells intentionally without implement use, or sacrificing a slot x levels higher in addition to the one the spell was prepared in. That brings up the issue of stealth: what happens to the Beguiler and other archetypes that depend on being able to do magic when the enemy thinks they are disarmed? Some spells just shouldn't have an implement component, but I've no idea how to balance them with the system. Low level spells should also be castable without an implement, otherwise you have to start every caster with a 2,000gp item that is required for their class to function at all, even if they can still cast cantrips.

I would also not call them "+x implements", but another generic term, like "first rank staff or master level wand", to distinguish them from weapons. Similarly, I would advise against blanket enhancements on them, because otherwise they become "caster weapons", and much less fantasy like. Spell in 3.x aren't like spells in 4e either, where spells are just a different way of dealing damage: they're way too diverse to try and allow blanket adjustments to them. The MIC added a few very limited items that can modify spells, but they only apply to direct damage spells, and are mostly only dependent on slot level and energy descriptor. While you might add a caster level adjustment or some other ability, those are already valued separately.

As an aside, nice nod towards evocation in allowing it for both wands and staves. This gives evocation a niche it didn't have before: usable by more people regardless of focus.

------------------------------------

The whole issue of implements brings up a subtlety of the game that is actually very important: your spells aren't just for you. I think one of the big problems of caster superiority is that casters are hording their spells (at least in theory). It makes sense considering that they're your spells, and if the other guy wanted them, they should have made their own caster. But the classes are balanced as part of a specific breed of 4 man team. The figher's hit points aren't his, they're what he throws in front of the bad guys to protect the party. The cleric's spells aren't his, they're extra hp and bonuses he shares with the party. The wizard's spells aren't his, they're effects he uses to help the group.

Casters are gods because they have access to the magic needed to compete with high level monsters that are flooded with special abilities, and enough spell slots to make themselves invincible while doing so. The problem is, while they buff themselves into invincibility, the rest of the party has to get by with magic items to avoid the nastier stuff. In reality, the caster is stealing from the rest of the party, because those 4 spells/day/level are actually supposed to be split between the 4 party members. That's right: only one of those spells at each level is actually for the caster, the rest are for buffing or healing the party, or hurting the enemy if that party member has already protected himself. If the whole party has magic, they can take care of themselves and will use the rest of their spells to make up for what the non-magic members would have done. If not, then the caster is supposed to use their surplus of magic to support them.

So, while the caster enough magic to defend himself while contributing to victory, the party doesn't. Enter magic items. With ridiculously high WBL and ever cheaper magic items, the non-magic members of the party can protect themselves enough to compete. But loot is part of the fun, and it's not fair to leave the caster out. Then he buys all the same items, and suddenly doesn't need to use all his spells protecting himself. Now in addition to the spells he's not spending on the rest of the party, he's not spending any on himself, and the entire share (the amount of magic a 4 man team would split) is available to throw at the enemy. Since it's just the caster throwing it, he gets all the fun of the kill. If he didn't have as much money to spend, he wouldn't have all that surplus, and would only fight as one party member.

Which finally brings us back to implements. If the caster has to spend WBL to use their abilities, they can't buy as many items, so they spend their spells keeping themselves alive, and that means they have less left with which to outshine the rest of the party. You could get the same effect by cutting off all but the top tier of spells, so that the caster only has enough to contribute in each fight, or cutting their spells at each level by 3, so they only have their personal share, but it's less jarring to stealth cut their WBL by requiring a costly implement to use their magic in the first place.

The game has suffered from some sort of funky creep where it was playtested and balanced based on the standard party, complete with blasty mage, but then monsters were made that require tons of bonuses and immunities to fight, which made players that don't want to be entirely dependent on the mage's whim buy tons of magic items, and made tons of classes that were basically core +extra personal magic show up in splatbooks, while reducing the cost of essential survival items so that players actually have some spending money for nifty non-essentials. Of course, splatbook monsters have advanced as well, to keep up with the increasing trend of everything having half a spellcaster tacked on in either prestige class or magic items. Its all such a big mess that I can see why people like 4e.

But it's my mess, and I love it.