Are wizards / clerics overpowered with the following house rules

[taltamir]

I want to know if wizards / clerics are overpowered with a specific set of house rules.
We all know that by RAW they are. And arguing "RAP" is a sticky matter because RAP varies between group. So I am trying to get a specific set of rules that doesn't make them overwhelmingly overpowered, yet doesn't take away what they "are".
I have two groups of rules in mind called variant A and B, they will share a few rules... if they are, please give examples.
I might add house rules via edits later (and specify which; no stealth modifications I assure you) to try and resolve it better...

shared house rules for A and B:
Banned: pun pun, solar chain gating, fabricate, creation (minor/major), polymorph, celerity.
Modified:
1. Gate & planer binding and similar spells do not give you a means to compel the bound creature. You must deal with it, blackmail it, or otherwise compel it yourself without the summoning spell itself allowing you to do so.
2. SLA that mimic spells that require an expensive XP, gold, or focus component, still require it. That is, a genie casting wish uses up 5000xp... since they are not compelled to serve you by a gate spell (and not guaranteed to even have that much XP available for casting), then you have to pay them a fair price for such a casting.
3. Orb of <Energy> spells are evocation, so is disintegrate and acid fog. Other similar spells that deal direct damage are also evocation.
*EDIT* 4. Sorcerers / favored souls / etc spells known and spells per day are not modified for level 1 and 2. At level 3 they are as if they were level 4, and remain at +1 from then on. Their caster level is unchanged.
So a 3rd level sorcerer will have access to 2nd level spells and spells known as a 4th level sorcerer, but have a caster level of 3.
*EDIT: added by permission*
By permission:
Spells from sources outside the SRD require permission.
Permission will generally be granted, it is simply required that spells be vetted by the DM as appropriate. Generally, spells that require less than a standard action to cast; or can eliminate even very powerful opponent with no save will be given extra scrutiny.

Variant A specific rules:
No metamagic reduces of any type. aka: rods, feats, DMM, whatever

Variant B specific rules:
No metamagic of any type.

[jokey665]

Can they still cast spells? If so, then: "Yes."

[The Glyphstone]

Are they LESS overpowered? Yes.

Are they still overpowered with regards to non-casters? Still yes.

It's a start, but not a complete solution.

[Yukitsu]

It's about enough to run a fun campaign with, assuming no one is out specifically looking for exploits.

[taltamir]

any thoughts of varient B? that is, completely banning metamagic of all forms outright, rather then merely banning metamagic reducers?

I really don't see any reason NOT to ban metamagic as a whole.

[Yukitsu]

I view metamagic as a fun and interesting way to alter spells, and ironically find it almost necessary when I play sorcerers, as it's a way to "increase" the number of spells known without paying too much for it. However, I don't find it necessary, and its absence would simply encourage me to pump save DCs and use battlefield control.

[taltamir]

I view metamagic as a fun and interesting way to alter spells, and ironically find it almost necessary when I play sorcerers, as it's a way to "increase" the number of spells known without paying too much for it. However, I don't find it necessary, and its absence would simply encourage me to pump save DCs and use battlefield control.

it also makes a significant impact on wizards... namely, they lose quicken. which was a big advantage that they had and sorcerers did not.

With both quicken and celerity gone, casters are limited to exactly 1 casting per round. Unless they have a spell that is specifically a swift action / immediate / free / whatever action. This means such spells get to be approved on a spell by spell basis.

[Yukitsu]

Sorcs have options to actually use the blasted thing, but if that's the thrust of the argument, you could always just ban quicken and twin spell.

As an aside, neither are great meta effects when you ban metamagic reducers and or rods. +4 to spell level means you'll have to play quickens smart, getting the most control for the least expenditure. The highest I'd ever quicken using just the feat would probably be a third.

[Choco]

It's about enough to run a fun campaign with, assuming no one is out specifically looking for exploits.

You can run a fun campaign with RAW as long as no one is looking for exploits... All depends on the group.

That being said, completely scrapping 8th and 9th level spells, and maybe 7th too, and changing spell progression of full casters accordingly does wonders.

Also, modify any PrC that gives full caster progression to be like the psionic PrC's in that they DONT give full caster progression. The number of caster levels lost should be proportionate to the power of the PrC's special abilities.

[taltamir]

You can run a fun campaign with RAW as long as no one is looking for exploits... All depends on the group.

That being said, completely scrapping 8th and 9th level spells, and maybe 7th too, and changing spell progression of full casters accordingly does wonders.

Also, modify any PrC that gives full caster progression to be like the psionic PrC's in that they DONT give full caster progression. The number of caster levels lost should be proportionate to the power of the PrC's special abilities.

you know, I seriously considered that option of banning SL 7 or 8+ and changing progression. although, that just might be getting to be too drastic an alteration.

[Kurald Galain]

I want to know if wizards / clerics are overpowered with a specific set of house rules.
We all know that by RAW they are. And arguing "RAP" is a sticky matter because RAP varies between group.
What is "RAP"? I thought bards were into music like that, wizards usually aren't.

Overall, it seems to me you're treating symptoms, rather than causes. The balance issues with wizards appear way earlier than the Gate spell, and than metamagic reducers. Also, which school Disintegrate is in doesn't help in balancing wizards, at all.

Causes include the ease of defensive casting, the absolute-ness of certain defensive spells, and the ease of maximizing saving throw DCs.

[imperialspectre]

Removing metamagic in core largely is irrelevant, since the only available metamagic reducers are very expensive, which means that they functionally don't let you access something that's level-inappropriate because of WBL.

Removing metamagic outside of core hurts sorcerers far more than wizards, since with a big enough spellbook you can have a level-appropriate effect for every save at every spell level, plus plenty of defensive and utility options. Divinations take care of the rest.

The other changes have been dealt with many times over, and are basically cosmetic in nature because virtually nobody actually plays D&D in a way that really exploits those system flaws.

None of the proposed house rules address the basic problem that the power level of full casters scales in a manner that's entirely different from the scaling accessed by everyone else, and at a rate that's far faster. Therefore, clerics, druids, and wizards are "overpowered" in virtually any D&D game based on these houserules (that is, they're reasonably powered only if the rest of the party is high-optimization psions, archivists, artificers, and shadowcrafting beguilers).

[taltamir]

What is "RAP"? I thought bards were into music like that, wizards usually aren't.
RAP = Rules As Played. Which, as I pointed out, is a problematic things because there is no universal agreement there.
This is why this is a "by a specific listed set of house rules".


Overall, it seems to me you're treating symptoms, rather than causes. The balance issues with wizards appear way earlier than the Gate spell, and than metamagic reducers. Also, which school Disintegrate is in doesn't help in balancing wizards, at all.
Cheapest metamagic reducer is a 3000gp rod. And you can start taking metamagic reducer feats at level 1.
I am treating the symptoms because I don't want to say "wizards are banned outright" or "play 4th edition" as a "solution".
I am trying to maintain the 3e feel and the class itself while making minimal modifications to specific abuse holes.
My goal is not to make it NOT a tier 1 class... tiers are not based on combat power but on versatility.
My goal is not to balance tiers but to balance combat, a little, somewhat. To make the class less abusive and less likely to break the game.


Causes include the ease of defensive casting, the absolute-ness of certain defensive spells, and the ease of maximizing saving throw DCs.

1. Defense casting is not a cause of being overpowered, if you even NEED to use it you are in trouble to begin with (what are you doing in melee?), and having your spells fail because you are in melee sucks. Fighters don't get interrupted by melee... heck I consider just saying that defensive casting is always on, always succeeds, and there is no ASF. It will do NOTHING to "empower" full casters.

2. Yes, absolute defense spells are a problem. I forgot to address those, thanks for pointing it out.

3. Maximizing saving throw DCs is not THAT easy... and it is certainly a lot harder then maximizing your save bonuses.


Removing metamagic outside of core hurts sorcerers far more than wizards, since with a big enough spellbook you can have a level-appropriate effect for every save at every spell level, plus plenty of defensive and utility options. Divinations take care of the rest.
Quicken spell is a metamagic feat. available to wizards and not sorcerers.
By permission portion specifies that spells with less than standard action casts are subject to extra scrutiny.
Action economy is the key to DnD victory... not a "variety of spells that target different saves" (although those are nice to have; they are not nearly as important as the action economy)

[Kurald Galain]

1. Defense casting is not a cause of being overpowered,
The ability to cast defensively is a major difference between 2E and 3E, and one of the primary reasons why casters in the 3E are overpowered, whereas in 2E they're not.

[taltamir]

The ability to cast defensively is a major difference between 2E and 3E, and one of the primary reasons why casters in the 3E are overpowered, whereas in 2E they're not.

ok, this is derailing this thread... if you want to discuss it with me I made a second thread for this purpose specifically:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7585007#post7585007

we can argue the merits of defensive casting there.

[imperialspectre]

Quicken spell is a metamagic feat. available to wizards and not sorcerers.
By permission portion specifies that spells with less than standard action casts are subject to extra scrutiny.
Action economy is the key to DnD victory... not a "variety of spells that target different saves" (although those are nice to have; they are not nearly as important as the action economy)

Quicken Spell is totally available to sorcerers, if you allow Complete Arcane or PHB2. Outside of core, sorcerers are far more capable of abusing action economy than wizards are, and psions are more capable than either.

The "by permission" addition is basically useless as written, because it says literally nothing except that the DM will go with his or her gut. That's worthless for purposes of evaluation, and ironically doesn't even address at least two spells that offer substantial action economy abuse.

Action economy isn't remotely the biggest source of power differentials in D&D - it's mostly useful as a way of differentiating power levels between classes and builds that are already at the top of the power scale. It doesn't matter if you can get more actions than I can if my one action is better than all of yours. Wizards are better than other characters because at every level, a wizard's standard action is an existential threat to any CR-appropriate creature. That is not true of fighters or barbarians at the vast majority of levels. It is true of druids and sorcerers and, to a lesser degree, of clerics.

Now, if a sorcerer can throw out five save-or-lose attacks with one round's worth of actions, or enough direct damage with those actions to kill most CR+6 creatures, or some combination of the two with strong defensive actions added in (all are entirely possible in as-written 3.5 by level 15), that's pretty awesome. That's going to bode well for his upcoming fight against the wizard who has only two actions to play with. But the difference between "make 5 saves you can't succeed at or die" and "make 1 save you can't succeed at or die" is essentially theoretical when you're comparing those to "I'll be lucky if I even hit you," which is what non-casters have to work with.

Your houserules, as presented, make it very difficult for casters to spam direct damage or instant-death numbers of negative levels. That doesn't change the fact that their actions are still worth substantially more than the actions of their non-casting counterparts, on a one-for-one basis.

[AslanCross]

I don't see Metamagic as such a bad thing---it's kinda fun, actually. If you don't like Metamagic cheese, ban Incantatrix and Rods, or have Rods require something else to activate.

1. Banning infinite recursion things: Goes without saying. Anyone who allows Pun-pun or Gate Rape needs to find his marbles.

2. Gate != Mind Control: Wasn't this how it worked in previous editions? I remember Gate in Baldur's Gate 2 being pretty much a suicidal spell.

3. I'd pare down the SLA costs to only the ones that require XP. There are a LOT of monsters without hands, and if they require material components of foci, then they can't really use them. Or you could just be stricter about the implementation of Wish, if that's what you're worried about.

4. Changing the school the Orb spells and Disintegrate belong to doesn't really fix casters. It only makes them slightly less flippant about banning Evocation. It does encourage Batman, though. One could still get a lot done by banning Evocation and Enchantment.

[taltamir]

4. Changing the school the Orb spells and Disintegrate belong to doesn't really fix casters. It only makes them slightly less flippant about banning Evocation. It does encourage Batman, though. One could still get a lot done by banning Evocation and Enchantment.

yes... evocation still needs a few more boosts...
enchantment becomes a lot better if "absolute defense agaisnt enchantment" doesn't exist...

especially not as a level 1 spell. Make spells give a bonus to resisting enchantment spells instead of automatic immunity to them and the school becomes valid, and quite scary.

[Eldariel]

Teleportation should be evocation *shrug* I think Test of Spite has a good general list of stuff you should fix/change.

[taltamir]

Teleportation should be evocation *shrug* I think Test of Spite has a good general list of stuff you should fix/change.

teleportation being evocation does indeed make evocation a worthwhile school not to ban...
oh, also banning shadow conjuration. which allows you to duplicate all evocations with conjuration... including contingency.

[Oslecamo]

oh, also banning shadow conjuration. which allows you to duplicate all evocations with conjuration... including contingency.

I personaly say that you automaticaly disbelieve your own illusions, so a shaddow contingency will be nothing more than a self delusion.

[taltamir]

I personaly say that you automaticaly disbelieve your own illusions, so a shaddow contingency will be nothing more than a self delusion.

ha, that is a hilarious approach... kinda like the class feature "immune to time stop" meaning you personally cannot cast time stop or benefit from it.

But at that point, you might as well just ban the spell.

[Yukitsu]

I personaly say that you automaticaly disbelieve your own illusions, so a shaddow contingency will be nothing more than a self delusion.

There's an alternate class feature that I'm fond of for illusionists in the SRD that forces a save even if you have irrefutable proof that it's an illusion. You'd probably just see more of that feature taken.

[ex cathedra]

I'm going to second the Test of Spite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135097) rule set. It's worked well for us, and it's still being vetted.

For your propositions:

The Gate/Binding change is fine.
The SLA change is fine.
Changing Orbs to Evocation is meaningless. All you're doing is discouraging an already subpar tactic.
The spells known change is... weird. Either give them wizard progression or leave them be, don't arbitrarily give them +1 spell level without a caster level increase. It's illogical.
Requiring permission is up to you. I would rather give them a list of pre-allowed sources with which I am familiar. If you've not familiarized yourself with most spell sources, feel free to check their sheets for spells, I guess.
Metamagic: Eh. I wouldn't ban it. It's not that overpowered; the only thing that makes it ban-worthy are things like Practical Metamagic, Easy Metamagic, Incantatrix 10, Adroit Casting, Arcane Thesis, etc. Metamagic rods aren't a big deal.

[taltamir]

The spells known change is... weird. Either give them wizard progression or leave them be, don't arbitrarily give them +1 spell level without a caster level increase. It's illogical.
I did give them wizard progression.
Wizards highest level spell know is (CL+1)/2, rounded down. Sorcerers is CL/2 rounded down... by giving them +1 I make it equal.
Maybe I didn't write it well.

[ex cathedra]

... so it seems. I misunderstood when first reading that. So it goes.

[Lamech]

teleportation being evocation does indeed make evocation a worthwhile school not to ban...
oh, also banning shadow conjuration. which allows you to duplicate all evocations with conjuration... including contingency.Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need to carry the focus with you for the spell to work? And doesn't shadow evocation mean there is no such focus? So what I'm saying is... doesn't shadow contingency not work at all?

And yes I'm sure that a nice DM can interpert that the whole focus line doesn't exist. But couldn't another DM say that the line about needing the focus is still in their?

[2xMachina]

I personaly say that you automaticaly disbelieve your own illusions, so a shaddow contingency will be nothing more than a self delusion.

Go Shadow Craft Mage/Shadowcrafter for 100+% illusions. Disbelieve? Eat the 60% extra damage for daring to disbelieve it.

So, you can disbelieve your spell, and get 60% more effectiveness out of it.

Hmm, as for focus... can't you use a focus (even if you don't need to use material/focus and stuff) when casting Shadow Evocation (Contingency)?

[Pluto]

I want to know if wizards / clerics are overpowered with a specific set of house rules.

This question is meaningless until you define your intentions for the game's overall power level.

What existing class would you use a model of your ideal balance?




And these houserules don't actually change any of the power problems that Wizards have.
Once a wizard hits level 9, it's still going to be resolving almost every problem with a wave of the hand. (Between Fabricate, Major Creation, Polymorph, Dominate, Major Image, Magic Jar, Scry, Teleport, Suggestion, Binding and Summoning effects, you can pretty much do anything. Even if you have to jump through a couple extra hoops.)

[taltamir]

(Between Fabricate, Major Creation, Polymorph, Dominate, Major Image, Magic Jar, Scry, Teleport, Suggestion, Binding and Summoning effects, you can pretty much do anything. Even if you have to jump through a couple extra hoops.)

the bolded ones are banned, the underlined ones are nerfed...
what if all of the spells you listed were banned?

[mostlyharmful]

You're still running into the same problem that every caster rebalance thread gets to... eventually you're faced with a choice:

1. either to change the casting mechanics (which isn't really the problem),
2. the spells selection (which is a mammoth task which applies personal opinion to this about fourty seven bajillion times, nobodies ever in agreement over what to keep, what to lose and what to change and how to change it)
3. or you do both at the same time and you may as well scrap half the game-engine and two thirds of the 3.5 material. You end up with something unrecognizable and utterly personalized.

Long story short I think casters in 3.5 will always be a problem that needs sorting out on each particular table and as each issue comes up in context. If you go so far that it works to put them down a tier or two then its a whole new animal of a game which needs its own name. plus if you really did actually mend it what'd we all do for fun?

[Tyndmyr]

What is "RAP"? I thought bards were into music like that, wizards usually aren't.

Overall, it seems to me you're treating symptoms, rather than causes. The balance issues with wizards appear way earlier than the Gate spell, and than metamagic reducers. Also, which school Disintegrate is in doesn't help in balancing wizards, at all.

True, but Gate or metamagic reducers due have a way of showing up in the most egrerious of abuses with consistency. Any comprehensive solution will likely affect them.

Schools are part of balance. Specialization is highly desirable in part because some schools are objectively better than others. If this were not so, the tradeoff in power would be less favorable to optimization.


Causes include the ease of defensive casting, the absolute-ness of certain defensive spells, and the ease of maximizing saving throw DCs.

Defensive casting does not make wizards broken. In fact, it's pretty irrelevant when you get to the point where a wizard can cast celerity, then alpha strike away the encounter. The wizard who routinely is casting from in melee is not the kind of wizard that's horribly broken.

Defensive spells, sure. I can buy that.

Maximizing save DCs? Feh. Many mobs have rather hefty saves, and plenty of good spells exist with no save. Those are *far* more dangerous.

[Telonius]

For Clerics, move "Divine Power" to War Domain only. Nightsticks function one per character. All Clerics are Cloistered (but gain proficiency in their deity's favored weapon).

For Wizards etc, the whole Polymorph line is axed. So is Celerity (not a core spell anyway), Contingency, Wind Wall (I dislike spells that obviate whole class concepts), Knock, Detect Secret Doors, (I dislike spells that say "nyah nyah we don't need a Rogue now"), and Assay Resistance.

Spell Resistance will allow beneficial spells.

"Wall of Iron" works, but may attract the ire of the local miners' and blacksmiths' guilds if abused.

Forcecage gets a Reflex save.

Dispel Magic gets reworked, though only to save time and sanity. Target one spell of your choice if you're casting on a single subject; Target only the highest-level spell on each person if you're doing an area dispel. (None of this "make fifty checks until you dispel something" - that's seriously annoying and way too time-consuming).

Add Pun-Pun as an overdeity. He guards his ultimate power fiercely. He's rewritten the rules of the cosmos to direct all of Pazuzu's calls to him, masquerades as any Gated Solar (and may refuse to help), and generally keeps an eye on uppity adventurers who try to get around the rules.

[mostlyharmful]

"Wall of Iron" works, but may attract the ire of the local miners' and blacksmiths' guilds if abused.

Now I've got a mental picture of striking miners outside a wizards tower with placards and oildrums with nice warm fires in them while the Wizard beats a great Wyrm and a Balor to death with his bare hands on the roof. :smallwink:

[taltamir]

the local miner's guild isn't a threat (heck, most local deities aren't a threat)... if you wanna stealth nerf it then it should piss off something nasty from the elemental plane of earth.
But stealth bans suck, just ban the spell instead of telling players it is allowed and then penalizing them for using it.

[Tyndmyr]

the local miner's guild isn't a threat (heck, most local deities aren't a threat)... if you wanna stealth nerf it then it should piss off something nasty from the elemental plane of earth.
But stealth bans suck, just ban the spell instead of telling players it is allowed and then penalizing them for using it.

This. Or change the spell. If it was a temporary conjuration, for example, the problem would pretty much go away.

The problem isn't the spell as used, the problem is that it can be sold for free money. So, find a way to keep the spell without allowing free money, and life's great.

[taltamir]

This. Or change the spell. If it was a temporary conjuration, for example, the problem would pretty much go away.

The problem isn't the spell as used, the problem is that it can be sold for free money. So, find a way to keep the spell without allowing free money, and life's great.

yap, its the "Free money" that is the problem... solution?

duration = 1hr/cl

[Tyndmyr]

Yup. Use a similar fix for any other equally abusable spells. Sure, scams can still be run that way, but that inherently limits the potential money making, and adds risk.

The idea isn't to cripple casters, or to take away all their options...just to remove the most broken ones as neatly and simply as possible, while leaving as much as possible.

Pun-pun and a number of other issues can be solved by removing the sarruk's single ability...or heavily limiting it. Also, fixing gate fixes candle of invocation. That's huge.

[taltamir]

I really thing casters can be manageable (powerful, yes... but manageable) if you simply nerf individual uber abuseable spells and abilities.

sure the heavy handed approach is to ban tier 1 classes... but then you might as well be playing 4th ed.

[Telonius]

the local miner's guild isn't a threat (heck, most local deities aren't a threat)... if you wanna stealth nerf it then it should piss off something nasty from the elemental plane of earth.
But stealth bans suck, just ban the spell instead of telling players it is allowed and then penalizing them for using it.

The local miner's guild is run by Dwarves. Dwarves have large families. Large families of Dwarves are a threat. :smallamused:

[Tyndmyr]

I really thing casters can be manageable (powerful, yes... but manageable) if you simply nerf individual uber abuseable spells and abilities.

sure the heavy handed approach is to ban tier 1 classes... but then you might as well be playing 4th ed.

Honestly, a graduated point buy by tiers and a few very selective nerfs of the most abused things are quite effective in producing balance. And hey, graduated point buy is optional. If your nerfs of abused things are done well, that can be sufficient.

[Pluto]

The key question is still what you're using as a baseline for balance.

If you want your characters to have approximately the same power level as an Enchantment-focused wizard, you're moving in the right direction.
If you want your characters to play the same game as the Psychic Warrior or Warmage, you have a long way to go.
If you want the Wizard to play the same game as the Monk, you haven't even scratched the surface of the problem.

[aje8]

If you want your characters to have approximately the same power level as an Enchantment-focused wizard, you're moving in the right direction.
If you want your characters to play the same game as the Psychic Warrior or Warmage, you have a long way to go.
If you want the Wizard to play the same game as the Monk, you haven't even scratched the surface of the problem.
Agreed.

In your game, my Wizard can no longer break the game. Is he still ridiculously more versatile than everyone? Yes. Can he still be WAY WAY WAY better than the Fighter in combat from level 5? Yes.

It sounds like you're trying to make him equal in combat to the Fighter..... if that's the case you need to bascially redo the entire mecvhanics of the game.

If you're just trying to mitigate the problem, you're rules look reasonable.