PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] A Quick And Dirty Magic Fix?



Fax Celestis
2010-11-22, 03:10 PM
Give full-spellcasters (wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric, etc.) the bard's casting progression. Give the bard the paladin's casting progression. Use the CCham Champion of the Wild ACF on any halfcaster (paladin, ranger, hexblade, spellthief...), replacing their spellcasting with a bonus feat every 4 levels.

Progressions would have to be extended so that the bard's spellcasting followed the same learning curve into epic (up to 6th level spells), and so that 9-level casters would do the same into epic (up to 9th level spells). Classes would retain their learning mechanisms (adjusted, of course, so you don't end up with a sorcerer who knows 9th level spells but can't use any until level 30).

This would mean that a sor/wiz's endgame spellcasting included the following core spells: antimagic field, mass wombat's boost, chain lightning, delayed blast fireball, circle of death, disintegrate, flesh to stone/stone to flesh, geas, greater heroism, mass suggestion, wall of iron

This would mean that a cleric's endgame spellcasting included the following core spells: banishment, mass wombat's boost, create undead, greater dispel magic, harm, heal, wind walk, word of recall, heroes' feast

This would mean that a druid's endgame spellcasting included the following core spells: fire seeds, liveoak, mass wombat's boost, spellstaff, transport via plants, wall of stone, summon nature's ally VI

This would mean that a bard's endgame spellcasting included the following core spells: break enchantment, cure critical wounds, dimension door, greater invisibility, legend lore, modify memory, hold monster

Thoughts?

Esser-Z
2010-11-22, 03:13 PM
Well, it makes level 1 primary casters even more difficult to play, seeing as they'd only have cantrips... And only two per day, at that.

Uses of stuff, for fun value rather than power, looks to be the biggest problem.

Keld Denar
2010-11-22, 03:16 PM
Eh, magic isn't that bad, assuming you squash most of the big boys that have been identified in numerous threads.

I agree that at low levels, this is gonna make clerics and wizards awefully unfun to play. "I shoot my crossbow" gets kinda old, and there really isn't much you can do to increase this other than give them other abilities to make up for it.

Kesnit
2010-11-22, 03:22 PM
I agree that at low levels, this is gonna make clerics and wizards awefully unfun to play. "I shoot my crossbow" gets kinda old

I fail to see why this is a problem. At least the caster will eventually get more spells. Someone who likes playing melee spends their entire game going "I hit it with my pointy stick."

Devmaar
2010-11-22, 03:25 PM
I fail to see why this is a problem. At least the caster will eventually get more spells. Someone who likes playing melee spends their entire game going "I hit it with my pointy stick."

Emphasis added. Someone who likes playing melee chose melee because they wanted to do melee. Someone who likes playing casters didn't choose a caster because they wanted to shoot a crossbow.

Keld Denar
2010-11-22, 03:27 PM
I fail to see why this is a problem. At least the caster will eventually get more spells. Someone who likes playing melee spends their entire game going "I hit it with my pointy stick Emerald Razor."

FTFY. Saying "combat shouldn't be fun for you at this level because it'll be fun for you at a higher level" isn't a fix, as far as I'm concerned.

Combat shouldn't be unfun for anyone at any level. I think a better option would be to give spellcasters a more "per encounter" basis resource with an at-will fallback similar to [Reserve] feats, and then keep that resource toned down to prevent the really abusive spells (see above suggestion).

EDIT: As a quick and dirty fix, its right what it says on the tin. Quick. And dirty.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-22, 03:28 PM
Well, bards get class features they can utilize. In the case of primary casters, a warlock-like infinicast ability or two can be implemented (maybe just a free reserve feat or something).

Kesnit
2010-11-22, 03:29 PM
Emphasis added. Someone who likes playing melee chose melee because they wanted to do melee. Someone who likes playing casters didn't choose a caster because they wanted to shoot a crossbow.

Trade-off. What is the problem with being a little weaker to start when you will eventually get powerful? Besides, unless the DM gives a 15-minute work day, low-level casters still spend rounds saying "I shoot it with my cross-bow."

Psyren
2010-11-22, 03:30 PM
Emphasis added. Someone who likes playing melee chose melee because they wanted to do melee. Someone who likes playing casters didn't choose a caster because they wanted to shoot a crossbow.

Precisely.

@ Fax: I suppose it would work in a grittier environment. Just be sure to weaken monster casting where appropriate as well.


Unless your DM is nice and gives a 15 minute work day, low-level casters are still going to be doing a lot of "I shoot my cross-bow." What's the difference?

With slower spell access they take a longer time to get to "Mass X" or other area/group spells. So they will run dry much more quickly as they burn through the buffs and single-target spells, resorting to the xbow more often.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-22, 03:33 PM
With slower spell access they take a longer time to get to "Mass X" or other area/group spells. So they will run dry much more quickly as they burn through the buffs and single-target spells, resorting to the xbow more often.

Let me ask one thing, then: why is this a bad thing?

This option pushes many problem spells into epic territory (where they probably should be anyway) and makes spellcasters rely less on spam tactics and more on judicious, regulated use of spells.

Devmaar
2010-11-22, 03:35 PM
Unless your DM is nice and gives a 15 minute work day, low-level casters are still going to be doing a lot of "I shoot my cross-bow." What's the difference?

This takes a 1st level sorcerer from 5 cantrips and 3+bonus-for-high-charisma 1st level spells, where they likely have something to contribute to every encounter, to 2 cantrips a day. This fix effectively turns wizards and sorcerers into bards with no class features.

EDIT:
Trade-off. What is the problem with being a little weaker to start when you will eventually get powerful? Besides, unless the DM gives a 15-minute work day, low-level casters still spend rounds saying "I shoot it with my cross-bow."

There's a big difference between 'I cast grease to help the rogue' followed by 'I shoot my crossbow' and just 'I shoot my crossbow... again.'

Adumbration
2010-11-22, 03:35 PM
mass wombat's boost
:smallconfused:

Kesnit
2010-11-22, 03:38 PM
Precisely.

With slower spell access they take a longer time to get to "Mass X" or other area/group spells. So they will run dry much more quickly as they burn through the buffs and single-target spells, resorting to the xbow more often.

I think that is the point. Fewer spells = less chance to end encounters in 1-2 rounds. Also, after a few levels, a caster will have enough spells to be able to cast in every combat (unless they choose to burn through them all at once), minimizing the number of rounds they resort to the crossbow.

(I know my post above has been changed from what you said. I edited my post while you were posting yours.)

EDIT:

This takes a 1st level sorcerer from 5 cantrips and 3+bonus-for-high-charisma 1st level spells, where they likely have something to contribute to every encounter, to 2 cantrips a day. This fix effectively turns wizards and sorcerers into bards with no class features.

Except they are still casting off the WIZ/SORC list, which has a lot higher number and more diverse spells.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-22, 03:40 PM
:smallconfused:

It's quicker than saying "mass bull's strength, mass bear's endurance, mass eagle's splendor, mass fox's cunning, mass owl's insight, mass cat's grace, mass animalistic power".

Devmaar
2010-11-22, 03:40 PM
I think it would be better to restrict spells per day without changing spell levels known, and instead nerf/ban particular problem spells.

Darrin
2010-11-22, 03:49 PM
Let me ask one thing, then: why is this a bad thing?

This option pushes many problem spells into epic territory (where they probably should be anyway) and makes spellcasters rely less on spam tactics and more on judicious, regulated use of spells.

So then you're nerfing or banning Sublime Chord and Ur-Priest? How about Suel Arcanamach?

What about Polymorph, Planar Binding, and... uh... Polymorph?

Neutralize Poison and Remove Disease would probably need to be brought down to 2nd level (where they should be anyway... one of my pet peeves), otherwise the PCs have to wait until 7th-10th level to counter those status effects.

Do psionics get scaled down as well?

Psyren
2010-11-22, 03:52 PM
Let me ask one thing, then: why is this a bad thing?

This option pushes many problem spells into epic territory (where they probably should be anyway) and makes spellcasters rely less on spam tactics and more on judicious, regulated use of spells.

No problem beyond what Keld mentioned. If I have to ration my spells, I'll feel less like a primary caster and more like an archer with some magic tricks. But that's just me.

The reserve feats thing might help with that, assuming there are utility ones - force needle/sonic snap et al. are just a different flavor of crossbow.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-22, 03:55 PM
So then you're nerfing or banning Sublime Chord and Ur-Priest? How about Suel Arcanamach?

What about Polymorph, Planar Binding, and... uh... Polymorph? Yes, yes yes.


Neutralize Poison and Remove Disease would probably need to be brought down to 2nd level (where they should be anyway... one of my pet peeves), otherwise the PCs have to wait until 7th-10th level to counter those status effects. Yeah, probably.


Do psionics get scaled down as well?Definitely, but it's not as easy.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-22, 03:58 PM
No problem beyond what Keld mentioned. If I have to ration my spells, I'll feel less like a primary caster and more like an archer with some magic tricks. But that's just me.

The reserve feats thing might help with that, assuming there are utility ones - force needle/sonic snap et al. are just a different flavor of crossbow.

You switched your avatar!

Anyway, I would argue that rather then try mass banning or specific banning of spells, you just implement a caster check similar to (but obviously lower then) epics. It would apply to any spells over level 1, and would allow them to cast without making it easy. Certain schools (Transmutation and conjuration) would have more difficult spellcraft checks, while evocation would have the easiest.

Psyren
2010-11-22, 04:29 PM
You switched your avatar!

I wanted something a bit more psionic to match my name. I was going to use Sneak's Ialdobode but then this angry little guy caught my eye. :smallwink:



Definitely, but it's not as easy.

Why is that? Psywar progression seems identical to the Bard's to me (2nd-level spells at 4, 3rd-level spells at 7 etc.), and Divine Mind progression is identical to the Paladin's.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-22, 04:36 PM
Why is that? Psywar progression seems identical to the Bard's to me (2nd-level spells at 4, 3rd-level spells at 7 etc.), and Divine Mind progression is identical to the Paladin's.

Oh right, I'd forgotten about the Div Mind's progression. So uh. Psion/Wilder/Ardent get Psywar pp/powers, Psywar gets Div Mind pp/powers, Div Mind gets bonus feat every four.

The Shadowmind
2010-11-22, 04:38 PM
Use the duskblade's spells progression+Arcane Attunement, but with an extra spell per level. It is a slower progression so weaker spells, but more of them per day making the I shoot it with my crossbow problem take longer to occur.

And why are the half-casters nerfed? They are already very weak, and taking what like spellcasting they have renders them almost unplayable.
Hexblade: The bonus feats from the class are now completely useless, the curse is still 5/day at level 20 which is still weak. You have a familiar with none of the spellcasting based protection you could give it, which means a walking target that can cause level loss, and most of the feats gained from Champion of the Wild acf are bad even if you can count as Archery or Two-weapon combat.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-22, 04:56 PM
feats from the Champion of the Wild acf are bad

They're bonus fighter feats. It's an unrestricted list. Hexblade needs help anyway, but the spellthief is still okay, and the paladin and ranger are also probably okay--hell, probably better with the feats than the spellcasting if you're sticking largely to core. With SC, it's a tradeoff, but a TWF ranger can support his TWF better with fighter feats than with the spellcasting, and the paladin reduces MAD significantly (going from Str/Con/Wis/Cha to Str/Con/Cha). For the hexblade, toss the familiar, make the curse into /enc instead of /day, and call it a day.

Psyren
2010-11-22, 05:35 PM
With SC, it's a tradeoff, but a TWF ranger can support his TWF better with fighter feats than with the spellcasting, and the paladin reduces MAD significantly (going from Str/Con/Wis/Cha to Str/Con/Cha).

What about archer rangers? They're still blowing every feat they get on not sucking, only now they don't even have the meager assistance that Hunter's Eye, Find the Gap, Arrow Mind etc. can provide.

Paladins go to Str/Con/Cha in Pathfinder - I would just use that and leave their spells alone. (Besides, a Paladin without magic might as well just be a Knight imo.)

Hexblade I am fine with.

erikun
2010-11-22, 05:43 PM
Give full-spellcasters (wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric, etc.) the bard's casting progression. Give the bard the paladin's casting progression. Use the CCham Champion of the Wild ACF on any halfcaster (paladin, ranger, hexblade, spellthief...), replacing their spellcasting with a bonus feat every 4 levels.
I agree with what one person said: It is quick, and dirty.

The first issue is that magical solutions you should have access to are no longer available. Stone to Flesh is a big one they won't have access to until 16th level, despite running into monsters with petrification ten levels earlier. I don't know many campaigns that feature large amounts of Neutralize Poison or Break Enchantment potions, and forcing the DM to add them to balance the lack of magic seems like almost as much work as removing magic in the first place.

The second problem is that DCs no longer scale appropriately. Primary spellcasters will normally cast at 10 + 1/2 level + bonuses, which generally matches up to their opponents. Dropping that by a few points - and even more, considering the smaller number of higher level spells - means that they get resisted easier and are useful less.

PS. Divine Mind doesn't learn any powers until 5th level, making the Psychic Warrior worse than the CW Samurai until then.

PPS. Asking Wizards to be terrible for longer, in exchange for being good later on, isn't really a fair tradeoff. You'll end up with low-level Wizard players who are upset because they never can do anything, high-level Wizard players who still break the game anyways, and anyone in between wondering why anyone would try to play such a class.

Tengu_temp
2010-11-22, 05:43 PM
Trade-off. What is the problem with being a little weaker to start when you will eventually get powerful? Besides, unless the DM gives a 15-minute work day, low-level casters still spend rounds saying "I shoot it with my cross-bow."

A well-designed class is fun at all levels, instead of starting terrible and getting great with time or the opposite.

Orzel
2010-11-22, 05:51 PM
My dirty fix is this pretty much except spellcasters get 1 (caster level/3-2 minimum 0)th spell at-will.

Paladins and rangers still kep their progressions but the 1/2 caster thing and no 0th spells robs them of an at-will 'til level 12.

Kesnit
2010-11-22, 05:51 PM
A well-designed class is fun at all levels, instead of starting terrible and getting great with time or the opposite.

I repeat. Unless the DM is giving a 15-minute workday, low-level casters are using their crossbows anyway.

Psyren
2010-11-22, 05:55 PM
PS. Divine Mind doesn't learn any powers until 5th level, making the Psychic Warrior worse than the CW Samurai until then.


Indeed; the Paladin is in the same boat, but it at least as full BAB to fall back on.

The Psywar does have one advantage though - it can still take Psionic feats (it has a PP reserve even if it can't use it) giving you access to things like Deep Impact and Up The Walls at early levels.

erikun
2010-11-22, 06:01 PM
I repeat. Unless the DM is giving a 15-minute workday, low-level casters are using their crossbows anyway.
True, but under the normal rules, my 3rd level wizard has Scroching Ray, Grease, Color Spray, probably another 1st level and 2nd level spell, and cantrips. Under the proposed options, my 3rd level wizard has... Grease. And probably a second 1st level spell.

Jack_Simth
2010-11-22, 06:06 PM
Thoughts?This solves one problem by making different problems. For one, you've got a problem with any critter that has a permanent status effect attack.

See, D&D is built around assuming you've got a Full Caster or two in the group. Many critters have status effects that don't go away without the right spell (Ability Drain, Level Drain, petrification, et cetera... although mostly Ability Drain, as Level Drain and Petrification generally have a relatively low save DC - but Ability Drain often doesn't have a save). Purchasing a 'fix-it' spell costs more (as the minimum caster level went up, and it's much harder to find a 10th level NPC than it is to find an 7th level NPC when what you need is the 4th level Restoration spell), and getting it yourself takes much longer. Oh yes, and if for some reason you need a Greater Restoration spell (Or Resurrection, or Regenerate), you've got a real problem, as the DMG city generation tables don't include 21st+ level casters.

So if you make this change, suddenly you've got a lot of 'paper tiger' critters - critters that, if they hit you, you're going to have a really hard time recovering from them, but if you hit them, they're finished off immediately.

There's other problems too, but that's one of the more obvious.

Endarire
2010-11-22, 10:12 PM
Casters are powerful, in part because they can do so many things, but in large part because they can do these things at all.

Saying, "You must be level 2 to use grease/sleep/color spray" doesn't seem to fix anything. You've just delayed the situation a bit. The spell effects are the same.

As someone told me, the ability to cause an earthquake is powerful, whether it takes a round or 30 minutes to activate.

Person_Man
2010-11-22, 10:45 PM
I love 3.5 Reborn and your other homebrew material Fax, because they add great new options to a game I love. But I think that in trying to re-jigger the core rules to achieve a game that is balanced for all players regardless of class, you're chasing an uncatchable leprechaun. There's just too much material, too may variables. Even if you take the nerf hammer to the full casters, a Tier 3 build is still going to be "broken" compared to a Tier 5 build. And even if you re-write everything to make it Tier 3-ish, if your players choose poor feats, equipment, and spells/maneuvers/powers/etc, they'll still suck.

I personally just talk to my players, and ask the more powerful builds to tone it down a bit and do my best to teach the finer points of optimization to the newer ones. Given the massive complexity of the game, that's the only solution that I've personally found to be workable.

Now, I hope that doesn't discourage you from writing in any way. Honestly I think you have the work ethic and creativity to just write your own system at this point. Doing so would allow you to achieve better game balance. Or you could start playing 4E, which I enjoy on the occasionally but find rather bland, precisely because it lacks the complexity of 3.5.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-22, 11:00 PM
I love 3.5 Reborn and your other homebrew material Fax, because they add great new options to a game I love. But I think that in trying to re-jigger the core rules to achieve a game that is balanced for all players regardless of class, you're chasing an uncatchable leprechaun. There's just too much material, too may variables. Even if you take the nerf hammer to the full casters, a Tier 3 build is still going to be "broken" compared to a Tier 5 build. And even if you re-write everything to make it Tier 3-ish, if your players choose poor feats, equipment, and spells/maneuvers/powers/etc, they'll still suck.
[...]
Honestly I think you have the work ethic and creativity to just write your own system at this point. Doing so would allow you to achieve better game balance. Well, this isnt for d20r, firstly, and secondly d20r's written without anything non-core of 3.5 in mind. I aim for Tier 3 (and most of the time I hit it), and frankly I'm writing d20r because I enjoy it, and because I don't really want to stop halfway through the project. Lokyar and I are, however, working on a poker-card-based system (http://forum.faxcelestis.net/viewforum.php?f=5) that borrows lightly from 4e and from console turn-based strategy games (particularly, the Front Mission series). It's still in its fledgling stages at the moment, but we've run some simulations with MapTool and it's enjoyable. We just need to figure out how to streamline it a little.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-22, 11:29 PM
Here, I have three things to fix it:

1. Implement DC's on casting, such that complex spells are harder to pull off then simple spells (Divination, Transmutation and Conjuration are hard, necromancy, enchantment and Abjuration are medium, Evocation is easy).

2. Use a path system similar to the Shadowcasters, so that all spells have requirement spells to learn them (fluff wise makes more sense then the modern system; how do they learn vampiric touch if they never even tried necromancy before?) Spells within your specialization have their requirements met by the specialization.

3. Remove the metamagic cost reducers from the game. It's getting something from nothing.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-23, 12:06 AM
To help at the low levels, give casters unlimited cantrips. Acid splash and the like are effectively crossbows anyway, and from what I hear Pathfinder did that without much difficulty (aside from removing cure/inflict minor wounds). To help at the high levels, fix spell DCs at 10 + 1/2 level + [stat], making spell DCs scale as they should and help lower-level spells stay more relevant now that casters are relying on them more.

This won't fix things completely, but since you're going for quick and dirty it's a good start. To partially fix the issue of countering ability drain, petrification, etc. you could lower all healing/recovery spells by two levels, so healing, restoration, and such are still level appropriate--those aren't the part of casting that needs toning down, really.

faceroll
2010-11-23, 12:18 AM
Casters are powerful, in part because they can do so many things, but in large part because they can do these things at all.

Saying, "You must be level 2 to use grease/sleep/color spray" doesn't seem to fix anything. You've just delayed the situation a bit. The spell effects are the same.

Grease is only useful after level 1, sleep and color spray rapidly loose usefulness as HD of monsters increases, they gain reach, and they gain immunities.

I know what you're trying to say, but fly would make a better example. Fly at 7th level is a lot different than fly at 5th level, as it means a handful of races/templates/feats are granting fly to non-magic characters and the cost of a flying item is much cheaper, relative to total wealth.

WarKitty
2010-11-23, 12:25 AM
To help at the low levels, give casters unlimited cantrips. Acid splash and the like are effectively crossbows anyway, and from what I hear Pathfinder did that without much difficulty (aside from removing cure/inflict minor wounds). To help at the high levels, fix spell DCs at 10 + 1/2 level + [stat], making spell DCs scale as they should and help lower-level spells stay more relevant now that casters are relying on them more.

This won't fix things completely, but since you're going for quick and dirty it's a good start. To partially fix the issue of countering ability drain, petrification, etc. you could lower all healing/recovery spells by two levels, so healing, restoration, and such are still level appropriate--those aren't the part of casting that needs toning down, really.

Having played with this, the at-will cantrips really does work well. Just import the stabilize spell instead of cure minor wounds - allows you to stop an ally from bleeding to death but doesn't restore hit points.

Road_Runner
2010-11-23, 01:55 AM
mass wombat's boost

This made me laugh :smallbiggrin:

Can I sig this?

Eldan
2010-11-23, 05:59 AM
Reminds me of an idea I once had where I tried to add a reserve feat-like effect to every spell, aka Magic missile has a sub-effect of "deal one force damage". Of course, that was much too much work.

Anyway, the general idea isn't bad, as it's essentially reducing the power of spells across the board. However, some spells will still be utterly broken and need rewrites: I'm pretty sure that even when you gain it in the two-digit levels, Polymorph is still much too versatile and strong.

Tehnar
2010-11-23, 06:37 AM
I find your idea interesting, and could really see its merit in a low magic setting.

However I think that the DM has already the resources he needs to counter magic.

If you start with the premise that magic is powerful, then the ability to remove/nullify magic should also be powerful. Now casters can protect themselves from dispel and similar effects with a lot of things (generally magic items) and the ability to dispel is relatively rare amongst monsters. So to nerf magic just:

1) Remove/restrict CL boosting items (things like beads of karma, rings of enduring arcana)
2) Increase the frequency of which dispel magic and similar effects are used by the NPC's / monsters. Be it through added / replaced spell like abilities to using a bit of their treasure to get anti magic stuff.

khylis
2010-11-23, 06:38 AM
Quick, Easy and Dirty Fix: Play 4E

=P

kestrel404
2010-11-23, 07:06 AM
I see lots and lots of people saying that under this system it is unfun to play a level 1 caster.

So start games at level 3. The casters look pretty much the same as level 1 normal casters, except they have more HP and an extra feat. The melee types are just that much cooler starting out.

But as an addendum to this - I would use the Pathfinder cantrip system. You get unlimited cantrips per day, but you can only have N of them available. Like very low power warlock invocations.

Coidzor
2010-11-23, 07:17 AM
I see lots and lots of people saying that under this system it is unfun to play a level 1 caster.

So start games at level 3. The casters look pretty much the same as level 1 normal casters, except they have more HP and an extra feat. The melee types are just that much cooler starting out.

But as an addendum to this - I would use the Pathfinder cantrip system. You get unlimited cantrips per day, but you can only have N of them available. Like very low power warlock invocations.

If it's only fun to start at level 3, then what's possible at level 3 should be what's possible at level 1.

faceroll
2010-11-23, 07:32 AM
If it's only fun to start at level 3, then what's possible at level 3 should be what's possible at level 1.

Or you make a modular system with 1,000s of different possibilities and let players decide what combinations they desire, instead of spoon feeding them a system.

As much as we gripe about 3.x, it's still extremely popular, and I think it is BECAUSE for many of the reasons we gripe about it.



Quick, Easy and Dirty Fix: Play 4E

=P

You mean make everyone casters? :smallwink:

true_shinken
2010-11-23, 07:44 AM
I wouldn't call this 'quick and dirty' at all. It's a lot of trouble.
Also, wth is 'mass wombat boost'?

kestrel404
2010-11-23, 08:31 AM
I wouldn't call this 'quick and dirty' at all. It's a lot of trouble.
Also, wth is 'mass wombat boost'?

Eh, not so much trouble as you'd think. It doesn't even require you to give the casters class features beyond spellcasting.

As for the 'wombat boost' line of spells, he means Cat's Grace, Bulls Strength, etc, etc. The mass versions are level 6 spells.

Jaessick
2010-11-23, 10:32 AM
Perhaps a simpler fix, while not addressing the issue of flexibility in the higher tiers, would be to keep the spell progression RAW but change the action economy. A fix that I haven't tried yet but would like to would go something like this:

1) Each spell requires a number of actions equal to their spell level.
2) Each spell must begin with a standard action

This way, a first level spell still takes one standard action, second level spells take a full-round action, and third level spells take a full-round action plus a move (or standard) action on the next round, and so on - leading to nineth level spells which would take four-and-a-half rounds to cast. Similarly, cantrips would count as half a level and therefore the caster could automatically quicken a cantrip provided they are casting another cantrip right after.

This would make the spellcasters really think about using that higher-level spell instead of blasting it in round one. It also changes the strategy of battles to keeping the casters safe long enough to cast their earth-shattering enchantments. It also allows melee (and mundane ranged) types to keep up with damage output easier. Like I said earlier it doesn't fix the problem of high tiers having multiple "i win" buttons, but it at least makes combat more equal.

Swooper
2010-11-23, 11:08 AM
Perhaps a simpler fix, while not addressing the issue of flexibility in the higher tiers, would be to keep the spell progression RAW but change the action economy. A fix that I haven't tried yet but would like to would go something like this:

1) Each spell requires a number of actions equal to their spell level.
2) Each spell must begin with a standard action

This way, a first level spell still takes one standard action, second level spells take a full-round action, and third level spells take a full-round action plus a move (or standard) action on the next round, and so on - leading to nineth level spells which would take four-and-a-half rounds to cast. Similarly, cantrips would count as half a level and therefore the caster could automatically quicken a cantrip provided they are casting another cantrip right after.

This would make the spellcasters really think about using that higher-level spell instead of blasting it in round one. It also changes the strategy of battles to keeping the casters safe long enough to cast their earth-shattering enchantments. It also allows melee (and mundane ranged) types to keep up with damage output easier. Like I said earlier it doesn't fix the problem of high tiers having multiple "i win" buttons, but it at least makes combat more equal.
The problem I see with this is that it means casters now sit around doing nothing for several rounds. Might or might not work balance-wise, but gameplay-wise I think it's awful.

Personally, I think no "quick and dirty" fix to spellcasting is going to achieve class balance, ever. It takes a complete redesign of the entire spellcasting system to get anywhere close, including rewriting the whole damn spell list.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-23, 11:56 AM
This would make the spellcasters really think about using that higher-level spell instead of blasting it in round one. It also changes the strategy of battles to keeping the casters safe long enough to cast their earth-shattering enchantments. It also allows melee (and mundane ranged) types to keep up with damage output easier. Like I said earlier it doesn't fix the problem of high tiers having multiple "i win" buttons, but it at least makes combat more equal.

That takes players out of the action for a round or two as they say "I keep casting my spell," which is no fun, and it doesn't actually fix the problem of magical power. It might take wizards longer to cast shapechange, dominate monster, shivering touch, and other powerful spells...but they're still casting shapechange, dominate monster, and shivering touch.


Personally, I think no "quick and dirty" fix to spellcasting is going to achieve class balance, ever. It takes a complete redesign of the entire spellcasting system to get anywhere close, including rewriting the whole damn spell list.

None will achieve complete balance, but if you find a good enough complexity-to-balance fix, it can be worthwhile. Spot-fixing the spell list will give much better balance but is much more complex, whereas implementing three or four sweeping changes and then spot-ruling from there is a lot less complex at the expense of being less balanced.

bokodasu
2010-11-23, 12:17 PM
This way, a first level spell still takes one standard action, second level spells take a full-round action, and third level spells take a full-round action plus a move (or standard) action on the next round, and so on - leading to nineth level spells which would take four-and-a-half rounds to cast.

This would make spellcasting incredibly boring; "I continue casting my spell from two rounds ago that won't even be relevant by the time I finish" is worse than "I fire my crossbow again." Either battles will be over by the time the caster gets to do anything, or everyone else's actions become "keep the caster alive so he can win the battle for us." Or it makes casting nonviable and gives you an extra-squishy crossbow guy.

true_shinken
2010-11-24, 08:02 AM
Eh, not so much trouble as you'd think. It doesn't even require you to give the casters class features beyond spellcasting.

As for the 'wombat boost' line of spells, he means Cat's Grace, Bulls Strength, etc, etc. The mass versions are level 6 spells.

There is a ripple effect, though. Magical items that are not available, summoning/binding specific creature sthat become more important, PrCs and feats you can't take anymore, monsters that are now a lot more dangerous because there is no magic to counter their abilities, etc.
Not counting the fact that it nerfs both Ranger and Paladin.

T.G. Oskar
2010-11-24, 08:57 AM
No.

No like.

Definitely not like.

Much worse with Ranger and quite particularly with Paladin. Especially with Paladin.

Reasons are as follows: the amount of spells that should be epic level because of being stupidly powerful are not very huge. Those are better dealt with in a more elegant way, probably making them rituals or incantations as their nature belongs to a really complex and potentially risky casting for a brutal effect. I agree that Gate and Wish should be rituals and not spells, and that items with those pre-reqs should get alternate spells; Gate is just stupidly powerful, but if it had hours (or days) of casting time and backlash effects, it would be an awesome way to end the campaign ("stop the spellcaster from creating a gate to the Lower Planes!" "Stop the spellcaster from gaining eternal life!"). Making it an incantation also means that people with the right amount of skills and resources can use it, which would make spellcasters the first choice but allowing even Monks to use it if they get the same resources or skills.

Claiming that there will be other class features to compensate doesn't seem to help. You still retain the most powerful class feature in the history of D&D, but just how many class features is worth getting a nixed version of the most powerful class feature in the game may not result in something very funny. It also hurts other classes: Healers and Warmages are already bad, and this effectively blows them out of the water since they'll still have the same amount of spells, the same quality of spells, but even less really good spells. Dread Necromancers might also work in the same line. Beguilers perhaps will have a chance to rectify by using the same tricks, though.

It still doesn't do jack on tiers. They still have access to the same spell list (as others have said), which is why they are so useful. Even if their spell list is reduced, they'll still be Tier 1 because they can pretty much do darn anything. What it will do is probably bump one or another class up a tier, if only because five or six of the best tricks are removed along the 80+ spells that are, for lack of a better word, inoffensive.

But this really, really kicks off what little worth half-casters might get. Hexblade, as mentioned, would still have its per-day curses, which aren't enough to justify a build. Their spell list, albeit little, contains one or two gems that work within their frame. Rangers on the archery path (as someone else said) get a HUGE amount of support from the spells, and even the TWF path gets help from this. Duskblade would exist on a vacuum, since it's not a half-caster (it casts up to 5th level spells but it has full CL, so it's more of a 2/3rds spellcaster), and Psychic Warrior would lose little steam since the first few powers are quite good, but it would probably hurt Psionic Fist which has access to no-longer-existing (or rather, delayed) 5th level powers.

And then you get Paladin and Divine Mind. Why Paladin would suck? Because at least those few spells, along with Battle Blessing, had their uses. They get GMW which is a strong buff for their weapons (turning a lance into a +5 lance is a strong buff for an ubercharger, just like Heal Mount and the mount-related spells, and if you're not a mount-using character you still have spells to support Lay on Hands for example). However, giving them only Fighter bonus feats is shooting them in the head, because they'd only get the mount as a progression. The biggest reason would be because you'd be giving a Paladin no reason to exist in comparison to a Crusader. They would get a smite ability (Crusaders also get smites, and maneuvers to boot), they'd get a bunch of early-level class abilities (but the Crusader gets some of equal or better worth, including and not limited to Mettle), and the use of Turn Undead which would power divine feats, which they might get a few more since they get more feats but unfortunately you could do better with a single dip in Cleric (because you don't lose anything). Divine Mind is worse; they only get auras to work with, and removing them their only worthwhile ability (their very, very limited spellcasting) makes them lose one Tier. Not even folding them into Marshal would help.

So mostly, you're trying to nerf spellcasters (a noble intention, but I find there are better ways to handle that nerfbat) but shooting poor half-casters in the foot. I love that half-casting, even if 80% of the players don't, if only because it gives those classes some sort of relief from "I swing my sword again"; I'd love them to have more spell options, and better CL, because I find that just a single boost would make them much better. If, for example, you gave Paladins access to the entire Cleric spell list up to level 4 and let them retain their unique spells (as well as lower spells on both classes to the most favorable option of the two), and other tweaks to their spellcasting list would do them a world of good (perhaps even raise them a Tier in potential, since they'd be capable of doing something else well, such as self-buffing). I had that in mind when retooling the Ranger and the Hexblade Bez-Kismet, and I find that's a better way to deal with spellcasters. Heck, you could give half-casters bonus feats every 4 levels and they'd remain within the same Tier, if only because they need more than feats to get up a Tier. Revamped spellcasting and bonus feats might lift them up a Tier or two, though.

So I don't think this really works out. There are other ways to help Tier 2 casters and nerf Tier 1 casters, and boost other classes to at least Tier 3. But I feel this isn't one; it's more "Dirty" and nowhere near as "Quick" as you'd think.

PersonMan
2010-11-24, 11:14 AM
That takes players out of the action for a round or two as they say "I keep casting my spell," which is no fun

I don't have anything new to say on the balance side-but in the past, when playing GURPS, I found that even a single round of "I charge up" is too much. I can't imagine taking, say, 5 rounds to cast a single spell. While "I attack again" isn't the best fun in the world, doing so 5+ times is much better than "I keep casting my spell", especially if after three or four rounds the spell you were going to cast becomes useless. Fireball is no good if the enemy scattered on the second round of the casting and you can only hit one or two.

Psyren
2010-11-24, 01:41 PM
Can I ask the fixer-folks a question: what is so hard about just banning or tweaking problematic spells? The amount of time and energy it takes to refine these rather hamfisted fixes so they (a) don't just ban spellcasting completely or (b) punish half-casters (e.g. rangers/paladins) more than the full-casters they are meant to rein in, seems like a wash to me.

Kesnit
2010-11-24, 01:54 PM
Can I ask the fixer-folks a question: what is so hard about just banning or tweaking problematic spells? The amount of time and energy it takes to refine these rather hamfisted fixes so they (a) don't just ban spellcasting completely or (b) punish half-casters (e.g. rangers/paladins) more than the full-casters they are meant to rein in, seems like a wash to me.

How do you define "problematic spells?"

Some are obvious (i.e. Wish, Miracle), but with use of SpC, the list of spells that can be abused is rather long. Going through 1 by 1 to fix them would take months.

Some low-level spells can be abused at lower levels, but are not as game-breaking higher. Do you nerf them to start, then remove the nerf later? What about spells like "Fly," which in and of themselves are not broken, but can be used to effectively make the caster immune to damage while still allowing them to attack. What about Rope Trick, which makes the 15 minute work day easy? What about Divination spells that allow you to always know what is coming, allowing the caster to always have the exact right spell?

tyckspoon
2010-11-24, 01:55 PM
Can I ask the fixer-folks a question: what is so hard about just banning or tweaking problematic spells? The amount of time and energy it takes to refine these rather hamfisted fixes so they (a) don't just ban spellcasting completely or (b) punish half-casters (e.g. rangers/paladins) more than the full-casters they are meant to rein in, seems like a wash to me.

There are rather a lot of them, and they don't all have simple fixes. Consider the Polymorph/shapechanging magic mess, for example; you could wind up at WotC's eventual position, which was basically "Polymorph the spell doesn't exist. Use these specific shape spells instead." Which is balanced, but now you have to write and balance 20-50 or more new transformation spells to cover everything Polymorph used to do (I think Pathfinder did reasonably well with this, but even with their broader shapechange spells it took 10 or so to cover what used to be Polymorph.) And if you take the easy way out and just ban a lot of the problem areas, well, you remove a lot of iconic and useful capabilities- summoning, transformation, general seer and oracling- and that's not really a desirable result either.

So.. yeah, I suppose the effort may be about the same. I guess it's down to the desire to come up with that one elegant masterstroke that we're all hoping must exist. Instead of getting down in the dirt of the spells and working through them all, we want to believe there's some relatively simple change we can make and suddenly it all works out.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-24, 01:57 PM
I'm serious about using the incantation rules for spells btw; it makes sense they would need to make a check to cast the spell, and you can make the spell casting more fluid that way.

Psyren
2010-11-24, 02:03 PM
And if you take the easy way out and just ban a lot of the problem areas, well, you remove a lot of iconic and useful capabilities- summoning, transformation, general seer and oracling- and that's not really a desirable result either.

Why not? Being unable to polymorph has never made any wizards useless that I know of.

Something being iconic should not factor into game balance - that's simple nostalgia, and dangerous. For the longest time, Counterspell was "iconic" in Magic the Gathering, and it was throttling design space. I was sad for a while when they stopped printing it in Standard, but I eventually saw how much good it did the game as a whole. The same is true of Polymorph and other such abusive spells.

I'm not saying Polymorph effects shouldn't exist at all, but they do need to be balanced if they're going to be in the game. Make the general spell an Incantation if you must have it, and use the "specific form" versions for spellbook use. Require the caster to have seen (i.e. not just a knowledge check) the creature in action. Nerf the duration or make the caster exhausted upon reversion. Something.

WarKitty
2010-11-24, 02:11 PM
PF polymorph rules are pretty good overall - you get a minor ability score bonus, and only certain abilities of the new form can be acquired.

Summoning's probably ok until you get to the SLA monsters, so a limit on what SLA's can be used would probably be the easiest fix there.

Seer/oracle stuff might be more difficult, but I'd be in favor of just bumping augury and omen of peril up a few levels. General feeling with a failure chance?

T.G. Oskar
2010-11-24, 02:25 PM
Why not? Being unable to polymorph has never made any wizards useless that I know of.

Something being iconic should not factor into game balance - that's simple nostalgia, and dangerous. For the longest time, Counterspell was "iconic" in Magic the Gathering, and it was throttling design space. I was sad for a while when they stopped printing it in Standard, but I eventually saw how much good it did the game as a whole. The same is true of Polymorph and other such abusive spells.

I'm not saying Polymorph effects shouldn't exist at all, but they do need to be balanced if they're going to be in the game. Make the general spell an Incantation if you must have it, and use the "specific form" versions for spellbook use. Require the caster to have seen (i.e. not just a knowledge check) the creature in action. Nerf the duration or make the caster exhausted upon reversion. Something.

"Something" usually doesn't combine with "elegant". Elegance, usually more than balance, is something that should be sought after, since it makes the fix less prone to heated debate (even if it doesn't get accepted).

"Something" would be the same as what WotC did, which was a bit more of a headache than intended. Incantations work nicely as a system to shift those mechanically game-breaking spells into mechanically elegant rituals that can be the end or the spine of the campaign. Knowing there are rules backing your creation of a Gate between worlds, with a reliable amount of risk but that can be used by pretty much anyone with the skills to activate it is a great compromise between fluff and crunch. I also agree that specific forms (such as the Polymorph spells that came later on, with the clear exception of Trollform as combined with two other spells makes you nigh-invulnerable) are a good way to keep transformation spells relevant. Limiting access to forms is also a good way to keep the spell on check while keeping the original spell intact, but it would result on several troubles once you get to see and deal with the creature in question. Nerfing the spell by reducing its duration means nothing if it can still be Persisted (albeit it would make the spell less effective outside of battle, where Alter Self provides some nice benefits) and adding a drawback just asks for ways to bypass that.

Thing is, it's hard to define what would be an elegant solution to the dilemma, the "master stroke" that everyone can agree on. There's a problem stated (some spells are game-breaking, and the Wizard has access to that plus other spells to the extent it replaces and outclasses all other classes, apply the same to all Tier 1 classes), and there are various solutions presented; heated debates help on refining those fixes to a more elegant resolution. Evidently, this reaches to the question: why not just ban them, since they're more sacred cows than anything else?

The answer is: lack of elegance. Too much "ban spells, streamline things" and you end up with 4th Edition; to some of us, that's not a choice. That is also respecting the idea behind the older edition shifts; while the d20 System fundamentally changed the way D&D was played, most of the old material was respected, and thus the shift was not so painful as the shift between 3rd and 4th (4th being a strikingly different game, which would exist fine on its own but to some of us having the baggage of D&D behind it just doesn't cut it). That doesn't mean banning spells isn't an option; if it's useful for you, fine, but you're removing stuff that's ingrained into the game, especially if speaking about Core. Core was thought, as some people have said before, with a particular subset of builds in mind (melee fighter with some feat chains followed and perhaps one specialty in a weapon; a rogue that disarms traps and opens locks and uses SA once per round; a healer-buffer cleric; a blaster wizard; 9th level spells where the latter spells are much, much harder to resist than 6th level spells and saving throw progressions to deal with those higher Saving Throw DC increases), and while separating a bit from that concept can be good, separating drastically from it can be dangerous. The solution causes more problems than what it solves, even if it solves the problem; hence, while it's a solution, it's not an elegant solution. If replacing spells with incantations (not all, just the game-breaking ones and those that behave as rituals rather than actual spells) causes more problems than what it solves, then it's not a very elegant solution (and may not be elegant at all). Banning spells usually is inelegant because several spells are ingrained within the system; some magic items require the use of Wish or Gate or Miracle or Antimagic Field and their lack of existence means those magic items, which may not be as powerful as the spells themselves, also cease to exist. Transforming those spells into incantations has the same problem, but at least in that case you can introduce a corollary which absorbs the impact of the effect, while still keeping those spells existing. Banning Polymorph and creating several spells related to the original may or may not be as elegant as banning Polymorph altogether or turning Polymorph into an incantation, to state an example.

Hence, to sum this up: banning, tweaking or fixing problematic spells requires the solution to be both effective and elegant, and usually the two don't exist on the same level (maybe one solution is the most effective but not the most elegant, or viceversa). Example being reducing the amount of spell levels spellcasters have access to, which isn't entirely effective and is, IMO, very inelegant (and rather blunt, especially to the poor half-casters who suddenly lose a world of support from several other books).

Psyren
2010-11-24, 02:52 PM
I think you'd have to ban an awful lot to end up at 4e. (Not saying 4e is bad, just more limited.) I say you can adjust wizard and cleric lists down to T3 long before you reach 4e levels of austerity. Many have said the Test of Spite list is a good place to start, so it's not even as though you're in it alone.

I don't agree that targeting problem spells is inelegant, either. What other solutions have we seen in this thread?

1) Fax's original suggestion of slowing casters down seems elegant - until you realize how much it hampers the already weak 3/4 and 1/2 casters. Plus you have to worry about whether they have the tools left to take on CR-appropriate challenges, or the juice to handle X encounters per day. You also have to re-educate your players on a whole new class progression. Is that elegant?

2) Then we've got Jaessick's "increased casting time" solution which runs into its own problems. It's elegant, but every spell above 3rd-level is going to be useless in combat, with even the lower ones being child's play to disrupt. On top of that, it's still worse for gish classes like Paladins, because the Wizard at least doesn't have much better to do than try a spell - the gishes have a higher opportunity cost, since their attacks are actually worth something, but they're giving those up to cast a spell for several rounds anyway.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-24, 02:53 PM
Hence, to sum this up: banning, tweaking or fixing problematic spells requires the solution to be both effective and elegant, and usually the two don't exist on the same level (maybe one solution is the most effective but not the most elegant, or viceversa). Example being reducing the amount of spell levels spellcasters have access to, which isn't entirely effective and is, IMO, very inelegant (and rather blunt, especially to the poor half-casters who suddenly lose a world of support from several other books).

Since halfcasters seem to be a big point in your argument, what would you say about moving just nine-level casters to the bard progression, assuming you rob the Warlock and DFA of some of their lower-level cast-all-day abilities and/or make cantrips infinite usage? Bards get to stay where they're at, halfcasters get to keep their stuff...

busterswd
2010-11-24, 03:06 PM
MAD might work better. Link each of the spell schools to one of the primary stats; the more powerful schools get less useful stats. Spell usage is limited by its primary stat; level 1 spells require 11 in a stat, level 2 12, etc. Specialization is reworked; specialists get a bonus to their primary stat every 4 levels, and sorcerers can specialize too now. They still lose access to an opposing school, which is also reworked.

Str: Conjuration
Dex: Abjuration
Con: Necromancy
Wis: Transmutation
Int: Illusion
Cha: Enchantment


Evocation and Divination are unrestricted.

Mechanics Rationale: cuts down optimization and the focus on dex and int, still gives wizards and sorcerers 3 schools to play with and a 4th if they specialize, cuts down on the absolute versatility wizards have. Some spells would still be broken, but not every wizard would be able to break the world in the vast variety of ways they can.

Could also have "flavor" justifications as well. Some of them would be more a stretch (dex seems to go hand in hand with transmutation but that's far too good of a school to go with the second most important stat) but others make sense (evocation represents raw energy and magic so everyone can use it, enchantment represents the ability to sway others, necromancy represents life force, etc.)

T.G. Oskar
2010-11-24, 03:55 PM
I think you'd have to ban an awful lot to end up at 4e. (Not saying 4e is bad, just more limited.) I say you can adjust wizard and cleric lists down to T3 long before you reach 4e levels of austerity. Many have said the Test of Spite list is a good place to start, so it's not even as though you're in it alone.

I don't agree that targeting problem spells is inelegant, either. What other solutions have we seen in this thread?

1) Fax's original suggestion of slowing casters down seems elegant - until you realize how much it hampers the already weak 3/4 and 1/2 casters. Plus you have to worry about whether they have the tools left to take on CR-appropriate challenges, or the juice to handle X encounters per day. You also have to re-educate your players on a whole new class progression. Is that elegant?

2) Then we've got Jaessick's "increased casting time" solution which runs into its own problems. It's elegant, but every spell above 3rd-level is going to be useless in combat, with even the lower ones being child's play to disrupt. On top of that, it's still worse for gish classes like Paladins, because the Wizard at least doesn't have much better to do than try a spell - the gishes have a higher opportunity cost, since their attacks are actually worth something, but they're giving those up to cast a spell for several rounds anyway.

Elegant isn't necessarily "pretty", but rather that it doesn't provide as many problems. I also mentioned it has to be "effective". The first may be effective, but IMO not very elegant (it requires almost an entire rehaul, even more than just making prepared casters get new spell levels on even levels and viceversa; both require a pretty hefty rehaul, but switching spell level acquisitions only deals with a part of the class table instead of that + the spell lists). The second, though, is ineffective; needlessly delaying spellcasting more than a full round makes casting spells not effective at all, except for buffing spells.

Note what I said on the big, big post: "The solution causes more problems than what it solves, even if it solves the problem; hence, while it's a solution, it's not an elegant solution." Does, by your perception, think that the first solution is elegant? You yourself mention that it's elegant to a point; I don't find it elegant at all (but that's me; it's not a "quick" fix for sure). Does the second solution is elegant?

The first solution is not very elegant; the second solution is also inelegant, but simple.


Since halfcasters seem to be a big point in your argument, what would you say about moving just nine-level casters to the bard progression, assuming you rob the Warlock and DFA of some of their lower-level cast-all-day abilities and/or make cantrips infinite usage? Bards get to stay where they're at, halfcasters get to keep their stuff...

Eh, not really. I mean, you're gonna sacrifice some spells that aren't really worth their 9th level spell slots to ban or delay the really good ones? One thing is to pepper your spell slots with Gate and Wish and Miracle and Implosion; the other is peppering your 9th level spell slots with Refuge, or Freedom, or Meteor Swarm. The first is really bizarre (and a 7th level spell slot on the Cleric, though for what it works it would be better as an Incantation or a 5th level spell), the second is very situational (Freedom of Movement solved that four spell levels ago, and what you really get is the ability to escape Imprisonment and Maze, which are two of the several spells you get) and Meteor Swarm is a joke; you can, if you aim carefully, deal somewhere around 24d6 fire damage + 2d6 bludgeoning on a 10 ft. radius, 24d6 fire on the next 30, and 6d6 on the next 10, but you provoke four separate Reflex saves (depending on the area of how many spheres you work with) and it can be resisted with SR. Do I really want to ban those spells, which by all means may be pretty much inoffensive unless used very, very carefully?

It's weeding the broken spells, the worthwhile spells and the bad spells in one swift stroke, hence the "blunt" comment. It still doesn't truly address some of the complaints with spellcasters (banning or turning Knock into an incantation does more for Open Lock than delaying it, for example), and it requires less hassle to execute.

Warlock and DFA are another sort of problem. One big deal is that you get at-will uses of spells...with 24 hour durations. So if used correctly, you'd use it once per day, unless you got that dispelled. Eldritch Blast is the best example of a good at-will incantation because you have reasons to spam it at-will. Having, say, Cure Minor Wounds at-will as a standard action is more of a minor blessing, since it's only useful for out-of-battle healing (otherwise, you want Stabilize or an actual CLW spell). Guidance, Resistance and other minor buffs as at-will abilities are too weak to be worthwhile, unless you run up of all other spells. Stuff like Acid Splash or Ray of Frost will be only moderately useful, if you know how to use it (example: how good is the Gloves of the Uldra Savant without the 3/day frost enhancement to weapons?) In the case of Warlock/DFA invocations, something like Invisibility at will or the Dispel Magic at will with rider effects are the most cost-effective choices, since you're sacrificing one of the very few slots of invocations you get for incredible utility and offensive capabilities.

To state the point: Grease as an at-will ability would be phenomenal, since you can use it for something other than as as trap (treat it as a +10 bonus on Escape Artist and you'll see its utility). Pyrotechnics as an at-will ability may lose some steam later on, but it's still moderately useful (two ways to deal with pesky characters, and all you need is a fire source; without a need for fire sources, you can activate one or the other when you need it the most, hence ensuring you can use the invocation any time you want). As it stands, Breath of the Night (Fog Cloud at-will) is an ability that used correctly can work wonders (concealment, ways to escape, ways to create a diversion to Hide). Namely, I'd definitely support any spell that has more than one utility and that could be used at-will, but within a reasonable parameter (Alter Self at will is bad pretty much at all levels; Disintegrate as an at-will ability is also bad unless you downgrade the damage a bit). But taking that stuff from the Warlock or DFA is effectively killing them, akin to removing what few useful spells Paladins, Rangers and other half-casters get.

So, it's not really that half-casters would suffer; its that there's no problem in granting casters their 7th, 8th and 9th level slots. The problem is mostly on what they can do with the slots, and the spells they'll likely choose; solving that is complicated, but ultimately more effective and possibly more elegant than downgrading the spell potential of casters. That also brings up more troubles; should we reduce the power potential of martial adepts (which get 7th, 8th and 9th level maneuvers)? Deny shadowcasters access to their 7th, 8th and 9th maneuver Master paths (what with the convoluted troubles it has, considering that they're effectively "full" spellcasters as they cast 9th level mysteries-as-spells)? Or merely delay them up to Epic levels, which has more problems of its own (such as having feats that should belong in the non-Epic lists, stuff like Dire Charge for example)? And still then, you'd get bad feats that won't get officially fixed, so you'd also need to work on the feats but deny their benefits to spellcasters, so as to provide some support to melee. I mean, you need two feats to get Blindsight up to a 5 ft. radius, and even then only Wis-based spellcasters and the odd Monk that goes full Wis can truly take benefit from it; that's not linear, that's a feat tax. And this is coming from someone who doesn't really mind feat chains (just not retarded feat chains).

Gametime
2010-11-24, 04:38 PM
Since halfcasters seem to be a big point in your argument, what would you say about moving just nine-level casters to the bard progression, assuming you rob the Warlock and DFA of some of their lower-level cast-all-day abilities and/or make cantrips infinite usage? Bards get to stay where they're at, halfcasters get to keep their stuff...

It's still dirty, but I like it. Casters will still be better than bards at casting by virtue of the expanded list and ability to get more spells per day, through domains and specialization. You'll want to make sure sorcerers can learn and cast more spells than bards, though.

I like how Pathfinder handled cantrips; you "prepare" however many of them, and then you can use those infinitely all day. Level 1 casters will still have a hard time contributing meaningfully, though. You could probably just give Eldritch Blast or something similar to casters; it's not like it would push them over the edge.

Jack_Simth
2010-11-24, 06:02 PM
Consider the Polymorph/shapechanging magic mess, for example; you could wind up at WotC's eventual position, which was basically "Polymorph the spell doesn't exist. Use these specific shape spells instead." Which is balanced, but now you have to write and balance 20-50 or more new transformation spells to cover everything Polymorph used to do (I think Pathfinder did reasonably well with this, but even with their broader shapechange spells it took 10 or so to cover what used to be Polymorph.) As a side-note, I've run across three ways to balance the Polymorph line that seem to have a reasonable chance to work:

1) Polymorphic magic has limited forms. Each version spell has a set list of forms you can select from, similar to the Summon Monster line of spells. Whether that's one form (E.g., Dragonshape), or a dozen doesn't matter - once you've got the spell down to a fixed list, you can balance the spell vs. other spells at that level based on the available forms.
2) Polymorphic magic is mostly illusion. You don't turn the Rogue into a Hydra - you make the Rogue *look* like a Hydra, and and give him a number of buffs selected off of a list defined in the spell description (So it could be, say, +4 Strength, two secondary natural attacks, and Reach, as a 4th level spell effect - that same 4th level spell might also be able to grant +4 Dex, +4 Con, and flight, instead... but not both sets of abilities at once).
3) Polymorphic magic is a variant summoning. It's not you+the monster's abilities after the spell is cast. It's you in control of a copy of the monster (minus problematic abilities, such as spellcasting, or things that would have XP/expensive material components if they were spells) after the spell is cast, while you are suppressed. So if you turn yourself into a Hydra, that Mage Armor you put up earlier is suppressed (It's on you, not the Hydra), you can't cast spells (you're not properly there anymore - it's a Hydra), and if you had sneak attack, it's inaccessible (as Hydra's don't have Sneak Attack, normally). You put away your character sheet, and use the Monster Manual Entry straight out of the Monster Manual, minus the problematic stuff. Your new form can be buffed up... by others afterwards ... but your pre-existing buffs are all suppressed for the duration when you cast the spell (and any effects from the form go away when the form does, just like with Summoning). This can theoretically be balanced based on CR (so, say, Alter Self is replaced with 'Least Polymorph', which changes you into a critter with a CR of your level (or your caster level, whichever is lower), max CR 5; Polymorph is replaced with 'Lesser Polymorph', which changes a willing target into a critter with a CR of target's level -1 (or your caster level -1, whichever is lower), with a maximum CR of 10. Polymorph Any Object is replaced with 'Polymorph', which turns a target into a critter with a CR of target's level -2 (or your caster level -2, whichever is lower), with a maximum CR of 15. Shapechange is replaced with Greater Polymorph, which turns you into a critter with a CR of your level -3 (Or your caster level -3, whichever is lower), with a maximum CR of 20. Add some form of damage translation, and you're done.

Benejeseret
2010-11-24, 06:42 PM
'Balance' is a VERY wholistic thing in a game as diverse as DnD and not solely taken as kill X thing in X rounds, or simply survive Y (although it often is reduced as such)

Not surprisingly Wealth by Level is part of that balance issue.

Most wizard/caster players overlook and break a few Wealth and other spell-related rules such as:

-have you payed for the 100g per spell level to add it to your book?
-Did you actually roll spellcraft to do so?
-Did you spend the 24 HOURS it took to do so per spell?

-did you buy and use a second book after 100 pages? (minor...but you still need 2 after awhile)

-Did you actually buy those material reagents? Ahead of time, in the last town. Not just scratch off some gold when you want and assume you did....did you really?

-Where's the familiar? It has HP for a reason. That reason is that it (should) take damage. And when it dies (area spells, traps!!) you loose XP

-Did you pay 100gp for that familiar?

-Concentration: full round spells (summons), defensive casting and the like...often forgotten

__________________________________

If following RAW and wizard at least should be below WBL of the other party members because they spent some on spell and familiars.

And if you are actually rolling spell saves every time an area spell blast by then familiars might likely be costing them XP.

...the problem is that the 'balance' as first envisioned takes these kinds of thing into consideration. But, at least in my limited time on this earth, I have YET to find a DM/player/game that properly uses the above.

-Where do you learn your spells from? This is really as issue of what spells exist in the world, should a given spell exist, and should its cost be increased if it is rare.

-Divine caster: the players asks for an effect...but the god grants it. An out of control overpowering divine spellcaster simply should not happen and the god is by RAW allowed to withhold spells at the whims of said diety and diety=DM

__________________________________

I ramble on into all of this because here are my 2 critics of your fixes:

A. They are a nerf, not a fix. They do not get to the problem of WHY magic 'unbalances' the classes. The big reasons tend to be either a spell is to powerful (original polymorph as popular example) or the batman effect of having unlimited selection and a counter to everything.
- That being said, Wizards/community has not come up with a fix yet.

B. It makes the class less of what it is. The paradigm, the telos, of a caster is to cast...and that should not be denied in my opinion.

___________________________________

Suggestions I would offer include (untested):

1. Increase casting times of spells. If most spells were full round actions then enemies could have a chance to get out of the way or stop the casting. Making goblins scatter just to get out of the way of a fireball adds depth and character to a battle, but there is not mechanical reason for them to do so by RAW

2. Increase the cost of any spell not in SRD by +50% and ban non-SRD spells from being selected as bonus spells during leveling. Make wizards research and locate the spells at a cost or make it plot related sidequests to unlock new sorcerer abilities etc.

3. Actually follow RAW on all the nitpicky commonly overlooked stuff (I am guilty of not doing so) and see its effects on balance.

lesser_minion
2010-11-24, 07:59 PM
Most wizard/caster players overlook and break a few Wealth and other spell-related rules such as:

-have you paid for the 100g per spell level to add it to your book?

Yep. It's not much compared with that 200,000 gp sword the fighter has. And don't forget that you get about 47 spells free on top of that.


-Did you actually roll spellcraft to do so?

No, because I'd have to somehow roll a negative number on the dice to actually fail.


-Did you spend the 24 HOURS it took to do so per spell?

Yep. Adventurers don't spend every last second of their lives killing, looting and pillaging, you know.


-did you buy and use a second book after 100 pages? (minor...but you still need 2 after awhile)

Yep.


-Did you actually buy those material reagents? Ahead of time, in the last town. Not just scratch off some gold when you want and assume you did....did you really?

Bought any foci when I learned the spell. Most spells with expensive material components are intended to be cast in downtime, so apart from that, the question is moot.


-Where's the familiar? It has HP for a reason. That reason is that it (should) take damage. And when it dies (area spells, traps!!) you loose XP

It's busy not existing at all. You don't have to have one, even if you can't trade the ability to have one for something else.


-Did you pay 100gp for that familiar?

Nope. They're optional. And you can get some nifty things in exchange for not taking one.


-Concentration: full round spells (summons), defensive casting and the like...often forgotten

No, no they aren't. Even in dungeons where you could conceivably find yourself in a threatened area, they aren't too hard to get out of safely. Tumble and five-foot steps are very helpful in this regard.


If following RAW and wizard at least should be below WBL of the other party members because they spent some on spell and familiars.

Since familiars aren't mandatory and you get a lot of spells free of charge, I don't see this. Spellbooks will usually be cheaper than the magical equipment most other classes will need.


And if you are actually rolling spell saves every time an area spell blast by then familiars might likely be costing them XP.

Simple solution: don't summon the optional familiar. And if they're as vulnerable as you claim, then you probably can't, because you're busy waiting a year to summon a new one.


-Where do you learn your spells from? This is really as issue of what spells exist in the world, should a given spell exist, and should its cost be increased if it is rare.

All core spells are usually assumed to exist unless the DM explicitly vetoes them. Non-core and research spells have to be explicitly allowed into the game by the DM, but core's usually enough to do some damage.

And plenty of casters couldn't care less about spellbooks or angry deities.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-24, 08:16 PM
Can I ask the fixer-folks a question: what is so hard about just banning or tweaking problematic spells?

Mostly the amount of effort. I've been working on redoing spells for my own 3e fix, on and off (currently "off"). There are over 2000 spells to go over, not including setting-specific and Dragon spells, and I'm in the E's right now. For most spells you can simply say "yeah, it's fine" and not change anything, but the amount of time it takes to actualy go through the lists, to determine how you want to fix things, to determine if a previously-overlooked spell is now too good after you changed another, and so forth is prohibitive.


3) Polymorphic magic is a variant summoning. It's not you+the monster's abilities after the spell is cast. It's you in control of a copy of the monster (minus problematic abilities, such as spellcasting, or things that would have XP/expensive material components if they were spells) after the spell is cast, while you are suppressed. So if you turn yourself into a Hydra, that Mage Armor you put up earlier is suppressed (It's on you, not the Hydra), you can't cast spells (you're not properly there anymore - it's a Hydra), and if you had sneak attack, it's inaccessible (as Hydra's don't have Sneak Attack, normally). You put away your character sheet, and use the Monster Manual Entry straight out of the Monster Manual, minus the problematic stuff. Your new form can be buffed up... by others afterwards ... but your pre-existing buffs are all suppressed for the duration when you cast the spell (and any effects from the form go away when the form does, just like with Summoning). This can theoretically be balanced based on CR (so, say, Alter Self is replaced with 'Least Polymorph', which changes you into a critter with a CR of your level (or your caster level, whichever is lower), max CR 5; Polymorph is replaced with 'Lesser Polymorph', which changes a willing target into a critter with a CR of target's level -1 (or your caster level -1, whichever is lower), with a maximum CR of 10. Polymorph Any Object is replaced with 'Polymorph', which turns a target into a critter with a CR of target's level -2 (or your caster level -2, whichever is lower), with a maximum CR of 15. Shapechange is replaced with Greater Polymorph, which turns you into a critter with a CR of your level -3 (Or your caster level -3, whichever is lower), with a maximum CR of 20. Add some form of damage translation, and you're done.

That's the variant I'm using for polymorphing and summoning. Where you say "problematic abilities," I simply say any monster ability that is not completely at-will (not usable every round, all day, every day, which means even things like a dragon's 1d4-round-recharge breath weapon are included) is unavailable to summoned creatures or polymorph forms; additionally, when polymorphing you keep your own Int score and Knowledge ranks (so that, first, you can turn into mindless things/animals and still control your character without needing a special case for that, and second, so you can't turn into a high-Int critter to magically learn new things).

I explain the polymorphing not as a variant summoning but as taking on the "essence" of the creature--any limited-use ability isn't sufficiently powered by the creature's essential nature to transfer over--and summoning as simply giving that "essence" physical form outside of the caster. It's worked quite well so far in my games in terms of balance, and in terms of gameplay it's cut the real-world time consumption of one of my players, a polymorph-spec sorcerer, by at least a factor of 4.