Balancing out Casters

[Jack Zander]

Yes it is that time of the week, and no, I don't actually think this is possible. However, I would like some opinions on a few minor tweaks for my home-brewed campaign setting.


Classes:
Astrologer (Cleric), Bard, Fighter, Geomancer (Druid), Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard only.
The following changes to specific classes have been made:
Astrologer (Cleric):
Hit die changed from d8 to d6.
Change progression of Fortitude save from good to poor.
Remove armor proficiency medium/heavy and shield proficiency. Astrologer's spells still do not incur a miss chance while wearing armor; you just do not start with proficiency with all armor.
Do not choose a deity. Rather, your alignment will determine which domains are available to you.
Lawful Good: Good, Healing, Law, Protection, Sun, War (warhammer)
Good: Air, Good, Healing, Protection, Strength, Sun
Chaotic Good: Chaos, Good, Healing, Strength, Travel, Trickery
Lawful: Knowledge, Law, Magic, Protection, War (longsword), Water
Neutral: Animal, Knowledge, Luck, Magic, Plant, Travel
Chaotic: Chaos, Destruction, Fire, Luck, Travel, Trickery
Lawful Evil: Death, Destruction, Evil, Law, Magic, War (flail)
Evil: Death, Destruction, Earth, Evil, Magic, Strength
Chaotic Evil: Chaos, Death, Destruction, Evil, Strength, Trickery
Bard:
Hit die changed from d6 to d8.
Bards may cast spells while wielding a shield without suffering an arcane spell failure chance.
No alignment restriction.
Fighter:
Fighters are barbarian/fighter gestalt with the following changes:
No Fast Movement
No bonus feat at level 1.
No illiteracy.
Remove Listen and Survival from class skills.
No Trap Sense.
No alignment restriction for rage.
Geomancer (Druid):
Hit die changed from d8 to d6.
Remove Animal Companion
Remove Wild Shape
Weapon and armor proficiency: Geomancers are proficient with light armor, medium armor, and shields (but not tower shields). They are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the shortsword, longsword, scimitar, greatclub, shortbow, and composite shortbow. They suffer no penalty to spellcasting for wearing or wielding metallic items.
No alignment restrictions.
Ranger:
Hit die changed from d8 to d10.
Animal Companion at druid progression.
Fast Movement (per barbarian) at level 3.
Favored enemy may be your own race regardless of alignment.
Rogue:
Hit die changed from d6 to d8.
Wizard:
All wizards must specialize in a school of magic.
1 extra school of magic must be banned (diviners ban two schools, all others ban three)
All specialists may now choose divination as one of their banned schools.
Spells:
Read Magic is now in the Universal school rather than Divination


Now remember, I'm not asking if you like these house rules or not. I don't really care if your group would never play in a campaign where you were only limited to 7 classes. I just want to know how much this helps to balance out the power levels. For this setting, I didn't limit spells and feats to core, but I told my players that if they want anything from another splatbook, I need to approve it first, and that afterward I will start using everything in that splatbook for my NPCs.

[tyckspoon]

No significant change in the greater scheme. Spellcasters are still more awesome than 'mundane' classes, because you left the spell lists available. The biggest thing is that without the Companion and Wild Shape, I no longer see any particular reason to have the Druid as a separate class from Cleric- you could just make them both "Astrologer" and let the player choose between having the Cleric spell list and the Druid spell list depending on the flavor of divine magician they wanted to be.

[Jack Zander]

No significant change in the greater scheme. Spellcasters are still more awesome than 'mundane' classes, because you left the spell lists available. The biggest thing is that without the Companion and Wild Shape, I no longer see any particular reason to have the Druid as a separate class from Cleric- you could just make them both "Astrologer" and let the player choose between having the Cleric spell list and the Druid spell list depending on the flavor of divine magician they wanted to be.

My intention with the difference between Astrologer and Geomancer was that Astrologer would be a bit weaker and would make players more inclined to focus on spellcasting while Geomancer is still a viable choice for a gish character who can buff himself and wade into melee. Should I raise Geomancer's hit die back up to d8?

With the spell lists, I've found that most spells are actually broken when you go outside of core, or combine core spells with splatbooks (such as alter self with the various monster manuals). However, there are still some spells which are grossly overpowered within core. Which ones should I look out for and alter/ban?

[Tyndmyr]

I just want to know how much this helps to balance out the power levels. .

Not at all. Go to the tier list. Re-read what makes something a higher tier.

Hint: It's not damage.

Once you've done that, tell me if a gestalted barb/fighter is a higher tier.


With the spell lists, I've found that most spells are actually broken when you go outside of core, or combine core spells with splatbooks (such as alter self with the various monster manuals).

Surely you must be joking. I would seriously argue that core has more broken spells than all of non-core combined.

[Draz74]

My intention with the difference between Astrologer and Geomancer was that Astrologer would be a bit weaker and would make players more inclined to focus on spellcasting while Geomancer is still a viable choice for a gish character who can buff himself and wade into melee. Should I raise Geomancer's hit die back up to d8?
Yes, but the Astrologer is still a viable gish anyway, as long as it has Divine Favor/Divine Power/Righteous Might.

(Also, no Luck domain for Chaotic Good?)


With the spell lists, I've found that most spells are actually broken when you go outside of core, or combine core spells with splatbooks (such as alter self with the various monster manuals).
Balderdash! 90% of the broken spells in the game are Core. And Alter Self is plenty powerful just with the Monster Manual 1 (troglodytes for +6 AC? yes please!).


However, there are still some spells which are grossly overpowered within core. Which ones should I look out for and alter/ban?

Calling spells (Gate, Summon X Planar Ally, X Planar Binding). Take away the caster's ability to control the called creature. Possibly even make it the creature's choice of whether to come, in the case of Gate.

Alter Self, Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange. Alter Self makes a reasonable Level 4 spell as long as you don't combine it with any other crazy cheese. Polymorph makes a reasonable Level 7 spell if you don't combine it with other cheese. Polymorph Any Object is tricky, but as a rule of thumb shouldn't be able to make any permanent changes to living creatures (significant ones; it's probably OK if you change a chicken into a horse forever). Shapechange might be sane if you take away the ability to use the assumed form's Spell-Like / Supernatural / Magic Item abilities.

Teleport spells: make them a 10-minute casting time. Still ridiculously useful (probably too useful, maybe still deserving of a hefty material component) for traveling, but no longer an auto-flee-combat-safely spell.

Freedom of Movement, Spider Climb, Knock, anything else that makes casters auto-succeed at what should be normal checks: consider whether you really want casters to outshine other characters at those characters' specialties. Probably make these spells give bonuses instead of auto-succeeding.

Rope Trick, Mage's Magnificent Mansion: in many campaigns, these pretty much make it so that "spells/day" is simply not a limitation on casters.

Glittedust, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles: possibly slightly too good as battlefield control and debuff spells go.

Divine Power: even without this greatest of combat buffs, the Cleric can almost fight as well as real warrior classes if he's prepared. With this buff, it's not even a contest.

[Jack Zander]

Once you've done that, tell me if a gestalted barb/fighter is a higher tier.

I know for certain that a gestalt fighter/barbarian isn't anywhere near as good as a wizard with a single domain, but I'm not even going to try to balance that out. I figured if players want a character that can do nothing but hit things really hard, I could at least make them damn good at their job.


Yes, but the Astrologer is still a viable gish anyway, as long as it has Divine Favor/Divine Power/Righteous Might.

(Also, no Luck domain for Chaotic Good?)

I never thought divine favor was any good. It only lasts 1 minute so it requires repeated castings before (or during) each fight. Although for being level 1 I suppose there isn't much else to use your spells for. Divine power and righteous might can go though.


Balderdash! 90% of the broken spells in the game are Core. And Alter Self is plenty powerful just with the Monster Manual 1 (troglodytes for +6 AC? yes please!).

Oops, I guess I missed that one! I think I'll change alter self to level 4, as suggested.

I like most of your suggestions for spells, but I think 10 minutes is too long for teleport. I think 1 minute would be plenty enough time to make it not be an auto-flee button, and I could see some fun encounters where the party is trying to protect an NPC spell caster who is trying to telelport them to safety.

[Draz74]

Wow, I can't believe I forgot Blasphemy/Holy Word/etc. Those ... well, I recommend just banning them.


I never thought divine favor was any good. It only lasts 1 minute so it requires repeated castings before (or during) each fight. Although for being level 1 I suppose there isn't much else to use your spells for.
It's lame at low levels, but once you have a high caster level it becomes a big bonus, and you can Quicken it pretty easily. 1 minute is plenty of duration to last you for most fights, so you only have to use it once per encounter.


Oops, I guess I missed that one! I think I'll change alter self to level 4, as suggested.

I like most of your suggestions for spells, but I think 10 minutes is too long for teleport. I think 1 minute would be plenty enough time to make it not be an auto-flee button, and I could see some fun encounters where the party is trying to protect an NPC spell caster who is trying to telelport them to safety.

That's reasonable.

[Jack Zander]

I forgot to comment on the Luck domain thing. I guess luck would probably fit better than strength for Chaotic Good. I want each alignment to have exactly 6 domains, and strength is pretty common in some of the other alignments already.

[Privateer]

Wizard:
All wizards must specialize in a school of magic.
1 extra school of magic must be banned (diviners ban two schools, all others ban three)
All specialists may now choose divination as one of their banned schools.


How is that in any way balancing?! You're just making a wizard with fewer options and therefore making the player plan out his awesomeness carefully in advance.

I know you asked for something different, but I'll offer this as annoying unsolicited opinion :smallsmile: :

The more you limit (or balance as you called it) the abilities of casters, the more your players would be inclined to optimize and cheese. At least I can say for a fact I would. The psychology is dead simple - you're taking away my normal power, so I must plan better to not be weak.

If you have a problem with overpowered casters stealing the spotlight, perhaps there is a way to solve it outside of game mechanics? After all, the potentially insane power of casters is irrelevant if the players don't want to abuse it. And if they do, I doubt you can stop them by banning a few spells/schools/domains.

Just my two coppers.

[Gnaeus]

My intention with the difference between Astrologer and Geomancer was that Astrologer would be a bit weaker and would make players more inclined to focus on spellcasting while Geomancer is still a viable choice for a gish character who can buff himself and wade into melee. Should I raise Geomancer's hit die back up to d8?

Geomancer would not be a very viable choice for a Gish character. Their buffs are good, when stacked on top of something like bear form. A druid without WS or AC is essentially a Spirit Shaman. Spirit shaman can do lots of things. It can summon well, blast passably, heal, etc. But they aren't much for melee. Especially in a mostly core setting. Bite of the wereX may be as good as or better than Divine power, but not equivalent to divine power & Righteous might.

[FMArthur]

I actually see the shapeshifting animal-attracting Druid as a sort of essential fantasy archetype to cover in games. Making Clerics and Druids into Wizards with weaker spell lists just doesn't seem all that fun to me. You might want to remember that you still should try to support a variety of fantasy character archetypes when you cut out options altogether. Monk is out. Holy warriors are less supported due to Paladins being gone and Clerics being squishier. Ideally you have players in mind when you make your game different, and limiting them to 'mage', 'other mage', 'other mage', Barbarian, Rogue and Singing Idiot doesn't really give them the character variety they might like.

[TroubleBrewing]

Is it balanced? Nope.

Does it "fix" the balance problems in core? Not even close.

Does it still seem fun? Nope.

Was this a bit of a waste of time? I'd say a little bit. If it's as badly broken as spellcasting in D&D... There's something about "all the kings horses" to be said here.

[Kylarra]

As mentioned before, it does pretty much nothing for overall power levels. Sure, some of the lower tier things could use the boost, but overall, not much happens. There is almost no reason to pick a cleric over a wizard now though, so I guess that might be a plus?

[Jack Zander]

@Privateer: I'm not so sure I agree with that logic. At least, there isn't anyone in my group that would act that way. We tend to break the game when we are given more options, not less.

@FMArcher: I never thought of animorphs as being an essential archetype. Nature magicians maybe, but not necessarily wildshapers. I also intend on keeping most of the polymorph spell (albeit tweaked perhaps) to keep in line with anyone who wants to focus on that aspect. As far as classes go, I was looking more at "black mage" "white mage" "summoner and/or gish" "melee guy" "hunter" "thief" and of course, "singing idiot." I think my group is creative enough to come up with an unlimited number of variety of characters using just these 7 base classes. I tried to keep the classes bland enough for my players to give them their own fluff.

So how about some examples of things I can do to balance out things a bit more? Also, what can I do to turn the geomancer into a more viable gish? Full BAB and full spellcasting seems a bit much to me. To me, a gish shouldn't fight as well as a fighter, and they shouldn't cast as well as a mage, but they should be able to be second best at both of those things.

[Eric Tolle]

Really, I don't see you as having done much at all to balance casters with non-casters. In order to do that, we need to head a bit back toward AD&D. To whit:

1. Saving throws of fighter-types need to be increased drastically. The entire save progression is broken in favor of spellcasters.

2. Casting spells needs to be a full-round action. Except for Contingency, there is no way to shorten spellcasting.

3. Spells go off at the mage's initiative, -3 per level. So if the mage rolls 15 for initiative, casting a 5th level spell will go off at initiative count 0.

4. Spell durations are now all "Concentration +3 rounds."

5. Concentration checks to avoid losing a spell are now base 25, +3 difficulty per point of damage.

There ya go, balanced and simple!

[Jack Zander]

Really, I don't see you as having done much at all to balance casters with non-casters. In order to do that, we need to head a bit back toward AD&D. To whit:

1. Saving throws of fighter-types need to be increased drastically. The entire save progression is broken in favor of spellcasters.

2. Casting spells needs to be a full-round action. Except for Contingency, there is no way to shorten spellcasting.

3. Spells go off at the mage's initiative, -3 per level. So if the mage rolls 15 for initiative, casting a 5th level spell will go off at initiative count 0.

4. Spell durations are now all "Concentration +3 rounds."

5. Concentration checks to avoid losing a spell are now base 25, +3 difficulty per point of damage.

There ya go, balanced and simple!

A lot of this sounds really awesome, but I'm not sure how all spells could have a duration of concentration +3 rounds. Buffs and battlefield control, sure, but what about fireball? I think simply making all spells that aren't touch spells have a casting time of 1 round would balance out casters more. It would allow archers and melee characters within close range to counter magic simply by dealing damage to the spellcaster before the round is over (inb4 windwall and protection from arrows).

[Eric Tolle]

A lot of this sounds really awesome, but I'm not sure how all spells could have a duration of concentration +3 rounds. Buffs and battlefield control, sure, but what about fireball? I think simply making all spells that aren't touch spells have a casting time of 1 round would balance out casters more. It would allow archers and melee characters within close range to counter magic simply by dealing damage to the spellcaster before the round is over (inb4 windwall and protection from arrows).

Oops. I meant all spells that have a non-instant duration. Instant-effect spells like fireball and Wall of Stone would be unaffected.

[Jack Zander]

Oops. I meant all spells that have a non-instant duration. Instant-effect spells like fireball and Wall of Stone would be unaffected.

I think I would take this on a case by case basis. I don't think mage armor's 1 hour/level is overpowered for the effect it creates, but obviously most spells should have it. My only worry is that it may turn spell casters into the most boring classes to play, since the more effective option may become "sit back and concentrate on my spell every turn."

[Ernir]

The PHB caster classes are on a crappy chassis anyway, no need to change those. Nerf the spells. One at a time.


Favored enemy may be your own race regardless of alignment.
I don't think this is a houserule in 3.5. :smalltongue:

How is that in any way balancing?! You're just making a wizard with fewer options and therefore making the player plan out his awesomeness carefully in advance.

I know you asked for something different, but I'll offer this as annoying unsolicited opinion :smallsmile: :

The more you limit (or balance as you called it) the abilities of casters, the more your players would be inclined to optimize and cheese. At least I can say for a fact I would. The psychology is dead simple - you're taking away my normal power, so I must plan better to not be weak.

If you have a problem with overpowered casters stealing the spotlight, perhaps there is a way to solve it outside of game mechanics? After all, the potentially insane power of casters is irrelevant if the players don't want to abuse it. And if they do, I doubt you can stop them by banning a few spells/schools/domains.

Just my two coppers.
@Privateer: I'm not so sure I agree with that logic. At least, there isn't anyone in my group that would act that way. We tend to break the game when we are given more options, not less.

This can take a less malicious form than "you're taking my stuff, I must try harder". It could also be "Sweet! Now that the casters are fixed, I can play one without accidentally breaking everything!"

So yeah. If the point was that an insufficient fix can be worse than no fix, I have to agree. =/

[Jack Zander]

I don't think this is a houserule in 3.5. :smalltongue:

Seriously? Am I thinking of a 3.0 rule? Last time I played a ranger was back in 3.0 so most of my rules memory comes from then. I didn't figure they would have changed something as minor as that, so I never bothered to look that clause up.

[Draz74]

Seriously? Am I thinking of a 3.0 rule? Last time I played a ranger was back in 3.0 so most of my rules memory comes from then. I didn't figure they would have changed something as minor as that, so I never bothered to look that clause up.

Yes, it was a 3.0 rule that was removed in 3.5. Welcome to the new Ranger (who actually has class features, if not amazing ones, after Level 1!).

[mangosta71]

Polymorph Any Object is tricky, but as a rule of thumb shouldn't be able to make any permanent changes to living creatures (significant ones; it's probably OK if you change a chicken into a horse forever).
You don't think you would end up with an insane horse?

In other news, I now have an idea for my next character.

[Draz74]

You don't think you would end up with an insane horse?
I do, in fact. And that's ... bad?


In other news, I now have an idea for my next character.

Ah, I see we don't think so differently after all. :smallcool: