3.5 Tier 1 and 2 Magic-User Fix Discussion Thread (All Welcome)

[NeoSeraphi]

Hello Playground. So there's been quite a few of these "nerf wizards" threads popping up in the Homebrew section lately. Personally, I'm happy with the current balance, but because it seems to honestly be bothering so many people, I thought I'd post a thread and see if we could discuss it as a group, rather than several people posting their own suggested fixes and others going and trying to critique those.

So first of all, we should talk about the things that make casting unbalanced in the first place. I'll post a few things here, and I invite anyone reading to please comment on something they think I have missed. Even though I'm posting as the OP, I really just want this to be an open discussion like the ones in the Roleplay and Games forums.


Unbalancing Factors
1. The ability to cast multiple spells in one round, when most standard action spells are designed to compete with a melee fighter's full-round attack in terms of damage or effect. (Specifics- arcane fusion, greater arcane fusion, arcane spellsurge, the Quicken Spell feat, etc)


2. The lack of appropriate defenses compared to the options available to the caster. Melee is challenged by flying monsters, regeneration, damage reduction, incorporeal, invisibility, and swarms. Magic is challenged by usually specific energy resistances or immunities, and spell resistance, which simply prompts most casters to learn SR: No spells to begin with.

3. The ability to interrupt turns. Immediate action spellcasting, as well as spells like Time Stop.

4. SAD. With spells like polymorph and shapechange, as well as huge dice of damage with no attack roll, or a very easily hit AC (in exchange for no saving throw), casters deal their damage primarily from their spells, as opposed to melee, who deals it primarily from their Str modifier. (Or in a rogue's case, from dual-wielding and using feat trees) What I mean is, a caster deals 10d6 damage, while a melee fighter deals 1d12+13 or so. One dice for the melee fighter, he really just cares about the damage he gets from enhancements and a high Strength score.

5. Metamagic Feats. The ability to not only deal 10d6 damage in one round, but to arbitrarily change it to 60, is huge. Melee gets absolutely nothing like this, the closest thing is Power Attack and while it's definitely a good feat, it usually means the difference of about 20 damage at level 10, while a maximized fireball will usually deal about 25 extra damage, but with no extra miss chance to the attacker, and to multiple targets. And of course, Maximize Spell is not nearly the best metamagic feat available.

6. Superior Defenses- Illusions are very powerful, in all their forms. From miss chance to invisibility to simply distracting someone with a giant gold dragon, illusions can not only end an encounter, they can also save your life from would-be attackers before a fight even starts. (Only talking about defensive tactics here, illusions are usable for many other things, of course)

7. Auto-Win (credit goes to erikun)- The ability of a spell to not only take the place of a skill check, but succeed on it automatically, is unfair and removes both the exciting luck element from a skill that is in my opinion an enjoyable aspect of d20 systems, and also takes away from the skillmonkey in their area of expertise: non-combat. Spells like knock, fly, water breathing, and invisibility can really hurt a rogue player's sense of importance at the table, and that's just not cool at all.

8. Spell Ranges (credit goes to jiriku)- The ability of a spellcaster (arcane at least) to simply sit back and fire his save-or-sucks, SoDs, and blasts from as far away as 50-1200 ft is just insane (it also makes a flying wizard very irritating).

9. Spells Per Day/Spells Known- It's no secret that the reason the sorcerer is tier 2 while everyone else is tier 1 is because of versatility. But that versatility, should it really even be allowed? Yes, the gods grant clerics their spells, which is why clerics can ask for everything, but is that really balanced? Perhaps we should limit the spells known for clerics and druids to be similar to a wizard/archivist, and then make it more difficult for every class to learn new spells through Spellcraft checks. (Higher DCs, longer wait time between retries, etc) Also, spells per day. Are they too high? Even without bonus spells for a high casting stat? If you cut back on a caster's options, would you weaken the caster, or would you slow the entire group down so the caster could get his 8 hour rest on more often?

10- Duration (credit goes to jiriku)- Spells per day is often coupled by the problem that most good spells last forever! With the addition of 24 hour buffs like primal senses and moment of prescience, as well as the Persistent Spell feat, and even hour/level durations when most parties are only up for 10 to 12 hours before going back to sleep, a wizard can have a powerful buff up all day without even needing to announce he cast it.

11. Save-Or-Dies: (Suggested by Drachasor) The ability to immediately end a life is a powerful weapon indeed. Not worrying about numbers or energy resistances is useful, and better yet, even though there are multiple versions of a Save-Or-Die spell, they're all so similar that you really only need one, it's not like they get that much deadlier as the level increases. So how should we limit save-or-die spells?


For now, I'm only stating the perceived problems with magic, not suggesting fixes. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to tone down these issues, or would like to add something to the list that needs fixing? The goal is to hopefully weaken a Tier 1 caster like a cleric or a wizard through editing of spells/spell mechanics alone, to the point that they might be just high tier 3. It should also be relatively simple to understand, hopefully.


Proposed Fixes

Sonofzeal has proposed increasing casting times for all spells, reducing a wizard's mobility. With jiriku's suggestions of preventing miss chances from stacking and reducing spell range, we would have a wizard who actively relied on the tank or risk actually failing a Concentration check and losing his precious spell slot because he needed to be within 20 ft of his target to lob an orb at them.

Jiriku has also suggested cutting down metamagic reducers to make them have a minimum of +0, and preventing them from stacking with each other. This is a good way to prevent nova/mailman issues.

Jiriku has another good suggestion: adding spell resistance to many conjuration spells that previously ignored it, as well as removing spells that allowed an increase in caster level to overcome spell resistance entirely. This has a nice effect of not only balancing a wizard but balancing his schools, as conjuration will no longer be strictly better than evocation if they both allow SR.

[Shadow Lord]

Issues 4 and 5, at least from a Blaster Caster, are not nearly as one sided. You have Meleer's with 2d12+26 and a caster with 10d6

Now, I know the caster is likely to do more damage, but Melee is quite close. Also, Maximize takes a slot three levels higher, requiring a level of 15, if you're a Sorcerer. So it's 3d12+39, so, once again, not really that big of a gap. Blasters aren't the problem, it's really the spells like Polymorph, Shapechange, and such that are making Casters so broken. Really, if you fix the broken spells, it evens out the quadratic-ness(<--- It's exponential, actually, but most people say quadratic so meh. ) significantly.

[NeoSeraphi]

Issues 4 and 5, at least from a Blaster Caster, are not nearly as one sided. You have Meleer's with 2d12+26 and a caster with 10d6

Now, I know the caster is likely to do more damage, but Melee is quite close. Also, Maximize takes a slot three levels higher, requiring a level of 15, if you're a Sorcerer. So it's 3d12+39, so, once again, not really that big of a gap. Blasters aren't the problem, it's really the spells like Polymorph, Shapechange, and such that are making Casters so broken. Really, if you fix the broken spells, it evens out the quadratic-ness(<--- It's exponential, actually, but most people say quadratic so meh. ) significantly.

Alright, your point is noted. So we clearly need to fix the broken spells. Let me go ahead and reserve this post here for the list of spells that need fixing:


Polymorph
Polmorph Any Object
Shapechange
Draconic Polymorph
Alter Self
Gate
Lesser Planar Ally
Planar Ally
Miracle
Wish
Time Stop
Limited Wish
Knock
Freedom of Movement


(I'll finish this after I get back, unfortunately I need to go afk for an hour or so)

[Dragon Star]

Gate

Please ignore this white text.

[Cipher Stars]

Not really for magic.. but this thread does feel appropriate for this idea I thought of while reading the first post.
Just taking it form the other side of things. ("Fixing" magic is something I don't agree with, why punish the beautiful ones for they're superiority?)


Maximized Striking
You know where to land a hit, and have trained yourself to do so consistently and reliably with your favored weapon.
Requirements: Weapon Focus
Benefit: All numerical dice for the weapon(s) chosen by your Weapon Focus are maximized.

Empowered Striking
You know how to hit, how to jerk the blade at the right moment to sever vitals and cause the most damage as you can out of your weapon.
Requirements: Weapon Focus
Benefit: Add half the total damage, including that from enhancements and bonuses from a High strength or similar resources, again dealing x1.5 damage.

[Shadow Lord]

What happens if you take Weapon Focus ( Ranged Touch Attack )?

[gkathellar]

I don't think Issue 3 is a real problem. Martial Adepts pull off immediate action abilities with no particular balance problems.

I'd say one of the biggest problems is the ability of spells to bypass the normal mechanisms of combat. Hit points effectively represent a "time buffer," or the amount of time it takes for an encounter to conclude. Because many spells entirely bypass this time buffer, they can conclude encounters far more quickly than is desirable.

[Hiro Protagonest]

What happens if you take Weapon Focus ( Ranged Touch Attack )?

POWERTM Whitetext

[erikun]

Action Economy. The spellcaster is easily able to rob multiple opponents from their actions, either through outright save-or-die or through area-or-effect spells, at the cost of a single action. The non-magic users have nothing remotely similar to that. The best is probably the chain-tripper Fighter/Knight marking, which doesn't deny actions as much as forces opponents to attack the fighter instead. Other characters can't even do that. Compare this to, say, Fog Cloud.
Saving Throws. It is far to easy to pick out a weak save and target that one. Every single save gets its share of save-or-suck, at least, and it is even possible to ignore saves altogether. Using a monster that is tough and highly resilient doesn't mean it will shrug off the worst of the Wizard's spells; it just means it will be Sphere'd or Dominated rather than level-drained into impotence.
Auto-Win Spells. Knock automatically opens locks. Fly automatically bypasses climb checks. Invisibility (basically) automatically succeeds at hiding. It is far more resource-efficient to leave the rogue at home and use his portion of the treasure on a Wand of Knock. It is pretty much impossible for a grappler to win when the opponent has an active Freedom of Movement.
Metamagic Reducers. Metamagic itself is not (frequently) a problem, as the higher spell level is a cost for the benefit. The problem is when you get that benefit without the cost. Incantatrix, Divine Metamagic, and metamagic rods end up giving a benefit in exchange for no or insignificant cost. A Quickened Polymorph (8th level) or Persistent Divine Power (10th level) isn't really all that bad at that level; it is when you can cast them as 4th level spells, at level 7, that things end up breaking.
Poor Melee Options. Let's face it; half the problem with Tier-1 spellcasters is that they get compared to Tier-5 fighters, who are very limited in what they are capable of. The gap between a Wizard and a Warblade is far less, although that is mainly due to Warblades basically ignoring any standard melee options in favor of their own abilities.
And yes, there is the problem with Gate, Polymorph, summoning monsters, and infinite SLAs.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Persistent Divine Power (10th level)

How do you get 10th level spell slots?

[jiriku]

Ha! This thread is indeed aptly timed.

1. I would concur. Multiple spells per round creates the possibility for high-level casters to double their contribution; this is further exacerbated by summoning spells, simulacra, and other effects that multiply the number of actions they can take.

Suggestions:
1a. Proposal: A spellcaster may cast no more than one spell per round. Casting a spell as an immediate action counts against your spells-per-round limit for the following round. The Quicken Spell metamagic feat now has a +3 level adjustment, rather than +4. Arcane fusion and greater arcane fusion are removed from the game. Spell enhancer has its duration increased from 1 round to 2 rounds.
Rationale: The action economy should balance one spell against a full attack. Melee characters generally cannot full attack twice per round, so casters should not cast two spells per round.
Expected Effect: Casters will cast only one spell per round. Quicken spell is still useful, since it allows you to spend your remaining actions on something else (such as a full attack, which gishes will appreciate), but its utility is greatly reduced, thus the reduction in spell level adjustment. Thus, optimizers are rewarded for taking a more balanced approach to character building that sacrifices some spellcasting prowess for the ability to contribute effectively with a weapon or some other sort of action.

1b. A slightly softer restriction: As above, except a spellcaster may cast no more than one spell per spellcasting class per round. Prestige classes that provide list advancement (ex. sublime chord) do not count as an additional class for this purpose. Quicken Spell remains a +4 level adjustment feat.
Rationale: Since mystic theurge-type casters are generally at a disadvantage compared to full casters, the ability to cast one spell from each list per round is both flavorful and a nice compensation for the caster levels lost in building such a character.
Expected Effect: Again, optimizers are rewarded for building well-rounded builds that offer several types of casting, rather than extremely focused builds that try to accumulate power as rapidly as possible.

2. Also agreed. Spell resistance in 3.5 is a joke.

Suggestions:
2A. Proposal: A large list of spells that currently do not allow spell resistance should begin to do so. I've copied a list below that I use in my own homebrew campaign. Additionally, assay spell resistance, subvert planar essence, and true casting are removed from the game.
Rationale: Creatures with spell resistance should be entitled to that defense at its full value against all direct magical attacks.
Expected Effect: Casters confronted with opponents who are resistant or immune to magic will have to either deal with spell failure or rely on indirect spells.

List of spells that should allow spell resistance:
Acid Breath (SC 7), Acid Sheath (SC 7), Arc of Lightning (SC 15), Blast of Flame (SC31), Corrosive Grasp (SC 53), Deific Vengeance (SC 62), Hail of Stone (SC 108), Melf’s Unicorn Arrow (PH2 119), Orb of Acid (SC150), Orb of Acid, Lesser (SC150), Orb of Cold (SC151), Orb of Cold, Lesser (SC151), Orb of Electricity (SC151), Orb of Electricity, Lesser (SC151), Orb of Fire (SC151), Orb of Fire, Lesser (SC151), Orb of Force (SC151), Orb of Sound (SC151), Orb of Sound, Lesser (SC151), Shroud of Flame (SC 189), Stun Ray (SC 211), Tidal Surge (SC 220)

3. Not a big concern for me, actually, especially if the one-spell-per-round limit is implemented (since this increases the opportunity cost of an immediate-action spell substantially).

Suggestions:
3A. One adjustment I recommend for the celerity line of spells: Any effect that prevents you from becoming dazed also prevents you from gaining the extra actions.

5. Most metamagic feats are actually pretty mild. The real fly in the ointment is metamagic reducers and cost replacers.

Suggestions:
5A. Proposal: Effects that reduce spell level adjustment costs can never reduce an adjustment below +0, and never stack with one another. Effects that reduce spell level adjustment costs can never be combined with effects that allow you to substitute a different cost (such as turn undead attempts), because there is no longer a spell level adjustment cost to reduce.
Rationale: Metamagic in small doses is fun and encourages creativity. However, when costs aren't paid, or are greatly reduced, it becomes unbalancing. Limiting the ability to reduce these costs reins in the beast.
Expected Effect: Metamagic will still be viable, and its use can be optimized to a degree, but not to the point of disrupting the game. The mailman can still deliver the mail, but he's throwing parcels rather than crates.

6. This is a modest problem, but one that can be exploited. A simple fix will suffice, for those who perceive a problem.

Suggestions:
6A. Proposal: Miss chances do not stack with one another, even if they are derived from different sources.
Rationale: A 50% miss chance is a great defense. Three of them stacked on the same character creates someone who cannot be hit.
Expected effect: PCs will still rely on the same spells to defend themselves, but mirror image + displacement will be as good as it gets -- stacking additional effects overtop one another will be pointless.

I see three more areas of concern which also need to be addressed, and have some ideas on how to deal with them.

7. Spell ranges: Spellcasters have it easy on defense. Not only have they got great defensive spells, miss chances, immediate action interrupts, and a variety spells that grant blanket immunities, but most of their effects can be used from such a distance that melee characters can't even reach them with a charge or a thrown weapon. Large spell ranges also encourage big, spread-out battles which emphasize mobility -- another strength that casters usually have over their lumbering plate-clad martial compatriots.

Suggestions:
7A. Proposal: Set Close range to 20 ft, medium range to 50 ft, and long range to 100 ft.
Expected Effect: This will have a profound effect on combat, as you'll find casters are always close to their opponents. Most opponents can close the gap to a caster at close range with a move action, at medium range with a double move, and at long range with a full-round action of running. As such, the threat posed by the opponent is always a serious concern and must be treated as such. Additionally, bows and crossbows now have a considerable range advantage over spells, granting them an edge that compensates for the limited damage output of most bow/crossbow builds.

7B. Proposal: If 7A seems too harsh, this is a gentler option. Close range is now defined as 30 ft. Medium Range is now defined as 120 ft. Long Range is now defined as 250 ft.
Rationale: Casters should need to remain near the action, where their opponents have at least some vague chance of harming them.
Expected Effect: Most opponents can close the gap to a caster at close range with a move action, at medium range with a full-round action to run, and at long range with two rounds of running. Casters at medium and long range are still vulnerable to fire from bows and crossbows.

8. Spells per day: Spells per day are supposed to be a limited resource. In practice, however, once full casters reach 5th or 6th level, they almost never run out. The designers just guessed wrong when figuring how many spells they would use. On the flip side of the coin, partial casters like rangers and paladins don't get enough spells (although improving low tier classes is really beyond the scope of this discussion).

Suggestions:
8A. Proposal: Casters no longer receive additional spells per day for having a high spellcasting attribute. Bards, paladins, rangers, and those who use their spell progression charts cast one additional spell per day of each level the know (which mitigates the lost bonus spells).
Rationale: Removing bonus spells reduces the incentive to pump the casting attribute in a SAD class, and shrinks the bucket of excess spells per day.
Expected Effect: Full spellcasters will run out of higher-level spells slightly more quickly.

8B. Proposal: For those who think 8A doesn't go far enough, at each level where a spellcaster would gain the ability to cast his second spell per day of a given level, he does not do so, and thenceforth casts one less spell per day than shown by their casting progress. For example, at 2nd level, the cleric would normally gain the ability to cast a second non-domain spell per day. Under this rule, he does not do so, and thenceforth casts one level 1st-level spell per day than shown by his chart. Bards, paladins, rangers, and those who use their spell progression chart are exempt from this rule.
Rationale: This proposal is especially appropriate if rule 1A or 1B is implemented, since casters will be casting fewer spells per round and thus using them much more slowly. Under that circumstance, they "need" far fewer spells per day at high levels, and their available spell pool needs to be restricted even more sharply if you want spells per day to feel like a finite resource.
Expected Effect: Full spellcasters will run out of high-level spells very quickly, and will be likely to rely more heavily on their mid- and low-level spells in many combats in order to conserve their best spells for the biggest threats.

9. Durations: 3.5 greatly increased the durations of many, many spells over their 2e versions, and the result was that buffing became much more powerful. Further, I've noticed when looking at non-D&D games in which magic is less powerful that durations are almost universally very short. Buffs nearly always have to be cast in combat in these games.

Suggestions:
9a. Proposal: Spells with a duration of 1 minute/level now have a duration of one minute. Spells with a duration of 10 minutes per level now last 1 minute/level, to a maximum of 10 minutes. Spells with a duration of 1 hour/level now have a duration of 6 minutes/level, to a maximum of 60 minutes. Spells with a duration of 24 hours or more now have a duration of 1 hour, excepting that spells with a duration of 1 day/level now have a duration of 1 hour/level, to a maximum of 10 hours. The Extend Spell feat now has a spell level adjustment of +2. The Persistent Spell metamagic feat is removed from the game.
Rationale: When you can cast a spell that lasts all day, and you have four encounters during that day, you've effectively gotten four uses of the spell for the price of one spell slot. Further, a spell's casting time is only a meaningful cost when it's paid from a limited pool of in-combat actions, not when paid from the almost inexhaustable pool of time available between encounters. Reducing durations reduces the number of encounters in which you can claim the benefit of a given casting of a spell, and makes it more likely that you'll need to cast in in combat, when the action needed to cast it represents a more significant cost.
Expected Effect: Casters will have to burn far more spell slots to remain buffed, and will ultimately not be able to support as many buffs per day and per encounter.

[Dragon Star]

How do you get 10th level spell slots?

Ignoring epic, I was wondering that too. A player in my game didn't take any metamagic because he wouldn't be able to use it on is highest level spells.

[gkathellar]

How do you get 10th level spell slots?

Divine Metamagic.

[Jude_H]

D&D 3e is based on the assumption that characters can't do something unless something on their character sheet says they can. (A Swashbuckler wants to kick a goblin down the stairs? No dice. Knockback wouldn't exist if it were allowed by default.)

Prepared spellcasters have the open-ended ability to add abilities to their repertoire at little or no cost. (A Druid wants to turn into a forest fire? Independent research says that's fine.)

Even without independent research, printed materials are bloated enough to give explicit options for a prepared spellcasters to do anything they fancy from level 9 onward. The rest of the classes are constrained to the half-dozen different abilities listed in the Feats section.

[erikun]

How do you get 10th level spell slots?
Improved Spell Capacity [Epic] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#improvedSpellCapacity)

And yes, that is why I say Persistent Divine Power isn't problematic... it's Persistent Divine Power at 7th level in exchange for turning attempts that you likely won't be using anyways that is problematic.

[NeoSeraphi]

Wow, that's...quite a lot of discussion to take in. Alright, well, let's start organizing a few things...

Jiriku- I agree, if the action economy was limited in the way you have suggested, that removing immediate action spells is not necessary. Your advice about metamagic reducers is well said, and your proposal about spell ranges certainly merits a thoughtful discussion.

Jude_H- Unfortunately, you are correct. 3.5 does have very limited options for what someone can and cannot do, RAW. And without extensive training (2 feats=6 levels=1/3 of an epic character's career), you can't stick out your foot and trip someone or shove them without them slicing you up for it.

erikun- Your point about saving throws is valid, and while fortunately, most monsters have powerful Fortitude saves, and often Reflex saves only affect damage spells rather than crowd control spells, most dangerous monsters (the ones that the wizard would actually need to step in and fight because the fighter wasn't strong enough) have a terrible Will save (even dragons don't have very good Wisdom). Even though a DM could throw a monster with a high Fort or Ref or Will save at the specialist who targets that saving throw, since there's no real limitation on what spells you know/learn, you'll usually be prepared for that and it won't really faze you at all.

Auto-Win- How did I forget this? It's going in the OP, thanks for bringing it up. Outside of combat, the skill monkeys should be shining, but thanks to arcane magic's various repetoires (and even divine insight), the caster can easily step in and not only fill, but overshadow that role without breaking a sweat.

Cipher- Excellent feat options. Unfortunately, they do little to close the gap, as even if someone is wielding a greataxe, they are receiving an average of about +6 damage per hit, where as the Maximize Spell feat provides anywhere from +25 to +50 damage to a spell. Still, every bit helps. And I don't see anything particularly wrong with the feat. (Though I would definitely add that it doesn't apply to rays or touch spells)

[jiriku]

Another concern for wizards specifically is easy acquisition of spells. With the ability to copy from a spellbook and take 10 on a Spellcraft check and no upper limit on spells knowable, the wizard can learn every spell in the game automatically and with nominal cost. This was never possible in earlier additions and shouldn't exist in the game.

To fix it, wizards should not be able to take 10 on Spellcraft checks to learn new spells. Spells must always be learned from scrolls, never from spellbooks (this increases the cost of attempting to learn a new spell), and a wizard may never know more spells of a given level than 10 + Int bonus. Limited wish or wish can be used to "forget" a spell known and allow a wizard to try to learn another, or to grant a second chance to learn a spell that the wizard has failed to learn.

Edit:

Auto-Win- How did I forget this? It's going in the OP, thanks for bringing it up. Outside of combat, the skill monkeys should be shining, but thanks to arcane magic's various repetoires (and even divine insight), the caster can easily step in and not only fill, but overshadow that role without breaking a sweat.

Tru tru. Ultimately, a lot of spells, especially utility spells, are undercosted, and need to either have their effects reduced, their spell level increased, or both. This is made worse by what I mentioned in item 8, the glut of spells per day available to most casters. The conundrum is, how do you get a community to agree on the fix? Knock is too powerful for its level -- so should we increase its level to 3 or even 4, reduce its effect to granting only a bonus on Open Locks checks, or reduce the sorcerer/wizards' spells per day so that casting knock represents a larger consumption of resources? Perhaps we should do several of these things at once in smaller measure? Ultimately, there's more than one way to fix an unbalanced spell, and with so many unique campaigns, no one solution is likely to garner broad support.

[NeoSeraphi]

Another concern for wizards specifically is easy acquisition of spells. With the ability to copy from a spellbook and take 10 on a Spellcraft check and no upper limit on spells knowable, the wizard can learn every spell in the game automatically and with nominal cost. This was never possible in earlier additions and shouldn't exist in the game.

To fix it, wizards should not be able to take 10 on Spellcraft checks to learn new spells. Spells must always be learned from scrolls, never from spellbooks (this increases the cost of attempting to learn a new spell), and a wizard may never know more spells of a given level than 10 + Int bonus. Limited wish or wish can be used to "forget" a spell known and allow a wizard to try to learn another, or to grant a second chance to learn a spell that the wizard has failed to learn.

Your argument is interesting, and definitely applies for the archivist, however, my question is this: Why is this unfair for the wizard, when the cleric and the druid already know their entire spell list? The wizard has to do more work and actually pay gp, search around town, and keep track of spellbook pages, just so he can have as many spells known as the cleric or druid, who get them all for free, and have the same number of spells per day.

(I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to know what you have to say on the matter)

[sonofzeal]

Reposted from the other thread, since it's more relevant here....





I think the entire reason casters are better than non-casters can be summed up simply: spells are an undervalued resource.

None of the issues you mentioned would be issues if the casting of a spell was a significant act. But it isn't; mid to high level Mages can throw up half a dozen long-duration buffs, cast a spell every round of combat for three fights, and still have reserve.

Consider Schierke in Berzerk. As powerful at Guts is in that show, Schierke's magic is devastating. When her spells finish, they're total game-changers, demolishing all opposition. They have huge range, good duration, they're fairly reliable... but she's entirely dependent on the rest of the party, and it's entirely possible that Isidro could pose a credible threat to her in the right circumstances.

Balance-wise, a party of all Schierke's would likely fail, and a party without Schierke might still get through if they had another person besides Guts who could go one-on-one with an Apostle. Still, it's hard to argue that she brings more to the table than the rest (besides Guts, but even he relies on her to pull him out of the berserker frenzy).

So how can Schierke be so powerful, and still balanced? It's because magic has a price, it's hard, and it takes a while. For all her might, she can't treat spells lightly. She has to pick her magic very carefully, she has to pick her timing very carefully, and if she just launched into her biggest spell the moment initiative got rolled then she'd be far less effective. She needs her teammates to cover for her while she's doing her magic. And she has ever reason to try not to use her magic if she can avoid it.



So the problem is not that the Wizard knows thirty different spells with huge range and duration that mess up whole squads of monsters. The problem is that he can toss them around without much of a second thought. His only concern is running out of appropriate prepared spells per day, but we all know that's not enough of a limiter as is.

A few solutions present themselves...

- Reducing spells per day. Brutal, but effective. If casting Greater Mage Armor meant no Haste later on, that forces the Wizard to be more conservative and careful with their spells. It also doesn't seem like much fun to play, not with the way spells are currently designed. Perhaps a few spells of your top level and a whole bunch of casts of lvl 0-1, but less in between?

- Increasing casting time. How Berserk does it, more or less. What if a spell took a number of rounds to cast equal to perhaps half its level, rounded down with a minimum of whatever the current casting time is? But perhaps 75% of the spells in the game would be useless that way, and the rest would be mostly out-of-combat stuff like Commune and Lesser Planar Ally. Damaging spells, anything with 1 round/level duration, and most Battlefield Control would be a total liability. You'd have to revamp or remove the vast majority of spells. I just don't see a way to make this work without massive intervention.

- Adding other penalties to casting. My solution (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209331) doesn't resolve a lot of the major issues, but I think it does move in the right direction, namely encouraging casters to be more conservative. There's probably a better implementation though, if you can propose one.

Of course, one could always...

- Make spells less powerful. But that also requires massive intervention, and I really don't have the taste for that. It's a huge amount of work on the DM's side rebalancing everything, and it's a huge headache on the PC's side because now they have to remember all the changes, and they can't just look in the book to remind themselves what each spell does. I really do not see any way to make spells less powerful without making gameplay worse overall for your average group.

[jiriku]

Your argument is interesting, and definitely applies for the archivist, however, my question is this: Why is this unfair for the wizard, when the cleric and the druid already know their entire spell list? The wizard has to do more work and actually pay gp, search around town, and keep track of spellbook pages, just so he can have as many spells known as the cleric or druid, who get them all for free, and have the same number of spells per day.

(I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to know what you have to say on the matter)

Ugh. Can of worms, man, can of worms. But you're right to call me out on it. :smallsmile: Two answers come to my mind.

1. Arcane spellcasting is better than divine, at least in theory. That's why clerics get a better hit die, no ASF, more base attack, etc. It's borne out by the fact that while the cleric is a T1 class, it's often considered to be at the bottom of Tier 1. However, 3rd edition erased a lot of this balancing act by creating 8th and 9th level cleric spells (in earlier editions, clerical spellcasting only went up to 7th level). By way of example, in 1e wind walk was a 7th level spell, and a cleric could cast it until attaining 16th level. Moreover, he never got but two 7th level spells per day by CL 20. Under 3.5, wind walk is a 6th level spell, learnable at CL 11 and castable 5-7 times per day by CL 20.

2. A better answer though is that you're right, and clerics/druids know too many spells. In 1e, this wasn't a problem because there were few splatbooks and thus the total milieu of spells was quite small. In 2e it was sorta balanced by the fact that divine spells were divided into spheres, and different flavors of cleric or druid could be assigned major access, minor access, or no access to each sphere. Returning to that system would probably be the most effective approach, since you could then assign or take away competence in a whole collection of spells very easily, but it would be a bear of a job with all the divine spells in 3.5.

A jury-rigged solution would be to transform divine spellcasters into limited-list casters. Grant them 10 + Wis bonus spells known at each level, but let them learn their spells automatically and without need for a scroll. Dunno if that would accomplish the goal, however.

[NeoSeraphi]

Okay, well, before everyone starts talking about reducing spells per day, remember that a wizard only gets 40/day at level 20, and if there are supposed to be 4 encounters per day as the DMG suggests, that's 9 spells per encounter (cantrips are usually for out of encounter purposes, I've found).

Admittedly, if you throw a 30 Int into that the number becomes much larger. So, what does everyone think? Is jiriku's suggestion of simply removing bonus spells (which did exist in 2.0, through the Wisdom stat for all casters), enough? Or is even 40 spells per day (60 for a sorcerer) too high at level 20?

[NeoSeraphi]

Ugh. Can of worms, man, can of worms. But you're right to call me out on it. :smallsmile: Two answers come to my mind.

1. Arcane spellcasting is better than divine, at least in theory. That's why clerics get a better hit die, no ASF, more base attack, etc. It's borne out by the fact that while the cleric is a T1 class, it's often considered to be at the bottom of Tier 1. However, 3rd edition erased a lot of this balancing act by creating 8th and 9th level cleric spells (in earlier editions, clerical spellcasting only went up to 7th level). By way of example, in 1e wind walk was a 7th level spell, and a cleric could cast it until attaining 16th level. Moreover, he never got but two 7th level spells per day by CL 20. Under 3.5, wind walk is a 6th level spell, learnable at CL 11 and castable 5-7 times per day by CL 20.

2. A better answer though is that you're right, and clerics/druids know too many spells. In 1e, this wasn't a problem because there were few splatbooks and thus the total milieu of spells was quite small. In 2e it was sorta balanced by the fact that divine spells were divided into spheres, and different flavors of cleric or druid could be assigned major access, minor access, or no access to each sphere. Returning to that system would probably be the most effective approach, since you could then assign or take away competence in a whole collection of spells very easily, but it would be a bear of a job with all the divine spells in 3.5.

A jury-rigged solution would be to transform divine spellcasters into limited-list casters. Grant them 10 + Wis bonus spells known at each level, but let them learn their spells automatically and without need for a scroll. Dunno if that would accomplish the goal, however.

Unfortunately, while your suggestion is helpful, it raises the question: If we made clerics and druids have limited spells, wouldn't everyone play an archivist? (Everyone who wanted to be a cleric, at least)

[erikun]

Auto-Win- How did I forget this? It's going in the OP, thanks for bringing it up. Outside of combat, the skill monkeys should be shining, but thanks to arcane magic's various repetoires (and even divine insight), the caster can easily step in and not only fill, but overshadow that role without breaking a sweat.
Also, remember that not all auto-wins are equal. Knock is so practical because a spellcaster can cast it from the other side of the room, well outside the range of any traps; if it was a touch-range spell, then most d4 wizards would think twice about it. Fly, on the other hand, only bypasses a climb check for the caster in question, and is about the only way a low-strength character can do so. It isn't a problem in regards to skill checks, in general. (It is a problem in caster vs. melee battles, although perhaps that's a problem with archery being so bad.)

On the other hand, Freedom of Movement nullifying all grappling or hazardous terrain pretty much makes it difficult to deal with. You need to kill or magically contain someone to restrict their movement. And speaking about the above example, Protection from Arrows and similar spells are what make flight really bad on non-casters... well, that and bows being mostly terrible.

[NeoSeraphi]

Also, remember that not all auto-wins are equal. Knock is so practical because a spellcaster can cast it from the other side of the room, well outside the range of any traps; if it was a touch-range spell, then most d4 wizards would think twice about it. Fly, on the other hand, only bypasses a climb check for the caster in question, and is about the only way a low-strength character can do so. It isn't a problem in regards to skill checks, in general. (It is a problem in caster vs. melee battles, although perhaps that's a problem with archery being so bad.)

On the other hand, Freedom of Movement nullifying all grappling or hazardous terrain pretty much makes it difficult to deal with. You need to kill or magically contain someone to restrict their movement. And speaking about the above example, Protection from Arrows and similar spells are what make flight really bad on non-casters... well, that and bows being mostly terrible.


Added knock and freedom of movement to the list of spells that need editing.

[jiriku]

Okay, well, before everyone starts talking about reducing spells per day, remember that a wizard only gets 40/day at level 20, and if there are supposed to be 4 encounters per day as the DMG suggests, that's 9 spells per encounter (cantrips are usually for out of encounter purposes, I've found).

Admittedly, if you throw a 30 Int into that the number becomes much larger. So, what does everyone think? Is jiriku's suggestion of simply removing bonus spells (which did exist in 2.0, through the Wisdom stat for all casters), enough? Or is even 40 spells per day (60 for a sorcerer) too high at level 20?

I was incorrect in remembering the extra spells. But I've got my 1e Player's Handbook in front of me now. Here are some interesting tidbits: Under 1e, a 20th-level magic-user could cast 37 spells per day, discounting cantrips. A 3.5 20th-level wizard with Int 30 can cast 53 (43% more). Under 1e, a 20th-level cleric with maximum Wisdom could cast 55 spells per day. A 3.5 20th level cleric with Wis 30 can cast 67 (22% more). The 3.5 spell progression is also more generous in handing out slots of 7th - 9th level spells than in 1e.

That 30 stat is contributing 17 extra spells -- we could easily dispense with them.



A few solutions present themselves...

- Reducing spells per day.
- Increasing casting time.
- Adding other penalties to casting.
- Make spells less powerful.

In looking at spells per day, you have hit the nail on the proverbial head. Reducing spells per day would be a big step in the right direction.

I'd agree that adding penalties for casting, increasing casting time, or making casting unreliable are all clumsy, blunt instruments to wield against a complex problem. I don't think any of those methods would yield satisfactory results.

Reducing spell power is necessary, but you're right that it's a monster of a job to attempt and even harder to remember in gameplay. I think the most promising avenues are nerfs to characteristics that affect all spells, namely ranges, durations, and applications of spell resistance. Reducing ranges and durations and making spell resistance more broadly applicable are all changes that are easy to remember and can be reliably expected to scale down power. You'd likely be left with only a couple dozen spells (out of over a thousand in print!) that need specific nerfs, and maybe a dozen more that just need to be removed from the game.

[Vladislav]

- Increasing casting time. How Berserk does it, more or less. What if a spell took a number of rounds to cast equal to perhaps half its level, rounded down with a minimum of whatever the current casting time is? But perhaps 75% of the spells in the game would be useless that way, and the rest would be mostly out-of-combat stuff like Commune and Lesser Planar Ally. Damaging spells, anything with 1 round/level duration, and most Battlefield Control would be a total liability. You'd have to revamp or remove the vast majority of spells. I just don't see a way to make this work without massive intervention

I actually like this option. Yes, the wizard is powerful, but completely useless on his own - he needs a party to protect him while he casts his long-winded spells. And being unable to "win" without everyone else's help, is what game balance is all about.

By the way, both Gamers and Gamers II movies had climactic fights in which the wizard had to cast a spell with a long casting time while the party scrambled to protect them. The spell of course ended up winning the encounter in both cases, but in the meantime, everyone got to do their part and feel useful. Much better than "Is it my turn? Ok, I cast Black Tentacles."

[sonofzeal]

In looking at spells per day, you have hit the nail on the proverbial head. Reducing spells per day would be a big step in the right direction.

I'd agree that adding penalties for casting, increasing casting time, or making casting unreliable are all clumsy, blunt instruments to wield against a complex problem. I don't think any of those methods would yield satisfactory results.

Reducing spell power is necessary, but you're right that it's a monster of a job to attempt and even harder to remember in gameplay. I think the most promising avenues are nerfs to characteristics that affect all spells, namely ranges, durations, and applications of spell resistance. Reducing ranges and durations and making spell resistance more broadly applicable are all changes that are easy to remember and can be reliably expected to scale down power. You'd likely be left with only a couple dozen spells (out of over a thousand in print!) that need specific nerfs, and maybe a dozen more that just need to be removed from the game.
Reducing spell power just seems like a losing battle.

Range isn't actually that big a factor, usually. My group uses miniatures, so any range larger than our battlemat is usually wasted anyway. There's a few exceptions, but they don't come up much in my 10+ years of gaming. One extra long-range fireball is nice, but that should be part of what Mages are for. I'd want a Mage to be able to blast a whole squad of mooks to kingdom come with the right spell. AoE DPS should be something Mages bring to the table, because just about nobody else can.

Duration can be a factor. Persist is obviously a huge issue, and nobody at my table uses it (I'm playing a DMM:Quicken Cleric at the moment for that very reason). But again, I like the idea of a few day-long buffs, I think that's part of what Mages should do. As long as spells aren't lasting for more than 24 hours though, I'm happy. I'd support making everything reset when the Mage re-mems spells.

Spell Resistance is a good thought, but any thing that fixes it is going to likely involve a bunch of little changes to a whole bunch of spells. Blockade shouldn't have SR. Orbs should, probably. Grease, well, I like having a few things that can be done around SR:NI enemies like Golems. You could fix a few spells here, but I really don't think SR:no spells are nearly the problem a lot of people think they are. There's very few good ones, and they're mostly BC spells, and I'm fine with BC being SR:no, because those are generally the ones that require intelligence and creativity in their use. Making options for PCs to pick up SR is probably a good idea though, I wouldn't mind that at all.



I guess it all comes down to what you think a Mage should be. To me, a Warlock should be able to plink with minor effects all day long, but a Wizard should be able to summon the almighty wrath of the Burning Hate on your arse... in the right circumstance, with the right tools at hand, and only when necessary. I think Berserk got magic just the way I like it, on that front.

If anything, I'd almost want to see spells be more powerful, just more limited. Something like how a Wilder works with Surging, but, y'know, with better implementation. To fill in the rest of their actions, minor magical effects (lvl 0-1 spells) or "charging up" would be idea.

Mages should depend on the rest of the party to get them through most of the standard stuff. But when a Mage casts one of their top spells, everybody should notice. Mages should be sniper rifles, not vulcan miniguns.

[jiriku]

@ SoZ: And this is why I think it's really not possible to "fix" magic at the community level. The system is so broken that it needs a large overhaul, not a quick band-aid. Any large overhaul is going to require us to ask what spellcasters "should" be. And there are just too many right answers to that question. Your responses all mention "my group", "my table", "I like"... they're personal to you. And I have my own personal preferences, and so does everybody else. And we're all right at once. Thus the problem. :smallsmile:


For the spell edit list:[/B]
Alter Self (PH 197). Suggested fix:
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 3
The maximum hit dice of an assumed form is equal to one-half your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 10th level.

Draconic Polymorph (Dr 79). Suggested fix:
Level: Sor/Wiz 7

Gate (PH 234). Suggested fix:
Casting Time: 1 minute
You must always negotiate payment for any services provided by creatures called with this spell, even if you desire only an immediate task. Convincing a called creature to serve you requires a Diplomacy check (using Rich Burlew's alternate Diplomacy rules). The default disposition of a creature called with the gate spell varies depending on what you call. A called creature's default disposition towards you is at best negative (+2 DC), or enemy (+5 DC) if you call it into a situation that places it in immediate personal danger.

Planar Binding Series (PH 261-62). Suggested fix:
Convincing a called creature to serve you requires a Diplomacy check, not an opposed Charisma check (using Rich Burlew's alternate Diplomacy rules). The default disposition for creatures summoned with the planar binding series of spells is Neutral (+0 DC). A called creature's default disposition towards becomes negative (+2 DC), or enemy (+5 DC) if you call it into a situation that places it in immediate personal danger.

Even if you use a special diagram when constructing a magic circle for use with a planar binding spell, the called creature can still test its spell resistance to escape immediately upon capture and once per day thereafter. The special diagram does not help your Diplomacy check to convince the creature to serve.

Ice Assassin (Frost 97). Suggested fix:
The portion of the creature to be duplicated is considered a costly material component. This change means, among other things, that you cannot use the Eschew Materials feat to create an ice assassin of a creature if you do not have access to a portion of that creature, nor can you claim to have that component as part of a basic spell component pouch.

Polymorph (PH 263). Suggested fix:
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
The assumed form can't have more hit dice than one-half your caster level (or the subject's HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 10 HD at 20th level.

Shapechange (PH 277)
Components: V, S, M
The jade circlet is a material component, not a focus, meaning that it is expended during casting.

Shivering Touch (Frost 104). Suggested fix:
Level: Cleric 4, Sorcerer/Wizard 4

Venomfire (SK 158) Suggested fix:
Replace the text of the spell with the following text:
You cause the venom of one of the subject's natural weapons to become caustic, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per use. The spell has no effect on a creature that does not normally produce poison.

If some of these nerfs seem mild, it should be understood that I'm intending them to be implemented alongside sharp reductions in spell duration, spell range, and spells per day.

[NeoSeraphi]

Admittedly, it's been a while since I looked at Frostburn, but wasn't shivering touch always a 4th level spell?

[sonofzeal]

@ SoZ: And this is why I think it's really not possible to "fix" magic at the community level. The system is so broken that it needs a large overhaul, not a quick band-aid. Any large overhaul is going to require us to ask what spellcasters "should" be. And there are just too many right answers to that question.
Agreed... but that's what different classes are for.

What's your opinion? Take Wizard - what should a Wizard be, according to you?

[eftexar]

I'll have to agree with jiriku on this one. I think that it is all personal preference. I, for example, think that most spellcasting classes needs to be built from scratch (including the casting system and spells) to function, not just 'fixed.'

[Shadow Lord]

@SoZ: Your fix is to have Mages stand around while the rest of the party has fun? How is that fun for the Mage player? Why should he be left out in the proverbial cold? Increasing casting time like that just isn't fun.

[NeoSeraphi]

*has finally realized where he saw Shadow Lord before, from the signature*

Nice to see you got yourself a personal avatar. I like it. Fits you better than the 2E monster did.

And I'm afraid Shadow Lord raises a good point, SoZ. We can't just nerf the caster to the point that no one wants to play him. The point of the fix is to make sure that the other characters don't feel overshadowed by the wizard, not that the wizard feels overshadowed by the other characters.

[jiriku]

Admittedly, it's been a while since I looked at Frostburn, but wasn't shivering touch always a 4th level spell?

Cleric 3, Sorcerer/Wizard 3. Thus the outcry. I actually found it strong but acceptable at that level IMC, but then, my group is very high-op and I have a large set of houserules that brings T4-6 classes up to T3. It really does balance better as a 4th level spell, though.


Agreed... but that's what different classes are for.

What's your opinion? Take Wizard - what should a Wizard be, according to you?

What a wizard should be: a generic spellcaster with modest proficiency at a variety of magical arts. He is no more powerful than any other PC class, given equal levels, but he has unique strengths not possessed by other classes, just as they should have unique strengths that he cannot duplicate.

What a wizard actually is: The class of choice to model every arcane spellcasting fantasy archetype ever. A consummate jack-of-all-trades who masters every one of them, who can shift his expertise and approach freely from day to day simply by preparing different spells. He has a spell (or more likely 3 or 4) to solve any problem he might conceivably encounter, and can typically solve novel and unusual problems simply by finding and copying a couple more spells into his spellbook.

That's why I've homebrewed so many limited-list arcane casters: you can actually take a small slice of 80-100 spells out of the wizard spell list and construct an entire class around them. That's a good chunk of the problem right there for me - the wizard is one class with access to sufficient spells for eight classes.

[Shadow Lord]

Nice to see you, too, Neo. I think what might be best is to try and enlist the help of some of the homebrew designers who have vastly expanded or entirely created new magic systems, and make a Community Based Magic System. See what the comunity wants and make a system that everyone can enjoy.

[NeoSeraphi]

Cleric 3, Sorcerer/Wizard 3.



Yikes. For 3d6 Dex damage? Wow.

Ahem. Anyway, back on topic. Jiriku, you haven't answered my question about how to balance giving a druid/cleric a spellbook and then adding an archivist to the mix. Your thoughts?

And everyone else? Does anyone else have an opinion on making druids and clerics have spells known? Is it a good idea, no, too harsh, not enough, etc?

[jiriku]

I did in Post #20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11526263&postcount=20). This thread's been flyin' fast and furious, eh? :smalltongue:

[NeoSeraphi]

I did in Post #20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11526263&postcount=20). This thread's been flyin' fast and furious, eh? :smalltongue:

Right, and my question was, "Okay, if we do that, then what would distinguish the cleric from the archivist"

The archivist already has a spellbook, a slew of class features, Int based casting, and can learn both cleric and druid spells.

[sonofzeal]

@SoZ: Your fix is to have Mages stand around while the rest of the party has fun? How is that fun for the Mage player? Why should he be left out in the proverbial cold? Increasing casting time like that just isn't fun.
Er, what?

I'm not advocating increasing casting time, for that reason among others. I just ran through a list of options with pros and cons. I like the dynamic of higher casting times, but it's got some serious problems too. I talk about some of them here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209397).

But who the heck says a Wizard needs to be casting 9th level spells every turn? The Fighter doesn't get to Full Attack every turn, and he may have to "waste" several turns getting into position. Why should the Wizard be exempt from that?

Making the player sit around idle for three turns is obviously bad. But there's ways around it. If you're doing a "charging up", add dice into that. Maybe they get to add a d6 for every point of Int modifier into a pool that they can spend on making the spell epic when it finally goes off. Or maybe they can still plink with wands while charging. Or have other small things they can do.

And, since you seem to be confused, I'm not actually advocating any one of those changes. At this point I'm just talking about what sorts of dynamics are preferable to the status quo, and how various proposals might change those dynamics. I'm brainstorming ideas, not campaigning for slower casting times. Slower casting times is just one solution to the problem as I see it, which is making spells more expensive in general.

And for the record, here's my initial idea of a fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209331). Doesn't stop the major abuses, but I figured it was a step in the right direction in making spellcasting more expensive without actually reducing options much.



What a wizard should be: a generic spellcaster with modest proficiency at a variety of magical arts. He is no more powerful than any other PC class, given equal levels, but he has unique strengths not possessed by other classes, just as they should have unique strengths that he cannot duplicate.
To me that sounds like an Invocation user, not a Spellcaster. I totally agree there should be characters like that, but I think it's easier to reach that result starting from a Warlock than starting from a Wizard.

[eftexar]

Depending on route everyone wants to go I have a few of suggestions.
->You could have recharge times such the highest level of spells you can cast may only be cast x times a day, the next x times a day, and so on.
->Another way to do it would be to use spell points and limit them to 3 x the highest costing spells you can cast, with 1 point being regenerated every round.
->You could have spells used like maneuvers are.
-> You could rewrite the spells.
->You could toss the whole casting system and make new classes with their own spells and system (I don't like the normal spell system much anyways and the spells don't even scale to be useful / the worst part is that in an epic game spell save DCs are much lower than character saves).

[NeoSeraphi]

Depending on route everyone wants to go I have a few of suggestions.
->You could have recharge times such the highest level of spells you can cast may only be cast x times a day, the next x times a day, and so on.
->Another way to do it would be to use spell points and limit them to 3 x the highest costing spells you can cast, with 1 point being regenerated every round.
->You could have spells used like maneuvers are.
-> You could rewrite the spells.
->You could toss the whole casting system and make new classes with their own spells and system.

An interesting idea. One that had not occurred to me. Perhaps psionics had it right, and we should introduce an MP-like system. If damaging effects didn't automatically scale with level, and instead of a certain number of spells per level per day you just had a pile of MP...

What does everyone else think?

[Shadow Lord]

Psionics have always been my goto fix for magic. I say go ahead, and use one of the conversions that have been posted on the forum. Sorcerers need more love, though. I mean, at least some class features or bonus feats.

[NeoSeraphi]

Psionics have always been my goto fix for magic. I say go ahead, and use one of the conversions that have been posted on the forum. Sorcerers need more love, though. I mean, at least some class features or bonus feats.

A discussion for another thread, I'm afraid. We're attempting to nerf Tier 1s, not improve Tier 2s. I do agree with you though (I normally use Pathfinder sorcerers, personally)

So, jiriku? You have been the strongest advocate against bonus spells per day, however, one can't really have a MP system without incorporating the bonus PP per day from the XPH. What do you think?

[jiriku]

Right, and my question was, "Okay, if we do that, then what would distinguish the cleric from the archivist"

The archivist already has a spellbook, a slew of class features, Int based casting, and can learn both cleric and druid spells.

Oh. I totally missed that. Alright, then, the archivist would use the wizard method of spell acquisition that I proposed (learn from scrolls, can't take 10, max 10 + Int spells known per level).


To me that sounds like an Invocation user, not a Spellcaster. I totally agree there should be characters like that, but I think it's easier to reach that result starting from a Warlock than starting from a Wizard.

And there's the crux of it. We're both right. Yet it would be difficult to fix the wizard in a way that would simultaneously please both you and me. How much more so the 10 or so people in this thread? How much more so the thousands in this forum? About the most we can really hope to do is share our thoughts and then have each of us go develop his own personalized homebrew informed by the ideas of the others.

[NeoSeraphi]

Oh. I totally missed that. Alright, then, the archivist would use the wizard method of spell acquisition that I proposed (learn from scrolls, can't take 10, max 10 + Int spells known per level).


I suppose with two very different spell lists to choose from, the archivist would have a hard time deciding on his 20 or so spells per level



And there's the crux of it. We're both right. Yet it would be difficult to fix the wizard in a way that would simultaneously please both you and me. How much more so the 10 or so people in this thread? How much more so the thousands in this forum? About the most we can really hope to do is share our thoughts and then have each of us go develop his own personalized homebrew informed by the ideas of the others.

Jiriku is right, but if we could reach a general consensus, somehow, maybe make something that seems balanced, agreeable, and flavorful to the majority, then the project could at least get the attention of the ten or twenty homebrewers on this site who are dissatisfied with the current system, and maybe that would help them. It can't hurt for us to at least try.

[Shadow Lord]

I know just the people for the job. Problem is, they don't know me, and probably woukdn't care to do it. :smalltongue:

[jiriku]

Speaking of good ideas. Ok, so we've both shared our idea of what a wizard should be. Now let me ask everyone: what should a spell be?

For a really wordy example (because wordy is what I do :smallamused:): A spell is a discrete magical effect that contributes to the successful resolution of one encounter. It requires an action to cast, requires the caster to satisfy basic requirements as to the nearness of his target(s), and puts the caster at a small degree of risk in the casting (mostly by forcing him to make a target of himself). Compared to low-level spells, spells of higher level tend to have a larger effect and/or affect more targets and/or work at greater range. All hostile spells have a chance of failure, whether by an attack roll or a saving throw. Spells that are unusually powerful for their level are balanced by having an unreliable effect and/or posing greater danger to the caster.

My definition raises some red flags when we look at the existing spell list:
Spells with long durations affect more than one encounter. They (effectively) don't require actions to cast, nor do they impose any risk on the caster. Hostile spells based on touch attacks almost never fail. Some of the most powerful spells (planar binding, polymorph, etc.) are very, very reliable.

[NeoSeraphi]

Where's a rules lawyer like Debbie when you need one? We need some definitive arguments about the effects of decreasing spells per day, or using an MP system, and also what reinforcing SR would do to the current world's gameplay (Would a party be able to melee some of those powerful SR creatures that orb of force was created to kill?)

Edit: Jiriku has unintentionally raised a good point. Why are Concentration checks for casting defensively so ridiculously easy to make? 15+the spell level? Even when you're staring a Colossal dragon in the face? Or surrounded by six bears? (Bears are scary)

[Shadow Lord]

I prefer a freeform system for spells, something like Elements of Magic or True Sorcery. I like it when a spell is like legos; you can make just about anything, but you have to really take a lot of time, or it's just gonna be something flashy. Think Dresden Files, but a bit moreso.

[Ekul]

How about magic states- that is to say, a caster has to build up magical momentum, and can't just cast any spell at any time.

That could mean any number of things, mechanically. Maybe (s)he can only use spells of a certain subtype- maybe (s)he isn't allowed to cast spells of the same subtype in a row, or something. Then you'd get more creative wizards that actually create magical combos, limit their options but give them flavor.

[Domriso]

Heh, I've been using True Sorcery instead of Vancian magic for a while now. I love it, and while it's a bit tricky to learn, once you get the idea it becomes a blast. Sometimes literally.

[NeoSeraphi]

To me, a spell is a supernatural expression of your desire. That's why necromancers can speak to the dead, or breathe life back into corpses. It's not because of magic, but because they wanted to. The thing about arcane casters is that the power is always there around them, it's just they have the ability to direct it to do what they want it to.

In terms of game mechanics, I suppose this translates to: I think most casters should pick a single niche and fill it. (My Elementalist was an extension of that)

[jiriku]

To me, a spell is a supernatural expression of your desire. That's why necromancers can speak to the dead, or breathe life back into corpses. It's not because of magic, but because they wanted to. The thing about arcane casters is that the power is always there around them, it's just they have the ability to direct it to do what they want it to.

In terms of game mechanics, I suppose this translates to: I think most casters should pick a single niche and fill it. (My Elementalist was an extension of that)

This is how spellcasting works in a lot of fantasy novels too. The fire mage doesn't call down lightning, the shapeshifter can't fly without turning into a winged form, and the summoner can't fire off loads of direct damage. The problem with 3.5 is that if there's a magical archetype in fantasy fiction or myth that can do something, somebody wrote a sorcerer/wizard spell somewhere to duplicate that. Since the wizard can learn and cast all those spells, he embodies every fantasy archetype all at once.

[sonofzeal]

Alright, let's work on establishing goals. I'm going to start by trying to collect a list of Archetypes / Party Roles that we're interested in achieving, with the explicit understanding that one.


Design Goals
- Every player should have something to do on at least most of their turns.
- No class should be able to render most other classes obsolete.
- Every class should have weaknesses that require other classes to cover for them.
- Every class should contribute something tangible to party success in a significant variety of level-appropriate encounters
- ???


Party Roles (likely best split between several classes)
- AoE DPS. Magic should be the go-to for killing large numbers of weak foes efficiently.
- Utility. Mage Hand, Summon Monster, Fog Cloud, Arcane Sight, Scry... these are good sorts of effects and should be around.
- Debuffer. Ray of Enfeeblement, Contagion, Fear, Baleful Polymorph, Dispel Magic, Slow, etc.
- Buffer
- Healer (also includes effects that remove debuffs)
- Necromancer
- Controller (could this get lumped in with debuffing?)
- Face
- Divination/Scouting
- Transportation (could this get lumped in with utility?)
- ???


Archetypes
- Magician. Magic is cheap and deserves to be so. Has weaker magic, but good control of it and a good amount.
- Ritualist. Magic is expensive and deserves to be so. Has some very powerful magic, but only rarely and at great cost.
- Specialist. With focus comes strength. Has a fairly narrow and restrictive theme (an Element, a traditional school of magic, etc), but is quite good inside that one focus.
- Channeler. Deals with the devil can be profitable. Negotiates for power with magical entities, may have to trade something else for each power gained.
- Avatar. Works the will of a deity. Has great power, but only when fulfilling that deity's agenda.
- ???

[NeoSeraphi]

Additional Roles-

Diviner
Buffer
Healer(This isn't just a wizard fixing thread)
Necromancer

[jiriku]

Design goals:
Every class should be able to contribute effectively in widely varying types of encounters, although not always at peak efficiency. (For example, fighter is a bad class because while it's adequate in a fight, it contributes nothing except an anemic Intimidate check in social situations. Crusader is a better one because it fights well and can manage a solid Diplomacy or Sense Motive check.)

Roles:
Battlefield control
Reconnaissance (either through direct scouting and information gathering or through divination)
Travel (both in the sense of fast overland travel/teleport and in the sense of bypassing obstacles and barriers)
Social Manipulation (getting concessions from NPCs without direct application of violence)

Archetypes:
Elementalist. Magic flows from the elements and dedication to the study of one element yields corresponding power.
Diabolist. Magic is the province of extraplanar creatures of great power, and one can be granted power through bargains with such creatures. The bargaining process is always exclusive, dangerous, and/or distasteful (or else everyone would do it, because, hey, free power). The magic gained is usually rather specific, because powerful extraplanar entities do not like to write blank checks.
Miracle Worker. Magic is evidence of your deity's magnificence, and should always be as grand as possible, to draw attention to the same. However, it's likely available only if used to further the deity's purposes.

[sonofzeal]

Design goals:
Every class should be able to contribute effectively in widely varying types of encounters, although not always at peak efficiency. (For example, fighter is a bad class because while it's adequate in a fight, it contributes nothing except an anemic Intimidate check in social situations. Crusader is a better one because it fights well and can manage a solid Diplomacy or Sense Motive check.)

Roles:
Battlefield control
Reconnaissance (either through direct scouting and information gathering or through divination)
Travel (both in the sense of fast overland travel/teleport and in the sense of bypassing obstacles and barriers)
Social Manipulation (getting concessions from NPCs without direct application of violence)

Archetypes:
Elementalist. Magic flows from the elements and dedication to the study of one element yields corresponding power.
Diabolist. Magic is the province of extraplanar creatures of great power, and one can be granted power through bargains with such creatures. The bargaining process is always exclusive, dangerous, and/or distasteful (or else everyone would do it, because, hey, free power). The magic gained is usually rather specific, because powerful extraplanar entities do not like to write blank checks.
Miracle Worker. Magic is evidence of your deity's magnificence, and should always be as grand as possible, to draw attention to the same. However, it's likely available only if used to further the deity's purposes.
Added. I renamed/reorganized a few things somewhat, if I messed something up let me know.

[jiriku]

Looks good. You put it better than I did, actually. I question the appropriateness of a "utility" category. IMO, the idea that casters should be good at "utility" is part of what led them to becoming omnicompetent, because "utility" usually winds up meaning "everything under the sun that happens outside of combat".

[sonofzeal]

Looks good. You put it better than I did, actually. I question the appropriateness of a "utility" category. IMO, the idea that casters should be good at "utility" is part of what led them to becoming omnicompetent, because "utility" usually winds up meaning "everything under the sun that happens outside of combat".
A good point... but Mage Hand? Summon Monster III? Arcane Sight? These are spells that don't really fit well into other categories, imo. I suppose you could put Arcane Sight in "Scouting/Divination", and Summons into their own category...




A few thoughts that have occurred to me so far...

Cleric
The problem with Cleric is that, while they represent avatars of their deity's will, they don't suffer the obvious limitation (namely, of being constrained by that will). There's a caveat about clerics who "grossly violate the code of conduct", but a Cleric could level from 1 to 20 and never actually pursue anything profitable to their god.

They also get a wide variety of spells, covering most of the party roles listed. Their spell list is substantially narrower than a Wizard's, but it's still pretty broad.

As a self-imposed nerf (because the rest of my gaming group is all low-op), I limited my recent Cleric character to an Adept's spell slots unless I was specifically allowed by my deity to go all-out. In practice, all this required was a quick exchange with the DM at the start of my first turn in combat (Me: "Avatar? They are vampires." DM: "Yeah, but they're not specifically enemies of your deity's domains." Me: "Drat. Okay, Divine Favour it is.")

The side-effect of that was that spells cast out of combat were much less useful for me since I'd only really Avatar in combat against the enemies of my deity. This limited me to mostly Buffing/Healing, which also served to keep my power in check because I wasn't covering half a dozen roles.

How practical do you think something like that would be to enforce?




Sorcerer/Wizard
What if we steered Sorcerers towards the "Magician" archetype, and Wizards towards the "Ritualist" archetype? And how?

[Togath]

For Sorcerers, giving them some non-spell magical abilities like the duskblade's cantrip effects, or the bards bardic music abilities could reinforce their position as a utility/magician caster, I can't think of a way to give the wizard ritual casting at the moment, maybe giving them something like artificer buffs, or some type of skill based casting?

[jiriku]

Cleric
As a self-imposed nerf (because the rest of my gaming group is all low-op), I limited my recent Cleric character to an Adept's spell slots unless I was specifically allowed by my deity to go all-out. In practice, all this required was a quick exchange with the DM at the start of my first turn in combat (Me: "Avatar? They are vampires." DM: "Yeah, but they're not specifically enemies of your deity's domains." Me: "Drat. Okay, Divine Favour it is.")

The side-effect of that was that spells cast out of combat were much less useful for me since I'd only really Avatar in combat against the enemies of my deity. This limited me to mostly Buffing/Healing, which also served to keep my power in check because I wasn't covering half a dozen roles.

How practical do you think something like that would be to enforce?

Holy rulebooks, batman, that's a great idea! But yeah, hard to implement. I can see how novice DMs might struggle to handle it, either nerfing the class into uselessness or being overly permissive and letting an aggressive player get away with almost anything. You'd need a strong written DM-player contract to give advice to both parties about what to expect. But I think it's eminently doable.

My first thoughts are "favored enemy" and "domain preference". So, let's say every deity has oner or more favored enemies, with "undead" as a default if you can't think of anything else. Add to that, "members of opposing faiths". Add to that "domains". So, for example, if you rebuke creatures of a given type by virtue of your domain, you can also cast your "avatar" spells on such creatures. Or if the action strongly supports your ethos, such as healing a wounded ally for the Heal domain, or defeating an enemy through cleverness, for the Trickery domain, then you get your mega spells. Add to that, "Quest", meaning that if you're following a church-sanctioned quest and acting directly in support of that quest (read: DM preregotative), you can take the big guns out. Of course, that requires DM-player negotiation.

So now your class gets full sanction:

when fighting favored enemies of the church;
when fighting heretics or enemy churches;
when acting in support of a domain;
when acting in support of a church-sanctioned activity.


Such a class might also get more than one domain slot per day and possess more than two domains. Do you think that's a broad enough sanction to work?


Sorcerer/Wizard
What if we steered Sorcerers towards the "Magician" archetype, and Wizards towards the "Ritualist" archetype? And how?

I support this idea!

[sonofzeal]

For Sorcerers, giving them some non-spell magical abilities like the duskblade's cantrip effects, or the bards bardic music abilities could reinforce their position as a utility/magician caster, I can't think of a way to give the wizard ritual casting at the moment, maybe giving them something like artificer buffs, or some type of skill based casting?
What about a bonus Reserve feat for Sorcs at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20? I was also thinking about tweaking spell slots. Just brainstorming for the moment, I don't know if any of the following actually makes any balance sense yet. It's really late where I am, so apologies if the following is utter bollox...

A 12th lvl Sorc right now gets... 6/ 6/ 6/6/6/5/3
As a Magician, they might get 10/10/10/8/6/3

It'd be a significant drop in power, losing the entire last tier of spells, but with a much larger number of lower level effects they have more endurance and can fill in. Even without a major rewrite of half the spells in the game, I think this guy would fit your average power curve better. Can still break the game (lesser Planar Ally, etc), but I'd almost be tempted to downgrade him to Tier 3 anyway.



Holy rulebooks, batman, that's a great idea! But yeah, hard to implement. I can see how novice DMs might struggle to handle it, either nerfing the class into uselessness or being overly permissive and letting an aggressive player get away with almost anything. You'd need a strong written DM-player contract to give advice to both parties about what to expect. But I think it's eminently doable.

My first thoughts are "favored enemy" and "domain preference". So, let's say every deity has oner or more favored enemies, with "undead" as a default if you can't think of anything else. Add to that, "members of opposing faiths". Add to that "domains". So, for example, if you rebuke creatures of a given type by virtue of your domain, you can also cast your "avatar" spells on such creatures. Or if the action strongly supports your ethos, such as healing a wounded ally for the Heal domain, or defeating an enemy through cleverness, for the Trickery domain, then you get your mega spells. Add to that, "Quest", meaning that if you're following a church-sanctioned quest and acting directly in support of that quest (read: DM preregotative), you can take the big guns out. Of course, that requires DM-player negotiation.

So now your class gets full sanction:

when fighting favored enemies of the church;
when fighting heretics or enemy churches;
when acting in support of a domain;
when acting in support of a church-sanctioned activity.


Such a class might also get more than one domain slot per day and possess more than two domains. Do you think that's a broad enough sanction to work?
I think that works. Two domains should be enough, but getting BOTH domain spells might be nice... but only when in "Avatar" mode.

Your list of sanctions sounds perfect, btw. I'd show that to my DM, but we've already passed the point in the game where it's relevant. We're gearing up for the apocalypse now, and a Commune spell with my deity got me carte blanche in wielding divine magics to stop it. I suppose that'd fall under your 4th bullet point then.

[Togath]

What about a bonus Reserve feat for Sorcs at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20? I was also thinking about tweaking spell slots. Just brainstorming for the moment, I don't know if any of the following actually makes any balance sense yet. It's really late where I am, so apologies if the following is utter bollox...

A 12th lvl Sorc right now gets... 6/ 6/ 6/6/6/5/3
As a Magician, they might get 10/10/10/8/6/3

It'd be a significant drop in power, losing the entire last tier of spells, but with a much larger number of lower level effects they have more endurance and can fill in. Even without a major rewrite of half the spells in the game, I think this guy would fit your average power curve better. Can still break the game (lesser Planar Ally, etc), but I'd almost be tempted to downgrade him to Tier 3 anyway.

More spell slots of a lower level and fewer high level slots(or even losing 9th or 8th level spells)sounds like a fairly good fix to make the sorcerer a better magician style class, and also makes them less game breaking, even without spell changes. And the extra feat reserve could help make it more interesting to play one as well.

[jiriku]

Without 7th-9th level spells, the magician would also need to cast in a more versatile fashion than the sorcerer to be attractive. Something I've found in my own homebrew is that if simply nerf a T1 class, players just stop playing it because it's weaker. It's necessary to grant the post-nerf class new and interesting abilities to make it attractive for the new play experience that it offers.

The magician should have more spells known at each level, perhaps twice as many as the sorcerer. A d6 hit die and medium attack progression may also be called for. Perhaps Improved Familiar and Spell-Linked Familiar as class features? This would flesh out the one feature the sorcerer does have. Probably not enough by itself though.

[NeoSeraphi]

Without 7th-9th level spells, the magician would also need to cast in a more versatile fashion than the sorcerer to be attractive. Something I've found in my own homebrew is that if simply nerf a T1 class, players just stop playing it because it's weaker. It's necessary to grant the post-nerf class new and interesting abilities to make it attractive for the new play experience that it offers.

The magician should have more spells known at each level, perhaps twice as many as the sorcerer. A d6 hit die and medium attack progression may also be called for. Perhaps Improved Familiar and Spell-Linked Familiar as class features? This would flesh out the one feature the sorcerer does have. Probably not enough by itself though.

The magician should also have Perform as a class skill and perhaps be able to use prestidigitation at will. Just some fun ideas that would help flesh out a flashy caster character.

[sonofzeal]

Without 7th-9th level spells, the magician would also need to cast in a more versatile fashion than the sorcerer to be attractive. Something I've found in my own homebrew is that if simply nerf a T1 class, players just stop playing it because it's weaker. It's necessary to grant the post-nerf class new and interesting abilities to make it attractive for the new play experience that it offers.

The magician should have more spells known at each level, perhaps twice as many as the sorcerer. A d6 hit die and medium attack progression may also be called for. Perhaps Improved Familiar and Spell-Linked Familiar as class features? This would flesh out the one feature the sorcerer does have. Probably not enough by itself though.
Great ideas. I'd pass on Improved Familiar though. With a whole bunch more spells per day, a singificant boost to spells known, d6, and 3/4 BAB, I think we've reached something that could be fun and useful. Spontaneous Casting is already good, if Spells Known is reasonable.


The magician should also have Perform as a class skill and perhaps be able to use prestidigitation at will. Just some fun ideas that would help flesh out a flashy caster character.
Agreed! Heck, 4+int skill points would fit this character, leaving them somewhere between where a Sorcerer is now and a Bard in terms of overall feel.




What about Ritualist-Wizard? What if casting time was only raised for spell levels that an equivalent Magician-Sorcerer wouldn't have access to yet? That'd give plenty of immediate/swift/standard casts, and a few big things that they could pull off with a bit more dedication.

In return... something like the Red Wizard's "Circle Power" but rebalanced? I'm not really sure here though.

[Rogue Shadows]

These are just my thoughts on each point.


1. The ability to cast multiple spells in one round, when most standard action spells are designed to compete with a melee fighter's full-round attack in terms of damage or effect. (Specifics- arcane fusion, greater arcane fusion, arcane spellsurge, the Quicken Spell feat, etc)

While not every spell should have its casting time increased, there's a lot that should. I'm thinking Gate here; the spell is fluffed as a tear in the fabric of space/time that allows you to call in one of the primordial movers and shakers of the universe. It should take longer than three seconds to cast.

I'm feeling 10 minutes per HD of the being desired.


2. The lack of appropriate defenses compared to the options available to the caster. Melee is challenged by flying monsters, regeneration, damage reduction, incorporeal, invisibility, and swarms. Magic is challenged by usually specific energy resistances or immunities, and spell resistance, which simply prompts most casters to learn SR: No spells to begin with.

A quick fix here should be that there should be no such thing as SR: No. Spell resistance means spell resistance. An exception should only be made for spells like antimagic field.

Melee also needs a buff.


3. The ability to interrupt turns. Immediate action spellcasting, as well as spells like Time Stop.

The only immediate action spells should be basic utility or defensive spells, like feather fall.


4. SAD. With spells like polymorph and shapechange, as well as huge dice of damage with no attack roll, or a very easily hit AC (in exchange for no saving throw), casters deal their damage primarily from their spells, as opposed to melee, who deals it primarily from their Str modifier. (Or in a rogue's case, from dual-wielding and using feat trees) What I mean is, a caster deals 10d6 damage, while a melee fighter deals 1d12+13 or so. One dice for the melee fighter, he really just cares about the damage he gets from enhancements and a high Strength score.

The first step here should be to borrow a page from the Shadowcaster's book and have all main casting classes depend on two ability scores, one for caster checks and maximum spell level, and one for bonus spells per day. I suggest...
- Cleric: Wisdom for caster checks, Charisma for bonus spells per day
- Druid: Wisdom for caster checks, Charisma for bonus spells per day
- Sorcerer: Charisma for caster checks, Constitution for bonus spells per day
- Wizard: Intelligence for caster checks, Wisdom for bonus spells per day.

Sorcerers use Constitution on the idea that the spells are originating from the core of their being, so a tougher being can channel more magical energy.

Non-mainline casters, like the Bard, only require one casting stat, on the grounds that they're largely Tier 3 anyway, and Tier 3 should be the goal.

Shapechange and polymorph require ground-up rewrites; either that or stealing the Pathfinder versions, which I hear are much more balanced.


5. Metamagic Feats. The ability to not only deal 10d6 damage in one round, but to arbitrarily change it to 60, is huge. Melee gets absolutely nothing like this, the closest thing is Power Attack and while it's definitely a good feat, it usually means the difference of about 20 damage at level 10, while a maximized fireball will usually deal about 25 extra damage, but with no extra miss chance to the attacker, and to multiple targets. And of course, Maximize Spell is not nearly the best metamagic feat available.

A possibility here is to eliminate metamagic feats but borrow the "metamagic components" idea from Unearthed Arcana. A major issue I have with Wealth by Level is that it's supposed to allow for a balancing act between classes, but instead it gives a little to the noncasters and a lot more to the casters. By eating away at the caster's WBL by requiring them to spend money on metamagic components, this should help that problem, at least a little.

This is a war of inches.


6. Superior Defenses- Illusions are very powerful, in all their forms. From miss chance to invisibility to simply distracting someone with a giant gold dragon, illusions can not only end an encounter, they can also save your life from would-be attackers before a fight even starts. (Only talking about defensive tactics here, illusions are usable for many other things, of course)

This seems difficult to fix without eliminating the Illusion school entirely; but having said that one possibility might be to allow for characters to always get a chance to disbelieve an illusion - not simply whenever they stop to study it.


7. Auto-Win (credit goes to erikun)- The ability of a spell to not only take the place of a skill check, but succeed on it automatically, is unfair and removes both the exciting luck element from a skill that is in my opinion an enjoyable aspect of d20 systems, and also takes away from the skillmonkey in their area of expertise: non-combat. Spells like knock, fly, water breathing, and invisibility can really hurt a rogue player's sense of importance at the table, and that's just not cool at all.

Hmm...a problem here is that you really expect casters to be able to do these kinds of utility things. Certainly spells that absolutely invalidate a class - detect traps, knock - should be eliminated, but then again you want there to be spells like fly and water breathing.

At least one possibility is, again, increasing the casting time of some spells. As a general rule, perhaps only direct combat spells (magic missile, summon monster, true strike, bless) and combat-useful utility spells (feather fall, sanctuary, cure light wounds) should have a casting time of less than 1 minute. Everything else requires ritual, mantra-building, or somesuch.

However - shadow evocation and like spells should be eliminated entirely. No school should have the power to invalidate other schools.


8. Spell Ranges (credit goes to jiriku)- The ability of a spellcaster (arcane at least) to simply sit back and fire his save-or-sucks, SoDs, and blasts from as far away as 50-400 ft is just insane (it also makes a flying wizard very irritating).

This I don't actually have a problem with.


9. Spells Per Day/Spells Known- It's no secret that the reason the sorcerer is tier 2 while everyone else is tier 1 is because of versatility. But that versatility, should it really even be allowed? Yes, the gods grant clerics their spells, which is why clerics can ask for everything, but is that really balanced? Perhaps we should limit the spells known for clerics and druids to be similar to a wizard/archivist, and then make it more difficult for every class to learn new spells through Spellcraft checks. (Higher DCs, longer wait time between retries, etc) Also, spells per day. Are they too high? Even without bonus spells for a high casting stat? If you cut back on a caster's options, would you weaken the caster, or would you slow the entire group down so the caster could get his 8 hour rest on more often?

Ideas I had concerning this.
- Clerics become spontaneous casters and get every domain their deity grants. However, they can only cast spells from their domains. Every deity has the number of domains they know upped to 5, and a "Life" (or some such) domain is created to allow access to the raise dead-type spells. Clerics devoted to a philosophy, belief, or their Left Sock instead get 4 domains, but they can pick any four (w/normal alignment restrictions).
- Druids get spellcasting like a Bard and an Animal Companion like a ranger. If this is done, then they probably shouldn't have two casting stats (as suggested above).
- Sorcerers are unchanged (except for the two casting stats thing suggested above); their Tier will be lowered to 3 by changes to the spell and metamagic system rather than changes to their casting
- Generalist Wizards at 1st level only have access to 4 schools of magic. They must spend feats to acquire access to additional schools (one feat per school). Specialist wizards only have access to 3 schools (w/bonuses to casting from their specialized school) and can never cast from two enemy schools; they must spend feats to acquire access to the 3 remaining schools.


10- Duration (credit goes to jiriku)- Spells per day is often coupled by the problem that most good spells last forever! With the addition of 24 hour buffs like primal senses and moment of prescience, as well as the Persistent Spell feat, and even hour/level durations when most parties are only up for 10 to 12 hours before going back to sleep, a wizard can have a powerful buff up all day without even needing to announce he cast it.

Spells that last a long time should take a long time to cast. A spell that lasts for 24 hours, for example, should probably take 1 hour to cast.

Just my thoughts.

[NeoSeraphi]

Great ideas. I'd pass on Improved Familiar though. With a whole bunch more spells per day, a singificant boost to spells known, d6, and 3/4 BAB, I think we've reached something that could be fun and useful. Spontaneous Casting is already good, if Spells Known is reasonable.


Agreed! Heck, 4+int skill points would fit this character, leaving them somewhere between where a Sorcerer is now and a Bard in terms of overall feel.




What about Ritualist-Wizard? What if casting time was only raised for spell levels that an equivalent Magician-Sorcerer wouldn't have access to yet? That'd give plenty of immediate/swift/standard casts, and a few big things that they could pull off with a bit more dedication.

In return... something like the Red Wizard's "Circle Power" but rebalanced? I'm not really sure here though.

Ritual Casting should have an increased caster time, but could really improve on the feel and dramatic tension of spells like gate and wish.

While we're on the subject, I think shapechange should be fine, as it is a 9th level spell, but let's limit it to only allow you one form, decided at the time of casting. I think that both cuts down its usefulness while still making it a very powerful spell.

[sonofzeal]

Ritual Casting should have an increased caster time, but could really improve on the feel and dramatic tension of spells like gate and wish.
Indeed. I love the idea of spells having exactly that sort of dramatic tension. The details are slippery though.



And I'm still interested in this idea of making spellcasting more expensive by adding short-term costs. What if there was some sort of penalty related to the number of active magical effects? This solves more of the balance issues than my Backlash idea does.

[Yitzi]

Basically, I'd say that there are 2 essential problems with tier 1 magic, each of which is actually the confluence of 2 factors:

I.
1. Wizards can get excellent ablative defenses, allowing them to survive several rounds.
2. Wizards can reliably win in the course of a few rounds at most, usually much less (this is a problem in its own right as well, as it means they don't suffer from limited spells like they're apparently meant to)

II.
1. The wizard can completely change the rules of the fight (force it to be at least halfway, for instance, or turn it into a question of detection rather than hitting, etc.)
2. Nobody else can win by the new rules.

Personally, I think that negating factor 2 in both cases is the better way to go; the first because it's a problem in its own right, and the second because to me that's what a wizard is supposed to be: Someone who doesn't play by the rules that other people do. (It also strengthens the party dynamic by making wizards extremely strong against enemies who can't handle the new rules but extremely weak against those that can. At its best, it could even lead to a class or monster that beats tier 1 but loses to tier 5, potentially overthrowing the whole tier system.)

[Halna LeGavilk]

Wanna nerf casters? For wizard, limit it to one single school, with a limited selection of spells from other schools. For cleric, expand each domain spell list to 3-4 spell/level/domain, and then have clerics only cast spells off their domain lists. Also, no DMM anything. Or, hell, make metamagic Arcane only. For druid, ban natural spell, cut it down to a wizard's spells/days.

[NeoSeraphi]

Wanna nerf casters? For wizard, limit it to one single school, with a limited selection of spells from other schools. For cleric, expand each domain spell list to 3-4 spell/level/domain, and then have clerics only cast spells off their domain lists. Also, no DMM anything. Or, hell, make metamagic Arcane only. For druid, ban natural spell, cut it down to a wizard's spells/days.

Well...those are certainly good ideas, though I think the druid would need a lot more nerfing than that. But that's a topic I'm not getting into, there have been whole threads about what WotC was thinking when they designed that class...

[jiriku]

I am of a mind that the shapeshift druid variant in PH2 is an excellent nerf to the class. It simultaneously eliminates the animal companion, nerfs wildshape hard, and eliminates Natural spell, forcing the druid to choose between casting in humanoid form or acting in a nerfed, noncasting shapeshifted form. Coupled with some nerfs to the general mechanics of all spells, you've got yourself a class that behaves itself in a mid-tier group.

I'd agree that gate needs an increased casting time. My preference is one minute, because you can have very interesting encounters revolving around the PCs busting in on the BBEG just as he's begun casting gate and having only 8-10 rounds left to defeat his minions and stop him before he summons something awful. Or conversely, you can have PCs needing to escape from some awful place while under heavy assault, and they have to defend the caster of a gate spell for 10 rounds until the portal to safety opens. Both of these are fun scenarios.


@ SoZ: Your magician does need some class features, though. Players are already familiar with sorcerer/wizard spells, and won't be excited at the reduced casting progression, so class features are the spice that makes the dish interesting. Perhaps Brew Potion, or Craft Wand as a bonus feat, and a discount on potion-brewing or wand-making? Hedge wizards are always making and selling magical trinkets and minor items in popular fantasy.

A ritualist could definitely work. The artificer already demonstrates that people will play a class even if most of its effects have 1-minute casting times. In fact, borrowing the artificer's emphasis on using (although perhaps not making) magic items would be a very flavorful approach to developing a ritualist, since ritual-users are famous for all the kitschy items they employ. Perhaps the ritualist relies on some sort of item familiar to perform most of his rapid casting, and to enhance his rituals. This is where the classic wizard's staff, magic sword, or enchanted ring could play a colorful role.

[jiriku]

Inspiration struck me, so instead of eating or sleeping I wrote a magician class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209772). It's not quite where I expected to end up, but it's something. Feel free to opinionate, critique, and propose.

[DeAnno]

I won't claim to be even slightly unbiased, but having read this thread I have a couple observations.

First, it seems a more fitting title for this thread might have been "3.5 Tier 1 and 2 Magic-User Fix Discussion Thread (All Welcome)". The nature of changes to durations, ranges, and casting times of spells in general, and of wholesale changes to problem spells in specific, mean that everyone with full arcane or divine casting will be similarly effected. In addition, metamagic tricks (with the exception of Persist in all its varieties, which I consider to be it's own separate mess, and Quicken, which is mentioned elsewhere already) are generally used by Tier 2 builds. Using either gear or feats and class features to optimize metamagic tends to be a significant investment towards a limited number of strong options, which is more characteristic of Tier 2 behavior than Tier 1 (which prefers to gather many slightly less strong options with its resources instead).

None of this is bad, of course, and trying to bring casting as a whole down to Tier 3 is an admirable goal, but there is a rather large elephant in the room which needs to be addressed in that case: The Psion.

Many of the Psion's tricks are very reminiscent of the Sorcerer's. Fission doubles his casting like Spellsurge, Anticipatory Strike and Synchronicity out of Races of Destiny can be (mis)interpreted to produce various Celerity-like effects, and his array of blasts has gems like Energy Missile (double speed scaling save DC), Crystal Shard (SR: No), and Ego Whip (very cheap Cha damage). While metapsionics is certainly less abusable than metamagic, the general principle still works. And all that is just some tricks the Psion has to make it look like a Mailman.

The problem with attacking the Psion is unlike with Arcane and Divine classes, two solidly Tier 3 classes (the Wilder and the Psychic Warrior) are tied into its powers list, so any treading there must be done lightly lest they are unfairly victimized.

How to fix the Psion? I don't really have a clue (maybe slow its power level progression?), but I thought it needed to be brought up in a discussion this comprehensive.

On the other hand what I know about Binders and their Online Vestiges could be written on the back of a paper napkin, so I'm not sure how head and shoulders they'd stand above a Tier 3 casting world.

[NeoSeraphi]

I won't claim to be even slightly unbiased, but having read this thread I have a couple observations.

First, it seems a more fitting title for this thread might have been "3.5 Tier 1 and 2 Magic-User Fix Discussion Thread (All Welcome)". The nature of changes to durations, ranges, and casting times of spells in general, and of wholesale changes to problem spells in specific, mean that everyone with full arcane or divine casting will be similarly effected. In addition, metamagic tricks (with the exception of Persist in all its varieties, which I consider to be it's own separate mess, and Quicken, which is mentioned elsewhere already) are generally used by Tier 2 builds. Using either gear or feats and class features to optimize metamagic tends to be a significant investment towards a limited number of strong options, which is more characteristic of Tier 2 behavior than Tier 1 (which prefers to gather many slightly less strong options with its resources instead).

None of this is bad, of course, and trying to bring casting as a whole down to Tier 3 is an admirable goal, but there is a rather large elephant in the room which needs to be addressed in that case: The Psion.

Many of the Psion's tricks are very reminiscent of the Sorcerer's. Fission doubles his casting like Spellsurge, Anticipatory Strike and Synchronicity out of Races of Destiny can be (mis)interpreted to produce various Celerity-like effects, and his array of blasts has gems like Energy Missile (double speed scaling save DC), Crystal Shard (SR: No), and Ego Whip (very cheap Cha damage). While metapsionics is certainly less abusable than metamagic, the general principle still works. And all that is just some tricks the Psion has to make it look like a Mailman.

The problem with attacking the Psion is unlike with Arcane and Divine classes, two solidly Tier 3 classes (the Wilder and the Psychic Warrior) are tied into its powers list, so any treading there must be done lightly lest they are unfairly victimized.

How to fix the Psion? I don't really have a clue (maybe slow its power level progression?), but I thought it needed to be brought up in a discussion this comprehensive.

On the other hand what I know about Binders and their Online Vestiges could be written on the back of a paper napkin, so I'm not sure how head and shoulders they'd stand above a Tier 3 casting world.

You make a fair point, and I'll change the thread's title. However, fixing spells and spell mechanics themselves is a pretty hefty task, covering psionics too would be very difficult (as you yourself said).

I suggest you make your own thread to address this problem, it would help draw the attention of those who know psionics well enough to help you more than trying to talk about it here.

[sonofzeal]

I won't claim to be even slightly unbiased, but having read this thread I have a couple observations.

First, it seems a more fitting title for this thread might have been "3.5 Tier 1 and 2 Magic-User Fix Discussion Thread (All Welcome)". The nature of changes to durations, ranges, and casting times of spells in general, and of wholesale changes to problem spells in specific, mean that everyone with full arcane or divine casting will be similarly effected. In addition, metamagic tricks (with the exception of Persist in all its varieties, which I consider to be it's own separate mess, and Quicken, which is mentioned elsewhere already) are generally used by Tier 2 builds. Using either gear or feats and class features to optimize metamagic tends to be a significant investment towards a limited number of strong options, which is more characteristic of Tier 2 behavior than Tier 1 (which prefers to gather many slightly less strong options with its resources instead).

None of this is bad, of course, and trying to bring casting as a whole down to Tier 3 is an admirable goal, but there is a rather large elephant in the room which needs to be addressed in that case: The Psion.

Many of the Psion's tricks are very reminiscent of the Sorcerer's. Fission doubles his casting like Spellsurge, Anticipatory Strike and Synchronicity out of Races of Destiny can be (mis)interpreted to produce various Celerity-like effects, and his array of blasts has gems like Energy Missile (double speed scaling save DC), Crystal Shard (SR: No), and Ego Whip (very cheap Cha damage). While metapsionics is certainly less abusable than metamagic, the general principle still works. And all that is just some tricks the Psion has to make it look like a Mailman.

The problem with attacking the Psion is unlike with Arcane and Divine classes, two solidly Tier 3 classes (the Wilder and the Psychic Warrior) are tied into its powers list, so any treading there must be done lightly lest they are unfairly victimized.

How to fix the Psion? I don't really have a clue (maybe slow its power level progression?), but I thought it needed to be brought up in a discussion this comprehensive.

On the other hand what I know about Binders and their Online Vestiges could be written on the back of a paper napkin, so I'm not sure how head and shoulders they'd stand above a Tier 3 casting world.
As to Wilders - many people argue they're still Tier 2, although right at the bottom of it. They suffer the same dynamic as Sorcerers, with potential for game-breaking power like their more famous kin, but lacking the options to really make it explode. Wilders are more tightly constrained than Sorcs though, so they're definitely below them... but I'd still say Tier 2. Whatever we change to the Psion will easily bump Wilders down to Tier 3 without special exceptions. But Wilders already have downsides on their signature powers, which exactly the sort of tradeoff mechanic I've been advocating in general, so I'd feel fine throwing them a bone.

Psychic Warriors, I wouldn't worry about. May as well worry about Bard, who might get hit by Sor/Wiz nerfs. And like PsiWars, Bards are already Tier 3. But PsiWars and Bards both get a delayed casting progression, and since we seem to be focussing our nerfs on the top couple spell levels, they should get through more or less unscathed.

Binders are mid-to-low Tier 3. It's really just one or two of the online vestiges which are borked, and I don't really consider those an option. They also don't actually cast spells for the most part, they just get (Su) and (Sp) special abilities. Nerfs to casting wouldn't and shouldn't affect them. The only time they're ever a major problem that I know of is if they're tossing out infinite free summons.

[jiriku]

So, talk ritualist with me. The magician needs a ritualist as a counterpart. What would it look like to you? I'd see the ritualist as being associated with crafting rods, staves, and rings (the traditional high-power items), with having few spells per day but access to higher-level spells (up to 9th with wizard progression rate), and having access to a few daily rituals, which would basically be the powerful, game-changing spells, modified to require casting times of 1 minute or more, and probably all having a gp or xp cost to use. Also, I'd expect a couple of reserve feats in-class, so that the ritualist has something more relevant to do than fire a light crossbow while he's conserving his spells in combat. 4 skills per level too, so that he can more effectively take thematic but narrowly scoped skills like Knowledge, Speak Language, or Decipher Script.

[NeoSeraphi]

So, talk ritualist with me. The magician needs a ritualist as a counterpart. What would it look like to you? I'd see the ritualist as being associated with crafting rods, staves, and rings (the traditional high-power items), with having few spells per day but access to higher-level spells (up to 9th with wizard progression rate), and having access to a few daily rituals, which would basically be the powerful, game-changing spells, modified to require casting times of 1 minute or more, and probably all having a gp or xp cost to use. Also, I'd expect a couple of reserve feats in-class, so that the ritualist has something more relevant to do than fire a light crossbow while he's conserving his spells in combat. 4 skills per level too, so that he can more effectively take thematic but narrowly scoped skills like Knowledge, Speak Language, or Decipher Script.

I think one of the ritualist's abilities, probably mid to high level, would be to use an 8 hour ritual and the correct amount of gp and XP to create a wand (Magically. No Craft check required). (One of the main reasons that item-crafting is impractical, other than XP costs, is the time it takes to create them)

[sonofzeal]

So, talk ritualist with me. The magician needs a ritualist as a counterpart. What would it look like to you? I'd see the ritualist as being associated with crafting rods, staves, and rings (the traditional high-power items), with having few spells per day but access to higher-level spells (up to 9th with wizard progression rate), and having access to a few daily rituals, which would basically be the powerful, game-changing spells, modified to require casting times of 1 minute or more, and probably all having a gp or xp cost to use. Also, I'd expect a couple of reserve feats in-class, so that the ritualist has something more relevant to do than fire a light crossbow while he's conserving his spells in combat. 4 skills per level too, so that he can more effectively take thematic but narrowly scoped skills like Knowledge, Speak Language, or Decipher Script.
The dynamic I was thinking of was, again, the one from Berserk where the mage has a few small things they can do in the Standard Action frame, and a few massive nukes that cost them a lot to use.

My idea, which needs to be fleshed out further....


- Less mid-level spells but a few high-levels that the Magician would not have access to.

- Casting those high-level spells would take long, with the highest taking the longest.

- During that "charge-up" period, the Ritualist rolls Xd6 a round and adds the total to a cumulative pool.

- When the spell finally gets cast, points can be spent from that pool for various effects (Widen/Enlarge/Extend being specifically encouraged, also possibly Y points for +1 DC or Z points for +1 damage).

- The Ritualist can voluntarily take more turns to charge than they need to with a certain limit (perhaps a rising d% roll to contain the power), and only have to choose the spell to cast and the specifics thereof ("Fireball, right there") at the moment of casting.

[jiriku]

So essentially a channeling mechanic analogous to the channeled spells, where you get a bigger effect the longer you cast? That could work. Plus, such a mechanic could easily accommodate extra casters (or simply other party members chanting and holding candles, as with an incantation).

Maybe crafting could involve a quick-crafting feature like the magician has, where with specific, archetypal items like rods, staves, and rings, the ritualist crafts 1,000 gp per hour instead of 1,000 gp per day. Maybe the feature could even extend to the Craft Arms and Armor feat too.

[NeoSeraphi]

So essentially a channeling mechanic analogous to the channeled spells, where you get a bigger effect the longer you cast? That could work. Plus, such a mechanic could easily accommodate extra casters (or simply other party members chanting and holding candles, as with an incantation).

Maybe crafting could involve a quick-crafting feature like the magician has, where with specific, archetypal items like rods, staves, and rings, the ritualist crafts 1,000 gp per hour instead of 1,000 gp per day. Maybe the feature could even extend to the Craft Arms and Armor feat too.

Well, let's not make the wizard a better crafter than the artificer, here. At least, not where weapons and armor are concerned. I don't think your idea is unbalanced, per se, but that particular niche is already filled and I don't see any reason to step on its toes.

[jiriku]

Bear in mind that the artificer is unlikely to see play in a game for which wizard and sorcerer have been replaced with ritualist and magician.

[NeoSeraphi]

That's...a fair point.

[Yitzi]

My ideas on fixing the issues in the OP, and comments on the proposed fixes:

1. Ban everything that allows more than one spell per round, with the possible exception of the Quicken feat (since it comes at the cost of 4 SL, meaning it's either next to useless, takes up a really high level slot (which he shouldn't have to spare), or uses a rod (which tends to get expensive.) If allowing Quicken, make sure to address the spells/day issue (and if it's addressed by reducing spells/day rather than having larger numbers of encounters between rests, make sure to increase the cost of metamagic rods correspondingly.)
2. Create defenses for each major category of offensive magic. Some of this is already present; death effects are blocked by Death Ward, compulsions by Protection from Evil (or any one of 7 other equivalent or superior spells, plus Mind Blank), mobility-based save-or-suck by Freedom of Movement. Others, such as offensive transmutations, need a new effect to protect against them.
Also, SR: No spells should be far weaker than their SR: Yes equivalents. Examples of this would be Acid Arrow, Acid Fog (taking into account only its damage) and Incendiary Cloud, all of which are far inferior to the evocation equivalents. When that is not the case, they should either be changed to SR: Yes if there is a conceptually close SR: Yes spell (e.g. Cloudkill is similar to Poison), or seriously depowered otherwise. I'd disagree with the idea of making most Conjuration spells SR: Yes, as the whole idea is that most of the time you're creating a nonmagical object to do your work. So SR should not apply, but the power is therefore far lower. (Jiriku's idea of removing the ability to boost caster level to beat SR except via Spell Penetration and GSP, and maybe high level prestige class abilities, also makes a lot of sense.)
Also, there probably should be a class designed to have extremely strong anti-caster defenses. Probably monk.
3. Ban almost all immediate-action spells. The only ones that should remain are those like Feather Fall, which need to be immediate-action to work like they're meant to, and are not meant for a combat situation. Time Stop shouldn't be such an issue if the spells that it can be used to cast are balanced.
4. This is not in particular a caster problem; the SAD/MAD discrepancy needs fixing anyway, particularly at high levels. My proposal: Completely change how Wish boosts ability scores. Instead of granting an inherent bonus (+5 cap), it should boost the actual base score, as though you had rolled one higher on your die when first rolling the character or had put one of your 1-every-4-HD increases into it. The max base score (before racial bonuses, much less enhancement, but including increases with HD) is 18+HD/4, rounded down.
The other issue is polymorph; the answer here would seem to be to severely cap the increase (and likely make it an enhancement bonus to boot.)
5. The answer, as Jiriku said, is to cut down on metamagic reducers. I'd go a step further than him, though, and ban them altogether until epic levels. Once that's done, your maximize most definitely comes at a cost, as you're losing not only 5 to 10 dice from your cap (a maximized fireball does 60 no matter what level you are; a chain lightning takes the same slot and does 1d6/level to a maximum of 20 dice), but also 3 from your DC (even for a save-half spell, that's roughly a 10% reduction now that SAD is fixed to prevent the really high scores) and the effects of a spell 3 levels lower. As noted above in (1), it's also necessary to have enough encounters/day that using powerful metamagic rods all the time will be prohibitively expensive, or else raise the price of the rods (or lower their uses/day) accordingly.
6. If you're fighting a wizard, and a giant gold dragon appears, you're going to suspect it's an illusion. (Of course, the canny wizard will be able to take advantage of that, and more intelligently chosen illusions might be more successful, but that rewards IC thinking, which IMO is a good thing.) A bigger issue is mirror image and miss chance stacking.
For mirror image, say each image has to be within 5' of every other image (that allows a 10X10 square, which is enough for 8 images at 2/square), allow them to be popped with magic missile (even if the real thing is shielded), whirlwind attack, etc., and allow cleave to work on popping an image. Suddenly, mirror image doesn't look so impressive.
For stacking miss chances, strongly limit the opportunities for miss chances not arising from concealment (two effects giving concealment of course do not stack at all.) Even when there are miss chances from two or more entirely different sources (say, someone has Blink and Displacement, is protected by Entropic Shield and Wind Wall, and someone throws a knife at them), they do not actually stack; rather, the attacker rolls once (or twice with blind-fight) for each separate source. (This is actually not a house rule, but rather the result of not making assumptions not found in RAW.)
7. Most of the time, this can be dealt with by assuming that others know what can be done with magic. So important doors will have numerous weak means of preventing passage to absorb Knock, and it is illegal to use Charm Person against anyone under the protection of the law. Spells that do not actually infringe on the skillmonkey's territory can be left as they are; nobody said that only one character can be good at noncombat.
8. This is sort of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, a 20th level wizard can get a range of 800 feet with his chain lightning, at no range penalty. On the other hand, he can't get farther than that at all, while a fighter with Far Shot can get slightly over twice that (albeit at a substantial penalty.) So as soon as archery is made a viable option, this issue should disappear.
9. The first step is to make sure that the players don't always know what they'll encounter. After all, spells known are useless if you don't prepare them (and aren't a spontaneous caster.) The second is to cut down on allowed sourcebooks for spells. (This'll also cut down on the dumpster diving, which is definitely a good thing.) The third is to ensure that there are enough encounters per day; a given number of spells/day over 1 encounter is far more than the same number over 4 encounters. And lastly, depower the spells capable of defeating an encounter with a single spell outside of highly specific (say, no more than 1/5 as likely as the number of spell slots of that level or higher at the given CR) circumstances.
10. If a really powerful buff lasts hours, it needs to be either depowered or reduced in duration. Naturally this doesn't apply if it's one-use-and-expended such as Moment of Prescience, or if it's a relatively minor buff. Persistent Spell should be, if not banned, at least scaled to the normal duration just like always-on items are. (And of course metamagic exploits would need to be removed, as noted before.)

Increasing casting time and decreasing range are interesting ideas, although it's a bit much for what I'd want in my games. It could work, though, provided that there's something to keep the enemies (unless optimized for such) from just going around the tank to hit the wizard. (Once option might be for the tank to ready to move to stay between the enemy and the wizard; he'd then use AoOs to actually hurt the enemy.)

[NeoSeraphi]

Even if you think it's an illusion, if you fail your saving throw you believe it's real. That's just how illusions work.

As for your comment about how players shouldn't know what they encounter, the reason wizards are considered so powerful in the first place is they always know what they'll encounter because they're able to see the future with their divination spells and can plan ahead.

Other than that, your points are valid and interesting. (Especially the comment about allowing Cleave to work on popped images. I hadn't thought of that before)

Jiriku, Zeal, what do you guys think?

[erikun]

I've been thinking about this recently, and something else comes to mind. Especially in regards to D&D 3.5e, spellcasting results are stated very clearly while skills descriptions are stated far more vaguely. When you cast Command or Dominate Person, the target does exactly what you tell it to if it fails its saving throw. On the other hand, it is far more difficult to get a target to do whatever you want with a Bluff or Diplomancy roll. Even with +100 on the skill check, DMs are encouraged to invent bonuses on the skill roll or simply not allow some bluffs to pass. Compare to Dominate Person, where anything outside of suicide is allowed with a failed save.

The problem isn't so much that "Do not allow the outright ridiculous" is bad, or that "Allow the player to get away with anything" is bad, but that the two are sitting right next to one another in the ruleset. Spellcasters are encouraged to do whatever they wish, while skillmonkeys are discouraged from doing anything too "unrealistic". It would be far better if it was all one (Allow wacky hijinks, both for spells and skills!) or the other (Anything absurd, no matter the level of mental domination, is rejected.)

[Yitzi]

Even if you think it's an illusion, if you fail your saving throw you believe it's real. That's just how illusions work.

But a character with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw, and someone who's been told that it's fake gets a +4 bonus. Therefore, while it's really a house-rule, it seems reasonable to me that a strong reason to suspect that it's fake (such as that you saw the wizard cast, saw a giant dragon appear, and succeed on a K:Arcana check to know that a wizard of his skill shouldn't be summoning such creatures) you also get that +4...and of course once your sword goes right through it without even being stopped (for a dragon that should be easy; dragons have horrible touch AC) you have proof that it's fake and disbelieve it automatically.


As for your comment about how players shouldn't know what they encounter, the reason wizards are considered so powerful in the first place is they always know what they'll encounter because they're able to see the future with their divination spells and can plan ahead.

Then that really belongs on the list of problems, doesn't it? Since even without any other magic, knowing the future enough to plan ahead that much is extremely powerful.

(The fix for that, of course, is to weaken the spells that can give you clear information on the future.)


Other than that, your points are valid and interesting. (Especially the comment about allowing Cleave to work on popped images. I hadn't thought of that before)

I have to admit it's not my idea; it's mentioned (attributed to the FAQ as saying it works) here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/297338-magic-missile-vs-mirror-image.html).


I've been thinking about this recently, and something else comes to mind. Especially in regards to D&D 3.5e, spellcasting results are stated very clearly while skills descriptions are stated far more vaguely. When you cast Command or Dominate Person, the target does exactly what you tell it to if it fails its saving throw. On the other hand, it is far more difficult to get a target to do whatever you want with a Bluff or Diplomancy roll. Even with +100 on the skill check, DMs are encouraged to invent bonuses on the skill roll or simply not allow some bluffs to pass. Compare to Dominate Person, where anything outside of suicide is allowed with a failed save.

That's because they work differently. Bluff or diplomacy changes the person's mind; Dominate Person controls their actions. So dominate can ignore a lot of considerations for why they wouldn't do it (although if it's extreme enough you risk them breaking the control), but they'll do only what you force them to, being caught using it within civilization (and with a DC 15 Sense Motive check to detect, there's a good chance you'll be caught) will tend to get far harsher penalties, and it's a lot easier to protect against magically.


The problem isn't so much that "Do not allow the outright ridiculous" is bad, or that "Allow the player to get away with anything" is bad, but that the two are sitting right next to one another in the ruleset. Spellcasters are encouraged to do whatever they wish, while skillmonkeys are discouraged from doing anything too "unrealistic". It would be far better if it was all one (Allow wacky hijinks, both for spells and skills!) or the other (Anything absurd, no matter the level of mental domination, is rejected.)

Except it's not really "allow the player to get away with anything". Dominate Person can only allow what is reasonable for a mind-control effect (for instance, if you give them an opportunity to subvert their instructions, they will), just like skills can only allow what is reasonable for that skill.

[NeoSeraphi]

Fixing divination spells? I don't know...they're really useful for the party to have, and there's no real way I know of to fix the ability to see the future other than to remove it.

Does anyone have an idea for how to limit the ability of a caster to see into the future?

[Stubbazubba]

Well, Divination as written shouldn't be detailing what kind of spells would be useful for any given situation, should it? The Spell description text specifically says "short phrase or cryptic rhyme or omen." Admittedly, I very rarely play casters, so is there a problem with Divination that couldn't be solved by instructing DMs to never reveal mechanical information, or answers regarding mechanical information, in response to Divination?

[NeoSeraphi]

Well, Divination as written shouldn't be detailing what kind of spells would be useful for any given situation, should it? The Spell description text specifically says "short phrase or cryptic rhyme or omen." Admittedly, I very rarely play casters, so is there a problem with Divination that couldn't be solved by instructing DMs to never reveal mechanical information, or answers regarding mechanical information, in response to Divination?

I don't really play wizards that often either (I'm more of a blaster/debuffer so I like sorcerers) but I don't think divination is the spell they use. Still, let's see, short phrase, or cryptic rhyme or omen. There shouldn't be any problems there then.

I guess in the spell fixes we'd make it clear that the information extracted could not be used to extract mechanical information (though the problem is, if you know you're going to fight goblins, you could just make a Knowledge check and then learn it all yourself)

[Yitzi]

Fixing divination spells? I don't know...they're really useful for the party to have, and there's no real way I know of to fix the ability to see the future other than to remove it.

Does anyone have an idea for how to limit the ability of a caster to see into the future?

As it just so happens, I have a previously posted approach for the Core spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202633).

[NeoSeraphi]

As it just so happens, I have a previously posted approach for the Core spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202633).

These look well-thought out and good. I would accept these as a good enough fix, personally. Jiriku, Zeal, Stubbazubba, what do you all think? Anything to add? If everyone's happy with it, I'll add it to the OP as a suggested fix for divination spells.

[jiriku]

I definitely support Yitzi's divination fixes.


Banning metamagic reducers is certainly a valid approach, and one that will have reliable, predictable effects and few unintended consequences. I personally am reluctant to enact a hard ban because discount metamagic is a neat, creative design space. The biggest concern I'd have is that without the discounted metamagic the magician gets from sympathetic magic, he wouldn't really get into the metamagic game because he has a much lower "ceiling" of available spell levels than wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or druid. This undermines the conceit of the sorcerer/magician as masters of flexible spellcasting through on-the-fly application of metamagic.

Some spells that block common classes of magical attack would be nice, and would be an easy addition to the game. A spell that offers proof against harmful transmutation would be nice, as would a magic immunity spell. Part of the problem with magic is that magical attacks are much better than magical defenses. However, that would still leave spellcasters on a playing field of their own in which the only answer to a spellcaster is another spellcaster.

As for not making Conjuration spells SR: Yes, tell me how an orb of fire hot enough to melt steel, that you can hold safely in your hand and throw unerringly over a hundred feet, that inflicts a daze effect, and that deals no collateral damage if it misses its target, is nonmagical. It is a magical ray in everything but name. Many Conjuration spells are using that "it's a nonmagical conjured substance" loophole to excuse blatantly magical effects.

I like immediate-action spells. The problem is a lack of immediate-action abilities for martial characters. Of course, that's why I've homebrewed lots of powererful immediate-action abilities for martial characters. For those concerned, a one-spell-per-round limit nicely reduces the power bloat that comes from immediate- and swift-action spells.



I think spell range and duration are underappreciated means of constraining spell power. Most people look at ranges and durations and think "there's nothing wrong with them". But that's beside the point. A spell that kills a target you touch is demonstrably weaker than one that does so from Long range. We all know this. What we often don't appreciate is that a spell that harms a target from 20 feet away is weaker than one that does so from 50 feet The former is close enough for an opponent to move and attack you, or attack with a thrown weapon with little or no penalty. The latter requires a charge (which may not even be possible), or imposes a substantial penalty to most thrown weapons.

Likewise, a buff that grants you immunity to poison and fear is nice when it lasts for the whole combat, but much more so when it lasts for 12 hours. In the former case, to be protected from poison for four encounters in a day, you'd need to expend four spell slots and four in-combat standard actions. In the latter case, you cast the spell before breakfast and your one spell slot protects you all day long.

Moreover, because spell ranges and durations are highly standardized, it's easy to make and remember a simple global change, while tweaking hundreds of individual spells in some other way is a major hassle. When you adjust range and duration, you hold the keys to the kingdom in your hand.

[NeoSeraphi]

Conjuration

These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance unless the spell conjures some form of energy. Spells that summon creatures or produce effects that function like creatures are not subject to spell resistance.

Right from the SRD. And then WotC goes and prints spells like acid arrow and the orb line.

Anyway, I agree that durations are often not taken into consideration. If a spell like Righteous Might or Divine Power only lasted a few rounds/minutes (and in their actual spell descriptions, they both do) they would be good spells, but they wouldn't be "clerical standards" (at least, not to the extent that they are now) if Persistent Spell wasn't available. After all, you have a lot of good 5th level cleric spells and only a few 5th level spell slots, so a really good buff that only lasts you at 20th level 2 minutes would maybe merit preparing 1/day, but it wouldn't make such a splash.

(Same thing with mass lesser vigor)

[Yitzi]

Banning metamagic reducers is certainly a valid approach, and one that will have reliable, predictable effects and few unintended consequences. I personally am reluctant to enact a hard ban because discount metamagic is a neat, creative design space.

It is also an ability appropriate to an epic-level ability (as it is, Improved Metamagic.) There might be cases where it's appropriate, but at the very least it should be determined by banning everything and then allowing things back in selectively after much thought.


The biggest concern I'd have is that without the discounted metamagic the magician gets from sympathetic magic, he wouldn't really get into the metamagic game because he has a much lower "ceiling" of available spell levels than wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or druid. This undermines the conceit of the sorcerer/magician as masters of flexible spellcasting through on-the-fly application of metamagic.

Yes, class-feature metamagic discounts probably should be kept (assuming the class is balanced as is); I was referring to generalized metamagic discounts and those that are later add-ons to a class (through feats or the like.)


Some spells that block common classes of magical attack would be nice, and would be an easy addition to the game.

Definitely.
Well, for some common classes of magical attack. For others, they already exist.


A spell that offers proof against harmful transmutation would be nice, as would a magic immunity spell.

Magic immunity is probably somewhat much. At the very least, allow a class level check (including prestige classes that boost CL, but not other boosts to CL) to bypass it.


However, that would still leave spellcasters on a playing field of their own in which the only answer to a spellcaster is another spellcaster.

The two options to deal with that (other than taking a different approach entirely) are:
1. Make the anti-magic spells (or their effects) available to certain nonspellcasting classes, preferably even stronger than to the spellcasting classes.
2. Weaken casters' defenses against nonmagical attacks, so that the only highly effective answer to a spellcaster is another spellcaster ("Good saves" is an answer available to anyone), and the only highly effective answer to a nonspellcaster is another nonspellcaster.


As for not making Conjuration spells SR: Yes, tell me how an orb of fire hot enough to melt steel, that you can hold safely in your hand and throw unerringly over a hundred feet, that inflicts a daze effect, and that deals no collateral damage if it misses its target, is nonmagical.

I'd rather say it's not Conjuration (and therefore would also be SR: Yes).


Many Conjuration spells are using that "it's a nonmagical conjured substance" loophole to excuse blatantly magical effects.

And after a point, that needs fixing simply because it's ridiculous otherwise. Yes, balance and flavor call for it being SR: Yes, but flavor also calls for it being a different school.

Any Conjuration spell that deals elemental damage other than acid probably doesn't belong in Conjuration.


I like immediate-action spells. The problem is a lack of immediate-action abilities for martial characters.

That's really a question of making everyone tier 1 and 2, while this is about lowering magic-users to tier 3. Personally, I prefer lower-optimization games (although I do like high-powered games in terms of point buy points), but it's really a question of taste.
That said, the one type of action-type issue that martial characters really could use help with is the fact that they can't move to intercept (a necessary ability to be a decent meat shield) without a standard action. Maybe a feat allowing you to ready a move action as a move action, and a full-round action as a full-round action...


For those concerned, a one-spell-per-round limit nicely reduces the power bloat that comes from immediate- and swift-action spells.

Although that actually depowers evokers too much. Maybe say you can cast 2 spells per round, but doing so increases each of them to a move action if it was less.


We all know this. What we often don't appreciate is that a spell that harms a target from 20 feet away is weaker than one that does so from 50 feet The former is close enough for an opponent to move and attack you, or attack with a thrown weapon with little or no penalty. The latter requires a charge (which may not even be possible), or imposes a substantial penalty to most thrown weapons.

Definitely true. Especially for 1-round actions; there's a reason that Sleep was a popular low-level spell in the Core Coliseum (nowadays casters aren't as common, so you don't see it as much), but nobody'd ever bother with Deep Slumber.


Moreover, because spell ranges and durations are highly standardized, it's easy to make and remember a simple global change, while tweaking hundreds of individual spells in some other way is a major hassle. When you adjust range and duration, you hold the keys to the kingdom in your hand.

On the flip side, because you're not tweaking them individually, you're not looking at the effects on every spell, so unintended consequences are a substantially bigger concern.

[jiriku]

Yes, class-feature metamagic discounts probably should be kept (assuming the class is balanced as is); I was referring to generalized metamagic discounts and those that are later add-ons to a class (through feats or the like.)

That would address my concern. The feat-based metamagic reducers (and converters like Divine Metamagic) are the real source cause unexpected power bloat, which is inherently worse than a class feature whose balance has already been assured (cough cough not counting incantatrix and dweomerkeeper cough cough).


Magic immunity is probably somewhat much. At the very least, allow a class level check (including prestige classes that boost CL, but not other boosts to CL) to bypass it.

Consider a golem that was somehow given martial weapon proficiency and some sweet magical gear. Suppose you are a full caster. How would you defeat such an opponent?

Now, probably after a minute of thinking, you came up with about half a dozen methods, right? Replace "golem" with "fighter operating under magic immunity" and you see why this could play just fine.




The two options to deal with that (other than taking a different approach entirely) are:
1. Make the anti-magic spells (or their effects) available to certain nonspellcasting classes, preferably even stronger than to the spellcasting classes.
2. Weaken casters' defenses against nonmagical attacks, so that the only highly effective answer to a spellcaster is another spellcaster ("Good saves" is an answer available to anyone), and the only highly effective answer to a nonspellcaster is another nonspellcaster.

Agreed. But option 2 mostly requires us to ban spells, which nobody likes to do. And option 1 requires us to rewrite so much material. Which nobody likes to do. Problematic.


I'd rather say it's not Conjuration (and therefore would also be SR: Yes).

I think we see eye-to-eye on this. :smallbiggrin:


Although that actually depowers evokers too much. Maybe say you can cast 2 spells per round, but doing so increases each of them to a move action if it was less.

Moving the orb spells and a handful of others back into Evocation where they belong would give evokers a nice shot in the arm, though.
Why do evokers, of all casters, need two spells per round to keep up?


On the flip side, because you're not tweaking them individually, you're not looking at the effects on every spell, so unintended consequences are a substantially bigger concern.

Conversely, you can look at every spell (since you'll have to do that either way), and then adjust the ranges and durations after your inspection. I imagine the exception list would be quite small (although I'm totally guessing about that). And if some spells become suboptimal because of the nerf, well, c'est la vie, the PC can always prepare one of the 1,000 other spells in the game instead. Or you can make a pity-concession and make the spell available one level lower than before.

[Rogue Shadows]

Why do evokers, of all casters, need two spells per round to keep up?

Because by and large, Evocation just deals damage. In other words, Evokers are the mage version of Fighter.

Wanna throw Evocation a large bone? Move the cure and inflict spells over to Evocation, on the grounds that the spells manipulate energy, which is Evocation's thing. Then make specialized Evokers capable of casting them.

...

...while you're at it, move the Raise dead and like spells over to Necromancy, where they belong. And move the cause fear and like spells over to Enchantment...again, where they belong.

[Yitzi]

Consider a golem that was somehow given martial weapon proficiency and some sweet magical gear. Suppose you are a full caster. How would you defeat such an opponent?

Buff the fighter in my party (I would be in a party) and let him do the job.

Optimizers undoubtedly have other options, but that's probably something we'll want to substantially cut down on in the course of any fix (since no class should have the means to defeat things on their own.) Cutting out or weakening most SR: No spells (as IIRC you suggested doing) would move a lot in that direction.

Spell immunity still won't make casters useless, but it'll be an extremely powerful defense, well beyond what a 9th level spell should be IMO (of course, many 9th level spells are well beyond what a 9th level spell should be, but that's another issue)

Now, if it came with a downside, such as being involuntary (so the target cannot gain the benefit of any beneficial spells, and any existing ones are removed) or disabling the target's magical equipment, that would be a different story.


Agreed. But option 2 mostly requires us to ban spells, which nobody likes to do. And option 1 requires us to rewrite so much material. Which nobody likes to do. Problematic.

There's no way to fix casters without banning or at least nerfing spells. Some can be minimally affected, but some changes would be needed. And option 1 would not require rewriting all that much material; after all, not every class has to have those capabilities; give them to some underpowered classes with an anti-caster bent and that should be enough.


Moving the orb spells and a handful of others back into Evocation where they belong would give evokers a nice shot in the arm, though.
Why do evokers, of all casters, need two spells per round to keep up?

Because the other effects scale with the enemy's HP and then have better and better effects with level, while damaging evocations' main effect boost is simply that they scale with the enemy's HP (they also get better area and so on, but not more powerful effects.)
And because DCs are too high, and that makes the difference between Reflex half and Fortitude negates not as big as it should be.


Conversely, you can look at every spell (since you'll have to do that either way), and then adjust the ranges and durations after your inspection. I imagine the exception list would be quite small (although I'm totally guessing about that). And if some spells become suboptimal because of the nerf, well, c'est la vie, the PC can always prepare one of the 1,000 other spells in the game instead. Or you can make a pity-concession and make the spell available one level lower than before.

Point. So long as you make it so that most spells (rather than just the most optimized ones) are balanced with the new system. And that's true whatever books you have (assuming you do have Core.) Ideally, we'd balance not only wizards with fighters, but also mega-optimized dumpster-diving wizards with moderately optimized Core-only wizards.

[jiriku]

Now, if it came with a downside, such as being involuntary (so the target cannot gain the benefit of any beneficial spells, and any existing ones are removed) or disabling the target's magical equipment, that would be a different story.

Costs are doable. And we could actually easily make it available by writing an ACF available at level 17-18. Most of the weaker classes have a crappy class feature at that level they wouldn't mind throwing away.



Because the other effects scale with the enemy's HP and then have better and better effects with level, while damaging evocations' main effect boost is simply that they scale with the enemy's HP (they also get better area and so on, but not more powerful effects.)
And because DCs are too high, and that makes the difference between Reflex half and Fortitude negates not as big as it should be.

Point. Actually, hit points scale faster than spell damage, now that you mention it, both because most classes have d8 or larger hit die and because hit points get +Con and Con generally increases with level. Of course, quickened spells aren't the only way to address that.

[Drachasor]

I agree with those that say you will have to ban and nerf spells. Especially as you get to 4th level and each level beyond that, there are many spells that are just too powerful (the power gap between them and other possible actions just widens as levels increase).

Save Or Die spells have to be totally removed, same with Save or Suck. I think the easiest solution here might be to use a Condition Track, like Star Wars SAGA has (basically, if you take damage over a certain threshold -- 10 + Character Level + Constitution Mod + Misc in SAGA), you go down on the track. The first step down is a -1 penalty on all saves, to-hit, and AC, the next step is -2, then -5, then -10, then you are unconscious. A petrification spell could then be changed to do some damage and push the enemy down the track a step or two, and if turns them to stone if they are pushed past -10. There are also Persistent Conditions for the track (which also handles stuff like poison in SAGA), which make it so you can't go up the track without being treated for them.

Some other powerful spells need to be dealt with similarly. Frankly, one has to decide on the baseline of power for each spell level, and devotedly stick to it. Judge power based on damage dice in some fashion, perhaps something like 3d8 damage per Spell Level. Now take any extra effect, like Applies Persistent Condition, and figure out a balanced cost for that effect in terms of damage dice, perhaps that's worth 6 dice of damage, and shoving someone down the condition track on a hit (whether attack-based or save-based) is 3 dice.

So Flesh To Stone (4th level, IIRC), 3d8 Damage, if it hits moves target one step down the condition track and applies "Partially Stone" condition to them. If the target is pushed down to 0 hit points or all the way down the condition track while this condition is on them, they are turned to stone permanently (until dispelled).

I'm just giving a general gist of an idea here. Obviously a lot of figuring like this would be a bit tricky (at first at least) and you have to guess at some things for more creative/utility spells. A half-way decent system would still be loads better than what 3.X provides though. You'd also have to decide what sort of effects are ok for what classes, and whether you want a class to be able to access inn inappropriate effects at a premium cost. As well as how to best handle level scaling.

I do think there's also the low level caster problem that would have to be dealt with. Casters, wizards most especially, are pretty weak early on and definitely need a boost here.

Hmm, essentially to fix these classes you'll have to make completely new caster classes designed to more or less capture the gist of the old ones, but with different mechanics. A bit like how the Tome of Battle was intended to offer better versions of standard martial classes (imho, let's not get into an argument about that here).

Edit: This is obviously what they were aiming for with 4th Edition, and in this limited extent 4th succeeded. Unfortunately they didn't leave the details of the balance mechanics open (which would have easily allowed for making custom powers and making higher level versions of existing powers) -- probably so that they could sell more splat books. One of the problems with the new edition, imho (one of the others is how the PHB is written so that players view class abilities as a straight-jacket).

[Yitzi]

Point. Actually, hit points scale faster than spell damage, now that you mention it, both because most classes have d8 or larger hit die and because hit points get +Con and Con generally increases with level.

On the flip side, HD divided by CR does go down a bit (in general), so that mitigates it somewhat. Still, it does scale faster: a gnoll (CR 1) has 11 hp per CR, while high-level dragons usually have around 20. (The Tarrasque has a bit over 40.)


Save Or Die spells have to be totally removed, same with Save or Suck. I think the easiest solution here might be to use a Condition Track, like Star Wars SAGA has (basically, if you take damage over a certain threshold -- 10 + Character Level + Constitution Mod + Misc in SAGA), you go down on the track. The first step down is a -1 penalty on all saves, to-hit, and AC, the next step is -2, then -5, then -10, then you are unconscious. A petrification spell could then be changed to do some damage and push the enemy down the track a step or two, and if turns them to stone if they are pushed past -10. There are also Persistent Conditions for the track (which also handles stuff like poison in SAGA), which make it so you can't go up the track without being treated for them.

Some other ideas:
1. Any creature can voluntarily choose, instead of the normal effect of a spell with a Fort or Will save, to take the effect as though they had saved and to take either 1 negative level per point they failed a Fort save against a death effect, 1 constitution damage per point they failed a Fort save against some other effect, or 1 charisma damage per point they failed a Will save.
2. Necromancy-school death effects do not cause instant death. Instead, they bestow CL/3 negative levels as the target's life ebbs away, and the target must save again the following round or repeat it until they make the save, die from negative levels equal to hit dice (they do not arise as undead from this), or are protected via Death Ward or similar.

[Drachasor]

I'm not a fan of negative levels or stat loss (especially constitution), both are pretty annoying to manage. The condition track handles this much more elegantly.

[NeoSeraphi]

Flesh to Stone is a 6th level spell. And I don't agree with the need to remove SoDs or SoSs. Again, this is a particular niche of magic that I am a personal fan of (Debuffer) and removing it would just remove some of the cool options that make playing a caster fun.

Save-or-Sucks, yeah, there are a few really good ones, even early on, such as glitterdust and stinking cloud, but that's because those are crowd control. Single targets like disintegrate, flesh to stone and slay living aren't really that bad. After all, most Save or Dies target Fortitude saves, and the higher up you go, the more insurmountable Fortitude saves become (Seriously). Plus, without disintegrate, constructs and undead go back to being very annoying problems for a four-person party that has both a rogue and a wizard in it. Sure you could blast an undead or a construct, but turning them to dust is usually much easier. (I'm looking at you, vampire, and your gaseous form ability of cheapness)

[Yitzi]

It would seem to me that while save-or-die and save-or-suck abilities do not need to be removed entirely (even with what I suggested, non-necromancy save-or-die such as disintegrate and phantasmal killer would stay as-is); what does need to be done to bring them in line with evokers (much less noncasters) is:
1. The spell has variable effects, being weaker for higher target HD as compared to caster level
2. The caster level for this purpose is capped just as damage dice for evocation spells are. (Heighten Spell should then raise the dice cap for both to be appropriate to the new level.)

[Drachasor]

Flesh to Stone is a 6th level spell. And I don't agree with the need to remove SoDs or SoSs. Again, this is a particular niche of magic that I am a personal fan of (Debuffer) and removing it would just remove some of the cool options that make playing a caster fun.

Ok, first, SoDs are NOT debuffing. They are doing unlimited damage on a failed save that essentially kills the target. That's a horrible, horrible, horrible design and can literally make combat consist of one spell and a failed save. It takes the fun and complexity out of combat. It's as bad as making a single diplomacy check to end combat against the Big Bad (with slew of justifying circumstances, and even then it would be better to play it out as something far more complex than a single roll). SoDs are significant component in how magic is broken and they provide NOTHING remotely sufficient to justify their existence.

And I wasn't saying the debuffs should be removed. Merely that overpowered debuffs should be removed or reworked. Evard's Black Tentacles are an example against appropriate targets (and there are others). Shutting down an enemy is fine, but doing so with a single spell is bad, and certainly doesn't encourage teamwork or create balance between classes.

I do think there need to be a large variety of spells, generally speaking, and playtypes available for casters. Heck, some of the possible playtypes even need buffing. For instance summoners, out of the book, are not very good generally speaking, especially at higher levels -- as a side note I don't think 4th handles them much better.

[Drachasor]

It would seem to me that while save-or-die and save-or-suck abilities do not need to be removed entirely (even with what I suggested, non-necromancy save-or-die such as disintegrate and phantasmal killer would stay as-is); what does need to be done to bring them in line with evokers (much less noncasters) is:
1. The spell has variable effects, being weaker for higher target HD as compared to caster level
2. The caster level for this purpose is capped just as damage dice for evocation spells are. (Heighten Spell should then raise the dice cap for both to be appropriate to the new level.)

Eh, why bother having a Save or Die? Just have Disintegrate deal damage. If it kills the target, they are disintegrated (if it doesn't, they still take the same amount of damage). Simple. A lot of current "Save or Die" spells can be similarly tweaked, as I noted.

Another option is to make Save or Dies "finishers", having them deal more damage the closer to death the enemy is.

[NeoSeraphi]

Again, I really think that disintegrate in particular should stay, as undead and constructs can be really difficult to kill without that particular spell. But I guess SoDs like destruction and slay living and finger of death can be removed (though it really does strip necromancy of one of its major class of spells)

Black Tentacles isn't a Save-or-Suck, it's simply crowd control. (black tentacles doesn't allow a saving throw, it requires grapple checks every round)

To go back to your particular example, we can't really remove flesh to stone or change it like you suggested because that makes gorgons and beholders much less dangerous foes. (And who wants that?)

[Drachasor]

Again, I really think that disintegrate in particular should stay, as undead and constructs can be really difficult to kill without that particular spell. But I guess SoDs like destruction and slay living and finger of death can be removed (though it really does strip necromancy of one of its major class of spells)

If you want balanced casters, then Disintegrate as it current stands needs to go. Save or Die spells are broken and poor design. If you want spells particularly good against undead, then you can make them (heck, a large number already exist). You can similarly make spells for necromancy that fit the school and aren't SoDs.


Black Tentacles isn't a Save-or-Suck, it's simply crowd control. (black tentacles doesn't allow a saving throw, it requires grapple checks every round)

It's the same principle. Against a large number of opponents, given how grapples work, it completely shuts them down (granted, this has a lot to do with the problematic nature of grapples). Saying "it's simply crowd control" is silly, as AoE SoS spells ARE all crowd control (e.g. glitterdust). Imho, it is far more interesting (e.g. fun) to have a spell that changes how enemies behave (say Wind Wall, IIRC, which stops normal missile weapons, causing archers to run forward or move to the side), then one that just completely shuts enemies down (like a mass blind effect). It's also a lot easier to balance such effects against non-casters who can't just shut down an entire group of equal or near equal CR enemies in a single round.


To go back to your particular example, we can't really remove flesh to stone or change it like you suggested because that makes gorgons and beholders much less dangerous foes. (And who wants that?)

Several ways to handle that. First, you could consider an enemy that can kill a party member on the first round of combat because of ONE bad die roll, isn't actually a really well-designed enemy. That's not particularly interesting or fun to play against, typically, imho. Let's say you even boost your saves so you only fail on a 1, then you roll a 1...how's that fun or challenging? Problematic design, imho. To compensate for a weaker ability, you could buff them in other ways (such as more attacks per round). Secondly, if you disagree, there's no reason why you have to change how the abilities of monsters work.


Frankly, if these sorts of spells are not dealt with, then you simply aren't going to fix the spell system. They are a big part of the reason why casters are broken. Certainly far more than non-SR damaging spells and the like.

[NeoSeraphi]

Several ways to handle that. First, you could consider an enemy that can kill a party member on the first round of combat because of ONE bad die roll, isn't actually a really well-designed enemy. That's not particularly interesting or fun to play against, typically, imho. Let's say you even boost your saves so you only fail on a 1, then you roll a 1...how's that fun or challenging? Problematic design, imho. To compensate for a weaker ability, you could buff them in other ways (such as more attacks per round). Secondly, if you disagree, there's no reason why you have to change how the abilities of monsters work.


Frankly, if these sorts of spells are not dealt with, then you simply aren't going to fix the spell system. They are a big part of the reason why casters are broken. Certainly far more than non-SR damaging spells and the like.

Well, you have to remember that the monsters don't actually determine their own actions. The DM does. So if the beholder is actually using his flesh to stone ability against a person whose Fortitude save is low enough for him to fail it, it's because the DM wants to challenge the party or at least slow them down (and reward the cleric for actually preparing break enchantment today)

And creating a whole system based on "finisher" spells, which do less damage than actual blasting spells but have a cool visual effect like turning someone to stone or reducing them to dust when the spell kills them isn't going to work either, because then the caster would simply be limiting his own power for no real mechanical reason (except in the case of disintegrate, removing the resurrection chance)

But crowd control debuffs like stinking cloud and black tentacles are actually good design because it allows the caster to work with his party as a team. He weakens the enemies, but doesn't kill them, and then the melee moves in and carves through them. Then everyone has contributed something to the encounter and the caster effectively prevented all the damage the creature would have otherwise dealt, which is still a powerful source of magic and enough to make up for choosing to weaken the enemy instead of pasting him with lightning.

[Drachasor]

Well, you have to remember that the monsters don't actually determine their own actions. The DM does. So if the beholder is actually using his flesh to stone ability against a person whose Fortitude save is low enough for him to fail it, it's because the DM wants to challenge the party or at least slow them down (and reward the cleric for actually preparing break enchantment today)

A well-designed monster shouldn't require the GM to pull his punches to avoid killing party members as a matter of course.


And creating a whole system based on "finisher" spells, which do less damage than actual blasting spells but have a cool visual effect like turning someone to stone or reducing them to dust when the spell kills them isn't going to work either, because then the caster would simply be limiting his own power for no real mechanical reason (except in the case of disintegrate, removing the resurrection chance)

You'd have them do MORE damage than a standard blasting spell in the right situation with a cool visual effect as a bonus.


But crowd control debuffs like stinking cloud and black tentacles are actually good design because it allows the caster to work with his party as a team. He weakens the enemies, but doesn't kill them, and then the melee moves in and carves through them. Then everyone has contributed something to the encounter and the caster effectively prevented all the damage the creature would have otherwise dealt, which is still a powerful source of magic and enough to make up for choosing to weaken the enemy instead of pasting him with lightning.

Debuffs are good design. Things that tend to completely disable lots of equal CR monsters are bad design though. They are what make casters overpowered more than anything.

I went back to look over what you listed as problems. You don't list a huge amount of the stuff that is problematic in the core rules, and then focus on a lot of minorly problematic things (like the arcane fusion).

1. I'd say Quicken Spell isn't really OP just because it adds 4 levels to the spell, which is a big hit of a spell slot.

2. A lot of that defensive stuff works on casters too, though they can plan ahead (that's more of a design problem with non-casters, since they can't plan ahead for stuff like invisibility, imho).

3. Turn interrupting isn't inherently bad, though some of it is.

4. I'll grant how shapechanging works is problematic. Though if your balancing with regards to a poorly built fighter who does 1d12+13 at 10th level is a bad way to look at things. Heck, balancing with regards to a Fighter or other bad class is a poor way to go.

5. Metamagic feats aren't really a problem, and frankly, DEALING DAMAGE isn't a problem either. Really, if you have your caster using direct damage spells, then they ARE in tier 3, pretty much. Dealing 60 damage to a group of bad guys on a failed save as a level 6 spell? Not a problem at all.

6. High defenses can be problematic, a lot of this has to do with stacking various defensive spells together. Most defensive spells are just fine by themselves or even with just one other spell.

7. Eh, auto-win as just stuff that replaces a skill check? Real Auto-win are things that end the battle with one spell. You worry about doing 60 damage to an area, but then the idea of doing say 200 damage and killing a major enemy because they failed a save isn't a problem for you? That's real auto-win, and it is one of the biggest problems with casters. There are dozens of ways for a Wizard to win a fight by himself (or herself) and make non-casters look stupid without every doing anything in your list.

8. A lot of the problem here really has to do with how poor a lot of non-casters are at range. Fighters are a horrible class for instance, who have to really, really overspecialize. Same with a lot of non-casters. If they don't focus on ranged abilities, then they'll not be able to handle ranged encounters. So a lot of this problem is truly one with how other classes are built. 400 feet is perhaps a bit of a challenge for a non-magical bow, but an archer with a magical bow can easily shoot accurately at far, far farther ranges and do good single-target damage. So I really don't think range is that big of a problem. Also, anyone can get flight with a magical item...it's not THAT hard.

9. Spells Known is potentially problematic. That said, there are plenty of games with completely free-form magical systems where casters aren't gods, so I tend to not think this is the fundamental problem. Easy access to a bunch of problematic spells, including spells that are problematic in specific situations (hence not good for a Sorcerer) is really where the problem lies.

10. I think 3.5 if anything overnerfs durations making them a non-problem, outside of a few isolated issues. Again, probably a lot of this really boils down to the overstacking of buffs. Screwing around with durations ultimately encourages the 5 minute workday, and really doesn't solve the problem which is spells that are overpowered or the stacking of spells to create overpowered effects.

And again, I just fail to see why you think SoDs are not problematic. This is just such a huge issue that any optimizer would tell you about. They completely BYPASS damage to kill things no matter the hit points. How the heck can you think damage spells are a problem and these aren't? SoDs are just far, far worse. In fact, any spell that effectively destroys the enemy in one shot (overpowered debuffs, SoDs, etc) are a major source of the problem with casters.

[NeoSeraphi]

I don't think Save or Dies are a problem because they only affect one creature. Spending one action to kill one creature instantly (with generally a 50% success rate, based on the average Fortitude saving throw at the time you earn the spell level) isn't that bad when a melee fighter can do the same thing in his situation (an optimized melee fighter can do around 500 damage easily in one round by level 20)

Meanwhile spamming multiple fireballs and lightning bolts can really mess up an encounter because of the whole AoE thing. If the caster is only taking down one guy at a time, good for him. If he's disabling a whole crowd so that the melee fighters can pick them off easier, good for him. If he's killing multiple creatures, that's when it becomes unbalancing and when the other members of the party start feeling less adequate.

In my personal experience, save-or-dies just don't work that often to be considered a problem. Even if you manage to pump your DC up, it still won't change anything. On the other hand, a Save-Or-Die can actually save your life when the party isn't prepared to fight an enemy.

I cite as an example the single time I have ever seen a party member use a save-or-die spell successfully: my level 12 party was attacked by the tarrasque. Me, the melee fighter, was doing plenty of damage per round (More than enough to penetrate his damage reduction) but I kept getting Swallowed and then cutting my way back out. The cleric pumped me full of heals every turn, but we weren't doing so well.

Then, miraculously, the tarrasque missed me, so I didn't need any healing. So I turned to the cleric's player on his turn and jokingly said, "Hey, didn't you say you actually prepared slay living today?"

The cleric's player said I was crazy, but I pointed out that even with his persisted Righteous Might he just couldn't deal enough damage per attack to make it worthwhile, so he might as well give it a shot. And the DM rolled a natural 1 on the tarrasque's Fortitude save.

It was perhaps one of my most memorable moments in a game. And while the party spellcaster (the generic casting class from Unearthed Arcana) teleported back to the wizard who gave us our missions so that he could use a wish spell to take the tarrasque to another plane, I stayed behind and cou'de'graced his body every round to keep him at -860.

So yeah, save-or-dies are situational. They're balanced by the fact that most higher CR monsters are either immune or have Fort saves so high it would take a DC optimizer to even get a decent 40% success rate.

Meanwhile, auto-win spells are what make tier 1 casters annoying. This thread's purpose isn't just to weaken casters in combat, it's to balance them against the rest of the party. Having a caster who can open locks with no check or class feature, get your party into the city without using the gate, or fly over the dangerous mountain is not only unfair to the rogues who actually put skill points into this stuff, it can often mess up the DM's plans. And then the DM has to either try and come up with a new storyline or railroad the group back because he set up the challenges for those members of his party who play nicely with the laws of physics instead of just saying "I'm a wizard so I can do whatever the hell I want"

Edit: I noticed you said that I didn't have a lot of problems with core spellcasting. That's because I don't. A lot of the crap that WotC gave spellcasters in Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, Complete Divine, and the Spell Compendium made the gap between melee and magic even wider. But there's a lot of good spells in splatbooks too, so we just have to fix the bad so we can keep the good.

[jiriku]

Ultimately, there is very little difference between lots of damage and a save-or-die. In my last game session, my emberhaunt cast a fireball at a group of four mooks. Three of them failed their saves and died. The fourth passed and took some damage. Had someone cast chained finger of death, the result would have been identical. And some are proposing that we ban the finger of death spell and buff the fireball-user. I fail to see the point.


If I could offer some guidance for the creative energy of others, you seem to be strongly engaged in deciding what will work. This is good. We could also improve our discussion by considering what will play. By this I mean, whether a proposed fix will be appealing enough that readers of this forum will be interested in adopting it. If a fix will work, but requires 20 pages of documentation, revisions to every base class, fundamental changes to the hit point system and the spellcasting mechanic, a lengthy banlist, and customizations to hundreds of spells, it's unlikely to be adopted by many.

However, a "quick fix" that fits on a single printed sheet of paper is the sort of thing that a DM can print out and have at the table as a quick reference guide for the group, and the sort of thing that is easily memorized. Remember, this thread grew out of several people's desire for a quick fix. Let's not stray too far from our roots.

Edit @ Neoseraphi: Item 8 in the OP has a typo. You mentioned that wizards can cast from a range of 50-400 ft. Maximum range on a CL20 Long-range spell is 1,200 feet, not 400.

On a related note, for those who doubt that spell ranges are too long, let me ask you this: when was the last time anyone suggested taking the Enlarge Spell feat? The fact that no one ever takes this feat is evidence that spell ranges are far larger than anyone needs them to be. Casters should be wishing for more range from time to time.

[NeoSeraphi]

Jiriku's right. No surprises there. Alright, the quick fix option it is then. Yitzi has designed a fix for most of the spells on my list of spells that need to be fixed and I believe most of his suggestions are good ones.

The ability to reduce metamagic costs shouldn't come into play, as the metamagic feats are perfectly balanced the way they are now.

That said, I think there should be one exception to that rule, namely, the Arcane Thesis feat. I think that Arcane Thesis, while powerful, is also flavorful and balanced, and if a player likes a single spell enough to use it often, he should be allowed to improve that spell and how adept he is at casting it. Do you all agree with this? Perhaps we could simply weaken the Arcane Thesis feat (And make the minimum for the metamagic it reduces be +0) and then have it be the only option available for reducing metamagic costs?

[jiriku]

I have a new proposal. Much ado is made about how AoE spells like evard's black tentacles, glitterdust, solid fog, and the like are are too powerful and affect too many targets. I would suggest that the problem is not the spells, per se, but the size of the AoE. Hence, a new nerf suggests itself: reduce the area.

All bursts, cylinders, emanations, spheres, and spreads with a radius of 20 feet or more have their radius halved.
All cones, cylinders, and lines with a length or height of 20 feet or more have their length or height halved.
All shapeable spells, or spells that affect a number of squares or cubes, provide half as much shapeable area or affect half as many squares or cubes.
All spells that affect one or more targets, no two of which can be more than a set distance from one another, have this set distance halved.

These changes will significantly reduce the impact of battlefield control magic and AoE spells, without requiring you to create a banlist or individually modify dozens or hundreds of different spells.

[NeoSeraphi]

I have a new proposal. Much ado is made about how AoE spells like evard's black tentacles, glitterdust, solid fog, and the like are are too powerful and affect too many targets. I would suggest that the problem is not the spells, per se, but the size of the AoE. Hence, a new nerf suggests itself: reduce the area.

All bursts, cylinders, emanations, spheres, and spreads with a radius of 20 feet or more have their radius halved.
All cones, cylinders, and lines with a length or height of 20 feet or more have their length or height halved.
All shapeable spells, or spells that affect a number of squares or cube, provide half as much shapeable area or affect half as many squares.
All spells that affect one or more targets, no two which can be more than a set distance from one another, have this set distance halved.

These changes will significantly reduce the impact of battlefield control magic and AoE spells, without requiring you to create a banlist or individually modify dozens or hundreds of different spells.

Interesting, and it would definitely make the Enlarge Spell feat much more viable...while also making AOE spells less useful as you fight bigger and bigger monsters with higher movement speeds that flank you easily...

I like it. By the way, I edited the OP to include Drachasor's points and also fix the typo you mentioned.

[jiriku]

Regarding Arcane Thesis, it seems to me that one could just as easily see Metamagic School Focus as the sacred cow that ought not to be abolished, or Divine Metamagic. An argument for keeping one feat is an argument for keeping any feat. Which would bring us back to keeping all of them but allowing none of them to stack. Perhaps we could simply suggest two alternatives and let the DM choose his poison:

All feats that alter or replace metamagic costs are now [Epic] feats.
All feats and abilities that alter or replace metamagic costs no longer stack.

[NeoSeraphi]

Regarding Arcane Thesis, it seems to me that one could just as easily see Metamagic School focus as the sacred cow that ought not to be abolished, or Divine Metamagic. An argument for keeping one feat is an argument for keeping all feats. Which would bring us back to keeping all of them but allowing none of them to stack. Perhaps we could simply suggest two alternatives and let the DM choose his poison:

All feats that alter or replace metamagic costs are now [Epic] feats.
All feats and abilities that alter or replace metamagic costs no longer stack.

Right. The important thing is options after all. This is homebrew, even if we provided a perfect system each individual DM would put his own spin on it

[Drachasor]

On a related note, for those who doubt that spell ranges are too long, let me ask you this: when was the last time anyone suggested taking the Enlarge Spell feat? The fact that no one ever takes this feat is evidence that spell ranges are far larger than anyone needs them to be. Casters should be wishing for more range from time to time.

If all spells had Close Range and Enlarge had no cost beyond spending a Feat, then it MIGHT work its way into a few builds. All this has more to do with how ranges are relatively unimportant...it just doesn't come up much (especially if people play on a battle map). Players will tend to just adjust their range of engagement more than anything else, and the net result will be fairly small the vast majority of the time and by shortening ranges you'll just end up hurting casters the very rare times ranges do matter.

That's how its been in games I've DMed or played in anyhow. And I'd further emphasize that if ranges happen to actually be a problem in a game, a large part of it is going to be the fact that casters are honestly just about properly flexible regarding ranges, whereas a number of other classes lack any sort of adaptability here (or in other places). That said, if one was to make an adjustment here, I think the way to do it is to make them more or less balances with ranged weapons. Give spells a range increment, and for each step along that increment decrease the Caster Level and/or Save DC of the spell by 1.

[Drachasor]

I have a new proposal. Much ado is made about how AoE spells like evard's black tentacles, glitterdust, solid fog, and the like are are too powerful and affect too many targets. I would suggest that the problem is not the spells, per se, but the size of the AoE. Hence, a new nerf suggests itself: reduce the area.

All bursts, cylinders, emanations, spheres, and spreads with a radius of 20 feet or more have their radius halved.
All cones, cylinders, and lines with a length or height of 20 feet or more have their length or height halved.
All shapeable spells, or spells that affect a number of squares or cubes, provide half as much shapeable area or affect half as many squares or cubes.
All spells that affect one or more targets, no two of which can be more than a set distance from one another, have this set distance halved.

These changes will significantly reduce the impact of battlefield control magic and AoE spells, without requiring you to create a banlist or individually modify dozens or hundreds of different spells.

Eh, I don't really think the problem IS the area though. A spell that on a failed save paralyzes a single monster is itself highly problematic. It can quite easily turn something that's supposed to be a challenge into a punching bag with ONE spell in ONE action. The problem really isn't debuffs existing or how many targets they hit (imho), but rather the debuffs that are too effective. Spells like Slow or ones that give milder penalties (like a -2 penalty to hit) work really well.

Frankly, if you think you can tone down casters so that they are at say Tier 3 without modifying dozens of spells, then you are not going to end up fixing the problem. There ARE dozens of spells that need to be modified, many significantly. If you just take a hack saw to the problem by cutting off durations, areas, ranges, etc, then your more likely to just make a bunch of spells worthless (and you'll miss problems with a bunch of other spells). That will fix some of the problem, but it is better to change existing spells so that they are still worthwhile.

If there was a quick fix then it would have happened in 3.5. There's no quick fix.

[NeoSeraphi]

Alright, Drachasor. We have a small list in the third post with a list of spells I think that need altering. Keeping in mind that our fix will most likely simply drop the spells arcane fusion, greater arcane fusion and arcane spellsurge, what spells would you like to see us fix?

[Yitzi]

Eh, I don't really think the problem IS the area though. A spell that on a failed save paralyzes a single monster is itself highly problematic. It can quite easily turn something that's supposed to be a challenge into a punching bag with ONE spell in ONE action. The problem really isn't debuffs existing or how many targets they hit (imho), but rather the debuffs that are too effective. Spells like Slow or ones that give milder penalties (like a -2 penalty to hit) work really well.

True. Idea (highly inspired by your Condition Track, but more subtle): Many negative conditions (particuarly the powerful Fort-save or Will-save ones) have up to 3 forms. (For example, for "impaired vision" you might have dazzled as the first, blurry vision (-10 to spot and search, all enemies have concealment) as the second, and blindness as the third) If you fail your save, you take the first form, which also usually gives -2 to saves against anything of that condition. (Effects that themselves penalize the relevant save should not take this penalty. Also, suffering the condition multiple times does stack this penalty.) If you fail your save by 5 or more, you take the second form, which usually gives -4 to future saves. If you fail your save by 10 or more, you suffer the last form (which will generally make you useless until it wears off at the minimum, and could extend as far as death.) Naturally, an effect can never impose a form more severe than it says, no matter how much you fail the save by. Also of course different forms of the same effect don't stack, although if one form is ability damage or negative levels it would stack with itself.
A natural 1 that does not fail by 5 or more imposes the first form, and forces you to roll again; on a second 1 you take the second form instead and must roll again, taking the third form if you roll a third 1. If the natural 1 fails by 5-9, you take the second form and roll again, taking the third form instead on a 1.

[Domriso]

Now that, Yitzi, is a highly impressive idea. I quite enjoy it. It leaves the capability of Save or Dies (which I have a love/hate relationship with), but allows it to be less than a simple auto-kill. I second this idea.

[Yitzi]

It also helps out the sorcerer, who's likely to be casting the same spell multiple times (since the penalty for getting "hit" with a lower effect means that casting the same spell multiple times is a good way to hit an enemy who would normally be nearly invulnerable with the top-level effect).

I did think of one thing that needs changing from what I said, though: As written, it's potentially more powerful, as you can use a low-level spell that only gives the weakest form, and thereby get a penalty toward the stronger form. Therefore, rule change: The -2 or -4 only applies if the lower-level form came from a source (spell, ability, etc.) that had the potential for a higher-level form; if it had the potential for a second-level only, the penalty does not apply when calculating if the third-level applies.
Also, if the penalty causes the effect to apply, the effect wears off when the penalty-granting effect does. (That way, you can't use the penalties to keep extending the effect.)

[jiriku]

How will you rewrite conditions in a way that places the rules burden only on the shoulders of the players with spellcasting PCs?


How will you create a spell modification list that the community would accept?

The chance that anyone will find our fix useful is inversely proportional to the number of changes we make. Remember, the goal is to provide a quick-and-dirty fix that provides optimum improvement in game balance for the minimum trouble and fuss. How will we insure that this fix package contains the absolute minimum possible number of rules changes?

[Drachasor]

Alright, Drachasor. We have a small list in the third post with a list of spells I think that need altering. Keeping in mind that our fix will most likely simply drop the spells arcane fusion, greater arcane fusion and arcane spellsurge, what spells would you like to see us fix?

Err, alright. I'll just list what is overpowered in the SRD for Wizard spells (note some stuff is only overpowered for a bit when you get it). I'm not going to say I am getting everything, and I stand by my previous statement that some stuff will have to be addressed in other ways (like buffs being looked at in terms of stacking). Also, some of the fixing would have to involve giving some casters a boost at low levels (a few overpowered low level spells is a horrible way to balance things out for them).

1st Level:
Sleep
Color Spray

2nd Level:
Glitterdust
Web
Hideous Laughter
Blindness

3rd Level:
Stinking Cloud
Deep Slumber
Hold Person
Halt Undead

4th Level:
Black Tentacles
Confusion
Resilient Sphere
Phantasmal Killer
Fear

5th Level:
Dominate Person
Feeblemind
Hold Monster
Baleful Polymorph

6th Level:
Antimagic Field could probably use a rework
Disintegrate

7th Level:
Hold Person, Mass
Insanity
Power Word Blind
Symbol of Stunning
Prismatic Spray
Finger of Death

8th Level:
Trap the Soul
Binding
Irresistible Dance
Power Word Stun
Symbol of Insanity
Scintillating Pattern
Symbol of Death
Temporal Stasis

9th Level:
Imprisonment
Mage's Disjunction
Prismatic Sphere
Gate
Dominate Monster
Hold Monster, Mass
Power Word Kill
Weird
Wail of the Banshee
Wish

Just because a spell is there doesn't mean that the rough concept is bad. Imprisonment spells are a nice idea, but I don't think having them as combat spells makes a great deal of sense. I probably missed some things above, and some things are borderlines. (I avoided adding spells with mechanics I personally find distasteful, like level drain and attribute loss, but I do think ideally those should be adjusted to something less paperwork heavy).

Regarding "skill" spells and even Imprisonment and the like, I think 4th Edition actually has a good idea we can steal. Rituals would be an good way to handle these spells. What to open a door? Well, your wizard CAN do it (assuming he has the ritual), but it is going to be more awkward and take longer than a rogue picking the lock (except perhaps in some cases with complicated magical doors).

Regarding Buffs, loathe as I am to say it, I think borrowing something from WoW of all things might work. Have two or three types of buffs, and you can only have one buff of the same type on you at once. You'd have to categorize buffs though. A quick and dirty solution would be to limit you to two or three buffs at once, but that could still be problematic with the right combination of buffs.

[Drachasor]

The chance that anyone will find our fix useful is inversely proportional to the number of changes we make. Remember, the goal is to provide a quick-and-dirty fix that provides optimum improvement in game balance for the minimum trouble and fuss. How will we insure that this fix package contains the absolute minimum possible number of rules changes?

The only "quick and dirty" fix that could possibly work is just outright banning a bunch of spells. Otherwise you'll actually have to get your hands dirty and really muck with the system, because there's a lot of stuff that's really wrong with D&D spells (regarding power tier).

From what I read in the OP, we aren't necessarily after a quick and dirty fix. If we are, then another easy one is to band the Tier 1 and 2 casters, because for the vast majority of them it is that or banning of bunch of their spells.

Another option would just be making lower powered versions of Clerics, Wizards, etc from the ground up (since I admit the current Tier 3 options fail to capture the flavor of these classes). Then if someone wants to use them, they don't need a whole bunch of house rules. Instead they just ban the normal casters and implement the fixed options.

[NeoSeraphi]

Deep Slumber is in the SRD? Huh. But I disagree with you that enchantment spells of any kind need to be fixed, as mind-affecting is one of the single most common immunities in the game.

And am I correct in seeing that you think limited wish is balanced, but not wish? If I am, please explain, I'm curious to hear why.

[Drachasor]

Deep Slumber is in the SRD? Huh. But I disagree with you that enchantment spells of any kind need to be fixed, as mind-affecting is one of the single most common immunities in the game.

And am I correct in seeing that you think limited wish is balanced, but not wish? If I am, please explain, I'm curious to hear why.

Limited Wish probably needs some adjusting too. Here's the thing about spells with limited targets, if a spell is broken in some cases, then the spell is broken. Just because a lot of creatures can't be put to sleep doesn't make Deep Slumber less broken against those that can. That's like saying a spell that kills creatures whose names begin with an "R" is fine since most monster don't have names that begin with "R." (Then you run into a Rakasasha (sp?) boss and they kill him like it was nothing). Part of the problem with a lot of Mind Affecting spells being broken is that it means the GM needs to make sure every boss or major enemy has that immunity (or a ridiculously high save). Having to plan around it like that is what makes it broken.

I will say there'd be a certain sense to just reworking Wizards, Druids, Clerics, and Sorcerers from the ground up. Either one is a lot of work, and at a certain point reworking how current spells work gets you into the 3.0 to 3.5 transition problem where a whole bunch of little things change and it is hard to keep track of them. We could probably grab a little bit of inspiration from 4th Edition, Tome of Battle, Warlocks and other third tier and below casters, and figure something out that still keeps the same general flavor intact.

The other option is to ban a bunch of spells and make a bunch of new ones, and tweak the mechanics a bit.

I do firmly stand by my position that there is no quick fix. There are just too many spells that are problematic.

[Yitzi]

How will you rewrite conditions in a way that places the rules burden only on the shoulders of the players with spellcasting PCs?

It'd apply to serious-condition-inducing nonspellcasters as well, but they likewise tend to be somewhat overpowered. Conversely, evokers would be minimally affected despite being spellcasters...and considering that they're on the weak side for spellcaster's that's a good thing.


Here's the thing about spells with limited targets, if a spell is broken in some cases, then the spell is broken. Just because a lot of creatures can't be put to sleep doesn't make Deep Slumber less broken against those that can. That's like saying a spell that kills creatures whose names begin with an "R" is fine since most monster don't have names that begin with "R." (Then you run into a Rakasasha (sp?) boss and they kill him like it was nothing). Part of the problem with a lot of Mind Affecting spells being broken is that it means the GM needs to make sure every boss or major enemy has that immunity (or a ridiculously high save). Having to plan around it like that is what makes it broken.

Deep Slumber is a bad example, because a 1-round casting time and close range combine to make it a pretty weak spell even against those who are vulnerable. But as for Mind Affecting spells...not every enemy will have that immunity. But so long as enough do, it becomes a risky move to cast (since you don't always know who's protected) and a risky move to prepare (since if you don't run into a good target today, you just wasted a spell slot). (This of course requires fixing divination.)


We could probably grab a little bit of inspiration from 4th Edition, Tome of Battle, Warlocks and other third tier and below casters, and figure something out that still keeps the same general flavor intact.

Actually, there's an idea I've been playing with for non-Vancian clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcerers with the same flavor, if you want to hear it, although it was designed for a higher-power system.

[Drachasor]

Deep Slumber is a bad example, because a 1-round casting time and close range combine to make it a pretty weak spell even against those who are vulnerable. But as for Mind Affecting spells...not every enemy will have that immunity. But so long as enough do, it becomes a risky move to cast (since you don't always know who's protected) and a risky move to prepare (since if you don't run into a good target today, you just wasted a spell slot). (This of course requires fixing divination.)

Maybe it isn't the best example. My list above definitely isn't the best (it needs the planar binding spells for one). It has been years since I've played 3.x, and I never purposefully tried to break it, and in fact I tend to avoid breaking things in games while still enjoying optimization* -- I did play a druid the first time and kind of broke the game by accident though. I was a ridiculous fraction of the party's combat and scouting capability (and communication and other things).

That said, something that can stop an equal-level or higher enemy in one spell sounds OP to me. Compare that to say Circle of Death or Cloudkill. Both of those can kill tons of creatures very easily, but against more challenging targets they are at best useful but not overpowering (unless chained together with other spells, but then you're making a potent combo, which seems good to me).

*Since I like casters, it is a bit of a tightrope.


Actually, there's an idea I've been playing with for non-Vancian clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcerers with the same flavor, if you want to hear it, although it was designed for a higher-power system.

Hmm, I am not sure if that entirely fits the OP's idea of a magic fix, but I'd like to hear it.

PS. Still thinking on your proposal in a previous post.

[Shadow Lord]

Quoted from Above.

1st Level:
Sleep
Color Spray

2nd Level:
Glitterdust
Web
Hideous Laughter
Blindness

3rd Level:
Stinking Cloud
Deep Slumber
Hold Person
Halt Undead

4th Level:
Black Tentacles
Confusion
Resilient Sphere
Phantasmal Killer
Fear

5th Level:
Dominate Person
Feeblemind
Hold Monster
Baleful Polymorph

6th Level:
Antimagic Field could probably use a rework
Disintegrate

7th Level:
Hold Person, Mass
Insanity
Power Word Blind
Symbol of Stunning
Prismatic Spray
Finger of Death

8th Level:
Trap the Soul
Binding
Irresistible Dance
Power Word Stun
Symbol of Insanity
Scintillating Pattern
Symbol of Death
Temporal Stasis

9th Level:
Imprisonment
Mage's Disjunction
Prismatic Sphere
Gate
Dominate Monster
Hold Monster, Mass
Power Word Kill
Weird
Wail of the Banshee
Wish

I bolded the spells that I agree need fixing, and italicized the ones I disagree with, as well as leaving blank the ones I have no opinion on.

[jiriku]

Neoseraphi, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to update the OP with your vision for what the goal of this thread is. As we're seeing, "fixing magic" can encompass anything from a band-aid fix such as sonofzeal and myself are advocating although way up to a complete system overhaul such as Shadow Lord, Drachasor, and Yitzi are contemplating. We need to define the scope of what we expect to accomplish.

[NeoSeraphi]

My idea was to have a discussion as a group about what would be the best way to fix it, I don't have any personal aspirations or anything specific in mind.

[Yitzi]

That said, something that can stop an equal-level or higher enemy in one spell sounds OP to me. Compare that to say Circle of Death or Cloudkill. Both of those can kill tons of creatures very easily, but against more challenging targets they are at best useful but not overpowering (unless chained together with other spells, but then you're making a potent combo, which seems good to me).

That's the point of the multiforms condition idea: You can kill tons of weak creatures easily, but against strong creatures they'll almost certainly take a weaker form.


Hmm, I am not sure if that entirely fits the OP's idea of a magic fix, but I'd like to hear it.

It probably doesn't, but here goes (what I've got so far):

It uses a spellpoints type system, although there are actually 3 forms: Arcane casters use spellpoints, while divine casters use both Prayer Points and Channeling Points.

Under standard circumstances (i.e. barring exceptions which nearly all classes have), you choose the caster level: The minimum caster level is 2XSL-1, the maximum caster level is your class level, and you pay points (all relevant types) equal to caster level. The effective spell level for all purposes (including save DCs) is half the caster level, rounded up.

Wizards can have as many spells as they want in the spellbook, but can memorize only class levelXINT bonus in spells; they may cast spontaneously from memorized spells with their spellpoints. They get roughly 2/3 as many spellpoints as a psion of equal level would get pp, and get no bonus for a high ability score. But:
1. For purposes of range, duration, and dispel checks they always use their class level instead of SP spent for the caster level.
2. They can attempt to have a caster level below the normal minimum (spell efficiency). To do this, the wizard must make a Spellcraft check (DC=5+3Xcaster level decrease); on failure, the spell fails.

Thus, wizards are primarily buffers, utility casters (for common utility spells), and dispellers (since spell efficiency lowers DC and CL-dependent effects too much for those spells to be too useful.)

Sorcerers have no spells known list; they can cast any spell on their list, or even any spell that could be researched to be on their list. (If they try to cast a spell too powerful for them or that they have insufficient spellpoints left for, even if it's just because they misjudged the spell level because it's never been researched, the spell fizzles and they spend sp equal to their caster level (or all if that's less). Likewise, if they misjudge the spell level they spend at least the minimum points for the actual level.) They get spellpoints as pp for a psion of their level (no ability bonus), but have no way of reducing the cost. A sorcerer pays 2 extra sp for divination spells, as intuition is not conducive to such effects. They also cannot get the benefit of custom spells being lower-level due to specific targets (since that involves subtlety beyond their ability).
Sorcerers thus make excellent blasters, since for that you'll want to spend the maximum pp anyway. They're also great for always having the answer, so long as it's within their capabilities. (The sort of magic capable of duplicating or countering what a good skillmonkey can do will generally be beyond their capabilities.)

Clerics pray for effects, and thus can cast totally spontaneously, like sorcerers (with no divination penalty, but they still cannot get any benefit for specific-target spells.) The spell costs both prayer points and channeling points (since they have to both receive and channel the effect); they may choose to pay more prayer points than channeling points, in which case duration, range, and dispelling are determined with the prayer point expenditure as their caster level. Channeling points can also be used to channel energy (as Pathfinder, as a cleric of level equal to cp expended; a single cleric may channel both positive and negative energy if his deity doesn't mind).
A cleric gets one and a half times as many channeling points as the pp of a psion their level (with a bonus equal to half their level times their WIS modifier, rounded down). Prayer points are not regained by resting, but rather by performing services for their deity:
-Each encounter of which the deity strongly approves gains:
-1 pp (here this means prayer points, not power points) if the number of enemies is at least 1/4 the number of allies (including the cleric). (This is so that clerics of Erythnul can gain pp by beating up 1st-level commoners, at least until the PCs show up to stop them.)
-pp equal to 1/10th of the encounter level squared.
-1 pp for every 300 XP gained by the cleric, multiplied by the cleric's level.
In addition, spells cast for such an encounter cost no pp (but do cost cp as normal.)
-Donating wealth to a cause favored by the deity gains pp equal to the wealth donated divided by the cleric's total wealth (before donation) times 10 times the cleric's maximum pp.
Fractional pp are possible, but serve no purpose other than being combined with other fractions for whole pp.
A cleric has a maximum of pp equal to 2/3 his cp per day.

A cleric cannot cast all cleric spells. Each deity has "spheres" (e.g. life, death, fire, good, nature, travel, war, knowledge, power), and each spell belongs to one or more spheres; a cleric can only cast spells belonging to the spheres of his deity. (Thus, a cleric of Pelor isn't casting Divine Power, but a cleric of Heironeous probably is.)

Druids cast and channel much like clerics, but gain pp at half the rate. The more powerful class features (animal companion and wild shape) are removed, but may be gained through spells. They also only pay half pp for Nature sphere spells. (The spheres for a druid would probably be Nature, the four elemental spheres, and Life, and they may only channel positive energy.)

[NeoSeraphi]

Your suggestion seems interesting, Yitzi, but it's a little complicated. Perhaps if you could find a way to explain it with less of a wall of text, maybe use some bolding and formatting tricks to just make it a little easier to read...I don't know. I certainly was suggesting a power point fix a few pages back, and you have presented one, though I'm not sure how an animal companion as a spell would be any more desirable than a summon natures ally spell

[Drachasor]

That is a little complicated.

I was thinking something more like:

Use the Maneuver Mechanic from Tome of Battle. One can mess around with various ways to refresh maneuvers.
Represent each school of magic, domain, or the like just as Disciplines in ToB are. Figure out ahead of time the rough rubic by which most abilities will be balanced based on level, use ToB as a guideline (might as well).
Perhaps give an at-will ability like Eldritch Blast (without any special mods) or something else to each class or something like 4th Edition uses.
Want Healing and Refreshing of maneuvers in (or even out) of combat to be more limited? Give all classes (Healing) Surges, and have most healing effects use them. Refreshing used abilities could use them too potentially (though some refresh options might give a freebie once per combat or something).
Alternatively/additionally to 4, you could give out Empowerment Points, say 3 or something each day. They could be used to make a spell more powerful. So casters could get that reserved drained. Potentially (Healing) Surges could get used like this, but I feel that would lead to messiness in terms of numbers of healing surges vs. a good point for Empowerment Point numbers.
Wizards get a "warlock-like" ability to make scrolls of spells they don't know (but could cast). Druids would have shapeshifting stances.
Non-combat abilities like Knock would become 4th Ed-style Rituals. Probably lower or eliminate a number of monetary costs in them (for some anyhow). A Knock that takes say 10 minutes is sufficiently worse than what someone with the school could do, imho, though you could always up the time more.


I grant it would require a lot of work to write up spells like this, as a lot of them might have to be new. It might even mean getting rid of the d6/level mechanic for damage spells and going with something a little more fixed (like 3d6/3d8 per spell level). Edit: An advantage of figuring this out would be easily making higher level versions of a spell. Want a 5th level Magic Missile? A formulaic guide could make that trivial, same with any other level. Again, this wouldn't work for all spells, but it could for a lot.

I'm actually working on something like this for Star Wars SAGA (both for Jedi Powers and for stuff for non-Jedi).

Edit: Creating all the above would be complicated, but in play I think it would be pretty simple overall.

Edit2: Actually, after I get done with the SW SAGA version (and post it), I'll work on something for D&D.

[Yitzi]

Your suggestion seems interesting, Yitzi, but it's a little complicated. Perhaps if you could find a way to explain it with less of a wall of text, maybe use some bolding and formatting tricks to just make it a little easier to read

That's what the paragraphs were for. :smallsmile: I was sort of jotting it down, maybe I'll format it later.

(It would also work differently with scrolls, wands, and staffs, all of which are for wizards only: Scrolls would let him cast spells he didn't prepare and would be reusable, wands and staffs would let him boost spells beyond the minimum CL more cheaply, and would wear out after some use.)


though I'm not sure how an animal companion as a spell would be any more desirable than a summon natures ally spell

Because it'd be more powerful and last a lot longer (not permanent, but maybe 1 day/caster level or so)

[Domriso]

I tend to agree with the overhaul fix; a quick fix is nice in principle, but I don't really think it's feasible. To be perfectly honest, my default opinion is a system such as the Vancian spellcasting is inherently unbalanced, since it has no obvious limits on what is permissible (leading to such situations as this, where one person's idea of overpowered is different than another's), though I don't necessarily think that this is a flaw which can be overcome, since many other systems have similar issues, and they're still fun.

[Yitzi]

To be perfectly honest, my default opinion is a system such as the Vancian spellcasting is inherently unbalanced, since it has no obvious limits on what is permissible.

If there are no obvious limits, that's no problem, as the DM can rule on the matter. The problem is when something overpowered is quite obviously allowed within the rules.

[Domriso]

That's basically what I was trying to say, though you stated it in a much better way. My experience is that, especially for new players, it is hard to notice what is broken and what isn't, so in a system like Vancian casting where hard and fast limits, or even basic guidelines, are not easily available, there tends to be a number of spells which are somewhat out of whack, either under- or overpowered.

Once again, though, after I wrote that post I kind of realized it didn't add anything to the argument, so you can just ignore me and I'll keep watching until I see somewhere I can contribute amongst you smart fellers.