Not sure if this will reduce the power disparity or not.

[TroubleBrewing]

I'm going to be starting a 3.5 game soon, and I've come up with a way that might lower the gap between Tier 1 and 2 casters and mundanes.

I'm thinking of limiting players who want to play T1-2 casters in the following way: At no time can your total caster levels in any one T1-2 full-casting class exceed one-half your total character levels.

For Example: Typical Sorcerer blaster build goes something like Sorc 5/Incantatrix 10/Whatever-you're-already-awesome 5. My system would force that player to go Sorc 2/Mundane 3/Sorc 2/Mundane PrC 1/Incantatrix 1/M2/I2/M3/I3/etc.

By contrast, for a different type of build you COULD go Wizard 1/Cleric 1/Wiz 1/Cleric 1. Theurgic-builds are, with few exceptions, much weaker than straight single-cast types.

It favors gishy-types, to be sure. But does this actually do what I hope it does and lower the gap a bit, as well as encourage caster splashes?

[Keneth]

This might work if you don't use XP penalty for multiclassing in your campaign.

What I usually do is limit the spell selection that the players have access to. They can acquire any spell of 3rd level or lower but anything above is something that they have to see first or research on their own (time for research is also reduced) in both cases requiring a successful spellcraft check. This goes for all spellcaster classes including those who acquire spells by instinct (such as sorcerers) and those who get them from divine entities (such as clerics).

[Aharon]

Well, under this system, it would be the best choice to play half-casters like bards, binders etc.

The power disparity would be reduced, but not eliminated. And there are at least 3 ways to squeeze 9th level spells in 10 CLs - Urpriest, Apostle of Peace and Beholder Mage. I'm sure there are more esoteric ways, too. So you should either ban these or deal with them in some other ways.

You could also just give every full-casting class the bard spell progression, or a similar one ending at level 6 spells. That way, multiclassing isn't a problem and the players can still benefit from the other advantages of casting-oriented Prestige Classes.

[TroubleBrewing]

This might work if you don't use XP penalty for multiclassing in your campaign.

I do not. I find that system ridiculous. Further, it just gives humans an added bonus, and do they really need more? :smalltongue:



What I usually do is limit the spell selection that the players have access to. They can acquire any spell of 3rd level or lower but anything above is something that they have to see first or research on their own (time for research is also reduced) in both cases requiring a successful spellcraft check. This goes for all spellcaster classes including those who acquire spells by instinct (such as sorcerers) and those who get them from divine entities (such as clerics).

I'd rather not. My players are creative and WILL find ways around this, and I prefer players to have all the resources that their class allows at their disposal (otherwise, why take the class?)


Well, under this system, it would be the best choice to play half-casters like bards, binders etc.

Another thing I hope to encourage; I'm shooting for a power level around Tier 3 for the campaign.



The power disparity would be reduced, but not eliminated.

Perfect. That's basically the effect I want to have; Spellcasters SHOULD be stronger than mundanes, as they're tampering with reality itself. It will also have the added bonus of encouraging Tier 3 classes.




And there are at least 3 ways to squeeze 9th level spells in 10 CLs - Urpriest, Apostle of Peace and Beholder Mage. I'm sure there are more esoteric ways, too. So you should either ban these or deal with them in some other ways.

Ur-Priest isn't going to be a problem, as it is a non-evil game. Apostle of Peace is terrible, and my players know it. Beholder Mage is banned in my games.



You could also just give every full-casting class the bard spell progression, or a similar one ending at level 6 spells. That way, multiclassing isn't a problem and the players can still benefit from the other advantages of casting-oriented Prestige Classes.

I'd rather not muck about with the printed versions of classes. Changing the ways they can be combined would be preferable to homebrew.

[NNescio]

Loophole: Artificers. Also, manifesters, but the latter is more of a technical distinction.

[Greymane]

Well, if that's how you want to run your game, so be it. One curious thing though: If a PC has a character who is an arcanist by origin and trade, what does he do when he hits his level limit for Wizard or something? Does he immediately jump into an archetype that makes no sense for the character like a Rogue, or would any character like this be encouraged to go, say, Sorcerer/Ultimate Magus? He can't just stay a bookish fellow?

Another issue I see is in regards to Caster Levels and overcoming Spell Resistance on level appropriate monsters. Easily rectified by changing some numbers around, though.

[TroubleBrewing]

One curious thing though: If a PC has a character who is an arcanist by origin and trade, what does he do when he hits his level limit for Wizard or something? Does he immediately jump into an archetype that makes no sense for the character like a Rogue, or would any character like this be encouraged to go, say, Sorcerer/Ultimate Magus? He can't just stay a bookish fellow?

That's up to the players to justify. If the example in question is used, that player could stay "bookish" by entering Factotum, to reflect a temporary broadening of his horizons outside of Arcane magic; any other spellcasting class (such as Sorcerer in your example) to reflect a study of magic as a whole; Binder to show an interest in forgotten and supposedly dead forms of spellcasting, etc. The list goes on and on.


Another issue I see is in regards to Caster Levels and overcoming Spell Resistance on level appropriate monsters. Easily rectified by changing some numbers around, though.

This was actually something I hadn't thought about. I suppose the players will simply have to avoid SR: Yes spells. The Spell Penetration line becomes far more valuable now, as well.

Honestly, SR: Yes spells are the exact thing that spell resistance was designed to make more difficult. In typical fantasy literature, if a particular enemy is resistant to an attack, rather than give up or try to brute force his way through the creatures defenses, the hero typically tries a different tactic. This kind of thinking is something I'm trying to encourage. Rather than being one-trick ponies that have learned how to apply their trick to things it wouldn't normally work on, players have to work to the farthest limits of their builds to come up with inventive solutions to problems that wouldn't be an issue in normal games. I like this, actually. Thanks for pointing out the issue!


Loophole: Artificers. Also, manifesters, but the latter is more of a technical distinction.

Ha. :smallannoyed: When I said "caster", I would've thought my meaning was clear. Artificers and full manifesting classes (Ardent, Psion, and Wilder) are meant to be included.

[NNescio]

That's up to the players to justify. If the example in question is used, that player could stay "bookish" by entering Factotum, to reflect a temporary broadening of his horizons outside of Arcane magic; any other spellcasting class (such as Sorcerer in your example) to reflect a study of magic as a whole; Binder to show an interest in forgotten and supposedly dead forms of spellcasting, etc. The list goes on and on.



This was actually something I hadn't thought about. I suppose the players will simply have to avoid SR: Yes spells. The Spell Penetration line becomes far more valuable now, as well.

Honestly, SR: Yes spells are the exact thing that spell resistance was designed to make more difficult. In typical fantasy literature, if a particular enemy is resistant to an attack, rather than give up or try to brute force his way through the creatures defenses, the hero typically tries a different tactic. This kind of thinking is something I'm trying to encourage. Rather than being one-trick ponies that have learned how to apply their trick to things it wouldn't normally work on, players have to work to the farthest limits of their builds to come up with inventive solutions to problems that wouldn't be an issue in normal games. I like this, actually. Thanks for pointing out the issue!



Ha. :smallannoyed: When I said "caster", I would've thought my meaning was clear. Artificers and full manifesting classes (Ardent, Psion, and Wilder) are meant to be included.

Artificers are half-casters like Bards. The only thing that would qualify them for your 'restriction' is that they are placed in Tier 1. Which shouldn't be the case as your 'restriction' also nerfs Tier 3 full casters like Beguilers.

[TroubleBrewing]

Artificers are half-casters like Bards. The only thing that would qualify them for your 'restriction' is that they are placed in Tier 1. Which shouldn't be the case as your 'restriction' also nerfs Tier 3 full casters like Beguilers.

Huh. Whaddya know. I thought Artificers were fullcasters, but I'm wrong.

I guess Artificers get a pass on this one, but I'm not too worried. None of my players has ever looked twice at the class. I've only got one player who has ever shown any interest at all in crafting, and he prefers Constructs to magic items.

Also, it's less of a "restriction" and more of a "build requirement for the campaign in question". The purpose is both to lower to gap and for fluff reasons. Magic is common, but only low-to-mid-level stuff. Soldiers and guards are commonly gishes of some variety.

[Greymane]

That's up to the players to justify. If the example in question is used, that player could stay "bookish" by entering Factotum, to reflect a temporary broadening of his horizons outside of Arcane magic; any other spellcasting class (such as Sorcerer in your example) to reflect a study of magic as a whole; Binder to show an interest in forgotten and supposedly dead forms of spellcasting, etc. The list goes on and on.


But it seems odd if the character has no intention of more esoteric study and simply wants to stick to what his current path offers. Even Sorcerer kind of has him "starting over" with the same spells he knew as a Wizard, just using them under a different mechanic. It seems bizarre for a character to be forced a career change by the mechanics that isn't necessarily backed up by fluff.

Balance-wise, I honestly don't see too many things wrong with your proposed approach. It'll definitely limit the power of Tier 1 casters a great deal and reign them in. How people take this will depend on the group, but if you're aiming for a little more balance, I foresee this as doing it in some way. However, it also hurts Tier 3 full casters, who don't break the game like a Wizard, Cleric or Druid.



This was actually something I hadn't thought about. I suppose the players will simply have to avoid SR: Yes spells. The Spell Penetration line becomes far more valuable now, as well.

Honestly, SR: Yes spells are the exact thing that spell resistance was designed to make more difficult. In typical fantasy literature, if a particular enemy is resistant to an attack, rather than give up or try to brute force his way through the creatures defenses, the hero typically tries a different tactic. This kind of thinking is something I'm trying to encourage. Rather than being one-trick ponies that have learned how to apply their trick to things it wouldn't normally work on, players have to work to the farthest limits of their builds to come up with inventive solutions to problems that wouldn't be an issue in normal games. I like this, actually. Thanks for pointing out the issue!


And while that's a tried and true method of combat in written narratives, I might be worried that a PCs options might be a fair bit more limited in the game of D&D. What does the Wizard do when he's out of spells? He pulls out his Crossbow and pelts away for his measly 1d8 at half BAB. His options to contribute at that point are greatly limited. Similar situations arise when Rogues have to fight Plants. It's okay to throw a monkey wrench in once in awhile, but it's sometimes hard to find that sweet spot where they're still contributing (even in a limited capacity).

Though, I suppose he could do the smart thing and grab SR: No spells like all the other casters. :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

I'd rather not. My players are creative and WILL find ways around this, and I prefer players to have all the resources that their class allows at their disposal (otherwise, why take the class?) There is no way around it (trust me, I've heard them all). And they still have all the resources available, they simply don't get absurd amounts of power all at once.

[TroubleBrewing]

DISCLAIMER: I suppose I should clarify that I meant this change to only apply to Tier 1 and 2 before I continue. OP edited to reflect this.


But it seems odd if the character has no intention of more esoteric study and simply wants to stick to what his current path offers.

If this is the case, then he could grab Duskblade, Hexblade, or some other gish-in-a-can to demonstrate a more martial focus, as in this game world, gishes are commonplace. Esoteric study-types that only focus on one type and application of magic are... decidedly out-of-place.


It seems bizarre for a character to be forced a career change by the mechanics that isn't necessarily backed up by fluff.

Anything can be backed up by fluff with proper imagination! :smallbiggrin:


Balance-wise, I honestly don't see too many things wrong with your proposed approach. It'll definitely limit the power of Tier 1 casters a great deal and reign them in. How people take this will depend on the group, but if you're aiming for a little more balance, I foresee this as doing it in some way.

This is exactly what I'm going for.


However, it also hurts Tier 3 full casters, who don't break the game like a Wizard, Cleric or Druid.

See the disclaimer I put above. I wasn't clear about this before, but it was my original intention.


And while that's a tried and true method of combat in written narratives, I might be worried that a PCs options might be a fair bit more limited in the game of D&D. What does the Wizard do when he's out of spells? He pulls out his Crossbow and pelts away for his measly 1d8 at half BAB. His options to contribute at that point are greatly limited.

If he runs out spells, sure. But the issue here isn't that he's going to run out, the issue is monsters being immune to his main tactic. As a DM, it is partially my job to ensure that players don't get totally screwed by a given encounter and that everyone can participate to a limited extent, while still allowing people to grab the spotlight occasionally.


Though, I suppose he could do the smart thing and grab SR: No spells like all the other casters. :smalltongue:

Yes. Yes he could. :smallbiggrin:


There is no way around it (trust me, I've heard them all).

"Life finds a way." -Jeff Goldblum. There is always a way! Players have 4 or 5 brains to their DM's single, often insufficient brain. They're guaranteed to outsmart the DM occasionally.

[Keneth]

"Life finds a way." -Jeff Goldblum. There is always a way! Players have 4 or 5 brains to their DM's single, often insufficient brain. They're guaranteed to outsmart the DM occasionally. I've been using this for years with players of different ages, experiences and intelligence. There's no way around it. The best solution to this problem was researching various summoning spells in order to learn spells from the monsters but this approach was still sufficiently limited to reduce their vast power. I like the idea of getting the most unique spells and powers from the monsters you fight and the mysterious items that you come across in the campaign. But I understand that this method doesn't fit into every game, I was just putting it out there because it has always worked for us.

[Greymane]

Oh, another potential issue: Spell Save DCs. Since you're hamstringing spell access, it's possible that the DCs on the (lower) level of spells might be more on the low side. Whereas you'll have your Beguilers throwing about spells that are much harder to save by virtue of being higher level. But perhaps you're counting on this? It may just depend on the level of disdain you have for Tier 1 and 2 classes.

[TroubleBrewing]

Oh, another potential issue: Spell Save DCs. Since you're hamstringing spell access, it's possible that the DCs on the (lower) level of spells might be more on the low side. Whereas you'll have your Beguilers throwing about spells that are much harder to save by virtue of being higher level. But perhaps you're counting on this? It may just depend on the level of disdain you have for Tier 1 and 2 classes.

Another valid point. This one is something I'd thought about at length, however, and I think I've got an answer.

As gishes are commonplace, the most common type of spells to have would be personal/party buffs, heals, teleportation stuff, etc. Things that don't have DC's to speak of. Summoning is likewise a valid tactic, as is battlefield control (plenty of AoE's without saves).

The only playstyles that get shafted by the DC's are direct damage and debuffing, which is a bit of a concern. However, Warmage doesn't have a restriction on class levels under this rule, and neither does Dread Necromancer/Hexblade/DFA. Because of this, I'm not too worried.

[Greymane]

As gishes are commonplace, the most common type of spells to have would be personal/party buffs, heals, teleportation stuff, etc. Things that don't have DC's to speak of. Summoning is likewise a valid tactic, as is battlefield control (plenty of AoE's without saves).

Oh that poor sod who actually chose to go with Wizard, then. :smallbiggrin:



The only playstyles that get shafted by the DC's are direct damage and debuffing, which is a bit of a concern. However, Warmage doesn't have a restriction on class levels under this rule, and neither does Dread Necromancer/Hexblade/DFA. Because of this, I'm not too worried.

Well, by and large, I think this'll work the way you want it. You might discover some hiccups I can't fathom at the moment while you're playing, but I'm not sensing anything huge. Good luck with the game and I hope it gets you the story you want.

[TroubleBrewing]

Thanks for the help. Always nice to have somebody to bounce ideas around with.

[BlueInc]

"Hey bro, we heard you like gishes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus), so we put some gish in your gish so you can gish while you gish."

But more seriously: I've been working on a "tier 2-4 classes only" rules list, and I was thinking of banning wizards entirely in favor of magi. It's a solid tier 3 class that has most of the battlefield control of a Wizard without too many of the game-breaking spells.

This system will probably work well; I imagine some half-casting prestige classes will start looking nicer.

[Person_Man]

Is balance a goal of your game? I thought the purpose of 3.X/PF D&D was to have fun, and that people who wanted balance switched to 4E?

You are the DM. You are the god of your world. No matter how powerful they become, you can always make your enemies more powerful. If they want to Polymorph themselves into a Cryohydra, you can have them fight a few Balors. If there are one or two players who hog the limelight by playing full casters, just have enemies target them more often (everyone knows that casters are the real threat, after all). And/or you can just have a beer together after a game and just ask them to tone down their spell selection. And/or give the other less optimized players more stuff and cool things to do out of combat (let them marry into royalty and work their way up the political ladder, or offer them a job as chief Constable of the local city, or have a Nymph fall in love with them, or whatever). Or you could have other archmages and high priests in your world actively hunt down and try to kill younger casters because they don't want anyone to grow powerful enough to destroy them, so they have to keep their magical powers secret and can't use them in public. And/or let them use War Weaver or other crazy stuff that lets their spells effect EVERYONE in the party and not just the caster, so that everyone is essentially playing on the Tier 1-2 level regardless of their class choice.

The larger point is that taking something away from a player can make them resentful, without necessarily adding anything to the game. But having a world that is challenging as they are powerful lets them feel even better for defeating it.

[CTrees]

Instead of bringing casters down towards the level of melee, why not bring melee up? Instead of giving players this complicated set of build restrictions, if gishes are the standard in this world, why not have play gestalt and require that one side be a full caster class/PrC, and the other side not be? It accomplishes the same goal, but from a player perspective, you're giving them more toys, not taking away the toys they're used to having. This makes a BIG difference.

[BlueInc]

Instead of bringing casters down towards the level of melee, why not bring melee up? Instead of giving players this complicated set of build restrictions, if gishes are the standard in this world, why not have play gestalt and require that one side be a full caster class/PrC, and the other side not be? It accomplishes the same goal, but from a player perspective, you're giving them more toys, not taking away the toys they're used to having. This makes a BIG difference.

I fully support this idea. Maybe cap player progression at E6, E8, or E10 to your liking?

[Fouredged Sword]

I see the specialist arcane spellcaster of your world being a wizard x / sorcerer x / ultimate magus 10 / something x, with maxing out at CL 10 wizard, CL 10 sorcerer, and some non-casting class thrown in to keep the CL's from going over 1/2 character level.

Not powerful at all, but you would be able to pull of metamagic like no other character in this rule set except for a DMM cleric.

5 5th level spells, with the ability to sacrifice lower level spells to metamagic them. Not to shabby for such a restriction of character abilites. Also you could posibly get a few 6th level abilites through runestaffs and versitile spellcaster.

What is your stance on things that boost CL, but do not grant extra spells or higher spells. Practiced spellcaster is a harsh thing to forbid in these rules. What of items like the ion stone that ups CL? Can you use items to boost CL?

I would restrict your levels in a spellcasting class, not CL. Less complicated with items and feats being unable to boost spellcasting class levels, but are able to boost CL.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm going to be starting a 3.5 game soon, and I've come up with a way that might lower the gap between Tier 1 and 2 casters and mundanes.

I'm thinking of limiting players who want to play T1-2 casters in the following way: At no time can your total caster levels in any one T1-2 full-casting class exceed one-half your total character levels.

For Example: Typical Sorcerer blaster build goes something like Sorc 5/Incantatrix 10/Whatever-you're-already-awesome 5. My system would force that player to go Sorc 2/Mundane 3/Sorc 2/Mundane PrC 1/Incantatrix 1/M2/I2/M3/I3/etc.

By contrast, for a different type of build you COULD go Wizard 1/Cleric 1/Wiz 1/Cleric 1. Theurgic-builds are, with few exceptions, much weaker than straight single-cast types.

It favors gishy-types, to be sure. But does this actually do what I hope it does and lower the gap a bit, as well as encourage caster splashes?

So it favors Mystic Theurges, etc.
Does this affect enemies as well? Will they be limited in same way?

[Greyfell]

The problem with trying to fit encounters to your party with widely varying tiers is that it puts a huge strain on the DM to come up with different/interesting fights/traps/encounters that don't leave the lower tiered classes feeling left out. There's only a few monsters in 3.5 per any specific CR range that are really hard for casters to take out but that can still be roughed up by a melee specialist/sneak attacker/what have you.

In general, if I were to DM a campaign again, I'd basically implore any tier 1-2 casters to 'take it easy' and to try and focus on helping the party instead of "I can nuke this encounter with one max/emp/twinned ray spell!"

At the same time, I tell the people playing the lower tiers to kick it up a notch. The only time I've regretted it was when someone went out of his way to show me how ridiculous the spike chain tripper build was.... how can you trip a gargantuan creature? Easily... if you follow his example.

Yes, you are a wizard/cleric/druid... yes we know that in 3.5 that means you are a flipping god. There is no need to rub it in.

[Greyfell]

sorry, double post but my brain just backstabbed me with an odd idea...

what if you allow players who pick tier 3 and lower classes to use Action Points, but not allow the tier 1-2's to have them? Would this help the disparity in anyones mind?

[Fouredged Sword]

An action point will not save you from a wizard played to any level of skill who bothers to gate a solar.

I have hear that some people allow tier 2 to gestault with a NPC class, tier 3 to gestault with a tier 5 class, and Tier 4 to gestault with a tier 4. This would help the issues of balance somewhat.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Or you can give lower tiers bigger pointbuy and some bonuses, but on the condition that they can't later multiclass into anything higher tier. Maybe even allow for gestalting.

[Fouredged Sword]

High tiers don't care about point buy. A wizard can start with a 10 int and still be able to chain gate solars by 17th level. He will have a hard time at level 1, but by 20 he no longer needs stats.

the gestault system works becuse even if you multi class you simply obey the requirements of your new tier for that level.

Be a fighter//swashbucker 2 / wizard 1 / sorcerer//expert 3 if you want.

PRC's need rules to define them. I would make PRC's count as tier 3 or 4 unless they advance spellcasting at a level, then they count as the tier of the spellcasting they advance.

[Psyren]

Is balance a goal of your game? I thought the purpose of 3.X/PF D&D was to have fun, and that people who wanted balance switched to 4E?

You are the DM. You are the god of your world. No matter how powerful they become, you can always make your enemies more powerful. If they want to Polymorph themselves into a Cryohydra, you can have them fight a few Balors.

Putting aside the not-so-subtle edition jab, I don't subscribe to this kind of arms race. Or rather, I acknowledge that some playgroups do, but I don't think it should be assumed to work for everyone.

High-power games are much more dynamic and organic, I agree - but they're also a hell of a lot more complex to run. Designing (and running) encounters that can challenge a T1 party requires a lot more work than ones that can challenge a T4 party, after all, and the 4-brains-against-1 problem only grows the more moving parts you add to the equation.

Not everyone wants to deal with that for an entire campaign. Not wanting to doesn't mean you don't want to have fun, nor does it mean you long for the green pastures of 4e. :smalltongue:


The larger point is that taking something away from a player can make them resentful, without necessarily adding anything to the game. But having a world that is challenging as they are powerful lets them feel even better for defeating it.

Agreed again - but by the same token, taking things away can be positive for the game too. It's a fact that WotC poorly designed many spells, and removing the worst offenders is a simple way of evening things out.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

High tiers don't care about point buy.
But lower tiers do.


the gestault system works becuse even if you multi class you simply obey the requirements of your new tier for that level.

Be a fighter//swashbucker 2 / wizard 1 / sorcerer//expert 3 if you want.
I don't follow. What are you saying? :smallconfused:

[Fouredged Sword]

A figher 20 with a 100 str is still low tier and will fail to beat a wizard 20 who is played smart even if the wizard has a 10 starting int and 4 for everything else.

Lower tiers need stats, but stats don't make a low tier a high tier.

The modified gestault system I mentioned before does a better job of midigateing the tiers. It functions with multiclassing and allows for a more even power level.

[darksolitaire]

A figher 20 with a 100 str is still low tier and will fail to beat a wizard 20 who is played smart even if the wizard has a 10 starting int and 4 for everything else.


Why are party members trying to beat each other?:smallconfused:

I for one am a fan of gishes, and find OP's idea great. Perhaps it would be better to use 2:1 ratio, where you can take two levels of of tier 1 for every one level level of something else? I find Fighter 5/Wizard 5 to be underwhelming when compared to Beguiler 10, while Fighter 3/Wizard 7 is pretty much on equal or higher standing. Crude example, depends lot of specific levels, of course.

[Aharon]

@fouredged sword
at 20th, maybe. If you show me how this wizard is supposed to survive this long, I'll hand you my first internet cookie ever.

[CTrees]

@fouredged sword
at 20th, maybe. If you show me how this wizard is supposed to survive this long, I'll hand you my first internet cookie ever.

Roleplaying XP. Nothing says you need to kill anything, ever, in order to level up :smallbiggrin:

[hex0]

I think the simpler solution would be to allow any character tier 3 and under to gestalt AND keep the rule about making spells hard to research.

Like the standard group could be:

Wizard
Cleric
Swashbuckler/Duskblade
Beguiler/Rogue

[Qwertystop]

@fouredged sword
at 20th, maybe. If you show me how this wizard is supposed to survive this long, I'll hand you my first internet cookie ever.

Longranged spells and being careful. Or be a buffer and keep whatever invisibilitys you can up as soon as possible. Get INT-boosting items whenever possible so you can cast your higher level spells sooner (since your INT isn't high enough for 1st level spells until level 4).

[Fouredged Sword]

Wild cohort and the animal companion ACF. Two rideing dogs should get you through first level.

[TroubleBrewing]

Attempting to answer stuff quickly, as I don't have much time:

-There will be no gestalting of any kind. None.

-I'm not adjusting, adding, subtracting, modifying, or changing anything apart from what's listed in the OP for the PC's. I've done games that required players to pick from Tier 2-3 before, and it worked wonderfully, but this is not that game.

-Balance is really only half the point. The other point is trying to create a world where "spellswords" are common.

-Enemies will be limited in the same way as the players. (As far as theurges go: The only one I know of that actually increases the power of the classes used is the Ultimate Magus; Mystic Theurge [the archetypical theurge example] is terrible. I'm fine with players selecting it. :smalltongue:)

Thanks for all the input!

[kulosle]

ranger 5 (wild shape variant), master of many forms 10, warshaper 5
i still eat everything!

[TroubleBrewing]

ranger 5 (wild shape variant), master of many forms 10, warshaper 5
i still eat everything!

Great. At least you aren't tearing holes in reality with a thought.