Toning back the full casters

[Ashtagon]

One of the conventional problems with wizards is they have so many spells they'll never really run out in a day by 10th level or so. This leaves the other classes with little to do by that level, unless they are happy with being the wizard's minion.

So, let's analyse it metagame fashion.

Characters are expected to have 4 encounters a day. Typically, a fight is the most spell-intensive time in a day, and a fight typically lasts 4-5 rounds.

Let's say we don't want a wizard casting every round. Three spells per fight seems reasonable. That gives him time to do other interesting stuff in a fight too.

What if wizards were capped at a maximum of 12 spell slots per day (plus an unlimited number of cantrips)?

That is, at 5th level, they have 6/4 spell slots (1st/2nd level). At 6th level, that becomes 4/5/3 spell slots; at 7th level, 2/6/4; 8th level, -/4/5/3. Two 1st level spell slots are lost at 6th level, and so on as the character gains class levels. However, the character can still use a high level spell slot to memorise a low level spell just as in RAW, so this won't remove low level spells from the game.

In addition, let's say that a character can freely cast any spell in his books by sacrificing a memorised spell that is two levels higher than the spell he wants to cast. This gives back some of the utility flavour of the caster.

What are the likely consequences of this change?

I fully expect that this will reduce "scry and die", as that will use up resources spent in the attack, since 12 spells is not an awful lot. It will also kill off a lot of "buff up pre-battle" tactics.

But will it be better for balance overall? Would a slightly higher or lower spells/day cap work better? Bear in mind my reasoning on the number 12 in the answer. Because really, who even has time to cast 54 spells in a day?

[Tr011]

A wizard can still own at 3 spells per encounter. He just has to cut the fun spells and focus on the really great & useful ones. He has to use items to regain spells and use spells from items. But he wouldn't be really less powerful. But it would be less fun to play I think.

I think buffing bad classes is better and more easy than nerfing the great ones. But if you want to nerf them, just fix the really cheesy spells. I won't say you should fix Polymorph, because that is really hard to do it properly, but i.e. fixing the open-end Wings of Flurry would be a start. Just give it a max of 10d6 or 15d6. Make Wings of Cover a 3rd level spell.

[Bit Fiend]

I don't think it would have much of an impact, since the biggest problem with wizards is not their daily amount of spells, as you're right, save for certain nova tactics they don't even have the time to cast all their spells in a day. The real problem still remains: the effect a single spell can have.
Read the Batman Wizard again. It doesnt need too many slots to pull off his tricks.

[RagnaroksChosen]

In all honesty... If you want to restrict full casters there are some pritty easy steps.

1. make them MAD. I've found that if you have fullcasters have 1 stat for bonus spells and another stat for DC's it brings the power down.
2. cut bonus spells in half... or remove them completely.
3. Change/edit/fix consentration skill and spell casting.

Ive found through my play experience that this helps.
Also after done with these steps i would buff some of the none full casters out there they may still need it.

[Elemental]

Ultimately, messing around with the rules too heavily is just going to become too complicated for most people's brains, including mine.
Alternatively, require every wizard to take an oath upon completion of their training. I can't think of anything right now though.

[Ernir]

Wizards suck. Spells rule. Change the damn spells, changing the class won't do a thing otherwise.

Same applies to most of the other full casters.

[sonofzeal]

Here's a Concentration fix. I hate to admit to taking inspiration from Truenamer, but if it does anything right, it's showing us how to reel in casters.


Concentration DC to cast any spell: DC 10 + 3x[spell level]
In other words, it starts lower and scales slightly slower than Truespeaking DCs - and that's only for your top spells, your lower level ones get more reliable quickly.

+5 for each enemy threatening you
Cribbed straight from Truespeaking. Turns being threatened from hardly inconveniencing to seriously challenging.

+2 for every spell you currently have active
Rough analogue of the Law of Sequences, but softened and generalized.

+[damage taken]
Obvious.

+2 Vigorous motion
+5 Violent motion
+10 Extraordinarily violent motion
+5 Entangled
+10 Grappled or Pinned (replaces the +5 for being threatened by that particular enemy)
+2 Hail or other wind-blown debris
Adapted from the existing Concentration tables

[Clawhound]

Wizards still rock with their big-bag-o-scrolls.

The inherent problem is that whoever developed the melee rules never spoke to the person who developed the spells. :smalleek: Into that, add the metamagic weirdness and the unexpected interactions.

As a start, ban all spells and only white-list spells back in. Think about any spell that you allow back in the game.

For example, Spiderclimb allows anyone to climb better than a 20th level rogue with climbing focus. Invisibility i better than hide and also grants Hide In Plain Sight. Fly superceded everything. Etc. You get the picture.

Think about what you want wizards to DO, and then let those spells into the game.

I also like the idea of giving each school of magic a stat. The most useful schools should increase MAD.

Oh, and look up optimal wizard builds and just ban those spells.

Those are my chocolate coins. You might be best off just eating the coins and following other advice.

[Curmudgeon]

It isn't the number of spells, as others have pointed out. It is that the spells do so much with so little cost to the spellcaster.

Spells have action costs. Increasing the casting time to the next increment (swift action becomes a standard action, standard action becomes a full-round action, ...) would help a bit. Removing all metamagic cost reducers from the game, and having each metamagic effect increase the caster level by at least +1 level, would aid greatly in removing some of the more egregious abuses. Having spells be painful (i.e., dealing non-reducible damage to the caster in proportion to the spell level) would be an improvement as well. And then increasing the CL limit for all dispels (Dispel Magic, Greater Dispel Magic, ...) would make it easier to knock down everyone's long-term buff spells, reducing the effectiveness of spellcasters in that area.

[gkathellar]

Let's say we don't want a wizard casting every round. Three spells per fight seems reasonable. That gives him time to do other interesting stuff in a fight too.

I'm gonna strongly disagree with your premise here. Spellcasting is what wizards do. It's the only thing they do, and frankly, it's what players come to the class in order to do. Saying you don't want wizards to cast spells every round is like saying you don't want wizards to participate every round, which is just as unfair and problematic as wizards participating too much.


What if wizards were capped at a maximum of 12 spell slots per day (plus an unlimited number of cantrips)?

Then you: a) make it a much less interesting class overall, b) should grant bonus reserve feats, and c) just overemphasize the use of one-size fits all can-opener spells (shapechange) and going into battle extremely over-prepared (via planar binding, persistent spells, etc.) instead of allowing wizards the flexibility to use really interesting tactics.

[Ashtagon]

I'm gonna strongly disagree with your premise here. Spellcasting is what wizards do. It's the only thing they do, and frankly, it's what players come to the class in order to do. Saying you don't want wizards to cast spells every round is like saying you don't want wizards to participate every round, which is just as unfair and problematic as wizards participating too much.

I disagree with your disagreement. Saying a wizard is only supposed to cast spells each an every round is like saying a fighter is only supposed to swing his sword each and every round. In both cases, they should be characters first, collections of stereotypes second.


Then you: a) make it a much less interesting class overall, b) should grant bonus reserve feats, and c) just overemphasize the use of one-size fits all can-opener spells (shapechange) and going into battle extremely over-prepared (via planar binding, persistent spells, etc.) instead of allowing wizards the flexibility to use really interesting tactics.

Now this is a valid counter point. I'm not a great fan of spells that can be cast hours or days before they get 'used'.

[gkathellar]

I disagree with your disagreement. Saying a wizard is only supposed to cast spells each an every round is like saying a fighter is only supposed to swing his sword each and every round. In both cases, they should be characters first, collections of stereotypes second.

Every character should participate every round. How exactly do you expect wizards to accomplish this without spellcasting?

EDIT: I mean, aside from Polymorphing into an Ice Devil.

[Tr011]

Every character should participate every round. How exactly do you expect wizards to accomplish this without spellcasting?

EDIT: I mean, aside from Polymorphing into an Ice Devil.

My wizard has two options for his standard actions if the battle goes well:
1. Drinking Martini (not exactly participating).
2. Use his Rod of Wonders. Unfortunatly at the last session I casted a fireball via the rod. It didn't harm the two fire oozes we were fighting, but our fighter lost his magical boots due to a natural 1 on his reflex save...

[sonofzeal]

Every character should participate every round. How exactly do you expect wizards to accomplish this without spellcasting?

EDIT: I mean, aside from Polymorphing into an Ice Devil.
{a} controlling/guiding a spell that's already been cast

{b} setting up for a spell you're going to cast next round

{c} playing the same game the rest of the party has to play every round.

[Ashtagon]

{a} controlling/guiding a spell that's already been cast

{b} setting up for a spell you're going to cast next round

{c} playing the same game the rest of the party has to play every round.

{d} Using one of the wands in his collection, or some other magic item.

{e} crossbow! (or sling, or throwing knife...)

Participate doesn't have to mean "I cast a spell at him. Really hard."

[Yora]

One of the conventional problems with wizards is they have so many spells they'll never really run out in a day by 10th level or so. This leaves the other classes with little to do by that level, unless they are happy with being the wizard's minion.
Which I think is a common misconception. The problem with spellcasters is not the number of spells they can cast, but a number of specific spells that are problematic just by existing at all.

If you want to adjust spellcaster classes, you don't have to do anything to the classes. It all depends entirely on the spell list. If you want to tone then down, the only way to do that is to take away some of the problematic spells. The rest of the class really doesn't matter.

[Psyren]

Wizards suck. Spells rule. Change the damn spells, changing the class won't do a thing otherwise.

Same applies to most of the other full casters.

It amazes me how few people take this approach. At least judging by the plethora of "Hey guys, I have a great idea to fix wizards!" threads.

And no, making them MAD won't do a damn thing. They will focus on the "bonus spells" stat and prepare predominantly no-save spells, of which there are many. All you end up with is your casters looking cookie-cutter.

[Czin]

As others have said, you are fetter better off limiting what spells the full casters can choose from in the first place than trying to nerf them by reducing how many spells they have per day. Hence, why the war mage is generally considered a pretty well balanced tier 3 full caster.

Create a much smaller list of carefully cherry picked spells for your full casters (well, obviously not the same list for all of them, but you get the point) and while it may take quite a bit of effort, it'll do far more for keeping the full caster's in check than trying to limit their spells per day ever would.

[Flickerdart]

If you have less spells available per day, you need to make sure that every spell you cast is the best spell you could possibly cast. Were you using a fun spell combo that needs a couple of them to work? Maybe you're a gish who needs to cast a bunch of buffs, and also swift action spells in combat to augment your attacks? Perhaps you're a War Weaver who wants to buff the party, but also help them fight? Sorry, scrap that and pull out your big ol' bazooka, because suddenly the only viable spells are the ones that win encounters on their own.

Edit: The War Mage is considered nothing of the sort. It's a mediocre T4 whose best class feature is Eclectic Learning (AKA: this spell list list sucks, gimme something better) and whose best PrC option is Rainbow Servant (AKA: this list sucks, gimme something better).

[Czin]

If you have less spells available per day, you need to make sure that every spell you cast is the best spell you could possibly cast. Were you using a fun spell combo that needs a couple of them to work? Maybe you're a gish who needs to cast a bunch of buffs, and also swift action spells in combat to augment your attacks? Perhaps you're a War Weaver who wants to buff the party, but also help them fight? Sorry, scrap that and pull out your big ol' bazooka, because suddenly the only viable spells are the ones that win encounters on their own.

Edit: The War Mage is considered nothing of the sort. It's a mediocre T4 whose best class feature is Eclectic Learning (AKA: this spell list list sucks, gimme something better) and whose best PrC option is Rainbow Servant (AKA: this list sucks, gimme something better).
Huh, must have been confused...I was remembering some T3 full caster but the war mage was the only thing that came to mind. Do you know of any? My splatbook collection is HEAVILY biased towards monster collections rather than stuff for PCs.

[Flickerdart]

Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are the T3 brothers of the Warmage, focusing on illusions/enchantments and necromancy, respectively.

[Drathmar]

It amazes me how few people take this approach. At least judging by the plethora of "Hey guys, I have a great idea to fix wizards!" threads.

And no, making them MAD won't do a damn thing. They will focus on the "bonus spells" stat and prepare predominantly no-save spells, of which there are many. All you end up with is your casters looking cookie-cutter.



However, what you could do, is make it so

1.) Despite descriptions, all spells that have any kind of debilitating or damaging effect to a being/beings IS affected by spell resistance.

2.) All spells that have any kind of debilitating or damaging effect to a being has a saving throw OR an attack roll

3.) Instead of saving throws being 10+ Spell Level + Casting Stat Bonus it should be 10 + 1/2 Spell Level + 1/2 Casting Stat... which would make feats like spell focus a lot more important as well.

4.) Any spells that don't fall under 1 or 2 must have the caster succeed on a spellcraft check to cast, equal to 10 + 3xspell level (as someone suggested earlier)

5.) Any spells lasting rnds/lvl must succeed at this check each round to keep the spell going, with the DC increasing by 2x spell level each round however you can expend a spell slot (or memorized spell) of a level equal to or higher the spell to continue the spell if you fail the check.

6.) Spells with min/lvl hr/lvl day/lvl and higher need to have this check made ever spell level / 2 (min 1, rounded up) rounds of combat (so 1st and 2nd level spells need to make this check every round, 3rd and 4th every 2nd round, etc) with the increasing DC as well.

At least this is what I would do, or something similar... maybe work the math out a bit better but similar to this.

[Czin]

Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are the T3 brothers of the Warmage, focusing on illusions/enchantments and necromancy, respectively.

Ah thank you.

[FMArthur]

This fix is missing a crucial step in reducing a caster's power: reducing the caster's power. :smallsigh:

Basically this is what you do on the 'benefits of playing a caster' list by gimping the number of spell slots:

Benefits of Playing a Caster
Can do a variety of things without diminishing usefulness at primary role
Is a handy toolbox for solving out-of-combat problems
Absolutely dominates combat with minimal effort

Minimizing the fun parts of the caster - the reasons people play them and the reasons you would keep them in the game at all - doesn't even affect the actual problem with them. Why bother?

[Flickerdart]

2.) All spells that have any kind of debilitating or damaging effect to a being has a saving throw.

Disagree. Spells that, for instance, have attack rolls, shouldn't need saves, because there's already a chance of failure. The problem here is that touch AC doesn't scale on monsters at all, which is a correction that needs to be made on that side of the DM screen.



3.) Instead of saving throws being 10+ Spell Level + Casting Stat Bonus it should be 10 + 1/2 Spell Level + 1/2 Casting Stat... which would make feats like spell focus a lot more important as well.
A 20th level Wizard can be expected to have ~34 Intelligence (+12 bonus), meaning that his spells would have a DC of 20 under your system, 22 with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus. At first level (20 Int max, 1st level spells) that DC is 12. I shouldn't need to explain why this is laughable.



4.) Any spells that don't fall under 1 or 2 must have the caster succeed on a spellcraft check to cast, equal to 10 + 3xspell level (as someone suggested earlier)

At 1st level, this absolutely bones Sorcerers, who now have a ~60% chance of casting such spells. At 20th, that same Sorcerer would need to make a DC37 check to cast such a spell, meaning that unless he pumps Int or takes Skill Focus, his ranks (23) and masterwork tool (25) give him a less than even chance of succeeding. The original idea used Concentration, which makes far more sense, as all spellcasters will have a decent Constitution, allowing them to at least get even odds.



5.) Any spells lasting rnds/lvl must succeed at this check each round to keep the spell going, with the DC increasing by 2x spell level each round however you can expend a spell slot (or memorized spell) of a level equal to or higher the spell to continue the spell if you fail the check.

Congratulations, you just made spellcasters never want to cast a buff spell ever again.



6.) Spells with min/lvl hr/lvl day/lvl and higher need to have this check made ever spell level / 2 (min 1, rounded up) rounds of combat (so 1st and 2nd level spells need to make this check every round, 3rd and 4th every 2nd round, etc) with the increasing DC as well.

If the DC of your daily spell goes up by 5 per minute (for the highest level spells, more for the lowest level ones) then within 4 minutes you will have gone from "I poured all of my resources into this skill and always make the check because I am a sweet mage" to "I can never make this check even on a roll of 20". All spells now have a duration of 4 minutes or less, meaning that buffing your party members before delving into a dungeon is no longer useful, and casting the buffs on them in combat wastes valuable actions.
Went back and reread your post. It's not +2 to the DC, is it. It's +2/spell level. So the DC for a 9th level buff hops up by 18 in 5 rounds, meaning that the new duration of all spells is 10 rounds or less, even if you are Lord of Spellcraft, Master of Skill Checks. The only way to make this remotely workable is for every wizard to buy custom +30 Spellcraft items, and when your rule relies on a suggestion just to work, you're doing something wrong.

[navar100]

As I wrote in another thread, it's not the wizard's fault the fighter can't jump a chasm. If you have to make spellcasting such a chore then admit to yourself you hate players casting spells and play some other game. Rather, you are better off making non-spellcasters more awesome if you're so offended with how they are now.

As for spellcasting itself, particular spells might be troubling. Change those effects or declare them not existing for the campaign. Making it unfun to play a spellcaster is not the answer.

[Drathmar]

Disagree. Spells that, for instance, have attack rolls, shouldn't need saves, because there's already a chance of failure. The problem here is that touch AC doesn't scale on monsters at all, which is a correction that needs to be made on that side of the DM screen.


Ya I realized that and changed it to saving throw or attack roll.



A 20th level Wizard can be expected to have ~34 Intelligence (+12 bonus), meaning that his spells would have a DC of 20 under your system, 22 with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus. At first level (20 Int max, 1st level spells) that DC is 12. I shouldn't need to explain why this is laughable.


The math needs work yes, but lowering the DC's somewhat (or not, they aren't THAT bad really I guess)



At 1st level, this absolutely bones Sorcerers, who now have a ~60% chance of casting such spells. At 20th, that same Sorcerer would need to make a DC37 check to cast such a spell, meaning that unless he pumps Int or takes Skill Focus, his ranks (23) and masterwork tool (25) give him a less than even chance of succeeding. The original idea used Concentration, which makes far more sense, as all spellcasters will have a decent Constitution, allowing them to at least get even odds.


Good point, spellcraft somewhat makes sense from a somatic standpoints (Crafting ... casting spells) however concentrations makes more sense mechanics wise.



Congratulations, you just made spellcasters never want to cast a buff spell ever again.


Good thing buff spells are one of the major problems of casters (along with battle control and debuff spells), maybe start the DC at something like 5 + spell level and increase it by spell-level per round (and maybe change to concentration as well)



If the DC of your daily spell goes up by 5 per minute (for the highest level spells, more for the lowest level ones) then within 4 minutes you will have gone from "I poured all of my resources into this skill and always make the check because I am a sweet mage" to "I can never make this check even on a roll of 20". All spells now have a duration of 4 minutes or less, meaning that buffing your party members before delving into a dungeon is no longer useful, and casting the buffs on them in combat wastes valuable actions.

You misread this, this only takes effect in combat. Outside of combat the spells work normally.

You would only make the check in combat and it could be changed similar to the above, as I said, the math needs work to make it fair but basically the ideas are

1.) Make all spells that should be resistible, resistible
2.) Make all spells have a saving throw or attack roll
3.) Lower the DC (probably not as drastically as I put)
4.) Make them actually have to make some kind of check to use any spell, like non-casters have to make a check to do anything
5.) Balance buff/long lasting debuff/battle-field control spells by giving them a chance to fall off
6.) Balance really long buff spells by giving them a chance to fall off in combat

[Ernir]

It amazes me how few people take this approach. At least judging by the plethora of "Hey guys, I have a great idea to fix wizards!" threads.

I think we see more systematic spellcasting hacks than detailed overhauls simply because it's much easier to create a systematic hack than it is to go over the spells. =/

[Flickerdart]

Good thing buff spells are one of the major problems of casters (along with battle control and debuff spells), maybe start the DC at something like 5 + spell level and increase it by spell-level per round (and maybe change to concentration as well)

Um, no. Buffs are a spellcaster's best way of not taking the spotlight by helping his party members be more awesome. If he paralyzes everyone with a spell, the party doesn't feel like they are contributing, because anyone can CdG. If he gives the party +10 to their kung fu, then they are kicking ass and having a good time.



You misread this, this only takes effect in combat. Outside of combat the spells work normally.

[quote]
You would only make the check in combat and it could be changed similar to the above, as I said, the math needs work to make it fair but basically the ideas are

1.) Make all spells that should be resistible, resistible
2.) Make all spells have a saving throw or attack roll
3.) Lower the DC (probably not as drastically as I put)
4.) Make them actually have to make some kind of check to use any spell, like non-casters have to make a check to do anything
5.) Balance buff/long lasting debuff/battle-field control spells by giving them a chance to fall off
6.) Balance really long buff spells by giving them a chance to fall off in combat
There's already a mechanic for making debuffs fall off - Hold Person, for instance, offers a saving throw every round. Just do that, instead of doing weird somersaults with skill checks.

[IncoherentEssay]

Fixing the spells is the way to balance casters, but fixing them one by one is not only way too much work, but it's also troublesome to remember all the changes made. Tacking extra checks to the act of casting makes the game play even slower, undesirable given how slow combat can be as is.

A simpler effort/effect balance fix would be to shuffle the 'broken' spells up a level or few* (and moving stuff like PaO & Shapechange into epic spells, to replace the useless/broken epic spellcasting system). A simple fix, since you are merely replacing one list with another, but in some cases it may merely delay the problems rather than fix them. Worst offenders can be moved to epic spells where there are no metamagic shenanigans or scroll spam to abuse them with.

*Celerity might even be acceptable as a 9th :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I think we see more systematic spellcasting hacks than detailed overhauls simply because it's much easier to create a systematic hack than it is to go over the spells. =/

That's what forums are for; it's called crowdsourcing. Use the community to break up your effort.

A fantastic place to start is the Test of Spite list.

[gkathellar]

(For those interested in a significantly rebalanced wizard, take a look over here. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2410.0) It's not perfect, but it's a very cool exercise in blending the Wizard with the Warlock and Beguiler-style mechanics.)


{a} controlling/guiding a spell that's already been cast

Then there need to be more good spells of this type.


{b} setting up for a spell you're going to cast next round

How many spells actually need a lot of setup, anyway?


{c} playing the same game the rest of the party has to play every round.

Then they need to be at least passable at playing that game. Which they can do, mind, with polymorph spells.

I think we're working from two fundamentally different assumptions about 3.5. Mine is that different classes should play somewhat differently, and should do so for the great majority of rounds, because on any round they don't they're effectively not a member of their class.


{d} Using one of the wands in his collection, or some other magic item.

That amounts to casting a spell most of the time, which doesn't do much to make your point.


{e} crossbow! (or sling, or throwing knife...)

So ... do nothing.


Participate doesn't have to mean "I cast a spell at him. Really hard."

No, but it does have to mean, "I contribute meaningfully." Of the possibilities listed, only polymorph, maintaining a concentration-duration spell, and using a spell-trigger item manage to fit the criteria. What all of those have in common is that they all amount to using spells.

Unless you give the wizard a non-spell way to contribute to a fight, you're basically saying he'd better work extra-hard to finish that fight in three rounds or less. And, frankly, many campaigns don't run on the "4 encounters, 16 rounds" theory of gameplay. A rule like this not only prohibits what is enjoyable about playing casters (casting) it also has effects on the makeup of the campaign itself.

[DrDeth]

There’s twp simple routes:
A. First of all, give wizards, etc a decent “at will” attack. PF almost does this with the cantrip. Next, slow down spell progression, make 9th level spells a “capstone” @ 20th. This way a wizard can do something minor but not worthless every round, so he can save his more powerful stuff when really needed.

I’d also dump much of the bonus spells- wizards already get a lot from high INT.

OR

B. The other route is to make all spellcasters the equiv of beguilers, Warmages, dread necromancers and the like. Lets toss in Diviners, Summoners (hey what a concept!), etc.

For Divine spellcasters one thing is dump most of the ‘self-buff” spells, leaving them with more “party buff” spells.

[Coidzor]

One of the conventional problems with wizards is they have so many spells they'll never really run out in a day by 10th level or so. This leaves the other classes with little to do by that level, unless they are happy with being the wizard's minion.

...Wrong direction.

You want to get rid of the spells that allow wizards to determine the course of encounters that allow the rest of the party to do the job of winning easier, not make it so that wizards have even less spells and so have to be even more economical about using them for encounter-shaping effect.

Considering that most fights the wizard that is actually being GOD or Batman has effectively made a foregone conclusion by round 2-3. So 3 spells in an encounter is not that crippling, it just means they have to be slightly less flashy.

Otherwise, if the wizard is just being a blaster or otherwise not being terribly good at his job, you're either nerfing the player out of the class or you're forcing him to start thinking like GOD and Batman.

[Tr011]

Here's a Concentration fix. I hate to admit to taking inspiration from Truenamer, but if it does anything right, it's showing us how to reel in casters.


Concentration DC to cast any spell: DC 10 + 3x[spell level]
In other words, it starts lower and scales slightly slower than Truespeaking DCs - and that's only for your top spells, your lower level ones get more reliable quickly.

+5 for each enemy threatening you
Cribbed straight from Truespeaking. Turns being threatened from hardly inconveniencing to seriously challenging.

+2 for every spell you currently have active
Rough analogue of the Law of Sequences, but softened and generalized.

+[damage taken]
Obvious.

+2 Vigorous motion
+5 Violent motion
+10 Extraordinarily violent motion
+5 Entangled
+10 Grappled or Pinned (replaces the +5 for being threatened by that particular enemy)
+2 Hail or other wind-blown debris
Adapted from the existing Concentration tables

This says three things:
1. Melee wizards are not allowed
2. Concentration has to be optimized
3. Buffing alot is not allowed
These three rules would be a lot easier to remember. But they don't make a lot of sense to me. The truenamer is done pretty well imo, even thu many people disagree because you have to think about how to beat the DCs first.

I think RagnaroksChosen has a point: Making them MAD is a pretty good start. Drastically reducing DCs or things like that looks stupid to me. I think the casters are 80% ok, but some other classes are 100% wrong, like a monk.

[Coidzor]

This says three things:
1. Melee wizards are not allowed
2. Concentration has to be optimized
3. Buffing alot is not allowed
These three rules would be a lot easier to remember. But they don't make a lot of sense to me.

Heck, it means that buffing the entire party isn't allowed unless one can do it in a few wide buffs such as haste.

Oh, sorry Fighter, you wanted GMW? Too bad. It's no longer an option now. What's that Ranger, you wanted two? Hah! Not for all of the pearls of power in the world.


Here's a Concentration fix. I hate to admit to taking inspiration from Truenamer, but if it does anything right, it's showing us how to reel in casters.

I think you mean make it so that casters are no longer interesting or fun to play for all but the most masochistic. :smallconfused:

Truenamer makes people stop being able to taste ice cream. Ice cream! :smalleek:

[Maquise]

What if you made wizards like psions, where they had a very limited universal list, then got additional spells based on their specialty?

[Kholai]

Coincidentally I've been pondering putting up some house rules for consideration on this very issue, since I was going to put it up anyway, might as well include it here to advance the conversation.

Apologies in advance if it's not worded correctly in game terms, this is still a work in progress.



Multiclassing:
Spellcasters consider 1/4 of their non-class levels as class levels for considering what spells they have access to. A level 5 character with 1 level of cleric and 4 levels of Fighter will cast spells and have spells per day as a 2nd level cleric. Likewise, a level 17 character with 1 level in Ranger and sixteen levels in Monk will cast be able to cast 1st level Ranger spells if they have a sufficient wisdom score.

There is no double mileage in a prestige class that advances spellcasting does not increase that class' spellcasting abilities further, though levels that do not advance spellcasting in a class may apply, whether the increase is applied to another class, or does not advance spellcasting that level.

Minor:
All Conjuration (Healing) spells are now Necromancy school spells.
All Illusion (Phantasm) spells are now Enchantment school spells.
Metamagic does not cause the casting time of spontaneous spells to increase (but see below).

Casting Time
The Casting Time provided for spells is now the Minimum Casting Time. Any spell with a Minimum Casting Time of 1 standard action or greater now has a Casting Time equal to one full round action per spell level plus their School Modifier (rounding down), or their Minimum Casting Time, whichever is longer. Spells with a Minimum Casting Time of lower than 1 standard action are unaffected.

Targets may be rechosen when the spell is finished casting, and the spell may be halted at any time without casting it, however that spell is lost.


School Multipliers:
Necromancy, Evocation: -1/2 spell level, rounding down.
Abjuration, Enchantment, Illusion: -1/4 spell level, rounding down.
Conjuration, Transmutation, Divination: No change.

For reference, below is a table each level of spell by school. If the result is an S, it requires a standard action to cast. <Apologies for the layout, I'm uncertain how to do tables on these boards.>

Level 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9

Evocation S/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 3/ 3/ 4/ 4/ 5
Necromancy S/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 3/ 3/ 4/ 4/ 5
Abjuration S/ 1/ 2/ 3/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 6
Enchantment S/ 1/ 2/ 3/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 6
Illusion S/ 1/ 2/ 3/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 6
Conjuration 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9
Transmutation 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9
Divination 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9

Metamagic that increases the spell level also increases the casting time. An exception to this rule is Quicken Spell, which correctly Quickens the spell at a higher casting slot. A spell may be quickened only if its Minimum Casting Time is 1 round or less.
These actions are combined into a series of full-round actions, so the remaining time is reduced by 2 each full-round action spent in casting it. For example: A Level 8 Divination spell takes four rounds to cast and casts at the end of their full-round action in the fourth round, whilst a Level 5 Evocation spell takes one round, plus the standard action of the mage's next turn. They must continue casting the spell throughout, or they will lose the spell.

If the spell requires a material component or focus, this must remain in the caster's possession on-hand and readied for the entirety of the spell. They may use the same hand for both the somatic and material component.

If the spell requires a verbal component, they may not speak during its casting time.

They may take a 5' step whilst casting without requiring a concentration check.
They only provoke attacks of opportunity when they begin casting the spell.


Associated Feats:

Rapid Caster
Choose a school of magic.
Spells of the chosen school count as one level lower for calculating Casting Time.

Rapid Metamagic
Spells modified by metamagic count as one level lower for calculating Casting Time. This cannot reduce the spell below the level of the spell without metamagic.

Autonomous Spell
Metamagic
A versatile spell takes up a slot one level higher than it normally would. Only spells with a Minimum Cast Time of one standard action or more may be autonomous spells.
Whilst casting a versatile spell a spellcaster may choose to only use a standard action on any turn they are casting a spell, and do something else with their move action, however this will require a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + Spell Level. They provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for this action.
They may choose to perform this action before or after the standard action of casting the spell. They may not engage in any activity that requires concentration.
If the spell requires a somatic component, they may not perform actions with the hand used for casting the spell.

Mercurial Spell
Metamagic
A Mercurial Spell takes up a spell slot two levels higher than it normally would. Only spells with a Minimum Cast Time of one standard action or more may be Mercurial Spells.
A Mercurial Spell's adjusted spell level is four levels lower for the purposes of calculating Casting Time.

I'm considering, but undecided as to whether combat-specialised casters should receive a faster casting time by default, any opinions?

Anyway, hopefully the result of this lot is a much better balance between mage and non-mage. You've taken away the number of spells the mage can cast each encounter without actually taking away from the number of spells they can cast.

In combat, if a mage wants to contribute every round, they can - but their actions are small unless they dedicate a lot of resources to being able to act quickly in combat with bigger spells. If they want to make big, flashy things happen, they can, but everyone's going to need to give you a minute. Parties are changed from the Wizard and three baggage carriers to the Wizard and the three colleagues he very probably depends on to keep him alive, since he's pretty vulnerable to someone just closing in and grappling him mid-cast.

If the party fights for five rounds against the horde of orcs attacking them, they have fun and get to do all their tricks. If the Wizard follows up and wipes them out the next turn - the wizard's happy too, they signed up for that sort of thing.

Out of combat, the mage is still incredibly versatile, but if you need something done right now, you need one of your non-mages to do it - Like bind the wounds of the rogue whilst the cleric charges up their cure serious.

The minor tweaks meanwhile improve multiclassing for spellcasters (and make a few more PrCs a bit more interesting), fix a thematic niggle for me (and weaken the otherwise awesome Conjuration school), and gives Enchantment a bit of a boost which in my opinion it should already have had.

Anyway, yeah, my take, any comments or opinions are much appreciated on it.

[FMArthur]

The spells themselves are interesting and fun and the variety they offer improves the game if you ask me. Full casters' spell levels just come too early to be comparable to other abilities, and too soon to be defended against.

Take the Bard spells/day table, nudge the whole thing up a level, give an additional spell slot of every level and add a 7ths progression from 18th level. Sprinkle with minor class features where necessary (+1 to save DCs at 8th and 14th levels to keep up with 10 + 1/2 level DCs for example).

That's a Wizard that plays nice with Tier 3. He's still useful and versatile, and he's still got amazing tricks, but gets them at levels where they are more reasonable. Some of them are still irreplaceable unfortunately, but he can't do everything himself and he isn't the best at everything he does. That's all that's needed and doesn't ruin what make the class fun. If your fix balances something but kills its fun or eliminates all of its book support, you just wasted a lot of time cutting down reasons to want to play it.

[Psyren]

What if you made wizards like psions, where they had a very limited universal list, then got additional spells based on their specialty?

Then you'd get a lot of shapers and egoists, I imagine.

But more to the point - choosing which spells to partition out to the "discipline lists" and rebalancing the remaining ones would be almost as much work as simply going in to fix them, imo.

[Feralventas]

Wizards are restricted to learning one school of magic; generalization is not an option. Any spell that functions as another spell is null.[The most powerful aspect of a wizard is that they have a tool for every job, a spell for any situation. Reducing their available spell options by 7/8ths is a step to cut back on the options available to them. There are still plenty of character options and spells available despite such an alteration. As far as fluff goes, the separate schools of magic are so very different from one another that learning from a new school is like learning an entirely different language; it can potentially be done via multiclassing into a separate school-specialist wizard, though that may be suitable as a variant only, not the rule.

Clerics use the Bard’s spells per day progression, save for their domain spells of which function normally. This way they still have plenty of options available to them, but will have a somewhat slower progression than the Wizard in terms of firepower and utilities. Their domain spells still operate as if they were a normal 9th level spell 'caster, but they have only 1 significantly potent spell at that point, making it a last resort, and one closely aligned with their character's patron.

Druids of 5th level or higher are banned from using metal items. Druids of 10th level or higher are banned from using manufactured items of any sort. Druids of 15th level or higher are not allowed any equipment (mechanical value equipment, clothes are acceptable as long as they have no numerical value attached to them beyond the GP cost.). Failure to comply results in the loss of all druidic class features until atonement as per the Paladin redemption options. This is an expansion on the idea of druids' restrictions on items due to the natural sources of their power and faith, rather contrary under normal circumstances to artificial methods and means. Not sure what to do about Urban Druid yet; considering Bard's spells per day set with 6+int modifier skill points per level.

Archivists use the Bard’s spells per day progression. See cleric explanation.

Artificers are not given a craft reserve, and must instead craft using experience as normal. They still have plenty of class features and options (free crafting feats leave their normal character progression feats open to expand on utilities or abilities, Infusions for day-to-day adventuring, skills and trapfinding) but must slow down their leveling in order to prepare and craft. Artificers, like wizards, are potent and capable when given time to prepare because they will have a tool for any situation. Taking away the craft reserve points puts a price on this potency.

Sorcerers use the Wizard’s spells per day system, though they remain spontaneous casters.

Spontaneous spell-casters which take levels in a class or prestige class that grants additional spells known are simply able to select those spells for their spells-known list when they progress to their next level; they do not automatically gain the ability to cast those spells. (Sandshaper PrC, for example)

Erudites do not gain spell-to-power conversion.

Favored Souls and Mystics operate on the Cleric’s normal spells per day progression (as per the PhB, not the note above)

[Doughnut Master]

My best experience has been to just have a gentleman's agreement with the player. Saves time and no one feels shafted.

[gkathellar]

My best experience has been to just have a gentleman's agreement with the player. Saves time and no one feels shafted.

And this is a very good patch! It's not a solution, but it's enough for many groups.

[Doughnut Master]

I leave solutions for playtesters. I'm hesitant to go in and start mucking around and face unintended consequences.

Besides, if I do find myself in a situation where a player is actively trying to break the game, nerfs, rules lawyering, and tit for tat tactics only make things worse. The DM has to trust the players to respect the world created for them and the players need to trust that the DM doesn't want to kill them, but to tell a good story. Neither side can accomplish that alone.


P.S. I like your thoughts and homebrews.

[sonofzeal]

This says three things:
1. Melee wizards are not allowed
2. Concentration has to be optimized
3. Buffing alot is not allowed
These three rules would be a lot easier to remember. But they don't make a lot of sense to me. The truenamer is done pretty well imo, even thu many people disagree because you have to think about how to beat the DCs first.
Melee wizards are pretty rare anyway, and general try to cast their spells before combat when this wouldn't affect them much.


Heck, it means that buffing the entire party isn't allowed unless one can do it in a few wide buffs such as haste.

Oh, sorry Fighter, you wanted GMW? Too bad. It's no longer an option now. What's that Ranger, you wanted two? Hah! Not for all of the pearls of power in the world.
Ah, but the DCs here start lower and rise slower compared to Truenamer, and Concentration is generally easier to boost. Barring environmental penalties, a Wizard who's invested in it should be able to afford a handful of active spells - and that number will rise as they level. My lvl 10 Truenamer has +35 Truespeaking. A Wizard with +35 Concentration and this variant could have 5 active spells before risking failure with even their top-level spell. It's a limit, but it's a mild limit.

However, it's one that's sensitive to external factors. Casting defensively is now a major obstacle, and environmental factors will significantly limit what the Wizard can do without risk.

That was the goal - to make the PHB's Concentration modifiers relevant again. It's not my favorite Wizard fix, but I think it succeeds in that in the levels and optimization skills I usually see in play.



I think you mean make it so that casters are no longer interesting or fun to play for all but the most masochistic. :smallconfused:

Truenamer makes people stop being able to taste ice cream. Ice cream! :smalleek:
The problem with Truenamer is not the DCs. The problem is Utterances are terrible - low range, pitiful duration, single target mediocrity, and Law of Sequences should die in a fire. They could all be at-will and it would still be a
weak class.

[Mystify]

Look at what legend (www.ruleofcool.com) did. It scaled back casters. There are only 7 spell levels, and the spell lists are much more constrained without all of the "I win" button spells.
To compliment that, they also made all of the other skills scale much more aggressively, so they keep up with spells easily. For instance, a really high heal check can heal 160 hp in one round. Or even act as a raise dead.
Additonally, they did not try to make it so that wizard=spells. They use tactician, which has spellcasting, but its only 1/3 of what they do. When spellcasting isn't everything the casters are doing, you can scale it down significantly without making the casters feel pathetic. Spells become just another aspect of what you can do, and are balanced accordingly.

[Coidzor]

The problem with Truenamer is not the DCs.

Ah, sorry, it wasn't really my intention to bring those up. :smallredface:


The problem is Utterances are terrible - low range, pitiful duration, single target mediocrity, and Law of Sequences should die in a fire. They could all be at-will and it would still be a
weak class.

Though I'm glad that despite the miscommunication that my main point managed to shine through as something we could agree upon. :smallbiggrin:


Melee wizards are pretty rare anyway, and general try to cast their spells before combat when this wouldn't affect them much.

Gishes rely upon buffing themselves with multiple spells before combat and then casting spells in combat at crucial times sometimes even while threatened, though I think most of those spells are swift so that's not an issue unless I missed a bit, generally speaking, as much as one can of gishes, right?

Granted, by gishing, most wizards give up on being able to do 90% of their abusive potential in favor of spending most of their time whacking things with sticks.