Non-Vancian casting balance?

[Jodah]

How balanced would a campaign that banned all vancian casters and only allowed the likes of the Binder, Shadowcaster, and Truenamer in ToM and then Incarnum? I know that the best of the casters would be the incarnum and vestige users, but mild modification on truenamer (reducing DC to 10+CR and the law of resistance to only +1/use) could make it a good deal better. No clue about shadowcasters at all.

My main concern would be that it would bring down the casters from near godlike to much more in the realms of the normies (or at least how normy PCs get). But I don't want to screw over the casters royally, to the point that they have no power.

Thoughts?

PS: If anyone knows any other WotC stuff or reliable 3rd party sources with more options, please let me know.

[Madara]

I would allow Vancian, but restrict classes to Tier 3-5.


However, I will be the first to say: You will never have perfect balance. When the weakest (optimizing) player plays a fighter, should you bring other players down to tier 5? No, you don't. In the end, let players build this way:

Concept+Role= Build>>Character

[Jodah]

I'm not really searching for perfect balance. It was more or less a thought experiment turned toward a serious pondering. I don't like how ultra powerful sorcerer, wizard, cleric, etc get, so I looked into the non-vancian classes. I knew I was getting rid of awesome things like the bard, but it seems like the only rule of thumb thing to use (so I don't end up having to ban specific classes by name).

I want to know if it will keep things fun and challenging for everyone throughout all levels of game play.

[AmberVael]

I actually did this for my campaign setting. The important thing to consider is that incarnum users and binders are not real casters. You get magical abilities, you can even sometimes fill portions of the roles they had... but you're not a spellcaster. Don't try to do that, don't think like that. You can't do it.

Ironically, truenamer and shadowcaster are both much more suited to the 'spellcaster' type role, despite not being made nearly as well.

Also, consider Warlocks. They're much better at filling the standard role too.

One major thing to consider is healing, which is always a kind of big deal when you toss out the main casting classes.

In any case, the balance is just fine, it's party composition that changes. You tend to need one or two more people to really cover all the roles, without a tier 1 or 2 spellcaster.

[navar100]

There's no need to ban anything for balance. If a player tries to win D&D just say "No". If he continues, ban the player. It's not a crime for a player character to be "powerful" in and of itself. Balance is a false god. You're not playing Bad Wrong Fun if you don't have "balance".

If another player is losing D&D, help to raise his character rather than punishing the player who is not by taking away his options. By "losing" I mean his character is just not functioning in the campaign, not by mere existence of playing a fighter or monk. Also be sure as DM you're not contributing to his uselessness. If he's a rogue and all the opponents are plants, oozes, elementals, undead, and constructs while never anything else, his uselessness is your fault. If the fighter likes to trip his enemies from time to time and spent feats for it but every opponent faced is a combination of a Large flying four-legged creature, that's your fault.

[Elric VIII]

The spontaneous casters (Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman) have the potential to have the same raw power as their Vancian counterparts. They are still significantly more powerful than ToM, Incarnum, and Invocation-users.

You might just want to limit all of the T1 and T2 casters (and psionics, presumably). At that point, the most powerful stuff in Beguiler and Dread Necro (Warmage is still bad), but those are almost as powerful as focused T2 characters (Illusionist Sorcerer and Necromancer Favored Soul).

If you want to encourage Binder and Incarnum as the representation of powerful magic, I would ban T1, T2, and Beguiler/Dread Necro/Warmage, rather than just the Vancian casters.

[AslanCross]

Psionics is non-Vancian, and while it's not without its brokenness, I find it more manageable.

I tend to be of the "A gentleman's agreement should settle brokenness" school, though.

[Jodah]

I apparently suck at explaining...let me try again. I am not banning based on balance, I am creating a different type of world. Yes, I am tired of the overpowered nature of some classes, but I want to know if they needed.

As such, I started with the idea of alternative forms of magic and want to make sure the result is still balanced. I am not trying to cut the power level of casters, I want to know if a world without the standard casting classes would be viable.

So the question would be, if there were no vancian casters, would the party be able to expect similar power levels to parties with vancian casting? Would i have to worry over much of TPKing them? Is it a terrible idea for a world that is impossible to balance without a complete overhaul? Is it awesome and gets players exactly where the developers were thinking when they designed the CR system?

Sorry, for not explaining it clearly. Hope this clears things up. Thank you to all who have already offered advice.

[veven]

I'm not an expert when I comes to game balance but I like this idea and can see it working. One thought that I had though is that, unless there is some other way of acquiring magic items, your party is going to be less effective than a no-caster party in a full-magic world simply because the party in the default world (despite not being Vancian casters themselves) would be able to buy a lot of magic gear to close the gap.

[Voyager_I]

Plenty of non-vancian classes can do their jobs just fine, and you don't necessarily need to run your party according to the Golden Four. Just make sure you're allowing all the other sources they'll need to cover their bases with alternative classes (ie don't ban Tome of Battle).

If you're really worried about it, make sure they can deal with flying/invisible/inaccessible enemies and at least somebody in the party has CLW on their spell list so you can throw some wands into their loot if they're dying for a healer (alternatively, don't make them fight flying/invisible enemies if the party doesn't have any means to deal with them).

[tyckspoon]

The main risks to players would be the reduction of available healing, IMO. Taking out the Vancian arcane classes actually does tend to bring available power closer to what the CR numbers were balanced against (in those cases where the CR was assigned sensibly to start with.) Taking out the divine classes removes ready access to the Restoration line, Remove Disease, Remove Poison, and most of the other special-condition fixers; while your potential substitutes do get access to some of these kinds of abilities, it is generally both later and at a higher cost than a Cleric would have. So a Shadow, for example (which is a touch low CR'd already- incorporealness + ability damage is a cruel package for low-level parties) becomes a more significant long-term problem, because at CR 3 it's expected that your party Cleric can memorize a couple of Lesser Restorations tomorrow and remove most of the damage it does. A party without a Cleric likely doesn't have that option at all, and running into a Shadow can cripple a character for a couple of weeks before you naturally regain enough Strength to feel comfortable/useful in combat again.

[nedz]

Why to ban Vancian casting:
I've seen this a number of times.

DM sets a very tough challange
Party attacks some location, get screwed, bail out.
Party spends two days healing/raising etc.
Vancian casters change their spell choices to match the challange
Party goes back in and wins easily

If you want to change this paradime: ban vancian casting. The challanges the DM must set for a hard fight decrease in difficulty, and the party must plan better. You will get less crazy stuff, but the PCs will still suprise you.

YMMV of course, but don't ban Vancian casting for reasons of balance. The truth is: There is no balance.

[Yora]

While I always only use spontaneous or spell point casting, the better way to solve such situations is to not allow PCs to come back later and try again. If they don't get it done the first time, something happens while they rest and reorganize, and they don't get another chance. They may well defeat the monsters and traps, but whatever they wanted to get has already been snatched by someone else or the person they wanted to capture has left, knowing that someone is comming for him.

[nedz]

While I always only use spontaneous or spell point casting, the better way to solve such situations is to not allow PCs to come back later and try again. If they don't get it done the first time, something happens while they rest and reorganize, and they don't get another chance. They may well defeat the monsters and traps, but whatever they wanted to get has already been snatched by someone else or the person they wanted to capture has left, knowing that someone is comming for him.

Well this situation usually applies to location based scenarios, you know like people defending their homes. An yes the opposition will react, but there are often limits.

ED: so why do you ban vancian casting then ?

[unundindur]

Give all casters bard spell progression (max lv 6 spells), and instead give them some minor abilities.

Personally, I have rolled all spellcasters into one class with one system (pretty much psionics). This gives casters more versatility, but it makes it a lot easier for me as a GM to handle. I recommend it.

[eclipsic]

[EDIT: It occurs to me, after reading the rest of this thread, that a lot of folks think "Vancian" refers to the idea that a caster has a set number of spells per day that it can cast. It's entirely possible that that's become the de facto definition of "Vancian" as it pertains to D&D, so you can ignore my note on Vancian magic below, as my definition refers only to the stories themselves, and not the adopted term.]


I don't like how ultra powerful sorcerer, wizard, cleric, etc get, so I looked into the non-vancian classes.

For the record, "Vancian" magic refers to the writing of Jack Vance, a pulp writer published from 1950ish onward (he's 95 years old and still writing today) who posited the idea of magic-users who had to prepare their spells at the beginning of the day from their spells known, and had a limit to how many they could cram into their head on a given day. So, strictly speaking, sorcerers and favored souls, for instance, are non-Vancian magic-users, while rangers and paladins would be Vancian magic-users (albeit divine Vancian magic users). A more mechanically sound distinction would be "prepared" and "spontaneous", with "prepared" referring to Vancian, and "spontaneous" being non-Vancian.

It sounds, however, as if you're looking to exclude all tier 1 and 2 casters, (more or less), which is an entirely different thing. Can it work? Definitely. Will it balance your campaign? Well, it will probably allow for less breakage, but campaign "balance" really refers to player vs player, and even without the top 2 tiers, you can still have a great deal of player imbalance (compare sword-and-board fighter to warblade, for instance). However, a spread of tiers 3-5 is still a very viable game, with capacity for everybody to play something they like and still be able to attribute significantly to the party, while not creating a headache for yourself.

Personally, the next time I start a 3.5 campaign, I'm just going to ban all core (PHB) classes. Almost everything that can be done in core can be done in the splatbooks, and more flavorfully, more well-balanced, and more interestingly. While I'd probably make an exception for bard, the other classes are covered:

warblade=barbarian/fighter
crusader=paladin
scout/ninja=ranger/rogue
warmage/DN/Beguiler=sorcerer/wizard
favored soul=cleric/druid
swordsage=monk

etc etc.

If you do ban the top two tiers, please let us know how it works. I've heard lots of talk about banning the god-casters, but I've not heard much about how it turned out.

[Yora]

ED: so why do you ban vancian casting then?
Because it's stupid!

As I explained in another place, vancian magic defies common logic and everyday experience how the world works. If you have the tools to create an effect (knowing a spell) and the resources to produce it (still not having run dry of spells for the day), then it would be assumed that you can reproduce the effect again.
If I swam 1.5 km in a triathlon and still have the strength and endurance to run 10 km and ride a bike for 40 km, then I would also be able to swim the 1.5 km again. Vancian spellcasting says no. "While you still have the magic strength to perform spell B and C, which happen to be more difficult and demanding than spell A, you can't cast spell A anymore, because you already cast it once."
Everywhere in real life and almost everywhere in fiction, if you have the equipment and the resources, you can recreate something as often as you like, until the equipment fails or you run out of resources. This is not true for vancian casting. And while Vance may have a reasonable explaination for it in his novels, D&D does not. D&D just says that it is so, with no reason why it should be that way. Only that it has always been that way in D&D and that it has become tradition to keep doing it that way.

I play games for the interaction between people and to experience the world. Something like balance doesn't interest me at all. I don't really bother if something is unbalanced or broken, as long as the interactions with the people and the world make sense. And with vancian magic as in D&D, it doesn't.

[Snowbluff]

I play games for the interaction between people and to experience the world. Something like balance doesn't interest me at all. I don't really bother if something is unbalanced or broken, as long as the interactions with the people and the world make sense. And with vancian magic as in D&D, it doesn't.

Except that the resource you use isn't the same for each spell. First, Wizards have to prepared their spells, individually. That properly has an effect on their spellcasting limits. Second, the power of spells grows exponentially as you go up in Spell Level, making the bigger slots more powerful and versatile. Sure you can degrade them for lower level spells, but that's beside the point. Third, it's magic! Literally, a Wizard did it. It follows rules that aren't necessarily intuitive or sensible to mortals. I mean, if we could explain it, it'd be science, not magic.

Also, UA has rules to replace Vancian with a magic point system similar to psionics.

[eclipsic]

Because it's stupid!

As I explained in another place, vancian magic defies common logic and everyday experience how the world works. If you have the tools to create an effect (knowing a spell) and the resources to produce it (still not having run dry of spells for the day), then it would be assumed that you can reproduce the effect again.
If I swam 1.5 km in a triathlon and still have the strength and endurance to run 10 km and ride a bike for 40 km, then I would also be able to swim the 1.5 km again. Vancian spellcasting says no. "While you still have the magic strength to perform spell B and C, which happen to be more difficult and demanding than spell A, you can't cast spell A anymore, because you already cast it once."

You make a good analogy, you just miss the appropriate comparison.

The whole point of a triathlon is to switch around muscle groups used so that, after swimming 1.5 km, instead of exhausting yourself by trying to swim another 1.5 km using those same muscle groups, you use different muscles to bike the 40 km and then still different muscles to run the 10 km. No doubt you could add a piano-playing event at the end of the triathlon to use your finger muscles, and maybe a speech event to exercise your face muscles, and so on and so forth, but eventually, however, you not only exhaust your specific muscle groups, but you exhaust your body entirely.

In the same way, after casting your last 7th level spell, you can't exhaust yourself by trying to cast it again, but you can use entirely different "magic muscles" to cast an 8th level spell, and then a 9th level spell. And, eventually, you completely exhaust your "magic body" by using up all your spells for the day.

[Yora]

My point is that you can come up for explainations why magic works in a vancian way, but there's a complete lack of any reasons why magic should be vancian to begin with. Pretty much all other fantasy worlds and games have no problem at all with a "mana-meter" system. Vancian in D&D is different from default with no explaination why that would be an improvement. It is just there. In a Vance-world RPG, it would make perfect sense. In a generic fantasy RPG, .... why?!

[Snowbluff]

You make a good analogy, you just miss the appropriate comparison.


In the same way, after casting your last 7th level spell, you can't exhaust yourself by trying to cast it again, but you can use entirely different "magic muscles" to cast an 8th level spell, and then a 9th level spell. And, eventually, you completely exhaust your "magic body" by using up all your spells for the day.
:smalltongue:
... You're better at handling people who use analogies than I am.

I'd like to point out using Spell Point or mana or whatever will lead to some issues. Like Wizards not using their lowest level of spells in favor of an extra Shapechange or something. More 9ths = BAD.

[eclipsic]

My point is that you can come up for explainations why magic works in a vancian way, but there's a complete lack of any reasons why magic should be vancian to begin with. Pretty much all other fantasy worlds and games have no problem at all with a "mana-meter" system. Vancian in D&D is different from default with no explaination why that would be an improvement. It is just there. In a Vance-world RPG, it would make perfect sense. In a generic fantasy RPG, .... why?!

Oh, well, that's easy. It's Vancian because that's how Gary Gygax decided it should work. The issue Gygax probably had is that he didn't want a caster to simply cast all of his most powerful spells until he ran out of "mana"; he wanted a caster's spells to all be significant, and for creativity and forethought to be needed in order to make the best use of even the lower-level spells. Sure, with a mana-meter, there's a small amount of tactical reasoning concerned with rationing your reserves, but really, when it comes down to it, the most efficient use of "mana" is to cast those higher-level spells until you run out of mana, then go home and rest.

Which is to say, the reasons for having a Vancian system are exactly as legitimate and arbitrary as the reasons for having a non-Vancian system.

[Grundy]

The concept behind prepared spells is that the spell is like a cannon in your brain. It takes a while to prepare all but the last word, gesture, or material (whatever applies for that given spell). In Dnd, this is represented by the caster's prep time.
So basically the caster is walking around with however many cannons in their brain- loaded, primed and ready to fire at a moment's notice.
It also takes so much energy that the caster is limited to a certain number of spells per day.

[Lord_Gareth]

There's no need to ban anything for balance. If a player tries to win D&D just say "No". If he continues, ban the player. It's not a crime for a player character to be "powerful" in and of itself. Balance is a false god. You're not playing Bad Wrong Fun if you don't have "balance".

Balance is not a goal. Balance is a tool that creates fun. If the DM has to work twice as hard to make sure Jimbo Fightsalot the Fighter is contributing to the party (somehow), not only is the DM having less fun, but the other players may rightfull feel that Jimbo Fightsalot is getting a disproportionate amount of attention from the DM. Now, if the entire party is operating at the same level, this isn't a problem - and it doesn't matter what level that is. A whole party of CWar Samurai all contribute just as equally as a whole party of optimized Wizards does, at least with regards to each other.


If another player is losing D&D, help to raise his character rather than punishing the player who is not by taking away his options. By "losing" I mean his character is just not functioning in the campaign, not by mere existence of playing a fighter or monk. Also be sure as DM you're not contributing to his uselessness. If he's a rogue and all the opponents are plants, oozes, elementals, undead, and constructs while never anything else, his uselessness is your fault. If the fighter likes to trip his enemies from time to time and spent feats for it but every opponent faced is a combination of a Large flying four-legged creature, that's your fault.

So...the DM is required to do twice as much work, quite possibly altering entire stories that he wanted to tell, because one of his players couldn't be bothered to express his concept in a class capable of fulfilling its role? Does that not seem a tiny bit unfair to the DM's fun and the rest of the party? If the player is having issues expressing what he wants to do with his character mechanically, rebuilding the character in another fashion is a perfectly viable option - there's no need to restructure the entire campaign around the (intentionally or not) problem player.

[gomipile]

Why to ban Vancian casting:
I've seen this a number of times.

DM sets a very tough challange
Party attacks some location, get screwed, bail out.
Party spends two days healing/raising etc.
Vancian casters change their spell choices to match the challange
Party goes back in and wins easily

If you want to change this paradime: ban vancian casting. The challanges the DM must set for a hard fight decrease in difficulty, and the party must plan better. You will get less crazy stuff, but the PCs will still suprise you.

YMMV of course, but don't ban Vancian casting for reasons of balance. The truth is: There is no balance.

As a counterexample, the Erudite is the polar opposite of a Vancian caster, and yet it has all of its options available as long as it is the first encounter of the day.

[navar100]

Balance is not a goal. Balance is a tool that creates fun. If the DM has to work twice as hard to make sure Jimbo Fightsalot the Fighter is contributing to the party (somehow), not only is the DM having less fun, but the other players may rightfull feel that Jimbo Fightsalot is getting a disproportionate amount of attention from the DM. Now, if the entire party is operating at the same level, this isn't a problem - and it doesn't matter what level that is. A whole party of CWar Samurai all contribute just as equally as a whole party of optimized Wizards does, at least with regards to each other.



So...the DM is required to do twice as much work, quite possibly altering entire stories that he wanted to tell, because one of his players couldn't be bothered to express his concept in a class capable of fulfilling its role? Does that not seem a tiny bit unfair to the DM's fun and the rest of the party? If the player is having issues expressing what he wants to do with his character mechanically, rebuilding the character in another fashion is a perfectly viable option - there's no need to restructure the entire campaign around the (intentionally or not) problem player.

If a player's character is not functioning for the particular campaign, fix that character. Don't punish the other players by taking away what works for them. Playing the Fighter class is not inherently a non-functioning character. It's quite possible the Wizard player's character makes Voldemort fearful, trying to win D&D. Fix that character, but there's no need to ban wizards to take away that option from another player quite capable of playing a wizard who is not trying to win D&D and still be "powerful".

[Gwendol]

Balance-schmalance! If the DM never allows the party to rest 8 hours straight, makes spell components hard to come by, and have the enemies consistently target the (vancian) caster by stealing spellbooks, sundering spell component pouches, and forcing concentration checks all the time, then the DM isn't providing his players with a fun game.

[dsmiles]

I just skip the Vancian magic altogether. Advanced d20 Magic is a bit more harsh on casters. It also represents fatigue better. Wrestling with the laws of nature should take its toll on casters. Vancian magic doesn't have any way to represent fatigue.

[Straybow]

No, just ban combat casting and a few other buffs. Then the meat shields are more important.

[nedz]

As a counterexample, the Erudite is the polar opposite of a Vancian caster, and yet it has all of its options available as long as it is the first encounter of the day.

This problem is easy to fix :smallsmile:

[Toliudar]

I think we've moved off of the original topic.

If you allow psionics and find some way to handle out of combat healing, I doubt there would be even a ripple of an issue with the PCs' ability to take on a variety of challenges.

Without psionics, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, Shadowcasters and Truenamers might be able to keep up the utility/out of combat stuff, but it'll be harder for them. On the upside, my guess is that stories would be more linear.

[gomipile]

I think we've moved off of the original topic.

If you allow psionics and find some way to handle out of combat healing, I doubt there would be even a ripple of an issue with the PCs' ability to take on a variety of challenges.

Without psionics, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, Shadowcasters and Truenamers might be able to keep up the utility/out of combat stuff, but it'll be harder for them. On the upside, my guess is that stories would be more linear.

The Ardent can heal, and make universal items which provide healing.

[Kuulvheysoon]

The Ardent can heal, and make universal items which provide healing.

Ardents (actually, all psionic classes) also have access ot the Sangehirn, pretty much the psionic healing class.

Wilders can also get access to the Ardent healing mantle (Life) with the Mantled Wilder ACF (Mind's Eye archive)

[Jodah]

My guess, for flavor purposes, is that I will make these the "casting" classes: Artificer, Bard, Binder, DF Adept, Incarnate, Shadowcaster, Soulborn, Totemist, Truenamer, and Warlock. I was trying to avoid any standard casting classes, but Bard just has too good of flavor to pass up. This provides some healing, though limited, and a wide diversity of types of magic.

To help round things out, I am also including the whole ToB suite because blade magic is awesome. I am intentionally avoiding psionics because they don't really fit well and because the main reason to use them is to provide healing, which even the best ones are not great at.

I will be posting the entire world write-up, ever so slowly in the Homebrew world-building area, though it will probably take me a few days to begin. Thank you to everyone who gave some insight into this, and if anyone is aware of more alternative magic systems that have been overlooked please let me know.

[eclipsic]

My guess, for flavor purposes, is that I will make these the "casting" classes: Artificer, Bard, Binder, DF Adept, Incarnate, Shadowcaster, Soulborn, Totemist, Truenamer, and Warlock. I was trying to avoid any standard casting classes, but Bard just has too good of flavor to pass up. This provides some healing, though limited, and a wide diversity of types of magic.

To help round things out, I am also including the whole ToB suite because blade magic is awesome. I am intentionally avoiding psionics because they don't really fit well and because the main reason to use them is to provide healing, which even the best ones are not great at.

That sounds like the basis of a most excellent campaign world. And I totally agree about keeping the bard. Some homebrew of the 3.P Summoner with the eidelon but without the casting might also be flavorful enough to find a place there.

[erikun]

I apparently suck at explaining...let me try again. I am not banning based on balance, I am creating a different type of world. Yes, I am tired of the overpowered nature of some classes, but I want to know if they needed.

As such, I started with the idea of alternative forms of magic and want to make sure the result is still balanced. I am not trying to cut the power level of casters, I want to know if a world without the standard casting classes would be viable.

So the question would be, if there were no vancian casters, would the party be able to expect similar power levels to parties with vancian casting? Would i have to worry over much of TPKing them? Is it a terrible idea for a world that is impossible to balance without a complete overhaul? Is it awesome and gets players exactly where the developers were thinking when they designed the CR system?

Sorry, for not explaining it clearly. Hope this clears things up. Thank you to all who have already offered advice.
The challanges in the game tend towards the Tier 3/Tier 4 challange. This is roughly why it is in the middle tier; high-optimization Tier 3 will likely handle most challanges well, while low-optimization Tier 4 will have a challenge with most equal-CR fights. Also, note that CR and difficulty are not always equal; some books have unusually strong creatures for their CR labeling.

To answer your question, removing vancian spellcasters isn't going to downpower anyone who doesn't want to be. Sorcerer, Favored Soul, and Spirit Shaman can still do nearly everything that a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid could do. Artificer and Spell-to-Power Erudite are still high-end Tier 1.


Your biggest concern shouldn't be what such cuts can still do, but what they cannot do. The game does tend to assume access to spells like Raise Dead, Break Enchantment, and Stone to Flesh at the appropriate levels, as you'll see encounters that rely on those spells for cures. Without Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Favored Souls, a lot of these spells end up gone. It can be very bad for a PC to end up petrified or permanently insane, only to realize your Tier-3-and-under game has nobody who could cure them.


My guess, for flavor purposes, is that I will make these the "casting" classes: Artificer, Bard, Binder, DF Adept, Incarnate, Shadowcaster, Soulborn, Totemist, Truenamer, and Warlock. I was trying to avoid any standard casting classes, but Bard just has too good of flavor to pass up. This provides some healing, though limited, and a wide diversity of types of magic.

To help round things out, I am also including the whole ToB suite because blade magic is awesome. I am intentionally avoiding psionics because they don't really fit well and because the main reason to use them is to provide healing, which even the best ones are not great at.

I will be posting the entire world write-up, ever so slowly in the Homebrew world-building area, though it will probably take me a few days to begin. Thank you to everyone who gave some insight into this, and if anyone is aware of more alternative magic systems that have been overlooked please let me know.
That sounds like it could be a fun campaign, but be very picky about what monsters you use as opponents. As I mentioned before, a single Confusion ability to petrification would be impossible to cure with the above classes.

You might also want to check on a few of the Shadowcaster and Truenamer fixes; I've heard the classes are disappointing as printed.