Simple Caster Limitation

[SowZ]

If you want a quick and dirty fix for full casting vs. non-casting classes, make the XP needed to advance from one level to the next be double that if you want to level up in a full caster class. So just find the difference between the XP you have at, say, level ten and at level eleven and double the difference. That is the XP that one must gain to get the eleventh level of wizard.

If the character is multiclassing, instead of doubling the XP find out the normal XP to get to the next level and then add the difference in XP as if they were leveling up with all their mundane class levels removed. (Does that make sense?)

Classes like Warlock, Bard, Psychic Warrior, etc. or other classes that start out with casting but don't have a full progression are one third more expensive, XP-wise.

In this way, multiclassing between casting and non casting classes may be more prevalent, (it is a more viable option, at least,) and magic becomes harder to master than mundane skills. (Which is how it should be, I think.) It also helps game balance some. Sure, it still doesn't address the core issue of versatility and being able to replicate entire lines of class features or feat chains with one spell, but when to be a tenth level wizard you will have to adventure with a twentieth level barbarian, the caster will definitely need and rely on their mundane allies more.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wouldn't it be way easier just to give all full casters a +1 or +2 level adjustment? Xp being a river and all that jazz.

[Khedrac]

A lot of people go on about "Tier 1" classes or full caster classes "breaking the game" or "overshadowing" the others - this is not entirely correct.

The truth is that they can do this, if played that way, but usually don't (unless everyone optimizes hard). They play to be effective and have fun. One of the most effective ways to play a wizard can be as a party buffer. Yes they really effect the power balance of party v. monsters, but overshadow fellow PCs? - they do the exact opposite by making them so much more effective.
Most potentially game-breaking spells are 9th level (yes not all) and many campaigns never reach them, or if they do they are not abused. Breaking a game is rarely a player's aim - they are there to have fun too and breaking a game kills that.
So looking at lower level tricks, a lot of them seem to be very situational (which means prepared casters do not use them as they need to prepare a flexible spell load) or not very repeatable - which means no one uses them as no one wants to stop for the night directly after breakfast when the sorceror says "yes I just single-handedly killed all the enemy guards, but now I need to regain my spell slots" - too high a chance those guards will have been replaced.
[Caveat: if you managed to get a party to bounce (i.e. run away) then the chances are that the prepared casters will come back with spell lists tuned for that fight - this tends to make them short.]

In short one only needs to deal with the potential power imbalance if it becomes a problem, otherwise you create the problem!
A lot of people play fairly average pure casters, e.g. clerics that mainly heal but carry some fun stuff to chuck around as well (after all if the cleric does the fighting, who does the in-combat healing?). These characters can be quite easily overshadowed by an optimised fighter other "low-tier" character. Apply flat penalties to pure casters and you just make things worse!
your method will make the fighter reach 11th level before the wizard and cleric reach 7th. This means that either they get killed in one hit by a critter that is a fair opponent for him, or all the monsters die in one hit from the fighter.
Also D&D is balanced for a high magic environment - healing, long term buffs, combat buffs etc. - if you make pure casters cost twice the xp then a lot of player swill not (and rightly so) touch them - and the game will then go straight out of balance (no serious healing for a start).

The best option is usually to run with the rules pretty much as they are, but warn players that if they find tricks to abuse you will take issue with that. If they do stuff that you consider "rules abuse" then discuss it with them and see if they can help you come up with a fix.
If someone dominates the party too heavily, again discuss it (with everyone) and see if anyone has good suggestions on how to resolve it.

A lot of people forget that most RPGs have age ratings on the side that are actually quite high - they are there for a reason, gamers are expected to be reasonably mature. In that light try behaving as if we are all mature - people might surprise you.

[Kelb_Panthera]

stuff
I tend to agree, but the OP was looking for a quick and dirty caster nerf. I personally think that simply saying that a T1 or T2 caster getting a +X level adjustment is much simpler, and just as effective, as what he suggested.

[LordBlades]

clerics that mainly heal but carry some fun stuff to chuck around as well (after all if the cleric does the fighting, who does the in-combat healing?).

In combat healing is pretty terrible anyway, at least until you get Heal. From a mechanical standpoint it's much better to focus on killing the enemies ASAP and patch up afterward. Even if you do have a fighter, the cleric is much better off joining in on bashing skulls than hanging back and healing.


your method will make the fighter reach 11th level before the wizard and cleric reach 7th.

And it still won't help much, as a 7th level cleric, druid or wizard can do loads more than an 11th level fighter:smallcool:

[NichG]

Numerically, a Lv20 Wizard in this system would need 380000xp. Additionally, this is mostly loaded into getting the high levels of Wizard. Anyone could mix in three or four levels of Wizard without nearly this XP penalty. That is basically the benchmark to reproduce if trying to implement this with LA, so a fixed LA won't do (and +1 or +2 is certainly going to be too small - a +2 LA would be 231000xp).

This system is somewhere between gaining one LA per 2 levels and per 3 levels of wizard (starting at 0). One per two levels puts Lv20 Wizard at 435000xp. One per three puts it at 325000xp.

Edit: A good compromise would be one LA per spell level you gain access to after the first.

As far as XP-is-a-river, that suggests that to duplicate the effect of this system you'd be closer to one per three than one per two, assuming a campaign where combat XP is the bulk and the CR system is actually used. Keep in mind that XP rewards stop scaling beyond CR+5 though, so it won't make up an arbitrarily large difference.

[Khedrac]

In combat healing is pretty terrible anyway, at least until you get Heal. From a mechanical standpoint it's much better to focus on killing the enemies ASAP and patch up afterward. Even if you do have a fighter, the cleric is much better off joining in on bashing skulls than hanging back and healing.
In-combat healing pre-Heal (and from shortly thereafter to Mass heal) may be horrible, that does not mean it is not necessary. Having been playing a favored soul healer in a fight where at one point both "tanks" were only alive due to delay death confirmed that one for me... Try to do fights without in-combat healing too often and you will wind up with dead characters without an overpowering CR - at some point the dice will kill you.

And it still won't help much, as a 7th level cleric, druid or wizard can do loads more than an 11th level fighter:smallcool: Except survive when hit for a reasonable amount of damage - especially wizards even with good con.

[Slipperychicken]

Most games won't have problems with fullcasters making other classes irrelevant. Mature players will be able to avoid these problems entirely (i.e. don't Polymorph into a Cryohydra and solo the encounter, focus on buff and CC, let out the occasional blast when needed).

A Wizard dedicating himself to outdoing the Fighter is a waste of a Wizard. At best, you end up with slightly better numbers anyway.

[SowZ]

Wouldn't it be way easier just to give all full casters a +1 or +2 level adjustment? Xp being a river and all that jazz.

But then casters can't start out as casters. Simpler, sure, but not exactly what I am going for. I don't actually calculate XP when I DM, so basically it would just be, "For every one level of a caster you take, you could have taken two martial levels."


A lot of people go on about "Tier 1" classes or full caster classes "breaking the game" or "overshadowing" the others - this is not entirely correct.

The truth is that they can do this, if played that way, but usually don't (unless everyone optimizes hard). They play to be effective and have fun. One of the most effective ways to play a wizard can be as a party buffer. Yes they really effect the power balance of party v. monsters, but overshadow fellow PCs? - they do the exact opposite by making them so much more effective.
Most potentially game-breaking spells are 9th level (yes not all) and many campaigns never reach them, or if they do they are not abused. Breaking a game is rarely a player's aim - they are there to have fun too and breaking a game kills that.
So looking at lower level tricks, a lot of them seem to be very situational (which means prepared casters do not use them as they need to prepare a flexible spell load) or not very repeatable - which means no one uses them as no one wants to stop for the night directly after breakfast when the sorceror says "yes I just single-handedly killed all the enemy guards, but now I need to regain my spell slots" - too high a chance those guards will have been replaced.
[Caveat: if you managed to get a party to bounce (i.e. run away) then the chances are that the prepared casters will come back with spell lists tuned for that fight - this tends to make them short.]

In short one only needs to deal with the potential power imbalance if it becomes a problem, otherwise you create the problem!
A lot of people play fairly average pure casters, e.g. clerics that mainly heal but carry some fun stuff to chuck around as well (after all if the cleric does the fighting, who does the in-combat healing?). These characters can be quite easily overshadowed by an optimised fighter other "low-tier" character. Apply flat penalties to pure casters and you just make things worse!
your method will make the fighter reach 11th level before the wizard and cleric reach 7th. This means that either they get killed in one hit by a critter that is a fair opponent for him, or all the monsters die in one hit from the fighter.
Also D&D is balanced for a high magic environment - healing, long term buffs, combat buffs etc. - if you make pure casters cost twice the xp then a lot of player swill not (and rightly so) touch them - and the game will then go straight out of balance (no serious healing for a start).

The best option is usually to run with the rules pretty much as they are, but warn players that if they find tricks to abuse you will take issue with that. If they do stuff that you consider "rules abuse" then discuss it with them and see if they can help you come up with a fix.
If someone dominates the party too heavily, again discuss it (with everyone) and see if anyone has good suggestions on how to resolve it.

A lot of people forget that most RPGs have age ratings on the side that are actually quite high - they are there for a reason, gamers are expected to be reasonably mature. In that light try behaving as if we are all mature - people might surprise you.

This is mostly true at lower levels of play. But once you reach, say, twelfth level the wizard will have to actively limit himself hard not to just steamroll anything that the same level of Fighter could handle.

Limiting a wizard by making them not use their power spells, not optimize, or be a buffer could limit the fun for a lot of people as opposed to just playing the game. It is like when people run through a video game and say "I am beating Halo 3 with only a pistol this time!" I don't want my players to have to do that. Besides, when is too much?

At level 20, let's say the party is fighting an army of demons. The wizard dominates the balor so the balor is wiping out a third of his own army. Meanwhile, that wizard is controlling the battlefield that combine him and the Balor he kills half the enemies.

A cleric gates in something and Clericzillas a couple demons while his summon kills another third of the army. Meanwhile, the Barbarian kills a Glabrezu and the Figher kills a handful of Babaus.

These are normal, expected applications of spells without any tricks. Should I go through and just ban every power spell? I would rather limit the casters spells by making it harder to achieve new spell levels.

But it is true, this is more aimed towards high levels of play.

Once a wizard is high level, they have so many spell slots that they can make most of them utility spells which means that the idea that they will run out of their encounter ending spells or not have it prepared becomes less and less true as the game goes on. I have never seen a level 10+ caster run out of spells. This makes a pure wizard in a level 20 game have to play at level 10. He will still be super useful and occasionally shine in encounters only he can deal with and have enough utility and control and even a bit of burst damage to have fun. But he will also need the level 20 Ranger to protect him and dish out damage.

As it stands, the Ranger may as well be a Cohort as the wizard doesn't really need him.



I tend to agree, but the OP was looking for a quick and dirty caster nerf. I personally think that simply saying that a T1 or T2 caster getting a +X level adjustment is much simpler, and just as effective, as what he suggested.

It doesn't quite get the desired effect, though, and hurts you just as much even if you dip into a casting class.


In combat healing is pretty terrible anyway, at least until you get Heal. From a mechanical standpoint it's much better to focus on killing the enemies ASAP and patch up afterward. Even if you do have a fighter, the cleric is much better off joining in on bashing skulls than hanging back and healing.



And it still won't help much, as a 7th level cleric, druid or wizard can do loads more than an 11th level fighter:smallcool:

Would you agree that a tenth level wizard is still useful next to a twentieth level fighter or fifteenth level bard?


Numerically, a Lv20 Wizard in this system would need 380000xp. Additionally, this is mostly loaded into getting the high levels of Wizard. Anyone could mix in three or four levels of Wizard without nearly this XP penalty. That is basically the benchmark to reproduce if trying to implement this with LA, so a fixed LA won't do (and +1 or +2 is certainly going to be too small - a +2 LA would be 231000xp).

This system is somewhere between gaining one LA per 2 levels and per 3 levels of wizard (starting at 0). One per two levels puts Lv20 Wizard at 435000xp. One per three puts it at 325000xp.

Edit: A good compromise would be one LA per spell level you gain access to after the first.

As far as XP-is-a-river, that suggests that to duplicate the effect of this system you'd be closer to one per three than one per two, assuming a campaign where combat XP is the bulk and the CR system is actually used. Keep in mind that XP rewards stop scaling beyond CR+5 though, so it won't make up an arbitrarily large difference.

Hmm. Interesting. It may be simpler. You are saying making your LA equal to the spell level or spell level minus one is close to equivalent to my system?

Of course, one thing I am trying to do is actually encourage people not to go straight wizard or straight cleric. So it should be easier to grab wizard two than wizard five. The way I view it, magic is really complicated. Not enough that people can't dabble or learn a little of it with great difficulty but enough that it takes intense dedication to learn a lot. Most people would not have the time or willpower to spend all their time in study when they know they can learn swordplay much faster. Even someone who starts out as a wizard may be tempted to pick up a sword after enough times getting stabbed.

Another thing I am trying to do a little is emphasize a weakness of pure casters so they need their buddies more. That is, the HP differential between a level ten wizard and fighter is massive now. (I maximize HD, by the way.) Further, they have lower saves. (I like the idea of the fighting classes being more resilient in general. (A ten wizard is only one will save higher than a twenty fighter. I like that, myself.) Anyway, wizards are supposed to have awesome offense and utility but be vulnerable. But with all their spells and contingencies it doesn't usually work out that way. This returns a bit of that.

That also encourages more multiclassing. A wizard eight may prefer to grab ranger two than wizard nine when he knows he will get better with a bow, (for when he wants to save his offensive spells and plink at mooks getting too close,) and get two quick save bonus' and quadruple the HP gain.


In-combat healing pre-Heal (and from shortly thereafter to Mass heal) may be horrible, that does not mean it is not necessary. Having been playing a favored soul healer in a fight where at one point both "tanks" were only alive due to delay death confirmed that one for me... Try to do fights without in-combat healing too often and you will wind up with dead characters without an overpowering CR - at some point the dice will kill you.
Except survive when hit for a reasonable amount of damage - especially wizards even with good con.

So the wizard has to play smart to survive and use his allies more. A wizard twenty basically just has to not play stupid to survive or not get horribly unlucky. (But luck can kill any class.) Also, that is a reason why most wizards will multiclass. There is a reason most wizards stay in a tower and research spells or stay at the back of massive battlelines in war. They really don't know how to fight.

In lore and myth and video games and movies, a lot of heroes dabble in magic or even are really good at it. But most know how to fight, too. The way I view it, adventurers are well off learning how to fight. If a sorcerer wanted to be an adventurer, he would probably learn at least something about combat before or along the way. This system allows for going pure caster, but encourages not. Most wizards in a tower would get killed in a battle without a lot of preparation and allies. A wizard ten represents a tower wizard a little moreso than a hardened adventurer. Even despite that, it does help balance.

Also, it keeps casters from one shotting a boss easily. Whereas it is not hard to make a character that can dominate a CR20 monster reliably by level sixteen or so, a level ten wizard probably won't have saves in the thirties. Upper twenties, maybe. That isn't going to dominate an old dragon with much reliability. (Keep in mind the ten wizard still counts as twenty for WBL since he has been adventuring for that long, which will make him considerably better than a normal wizard ten.)


Most games won't have problems with fullcasters making other classes irrelevant. Mature players will be able to avoid these problems entirely (i.e. don't Polymorph into a Cryohydra and solo the encounter, focus on buff and CC, let out the occasional blast when needed).

A Wizard dedicating himself to outdoing the Fighter is a waste of a Wizard. At best, you end up with slightly better numbers anyway.

Once you get into the teens, I disagree. In the single digits, maybe. But a level twenty wizard using his spells as intended with no tricks or exploits or advanced spell combos or metamagic reduces can still trivialize encounters with ease. The game is designed that magic is limited and so should be stronger in burst AND wizards are squishier. But the spells help defense so much and at high levels a wizard never runs out that these weakness' are trivial.

A twenty figher unoptimized will be putting something on the line taking on a balor. A wizard can probably dominate one and force it to fight the others while using control and flight and other damage spells well enough to take on two, maybe even three. An optimized wizard even moreso.

Anyway, the players should not have to severely handicap themselves to make the fighter feel better.

Anyway, shouldn't unlocking the secrets to manipulating the universe take longer and be harder than learning good sword swinging stances? What would you all feel like playing in this system? I want to continue the discussions we are having, but I also wonder would this discourage you all from going caster? Would you dip maybe six levels or would any of you still go for it? Ignore them completely?

[Ashtagon]

Alternatively, limit characters from taking more than half their current character levels in any one full-caster class. Allow a dedicated wizard to take "alternate" wizard" as a second class, a class which has rules identical to the standard wizard but whose spell-casting does not stack with his other wizard class. And ditto for clerics (the cleric's "alternate cleric" class should be of the same deity).

This will of course preclude some of the highest level spells from entering the game pre-epic. And certain prestige classes will need to be reviewed (make them count as levels in the same class that they are stacking their casting ability on).

This will also make some of those "count levels in class X as levels in class Y" feats one of the Complete books more useful from.

[Hyde]

OP: If casters being unbalanced is a thing that happens in your game, here's a possible solution!

First: That never happens! unless it does!

the Rest: maybe a useful suggestion, mostly anecdotal nonsense.


I find that people that post solutions to "Tier 1 unbalanced" have typically run into situations where that was a thing.

I find that people that post that the idea of unbalanced classes is stupid or never comes up are idiots (or new).

well, not idiots, per se. that's mean.

Counterproductive?

Basically: don't tell someone their problem isn't a problem because you don't think it is.

[Hyde]

As far as wizards trivializing encounters- I played a wizard with no feats and three levels behind the party, and I trivialized entire dungeons.

[LordBlades]

In-combat healing pre-Heal (and from shortly thereafter to Mass heal) may be horrible, that does not mean it is not necessary. Having been playing a favored soul healer in a fight where at one point both "tanks" were only alive due to delay death confirmed that one for me... Try to do fights without in-combat healing too often and you will wind up with dead characters without an overpowering CR - at some point the dice will kill you.

My groups routinely does fights without in combat healing on high power campaigns without much trouble. Small amounts of D8s+a little bit simply can't keep up with level appropriate monster damage. And for emergencies, Delay Death(which is an immediate action, and past a certain level of power all your beatsticks should have Beastland Ferocity cast precombat anyway) handles it just fine. Same for Revivify/Last Breath.


Except survive when hit for a reasonable amount of damage - especially wizards even with good con.

But he has tons more ways to prevent the enemies from hitting him compared to a fighter.






Would you agree that a tenth level wizard is still useful next to a twentieth level fighter or fifteenth level bard?


I actually believe a 10th level wizard is tons more useful than a 20th level fighter. An 11th level wizard even more so.
Same goes for bard. They both get 5th level spells, except wizard spell list>bard spell list. Although a 15th level bard can stand next to a 10th level wizard and not feel useless.

[Slipperychicken]

I find that people that post that the idea of unbalanced classes is stupid or never comes up are idiots (or new).

well, not idiots, per se.

So I'm an idiot... but not an idiot?


Players I've experienced will either show restraint with T1s, or are not rules-savvy enough to destroy the game with them. If this makes me an idiot, either say it or don't. Because I'm certainly not "new".

[SowZ]

So I'm an idiot... but not an idiot?


Players I've experienced will either show restraint with T1s, or are not rules-savvy enough to destroy the game with them. If this makes me an idiot, either say it or don't. Because I'm certainly not "new".

T1s played normally, using dominate and gate and polymorph as intended and expected will overshadow a fighter nine times out of ten.

[GenghisDon]

LOL at the idea casters are so much better that L10 casters would be better alongside L20 non-casters.

Better at what? Spells? ok, the others, by our definition, don't cast spells. Combat can't possibly be meant, is it?

I think the easiest fix of all would be to sheer off the L6-9 spells from the game. Leave them increasing in CL, and they can have the HL slots, useful for extra low level spells (with or without any metamagic feats they have).

I'd let heighten spell applied to summon monster/nature's ally get the critters of the spell heightened to. Probably needs a few other such tweaks.

Call it a low magic world if you like (but that's not really true). One can leave in items with L6-9 spells, on occassion, created by the gawds or other ubers. HL monsters might need some tweaks for un-escapable spells, but not all that much I expect.

At least this way the casters have some HD, HP, saves, skills, feats & CL (that matters vs monsters). Perhaps the WILL still put fighters, rogues & the rest to shame, but I doubt it.

[Larpus]

Just to be sure, you want to bring the power level of full casters down, so bringing the level of the others up wouldn't help, right?

Anyway, on the matter at hand...your idea seems a bit too harsh, as Khedrac said, the casters will simply be too weak and I believe too useless since their DCs and BAB (in addition to HP) will be a joke, rendering them pretty useless.

The best way is to probably limit spells that you find problematic and possibly lower the amount of higher level spells they get each level; possibly also increasing the cost of created magic items so they don't get too many more spells than they should.

However, with changes like that in effect, I'd be tempted to say that Wizards, Sorcerers and other 1/2 BAB classes might be candidates to become 3/4 instead, as they can't do much more than casting, so take that away and they're deadweight.

EDIT: Also, if you have so much against full-casters, I think it may be best to simply disallow them, encouraging people to play the "half caster" guys like Bard, Warmage and whatnot, which everyone agrees to be much more in line and overall balanced.

[eggs]

A level 9 Wizard still plays a completely different game than a level 13 fighter - especially if they each have ECL 13 wealth.

This looks crippling for the balanced casters (the Warmage and Wilder aren't hurting for fixes, except certain patchable problems), obnoxious for the full casters (having to be even more paranoid to keep playing? bleh) and no better for the weaker classes (the fighter still only fights, still isn't able to produce the battle-changing effects like web or teleports, and still doesn't have effective counters for total lockdowns like Ray of Dizziness or Entangle).

Balance can be a problem, but it's a problem that's best addressed by approaching directly: Eg. If the fighter doesn't have the versatility of other classes or the tools to contribute in high-level combats, give it that versatility. If the Wizard has too much versatility or too abuseable of spells, hack up its spell list and lock it into a Beguiler-style straightjacket.

[LordBlades]

LOL at the idea casters are so much better that L10 casters would be better alongside L20 non-casters.

Better at what? Spells? ok, the others, by our definition, don't cast spells. Combat can't possibly be meant, is it?



First of all, I meant on equal WBL (As per the OPs suggestion where casters would level up slower, but presumably still get an equal share of the treasure). A 20th level non-caster with full lvl 20 WBL can probably throw enough GP at stuff to be somewhat competitive vs. a 10th level caster with 10th level WBL.

Secondly, I meant fighter, not 'non-caster' (TOB, MOI Binders and the like are something else entirely).

And third, I meant everything, including combat

All a fighter can do at level 20 is hit things with a stick. Depending on optimization, it can be anywhere from horrible to pretty good at it. But he's helpless against problems you can't hit with a stick

A wizard on the other hand can: fly, teleport, see the future, make people his friends/minions with charm/dominate and tons of other useful stuff, and still has enough tricks to end combat in his favor. Hell, if you really wanted, between polymorph and other buffs, you could also probably out-melee a 20th level fighter.

[lsfreak]

Balance can be a problem, but it's a problem that's best addressed by approaching directly: Eg. If the fighter doesn't have the versatility of other classes or the tools to contribute in high-level combats, give it that versatility. If the Wizard has too much versatility or too abuseable of spells, hack up its spell list and lock it into a Beguiler-style straightjacket.

Yep. There is no simple caster limitation. The closest is to ban Vancian full casters except for warmage, dread necro, and beguiler, and then you've got the much smaller psionic list to fix. If you want something that allows wizards and clerics, the only options that will work and still qualify as simple are to balance up - mass-ban everything below T3 except as dips, or gestalt anyone T3 or lower with another class.
EDIT: Well that's embarrassing, my big bolded point used the wrong first word.

[Tyndmyr]

If you want a quick and dirty fix for full casting vs. non-casting classes

I've seen a great many "quick and dirty" fixes for this. Generally, they aren't worth bothering with. The basic issue is...it's a complex problem. Quick fixes to complex problems muck up the works.


make the XP needed to advance from one level to the next be double that if you want to level up in a full caster class. So just find the difference between the XP you have at, say, level ten and at level eleven and double the difference. That is the XP that one must gain to get the eleventh level of wizard.

Yay, more math.


If the character is multiclassing, instead of doubling the XP find out the normal XP to get to the next level and then add the difference in XP as if they were leveling up with all their mundane class levels removed. (Does that make sense?)

How will I calculate XP for a wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10//factotum 11/bard 5?


In this way, multiclassing between casting and non casting classes may be more prevalent, (it is a more viable option, at least,) and magic becomes harder to master than mundane skills. (Which is how it should be, I think.) It also helps game balance some. Sure, it still doesn't address the core issue of versatility and being able to replicate entire lines of class features or feat chains with one spell, but when to be a tenth level wizard you will have to adventure with a twentieth level barbarian, the caster will definitely need and rely on their mundane allies more.

It also means that low level wizards, already squishy, basically suck for ages. XP is a river doesn't kick in until level 4. Therefore, low level wizards will be substantially more twitchy, and prone to random death.

High level casters...well, xp is a river is helping them...

[Hyde]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Hyde]

I've found a terrible solution to tier 1 classes trivializing encounters is to have the party fight tier 1 classes.


Yeah, this basically ruins everyone's night.

[eggs]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Hyde]

{{Scrubbed}}

[eggs]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Andorax]

To the OP...

Your attempt to do this by manipuating a very clean 3.X system of XP awards is...misguided.

If you want to slow casting progression down, then probably the simplest approach is this:

Your caster level, and the number of levels you can take in any primary (ie 1-9) casting class, is limited to 1/2 your character level. Any class, ability, feat, etc. that would break this stricture is banned.

Quick, simple fix that has the same basic mechanical effect as what you describe, while allowing these now-restricted casters to spend the rest of their XP diversifying into something else that interests them.


I don't know how WELL that fix would work...other posters have already pointed out some of the problems in the concept and ways that even low-level casters are very effective and powerful.

[dextercorvia]

{{Scrubbed}}

As far as a Simple caster fix goes, the best one I've ever seen is to limit full casters to the Bard's spell/day table, and Bards to the Adept table. I'd keep spells known the same, allowing a Sorcerer to pick a spell known of any level 0-2, 3-4, or 5-6 in place of a 7th, 8th or 9th respectively.

It isn't really the HD, BAB and base saves that are making the casters have a quadratic progression. It is the spells.

It wouldn't be perfect. They would still have a significant edge, but it would chop off the worst of the disparity.

Edit: This is probably too much of a nerf for the already T3-T4 caster classes, but maybe we could work something out.

[GenghisDon]

A wizard on the other hand can: fly, teleport, see the future, make people his friends/minions with charm/dominate and tons of other useful stuff, and still has enough tricks to end combat in his favor. Hell, if you really wanted, between polymorph and other buffs, you could also probably out-melee a 20th level fighter.

Ah, it is ONLY the fighter that's aweful, got ya.

Not that I agree, at L20 a Fighter could easily do everything you quote for the L10 wizard (or caster X)...it's called gear.

If one wants polymorph cheese games...go all the way.

Greater Cloak of Transformations: Polymorph 5/day. CL15
Cost: 120,000 gp Req: Craft wondrous item, polymorph, 4,800 XP 60,000 gp

How's the L20 Fighter doing vs the L10 Wizard now? He's only got 640,000 gp more in gear.

What? That's a bad item? really? maybe polymorph is just a bad spell.

Regardless, the game isn't actually about the party killing itself, but about the party overcoming challenges together.

[SowZ]

LOL at the idea casters are so much better that L10 casters would be better alongside L20 non-casters.

Better at what? Spells? ok, the others, by our definition, don't cast spells. Combat can't possibly be meant, is it?

I think the easiest fix of all would be to sheer off the L6-9 spells from the game. Leave them increasing in CL, and they can have the HL slots, useful for extra low level spells (with or without any metamagic feats they have).

I'd let heighten spell applied to summon monster/nature's ally get the critters of the spell heightened to. Probably needs a few other such tweaks.

Call it a low magic world if you like (but that's not really true). One can leave in items with L6-9 spells, on occassion, created by the gawds or other ubers. HL monsters might need some tweaks for un-escapable spells, but not all that much I expect.

At least this way the casters have some HD, HP, saves, skills, feats & CL (that matters vs monsters). Perhaps the WILL still put fighters, rogues & the rest to shame, but I doubt it.

That is an idea, I suppose, getting rid of 6-9th spells. I'll think about that more, for sure.



Just to be sure, you want to bring the power level of full casters down, so bringing the level of the others up wouldn't help, right?

Anyway, on the matter at hand...your idea seems a bit too harsh, as Khedrac said, the casters will simply be too weak and I believe too useless since their DCs and BAB (in addition to HP) will be a joke, rendering them pretty useless.

The best way is to probably limit spells that you find problematic and possibly lower the amount of higher level spells they get each level; possibly also increasing the cost of created magic items so they don't get too many more spells than they should.

However, with changes like that in effect, I'd be tempted to say that Wizards, Sorcerers and other 1/2 BAB classes might be candidates to become 3/4 instead, as they can't do much more than casting, so take that away and they're deadweight.

EDIT: Also, if you have so much against full-casters, I think it may be best to simply disallow them, encouraging people to play the "half caster" guys like Bard, Warmage and whatnot, which everyone agrees to be much more in line and overall balanced.

I still think casters will be useful as so many spells easily replicate entire feat chains or high level class features, but you have a point. I don't want to hand a player a list of specific spells they aren't allowed to choose, though. Nor do I want to edit each powerful spell. I would rather make a general ruling that players can work within than make a bunch of small rulings.

As far as banning casters, I still like giving people the option. I don't actively dislike casters and don't stack the deck against them, but I don't like how they don't have to rely on the martials as much as the other way around and don't like how in D&D you can actually learn spells and magic far, far faster than you can learn combat tricks which is basically the opposite of every fantasy mythos ever.


A level 9 Wizard still plays a completely different game than a level 13 fighter - especially if they each have ECL 13 wealth.

This looks crippling for the balanced casters (the Warmage and Wilder aren't hurting for fixes, except certain patchable problems), obnoxious for the full casters (having to be even more paranoid to keep playing? bleh) and no better for the weaker classes (the fighter still only fights, still isn't able to produce the battle-changing effects like web or teleports, and still doesn't have effective counters for total lockdowns like Ray of Dizziness or Entangle).

Balance can be a problem, but it's a problem that's best addressed by approaching directly: Eg. If the fighter doesn't have the versatility of other classes or the tools to contribute in high-level combats, give it that versatility. If the Wizard has too much versatility or too abuseable of spells, hack up its spell list and lock it into a Beguiler-style straightjacket.

This probably doesn't address the actual issues very well, yeah. It may be too radical of a change.


First of all, I meant on equal WBL (As per the OPs suggestion where casters would level up slower, but presumably still get an equal share of the treasure). A 20th level non-caster with full lvl 20 WBL can probably throw enough GP at stuff to be somewhat competitive vs. a 10th level caster with 10th level WBL.

Secondly, I meant fighter, not 'non-caster' (TOB, MOI Binders and the like are something else entirely).

And third, I meant everything, including combat

All a fighter can do at level 20 is hit things with a stick. Depending on optimization, it can be anywhere from horrible to pretty good at it. But he's helpless against problems you can't hit with a stick

A wizard on the other hand can: fly, teleport, see the future, make people his friends/minions with charm/dominate and tons of other useful stuff, and still has enough tricks to end combat in his favor. Hell, if you really wanted, between polymorph and other buffs, you could also probably out-melee a 20th level fighter.

Fair enough. Maybe if the martials had more abilities per level up and more feats? I'll address that later.


Yep. There is no simple caster limitation. The closest is to ban Vancian full casters except for warmage, dread necro, and beguiler, and then you've got the much smaller psionic list to fix. If you want something that allows wizards and clerics, the only options that will work and still qualify as simple are to balance up - mass-ban everything below T3 except as dips, or gestalt anyone T3 or lower with another class.
EDIT: Well that's embarrassing, my big bolded point used the wrong first word.

Hard bans seem to frustrate some players, though, and I would rather avoid it.


I've seen a great many "quick and dirty" fixes for this. Generally, they aren't worth bothering with. The basic issue is...it's a complex problem. Quick fixes to complex problems muck up the works.



Yay, more math.



How will I calculate XP for a wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10//factotum 11/bard 5?



It also means that low level wizards, already squishy, basically suck for ages. XP is a river doesn't kick in until level 4. Therefore, low level wizards will be substantially more twitchy, and prone to random death.

High level casters...well, xp is a river is helping them...

It probably is too complicated. And you are right, I have never got behind the quick and dirty fixes I have seen, either. E6 is my favorite solution so far and that is because the game is better balanced at low levels, anyway.


To the OP...

Your attempt to do this by manipuating a very clean 3.X system of XP awards is...misguided.

If you want to slow casting progression down, then probably the simplest approach is this:

Your caster level, and the number of levels you can take in any primary (ie 1-9) casting class, is limited to 1/2 your character level. Any class, ability, feat, etc. that would break this stricture is banned.

Quick, simple fix that has the same basic mechanical effect as what you describe, while allowing these now-restricted casters to spend the rest of their XP diversifying into something else that interests them.


I don't know how WELL that fix would work...other posters have already pointed out some of the problems in the concept and ways that even low-level casters are very effective and powerful.

This is the second person who has suggested that, and it sound reasonable. The only thing I worry about is the guy who, for his concept, wants to be nothing but a frail bookworm.


I would like to nominate eggs for forumite of the day.

As far as a Simple caster fix goes, the best one I've ever seen is to limit full casters to the Bard's spell/day table, and Bards to the Adept table. I'd keep spells known the same, allowing a Sorcerer to pick a spell known of any level 0-2, 3-4, or 5-6 in place of a 7th, 8th or 9th respectively.

It isn't really the HD, BAB and base saves that are making the casters have a quadratic progression. It is the spells.

It wouldn't be perfect. They would still have a significant edge, but it would chop off the worst of the disparity.

Edit: This is probably too much of a nerf for the already T3-T4 caster classes, but maybe we could work something out.

Well, would keeping T3-T4 casters the same make them the new Tier 1s or would that be balanced, do you think?


Ah, it is ONLY the fighter that's aweful, got ya.

Not that I agree, at L20 a Fighter could easily do everything you quote for the L10 wizard (or caster X)...it's called gear.

If one wants polymorph cheese games...go all the way.

Greater Cloak of Transformations: Polymorph 5/day. CL15
Cost: 120,000 gp Req: Craft wondrous item, polymorph, 4,800 XP 60,000 gp

How's the L20 Fighter doing vs the L10 Wizard now? He's only got 640,000 gp more in gear.

What? That's a bad item? really? maybe polymorph is just a bad spell.

Regardless, the game isn't actually about the party killing itself, but about the party overcoming challenges together.

Well, I was actually giving the wizard the same amount of gear, but your last thing is a big part of what I am working on. I want the casters to have to rely on the martials and use them as more than fodder and meat shields in their planning. The game can, at high levels, not feel like overcoming challenges together and instead be 'Magic-Pants McGee and Friends fight dragons.' I don't like that.

I don't mind making wizards and psions and druids and such worse in combat, either, because they have so much out of combat utility. Other classes are balanced with this in mind. (A rogue is worse at fighting than others but is balanced with more skill points at trapfinding.) Why shouldn't casters be balanced this way?


Okay, everyone, I am thinking about the issue. This is too quick and messes with other mechanics, (saves and HP,) too much to work. How does my proposed system compare to limiting caster levels to half HD OR giving LA to casters OR banning spell levels 6+ OR changing spells to the bard progression OR this homebrew I considered,
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248425 ,
also in my signature, which takes out spell levels 6-9 as well as taking away dead levels for martials but may very well have serious bugs of its own I don't know about?

(So you don't have to read it, because I am just trying to make a better balanced game here not plug another thread of mine, basically you double your Con mod to HP and add your BAB to HP each level, get some other flat bonus' like to saves, and then class features for all the non full casters are scrunched up and distributed over ten levels instead of twenty, and there are only ten levels to advance, whereas full casters remain unchanged.)

How do all these fix ideas stack up?

[dextercorvia]

In the full casters get Bard progression example I gave, I would limit the other classes to 6th level spells as well. I would probably increase the number of Eclectic Learnings to match the extra spells that a Sorcerer could pick out.

1/2 CL doesn't really work. A CL that low is just not enough to beat SR, doesn't let quality party buffs like Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment reach their full potential.

Eliminating 6th level spells too wouldn't make caster's worthless, but likewise, it isn't their 6th level spells which are still letting them outclass melee.

It is just the fact that they get new interesting class features from a huge list at every level.

[dextercorvia]

new page glitch

[Ashtagon]

This is the second person who has suggested that, and it sound reasonable. The only thing I worry about is the guy who, for his concept, wants to be nothing but a frail bookworm.

...

This concern is why I suggested allowing a wizard to dual-class as a (for example) evoker/necromancer.

Edit: It may be worth allowing the classes to stack for the purpose of effective caster level only (not for spells per level or spells known).

[GenghisDon]

Banhammering the Tier 1's out of existance probably works too.

[GenghisDon]

In the full casters get Bard progression example I gave, I would limit the other classes to 6th level spells as well. I would probably increase the number of Eclectic Learnings to match the extra spells that a Sorcerer could pick out.

1/2 CL doesn't really work. A CL that low is just not enough to beat SR, doesn't let quality party buffs like Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment reach their full potential.

Eliminating 6th level spells too wouldn't make caster's worthless, but likewise, it isn't their 6th level spells which are still letting them outclass melee.

It is just the fact that they get new interesting class features from a huge list at every level.

I like the bard progression idea as well, and to be honest L6 spells work well as the "new L9", in that they are a quantum leap. It depends how much one wants to reduce the full casters.

[Hyde]

I see your mastery of English usage is rivaled only by your tact.

Tact is for people who are wrong.


No, really, I'm just in a bad mood today, and I'm taking it out on you guys.

I'm sorry.

[Lonely Tylenol]

For reference, here's a level-by-level breakdown of what would actually happen in the original proposed situation (for those interested). This is assuming a party of two Fighters and a Wizard (as a three-person party is the easiest way to create experience counts divisible by 1,000) that fights 10 encounters at CR level for the Fighters. It's a rough approximation (as I grouped all 10 encounters together and gave enough XP to level up all at the same time, instead of staggering it so the Wizard and Fighter level up separately), but is more or less accurate.

{table=head]Fighter Experience|Fighter Level|Wizard Experience|Wizard Experience (halved)|Wizard Level
0|1|0|1
1,000|2|1,000|500|1
3,000|3|3,000|1,500|2
6,000|4|6,000|3,000|3
10,000|5|10,400|5,200|3
15,000|6|16,400|8,200|4
21,000|7|24,400|12,200|5
28,000|8|34,400|17,200|6
36,000|9|46,400|23,200|7
45,000|10|60,400|30,200|8
55,000|11|76,400|38,200|9
66,000|12|94,400|47,200|10
78,000|13|114,400|57,200|11
91,000|14|136,400|68,200|12
105,000|15|160,400|80,200|13
120,000|16|186,400|93,200|14
136,000|17|214,400|107,200|15
153,000|18|244,400|122,200|16
171,000|19|276,400|138,200|17
190,000|20|310,400|155,200|18[/table]

The reason that this happens is that, once the Fighter reaches level 5 (and the Wizard reaches level 3 + 2,200 xp), the Fighter becomes 2 levels ahead of the Wizard in an environment that begins to scale CR a little differently (where levels 1-3 follow the same ruleset regardless of where you fall within those levels). At this point, the Wizard needs twice as much xp as a Fighter two levels lower than it to advance in level (for example, a 11th-level Fighter needs 11,000 xp to level up, but a 9th-level Wizard would need 18,000 xp, or 9,000 xp twice, to level all the same); however, an at-CR encounter for the Fighter is a CR+2 encounter for the Wizard, and xp works such that a CR+2 encounter gives twice as much experience (for that level) as an at-CR encounter would give, so while the Fighter levels up at exactly 10 at-CR encounters, and the Wizard levels up at exactly 20 at-CR encounters, the scaling actually works such that the Wizard would fight 10 CR+2 encounters, and level uniformly with the Fighter (if xp is distributed in huge chunks). Additionally, the Wizard would have 2,200 xp to spare for item crafting, if he so desires, which means that if wealth is distributed evenly, the Wizard should actually be (2,200*25)/2 gp, or 27,500 gp, richer. (If the Wizard levels separately, then the times that the Wizard is one level below the Fighters would push the Wizard closer to being exactly two levels behind the Fighters, but never moreso. This would decrease the amount of actual experience the Wizard has at their disposal to craft with as time goes on, but there would always be some surplus--just that the surplus shrinks with every level, so the sooner it is spent, the better.)

If the Wizard should choose to fall more than two levels behind the Fighters, for whatever reason, then the "xp is a river" fact can be truly exploited, as the Wizard will actually level up faster than the Fighters (the Wizard will still be 3 levels behind, but each level, will essentially have a "craft reserve" of extra experience he can spend without falling behind further), so if wealth is distributed uniformly, the Wizard will become progressively richer than his party mates without falling further behind in experience than he already is.

Of course, this isn't the stated purpose of the original poster--just an explanation of how (and why) the simple fix isn't quite as simple as it appears at face value.

[SowZ]

For reference, here's a level-by-level breakdown of what would actually happen in the original proposed situation (for those interested). This is assuming a party of two Fighters and a Wizard (as a three-person party is the easiest way to create experience counts divisible by 1,000) that fights 10 encounters at CR level for the Fighters. It's a rough approximation (as I grouped all 10 encounters together and gave enough XP to level up all at the same time, instead of staggering it so the Wizard and Fighter level up separately), but is more or less accurate.

{table=head]Fighter Experience|Fighter Level|Wizard Experience|Wizard Experience (halved)|Wizard Level
0|1|0|1
1,000|2|1,000|500|1
3,000|3|3,000|1,500|2
6,000|4|6,000|3,000|3
10,000|5|10,400|5,200|3
15,000|6|16,400|8,200|4
21,000|7|24,400|12,200|5
28,000|8|34,400|17,200|6
36,000|9|46,400|23,200|7
45,000|10|60,400|30,200|8
55,000|11|76,400|38,200|9
66,000|12|94,400|47,200|10
78,000|13|114,400|57,200|11
91,000|14|136,400|68,200|12
105,000|15|160,400|80,200|13
120,000|16|186,400|93,200|14
136,000|17|214,400|107,200|15
153,000|18|244,400|122,200|16
171,000|19|276,400|138,200|17
190,000|20|310,400|155,200|18[/table]

The reason that this happens is that, once the Fighter reaches level 5 (and the Wizard reaches level 3 + 2,200 xp), the Fighter becomes 2 levels ahead of the Wizard in an environment that begins to scale CR a little differently (where levels 1-3 follow the same ruleset regardless of where you fall within those levels). At this point, the Wizard needs twice as much xp as a Fighter two levels lower than it to advance in level (for example, a 11th-level Fighter needs 11,000 xp to level up, but a 9th-level Wizard would need 18,000 xp, or 9,000 xp twice, to level all the same); however, an at-CR encounter for the Fighter is a CR+2 encounter for the Wizard, and xp works such that a CR+2 encounter gives twice as much experience (for that level) as an at-CR encounter would give, so while the Fighter levels up at exactly 10 at-CR encounters, and the Wizard levels up at exactly 20 at-CR encounters, the scaling actually works such that the Wizard would fight 10 CR+2 encounters, and level uniformly with the Fighter (if xp is distributed in huge chunks). Additionally, the Wizard would have 2,200 xp to spare for item crafting, if he so desires, which means that if wealth is distributed evenly, the Wizard should actually be (2,200*25)/2 gp, or 27,500 gp, richer. (If the Wizard levels separately, then the times that the Wizard is one level below the Fighters would push the Wizard closer to being exactly two levels behind the Fighters, but never moreso. This would decrease the amount of actual experience the Wizard has at their disposal to craft with as time goes on, but there would always be some surplus--just that the surplus shrinks with every level, so the sooner it is spent, the better.)

If the Wizard should choose to fall more than two levels behind the Fighters, for whatever reason, then the "xp is a river" fact can be truly exploited, as the Wizard will actually level up faster than the Fighters (the Wizard will still be 3 levels behind, but each level, will essentially have a "craft reserve" of extra experience he can spend without falling behind further), so if wealth is distributed uniformly, the Wizard will become progressively richer than his party mates without falling further behind in experience than he already is.

Of course, this isn't the stated purpose of the original poster--just an explanation of how (and why) the simple fix isn't quite as simple as it appears at face value.

Oh, wow, thanks. Yeah, that helps show why this doesn't work at all. Jeez. I guess I would have to do the add LA at certain levels of the caster as proposed earlier if I wanted to implement a similar system.

[kitcik]

If you want a quick and dirty fix for full casting vs. non-casting classes, make the XP needed to advance from one level to the next be double that if you want to level up in a full caster class. So just find the difference between the XP you have at, say, level ten and at level eleven and double the difference. That is the XP that one must gain to get the eleventh level of wizard.

If the character is multiclassing, instead of doubling the XP find out the normal XP to get to the next level and then add the difference in XP as if they were leveling up with all their mundane class levels removed. (Does that make sense?)

Classes like Warlock, Bard, Psychic Warrior, etc. or other classes that start out with casting but don't have a full progression are one third more expensive, XP-wise.

In this way, multiclassing between casting and non casting classes may be more prevalent, (it is a more viable option, at least,) and magic becomes harder to master than mundane skills. (Which is how it should be, I think.) It also helps game balance some. Sure, it still doesn't address the core issue of versatility and being able to replicate entire lines of class features or feat chains with one spell, but when to be a tenth level wizard you will have to adventure with a twentieth level barbarian, the caster will definitely need and rely on their mundane allies more.

This should work. Thanks for solving this problem.

[LordBlades]

Ah, it is ONLY the fighter that's aweful, got ya.

'I only said that the fighter is awful' doesn't imply 'other classes aren't' (most of them are, but there are exceptions)


Not that I agree, at L20 a Fighter could easily do everything you quote for the L10 wizard (or caster X)...it's called gear.

Almost anything can be solved by throwing enough WBL at it. thing is, the more you spend on duplicating features you need but don't get from class (like flight for example), the less you have for enhancing the features that you do have.



If one wants polymorph cheese games...go all the way.

One man's cheese is another man's balanced rule.


Greater Cloak of Transformations: Polymorph 5/day. CL15
Cost: 120,000 gp Req: Craft wondrous item, polymorph, 4,800 XP 60,000 gp

How's the L20 Fighter doing vs the L10 Wizard now? He's only got 640,000 gp more in gear.

You spent 1/6th of a level 20 char WBL to duplicate the effects of something that the wizard got almost for free and has been doing from level 7. On top of that, wizard still does it better with Draconic Polymorph.



What? That's a bad item? really? maybe polymorph is just a bad spell.

You really seem mad. Did a wizard steal your lunch money or something?


Regardless, the game isn't actually about the party killing itself, but about the party overcoming challenges together.

And therefore the question shouldn't be 'can a wizard kill a fighter?' but rather 'will the party be more effective if guy X played a wizard instead of fighter?'

[GenghisDon]

Actually, under the premise, your wizard is only L10, with a BAB of +5, regardless of his HD 10 or less form. The fighter would have BSB +20, and a 15 HD form. $ well spent. It's a flawed & faulty premise, but maybe you are being a tiny bit silly comparing L20 characters to L10? tiny bit?

I'm not mad at all, in fact on a rare occassion I played I tested out the polymorph cheese. Yeah it can utterly dominate. It was boring after a game. boring isn't fun. YMMV, of course.

Strangely, I've always enjoyed wizards (or variant wizards) when I've played, over almost 30 years now, from B/X & AD&D1e till now. I play very rarely, but hate wizards? nope.

As to the last...I think the argument stands in favour of barbarian/fighter/rogue/ranger/paladin/monk/ect being there rather than wizard #2. Sometimes the wiz will suck, and spells that replace them actually work FAR better on them than the wizard himself. I suppose that isn't true if one only plays L17+, but good luck on the all wizard party at L1 without extreme DM cooperation.

The cooperation factor is actually at it's root about FUN. Is the game more fun with only wizards/clerics/druids? "Effective" is actually pretty moot. Any DM inexperienced enough or so lacking in confidence that they don't modify the encounters to fit the PC's isn't a very good DM (hopefully they get better). OTOH, having to do so with characters of wildly varying power is MUCH more difficult, & generally results in either a "free pass" for the munchkin/power gamers or hoplessness & death for those that are not. With fun as the actual goal, which way should a group go?

[LordBlades]

Actually, under the premise, your wizard is only L10, with a BAB of +5, regardless of his HD 10 or less form. The fighter would have BSB +20, and a 15 HD form. $ well spent. It's a flawed & faulty premise, but maybe you are being a tiny bit silly comparing L20 characters to L10? tiny bit?

Not at all. The wizard has a 10 hd form, with +8 str, can have a bab of 10 as well (via either Arcane Disciple or the suboptimal Tenser's Transformation), can get an extra attack and +1 to all attacks from Haste (fighter has to pay for it), has GMW (fighter needs to pay for it again), has a floating fighter feat with Heroics and can hit touch AC with Wraithstrike. Not to mention defenses.




As to the last...I think the argument stands in favour of barbarian/fighter/rogue/ranger/paladin/monk/ect being there rather than wizard #2. Sometimes the wiz will suck, and spells that replace them actually work FAR better on them than the wizard himself. I suppose that isn't true if one only plays L17+, but good luck on the all wizard party at L1 without extreme DM cooperation.

So many people use that argument. Let's say you have a wizard and a fighter. Wizad buffs fighter, fighter attacks. Net result: enemy got hit with a melee attack . Now let's consider 2 wizards (one replacing the fighter), Wizard 1 buffs himself, wizard 2 casts a spell at the enemy. Net result: enemy got hit with a spell, which is significantly more powerful than a melee attack usually.

Also, unfortunately a lot of awesome melee buffs (like the Bite of X line) have a range of Personal, so you can't put them on the fighter.

A 4 man wizard party probably would have some trouble at level 1, but a 3 wizards 1 druid (or cleric) can work just fine.



The cooperation factor is actually at it's root about FUN. Is the game more fun with only wizards/clerics/druids? "Effective" is actually pretty moot. Any DM inexperienced enough or so lacking in confidence that they don't modify the encounters to fit the PC's isn't a very good DM (hopefully they get better). OTOH, having to do so with characters of wildly varying power is MUCH more difficult, & generally results in either a "free pass" for the munchkin/power gamers or hoplessness & death for those that are not. With fun as the actual goal, which way should a group go?

Exactly, that's why its better to try and have characters of relatively close power levels in the group. An all wizard game can be fun. An all fighter game can be fun. It's when you're trying a wizards and fighters game that you might run into trouble. And it's not always the guy with the powerful char that is to blame. If somebody brings a fighter into a Cleric, Wizard, Druid group, then he's to odd one out.

[Andorax]

If someone wanted to be a dedicated scrawny bookworm, he could always swap back and forth between Wizard and Psion.

Really, it seems like you're struggling to find a complicated answer when a simple one ought to solve it.

Restrict full casters in that they can't go over half their level in the full-casting class...or give the bard progression to full casters (I'd say let them keep their own spell lists)...maybe give pal/ranger casting progression to bards, and call it a day.

[dextercorvia]

A 4 man wizard party probably would have some trouble at level 1,


I agree with the rest of your point. But I take exception with this. The only thing that a level 1 Wizard party would have difficulty with is traps. And they could probably handle most of those with an Unseen Servant, or Mage Hand, etc.

[LordBlades]

I agree with the rest of your point. But I take exception with this. The only thing that a level 1 Wizard party would have difficulty with is traps. And they could probably handle most of those with an Unseen Servant, or Mage Hand, etc.

Traps were the main thing i thought about in regard to that too

[dextercorvia]

Traps were the main thing i thought about in regard to that too

What is the druid adding then?

[LordBlades]

What is the druid adding then?

Disposable minions(AC and summons when needed)

[dextercorvia]

Wizards can do both of those things. In fact in an all Wizard party, I would recommend that one of them be a minionmancer of some kind (budding Malconvoker would be fine).

[Batou1976]

I've had a bunch of random ideas as I read this topic, so I'm gonna fire em off. Apologies if I end up not making any sense to you.

-Why do full casters need "crunch" nerfs to keep them from breaking the game? Actions have consequences, after all.
Within Dragonlance, there are the Orders of High Sorcery. If any of their members try some of the game breaking/ world dominating cheese I've read about, the Conclave is sure to take notice and take action against them. Renegades (mages who refuse to join the OoHS) are similarly dealt with.

Within the Wheel of Time story, Aes Sedai are bound by the Three Oaths, and are subject to Tower law. The Oaths can literally stop someone from "breaking the world" with the One Power in some ways, and any "trick" or plot one might try that isn't covered by the Oaths could result in the Tower deciding/ being forced to "deal" with you.

A Wiz20 doing things like farming bound efreeti for wishes, or engaging in other world/ material plane/ multiverse dominating shenanigans would attract attention. Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that inspires heroic adventurers to go on quests to shut down said shenanigans? :smallamused:

And that's just mundane, material plane forces who would take exception. Some of the most egregious "tricks" a wizard can pull should certainly merit the attention of a deity/pantheon/ other consortium of epically powered beings. Gods, Archdevils, and the like tend to detest mortals getting too big for their britches. If a wiz20 can solo Odin from Deities & Demigods and live (much less win)... well, the DM played Odin way wrong, IMO.

I guess, basically my point is- build controls into your world and story, rather than messing with the mechanics of the game and/or banning problematic feats and spells. Make it clear to the players that if they get crazy with the Cheez Whiz, there are forces out there that can, and will, take them down. HARD.

EDIT: Awesome. I've managed to kill *another* thread. :smallsigh:

[Batou1976]

I also forgot to mention, you're right about fencing being easier to learn than spellcasting. Well, at least, it should be.

From what I've been exposed to in my time in ARMA, in period one could know nothing about swords, study for about a year under a fechtmeister and become a decently skilled fencer in about a year. Not a Ftr20, or even 10, to be sure, but skillful enough to be competent in defending himself with confidence. Compare that to how long one must study medicine to become an MD, or computer science to be capable of designing an OS- these are real world disciplines that to me seem to be of a complexity analogous to wizarding. :smallsmile:

[Lonely Tylenol]

I also forgot to mention, you're right about fencing being easier to learn than spellcasting. Well, at least, it should be.

From what I've been exposed to in my time in ARMA, in period one could know nothing about swords, study for about a year under a fechtmeister and become a decently skilled fencer in about a year. Not a Ftr20, or even 10, to be sure, but skillful enough to be competent in defending himself with confidence. Compare that to how long one must study medicine to become an MD, or computer science to be capable of designing an OS- these are real world disciplines that to me seem to be of a complexity analogous to wizarding. :smallsmile:

Right. What you've just described is the level of experience one is expected to have when they have reached level 1. Which is reflected in the "background" entry for each class, and in the difference in starting age.

[Batou1976]

Right. What you've just described is the level of experience one is expected to have when they have reached level 1. Which is reflected in the "background" entry for each class, and in the difference in starting age.


Yeah, I guess I was a bit ambiguous. :smalleek: I didn't mean to equate earning an MD with being 1st level. That would be more like earning your bachelor's, I think.

Anyhow, what I was trying to say is- one can become competent with a sword, and grow from there, faster than one can attain mastery of medical or computer science.

[dextercorvia]

Yeah, I guess I was a bit ambiguous. :smalleek: I didn't mean to equate earning an MD with being 1st level. That would be more like earning your bachelor's, I think.

Anyhow, what I was trying to say is- one can become competent with a sword, and grow from there, faster than one can attain mastery of medical or computer science.

No. MD's pretty appropriate. A wizard may not have a full baccalaureate experience, but he is expected to have had several years of schooling specific to his field. He might be green when he comes out of school, but he's earned the right to be called Wizard. This is a lot like the (american anyway) tradition with docs. When the come out of med school, they are MD's they can be called Dr. So and So. But they are also interns, with several more years of practical education to work through before the receive the full acceptance of their colleagues as equals.

That is being Wizard 1. And, what LT was saying is that is reflected in the much older starting age for a Wizard.

[roguemetal]

It's not too hard to limit casters mildly without OBNOXIOUS XP penalties which still become moot points at a certain level. Simply houserule a few spell changes, maybe create lower save DCs for certain spells, limit the full casters (and only full casters) to PHB I, and you have a pretty balanced situation. Most casters are broken due to spells or PrCs that were never made to be in conjunction with one another, or by abusing buffs which can be ruled to not stack, regardless of bonus type. The main abusive abilities I've found to need changes have been:

Shapechange/Polymorph (change to prevent spellcasting out of it)

Wish/Miracle (ALWAYS up to interpretation of deity/outsider, regardless of effect)

Gate (limit what can be called)

Planeshift (limit planes accessible, subjects must be willing)

Dispel Magic/Greater Dispel/Disjunction (doesn't affect held/equipped items)

For everything else, merely use your own judgement and with this, most melee builds can stand next to casters. Just avoid Samurai, and only attempt sword-and-board with half-casters.

[Murg]

Well I think Tylenol decisively demonstrated that penalizing casters' XP is not the best solution to the problem.

So what about messing with their action economy instead?

What if each spell's casting time was multiplied by its spell level? So a 3rd level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 3 rounds to cast. An 8th level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 8 rounds to cast. A 5th level spell with a casting time of 1 minute would instead take 5 minutes to cast, ect.

And no spell/effect/ability/item could be used to circumvent this longer casting time. So wands, contingency spells, quicken spell feats, wishes, ect. would not be a way to get faster magic.

To prevent casters from being relegated to the role of pre-combat "buffers/summoners" a second simple rule is needed: No more than one buff can be active on a character at any time, and no more than 1 minion can be controlled at any time.

With these two simple rules I think Tier 1s would be more like Tier 3s, and Tier 2s more like Tier 4s.

Some caster apologists might say that having a wizard spend 8 rounds casting a spell is boring, I say it would streamline combat and balance caster vs. noncaster versatility.

A Fighter's options each round are attack, attack, or attack. A wizard's options are dozens of spells. Casters are so powerful because of their versatility; that versatility should come at a price.

What do you think? Would this work?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well I think Tylenol decisively demonstrated that penalizing casters' XP is not the best solution to the problem.

So what about messing with their action economy instead?

What if each spell's casting time was multiplied by its spell level? So a 3rd level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 3 rounds to cast. An 8th level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 8 rounds to cast. A 5th level spell with a casting time of 1 minute would instead take 5 minutes to cast, ect.

And no spell/effect/ability/item could be used to circumvent this longer casting time. So wands, contingency spells, quicken spell feats, wishes, ect. would not be a way to get faster magic.

To prevent casters from being relegated to the role of pre-combat "buffers" a second simple rule is needed: No more than one buff can be active on a character at any time.

With these two simple rules I think Tier 1s would be more like Tier 3s, and Tier 2s more like Tier 4s.

Some caster apologists might say that having a wizard spend 8 rounds casting a spell is boring, I say it would streamline combat and balance caster vs. noncaster versatility.

A Fighter's options each round are attack, attack, or attack. A wizard's options are dozens of spells. Casters are so powerful because of their versatility; that versatility should come at a price.

What do you think? Would this work?

With no way to mitigate the extraordinary length of casting time, you've just relegated all casting classes to NPC status. A gish might still be a playable PC but barely.

[NichG]

Eh, I don't agree. Druids would still be quite powerful, Clerics would be reasonable to play given that they have other things they're good at than just slinging spells. Even wizards would be quite playable, but you just have to change how you think about the class. Instead of 'I have these spells to cast them in combat', its 'I have these spells so that I can make wands of them if I need to act in combat' and off you go.

Edit: I noticed wands are also slow, so gotta change tacks there. I'd probably focus on a single long-duration buff with a lot of mileage to be relevant in combat: Alter Self, Polymorph, etc. Maybe use Abjurant Champion to be a competent combatant while still maintaining good casting for out of combat. Alternately: Reserve Feats!

Spellcasting becomes even more about magical MacGyver, since you only use it when you have time - otherwise, you rely on other things. Thinking about Wizards as 'battlefield control' types in such a system would be a mistake; they'd still have a role though.

I hear it said a lot 'if you apply X nerf to this powerful thing, no one will ever play it!'. I think there's a bit of truth there, in that people who are used to how powerful it was will feel like it isn't living up to their past experience. However in general there should be an entire spectrum of responses starting from 'a few people play something else instead' down to 'no one will play it'. This particular adjustment may be more on the end of the spectrum where it drives people away, but I think its an overstatement that it would be 'relegated to NPCs'

[TuggyNE]

What if each spell's casting time was multiplied by its spell level? So a 3rd level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 3 rounds to cast. An 8th level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 8 rounds to cast. A 5th level spell with a casting time of 1 minute would instead take 5 minutes to cast, ect.

And no spell/effect/ability/item could be used to circumvent this longer casting time. So wands, contingency spells, quicken spell feats, wishes, ect. would not be a way to get faster magic.

To prevent casters from being relegated to the role of pre-combat "buffers/summoners" a second simple rule is needed: No more than one buff can be active on a character at any time, and no more than 1 minion can be controlled at any time.
[...]
What do you think? Would this work?

Like most simple fixes, this has a ton of collateral damage. T3/T4/T5 casters (Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Healer*, Beguiler, Warmage, DN, etc) have their casting nerfed into the ground needlessly. Meanwhile, there is still a subset of T1 gamebreaker spells that care not at all about casting time, and don't even care much about minion count. So the result is that T1 generally moves to T2, T2 stays about the same, T3 and below full casters drop to ... T5?, and partial casters forget about their spells entirely.

As a side note, just what do you have against buffing and summoning? Most of the time, buffing is a party-friendly tactic, and is often necessary for high-level mundanes to survive. ("You now have a choice between death ward, energy immunity, or greater magic weapon while fighting this demilich. Choose wisely.") Even summoning or minionmancy needn't be broken, as long as you can't control NI monsters with powerful spell-likes.

[Murg]

As a side note, just what do you have against buffing and summoning? Most of the time, buffing is a party-friendly tactic, and is often necessary for high-level mundanes to survive. ("You now have a choice between death ward, energy immunity, or greater magic weapon while fighting this demilich. Choose wisely.") Even summoning or minionmancy needn't be broken, as long as you can't control NI monsters with powerful spell-likes.

My primary concern was that restricting casting time only stops casters from being game breaking during combat. Thus, a wizard might decide to spend his entire repertoire of spells on buffs or summons pre-battle, while during the battle he would play a minimal (direct) role.

[dextercorvia]

My primary concern was that restricting casting time only stops casters from being game breaking during combat. Thus, a wizard might decide to spend his entire repertoire of spells on buffs or summons pre-battle, while during the battle he would play a minimal (direct) role.

And the truth is your fix would only make it so casters broke the game outstide of combat. This would make them entirely unplayable within the context of a usual game. This would force casters to be crafters, which would just destroy the game in ways you haven't dreamed of.

No 17th level wizard is going to wait 9 rounds to cast a spell in combat (it would be over by then, one way or the other), and a level 1 spell is going to do nothing to change things by then. The DCs are too low, and the effects are just laughable in combat.

As was mentioned. Melee is going to be even more hosed by your only 1 buff rule.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And the truth is your fix would only make it so casters broke the game outstide of combat. This would make them entirely unplayable within the context of a usual game. This would force casters to be crafters, which would just destroy the game in ways you haven't dreamed of.

No 17th level wizard is going to wait 9 rounds to cast a spell in combat (it would be over by then, one way or the other), and a level 1 spell is going to do nothing to change things by then. The DCs are too low, and the effects are just laughable in combat.

As was mentioned. Melee is going to be even more hosed by your only 1 buff rule.

This is exactly what I meant in my last post, I just didn't say it quite this well.

[Batou1976]

Instead of messing with casting times as drastically as making a 9th level spell take 9 rounds to cast, perhaps what is needed is to bring back fluid initiative, but not like how it was done in 2E.

In 2E, for those who don't know, at the beginning of each round everyone declared their actions and *then* rolled initiative. Spells and "slow" weapons like greatswords applied a modifier which caused you to go later in the round than characters who'd declared faster actions.

Since in 3E/PF you don't decide your action until it's your turn, and initiative is rolled only once, what could be done instead is applying a modifier to the character's current initiative number, causing them to go later in *subsequent* rounds. Spycraft/ Fantasycraft uses this method.

This still wouldn't stop casters from breaking the game outside of combat, though. It would only cause them to think a bit more carefully about throwing around their higher-level (slower) spells.

Those gamebreaking spells and tricks are a big problem though, IMHO. I prefer campaigns that can be compared to Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance Chronicles, Final Fantasy VI, Skyrim (and Oblivion), Lodoss War, etc etc. I definitely do NOT care for games in which a wizard uses some funky combo of spells and feats to make himself king of the earth (and his rogue, fighter, and paladin buddies irrelevant).

Dragonlance would have been rather dull (and cheesy) if Raistlin had simply exploited some Time Stop/ Gate/ Candle of Invocation/ Wish spam trick to deal with things. :smallconfused:

[eggs]

This is sideswiping the problems again.

I don't think anyone's problem with the system is that spells can be cast in combat. Warmages and Healers do it without anything breaking; Warblades and Swordsages do it (granted, they put the mechanics into a groucho disguise), and that's what makes them fun. Cutting out the fun parts of the game, ruining a bunch of classes that don't need it (Dread Necro & co) and only glancingly addressing the main issue is not a good solution.


If casting times were extended and there were side effects or partial manifestations of the spell that gradually take effect until the spell was completed, the increased casting-time system would be less bad. At that point, you're leaving the realm of a "quick fix" or "simple limitation," but it sounds like a fun homebrew.