Would removing level 9 spells be enough to drop pure casters a tier?

[danzibr]

Suppose I'm interested in running a campaign in the... somewhat near future. I plan to get it to high levels, but I don't want the (potential) gap in power between casters and non-casters to be as big as normal. Would eliminating level 9 spells work? Like you still get the slots for metamagic purposes and whatnot, but no spells. Or would I have to cut out level 8 spells too?

At a glance, I think level 9 would do it as that's where the most broken spells are, but I have little experience with high level casters.

[Deathkeeper]

Wizards don't need Wish and such to be awesome.

[Aharon]

Bard spell progression is sufficient to lower tier.

[hex0]

Wizards don't need Wish and such to be awesome.

The 'if I remove level 9s question' seems to come up a lot. And it doesn't solve the problem really. There are a lot of other spells that are abuseable that are under level 9, such as Polymorph and Polymorph any Object.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Put simply; NO

More complex answer: T1's being T1's has nothing to do with 9th level spells. T2's get those too, afterall. T1's are T1's because, barring a very strict and vigilant DM, they can have the perfect solution to any problem given a bit of forwarning. If you want to bring them down to a reasonable level, then here's a heavy-handed, ban-hammer method.

Ban the entire polymorph subschool. Yes all of it. Ban the celerity line. Ban all summoning and calling effects. Yes all of them. Ban metamagic cost reducers. Ban shadowcraft mage. Ban any other effect that gives a caster extra actions or action equivalents (I'm looking at you psionics)

That should get things to a more reasonable level of power. Don't get me wrong, casters will still dominate non-casters, but they won't absolutely crush them without trying anymore. BTW, that last comment doesn't mean ban psionics, just the powers that break the action economy.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Frankly I think just saying "Guys, casters are more powerful than non-casters, if you want to play a caster please don't be d***, ok?". Most people are reasonable enough to accept this.

Otherwise go with Kelb_Panthera's suggestion, though I would work on a case by case basis (If nobody wants to play an Incantatrix, why ban it?).

[Gandariel]

You don't strictly need to do it. problems only arise if the players are optimizing, most times.
If a charachter happens to be too strong, you can have a talk with him and ask him to power down, or to focus on party buffing.

Anyway, if you want to lower casting, i'd do this:

Max spell level is 7
recreate a spell table, i guess you could give them
Level 2 spells => at level 3
Level 3 spells => at level 6
level 4 spells => at level 9
level 5 spells => at level 12
level 6 spells => at level 15
level 7 spells => at level 18

But, give them more spell slots, especially at low levels.
I would also consider giving them access to a few at-will spells.
For example,
at level 2 they get a level 0 spell, usable at will.
At level 7 they get a level 1 spell at will
at level 12 they get a level 2 spell
at level 17 they get a level 3 spell.

Should be good enough, unless your players are uber munchkins.

[hex0]

How about using the Magus tables but add 7th level spells at level 19?

[Answerer]

Ban the entire polymorph subschool. Yes all of it.
By the time the "Polymorph subschool" was introduced, Wizards had learned a lot. A lot of the spells in that subschool are fine: it's the spells they were sorta-kinda-but-Wizards-won't-admit-it replacing are the real problems. I.e. the non-subschool polymorph spells.


Ban the celerity line.
No argument.


Ban all summoning and calling effects. Yes all of them.
Most summoning effects are weak. Calling, I totally agree.


Ban metamagic cost reducers.
Might as well ban metamagic then, unfortunately. Metamagic has this really obnoxious thing where without cost reducers, it's not worth it, but with reducers, it becomes exceedingly overpowered.

A better suggestion is to turn all metamagic into the Sudden versions thereof. Limit the number of times per day that they can be used.


Ban shadowcraft mage.
That one is far from alone, as far as PrCs are concerned. Incantatrix may have been covered by the Metamagic Reducers clause, but you haven't touched Iot7V, Dweormerkeeper, etc.


That should get things to a more reasonable level of power. Don't get me wrong, casters will still dominate non-casters, but they won't absolutely crush them without trying anymore.
No, they're still Tier 1 under these rules. There are some limits on them, but they're still very much Tier 1.

[Flickerdart]

By the time the "Polymorph subschool" was introduced, Wizards had learned a lot. A lot of the spells in that subschool are fine: it's the spells they were sorta-kinda-but-Wizards-won't-admit-it replacing are the real problems. I.e. the non-subschool polymorph spells.

The issue isn't that the spells don't have the subschool. It applies retroactively to all shape-changing spells. But the Polymorph subschool specifically does not supersede the rules of the actual spell...and Polymorph er al explicitly state that someone under their effect can still cast spells.

[watchwood]

What I would suggest doing is simply take away spells about the 6th level, but leave the slots available to be filled with metamagic. Make it a plot point that all that highest magic is all lost knowledge, that way if you ever need a side quest you can send them off to recover a Scroll of X

But if they're decent people, just ask them not to be ***** about massively overshadowing the rest of party. Which is one the the perks of the God wizard. God can still have his power complex, but he lets the rest of the party take the spotlight for the bulk of the fighting.

[Jarveiyan]

Has anyone thought about using Dragonlance's Curse of the Magi: Variant Rule for all casting classes? After you cast a spell you make a fortitude save DC 10+spell level(my suggestion DC 10+spell slot level in the case of metamagic or sorcerers using a higher spell slot to cast a lower level spell). If he succeeds, he does not suffer any adverse affects from the casting. However if he fails, then he is fatigued. If he fails another saving throw while fatigued, then he becomes exhausted. If he fails a third saving throw, he then falls unconscious. what I would suggest if you use this variant id take out any ability to sub in the casting stat for fortitude saves. I know this will favor characters with good fortitude saves, it's only a suggestion though.

[Flickerdart]

Has anyone thought about using Dragonlance's Curse of the Magi: Variant Rule for all casting classes? After you cast a spell you make a fortitude save DC 10+spell level(my suggestion DC 10+spell slot level in the case of metamagic or sorcerers using a higher spell slot to cast a lower level spell). If he succeeds, he does not suffer any adverse affects from the casting. However if he fails, then he is fatigued. If he fails another saving throw while fatigued, then he becomes exhausted. If he fails a third saving throw, he then falls unconscious. what I would suggest if you use this variant id take out any ability to sub in the casting stat for fortitude saves. I know this will favor characters with good fortitude saves, it's only a suggestion though.
DC 10+spell level is trivial. Removing fatigue is trivial. What is this supposed to accomplish?

[limejuicepowder]

What I would suggest doing is simply take away spells about the 6th level, but leave the slots available to be filled with metamagic. Make it a plot point that all that highest magic is all lost knowledge, that way if you ever need a side quest you can send them off to recover a Scroll of X

But if they're decent people, just ask them not to be ***** about massively overshadowing the rest of party. Which is one the the perks of the God wizard. God can still have his power complex, but he lets the rest of the party take the spotlight for the bulk of the fighting.

This. Yes there are potentially still problems, but my rough estimate is 75% of them are solved with this. A major plus is this solution is easy, straight-forward, and attacks the problem directly: high level spells are poorly designed when it comes to partying with non-casters. You don't have to worry about extra rules that can potentially be sidestepped or w/e.

[erikun]

There isn't much that 9th level spells allow you to do that 7th and 8th don't, albeit not quite as effectively.

Also, there is the problem that removing 9th level spells from Tier-1 characters would remove them from Tier-2 characters as well, thus keeping everyone in the same tiers.


However, the biggest problem is simply that Tier-1 spell lists are just too powerful. Even the low-level spell spells are ridiculously good, to the point where simply having access to those spell lists is enough to catapult a class into Tier-2 automatically. (Sublime Chord, for example) Fixes for this are somewhat tricky; giving them the Bardic spellcasting - with some variant for prepared casters - might work partially, but you still may want to touch on individual spells that are still quite powerful. Maybe. The delayed progressing with d4 and no class features may be just what you're looking for.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Answerer:

Metamagic without reducers can be difficult to use, but that doesn't make it entirely worthless. Heighten for spontaneous casters is still a good idea, and sculpt spell is phenomenal for BFC.

I singled out Shadowcraft Mage, because, while the spells that are normally part of the shadow subschool are alright. Making all your illusion spells somewhere between quasi-real and realer-than-real quickly gets out of hand with even a moderately creative player. Most other casting prestige classes aren't all that bad without the other abuses that've been removed by my suggestions.

For summoning: yeah, most of the time it's not a big problem. When it gets you around the other restrictions I've suggested, particularly the action economy breaking, it becomes a problem. I said in the post you quoted that I was being deliberately heavy-handed.

On T1's still being T1's: well, yeah. Of course their still T1's. But with my suggestions, the gulf between T1-2 and T3-6 is rather notably shrunk, though certainly not eliminated. It's more of a 100ft crevasse than the gaping, I-can't-see-the-bottom-or-the-other-side chasm that it was before. You're still not jumping it, but maybe you can get a shot across if you're lucky.

@the op:

The advice to just talk to your player/dm about what's acceptable goes way further than any amount of banning ever will. Do that first. Then start swinging the ban-hammer if they won't act right, but you don't want to kick them either.

[Flickerdart]

This. Yes there are potentially still problems, but my rough estimate is 75% of them are solved with this. A major plus is this solution is easy, straight-forward, and attacks the problem directly: high level spells are poorly designed when it comes to partying with non-casters. You don't have to worry about extra rules that can potentially be sidestepped or w/e.
Except that still leaves 13 of the game's levels intact. That's 2/3rds of the game where casters still outshine noncasters. Do you really think the have-nots can catch up in merely seven levels?

[Alienist]

Personally I like the idea that non-tier 1 classes get a free gestalt.
Tier 2s get to gestalt with a tier 5. Tier 3s get to gestalt with a tier 4.

So you don't just have sorcerers... You have sorcerer monks (and thus you can have your wuxia style Kung fu 'wizard', without it sucking)

Fair warning: pretty much everyone ends up as some kind of caster under this scheme. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, if everyone has a little bit of agency, instead of the standard angel summoner vs bmx bandit scenario

[Wise Green Bean]

Bard spell progression and ban all the stuff Kelb said. This sounds harsh, but keep in mind, they're still probably going to beat/trivialize the guys below tier 3 quite consistently. Casting as a level 11 wizard still makes you a much more dangerous person that a level 20 barbarian or rogue or something like that. Casting is just that freaking overpowered, especially if they're smart about it. Dominate person alone would likely do the trick...

[nedz]

Banning levels 4-9 might do it, its part of the rationale behind E6.

[Yora]

Banning levels 4-9 might do it, its part of the rationale behind E6.
That helps a lot, but if you want to be really save, also remove 2 and 3. There's web, glitterdust, and fly.

[hex0]

That helps a lot, but if you want to be really save, also remove 2 and 3. There's web, glitterdust, and fly.

While we're at it, let's remove 0 and 1. -_-

[Psyren]

Frankly I think just saying "Guys, casters are more powerful than non-casters, if you want to play a caster please don't be d***, ok?". Most people are reasonable enough to accept this.

This is madness!

[Dusk Eclipse]

I know, right?

[watchwood]

Except that still leaves 13 of the game's levels intact. That's 2/3rds of the game where casters still outshine noncasters. Do you really think the have-nots can catch up in merely seven levels?

Casters being more powerful then non-casters is an inherent flaw of the d20 vancian casting system, and no amount of houserules will change that. That's why some of us are just saying to ask players playing as casters to not be ***** about it.

[Psyren]

Casters being more powerful then non-casters is an inherent flaw of the d20 vancian casting system, and no amount of houserules will change that. That's why some of us are just saying to ask players playing as casters to not be ***** about it.

It's not a "flaw" - it's a feature. In most settings, the power of magic is balanced by its relative scarcity, i.e. there are generally far more mundanes than casters. The disparity is merely more pronounced in an adventuring party.

Magic is supposed to be special, and those with the education/faith/talent to learn its mysteries deserve to be stronger than those without.

[toapat]

It's not a "flaw" - it's a feature. In most settings, the power of magic is balanced by its relative scarcity, i.e. there are generally far more mundanes than casters. The disparity is merely more pronounced in an adventuring party.

Magic is supposed to be special, and those with the education/faith/talent to learn its mysteries deserve to be stronger than those without.

of course, it isnt actually mechanically supported that magic is complex, hard to learn, or anything it is normally depicted as in storytelling, as a lvl 2 wizard could theoretically teach an entire village to be wizards in a day (assuming he has an absurdly high Int score and Conjuration specialization barring all but Conjuration, transmutation, and Divination), hand out their spell books, and be done with it.

[Flickerdart]

Spells being powerful has nothing to do with the Vancian system. The psion and the sorcerer are both not Vancian, and they're still stronger than mundanes.

[Psyren]

of course, it isnt actually mechanically supported that magic is complex, hard to learn, or anything it is normally depicted as in storytelling, as a lvl 2 wizard could theoretically teach an entire village to be wizards in a day (assuming he has an absurdly high Int score and Conjuration specialization barring all but Conjuration, transmutation, and Divination), hand out their spell books, and be done with it.

It's the DM's job to enforce that, by requiring X backstory before a level in Wizard, Cleric, Druid etc. can be taken. Lots of things are simplified to make the game enjoyable, that doesn't mean they don't happen from a simulationist perspective.

[watchwood]

It's not a "flaw" - it's a feature. In most settings, the power of magic is balanced by its relative scarcity, i.e. there are generally far more mundanes than casters. The disparity is merely more pronounced in an adventuring party.

Magic is supposed to be special, and those with the education/faith/talent to learn its mysteries deserve to be stronger than those without.

It's only a feature if the players are all playing as a group of illiterate peasants. But that generally doesn't happen, does it? DnD is a game, not an alternate reality simulator.

[Psyren]

It's only a feature if the players are all playing as a group of illiterate peasants. But that generally doesn't happen, does it? DnD is a game, not an alternate reality simulator.

It's both. Otherwise we'd all be using it merely to play Diablo or some other series of dungeon crawls, rather than fully-realized settings ("alternate realities") such as Faerun, Eberron and Golarion.

[nedz]

Banning levels 4-9 might do it, its part of the rationale behind E6.


That helps a lot, but if you want to be really save, also remove 2 and 3. There's web, glitterdust, and fly.


While we're at it, let's remove 0 and 1. -_-

OK, but at which point do we lose a tier ?

[sdream]

You drop the top tier when you don't have access to an almost unlimited range of too powerful effects. Just dropping the top levels won't cut it as tiers function at lower levels also. I recommend a 3 step plan.

Step 1 - eliminate spell levels 7-9, so we are still dealing with heroes, not gods. This is required for high level balance.

Step 2 - Spread the rest of the spell levels out a bit so the spells come in just a bit later, and not before anybody else can replicate the powers. I like a bard like 3 level progression for everybody:

0 1st (bonus only)
1 1st
2 1st
3 1st and 0 2nd (bonus only)
3 1st and 1 2nd
etc etc

Step 3 - Even out the ability to change your powers to match circumstances. All Fullcasters know one more spell of each level than they can cast. Every night every character can add one spell known OR one feat (replacing an existing if you do not have a free spot).

That drops tier1 AND tier2, and lifts some of the lowers up also. The spell progression and known nerf is not applied to anything tier4 or under, so specialist casters really are good and unique.

(I recommend unlimited cantrip casting, wizards can pick up a spell known when they CAST a scroll, and sorcerers one level ahead on casting).

[toapat]

*chainsaw*

if we are going for the roundhouse dropkick method, you are not doing it right:

Step 1: Ban Druids, and all full spell progression is gone, replaced with bard casting.

Incidentally, Sorcerers also are gone, and the Bard picks up the slack.

Step 2: the Polymorph and Calling subschools are gone, Celerity makes you skip your next turn entirely, the line over 4th level ends.

Step 3: Metamagic Reducers can not reduce the total Spell LA below 25% of base Level Adjustment, rounded up.

[danzibr]

To clarify, I was actually wondering how to do points based off of tiers. I don't... really like the idea of gestalting to attempt to rectify the difference in power levels of tiers, mostly because it causes the players to do more bookwork.

I was thinking something like 20+5*tier, where tier is based off the *entire build*. So like, if we start at level 1 and someone is a fighter, then they end up going some gish with level 9 spells they wouldn't be tier 5 or whatever.

[toapat]

To clarify, I was actually wondering how to do points based off of tiers. I don't... really like the idea of gestalting to attempt to rectify the difference in power levels of tiers, mostly because it causes the players to do more bookwork.

I was thinking something like 20+5*tier, where tier is based off the *entire build*. So like, if we start at level 1 and someone is a fighter, then they end up going some gish with level 9 spells they wouldn't be tier 5 or whatever.

The difference between T2+3 is huge

Tier 2 can and will do anything so long as they are sufficiently prepared.
Tier 3 can do One thing really well, while being competent in other fields, or do nothing badly.

Skills are vastly underrated for skillmonkey classes, but vastly overrated for one hit wonders like the ToB classes.

[TuggyNE]

The difference between T2+3 is huge

Tier 2 can and will do anything so long as they are sufficiently prepared.
Tier 3 can do One thing really well, while being competent in other fields, or do nothing badly.

That's not exactly correct. Any given build of a T2 class has one, or a few, extremely powerful options, generally capable of changing the course of a campaign and usually very widely applicable in themselves. T3s do not have anything on that scale; they are either very competent at one specific thing ("making stuff dead with melee damage", say) as well as half-decent in other areas, or are moderately competent at lots of things.

It's the T1 that is actually able to do anything with enough preparation; they have not merely one or two extremely powerful options, they are able to switch in new selections with impunity and adjust their strategy almost entirely when needed.

The classic T1 is a Wizard, and the classic T2 is a Sorcerer. Same spell list, almost exactly the same tricks, the difference is prepared spellbook vs. spontaneous limited-spells-known.

[toapat]

That's not exactly correct. Any given build of a T2 class has one, or a few, extremely powerful options, generally capable of changing the course of a campaign and usually very widely applicable in themselves. T3s do not have anything on that scale; they are either very competent at one specific thing ("making stuff dead with melee damage", say) as well as half-decent in other areas, or are moderately competent at lots of things.

It's the T1 that is actually able to do anything with enough preparation; they have not merely one or two extremely powerful options, they are able to switch in new selections with impunity and adjust their strategy almost entirely when needed.

The classic T1 is a Wizard, and the classic T2 is a Sorcerer. Same spell list, almost exactly the same tricks, the difference is prepared spellbook vs. spontaneous limited-spells-known.

T2s have alot of options, and are always prepared for the problems they have solutions to.

a T1 can just come back 9 hours later with the solution, regardless of the problem. Even if they do not have 9 hours, they can create 9 hours for themselves with which to have the solution

[sdream]

To clarify, I was actually wondering how to do points based off of tiers. I don't... really like the idea of gestalting to attempt to rectify the difference in power levels of tiers, mostly because it causes the players to do more bookwork.

I was thinking something like 20+5*tier, where tier is based off the *entire build*. So like, if we start at level 1 and someone is a fighter, then they end up going some gish with level 9 spells they wouldn't be tier 5 or whatever.

Sorry, I just don't think that can be done.

A wizard can be run at straight 6s and 14int and still be god.

A fighter with all 18s still just hits things hard.

The difference is not one of scale, but of options, and unless you tone down the options of wizard and CoDzilla and tone up the options of others you simply have not fixed it.


Ban Ban Ban

If you are going down that path, just declare the game T3 classes only. I think preserving all classes and their unique aspects is valuable. Even the twins wizard and sorcerer retain their unique flavor with my method (scribish resources versus raw magic power).

[toapat]

If you are going down that path, just declare the game T3 classes only. I think preserving all classes and their unique aspects is valuable. Even the twins wizard and sorcerer retain their unique flavor with my method (scribish resources versus raw magic power).

except you apparently havent had a look at the CO/TO boards.

To be effective, a Melee character has to dedicate their entire build to a single task. Levels, Feats, Skills, and Attributes. fighters may have 3 spare feats to burn, but that is 3 out of minimum 18 feats.


A Tier 1, played as a Tier 1, has numerous free featslots. Clerics only need as many feats as they plan to go fore divine metamagics, a druid is at their peak optimization as soon as they take Natural Spell. Wizards have 12+ feats with which to Scrooge McDuck

and sorcerers? dont have a unique flavor when they are nerfed to bard spellcasting.

Druids are impossible to balance against the party. if you want shapeshifting, play a Fey'ri. Fey'ri dont exist? Roll up an elf specifically to get her knocked up by a succubus, have a kid, have said kid be kidnapped to a 365* speed dimension, and come back a month later, murder her mom, and become the new PC

[erikun]

To clarify, I was actually wondering how to do points based off of tiers. I don't... really like the idea of gestalting to attempt to rectify the difference in power levels of tiers, mostly because it causes the players to do more bookwork.

I was thinking something like 20+5*tier, where tier is based off the *entire build*. So like, if we start at level 1 and someone is a fighter, then they end up going some gish with level 9 spells they wouldn't be tier 5 or whatever.
You could in theory, I suppose, but it would take quite a bit to properly rank the point-value of the tiers. Also, the tiers are not lateral - heck, they probably aren't even quadratic. There is a vast jump above Tier 3.

Let's use Tier 4 as our baseline, and saying that Tier 4 = 10 points. Tier 5 classes are like Tier 4 classes, but less capable of doing their job. We could probably say Tier 5 = 5 points. Tier 6 are pretty much incapable of doing much of anything, even what they are "good" at. We can say Tier 6 = 1 point.

Tier 3 are like Tier 4, but generally capable of of being good at a number of things (and decent at several others) while Tier 4 are limited to being good at one thing. We could probably say Tier 3 = 30 points if mixing three various T4 classes would give us roughly the versatility of a T3 class. It might be more than that, but I'm making a rough guess.

A Tier 2 class has the options of a Tier 3 class, but generally far better and far easier to perform. That, and they generally have dozens on options available at any one time. Tier 2 = 300 points is likely understating things, but gives us a good idea of scale.

Comparing Tier 1 to Tier 2 is a lot like comparing Tier 3 to Tier 4, so let's just give it three times the point value. That is, Tier 1 = 900 points.

You can probably see the issue with such a point system. Yes, it sounds like a good idea, but when your wizard character is worth 900 points you can gestalt almost every single Tier 3 and below class together and still come up short. Heck, people have gestalted them all together and the result is still questionably short of Tier 2, indicating that the differences may be much greater between tiers than I've mentioned here.

[Anodai]

Frankly I think just saying "Guys, casters are more powerful than non-casters, if you want to play a caster please don't be d***, ok?". Most people are reasonable enough to accept this.

I don't think I can overstate how much I agree with this.

[killianh]

The thing with the tier list is that it's power is based on minimal to moderate optimization of the base class on it's own. Access to PrCs, certain feats, items, and the like aren't really taken into consideration and tier 1s still dominate. Truthfully a wizard with a bad spell list can be more useless than a commoner so it really comes down to how the player uses the character. Its far easier to drop in power then it is to rise.

Setting a certain spell level cap won't fix it, nor will banning this line of spells or feats or Prcs or another, because the former will either not work or leave the character ineffective (low level spells mean low DCs) and the latter would take more work than it's worth. That said Polymorph, metamagic reducers, and the PrCs that raise their tier level even higher (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=atgvj0jvp97ssmvjerstpdhbd1&topic=5198) are good general ways to get rid of some of the obvious game breakers

The most powerful aspects of tier 1 casters is they can fix most problems with a spell or two if they know it's coming. Limiting divination, contingency, and others of their like help as well.

Looking at lower tier casters the big difference is the limit of how many spells they can learn, either by a limited amount known, or by a limited list to start with. With a wizard or archivist you can easily limit how many extra spells known they can add to their lists. For the others you would have to get into limiting source books, which can be more of a pain than a fix.

[Tokuhara]

If you're playing Pathfinder, make all casters Words of Power spellcasters. This makes them more controllable for DMs and very versatile for players

[Novawurmson]

My opinion: Dropping everyone to 6-7th level spells would probably knock them down a tier Make sure to remove 8-9th level spells that other people can pick up (Bards, Summoners, etc.).

Another Pathfinder suggestion: Spellblights (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spellblights). How you implement them is up to you, but they're a more flavorful way to nerf casters.

Here's a taster:

Nameless Dread

A caster with nameless dread believes strange beings from far dimensions or the blackness between the stars are hounding her and sapping her sanity. Every time the caster uses a spell or a spell-like ability, she sees a glimpse of her nameless pursuers. She must succeed at a concentration check (DC 15 + twice the spell's level), or become shaken for 1 round per level of the spell. If already shaken, the spellcaster becomes frightened for the duration of the original effect or the duration of the new effect, whichever is greater. If she is already frightened, she becomes panicked(and cannot cast) for the duration of the current effect or the duration of the new effect, whichever is greater. Each time a spellcaster becomes panicked, there is a 5% chance she will become permanently insane (as the insanity spell, or the GM may choose a form of insanity listed on pages 250-251 of the GameMastery Guide).

A spellcaster suffering from nameless dread is particularly adept at wielding spells with the fear or chaos descriptor. When she casts a spell with that descriptor, the save DC for that spell is increased by 1, and she gains a +1 competence bonus on all caster levelchecks made to bypass Spell Resistance.

Spells that suppress fear work on nameless dread. Those that remove fear effects suppress the effects of nameless dread (and its benefits to spellcasting) for 1 hour.

A few ideas of how to implement them:

A. All full casters must begin play with one minor/major spellblight that is incurable by any means of magic. Magic is inherently dangerous and disfiguring.
B. Any time a player casts a spell, they must succeed on a Fortitude/Will save of 10+(spell level x2) or acquire a random minor spellblight for one hour per caster level.
C. Any time a player casts a spell, they must succeed on a Fortitude/Will save or acquire a random minor spellblight for the rest of the day. The next time the spellcaster rests to regain spells, they must make an additional save; if they fail this save, the condition becomes permanent.

Edit: Changed the save DCs from 10+1/2 caster level+relevant ability modifier

[Tokuhara]

My opinion: Dropping everyone to 6-7th level spells would probably knock them down a tier Make sure to remove 8-9th level spells that other people can pick up (Bards, Summoners, etc.).

Another Pathfinder suggestion: Spellblights (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spellblights). How you implement them is up to you, but they're a more flavorful way to nerf casters.

Here's a taster:


A few ideas of how to implement them:

A. All full casters must begin play with one minor/major spellblight that is incurable by any means of magic. Magic is inherently dangerous and disfiguring.
B. Any time a player casts a spell, they must succeed on a Fortitude/Will save of 10+1/2 caster level+relevant ability modifier or acquire a random minor spellblight for one hour per caster level.
C. Any time a player casts a spell, they must succeed on a Fortitude/Will save or acquire a random minor spellblight for the rest of the day. The next time the spellcaster rests to regain spells, they must make an additional save; if they fail this save, the condition becomes permanent.

I really like this. Even with 9th level spells, it may "encourage" gish builds, just so that they can limit how often they enact their Spellblight

[Flickerdart]

Punishing someone for using their class features is not, IMO, a good way to design a game. What per-spell punishments encourage is casting the BEST spells all the time. You're encouraging casting the spells that take down the entire encounter at once, because you're punished for casting more. Fireball? Buffing allies? No way, I'll get a lot of spellblights, better just Black Tentacles the encounter, and let the mundanes clean up. Or planar bind some big nasties and have them fight battles for you. Or persist a bunch of spells so that you don't have to recast them during the day. Or pump your saves so that you just never fail them.

[Novawurmson]

Punishing someone for using their class features is not, IMO, a good way to design a game. What per-spell punishments encourage is casting the BEST spells all the time. You're encouraging casting the spells that take down the entire encounter at once, because you're punished for casting more. Fireball? Buffing allies? No way, I'll get a lot of spellblights, better just Black Tentacles the encounter, and let the mundanes clean up. Or planar bind some big nasties and have them fight battles for you. Or persist a bunch of spells so that you don't have to recast them during the day. Or pump your saves so that you just never fail them.

Oh, crap, that reminds me. The original equation for the DC was 10+(spell levelx2). Thanks for bringing that up. The point was to make casting low level spells less dangerous.

Edit: Though the save DC can always be tweaked to taste. If the DC is 10+(Spell level squared), then you're basically accepting a spell blight every time you cast a spell of 5th level or higher if you don't roll a natural 20.

[rockdeworld]

Title answer: no, because the tier system measures levels 5-15, and spellcasters don't get 9th level spells until L17.
Topic answer: In my experience, the only players who break the system with magic are minmaxers. Except Druids. For creating a system, it's important to create broad rules. For a campaign, it's not. You can take things on a case-by-case basis. This board will help you find the broken spells to bar outright. (Check the logic ninja's guide for more on that topic).

[Gnaeus]

a druid is at their peak optimization as soon as they take Natural Spell.

Actually, its really a LOT tougher than that. At high optimization play, druids are probably the weakest of the big 3. But druids have their own tricks, which alter their play a lot. A druid who plans a lot of combat may take fighter feats. A caster druid may well skip Natural spell, because they will be using Draconic Wildshape. A druid who plans to be a summoner has another feat line to take. Most druids benefit from crafting, etc. As has been pointed out in other threads, a druid who ONLY turns into a bear and charges into melee is going to die faster than the fighter.


Druids are impossible to balance against the party.

They aren't. A druid with a solid optimization background who wants to be a **** is perhaps impossible to balance against a party. Otherwise, it is really not hard. For example:

Focus on something that doesn't steal spotlight. Druids are pretty good at most things. Find something that no one in the party does well, then do THAT. No fighter? Be a bear and eat faces. No rogue? Be a scout. No ranged combatants? Be a blaster. No cleric? Summon unicorns.

Or:

Be a crafter. Spend every waking moment crafting items for your weakest teammate. Then when he is viable, repeat with the second weakest. If you craft yourself down a level, thats ok, you were worried about balance anyway. Even the lowly monk can be made to shine with judicious expenditure of enough magical bling.

[toapat]

*snip*

yes, Druid is the weakest of the T1s. This is offset though by:
They have minimal need for feat investment (Natural spell)
They get their most powerful Mechanic as a core feature. Wizards have to go across tomes and clerics need a use for turn undead
They can help out the party in the down time between being a one bear party.

That was not the point, the point was, Druid is the most difficult to balance because of inherent wildshape.

[Gnaeus]

yes, Druid is the weakest of the T1s. This is offset though by:
They have minimal need for feat investment (Natural spell)

I already pointed out that this is not true.




They get their most powerful Mechanic as a core feature. Wizards have to go across tomes and clerics need a use for turn undead

No. All 3 have Spellcasting as their most powerful mechanic.



That was not the point, the point was, Druid is the most difficult to balance because of inherent wildshape.

And my point was that they are not difficult to balance. They are easier to optimize, but that isn't the same thing at all. Turning into a bear does not break the game. There are lots of solutions. The best ones all start with talking to the player.

[toapat]

talking to the player.

/facepalm

Yes, talking to a player is the easiest solution
DM Fiat Anti-Wildshape Hand of God is the second
The Third is to boot the Druid and just tell them to use Wildshape Ranger

yes, Wildshaping into a bear is about the worst thing you can do. because a Bear is not a CR 20 creature, with natural spellcasting or the ability to swim in acid. that does not mean that a druid with a MM is not incredibly broken.

[Gnaeus]

/facepalm

Yes, talking to a player is the easiest solution
DM Fiat Anti-Wildshape Hand of God is the second
The Third is to boot the Druid and just tell them to use Wildshape Ranger

yes, Wildshaping into a bear is about the worst thing you can do. because a Bear is not a CR 20 creature, with natural spellcasting or the ability to swim in acid. that does not mean that a druid with a MM is not incredibly broken.

A druid with a MM is not incredibly broken. In any sense.

Broken can mean that a class is so strong that there is no reason to play anything else (or so weak that there is no reason to play it at all). Not druid. There are 4 more powerful classes, 2 in core. Several tier 2s and many tier 3s can play in a party with a druid without major problems. Even tier 4s and 5s can play with them with a responsible player. But that could just as easily mean that fighter and monk are problematic as druid.

Broken can mean that the class mechanic does not function as written. Like (arguably) truenamer. Or maybe Reaping Mauler. Nope. Druid rules are functional.

Or broken can mean that the class destroys the game world realism or the adventuring dynamic. Like Pun-pun or wish looping or hiding in your fortress while your astral projection kills your enemies. Clerics and Wizards are more broken in this sense than druids.

Statement: druids are broken is just false. Druids are broken in some groups or at certain optimization levels. The exact thing can be said about any T1, or any T5.

Also, you missed a whole bunch of solutions. Like telling other players to play tier 3+s. Or half a dozen druid variants, like Pathfinder or Shapechange.

[Lans]

Title answer: no, because the tier system measures levels 5-15, and spellcasters don't get 9th level spells until L17.

Not completely true, the tier system has emphasis on those levels, but is not restricted to them, as its been mentioned that healer and truenamer both jump to tier 2 due to access to gate at those levels. It still wouldn't effect any classes till 17th or 18th level, and at most would knock down healer and cement the wilder, spirit shaman, and wujen as tier 4 or 2 for those levels

[rockdeworld]

Did the whole argument about druids start because I mentioned them in my post? I only said "except druids" because players playing druids can break the game by accident. My only druid player didn't do that.

[nedz]

Did the whole argument about druids start because I mentioned them in my post? I only said "except druids" because players playing druids can break the game by accident. My only druid player didn't do that.

It happens, at least you didn't mention Monk, ..., oh bugger.

Actually, re-reading your post, you're lucky they didn't go all Stormwind on you.

[toapat]

Did the whole argument about druids start because I mentioned them in my post? I only said "except druids" because players playing druids can break the game by accident. My only druid player didn't do that.

it happened because one person considers a class with a mechanic that breaks half the game in half balanced with only politeness, which wasnt why i had made my specific list of 3.

[Gnaeus]

it happened because one person considers a class with a mechanic that breaks half the game in half balanced with only politeness, which wasnt why i had made my specific list of 3.

It didnt break the game in half before, and it still doesn't now. Either refute my points or cut the hyperbole. Wildshape is much less powerful than Spellcasting. This is clear, because a wildshape Ranger with MOMF is tier 3, or "fairly well balanced" while a druid without wildshape is still tier 1, aka "breaks the game when he wants to".

To put it a different way:

In party (a): Fighter, Monk, Healer, DRUID. Druid is broken. Druid player can play in such a way that it doesn't cause a problem, but it is overpowered.

In party (b): Psion, Cleric, Wizard, Druid, MONK. Monk is broken. Other players can play in such a way that it doesn't cause a problem, but it is underpowered. In this party, druid is fine.

Druid is exactly as broken as monk or fighter.

As far as Rockdeworld's point, it is correct enough, although it could just as easily be said about most of tier 3. Druids, like most of tier 3, have a comparatively low optimization requirement, which can often be satisfied by taking things with names that sound good and realizing what their prime req stat is after the book tells you. If you replace Druid in party (a) with Warblade or Crusader, he's probably gonna make the low-op fighter or monk cry just as much as the druid.