Nerfing wizard?

[Aasimar]

Ok, hear me out here...I'm setting aside the question of what to do with other casters, assuming that some variation of the same could be worked out for them.

How would the game and it's balance change if wizards had to pick a specialty school, and could only choose freely from that school? They might pick a secondary school or two, that might function much the same as a cleric domain would (each spell level they could prepare a single spell from one of their two secondary schools, maybe?)

My thought, with this, is to change the paradigm where a wizard is everything, reducing his co-adventurers to helpers. A wizard could do one thing very very well, and help out with others, but he would very much need his team to cover his deficiencies.

I could imagine a prestige class (Archmage?) granting improved school access, but at some cost (to be determined)

Thoughts?

[Norin]

Assuming 3.5 / PF is in question here.

Anyways, nothing wrong with specialist wizards - and i would not mind that much if it was a prereq that you would have to be one, but nerfing the wizard class is just heresy imo. :smallfrown:

No thanks.

If you want to limit the wizards in your game as DM, maybe an option is to ban spells from outside the PHB, and ban certain powerful spells in addition?

Maybe run the sorcerer spell level progression, letting the wizards advance a bit more slowly on spell levels?

[Aasimar]

I want to discuss why this is heresy.

Why MUST the wizard be like it is by default, with my suggestion as a possible option for the devoted?

Why can't it be the other way around. (with maybe a universalist as a possibility, with only a very few spell slots then?)

That's maybe my point in posting this, it would severely limit wizards...why shouldn't I?

[Norin]

I want to discuss why this is heresy.

Why MUST the wizard be like it is by default, with my suggestion as a possible option for the devoted?

Why can't it be the other way around. (with maybe a universalist as a possibility, with only a very few spell slots then?)

That's maybe my point in posting this, it would severely limit wizards...why shouldn't I?

The heresy part was a bit of a joke, sorry. :smalleek:

By all means, homebrew up a Wizard nerf if you like.

One possible nerf could be to just use the sorcerer class spec. That would limit the numer of spells and all. Just give the wizard x number of spells per level he can put in his spellbook, instead of allowing research and adding as many as he wants.

Just an idea.

[Yora]

The wizard class is not a problem. Wizard spells are a problem.

It's better to just remove some spells from the spell list. As long as they are on it, they are problematic, and any other changes won't change that a bit.

[Aasimar]

I don't MIND the versatility of having a spellbook to prepare from, if that was all, I would just propose the banning of wizard, leaving arcane casting to Sorcerers.

What I do mind is the versatility of potentially every spell out there being available with some preparation.

The obvious answer seems to be to limit wizards to their specialty schools.

[Andreaz]

Try doing away entirely with the actual wizard class and use instead Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, Warmages and similars. Make up similar-powered people for the other schools.


Or use psionics instead. Same goodies, easier to use, harder to break the game with them.

[Aasimar]

I'd rather stick as close to core only Pathfinder as I can.

Just wondering how feasible my idea is.

How truly powerful would a wizard be, which school needs to be examined specifically in this new context? Wouldn't Conjuration remain overpowered, and perhaps Divination or abjuration would have a hard time catching up, even to non-wizards?

[Andreaz]

More or less, yes. Psionics is as close to core as it gets, don't let the 3rd-party sign fool you.


Each individual school still has its quirks, as you said, and their relations remain similar. Conjurers and Illusionists will feel a much smaller drop in power than the others for example.

I don't think you can truly "balance magic" without going over every single spell ever.

[TuggyNE]

I'd rather stick as close to core only Pathfinder as I can.

There is no silver bullet for wizard fixes. A decent fix requires either a fair amount of player maturity and care, or else extensive changes to hundreds of spells, or else extremely complex and subtle modifications to perfectly simple rules to attempt a "general" solution to spell overpoweredness.


How truly powerful would a wizard be, which school needs to be examined specifically in this new context? Wouldn't Conjuration remain overpowered, and perhaps Divination or abjuration would have a hard time catching up, even to non-wizards?

Unfortunately, yes: the inter-school balance is rather sadly lacking. A Diviner, for example, would have a fair amount of theoretical power, but their practical spells would be a rather frustrating mix of random patchwork buffs and powerful information-gathering spells that do nothing without further action. Similarly, an Enchanter would basically be a severely depowered Beguiler. Meanwhile, Conjuration still lolwins if it wants to, and has a variety of practical gamechangers of different sorts at all different levels. Transmutation is also very effective.

I would second Andreaz' suggestion of either patching in 3.5's specialized list casters (and probably making more, or finding existing homebrew) or using psionics, which is at least somewhat better designed. (Ernir's Vancian to Psionics might also be interesting.)

[rockdeworld]

I like the idea of all wizards being specialists, and only allowed to choose spells from their own school, in theory. I haven't tried it in practice. And it would be very difficult to apply the same to clerics and druids.

An additional option is to allow those type of wizards to cast spells from a second school at SL-1 (so eg. spell level 4 at CL 9), a third school at SL-2, etc. And adjust the numbers as you like. Perhaps even limit it to 2-3 schools. A wizard with even a single school is still more powerful than a fighter.

Once again, I state that I like this idea in theory, since it really gives the flavor of wizards being specialists in certain areas, and haven't tried it in practice.

[Axier]

+1 for psionics. Seriously, its from the greatest 3rd party books for PF, mainly because it had the guy who made the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

Also, you can completely replace any magic with psionics and it should be safer, and less broken. Heck, even an Erudite without StP ACF (Especially if magic doesn't exist.) has less game breaking potential than a Wizard, and the PF book Psionics Unleashed patches a great deal of the abusive holes in the psionics system.

Although, from what I here, there is a couple of wierd interactions with some of the new powers from Psionics Expanded that can turn you into a near-death voodoo doll. lol

[Larkas]

I know you said you don't want to go Psionics style, but please, read up the Psion. You want something like them. Applying the concept to the Wizard, you would use spells from one school (and one school ONLY), plus the Universals. And a Universalist would be able to use spells from any school, albeit on much fewer spell slots (I recommend reading up the Erudite, I can't quite remember how exactly they do it).

Though, as others pointed out, you'd also want to ban and/or modify some spells.

Personally, I find the idea very nice, as it would both strengthen the schools, help differentiate Wizards between themselves AND slightly balance things. I don't know how much, though, and only have a faint idea of how it would play, having played a focused Conjurer only once, in a single adventure (YMMV, but it's very playable).

[ahenobarbi]

Well there was a thread on very similar change to the system not so long ago... this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254400). You might want to read it :smallsmile:

I think it may be interesting from role-playing perspective. However it's useless if you want to balance the game. You don't need this kind of fix to nerf nice players. You just need to talk to them. And players who won't listen will find ways to deal with it (sorcerer, conjurer (+calling & summoning), cleric, illusionist (+shadow spells & shadowcraft mage), ...).

[Suddo]

The question is far deeper than "how do we nerf the wizard" the question I ask is where do you want his power level to be? That of a sorc? That of a bard? My personal overall nerf to full casters: (Its my favorite quick and sloppy solution)
Drop 8th and/or 9th level spells. Swap the spell progression of spontaneous and prepared casters (wizards learn new levels later than sorcs). After that you'd have to maybe do some patch work to prestige classes but that's it.

Edit: If you want you can take away 9ths from Beguilers/Dread Necros and 8th and 9ths from sorcs/wizards.

[killem2]

You could go up to level 4 or 5 spells only, require specialists (maybe all wizards in the starting area or the world you create come from schools), if PRCs are requested, make it the requirements for them, require schooling as well.

If you limit the maximum spell level, use the current level, ignoring 5-9. When they get to level 13 which is when you max at 4-4-4-4, increase it to

14 - 5-4-4-4
15 - 6-5-4-4
16 - 7-6-5-4
17 - 8-7-6-5
18 - 9-8-7-6
19 - 9-9-8-7
20 - 9-9-9-8

Just a thought.

[Twilightwyrm]

A wizard with even a single school is still more powerful than a fighter.

...Really? I mean, yes Conjuration, probably Transmutation, and possibly Illusion I could see this argument being made (though in the last case, only due to Shadow Evocation shenanigans). But are you seriously going to tell me that a Wizard with their spell access limited to Divination spells alone is, objectively, better than a fighter. Same for an Abjurer? Hell, same for the evoker? Because, in terms of both diversity of strategies available, and sheer offensive potential, it seems to me that a well made fighter can't really be said to be objectively worse in this situation.

[Emperor Tippy]

...Really? I mean, yes Conjuration, probably Transmutation, and possibly Illusion I could see this argument being made (though in the last case, only due to Shadow Evocation shenanigans). But are you seriously going to tell me that a Wizard with their spell access limited to Divination spells alone is, objectively, better than a fighter. Same for an Abjurer? Hell, same for the evoker? Because, in terms of both diversity of strategies available, and sheer offensive potential, it seems to me that a well made fighter can't really be said to be objectively worse in this situation.
An Abjurer? Yes.
An Evoker? Certainly.
A Diviner? Most of the time.

Fighters suck. Yes, they even suck to the point where a wizard limited only to core only Abjuration spells is better than the fighter.

Hell, a pure Diviner is generally more useful to the party than a fighter.

[nyjastul69]

+1 for psionics. Seriously, its from the greatest 3rd party books for PF, mainly because it had the guy who made the Expanded Psionics Handbook.



Bruce Cordell also wrote the Complete Psionics book which seems to be somewhat disdained on this site. He seems to be the 3.x psionics guru.

[Acanous]

Limiting versatility would nerf the wizard considerably. However, it's really versatility in the 4-9 lv spells that make a Wizard go godmode.

what if you did it like "Learning spells of higher level requires more focus and dedication"?

Same wizard list, same spells per day for everyone, but you set it up so that


Lv 1-3 spells, you have to ban 3 schools (Including item use, etc.) and specialize in one, using the Focused Specialist rules from Unearthed Arcana.

Lv 4-6 spells, you must ban 2 additional schools (but may still use any magical items tied to those schools excluding scrolls).

Lv 7-9 spells may only come from your school of specialization, and you only get more via the "Independant research" option, meaning it eats your downtime and GP.

It would still favor Conjuration, transmutation, and illusion, but at least this way all wizards can have access to the staple spells.
If you use this system, consider any prestige class that requires sacrificing a school to apply retroactively and to items.

[yougi]

Personally, I ask Wizards to ban a single school, Diviners to ban 2, and other specialists to ban 3 (recently caused me to get an Evoker with Illusion, Conjuration and Transmutation crossed out, but that's a whole different thing). I never had to deal with higher level play, cause we seem to top out before 8th and 9th level spells either way (around level 14ish, so right before them). However, if not, I'd either go with (a) no 8th and 9th spell, slots are made to apply meta magic to 7th and lower, or (b), with Acanous' offer.

I also only allow spells from the PHb, with some very specific exceptions if they're necessary for a character concept. However, that won't fly with everyone.

[TuggyNE]

Personally, I ask Wizards to ban a single school, Diviners to ban 2, and other specialists to ban 3 (recently caused me to get an Evoker with Illusion, Conjuration and Transmutation crossed out, but that's a whole different thing).

Pretty sure the bolded is a typo. Did you mean Enchanters? Or maybe generalists? Or...?

[Ashtagon]

The problem with limiting by school is that WotC and 3pp created a ton of spells that routinely ignore the concept of what the schools represent, so that almost any specialist wizard can still do almost anything to some degree.

Really, you'd need to re-jog the entire spell list.

[TypoNinja]

I like the idea of all wizards being specialists, and only allowed to choose spells from their own school, in theory. I haven't tried it in practice. And it would be very difficult to apply the same to clerics and druids.

An additional option is to allow those type of wizards to cast spells from a second school at SL-1 (so eg. spell level 4 at CL 9), a third school at SL-2, etc. And adjust the numbers as you like. Perhaps even limit it to 2-3 schools. A wizard with even a single school is still more powerful than a fighter.

Once again, I state that I like this idea in theory, since it really gives the flavor of wizards being specialists in certain areas, and haven't tried it in practice.

In practice Conjurers still win.

If I can't cast it I'll damn well summon something that can.

Some of the outsiders even have more caster levels than hitdice, which really makes things fun.

[Aasimar]

Obviously, in any nerfing of wizards, summoning will need to be addressed specifically.

I'm definitely in favor of the 'gentlemen's agreement', which is how most games I've been in have stayed fun.

But a system that needs such agreements is still a broken system.

As gm, I'd probably rule that any monster summoned with spell like abilities or caster levels, either could not be summoned or lost access to said abilities while summoned.

I can envision an exception for very high level spells, Gate and the like, but use of those spells would be at the discretion of the summoned creature, you would need to compel them to use their abilities on your behalf and compensate them accordingly.

It would not be a combat function unless a deal were made in advance.

[Twilightwyrm]

An Abjurer? Yes.
An Evoker? Certainly.
A Diviner? Most of the time.

Fighters suck. Yes, they even suck to the point where a wizard limited only to core only Abjuration spells is better than the fighter.

Hell, a pure Diviner is generally more useful to the party than a fighter.

Alright, you want to explain how exactly?
I mean, with just a cursory glance, a mid level fighter can teleport, severely debuff multiple foes, and, among other things, fly, in addition to at least decent damage output. These options expand as we get to higher levels. (This is leaving out the Dungeoncrasher, and Zhentarim Soldier variants)
An abjurer can do...what exactly? At a cursory glance, I'm getting some minor damage from trap spells, some minor buffs to defensive ability, some, granted, rather nice Walling spells once we get into higher levels, and...one Save-or-Die as a 9th level spell? Really otherwise such a wizard would be severely lacking in anything resembling versatility. This applies, to a greater or lesser degree, to other single school wizards I mentioned as well, but MUCH more so for Diviners. Hell, I'd almost rather have a core only Fighter than a single school core only Diviner, and given how screwed fighters general are in core, that's a weighty consideration.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Obviously, in any nerfing of wizards, summoning will need to be addressed specifically.

I'm definitely in favor of the 'gentlemen's agreement', which is how most games I've been in have stayed fun.

But a system that needs such agreements is still a broken system.

As gm, I'd probably rule that any monster summoned with spell like abilities or caster levels, either could not be summoned or lost access to said abilities while summoned.

I can envision an exception for very high level spells, Gate and the like, but use of those spells would be at the discretion of the summoned creature, you would need to compel them to use their abilities on your behalf and compensate them accordingly.

It would not be a combat function unless a deal were made in advance.

I think you should try something more simple than making a long list of banned spells. Even trusting players to make reasonable characters won't always work out.

The option I favor is outright banning the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. Prepared spells are the "tier 1" problem, so get rid of them. Sorcerers are easily manageable because they have a finite bag of tricks, and with the right feats and fluff you can turn them into studious wizards who learn spells from books. Classes exist that can mimic Cleric and Druid roles, like the Oracle from Pathfinder. Banning the most abusable classes is a very simple, straightforward way to address the balance issues.

[Emperor Tippy]

Alright, you want to explain how exactly?
I mean, with just a cursory glance, a mid level fighter can teleport, severely debuff multiple foes, and, among other things, fly, in addition to at least decent damage output. These options expand as we get to higher levels. (This is leaving out the Dungeoncrasher, and Zhentarim Soldier variants)
An abjurer can do...what exactly? At a cursory glance, I'm getting some minor damage from trap spells, some minor buffs to defensive ability, some, granted, rather nice Walling spells once we get into higher levels, and...one Save-or-Die as a 9th level spell? Really otherwise such a wizard would be severely lacking in anything resembling versatility. This applies, to a greater or lesser degree, to other single school wizards I mentioned as well, but MUCH more so for Diviners. Hell, I'd almost rather have a core only Fighter than a single school core only Diviner, and given how screwed fighters general are in core, that's a weighty consideration.

Let's see, core only Abjurer has (before magic items) Disjunction (strips the fighter or enemies of any buffs and a good chunk of their magic items), Prismatic Sphere (a nigh perfect personal defense that lasts 10 minutes per level), Dimensional Lock (shut down teleportation), Mind Blank (total immunity to numerous things), Prismatic Wall (great battlefield control), Banishment (a decent, although situational, save-or-loose spell), Antimagic Field, Greater Dispel Magic, Repulsion (a fairly decent save-or-suck against melee), Guards and Wards, Break Enchantment, Dismissal, Stoneskin, Dispel Magic, Explosive Runes, Magic Circle, Arcane Lock, etc.

Offensively it's nothing particularly spectacular but there is still a ton you can do and a ton of ways that you can contribute to the party.

Now throw in magic items and you become a lot more capable.

---
An all sources fighter is probably more useful than a core only Diviner but if the Diviner is also all sources then I would probably still take the Diviner.

[Fable Wright]

My favorite Wizard nerf would be taking the Magewright class from the Eberron Campaign setting, allow them to prepare spells out of any in the list, and any Sorcerer/Wizard scrolls they can find and scribe into a spellbook (No freebies each level), and replacing the Wizard class with the result. It still keeps them in the setting, they can still be played as tier 3/4 characters, but they have significantly more trouble breaking the game.

[Alabenson]

To reiterate what other people have mentioned, due to the general lack of balance between the schools, imposing strict school limits upon Wizards accomplishes very little in terms of balance beyond making the learning curve for Wizards that much steeper. Wizards who choose strong schools like Conjuration or Transmutation can still break the game over their knee with little effort, while those who choose weaker schools such as Evocation are even less able to contribute. In fact, this could actually worsen interclass balance issues, as it becomes much harder to play a Wizard effectively without breaking the game in the process.

The only way to truly, effectively rebalance the Wizard class would be to completely rework their spell list and either remove or rewrite each and every problem spell. Most of the "quick and easy Wizard nerf" houserule attempts I've seen either a) fail to effectively neuter the real game-breaking abilities of the class or b) render the class unplayable.

Personally, I've always felt it makes more sense to buff the weaker classes than to try to nerf the stronger ones; most of the issues that I've seen posted about upper Tier players tend to be the result of playing with a problem player rather than an inherent issue with the class itself.

[toapat]

Im of the opinion that Specialized lists is a more effective nerf then requiring the Oxymoronic "Specialist wizard"*. But even then, Druids and Clerics remain very powerful.

Really, the largest problem with casters in DnD was how casting was decided to be handled. The choice to hold over the ODnD-ADnD2's division of spellcasting into 8 schools, instead of having 3 Arch Schools**, meant that you got a large number of schools which could overlap what the other schools do (such as Necromancy doing similar things to Conjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, and transmutation).


*A mage is a Learned caster, who has the potential to learn many different spells, but typically specializes into a specific theme of spellcasting. a Wizard is a learned caster who has the ability to cast many different, unrelated magical effects.
**Magic can always be divided into three specific schools in terms of how they perform their effects, these schools are Invocation, Transmutation, and Perception.

[TopCheese]

You know I was running down the main list of topics and I thought I saw "nerfling wizard".

I now want to make a template called "Nerfling" which will make your race change to a "Nerfling" which essentially nerfs any class you take.

Hmmm

[TypoNinja]

Personally, I've always felt it makes more sense to buff the weaker classes than to try to nerf the stronger ones; most of the issues that I've seen posted about upper Tier players tend to be the result of playing with a problem player rather than an inherent issue with the class itself.

Buffing the weaker classes doesn't really matter. I said something similar in a different context but its the casting that's the issue not the class abilities.

Any full caster will always be a superior option, you just compare levels of awesome instead of looking at good or bad.

You could take away everything a wizard gets except the spells, and it wouldn't matter all that much. Lack of bonus feats limits you a little, but all the really disgusting options are still on the table.

The fact of the matter is that the game requires a DM to stop and say "technically you can do that, but no." Sane adjucations are more the key than rule changes for any practical situation.

[TuggyNE]

Alright, you want to explain how exactly?
I mean, with just a cursory glance, a mid level fighter can teleport, severely debuff multiple foes, and, among other things, fly, in addition to at least decent damage output. These options expand as we get to higher levels. (This is leaving out the Dungeoncrasher, and Zhentarim Soldier variants)
An abjurer can do...what exactly? At a cursory glance, I'm getting some minor damage from trap spells, some minor buffs to defensive ability, some, granted, rather nice Walling spells once we get into higher levels, and...one Save-or-Die as a 9th level spell? Really otherwise such a wizard would be severely lacking in anything resembling versatility. This applies, to a greater or lesser degree, to other single school wizards I mentioned as well, but MUCH more so for Diviners. Hell, I'd almost rather have a core only Fighter than a single school core only Diviner, and given how screwed fighters general are in core, that's a weighty consideration.

You're comparing "mid-level fighter with full WBL" to "mid-level hyperspecialist wizard with no gear", of course there'll be some discrepancy. Fighters only get BAB and a few debuffs/damage boosters from their class, while even flat Abjurers get a wider variety from their class features (though, granted, of variable and sometimes low combat effectiveness).

[Twilightwyrm]

You're comparing "mid-level fighter with full WBL" to "mid-level hyperspecialist wizard with no gear", of course there'll be some discrepancy. Fighters only get BAB and a few debuffs/damage boosters from their class, while even flat Abjurers get a wider variety from their class features (though, granted, of variable and sometimes low combat effectiveness).

I was actually assuming no gear whatsoever, probably for the same reasons you are thinking that might be somewhat problematic (because a wizard of the same level would also be able to buy the exact same things that are giving said fighter those nifty capabilities). See, the thing is, unless you are using the ACFs, the excessive amounts of feats are the class features of the fighter, and all those things I mentioned are gained entirely through feats. So no, I don't think I'm being terribly unreasonable here.

Note: Though now that I think about it, I probably should have clarified, I was talking about short range teleportation, not long range. There are ways for the latter, but they cursory glance at the fighter class would allow.

[Alabenson]

Buffing the weaker classes doesn't really matter. I said something similar in a different context but its the casting that's the issue not the class abilities.

I can't say I agree that buffing the weaker classes (which I define as the Tier 4-6 classes) doesn't matter. While bringing them up to around Tier 3 status obviously wouldn't make them equal to the Tier 1-2 classes, it would help immensly to keep them from feeling completely marginalized.


Any full caster will always be a superior option, you just compare levels of awesome instead of looking at good or bad.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here as well, there's nothing inherently superior about full casting per se. For example, compare the Binder class to that of the Healer. The Binder is clearly the superior option, despite the Healer being a full caster. A full caster is only as powerful as their spell list, the Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes simply have spell lists that are incredibly powerful, hence my earlier comment regarding the need to nerf the spell list of the Wizard, and not the class itself, if you want to effectively reduce the Wizard's power.


You could take away everything a wizard gets except the spells, and it wouldn't matter all that much. Lack of bonus feats limits you a little, but all the really disgusting options are still on the table.

The fact of the matter is that the game requires a DM to stop and say "technically you can do that, but no." Sane adjucations are more the key than rule changes for any practical situation.

On these points I'll agree with you, particularly the need for the DM to go against RAW for the sake of sanity every so often. (I'm not saying that Rule 0 means the game isn't broken, just that it can (and should) be employed to mitigate its "brokenness").

[Larkas]

Reading on related subjects, I stumbled upon this:


http://www.astrolog.org/other/schools.gif

The star image above is one way to show how each D&D school of magic relates to the others. Each school has two "friend" schools similar to it, represented by blue lines between adjacent schools. Each school also has two "enemy" schools opposed to it, represented by red lines crossing the star. This is similar to the colors in "Magic: The Gathering", except each school also has two other "neutral" schools that it neither supports nor opposes. If you specialize in a school, consider barring the two opposing schools (for fluff reasons, where it may or may not be optimized).

Divination, since it's a weaker school that can't be barred, is in the middle of the star. It's neutral with all other schools, with no friends nor enemies. For example, one could say Divination (revealing things) and Illusion (hiding things) are opposites, but that same logic could say they're similar because they both deal with knowledge.

Evocation & Conjuration are similar because they both create things with matter (e.g. Wall of Ice vs. Wall of Stone) or attack with energy (e.g. Fireball vs. Orb of Fire).
Conjuration & Abjuration are similar because they both protect (Healing is a subschool of Conjuration) and both transport things (e.g. Teleport vs. Banishment)
Abjuration & Transmutation are similar because they both buff (e.g. Circle of Protection vs. the various stat enhancers)
Transmutation & Enchantment are similar because they both internally change things.
Enchantment & Necromancy are similar because they both manipulate life.
Necromancy & Illusion are similar because they both deal with shadow energies.
Illusion & Evocation are similar because they both create things with energy (e.g. Minor Image vs. Dancing Lights)

Evocation (forcefulness) is opposed by Transmutation & Enchantment (subtlety)
Conjuration (positive energy, healing) is opposed by Enchantment & Necromancy (negative energy, manipulation)
Abjuration (protection) is opposed by Necromancy & Illusion (debuffs & nightmares)
Transmutation (changing matter) is opposed by Illusion & Evocation (creating energy)
Enchantment (subtle tweaking) is opposed by Evocation & Conjuration (active creation)
Necromancy (using death) is opposed by Conjuration & Abjuration (serving life)
Illusion (confusion from outside) is opposed by Abjuration & Transmutation (strength from inside i.e. buffs)

The star is arranged with Evocation (the most active/external/yang school) at the top, and Enchantment & Transmutation (the most subtle/internal/yin schools) at the bottom.

Note also the left half of the star shows what might be considered "good" schools: Conjuration that covers healing, Abjuration that covers protection, and Transmutation that covers buffs. The right half of the star shows "evil" schools: Illusion that covers lies, Necromancy that covers death, and Enchantment that covers manipulation. Evocation (pure force) and Divination (knowledge), are neither "good" nor "evil", so are on the middle line.

An easy way to remember this star is when you read down the left half "good" schools and look at the abbreviations you get a purring "CAT", and when you read down the right half "evil" schools you get an entrapping "VINE". :smallsmile:

I really liked this concept. Thinking a bit about this, taking a few ideas from the stock specialist wizards and focused specialists, I came with up with this idea. It is not meant to "balance" or "nerf" anything, it is just a shot at improving the wizard's fluff and increasing variability among different wizards (but see below). For a lack of a better layout, I'll present is as an ACF:

Class: Wizard.
Level: 1st.
Replaces: You lose one spell slot from each level of wizard spells you can cast. If you later gain the ability to cast higher-level wizard spells, you lose one spell slot from each new level of spells you can cast.
Benefit: Choose a school of magic. You are considered an specialist in that school. You may never cast spells from enemy schools (those linked to your school by a red line in Cruiser1's diagram). You may cast spells from allied schools (those linked to your school by a blue line in Cruiser1's diagram) as normal. To cast spells from neutral schools (those not directly linked to your school by any line in Cruiser1's diagram), you must take the Extra Spell feat, and must abide by its limitations (this represents researching and learning something not directly related to your specialty - hence the decreased maximum spell level). Divination is always considered an allied school.
You can prepare two additional spells of your specialty school per spell level each day. You also gain a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks to learn the spells of your chosen school.
These benefits don't apply to spells gained from classes other than wizard.
Special: If you choose divination as your school of specialization, you may choose any three schools as allied schools, and another school as an enemy school. The remaining schools are considered neutral to you.
Example: Harry is an evoker. He can never cast transmutation or enchantment spells as a wizard, may cast illusion, conjuration and divination spells as normal and may only cast abjuration and necromancy spells as a wizard if he dedicates quite some time learning how those spells work (i.e.: take the Extra Spell feat). Furthermore, as an specialist, Harry has an easier time learning evocation spells than a fellow wizard, and may cast more spells from that school per day than most others.

This is a proposed replacement for both regular specialization, focused specialization and generalist wizards. I left is as purposefully less powerful than focused specialization, as it is both less and more flexible than it, though it can easily be made as powerful as it by giving three additional spells instead of two. It doesn't hurt to say it again: this is not meant as a "fix" or as a "nerf" to help balance the game. It is simply an attempt to make a flavorful tweak to the class. It is easy to see an Academy of Magic flourishing with these rules, feuding among specialties included. It should also make an evoker somewhat different to play than an enchanter, for example, but not so much as to punish the inexperienced player for his choice of school.

On a parting note, it might be interesting to flesh this out even more. I though of something along the lines of the psion itself, with different specialties having different class skills: an illusionist could have bluff as a class skill, whereas a diviner might have sense motive and and a transmuter, disguise.

[toapat]

I like the idea of having a sort of meta-organization with the schools, but i feel that it doesnt really even deal with the problem that is balance.

having 9 schools of magic, is not a good thing for balance. you have too many things providing overlapping concepts. In M:tG this works because each school has its specific thing (barring green) that it is exceptional at. White is hordes, blue is control, black is combo, red is direct damage, and green is buffs.

thing is, where as the bleedover in MTG is not very far, in DnD, those 9 schools can share many things. nearly every school has a way to ruin the opponents directly, every concept is taken very far away. and the schools dont really improve comprehension of what they do either. Ok, so i need to give some dude better defense. I can evoke the power of the multiverse, conjure the powers of the high heavens and the burning hells, abjure the effects, transmute their body and armor into vastly more protective forms, or control their physiology to be more efficient then it was originally. If i need to damage them, i evoke the power of fire, conjure the fury of the storm, make their mind make it real, take control of them and have them do the job for you, turn them to stone and shatter it, or shut down their biology.

although flavorful, the actual organization is terrible, and part of why the spell system itself got out of hand and became rediculously overpowered

[Gavinfoxx]

If you really wanna nerf spellcasting... why are you playing 3.5e or Pathfinder?

Why not play Legend, where the melee and casters are balanced? They changed every spell that made it over from the SRD to get them to be balanced (though they are still working on some of the illusions).

http://www.ruleofcool.com/
http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/
http://www.ruleofcool.com/donation-thresholds/

[TuggyNE]

I was actually assuming no gear whatsoever, probably for the same reasons you are thinking that might be somewhat problematic (because a wizard of the same level would also be able to buy the exact same things that are giving said fighter those nifty capabilities). See, the thing is, unless you are using the ACFs, the excessive amounts of feats are the class features of the fighter, and all those things I mentioned are gained entirely through feats. So no, I don't think I'm being terribly unreasonable here.

Note: Though now that I think about it, I probably should have clarified, I was talking about short range teleportation, not long range. There are ways for the latter, but they cursory glance at the fighter class would allow.

OK, fair enough. Specific races can gain flight through feats; however, they're not (as far as I know) fighter bonus feats, and off-hand I don't remember a general fighter bonus feat that grants flight for any race. Martial Study for short-range teleportation 1/encounter, presumably (I don't recall whether that's a fighter bonus feat or not). Without knowing what debuffs you're talking about specifically, I can't comment on that (although I'd guess intimidate-stacking with the Fearsome armor special ability), but are those fighter bonus feats? For intimidate-stacking in particular, Fighters can't do it as well as the infamous CW Samurai, and have significant problems in practice with immunities (and sometimes action economy, without extra work).

Basically, anything that's not a fighter bonus feat has no business being considered a fighter class feature; anything that's not fighter-exclusive only partially counts, since it's still available to any other class that wants it.

[toapat]

*snip*

neither of those feats are fighter bonus feats.

[KutuluKultist]

Increase casting time on anything but direct damage. Make metamagic generally increase casting time. Drop contingency, quicken spell and all the other options Wizards have of improving their action economy.

Give high material costs to any spell that can have large and permanent effects on the world outside of combat: Teleport is a prime example.

Simply put: Let Wizards have their power, but make it costly.

As a rough guideline: 1st level spells can be cast as a standard action, 2nd as a full-round, 3 require a full-round and a standard,....
Drop the bonus feat every 5 level, instead drop the casting time progression by one step (to a minimum of a standard action). E.g. a level 10 wizard could cast 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells as a standard action.

Starting from this, you can manually whitelist certain spells to have a shorter casting time, e.g. fireball, if that's what you want.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Increase casting time on anything but direct damage. Make metamagic generally increase casting time. Drop contingency, quicken spell and all the other options Wizards have of improving their action economy.

This may slow down wizards in combat, but it still won't prevent a wizard from beating a rogue at his own game. You're not solving the real problem.

The fundamental problem is that the wizard's options are infinite, while every non-casting class's options are finite. A fighter only has the abilities listed in his class description, the majority of which are feats that, once chosen, cannot be changed. A rogue has a little more flexibility because of his talents, but again, once chosen they cannot be changed. Paladins and rangers have flexibility, but their spells only make them better at what they can already do. A sorcerer can be powerful, but the spells he chooses are semi-permanent and the GM can easily prepare against them. However, the wizard, druid, and cleric all get to wake up every morning and pick from an enormous list of abilities that take up a very large section of the Player's Handbook. This problem is exacerbated at higher levels, where a wizard can win an encounter with a single action.

You can't "balance" these infinite options by making spellcasting harder or reducing the number of spells per day. The only way to make that work would be to reduce every spellcaster to the limited scope that rangers and paladins get (ranger and paladin spells let them be better at what they do, and only what they do).

I believe that there are only two things that can balance the full casters.

1) The GM must force the party to face four level-appropriate encounters per day. This is in the Dungeon Master's Guide, and it is how the game was intended to be played. All of the offending casters are limited to per-day uses of their abilities, and while a very smart smart player can get a lot of mileage out of a caster, the majority of players will be begging the party to take a rest by the fourth encounter. At very high levels (~15 or higher) even this begins to break down, but many high-level monsters have magic resistance in order to slow down wizards and the GM can get a lot of mileage out of them if he uses them properly.

2) Remove the cleric, druid, and wizard's ability to prepare any spell. Because many alternative casters exist (warlock, favored soul, etc), banning the classes is a viable solution.

An alternative for #2 is to reduce casters to the scope of rangers and paladins, saying, "okay, the evoker class can only do direct damage spells and is basically a warlock, the transmuter class can only cast buffs and uses Pathfinder-style polymorph effects to keep him from being overpowered, etc etc". That's a lot of work, and using Pathfinder's class design to create such classes would be a fun project, but until I've written those classes I would use solution #1.

NOTE: If you do split the Wizard into 8 base classes specific to each school of magic, it won't be a bad idea to incorporate a ritual system like 4e's to let all of the casters still do things like identify items or break enchantments. Also, I would remove the concept of spell slots entirely for such a project, making all the classes be at-will versions of warlocks or something in that vein.

[Wise Green Bean]

Put wizards on the bard spell progression and ban the worst spells. Polymorph, celerity, that sort of thing. It leaves the wizard flavor intact with a heavy hit to power. People cry about wizards not getting their tasty 7 8 9 uber spells, but let's be frank: those spells are epic in power. Save them for epic levels. Even with those limitations, a well played wizard should still be crazy fun and unpredictable, and should still make mincemeat of a fighter who fights them straight. You might consider some extra school bans even with the reduced spell level access. Wizards are just that overpowered.

[Larkas]

Put wizards on the bard spell progression and ban the worst spells. Polymorph, celerity, that sort of thing. It leaves the wizard flavor intact with a heavy hit to power. People cry about wizards not getting their tasty 7 8 9 uber spells, but let's be frank: those spells are epic in power. Save them for epic levels. Even with those limitations, a well played wizard should still be crazy fun and unpredictable, and should still make mincemeat of a fighter who fights them straight. You might consider some extra school bans even with the reduced spell level access. Wizards are just that overpowered.

I second that. Wizards' (and Druids', and Cleric's) most game breaking spells are on those levels, so why not ban them altogether using the Bard's progression?

[Andion Isurand]

What about allowing non-casters to gestalt with other non-casting classes... or allowing 3.5 non-casters to adopt feats and abilities from their pathfinder counterparts until they have something better going on at every level?

Plus, a lot of the most powerful spells out there are personal only... and I think they should be turned into touch spells or close range spells with a single target, so that the combat classes can utilize them to greater effect.

---------------------------------------------

I would be inclined to change Teleport, Greater Teleport, Plane Shift, Gate and similar escape/travel spells so that they take at least 1 round to cast, so melee have a chance to dash up on their turn and swat em, without having to anticipate the move with a readied action.

In addition to that, I would also adopt the suggested (polymorph) subschool, where there is a specific form for each spell, instead of allowing someone to pick up three or four spells and then pick whatever they want from the book.
...or perhaps forcing wizards to specify the form they are going to take using a given instance of a polymorph spell when they prepare it.

I would also add a "time" descriptor to spells (and powers) like slow, haste, temporal stasis, and time stop, so that spells can be made to counter and/or suppress spells according to the descriptor. I might also add it to divination effects that peer into the past or the future like Hindsight, Foresight and Moment of Prescience (and the precognition series of powers).