Ideas for Nerfing Casters

[Kesnit]

I know some of these have been brought up before, but I cannot find threads where they were discussed. Others I don't remember seeing (though they may have been). These ideas are only for tier 1 and 2 casters. Since they have their own spells lists, these things could be added to the description of those spells. (For lower tier casters that can learn some tier 1 or 2 class spells, specifically include a disclaimer that they are exempt from these effects.)

1) There are no Target: Self spells. The exception to this being healing, remove poison, remove curse, remove disease etc.

One of the biggest comments about the power of casters is that they have the ability to become flying, invisible, [insert more buffs here] powerhouses. If casters no longer have the option to cast those spells on themselves, the only use for those spells is to cast them on someone else.

2) Casting hurts.

Fighter-types risk their lives when they carry out their focus. Casters, on the other hand, can cast all day (until their spells run out) without batting an eye. (Unless "eye batting" is part of the required motions for casting, of course! :smallsmile:) So why not cause casting to hurt - either casting stat or HP? This damage cannot be mitigated or eliminated, but will "heal" after combat/after a certain amount of time (faster than natural healing). Some ideas I had...
a) Spell level^2 HP damage. (Cantrips cause no damage.) This is extreme, but would force casters to focus on CON as well as their casting stat. (Otherwise, there would come a point where they could not cast their highest level spells without falling unconscious or dying.) It would also give casters incentives to use lower level spells, rather than go nova.
b) Ability damage to casting stat equal to spell level. The idea here again give casters incentive not to go nova. Using this option would mean extending the recovery time, else the caster could just open up in the first round, when their casting stat is still at max.

3) Long memorization times.

This is a throwback to 2e, where it took 1 hour/spell level to memorize a spell. Sure, the caster can use a high level spell, but doing so means it may be days before they can put another spell in memory. Doing this would also require the DM to not allow casters to shift to alternate planes where time moves at a different rate.

4) No SR: No, No-Save spells.

Damage spells always have SR. If there is no direct damage, there is always an appropriate save. (i.e. Black Tentacles now requires a Reflex save.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

I fully support #1. I don't like #2 or 3. I think #4 actively makes the game worse because direct damage is the weakest form of magic, and hard coding all of those to deal with SR is the exact opposite of balancing things. If anything, they should be the only spells to NOT have to deal with SR.

I've long considered instituting rules where a caster has to wait several rounds into a combat to unleash his highest level spells, and/or make save or die/lose spells outright fail if the target still has half or more hp remaining. I don't mind casters having the big guns, I just don't like them ending the fight on or before the 1st round with them. This would go along with re-placing the levels spells are available so the instant win ones are all higher level, and a lot of the weaker and direct damage spells are lower in level, which is just a good idea in general.
It is hard to implement the first idea, though, much as I like it. You have to define when the round countdown starts, and the system basically encourages casters to just initiate "combat" and then run, hide, and turtle until they can access the win spells by making it the optimal tactic. I then further wondered about a system that gives casters infinite use spells that are somewhere around 1st level damage spells in power that they need to use in a fight to build up towards being able to unleash the win spells, which they would have significantly fewer per day of, to balance giving them infinite weaker castings.

The thing is, any good balancing/nerfing of casters would need to be a very thorough, comprehensive process, nearly as much work as creating the casting system and spell descriptions in the first place. You could solve a lot of the problems just by going in and tweaking EVERY SINGLE SPELL to make it balanced. But that is difficult and insanely time consuming, so no one does it. Even if they did, not many people would be willing to sit down and proofread it for balance on their own free time.

[Malachei]

Casting is a core concept of the game. It will be very hard to say you're playing D&D when you've seriously edited the magic system. Plus, most of the attempts fail or remain work in progress. Finally, it requires good system mastery to ensure the end result is enjoyable for the players.

I know a lot of people consider themselves vastly superior to game designers, but in my experience, if you look into it, the opposite is the case, most of the time.

If you are serious about it, your favorite search engine will deliver a plethora of threads about this, on this board and others.

[Yora]

I always repeat the same mantra: "Casters are not broken, specific spells are broken."

Leave the spells untouched, you won't accomblish nothing.
Take care of the spells, you won't have to do anything about the classes.

[PurpleSocks]

I hate to say this, but just play Pathfinder instead.

Its more balanced, giving the casters some nerfs but giving the mundanes some serious buffs.

[Man on Fire]

I always repeat the same mantra: "Casters are not broken, specific spells are broken."

Leave the spells untouched, you won't accomblish nothing.
Take care of the spells, you won't have to do anything about the classes.

Only that casters like Wizard, Druid or Cleric can do much more than all other classes even is you take away broken spells.

Th best idea of nerfing casting would be to rebuild the system from the scratch and create something where all classes are Tier 3 and caster are more focused, sorta like Dread Necromancer - they can do limited variety of things from one school of magic.

[Zaggab]

A game I played in used a house rule I thought was pretty clever, however the game didn't last long enough for me to really see how it worked on higher levels.

Basically, save or lose spells (spells that makes you helpless or dominated or similar) had graded effects. For example, sleep (one of the few spells that were affected during the time the game lasted), only caused fatigue unless the target failed it's save by 5 or more. Similarly, hold person only paralysed if the target failed by 5 or more, otherwise it was just entangled ( this was pf, where entangle is less severe than than in 3,5).

The spells were still useful, but not quite encounter-ending easy buttons.

Doesn't adress the difference in options problem, but could maybe be part of a solution that also adresses that problem.

[limejuicepowder]

Not in any particular order, but here are My thoughts on Your thoughts -

1) Don't attach any kind of damage to spells, whether it's hit point or ability damage. This would be OK to limit the use of certain spells, but it should be niche cases that carry flavor with it - like corrupt spells from BoVD. Adding a damage component to every spell just makes casters a pain (haha, pain) to play. It also wouldn't limit the most game-breaking of spells, since they usually only require 1 casting (like gate).

2) Be careful with taking away buffing spells. It's true that as it stands casters have a far greater effective defense than mundanes do, and it's just one more thing that makes the game imbalanced. However, the opposite extreme of no buffs/protections is that casters are unbelievably weak glass cannons, easily dying from one unexpected shot or AoE - and that's not fun either.

Unfortunately, there IS no simple fix: the game is just that unbalanced. My personal gripe is the way that spellcasters step on the toes of basically all other classes. Spells like knock, invisibility, silence, glibness, alter self, polymorph, and summon beatstick can easily leave the caster wondering why he even bothers teaming around with rogues and fighters (unless it's just to help carry back all the loot). The caster does it faster, safer, and with a better chance of success.

My quick and dirty fix is to eliminate 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells from the game, besides as plot-related "items" - or just play e6. If I was inclined to spend hours editing spell lists, I would remove the spells that make other class features obsolete so that even if casters were still more powerful (they would be), the other classes still have a job to do.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I hate to say this, but just play Pathfinder instead.

Its more balanced, giving the casters some nerfs but giving the mundanes some serious buffs.

I really hope this post is sarcasm, because it's the opposite of true...


I always repeat the same mantra: "Casters are not broken, specific spells are broken."

Leave the spells untouched, you won't accomblish nothing.
Take care of the spells, you won't have to do anything about the classes.

I disagree. Certainly, fix broken spells. But just the basic casting SYSTEM, where a spellcaster can pull from a huge list of solutions to various problems, is inherently overpowered. Even if each solution/spell on its own is perfectly fine, the availability of so many of them and the flexibility means casting is still overpowered.

[MOLOKH]

- Reduce full-casting to Bard level. Slower progression and 6th or 7th maximim level of spells known pre-epic.

- Have more spells that require a costly or obscure material component, making them harder to spam. Or the abilty burn idea mentioned above. I really like that one.

- Make spells harder to learn - learning a spell would require having a modifier in the casting stat equal to the level of the wanted spell, instead of just having the stat at 10+spell level. So if you want level 5 spells you'll have to invest heavily to get at least a 20 in the stat.

- Have spells be dependant on multiple attributes. I believe the Archivist had a similar mechanic. One statistic would determine maximum spell level known, a secondary would govern the spells' DC, and a third would give bonus spells. This would somewhat solve the problem of casters being SAD, instead of just dumping everything into the casting stat and Con.

- Have spells take longer to cast. Make most at least a full round action.

- Have spells take longer to prepare. Maybe 1 hour to refresh all spells of a certain level or even the aforementioned 1 hour/spell level for each spell or each spell level.

- Have spell chains with requirements, similar to Feat chains. If you want to get Summon Monster VI for instance, you'll need Summon Monster I through V first. This would require some major overhauling of the spell system, though.

[Zman]

My current Caster fix involves dealing NonLethal damage equal to spell level, fixing the worst spell offenders, and delaying the upper levels of spells slightly while eliminating 9th level spells from 20 level play. Also makes spells more costly and difficult to acquire.

My 3.5 Overhaul, see sig, has these changes and more in it including many class fixes.

[Story]

I really hope this post is sarcasm, because it's the opposite of true...



Well it is true that Pathfinder heavily nerfed casters. But they're still tier 1, and mundanes lost a lot of their good options too.

[TheIronGolem]

I hate to say this, but just play Pathfinder instead.

Its more balanced, giving the casters some nerfs but giving the mundanes some serious buffs.

Pathfinder gave mundanes some Nice Things, and I will always choose it over 3.x for that reason alone, but it didn't solve the caster supremacy problem by any means.

Anyway, I'm in favor of making Save-Or-Lose spells less binary in nature as Zaggab alluded to. Although rather than base the effect on "missed your save by X", I think it might be better to have the target roll two saves, taking the lesser effect if he misses one save, the greater effect if he misses both, and no effect (or perhaps a minimal effect, like 1 round of fatigue from sleep) if he makes both. Abilities like Evasion could then be reworked so that they provide one "free" save, so that the target only has to save against the lesser effect.

Additionally, I think using magic to perform mundane tasks should be faster or potentially more effective than using mundane skill to accomplish the same task, but should also carry significant risk and lack the same reliability.

As one example, knock could unlock a locked door faster than a rogue could pick the lock...if the spell is successful (determined by say, a caster level check in place of a skill check against the lock's DC). If it works, great, you insta-picked the lock. But if not, perhaps it jams the lock instead, and now you'll have to break it down or let the rogue take even more time to fix the broken lock and start over with unlocking it. It underscores the theme of magic being a shortcut to power, but reminds you that shortcuts often have a cost.

Still, the solution needs to include buffing mundanes as much as nerfing casters. A caster's versatility and power increases quadratically with level because their spells become both more powerful and more numerous. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but most martial classes don't get similar consideration; they just get slightly bigger numbers with each level, with an occasional new trick here and there. Martials need more abilities whose effectiveness scales with level. But I guess that's for a separate thread.

[Eldan]

I've made a quite extensive, several page rewrite of the magic system that I think works more or less (hint, hint) and I think there are only two things that really have to be done.

1) Rewrite most spells
2) Make spells easier to interrupt.

Number two is quite important, I think. Defensive casting is way too easy. I basically eliminated defensive casting and made the basic casting time of a spell one round. That helps a lot.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well it is true that Pathfinder heavily nerfed casters. But they're still tier 1, and mundanes lost a lot of their good options too.

No, it did not heavily nerf casters. It got rid of a lot of the theoretical optimization crap that no one used in a real game anyway. And it nerfed *some* spells. But it left others alone, added in new save or lose/dies of its own, and made the dazing spell feat to turn any damage spell into a save-or-die keyed off whatever save you fancy. It make prestige classes suck and barely existent, but then turned around and gave a ton of new benefits as good or better than many of those PrC benefits right back to the casters. Getting a +2 to your casting stat required splats and/or DM permision in 3E, in PF you're GUARANTEED to get it just by playing human. Wizards can now cast and use items of their opposed schools and just plain remove the hindrance at 10th level. Concentration is now a free skill to all casters. PF added more feats per level but nerfed the good martial feats and split them up and left caster ones alone, in the end making PF feats a buff to casters and a nerf to martials.

3E, disregarding the most extremely overpowered outliers, which really do tip the scales an inordinate amount... has better balance between the classes than PF does. I guess PF is better if you played Fighter 20 in 3E...slightly, but if you played something more like Rogue 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Dervish 10, etc... converting to PF just hit you with a MASSIVE, GINORMOUS, INCREDIBLE nerf.

[Unusual Muse]

I disagree. Certainly, fix broken spells. But just the basic casting SYSTEM, where a spellcaster can pull from a huge list of solutions to various problems, is inherently overpowered. Even if each solution/spell on its own is perfectly fine, the availability of so many of them and the flexibility means casting is still overpowered.

What about requiring casters to specialize? How well would this take care of the "golf bag of spells" phenomenon?

I realize that this would leave Conjurers and Transmuters still standing head and shoulders above the crowd, but you could fix that by just removing certain spells from those schools.

[Story]

No, it did not heavily nerf casters. It got rid of a lot of the theoretical optimization crap that no one used in a real game anyway. And it nerfed *some* spells. But it left others alone, added in new save or lose/dies of its own, and made the dazing spell feat to turn any damage spell into a save-or-die keyed off whatever save you fancy. It make prestige classes suck and barely existent, but then turned around and gave a ton of new benefits as good or better than many of those PrC benefits right back to the casters. Getting a +2 to your casting stat required splats and/or DM permision in 3E, in PF you're GUARANTEED to get it just by playing human. Wizards can now cast and use items of their opposed schools and just plain remove the hindrance at 10th level. Concentration is now a free skill to all casters. PF added more feats per level but nerfed the good martial feats and split them up and left caster ones alone, in the end making PF feats a buff to casters and a nerf to martials.

3E, disregarding the most extremely overpowered outliers, which really do tip the scales an inordinate amount... has better balance between the classes than PF does. I guess PF is better if you played Fighter 20 in 3E...slightly, but if you played something more like Rogue 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Dervish 10, etc... converting to PF just hit you with a MASSIVE, GINORMOUS, INCREDIBLE nerf.

Uh, what? Glitterdust and Web are staples, not 'theoretical optimization crap'. Pretty much all the useful core spells were nerfed in someway. The Polymorph line was eviscerated, but even spells like Overland Flight and Summon Nature's Ally got more subtle nerfs.

Anyway, the biggest source of nerfs is that there's simply a lot less material to choose from. Dazing spell is nice but it doesn't hold a candle to 3.5 metamagic specialists. On the other hand, the lack of material hits mundane classes even harder.

[OREO]

Don't mine me... just getting a check mark so I can find this thread quicker.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Uh, what? Glitterdust and Web are staples, not 'theoretical optimization crap'. Pretty much all the useful core spells were nerfed in someway. The Polymorph line was eviscerated, but even spells like Overland Flight and Summon Nature's Ally got more subtle nerfs.

For every Glitterdust and Web that got nerfed, there's a Color Spray or Baleful Polymorph that did not. PF gives casters less choice of spells to win the game with (until dazing spell becomes affordable), but they're still winning the game. Some spells were strengthened. Mirror Image is MUCH stronger than it was in 3E (including official word that it can't be "defeated" by great cleave and magic missile, the polar opposite of 3E, where official word said it COULD be). Summon Nature's Ally is weaker, but Summon Monster is buffed. Celestial/Fiendish template means access to the much stronger smite evil/good, the CR to spell level ratio in general is better... and just look at some of the choices. Lantern Archons are only SM 2 now!


Anyway, the biggest source of nerfs is that there's simply a lot less material to choose from. Dazing spell is nice but it doesn't hold a candle to 3.5 metamagic specialists. On the other hand, the lack of material hits mundane classes even harder.

Bolded for importance. I agree. Which is why "less available material" isn't a good example of "nerfing casters."


What about requiring casters to specialize? How well would this take care of the "golf bag of spells" phenomenon?

I realize that this would leave Conjurers and Transmuters still standing head and shoulders above the crowd, but you could fix that by just removing certain spells from those schools.

Yes, that would be a good step to take. The key would obviously be adjusting where spells go to make the schools more balanced. Or assign spells by descriptors and not by school. But there is a lot that could be done to shift spells around that would make sense, IMO. All conj. damage spells including acid ones to evocation; fear spells from necro to enchantment; healing and inflict spells both in necromancy; arguably the entire conj. (creation) subset could go to evocation...

[Tokuhara]

Note: This comes from a Pathfinder Mindset, so bear with me.

My first call is with Tier 1 Arcane. Remove Wizard from the available list. I know, it's a blunt instrument, but replace it with things like Beguiler (make it prepared), Warmage (Same as Before), Dragon magazine Compendium's Death Master, and PF's Witch, which are all hyper-focused wizards IMO

Next is Tier 2 Arcane and Divine. Give them the Words of Power system from Pathfinder. This nerfs them dramatically, but it also makes Spontaneous casters feel different.

And finally is Tier 1 Divine (Archivist, Druid, and Cleric). This is the hard one without pigeon-holing the classes. My gut reaction is to limit their toys (Can only pick 4 Wildshape Forms and Removing the Divine feats), but that really does nothing. Overall, I'd say that Cleric should be forced to have the Dragon Magazine flaws Ponderous Spellcasting (turns spells into full round actions) and Divine Gestures (Gives them ASF) and Druids should be required to use the Shapechanger ACF.

[ZamielVanWeber]

A simple solution, please note this is hardly the best by ANY means, is to force casters into the 6/10 and 5/10 PrCs. They keep their lower level save or die spells, but the DC's will be lower and they will have access to few.

Best option is to cherry pick the worst offenders out of the PHB and allow access to the other spells on a case by case basis.

[Waker]

One nerf I give to druids is that you either get wildshape or animal companion, not both. All casting is interrupted by taking damage.

[Slipperychicken]

Another idea is to only allow one beneficial spell active at a given time per target. This would apply to things like buffs or summons, but not utility spells like Arcane Lock, which have a Permanent duration but don't contribute to brokenness.

Basically, only one spell at a time. Because they usually aren't so bad on their own, but stacking them in the right ways can be devastating.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Not this discussion again...

Okay, it's time to take a look at what is broken about casting, and why.

First off, Magic, as it currently stands, is 'do anything you want and get away with it'. Certain spells completely replace entire classes. Certain spells make them effectively invincible against non-casters. Heck, by level 5, a simply Fly spell makes them immune to anything that doesn't have a ranged weapon.

Casters are also dynamic. They don't do just one thing, they have a broad range of abilities. Heck, even a Warlock or DFA has multiple options available to them, depending on the invocation choices, and they are by far the most restricted 'caster' out there. Melee, on the other hand... hits things. And unfortunately, that's about it. Hit things. Maybe trip things then hit things. Very mono-dimensional. And, barring adding magic to the equation, there's really no way to go beyond 'hit that'.

Now, granted... there are some spells which just break the game. Spells like the Polymorph sub-college, the Conjuration (Calling) line, Gate shenanigans... these are spells that just need to either get dialed waaaay back or just removed entirely.

However, even without the absolutely game-breaking spells available, even removing the spells that obviate entire classes and archetypes... casters still have too wide a variety of options available to them, be too useful in too many different situations.

Look at Beguiler/Dread Necro/Warmage. They spontaneously cast off of their entire list, none of this nonsense about 'spells known' or having to memorize spells every morning. Yet... they're sitting at T3 (well, Warmage doesn't make the cut because most of what they do is mere blastomancy, and gets stuck in Tier 4). Why? Because their spell lists are... very focused. They're quite good in their field of expertise, but they don't have many options for going outside of that area of expertise. Specific counters to their specialty can severely limit their power.

For example, facing a Dread Necromancer? A simple Death Ward will severely hamper his ability to affect you directly, he'll have to mostly work through his minions. So while he has a viable option... it is a palpable hit to his effectiveness.

For another, Beguiler. Mind Blank, and a large chunk of what he does is ineffective against you. Sure, he still has some battlefield control that works, but most of his enchantments and a good chunk of his illusions are mind-affecting and just won't work on you. So again... he can still be effective, but again, he's taking a definite hit to his effectiveness.

A well built Wizard or Sorcerer, on the other hand... if you bring up one immunity, he'll hit you somewhere else. Got Death Ward up? Fine, he'll Dominate Person on you. Got Mind Blank too? Fine, Stinking Cloud. Immunity to poisons? Okay... Glitterdust. Solid Fog. Reverse Gravity. Maybe he just Polymorphs himself into a War Troll and beats you down. While flying, with eight mirror images floating around, and Freedom of Movement up, and Mind Blank up, and Death Ward up, and Ray Reflection...

So, let's talk about how to 'nerf' casters. Really, it seems like the best way is to give them a tightly focused list. Give them some power within their area of expertise, but not a whole lot outside of that.

However, you still have to be careful about just relegating them to one or two colleges, because not all colleges are created equal. For example, Transmutation or Conjuration are just so much more powerful than, say, Evocation. Or rather, are so much more versatile. So you build the spell list around an archetype concept rather than colleges.

For example, an 'Oracle' might have quite a bit of Divination spells, some Abjuration spells, but also spells like Contingency from Evocation, and perhaps even a bit of Enchantment college. But you select spells from here and there around a common theme. So in the end, he might be quite defensive-minded, but has very little offensive punch. He might be invaluable to a team as the party buff-bot, with a bit of 'fix this problem', and 'I know this...' thrown in. Give him some abilities mixed in, all the knowledge skills, class abilities that key off of the knowledge skills or augment them in some way... that kind of thing.

This would make a fairly balanced class, not too powerful, but handy to have around. He would avoid the problem most buff-bots do by being able to cast off of his entire list, so he wouldn't have his entire list nothing but buffs and have nothing to do in combat.

tl;dr: Remove full casters. Replace with classes that have a more focused spell list (like Beguiler) or a small selection of abilities (like Warlock). Since you're defining spell lists, you get to prune all the abusive spells at the same time.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Step one is to ditch prepared casters. Once you're playing with limited lists, things get a lot better. Step two is to deal with the most ridiculous spells. Gate, Celerity, Wind Wall, Knock-- the things that are just inexcusable for one reason or another.

THEN you can move on to broad nerfs like these.

Number 1 is... weird. If you're saying convert target: self spells to, say, touch spells, sure, that's one thing-- let the wizard cast his best buffs on his friends. If you're saying it's impossible to affect yourself with your own magic, that's... weirder. Even with careful fluff, it still feels really arbitrary.
Number 2 is... no. Good game design doesn't punish people for using their abilities. Worse, the more you punish people for using magic, they'll do one of two things: not play mages at all, in which case you may as well have just banned the class, or else they'll figure out how to work around it. Say, by casting summons, long-term buffs, instant-win buttons... you know, the kind of thing that's already too good. And it punishes direct damage spells, which are already the weakest and most balanced option, generally.
Number 3 is... plausible, but... in a game with a lot of downtime, it has little effect, and in a game with constant action, it quickly leaves casters useless.
Number 4 makes sense, though it requires the most work.Tentacles


My suggestion? Including a casting roll. d20+caster level, with a DC based on spell level. (10 + 2x level?) On a failure, you waste the action. Fail by enough (say, 5 or more), and you lose the slot/prepared spell. Defensive casting could be folded into this.

Or, possibly, have some kind of harmonic thing, where you can cast a first level spell on the first turn, a second level the second turn, and so on. (Maybe go with faster scaling than a 1:1 ratio-- 1,2,3,5,8,+ or 1,2,4,8,+)

[StreamOfTheSky]

On a side note, I think Beguilers being in Tier 3 is bs. They get a whole ton of win spells and get a lot of great side benefits and save DC boosts along with the spells. Yeah, they're weaker than Sorcerer. Sorceror is at the top of tier 2. Obviously not everything in tier 2 is going to be at the top of tier 2.

[Gnorman]

tl;dr: Remove full casters. Replace with classes that have a more focused spell list (like Beguiler) or a small selection of abilities (like Warlock). Since you're defining spell lists, you get to prune all the abusive spells at the same time.

Exactly this. The wizard and the sorcerer need to go. Replace them with fixed-list spontaneous casters. While you're at it, do the same thing with the cleric and the druid. Expand the Warmage and Dread Necromancer a bit.

I run with three "arcane" classes - the Wizard (basically the Beguiler - enchantment, divination, and illusion, along with a couple teleportation/force spells), the Warlock (the Dread Necromancer with greater access to Conjuration), and the Warmage (except with greater access to transmutation and abjuration). It works out to be a pretty good split for my purposes.

Generally, I think solutions that add some sort of crippling penalty (extremely long casting times, body fuel, what have you) or bog down the game (rolling additional rolls or multiple saves) are bad ideas. I want to echo Grod here - good game design does not punish people for using their abilities (but I also disagree with adding in caster level checks).

[Malachei]

On a side note, I think Beguilers being in Tier 3 is bs. They get a whole ton of win spells and get a lot of great side benefits and save DC boosts along with the spells. Yeah, they're weaker than Sorcerer. Sorceror is at the top of tier 2. Obviously not everything in tier 2 is going to be at the top of tier 2.

Absolutely. The beguiler's spell list is huge compared to a sorcerer of equal level. For low and most of mid-level play, it's even big compared to a wizard, with the added benefit of spontaneous access to the full list. Plus, beguiler has a sweet skill list, so it can fill the skillmonkey role free of charge. Their weakness is in a focus on enchantment and illusion spells, and barred access to some of the best individual spells, but both can be easily circumvented: A beguiler with a small number of items (runestaves) can substitute a full caster for most campaigns.

[Story]

Lantern Archons are only SM 2 now!

Where do you see this? The SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/summon-monster) lists it as SM3. Perhaps it was erratad?

[Susano-wo]

There's nothing wrong with having abilities with penalties(I assume that is what is meant by being 'punished' for using abilities). Though 1-9 ability damage seems exorbitant.

Incidentally the Decipher Lord of the Rings RPG had an interesting take. yo can cast 1 spell an hour for free, but then you have to make fatigue checks after that

[rockdeworld]

Good analysis ShneekeyTheLost.

My question for you, the OP, is: why do you want to nerf casters? I don't see any common theme in your 4 ideas, and I especially don't see how it will make the game more fun.

1) There are no Target: Self spells. The exception to this being healing, remove poison, remove curse, remove disease etc. What kind of fluff could possibly support this?
2) Casting hurts. This only hurts. It doesn't help anyone.
3) Long memorization times. Not necessarily good or bad, but I have to ask why? I need to wait 24 hours to get my 3 Weirds that I need for the next 3 encounters?
4) No SR: No, No-Save spells. Such as Alarm, Dispel Magic, and Summon Monster 1, Teleport, Obscuring Mist, Knock... This is definitely throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

One benefit to playing with Frank&K material is that I was able to see melee types on the same level as casters. Another benefit was having fun with interesting PrCs classes. When you nerf casters, do you want them to be tier 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6? If you're just nerfing them with no purpose other than to make people want to avoid them, I don't think you're helping anyone.

Edit: typo.

[DMVerdandi]

I don't even think it has to be that difficult.
These are not stand alone fixes, but in order.

1. Get rid of vancian casting.
Why? It not only takes away from the versatility of what could be for the casters but makes following nerfs harder to implement. Use Spell points.
Possibly slow spell point progression by stalling every 5 levels. IE, at level 6, no spell point growth. At level 11, no spell point growth, at level 16 no spell point growth. Less power to have to work with.

2. Get rid of metamagic.
It is the elephant in the room. Casting works without it, but by definition metamagic goes further outside of the realm of spells and tweaks them so that they are better than they are supposed to be. No metamagic.

3. Use Vitalizing spell point variant.
SP drops to half? Fatigued. Spell points drop to one quarter? exhausted.
The Additional variant needing con+X for extra spell points is also good.

4. Use more alternative classes in character options.
Have the xph classes available, maybe some incarnum, and tob.
Ramp up the playing field.

5. Get rid of spellbooks and fix wizard.

Have wizard learn spells like erudite. Permanent learning, but each spell costs XP. Double the cost. It helps, but only a little. For one, it makes it easier for the wizard players, not having to lug around those damned books, but at the same time, creates an extra cost to obtaining spells.
Yes, you can still get them from scrolls, but instead of just scribing them, you absorb the knowledge in them.

Not even a nerf, but the goal isn't to just make them unplayable,
but to make them more enjoyable for all. Heavyhanded nerfs without anything in return. are teh ghey.


Also, possibly increase school restrictions. Wizards have access to 5 schools, and have to give up on 3.PRE-specialization.



6. Get rid of natural spell
Woah, has the druid been taken down a notch? Yup.
Between getting rid of metamagic and this, Codzilla has been downgraded to codzuki.


7. Gestalt
It's acceptable. Do it. Adding a second dimension to the classes often seems to round them out.
If it seems too high powered, get rid of multiclassing, either on one side or both. If it is one side, It keeps the character consistant. A wizard 20//xx is a wizard all the way through, but has side talents, and vice versa.

When it comes to classes like fighter multiclassing, it ramps their power up.
A Fighter//Factotum won't ever be on the level of a caster, but having both rather than just one covers up their respective weaknesses. Now the fighter has skills out the yin-yang, and can do things outside of combat.
_____________________ __________________________ ______________

Alternatively, you could use the generic classes. Keep prestige classes and the like, but all adventurers start out as spellcaster, warrior, or expert.
Still use Vitalizing spell points and get rid of metamagic.



So, in effect, this nerfs the playing field down some.
Yeah, casters will still be weaker, but still fun to play for the people who play them for their reasons.

Having classes like martial adepts, Incarnum users, and psionicists give players options to use other things. Psionic rogues, psychic warriors, and wilders can take some heat off of the rogue,warrior,barbarians. Have some decent tier 3's in there at player selection.

[Balor01]

Max level full casters can achieve: 10.

Max level non-casters can achieve: 20.

Double the experience needed for level advancement for full casters (non-casters get two levels in time casters get one).

done.

[rockdeworld]

2. Get rid of metamagic.
It is the elephant in the room. Casting works without it, but by definition metamagic goes further outside of the realm of spells and tweaks them so that they are better than they are supposed to be. No metamagic.
I definitely didn't see that elephant. But that may be because I just bound an Efreeti, and he glows pretty bright.

[DMVerdandi]

I definitely didn't see that elephant. But that may be because I just bound an Efreeti, and he glows pretty bright.

Stroke his lamp. Then he'll do anything for you:smallcool:

But now that you do see it, makes since right?
"The cleric is too strong. He persists his buffs all the time!"
Get rid of persistent spell. Problem solved.
Removes no spells, yet brings the scale down tremendously.

Metamagic is a really strong option that can be removed altogether without DRASTICALLY harming the spellcaster.

Probably should have said something about crafting too.
It's kind of out of hand.

[rockdeworld]

Stroke his lamp. Then he'll do anything for you:smallcool:

But now that you do see it, makes since right?
"The cleric is too strong. He persists his buffs all the time!"
Get rid of persistent spell. Problem solved.
Removes no spells, yet brings the scale down tremendously.
I lol'd :smallcool:

I don't think metamagic is overpowered, really. The only people I've seen complain about Persistent Spell are DMs, not other players. On that note, however, banning DMM and Incantatrix also solves that problem without removing any metamagics. I'm not sure how crafting is out of hand either, since it's almost entirely DM adjucated and costs XP. Ban Thought Bottles.

[DMVerdandi]

I lol'd :smallcool:

I don't think metamagic is overpowered, really. The only people I've seen complain about Persistent Spell are DMs, not other players. On that note, however, banning DMM and Incantatrix also solves that problem without removing any metamagics. I'm not sure how crafting is out of hand either, since it's almost entirely DM adjucated and costs XP. Ban Thought Bottles.

At the same time, metamagic is unnecessary. It helps like crazy, but this is about nerfing casters. In for a penny, in for a pound.

As far as crafting goes, it is the key to another form of supremacy. Dominance on spell-trigger items. A spellcaster is no longer limited by spells per day with spell trigger items.
Of course, they also help non-casters, but perhaps that could be something. (Take this one lightly as possible, as I am not aware of the real implications.)

Magic Items don't work for mages, as their inherent magic interferes with their use. UMD could potentially be the only way to use magic items, but mages are not capable of actually buying ranks.

Would definitely change the dynamic in that sense.

[TuggyNE]

I don't think metamagic is overpowered, really. The only people I've seen complain about Persistent Spell are DMs, not other players. On that note, however, banning DMM and Incantatrix also solves that problem without removing any metamagics. I'm not sure how crafting is out of hand either, since it's almost entirely DM adjucated and costs XP. Ban Thought Bottles.

I'd agree on the utility of banning reducers, not metamagic itself.

Also, getting rid of crafting produces an odd ontological problem: where are all those magic items coming from?


Magic Items don't work for mages, as their inherent magic interferes with their use. UMD could potentially be the only way to use magic items, but mages are not capable of actually buying ranks.

Implication: paladin, ranger, hexblade, duskblade, and a number of others go crashing down in flames. (Or you have to use their spell-less variants, which aren't always available.)

There are probably some others, but that's one of the more obvious ones.

[PersonMan]

Another idea is to only allow one beneficial spell active at a given time per target. This would apply to things like buffs or summons, but not utility spells like Arcane Lock, which have a Permanent duration but don't contribute to brokenness.

Basically, only one spell at a time. Because they usually aren't so bad on their own, but stacking them in the right ways can be devastating.

The problem with nerfs like these is that they screw over the people who don't actually cause many problems, either forcing them into "1 spell to end the encounter" or uselessness. Meanwhile the one who has been happily throwing out his encounter-ending spell and then letting the others mop up is unaffected.

With every nerf one has to think of two things:

1. How does this hit those that are a problem?
2. How does this hit the ones who aren't a problem?

Ignore 2 and you get nerfs (a la "no crafting" or similar) that don't do their job but punch the ones who aren't making trouble in the face.
Ignore 1 and you get "nerfs" without teeth.

EDIT: Wow, didn't notice that "no crafting" actually came up until I posted.

[Gnaeus]

At the same time, metamagic is unnecessary. It helps like crazy, but this is about nerfing casters. In for a penny, in for a pound.

As far as crafting goes, it is the key to another form of supremacy. Dominance on spell-trigger items. A spellcaster is no longer limited by spells per day with spell trigger items.
Of course, they also help non-casters, but perhaps that could be something. (Take this one lightly as possible, as I am not aware of the real implications.)

Magic Items don't work for mages, as their inherent magic interferes with their use. UMD could potentially be the only way to use magic items, but mages are not capable of actually buying ranks.

Also, aside from Tuggyne's ontological problem, it also makes caster's less iconically casterly. D&D Wizards and Clerics do a ton of things that are not often seen in fantasy fiction or mythology, but making magic items is something that is seen everywhere. It is part of the essence of what magicians do. Take it away, and you lose a lot of the class flavor.

Would definitely change the dynamic in that sense.

Indeed it would. When I play a caster, I always take crafting feats to help the other weaker members of the party. Take it away, and you force me to be less of a team player. I can find another feat that is just as strong, but not another one that is as Monk friendly.

[Kesnit]

My question for you, the OP, is: why do you want to nerf casters? I don't see any common theme in your 4 ideas,

The idea in my head was "lower caster options." The ideas were not intended to be used all together. Instead, each was supposed to be a stand-alone to be considered individually.

As for fun, it depends on the person. I actually enjoy playing buff/debuff/battlefield control characters. Someone else may not/


1) There are no Target: Self spells. The exception to this being healing, remove poison, remove curse, remove disease etc. What kind of fluff could possibly support this?

Not sure I understand what you are asking... The general idea (as I said in the OP) is to keep primary casters from becoming flying, polymorphed, invisible, (insert here) show-stoppers. Those spells all exist, but must be cast on someone else.


2) Casting hurts. This only hurts. It doesn't help anyone.

As I said, the idea with these is to keep casters from going nova. The option to cast a show-stopper is still there, but using it has be to balanced against what happens after.


3) Long memorization times. Not necessarily good or bad, but I have to ask why? I need to wait 24 hours to get my 3 Weirds that I need for the next 3 encounters?

Why do you have to have Weird for the next 3 encounters? Why can't you use another spell of a lower level? One that you can recover faster.


4) No SR: No, No-Save spells. Such as Alarm, Dispel Magic, and Summon Monster 1, Teleport, Obscuring Mist, Knock... This is definitely throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If that's how you see it, OK. The idea here was to keep casters from being able to completely shut down enemies, or make allies useless. Many spells that are currently No-SR/No-save would still exist; they would just have SR and/or a save.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Not sure I understand what you are asking... The general idea (as I said in the OP) is to keep primary casters from becoming flying, polymorphed, invisible, (insert here) show-stoppers. Those spells all exist, but must be cast on someone else.
How do you justify this in-game? What are you going to say when the cleric wonders why he can cast bull's strength on the fighter but not on himself?


As I said, the idea with these is to keep casters from going nova. The option to cast a show-stopper is still there, but using it has be to balanced against what happens after.
It doesn't help, though. Look at this through PersonMan's metric. It doesn't hurt the powergamers, who were going to win the encounter with one sleep/glitterdust/stinking cloud/charm monster/whatever. It does hurt the non-troublesome players, who just want to throw around a few fireballs.


Why do you have to have Weird for the next 3 encounters? Why can't you use another spell of a lower level? One that you can recover faster.
Because we players like to use our abilities. Besides, look, my character sheets says I get three 9th level spells per day. Why on earth would I use those slots for 2nd levels? Besides, the times are long enough that this won't work well for anyone. You're either forcing casters to take days between adventures to regain their spells, or to keep adventuring without any way of contributing. And guess which way the min-maxers will go?


If that's how you see it, OK. The idea here was to keep casters from being able to completely shut down enemies, or make allies useless. Many spells that are currently No-SR/No-save would still exist; they would just have SR and/or a save.
OK. You're aware that that'll be a lot of work, yes?

[DMVerdandi]

Yeesh. Guess I stepped on some toes. My bad. Perhaps this will digest more easily. I didn't mean take all crafting away, I meant from casters, but even that was not well liked, so here is the alternative. Rather than taking away casting, Give it too non-casters through feats and skills.

8. Give non-casters ability to craft magic items
_________________________ _______________________ ____________

Craft Runes
Pre-requisites: Knowledge (Runes) 4, spellcraft 4, Use magic item 4

User can bestow magic on items, surfaces and inanimate objects, an ability that illudes normal spellcasters
Allows single use of any arcane or divine spell on an inanimate object or surface, triggered by reading the rune, or touching it. (insert rune cost)
Crafting runes requires a skill level check of (Insert difficulty)
If failed, character is bestowed for one negative level for 20 days- constitution modifier.

Craft Runic Item
Pre-requisites: Craft rune

Runes can be used to replace spells in Item Creation
Instead of using a spell when creating a magic item, It can be permanently inscribed with a rune with a spellcraft and knowledge(runes) check, both equal to the spellcaster level necessary to craft the item.
It also takes twice the time necessary to craft said item.
The magic item functions as normally.

For the purpose of gaining other Item Creation feats, Replace caster level with Knowledge (Runes) ranks
__________________________________ ______________________________



How is that? Now, everyone can theoretically create and use magic items.
However, many of the skills are cross-class skills, so, some will be better than others at crafting. Rogues will be good at it, as will factotums and artificers, but even a fighter with enough gusto will be able.

[Gnorman]

So... increase the feat tax for the classes that actually need to do something with their feats?

[Susano-wo]

@Rockdeworld: its magic?:smallamused: seriously, though, perhaps the nature of the magic is to bestow power or a boon on someone else, or perhaps effecting someone by magic is a matter of bending your 'aura' to effect their 'aura.' This makes it difficult or impossible to do most spells on yourself, since the casters aura and the targets aura are the same thing. (besides, discreet spells are arbitrary anyway)


How do you justify this in-game? What are you going to say when the cleric wonders why he can cast bull's strength on the fighter but not on himself?

see above :smallwink:



Because we players like to use our abilities. Besides, look, my character sheets says I get three 9th level spells per day. Why on earth would I use those slots for 2nd levels? Besides, the times are long enough that this won't work well for anyone. You're either forcing casters to take days between adventures to regain their spells, or to keep adventuring without any way of contributing. And guess which way the min-maxers will go?


using your abilites includes any penalties/recharge timers for those abilities. That's like complaining that a dragons breath attack has a refresh timer. oh, and he's not talking about using 9th level slots for 2nd level spells, only that you can use your 2nd level slots to effect the encounter.

And it doesn't mean adventuring without any way of contributing, it means more careful resource management. And as far as taking days to recharge spells, that's where a campaign goal the is on a hard or soft timer comes in(or anything else to make you want to not rest up for days)

[DMVerdandi]

So... increase the feat tax for the classes that actually need to do something with their feats?

Well, you don't have to.
Just like you don't have to go into the robilar's gambit line of feats, or learn tactical feats.

This gives non-spellcasters who don't want to be artificers or warlocks the ability to make magic items.

If you want to learn how to make magic weapons, it costs 3 feats. Just three. Rather than going and becoming a mage. That is REALLY decent. A fighter can make his own equipment. Finally Siegfried can make Durandal by himself.

A feat tax is an expendature to make a character work.
A feat you HAVE to have. With this, the mage need not be the only crafter in the party, and MORESO, The party need not have a mage in the first place. Merely a person skilled in rune use.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Because we players like to use our abilities. Besides, look, my character sheets says I get three 9th level spells per day. Why on earth would I use those slots for 2nd levels? Besides, the times are long enough that this won't work well for anyone. You're either forcing casters to take days between adventures to regain their spells, or to keep adventuring without any way of contributing. And guess which way the min-maxers will go?Random nitpick, I know, but the bolded section annoys me. Min-maxers aren't the people who will rest days between adventures. Any sane adventuring party would wait for those days.

The fighter doesn't want to bring the wizard or the cleric with him when they don't have their spells memorized, and the wizard and cleric wont' want to go. To the fighter they're dead weight, and the casters would know just be bored and undable to contribute.