Second-rate wizard

[Cheiromancer]

In this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307720) thread johnbragg discusses some ways to build an arcane spellcaster that "feels like a wizard" but is only tier 3 or tier 4. I would like to explore the boundary between tier 2 and tier 3 with a few simple changes to the wizard class. This second-rate wizard I call the "bronze mage". Changes include:


No bonus feats at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20.
No option to specialize.
Spells known as the sorcerer class +2/spell level.
(At odd levels, where sorcerers don't get a new spell level, the bronze mage knows two spells; at other levels two more spells of that spell level than a sorcerer would know).
Some of the more flexible spells are unavailable to the bronze mage: the summon monster line; the spells alter self, polymorph, polymorph any object and shapechange; the shadow conjuration and shadow evocation lines of spells. These spells are not on the bronze mage spell list.
A restrictive way of choosing new spells ("triadic choice"), described as follows: For each new spell a character learns when leveling up, the player writes down the names of three different spells of that spell level or lower. The DM crosses two of them out, and the player gets the one that is left. Crossed out spells are permanently inaccessible to the character, as spells from a banned school are to specialists, unless a feat is used to learn one of them.


As an example of the triadic choice process; Barry the Bronze Mage gets a new 3rd level spell. His player writes down haste, fly and slow. His DM doesn't like kiting, and so crosses out fly. He thinks that haste is stronger in the long run that slow, so he crosses that one out too. Barry adds slow to his spell book.

Some discussion of the class. First, it should be clear that the Bronze Mage feels like a wizard. A less than optimized wizard, but a wizard nonetheless. There are fewer feats, but that is like a wizard who has wasted some of his feat choices. A bronze wizard prepares spells ahead of time, and knows more spells than can be prepared simultaneously; it is more like a wizard than a sorcerer. The class is thematically neutral, like a wizard and unlike, say, a dread necromancer. The spell selection is more haphazard than a well-built wizard, but there are so many good wizard spells that a bronze mage doesn't have to prepare any that are inferior. There might be some gaps or missed combos, but the bronze mage will still have lots of tricks.

This leads me to consider the difference between tier 2 and tier 3. From JaronK's Tier list for classes (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0):

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so.

I think it is clear that a bronze wizard is no higher than tier 2, and no lower than tier 3. It's distinctly weaker than a wizard. Fewer feats mean fewer tricks with metamagic and more difficult access to prestige classes. The limits on spells known and the triadic choice mechanism together mean that the perfect spell or spell combo is not always available. These gaps mean it doesn't have the ability, with a day's preparation, to deal with absolutely any situation, the way a tier 1 would. But given that the spell repertoire will consist of solid wizard spells, I think the class would still be useful almost all the time, and be able to solve at least some encounters. So it is at least a tier 3, and possibly a tier 2.

What I am having trouble distinguishing is the difference between tier 2's being "capable of anything" and tier 3's being "capable of doing all things". A tier 2 has fewer tricks than a tier 1. Well, a tier 3 also has fewer tricks than a tier 1; the number of tricks doesn't help distinguish between tier 2 and tier 3. A tier 2 is supposed to have more raw power than a tier 3, but is "often less flexible". What does that mean, exactly? A sorcerer (tier 2) also has more raw power (spells per day) than a wizard (tier 1).

I think a better criterion is this: a tier 2 is a class that, given a situation, has a build that can deal with that situation. A tier 1 class is a class that has a build that, given a few days, can deal with any situation. The difference is that a tier 1 can reconfigure its abilities easily, but a tier 2 build cannot be easily switched; if a tier 2 class has focused on fighting undead from day one, it can't switch to social situations in a single day like a tier 1 class can. Tier 3 classes have situations that cannot be handled no matter the build. For example, beguilers excel in social situations and dread necromancers specialize in undead; they can't excel in the other's core competencies. A sorcerer build could do either; a wizard could switch from one to the other from one day to the next.

For classes like a beguiler or a dread necromancer you can inspect their spell lists and see the gaps in what they can do. For a bronze mage, you can't. The capabilities of a particular character depends on how the triadic choices have worked out. A permissive DM could cross out the weakest spells in a triad, and then the class is definitely tier 2. Also, some competencies cannot be blocked; there are too many blasting spells for them to all be blocked through triadic choice. (Not that a DM would want to- blastomancy does not break campaigns) However there are not too many same level alternatives to animate dead or planar binding. If a bronze mage wants to be a necromancer or infernal summoner, he could be blocked.

Now assume that a DM has enough system mastery to prevent his campaign from being destroyed by a single spell or an easy spell combo. He can explain why you can't get infinite wishes from binding efreets, or infinite wealth from selling walls of iron. In other words, the DM has a robust campaign world. Not unbreakable; a clever wizard or artificer could attempt dozens of campaign breaking tricks and eventually find one that the DM's house rules did not properly account for. But it takes effort to break. I think that in such a campaign a bronze mage is less likely to unbalance the campaign than a sorcerer is. The triadic choice mechanism is a strong additional filter against unbalanced spells and combos. If a DM has forgotten about one combo, he can cross out one of its components when it shows up on the bronze mage's list. And so I think the bronze mage meets the tier 3 criterion of "can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so."

On the whole I think there are enough thematically distinct bronze mage builds that the class couldn't count as tier 3. So the bronze mage is a second-rate wizard, not a third-rate wizard. But it is lower in its tier than a sorcerer. Less raw power, less chance of breaking the game, a bit more flexibility. Individual bronze mages are likely to play like tier 3's. Maybe it's more accurate to call it a strong tier 3 rather than a weak tier 2?

Comments welcome.

edit: fixed error in triadic choice mechanism

[Just to Browse]

I hit level 19. I write time stop, shapechange, and wish.

The bronze mage still breaks the game, but now you're injecting huge amounts of Oberoni and making them incredibly weak at level 1. I could just wait until I have three possible fly spells and write them all down and get flight and the DM can't control it, or I could be foolish and naive and want something cool that the DM crosses out because "fireball is overpowered, it can hit so many targets".

This cannot have a tier. It gets no spells at levels 1 and 2, and scales to ridiculousness just as hard as a wizard does. Along the way it encourages the Player v. DM mentality that is so toxic to this game.

You need a) Hard rules, and b) Legitimate spell lists. Final Destination. There are no alternatives.

[johnbragg]

This cannot have a tier. It gets no spells at levels 1 and 2,

I don't think that's right. The way I read it, the bronze mage
Knows 4 1st at level 1, 4 1st at level 2, 3 1st and 2 2nd at level 3. (Sorcerer progression + 2 spells/SL)
Casts 1 1st at level 1, 2 1st at level 2, 2 1st and 1 2nd at level 3 (Wizard progression)



and scales to ridiculousness just as hard as a wizard does. Along the way it encourages the Player v. DM mentality that is so toxic to this game.

You need a) Hard rules, and b) Legitimate spell lists. Final Destination.

There are no alternatives.

There are always alternatives. We could throw up our hands and say, lets stick with the Core Wizard and Sorcerer. We could ban the Wizard and allow Int-based Sorcerers who like books. We could ban all Tier 1+2s and make everyone play Tier 3 classes. Or we could keep fiddling with our homebrew fixes.

I do think you need hard rules, though. The triadic choice mechanism is a recipe for player unhappiness. i.e. if Fly is a legitimate spell (not banned, not bumped to a higher level, probably accessible to other casters) and on my class's spell list, my caster should be able to pick it.

That might be the only way to bring the wizard down to the fringes of Tier 3 without rewriting spell lists, though.

[Cheiromancer]

I hit level 19. I write time stop, shapechange, and wish.

You can't write down shapechange as part of a triad. See change #4. And I don't see what is wrong with time stop and wish in a high-level campaign. What 9th level wizard spells would you allow?


The bronze mage still breaks the game, but now you're injecting huge amounts of Oberoni and making them incredibly weak at level 1. I could just wait until I have three possible fly spells and write them all down and get flight and the DM can't control it, or I could be foolish and naive and want something cool that the DM crosses out because "fireball is overpowered, it can hit so many targets".

Is there a sense of "Oberoni" that I am not familiar with? I've heard of the Oberoni fallacy (that "the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more 'house rules' can be made as exceptions"), but I don't see how it applies here. Do you mean "DM discretion"?


This cannot have a tier. It gets no spells at levels 1 and 2, and scales to ridiculousness just as hard as a wizard does. Along the way it encourages the Player v. DM mentality that is so toxic to this game.

Why do you say the bronze mage has no spells at levels one and two? At 1st level it knows 6 cantrips and 4 1st level spells (two more of each level than a sorcerer has). 12 cantrips and 8 1st level spells would be inaccessible. It only gets one more cantrip at level 2, though - that *is* kind of boring, though. Hopefully the campaign doesn't begin at level 1.


You need a) Hard rules, and b) Legitimate spell lists. Final Destination. There are no alternatives.

I am not sure what you mean by "hard rules" - rules where the DM does not apply his discretion? If so, then maybe the surviving spell of a triad could be chosen at random. Then you wouldn't have any DM discretion or incitements to Player vs DM conflict. Assuming that the player isn't trying to break the game, a d6 could be the default way of applying triadic choice; it just adds variety to what might otherwise be a cookie-cutter character.

Still, I don't think there is anything wrong about both the DM and the player having input into the kind of character (and thus the kind of campaign) that will be played. If a DM really dislikes kiting, then a player's writing fly and phantom steed down is like a contract that says the bronze mage will not use those spells, even via a scroll. If a player wants a particular cool spell he can get it; all he has to do is ask the DM for the names of two spells the DM dislikes even more, but hasn't banned. If the cool spell is also one that is disliked, well, at least two others have been set off-limits.

I really think that a sorcerer is likely to cause more trouble; short of banning spells in advance the DM has no mechanical input into what kind of spells the sorcerer is capable of.

Long story short, I think the bronze mage is less unbalancing than a sorcerer. Maybe that's damning with faint praise?

[johnbragg]

Is there a sense of "Oberoni" that I am not familiar with? I've heard of the Oberoni fallacy (that "the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more 'house rules' can be made as exceptions"), but I don't see how it applies here. Do you mean "DM discretion"?

I think so. The triadic system is almost designed to make the Bronze MAge's player angry. "Pick three spells. OK, now you can NEVER have two of them. Why? Because TRIAD!"


I am not sure what you mean by "hard rules" - rules where the DM does not apply his discretion? If so, then maybe the surviving spell of a triad could be chosen at random. Then you wouldn't have any DM discretion or incitements to Player vs DM conflict.

I think that would be better.



Long story short, I think the bronze mage is less unbalancing than a sorcerer. Maybe that's damning with faint praise?

I think it's easier to nerf the sorcerer wholesale. "No spells above level 5. Here's what you CAN do with those spell slots: ........."

[Just to Browse]

You can't write down shapechange as part of a triad. See change #4. And I don't see what is wrong with time stop and wish in a high-level campaign. What 9th level wizard spells would you allow? Because even in a high-level campaign, your beguilers and dread necros and fighters and bards and factotums cannot do the things that are done by time stop and wish. Thus the power of the class is too great.


Is there a sense of "Oberoni" that I am not familiar with? I've heard of the Oberoni fallacy (that "the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more 'house rules' can be made as exceptions"), but I don't see how it applies here. Do you mean "DM discretion"?The core conceit behind this class (after spell casting reduction) (EDIT: Realized how you wrote the class) is that the bronze mage will be balanced because the DM will choose spells that make him balanced. That is the Oberoni fallacy, because the DM could just as well choose spells that make the bronze mage terribad or broken beyond belief.


Why do you say the bronze mage has no spells at levels one and two? At 1st level it knows 6 cantrips and 4 1st level spells (two more of each level than a sorcerer has). 12 cantrips and 8 1st level spells would be inaccessible. It only gets one more cantrip at level 2, though - that *is* kind of boring, though. Hopefully the campaign doesn't begin at level 1.
Ah, I'm reading your op wrong. When I see "Spells known as the sorcerer class +2/spell level", I assume you mean "As sorcerer, 2 levels delayed". But you mean 2 extra spells per spell level. Then this is definitely still in crazytown.


I am not sure what you mean by "hard rules" - rules where the DM does not apply his discretion? If so, then maybe the surviving spell of a triad could be chosen at random. Then you wouldn't have any DM discretion or incitements to Player vs DM conflict. Assuming that the player isn't trying to break the game, a d6 could be the default way of applying triadic choice; it just adds variety to what might otherwise be a cookie-cutter character. That doesn't help either. What you are doing is saying "sometimes you get this wildly level-inappropriate spell that's too strong, and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you don't get your favorite spell even though it's level-appropriate and sometimes you do." In general, you'll see players with fewer broken spells, but along the way you're both removing player agency and also allowing easily-containable aberrations to slip through the cracks.


Still, I don't think there is anything wrong about both the DM and the player having input into the kind of character (and thus the kind of campaign) that will be played. If a DM really dislikes kiting, then a player's writing fly and phantom steed down is like a contract that says the bronze mage will not use those spells, even via a scroll. If a player wants a particular cool spell he can get it; all he has to do is ask the DM for the names of two spells the DM dislikes even more, but hasn't banned. If the cool spell is also one that is disliked, well, at least two others have been set off-limits.That's not it. If the player wants kiting, he is incentivized to write all kiting spells down and force the DM to pick a choice that the DM doesn't want. But at the same time, the DM is incentivized to break the player's character by putting strange and arbitrary limits on that character's casting based on what the DM deems "balanced" which covers an enormously large range of things.


I really think that a sorcerer is likely to cause more trouble; short of banning spells in advance the DM has no mechanical input into what kind of spells the sorcerer is capable of.

Long story short, I think the bronze mage is less unbalancing than a sorcerer. Maybe that's damning with faint praise?It could be less unbalancing, but the bronze mage can also be stronger than the sorcerer (more stuff per day and the same list) or can be weaker than the monk (if the DM only awards you bad spells) and in both cases can get you and your DM extra annoyed with each other (if you don't get cool things you want or you game the system to get strong spells). It has too many loopholes, plays way too wonky, requires a very high level of system mastery and dickishness to play well, and turns on its head with splatbooks.

[Cheiromancer]

I think the triadic choice mechanism has a lot going for it. First, it makes sense that power requires sacrifice. Even the 2:1 ratio is appropriate: think of how you sell a 2000 gp magic item at 50% to get the equivalent of 1000 gp. The way the triadic choice mechanism works, you are renouncing two spells to gain access to one. There are several ways this could be played:


At level up you could be honestly torn about which spell would be best for your character; spell A, spell B and spell C all look good. You leave it up to the Powers (i.e. the DM) about which way your character will develop. The DM either rolls the dice or chooses the spell that he thinks would best help your character have fun and be challenged in the campaign.

You might have a definite opinion about what direction your character should go. You recognize that spells A and B would both be powerful and useful, but you don't see your character as developing in that direction. You consult with your DM, and finally write down A, B and C. The DM crosses out A and B and thereby confirms the vision you have for your character as expressed by spell C.

You claim to be playing option 1, but your DM is puzzled. Spells A and B both look good to him, given the rest of your build, but he can't see how you would find a use for C. The DM crosses out A and B, thereby challenging you to demonstrate C's utility.

Like option 3, but your DM thinks that you are being lazy. You've chosen good options for spells A and B, but it seems that you then you gave up and put a dumb spell in for C. As a mild rebuke for failing to take the triadic choice sub-game seriously, the DM crosses out A and B and you are saddled with C.

You are pushing the envelope power-wise. Spells A, B and C are all powerful, verging on unbalanced. Your character advances on one path to ultimate power by renouncing other possible paths. Wondering, as he crosses out two of them, if maybe he should have banned all three, the DM is thankful that at least he only has to worry about one.

All of these seem legitimate, but I could see a problem developing with option 2 if there is miscommunication between the player and the DM. The player might be intending to renounce (say) necromancy by writing create undead as part of triad, and might be annoyed if that is the option granted by the DM. Of course, the DM might be intending it as a compliment - as a way of saying "I wouldn't trust most players with this spell, but I think you could use it in a creative and fun way within this campaign". It's something that the player and the DM have to talk about.

Let me talk about option 5 a bit. Suppose that the campaign has progressed to high levels, beyond what the DM was expecting, and that there are several 9th level spells that promise to cause headaches, given the group's play style. Not banworthy spells, exactly, but spells that the DM would rather not deal with. Unfortunately, the reasons why the DM would prefer not to deal with a spell are exactly the reasons those spells are attractive to players. Say there are five such spells. Compare what happens with a 20th level sorcerer and a 20th level bronze mage:


A sorcerer chooses the worst headache-inducing spells. At 20th level he knows three of them, and can cast them 7 times a day. Major headache for the DM.

For his first choice, the bronze mage writes down the same three spells the sorcerer chose, and two of them get crossed out. The #3 headache-inducing spell is learned. For his second choice, the remaining two headache-inducing spells are written down, plus one that is OK. The one that is OK is the one that the bronze mage gets. The other three spells known at 20th level are all OK. The result is that the bronze mage knows 5 ninth level spells at level 20, which can be cast a total of five times per day, but only one of them causes headaches.

From a DM's perspective the second option seems far preferable.


It could be less unbalancing, but the bronze mage can also be stronger than the sorcerer (more stuff per day and the same list) or can be weaker than the monk (if the DM only awards you bad spells) and in both cases can get you and your DM extra annoyed with each other (if you don't get cool things you want or you game the system to get strong spells). It has too many loopholes, plays way too wonky, requires a very high level of system mastery and dickishness to play well, and turns on its head with splatbooks.

First, the bronze mage's spells per day is the same as a wizard's. So more choice than a sorcerer, but fewer spells per day. Definitely not "more stuff per day and the same list". Second, the DM can only award you bad spells if you put them on your list, but this shouldn't happen: there are enough good spells on the wizard spell list that a player can always fill a triad with good spells. And there are enough guides to wizards and sorcerers around there that a player doesn't even have to comb through the books on his own; he can just copy down various lists of "the best spells", group them according to function (offense, defense, miscellaneous), and present them as triads. And if he has trouble, he can ask the DM for help designing the character. Dickishness and system mastery might help with option 5 above, but I don't think that would be the only, or even the usual, way of playing the bronze mage.

As I said in my commentary about point #5 above, the bronze mage causes fewer headaches than a sorcerer. That said, I can see circumstances where the bronze mage could destroy a campaign; where, say, the DM has never had a campaign progress beyond level 10, and now the characters are level 17 and there are at least fifteen different ways the campaign could fall apart. Even crossing out two thirds of those fifteen ways still leaves five. But I think it is unreasonable to demand that a class stabilize a game that is hopelessly beyond the DM's capacity to manage. I think it is enough to say that the bronze mage is less harmful to such a campaign than a sorcerer.

The reason I keep talking about sorcerer's is because one of johnbragg's alternatives to the wizard is a scholarly, Int-based sorcerer. If a bronze mage feels more like a wizard than an Int-based sorcerer and causes less problems, then I think it is just about perfect.

johnbragg's goal was still to have a tier 3 arcane caster that feels like a wizard. The problem is that the existing tier 3 casters all are strongly limited by theme (beguiler, true necromancer, etc.) Wizards, like fighters and rogues, are neutral in flavor. But without thematic limitations it is hard to keep a wizard-like class low in tier. I think part of the "feel" of a high-level wizard is to have incredible levels of power and flexibility. I thus suspect that it is a contradiction in terms for there to be a tier 3 class that feels like a wizard.


The triadic system is almost designed to make the Bronze Mage's player angry. "Pick three spells. OK, now you can NEVER have two of them. Why? Because TRIAD!"

I've tried to articulate some ways of thinking about triadic choice that don't lead to players being annoyed. Remember the main alternative is banning or nerfing many, many spells on the wizard list that a player might otherwise like to choose, which could be annoying too. (I take "no spells above level 5" as equivalent to banning four levels worth of spells. That's a lot!)


I think it's easier to nerf the sorcerer wholesale. "No spells above level 5. Here's what you CAN do with those spell slots: ........."

I'm hesitant about departing very far from the core game. The bronze mage could actually be built as a core wizard with a few wasted feats and a somewhat haphazard choice of spells. Although I suppose your sorcerer could have his spells capped at level 5 if the campaign ends at tenth level. But then why are these high level spells written in the rulebooks? Are they just for the gods to cast?

I wouldn't mind a slightly slower progression, such that ninth level spells are a capstone at 20th level. It would be easy enough to require a bronze mage to multiclass three non-spellcaster levels before level 20 (prior to levels 7, 13 and 19, say). Ninth level spells would still be in the game, but just barely.

[johnbragg]

I think part of the "feel" of a high-level wizard is to have incredible levels of power and flexibility. I thus suspect that it is a contradiction in terms for there to be a tier 3 class that feels like a wizard.

I think you could get that feel by giving them access to the full variety of low-level spells. Once my alt-arcane hits 10th level, they have 10 new "Spell Levels Known" per level, so they're loading up on new spells known and at-will first level spells.

If that means that someone else is firing the heaviest artillery, (the Cleric-Warrior or the Adept-Cleric firing off high-level domain spells like Fire STorm or Holy Word) I think the wizard is still the wizard in that he has the *most* magic.


I've tried to articulate some ways of thinking about triadic choice that don't lead to players being annoyed.

The ways that made it not a DM decision would lead to less resentment--The Dice Have Spoken.


Remember the main alternative is banning or nerfing many, many spells on the wizard list that a player might otherwise like to choose, which could be annoying too. (I take "no spells above level 5" as equivalent to banning four levels worth of spells. That's a lot!)

I think Machiavelli taught that it is better to do a great injury all at once, than to constantly repeat small injuries. They're not going to be surprised all of a sudden at 10th level that they don't get 5th level spells.

Maybe we can talk about "researching" a favorite fifth level spell down to fourth. (Cough, Word of Recall, cough)


Although I suppose your sorcerer could have his spells capped at level 5 if the campaign ends at tenth level. But then why are these high level spells written in the rulebooks? Are they just for the gods to cast?

Councils of mages. Mages with lots of time for incredibly-long-casting time invocations.


Ninth level spells would still be in the game, but just barely.

Take a look at the list. Is there anything on the 9th level Sorcerer/Wizard list that A) you'd miss if it were gone, and B) isn't more trouble than it's worth? Mordenkainen's Disjunction?

[Just to Browse]

For every nice thing you can think of that would help the player and DM in some way, I can think of one that would hurt either or both. But that isn't the point. The point is that by creating this fix you are increasing the number of opportunities to do that. The player could just as likely get a bunch of really strong spells because the DM didn't pick right, or be worthless like a monk if he didn't write his spells properly and the DM is vindictive. He could just as likely trade power now for power later by saving fly until he has three options for it as he could put three fly spells down in separate requests and never get any of them even at level 15 when fly would be OK because it got banned 10 levels ago. He can even activate a wand of a spell at one level, and then suddenly become incapable of using that wand the next level because he learned a spell and the wand of that spell was one he requested.

Those things suck. And when making a fix, you need to make sure that things that suck happen less often for your fix rather than more often. Since bad things can happen all over the place when the DM is given discretion to pick and choose the spells he thinks are "appropriate", you really end up with a sad result.

Trusting the DM to do this appropriately is the Oberoni fallacy, and this can easily be more of a headache for both player and DM so your efforts would be far better-suited to just find a new alternative instead of promoting this one.

[ddude987]

I think you're going a bit overboard making a caster tier 3 instead of 2.



No bonus feats at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20.

Looking at other tier 3 casters, like beguiler or dread necromancer, they have class features whereas tier 1 or 2 casters don't always. It is generally regarded that bonus feats are significantly worse than class features. The removal of bonus feats versus having them is incredibly small when considering the tier of a class.



No option to specialize.

This is both good and bad in terms of determining tier. Limiting a classes options does lower its versatility and by extension in some cases its tier, however school specialization forces banning access to other school which in turn also limits versatility. Overall it isn't the option to specialize that raises a wizards tier, it is just the content of the spells themselves.



Spells known as the sorcerer class +2/spell level.
(At odd levels, where sorcerers don't get a new spell level, the bronze mage knows two spells; at other levels two more spells of that spell level than a sorcerer would know).

Sounds good. The primary reason wizard is tier 1 and sorcerer is tier 2 is because the wizard can learn more spells, allowing them to simply do more.



Some of the more flexible spells are unavailable to the bronze mage: the summon monster line; the spells alter self, polymorph, polymorph any object and shapechange; the shadow conjuration and shadow evocation lines of spells. These spells are not on the bronze mage spell list.
A restrictive way of choosing new spells ("triadic choice"), described as follows: For each new spell a character learns when leveling up, the player writes down the names of three different spells of that spell level or lower. The DM crosses two of them out, and the player gets the one that is left. Crossed out spells are permanently inaccessible to the character, as spells from a banned school are to specialists, unless a feat is used to learn one of them.

I agree with limiting the spell list. Just limiting the spellcaster's spell list will drop its tier to 2 or 3. I don't see the reason for triadic choice. It is an over complication. If a DM has a problem with spells that are on the caster's spellist after limiting the list then the DM can simply not allow the player to take the spell.

[johnbragg]

Here's where my thinking is.

Arcane casters all start out with the Sorcerer package, based either on Int or Cha. Int-based ones learn spells from books. Cha-based ones, I dunno, maybe something like the Triadic idea, but the dice decide which of the three you get, and you can ask again next level.

At say 3rd level, you can decide to specialize starting at 4th level. If you don't specialize, you don't get access to level 5+ spells except maybe as extra-long casting time incantations.

Specialists pick one school to learn spells from. (They keep their existing 1st level spells). They get one bonus spell per day per spell level. They should also get more spells known, but I'm not sure exactly how many right now. Maybe they get access to the full spell list of the school? That puts most of the specialists well behind the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer. (The Transmuter might still be Tier 2). Most of the Specialists would need serious class features or they fall down to Tier 4-5.

At 10th level, Generalists start gaining 10 Spell Levels known, instead of new spells known. They can also make 1st level spells At-Will, by spending a second Spell Level Known. They can use their high-level spell slots either for metamagic, or break them down into lower-level spell slots. That make them supremely flexible spellcasters, but with a lot less raw power than the old Tier 1-2s, and less power but more flexibility than the Specialists.

[Gnorman]

I have to agree with those criticizing the Triadic Choice mechanism. Placing spell choice in the hands of the DM is a bad idea, and liable to foster a lot of resentment at the table. It might work in theory, but in practice I doubt many bronze mages will be happy trying to game their DM.

You might as well have the DM say: "Two-thirds of your spellbook lights on fire."

[Cheiromancer]

Think of it this way; suppose at the beginning of a dungeon crawl the DM asked each player for a list of three level-appropriate magic items that would be useful to their character. At the end of the adventure, one item from each list is found in the boss monster's hoard.

In other words, the triadic choice method is being applied to treasure placement.

Gnorman, would players resent the DM because this is the same as "two thirds of their equipment lights on fire"?

Just to Browse, is this an Oberoni fallacy because you have to trust the player to know what items to write down, and the DM to pick an appropriate item? (If so, then is it also an Oberoni fallacy to trust the DM to pick out appropriate monsters for encounters? Or choose an appropriate module to run on game night? Is there any use of a DM's discretion that is not an Oberoni fallacy?)


He could just as likely trade power now for power later by saving fly until he has three options for it as he could put three fly spells down in separate requests and never get any of them even at level 15 when fly would be OK because it got banned 10 levels ago.

This is kind of weird situation. You have a DM who doesn't like kiting, no matter the party level, but hasn't actually banned it. However it is his top priority to eliminate kiting whenever the triadic choice sub-game is played. And also the player and the DM don't talk about how they hope or expect the game to develop. But anything about this that sucks is the fault of the triadic choice mechanism?

Even in this highly dysfunctional situation I don't see the problem. The player can use the DM's irrational hatred of kiting to get other cool spells along the way. Or he can actually plan ahead and get to fly a few levels later than he would have preferred.


He can even activate a wand of a spell at one level, and then suddenly become incapable of using that wand the next level because he learned a spell and the wand of that spell was one he requested.

The bronze mage gets the power to cast certain spells by renouncing the use of others. If he wants to renounce a spell that he has a wand of, then I hope he got a really cool spell in exchange. But if he was just making stupid choices, well, choices have consequences.


I think you're going a bit overboard making a caster tier 3 instead of 2.
Do you think it is a tier 3? I was thinking of it as tier 2, but closer to tier 3 than a sorcerer.


Looking at other tier 3 casters, like beguiler or dread necromancer, they have class features whereas tier 1 or 2 casters don't always. It is generally regarded that bonus feats are significantly worse than class features. The removal of bonus feats versus having them is incredibly small when considering the tier of a class.
Yeah, it's a bland class. But keeping it lower tier than a sorcerer made it hard to justify giving it stuff that are not on the sorcerer's chassis. Although I did I keep Scribe Scroll to preserve a wizard flavor.


This is both good and bad in terms of determining tier. Limiting a classes options does lower its versatility and by extension in some cases its tier, however school specialization forces banning access to other school which in turn also limits versatility. Overall it isn't the option to specialize that raises a wizards tier, it is just the content of the spells themselves.
Making other classes along the lines of a beguiler or a dread necromancer is a commonly suggested means of designing tier 3 arcane classes. And really, these classes have a lot in common with a specialist wizard. I wanted to pursue the notion of a generalist wizard; one could cast almost any spell (although not *every* spell).


I agree with limiting the spell list. Just limiting the spellcaster's spell list will drop its tier to 2 or 3. I don't see the reason for triadic choice. It is an over complication. If a DM has a problem with spells that are on the caster's spellist after limiting the list then the DM can simply not allow the player to take the spell.
People are usually OK with banning spells at the beginning of a campaign. Banning them the moment a player was about to get them is generally thought of as bad. At least with triadic choice a player knows they have to plan alternatives, or get choices pre-cleared.

And I think that it is too big a task to review every wizard spell in advance, banning or fixing each problematic spell. There are just too many spells, and too many differences in play-style, party composition and individual taste and skill. Triadic choice means breaking the task into bite-sized pieces, at the appropriate time in the campaign, with a much clearer idea of the party's play-style, capability and needs. And you only have to review the spells that the players are actively considering. Plus it gives the players agency (as in the magic item example at the start of this post).

[ArkenBrony]

I would like to add, because of all the negative comments you're getting, that i really like this, And i am going to incorporate it into a campaign i'm starting up, kudos to you.

[Just to Browse]

It falls into the Oberoni Fallacy because it requires the balance of the class to be dictated by the DM without any hard rules. Monsters have encounter rules (20% resource/day, CR = APL). Items have rules (follow WBL, tables). This does not--it just says "Hand a list to your DM, let him screw you or save you".

And do not blame your system that encourages rules-abuse on bad DMs. You cannot say that DMs that don't like kiting should just ban kiting and therefore the triadic banning system is good because all DMs will just know and do what they want, because that is the Oberoni Fallacy.

Like I said, the point is that your mechanic explicitly blows up the power curve (REALLY HIGH, to really low), and encourages players to cheat their DMs hard as they can and is very dissociative. It can be used to fix the sorcerer, but there are definitely better options.

[ddude987]

Yeah, it's a bland class. But keeping it lower tier than a sorcerer made it hard to justify giving it stuff that are not on the sorcerer's chassis. Although I did I keep Scribe Scroll to preserve a wizard flavor.


Well I think most people agree Sorcerer's got shafted and deserve those bonus feats. If you must, I say give it to sorcerer and bronze mage. I would rather they both have it than neither, not to mention both classes deserve bonus feats or maybe some small class feature.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Think of it this way; suppose at the beginning of a dungeon crawl the DM asked each player for a list of three level-appropriate magic items that would be useful to their character. At the end of the adventure, one item from each list is found in the boss monster's hoard.

In other words, the triadic choice method is being applied to treasure placement.

Gnorman, would players resent the DM because this is the same as "two thirds of their equipment lights on fire"?

The key problem with the triadic choice mechanism that you're missing is this part:
Crossed out spells are permanently inaccessible to the character, as spells from a banned school are to specialists, unless a feat is used to learn one of them.

That's not like telling the DM which 3 magic items you'd like to have and only finding one in a dungeon, that's like asking for either a Headband of Intellect, a Bag of Holding, and a Pearl of Power and only getting the Headband...and then never being able to buy, find, borrow, use, or benefit from Bags of Holding or Pearls of Power for the rest of your character's career, period, for no particularly logical (in-game) or balanced (out of game) reason.

If you want to ban powerful spells, do that. If you want to have the DM completely control a player's available spells, do that (though I advise against it). If you want spell selection to be pseudo-random, do that. Triadic choice is attempting to do all three of them and either fails to do so (in the case of banning all powerful spells, since a random choice out of three powerful spells still results in a powerful spell) or does so in a way that can cause tension or resentment between player and DM. Making even a small change to that permanent mechanism to make it less permanent, for instance "The two spells not chosen cannot be learned until the character gains another Spellcraft rank" or "A character may only attempt to learn a given spell three times" or whatever, would improve the process, and taking DM choice out of the matter entirely and making it random would be even better.

[Cheiromancer]

I would like to add, because of all the negative comments you're getting, that i really like this, And i am going to incorporate it into a campaign i'm starting up, kudos to you.

Thanks! :smallsmile: I hope your players enjoy it too, and it does not lead to bitterness. Make sure you talk with them about how you see it working. And tinker with other aspects of the class- especially to add bonus feats or powers to make it interesting and fun. I really don't want it to be a player vs DM kind of class; make sure your player has input into how it works.


Well I think most people agree Sorcerer's got shafted and deserve those bonus feats. If you must, I say give it to sorcerer and bronze mage. I would rather they both have it than neither, not to mention both classes deserve bonus feats or maybe some small class feature.

I agree. There are some feat intensive builds that can accomplish wonderful things, and I wanted to rule those out so I could focus on the spells. But it is true that this is a very bland class, and all sorts of things could be added to it to it without changing its tier or opening up abusive combos.


The key problem with the triadic choice mechanism that you're missing is this part:

That's not like telling the DM which 3 magic items you'd like to have and only finding one in a dungeon, that's like asking for either a Headband of Intellect, a Bag of Holding, and a Pearl of Power and only getting the Headband...and then never being able to buy, find, borrow, use, or benefit from Bags of Holding or Pearls of Power for the rest of your character's career, period, for no particularly logical (in-game) or balanced (out of game) reason.

If you want to ban powerful spells, do that. If you want to have the DM completely control a player's available spells, do that (though I advise against it). If you want spell selection to be pseudo-random, do that. Triadic choice is attempting to do all three of them and either fails to do so (in the case of banning all powerful spells, since a random choice out of three powerful spells still results in a powerful spell) or does so in a way that can cause tension or resentment between player and DM. Making even a small change to that permanent mechanism to make it less permanent, for instance "The two spells not chosen cannot be learned until the character gains another Spellcraft rank" or "A character may only attempt to learn a given spell three times" or whatever, would improve the process, and taking DM choice out of the matter entirely and making it random would be even better.

You make an excellent point about perma-banning. I was trying to avoid players submitting the same spells with every triad and I overdid it. How about this: the player submits three spells. The DM chooses one - that one can be prepared by the PC. It's a first choice spell. The player chooses one of the remainder - that one can't be prepared, but can be accessed via wand or scroll. That's a second choice spell. The remaining spell becomes banned. That is a third choice spell. A second choice spell can be submitted again when the character gains access to a new spell level. So if fly is rejected by the DM at level 5, you can keep it accessible via scroll and resubmit it after level 7, when you can learn fourth level spells.

I like the idea of the bronze mage gaining power by renouncing power. I think there should be some mechanism of permanently losing access to certain spells in exchange for gaining access to others. But the mechanism could definitely use some fine tuning.

One thing I am noticing is that it is hard to build mid or high level bronze mages. You kind of have to hand-wave or simulate the triadic choice mechanism along the way. I think that if you have a low-level bronze mage you can probably let them choose spells on their own. Just glance at the spell choice to make sure they are not cookie-cutter copies of some ideal build found on the internet, and that the cheese factor is low. But if the player has a tendency to powergame and the level is higher (10+) you might want to play through the selection of the higher level spells.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I like the idea of the bronze mage gaining power by renouncing power. I think there should be some mechanism of permanently losing access to certain spells in exchange for gaining access to others. But the mechanism could definitely use some fine tuning.

The concept of trading some power away for more power elsewhere is a good one, but I don't think involving the DM at each spell acquisition step is the right approach.

Contrast triadic choice with school specialization. School specialization involves gaining power with one school in exchange for banning two schools--similar to triadic choice in that respect. However, there are major differences:
School specialization is all about theme and playstyle--do you want to be a tricky illusionist, a blasty evoker, a spooky necromancer, etc.--rather than a certain capability; you can still be "a pyromancer" without having access to a particular fire spell, but you can't have "an unerring force attack" without magic missile. Different schools are more or less powerful, yes, but when assigning a school to a spell it's based purely on thematic concerns and not power.
School specialization is chosen once, at character creation, so if a DM thinks that e.g. Conjuration is too good of a school and wants to ban specialist conjurers, that's worked out in the beginning (giving a player a chance to change their concept) rather than being sprung on a player mid-game. This also means that building a high-level specialist wizard is fairly easy ("Is [spell X] from a banned school? If no, you can take it.") compared with more selective methods like triadic choice.
School specialization is entirely in the player's control. The player chooses which two spell schools to ban when specializing...and if the player doesn't want to ban two schools or can't pick which two to ban, he doesn't even have to specialize at all.
So we have two methods of permanently renouncing power to gain other power. One is easy, one-time, thematic, within the player's control, and allows a player to start with a theme and build a character around that; the other is involved, continuous, power-based, within the DM's control, and can result in player-DM conflict and tension. Even the more lenient "gain one, defer one, ban one" version of triadic choice retains the issues with the full version while only mildly lessening player-DM conflict potential.

[Just to Browse]

The alternative still involves Oberoni to balance the bronze mage, still encourages player v DM mentality, and still has weird drop-off points where a character will be entirely capable of casting some spell from wands and scrolls one level and then suddenly lose that capability when he gets stronger.

[Cheiromancer]

The concept of trading some power away for more power elsewhere is a good one, but I don't think involving the DM at each spell acquisition step is the right approach.

Contrast triadic choice with school specialization. School specialization involves gaining power with one school in exchange for banning two schools--similar to triadic choice in that respect. However, there are major differences.

[snip]

So we have two methods of permanently renouncing power to gain other power. One is easy, one-time, thematic, within the player's control, and allows a player to start with a theme and build a character around that; the other is involved, continuous, power-based, within the DM's control, and can result in player-DM conflict and tension. Even the more lenient "gain one, defer one, ban one" version of triadic choice retains the issues with the full version while only mildly lessening player-DM conflict potential.

Thank you for taking the time to compare school specialization with triadic choice. I agree with your summary, but I would like to add a few observations.

First, the "gain by renunciation" trope is not all that is going on here. If it were, specialization would be the superior method, for the reasons you indicate. There is also the desire to move the wizard down to high tier 3 (if possible) or low tier 2 (if not). As far as I know, even specialization in a weak school leaves a wizard tier 1. Third, the bronze mage is intended to be as athematic as a generalist wizard.

Thinking about it, I suppose that there are ways in which a specialist could be lowered in tier. Limiting the number of spells known (by using something like the sorcerer's spells known list, but with bigger numbers) would go a long way.

Similarly, one could use the sorcerer as a chassis to build a generalist wizard who is only tier 2. The bronze mage without triadic choice would do it (or triadic choice where the player chooses which spells are gained, deferred and banned).

The triadic choice mechanism (as modified) is intended to push the class the rest of the way. It provides an extra safeguard against problematic spells (which are still present in every school) and against cookie cutter builds that are easily found on the internet. It pushes the class down to the borders of tier 3. (I think it is still tier 2, though - although more stable than a sorcerer.)

I agree that the amount of DM/player collaboration that is required is a problem with this class. It's a lot of work, and could cause bad feelings if approached badly. I am not sure how best to deal with this problem. Random choice of the spell that is gained might be a solution, particularly at lower levels, but I believe that the stability of the game would be best served by DM attention at high levels. This is illustrated in my example when the campaign has progressed to a higher level than expected, and there are 5 headache-inducing (but not banworthy) spells available for player choice. Maybe random chance would be good enough in such cases; although the worse case scenario is that the "bad" spell is chosen each time, the odds are very much against that happening.

However, the mechanism is designed to be less work for the DM than overhauling the entire spell list. Instead of looking at hundreds or thousands of spells before starting a campaign, he only has to look at one triad at a time, knowing the group's play-style, capabilities and needs. Essentially the player lets him know which spells need attention.

True, a DM could just say "no, you can't have that spell" when a wizard or sorcerer chooses something objectionable, but that is far more likely to cause bad feelings than triadic choice if it just comes out of the blue. Triadic choice at least constrains the DM from such an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It is also theoretically more consistent. If a DM is going to say "no, you can't have shivering touch" when the sorcerer announces it as her new 3rd level spell, he should have mentioned that it was banned when he informed the group of his house rules. But it is much less objectionable if shivering touch is deferred when it comes up in a triad. The fact that he had totally forgotten about it is concealed by the triadic choice mechanism.

So triadic choice helps the DM by providing an alternative to time-consuming review of vast numbers of spells; it also covers oversights and omissions that are inevitable in any such review. It preserves the generic flavor of a generalist wizard while keeping the tier low enough not to destabilize the game. It prevents cookie-cutter characters, discourages one-trick ponies, and encourages player flexibility and creativity.

I think that mature players and DM's would be able to employ it without bad feelings arising. I think that the underlying concept (renunciation as a path to power) is robust. In short, I think that despite the legitimate criticisms of the class, the bronze mage is still worth consideration.

It still needs to be jazzed up a bit. I don't particularly want it to engage in metamagic shenanigans, though. Maybe give it a bonus feat at levels 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 (one more than a wizard gets) with the proviso that they can't be metamagic feats.

[johnbragg]

True, a DM could just say "no, you can't have that spell" when a wizard or sorcerer chooses something objectionable, but that is far more likely to cause bad feelings than triadic choice if it just comes out of the blue.

I like what you're trying to do, but I can't agree.

"No you can't have that spell because reasons. I'm banning it from the campaign" is going to create less animosity than "You can't have that spell--ever--because triad. Oh, other casters might have that spell. Just not you."


Triadic choice at least constrains the DM from such an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power.

The DM has arbitrary and capricious power. Rocks fall, you die. PArt of the implied social contract of the game is that the DM won't USE that power abitrarily and capriciously. So that when a player asks "why", the DM has a reason. "No, you can't have Summon Monster V because once you start summoning creatures that powerful to fight for you, it makes the fighter-types look redundant. Bad guys can have Summon Monster V because they won't have beatstick friends the same level. Dude, just pick something else."

"You can never have Summon Monster V because I rolled a die!" just sounds demented.

I could see it for Sorcerers based on their fluff--they don't study, they just get spells because they just do. So, having a player pick 3 spells and roll randomly to see what they get fits. But that shouldn't be used as a game balance mechanism.


It is also theoretically more consistent. If a DM is going to say "no, you can't have shivering touch" when the sorcerer announces it as her new 3rd level spell, he should have mentioned that it was banned when he informed the group of his house rules. But it is much less objectionable if shivering touch is deferred when it comes up in a triad. The fact that he had totally forgotten about it is concealed by the triadic choice mechanism.

"Deferred" and "banned" is a different thing. If it's not deferred, but actually banned, the DM owes the player an explanation why, or the player is perfectly justified in asking for the same spell next time.



I think that mature players and DM's would be able to employ it without bad feelings arising.

I can already hear Just To Browse--that's the Oberoni fallacy in bold type full caps. "It's not a bad mechanic if good DMs and players can overcome it."


I think that the underlying concept (renunciation as a path to power) is robust.

That's true. But the player isn't even choosing what to renounce. They're writing down spells they want, knowing that one (or two?) gets put forever out of their reach. That's not choosing between fireball, haste and fly, that's picking out of a hat.

If you want to do "renunciation as a path to power", pick up where PHB specialization left off. Limit the specialist wizard to the Sorcerer Spells Known tTable. Make them ban 4 schools. Make them take half of their spells at each spell level from their chosen school.

The problem is that you're trying to combine that with eliminating or containing unbalancing spells.



In short, I think that despite the legitimate criticisms of the class, the bronze mage is still worth consideration.

It still needs to be jazzed up a bit. I don't particularly want it to engage in metamagic shenanigans, though. Maybe give it a bonus feat at levels 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 (one more than a wizard gets) with the proviso that they can't be metamagic feats.

I think metamagic works very well with specialization. "Mercurio is such a gifted and practiced enchanter that each of his enchantment spells comes in four flavors, Still, Silent, Empowered and Regular."

[PairO'Dice Lost]

First, the "gain by renunciation" trope is not all that is going on here. If it were, specialization would be the superior method, for the reasons you indicate. There is also the desire to move the wizard down to high tier 3 (if possible) or low tier 2 (if not). As far as I know, even specialization in a weak school leaves a wizard tier 1.

I'm well aware of that...but that's basically irrelevant, because we're talking about out-of-game issues with the player-DM rapport concerns and such, not in-game issues of power and optimizability. "Gain by renunciation" and "power tier" are orthogonal values: you can have the trope and lots of power (specialist wizard), have the trope and less power (bronze mage with triadic choice), lack the trope and have lots of power (normal wizard), or lack the choice and have less power (tier 3 full-list caster). As with anything else in the game, using flavor as a justification for keeping a problematic mechanic is never a good idea.


Third, the bronze mage is intended to be as athematic as a generalist wizard.

Perhaps you could require that a bronze mage can't learn a new spell of a given school unless his schools known are evenly-distributed; that is, if he knows one Xth-level Evocation spell, he can't learn another Xth-level Evocation spell until he knows one spell of every other school of level X, then he can't learn a third unless he knows two Xth-level spells of every other school, etc. That would be quite limiting on spell choices, but it would certainly be thematically generalist and would have the side effect of restricting overpowered spells because you can't load up on 3 broken Conjurations at each spell level until you can learn your 17th spell of that level.


Thinking about it, I suppose that there are ways in which a specialist could be lowered in tier. Limiting the number of spells known (by using something like the sorcerer's spells known list, but with bigger numbers) would go a long way.

AD&D limited magic-users to certain maximum spells known per spell level, roughly [2*Int + 2]. Instituting that limit would help keep versatility in check.


The triadic choice mechanism (as modified) is intended to push the class the rest of the way. It provides an extra safeguard against problematic spells (which are still present in every school) and against cookie cutter builds that are easily found on the internet.

If a spell is problematic enough to merit being safeguarded against, ban it. If it's workable enough that a bronze mage could potentially learn it, but still annoying, talk about it out-of-game and houserule or restrict it. A DM should talk with his players to establish guidelines and restrict or ban problematic spells at a metagame level, not hide behind a "balancing" mechanic.

[johnbragg]

Beyond the issue of Triadic choice, what thoughts do people have on moving high-level spells to the realm of epic magic or incantations, and instead giving sorcerers more Spells Known at higher levels (average 10 levels of Spells Known per level from 10-20), including the ability to make some 1st level spells at-will or (if they have a 1 minute/level duration) continuous?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Depends on what you mean by "high-level" spells. If by high you mean above 7th, that could work; change spell level acquisition from 9 levels at 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15-17 to 7 levels at 1-4-7-10-13-16-19 and you remove some of the top-end gamebreakers while leaving wizards with the tools they need to deal with high-level challenges...and hey, the AD&D cleric worked fine with only 7 spell levels to play with, this wizard can too.

If by high you mean above, say, 4th or 5th, not at all. There are certainly some game-breaking spells at those levels, but most of the spells are spells that you need to deal with certain challenges at those levels because the game assumes you have access to them (e.g. break enchantment, true seeing, greater dispel magic, mind blank), spells that are essential to increased scope of high-level adventuring (e.g. plane shift, overland flight, sending, legend lore), and similar.

Aside from that, many "broken" spells are only broken because they let the players have a lasting effect on the world (e.g. fabricate), which are only broken if the DM can't or won't deal with the effects and/or don't "get" higher-level adventuring, like all the DMs who ban teleport and its ilk because they want to run Lord of the Rings at 15th level not realizing that (A) that's a low-level low-power low-magic story in D&D terms and (B) you can deal with it using in-game methods that competent NPCs would know about and use instead of banning it, or DMs who ban fabricate because PCs are using it to flood the economy with stuff not realizing that (A) economics Does Not Work That Way and they can rule as such and (B) fabricate isn't a new trick and they can assume it's already being used in the economy because Int 25 wizards would have figured that out already.

In short: you only start hitting really irredeemably broken spells at 8th and 9th level, and below that level spot-bans of individual spells are better than blanket bans of entire spell levels.