3.5 Another attempt at a Tier 3-4 generalist arcane WIP, PEACH

[johnbragg]

Spontaneous casting brings the arcane caster from Tier 1 to Tier 2.

Banning the usual suspects (the Polymorph line, the Teleport line, the Planar Binding line) helps a bit, too. (And imposing rules that limit spells-obsoleting-skills, which makes Rogues feel small.)

Would using the Magus or Bard spells-per-day progression do the job, if the NuWizard still had 90% of their spell list?

EDIT 22 Dec 2013
1. Every third level (1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16) you gain a new spell level known.
2. At every caster level, you gain one "spell known" and one "spell-per-day" per spell-level.

[AstralFire]

Spontaneous casting brings the arcane caster from Tier 1 to Tier 2.

Banning the usual suspects (the Polymorph line, the Teleport line, the Planar Binding line) helps a bit, too. (And imposing rules that limit spells-obsoleting-skills, which makes Rogues feel small.)

Would using the Magus or Bard spells-per-day progression do the job, if the NuWizard still had 90% of their spell list?

Yes. I have frequently resorted to just having Bard variants do everything in the past, when the system was young.

[ngilop]

Yes capping spells at 6th level would bring the wizard down to 'Tier' 3. that way the more specific casters (warmage and Beguiler) get 9th level spells but the guy who can cast every-spell only gets 6th (you could prob up it to 7th too) because he is about SPELLS! and not so much A SPECIALITY.

Id toss some metamagic love on the "NuWiard" as you called it to reinforce that, he is about learning magic and spells. why and how the work etc etc.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You probably want to either boost spells/day, or introduce secondary abilities in the vein of bardic music-- something to pad out the time you can spend doing things, as the bard's spells/day is pretty low. It's OK to boost endurance at the cost of a minor power upgrade.

[Just to Browse]

NO. NO NO NO.

First, there is no such thing as "the usual suspects". Those can range from polymorph and divine might to fly and hold monster and even haste. If you give advice on fixing wizards and include "remove the broken spells" some people might not even get rid of color spray because they've never seen it in action.

Second, the wizard still makes everyone else feel bad, but he does it later. Spells still totally overshadow iterated attack rolls at every level of the game if you choose them right, but the things that make fighters feel small in the pants are the adventure-changing spells like water breathing, plane shift, teleport, etc. And the wizard is still getting those! Of course, you could ban and re-level those spells, but they're not "the usual suspects" anymore and you could just write a new spell list.

Third, he still has the wizard's stupid flexibility. He can still spend a day thinking, then re-do his prepared spells and beat the crap out of the adventure with his (slightly weaker) game-winning toolbox.

So this isn't enough, nor is it a concrete fix. And we haven't even gotten to the problem of evokers being even worse than monks.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I'd comment, but Just to Browse basically beat me to everything. The Wizard causes problems at EVERY level when played right, not just the high levels.

[johnbragg]

NO. NO NO NO.

First, there is no such thing as "the usual suspects". Those can range from polymorph and divine might to fly and hold monster and even haste. If you give advice on fixing wizards and include "remove the broken spells" some people might not even get rid of color spray because they've never seen it in action.

Well, the fix will come with a short list of banned/nerfed spells.


Second, the wizard still makes everyone else feel bad, but he does it later. Spells still totally overshadow iterated attack rolls at every level of the game if you choose them right, but the things that make fighters feel small in the pants are the adventure-changing spells like water breathing, plane shift, teleport, etc. And the wizard is still getting those! Of course, you could ban and re-level those spells, but they're not "the usual suspects" anymore and you could just write a new spell list.

If teleport isn't one of the usual suspects, then I don't know what is.

I don't want to write a spell list, because I don't want a thematic caster, or another 3-4 thematic casters. I want a class whose signature is the theoretical ability to do anything magically.


Third, he still has the wizard's stupid flexibility. He can still spend a day thinking, then re-do his prepared spells and beat the crap out of the adventure with his (slightly weaker) game-winning toolbox.

Not if we make him a primarily spontaneous caster. He has studied some spells to such an extent that he can cast them without preparation.

Spells not on that list he can cast from his spellbook, making a Spellcraft check as if it were someone else's spellbook (DC 15 + SL). Bump up the time required to say 1 hour for 1st level spells, 2 hours for 2nd, 4 hours for 3rd, etc.


So this isn't enough, nor is it a concrete fix. And we haven't even gotten to the problem of evokers being even worse than monks.

It's not a finished fix. WIP, PEACH.


You probably want to either boost spells/day, or introduce secondary abilities in the vein of bardic music-- something to pad out the time you can spend doing things, as the bard's spells/day is pretty low. It's OK to boost endurance at the cost of a minor power upgrade.

As a start, I'm thinking of a more flexible, non-scaling, non-blasty version of Eldritch blast. At will, as a standard action, the NuWizard can infuse himself or anyone in Close range with arcane energy to assist with AC, an attack roll, a damage roll, next saving throw, or a skill check. (d6 luck bonus, Duration: Concentration). So the NuWizard always has something useful to do and a die to roll.

I was originally thinking that I'd pick a spells-per-day table to copy-and-paste, but I think a high-level wizard should have a wide choice of 1st level spells, which none of the tables supports.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Not if we make him a primarily spontaneous caster. He has studied some spells to such an extent that he can cast them without preparation.

Spells not on that list he can cast from his spellbook, making a Spellcraft check as if it were someone else's spellbook (DC 15 + SL). Bump up the time required to say 1 hour for 1st level spells, 2 hours for 2nd, 4 hours for 3rd, etc.
Well crap, that sounds familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12623421&postcount=2). (Feel free to mine for inspiration)

[Just to Browse]

If teleport isn't one of the usual suspects, then I don't know what is.Fly, water breathing, air walk, water walk, plane shift, dimension door, comprehend languages and tongues, shatter, almost any kind of scrying, nondetection, arcane sight, charm X, suggestion, gaseous form.

Most of those are 3rd-level and below (a third of available spells, and half the proposed spell restriction), wreck the fighter in terms of adventure abilities, and about half of these are actually interesting.


I don't want to write a spell list, because I don't want a thematic caster, or another 3-4 thematic casters. I want a class whose signature is the theoretical ability to do anything magically.


Not if we make him a primarily spontaneous caster. He has studied some spells to such an extent that he can cast them without preparation.

Spells not on that list he can cast from his spellbook, making a Spellcraft check as if it were someone else's spellbook (DC 15 + SL). Bump up the time required to say 1 hour for 1st level spells, 2 hours for 2nd, 4 hours for 3rd, etc.These are conflicting. You are saying he can use anything, but then shoehorn him into using a very limited set of spells. Of course, the shoehorning isn't very effective (15-minute workday), but even if you got time costs to work out or had group members that couldn't just wait a few hours, your basic goal and the proposed action contradict each other.

Anyways, you don't need to write a themed spell list. You can write any spell list you want. That can even be a general list with spells at the right levels. That way the class could feel like a generalist without being broken and without being encouraged to dumpster dive for the best spells.

[ngilop]

Im slightly confused so i might be wrong

but what I am gewtting from Browse is don't give them any spells at all becuase spells are broken in and of themselves?


well then why the hell play a caster in the first place?

I mean guy says " help me make a 'tier' 3 caster and you say " ()W^DH spell are the DEBILLE:furious:!!'


I never knew that water breathing was capable of breaking teh entire campaign?

look at the beguiler is considered 'tier 3 by just about everbody. and it has comprehend languages, nondetection, charm X, arcane sight and a buhc of the so called campaign destroying spells you mentioned.

IF the wizards is taken down to 'tier' e and the other classes are BROUGHT UP to 'tier' 3 then why get so upet over teh fact that a caster cna see magic auras?

[johnbragg]

Im slightly confused so i might be wrong

but what I am gewtting from Browse is don't give them any spells at all becuase spells are broken in and of themselves?

No, Just To Browse is saying (or has said regularly in similar threads) that you have to carefully design a spell list. Which I'm resisting, because part of my project is a short fix to Core.

How I'm going to balance "a short fix" with high-level wizards having oodles of 1st level spells on their Spells Known list I don't know.

[Just to Browse]

Thank you johnbragg. I will forever insist this, but I respect your determination.

ngilop:

Im slightly confused so i might be wrong

but what I am gewtting from Browse is don't give them any spells at all becuase spells are broken in and of themselves?There are spells that have an appropriate level they can be assigned to (which this fix may or may not give them) and there are spells so far beyond normal adventuring capabilities that no matter where you put them you cannot claim they are balanced with the warblade or psywar or rogue. Those are the uber utility spells like fly, water breathing, etc that irrevocably change the adventuring landscape. With water breathing, the wizard can adventure in the sunken ruins of Atlantis and the fighter remains onshore. This is bad at level 1 and it's bad at level 20. Tier 4 casters can't even achieve this without arcane disciple.

If you give unrestricted spell potential, spell toxicity from utility will never disappear.


well then why the hell play a caster in the first place?

I mean guy says " help me make a 'tier' 3 caster and you say " ()W^DH spell are the DEBILLE:furious:!!'WAAAAAARRRRGGGGL


I never knew that water breathing was capable of breaking teh entire campaign?Find me a warblade ability that lets me reach cloud cities, breath without air, or shift through walls silently at any level.


look at the beguiler is considered 'tier 3 by just about everbody. and it has comprehend languages, nondetection, charm X, arcane sight and a buhc of the so called campaign destroying spells you mentioned.So first off, your statement is certainly wrong (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Balance_Points) and a significant number of people do not associate beguilers with warblades and wildshape rangers.
Secondly, people who do argue Beguiler is T3 also agree it's the strongest of all classes in its group and is only T3 because 2.5 isn't a category.
Third, you have shown that a T3 class only has part of a non-holistic list of spells that includes no splatbooks. So you can see how the beguiler is not at the power level of the proposed "Tier 3-4 arcane caster" which can dumpster dive through all wizard spells in order to achieve his power.

And please paraphrase properly: the term is "wreck the fighter", not "wreck the campaign". That's some serious dis-ingenuity, and misrepresenting people is very toxic for debate.


IF the wizards is taken down to 'tier' e and the other classes are BROUGHT UP to 'tier' 3 then why get so upet over teh fact that a caster cna see magic auras?So these statements do not make sense together, but I think I can address the point you seem to be missing.

My point is that this does not bring wizards down to tier 3, in part (this seems to be what you're focusing on) because they can access 100% of their spell list's adventure-changing spells. Arcane Sight is one of those.

Flexible casting with a truly tier 3-4 arcane caster is exemplified in the factotum. His primary schtick in the early levels is to do lots of damage with a high intelligence, and his secondary schtick (which takes him into high levels) is his casting off an unlimited list which:
Is prepared
Comes slower than ~2/3 speed (at the beginning)
Allows only 1 max-level spell per day
has a 7 or fewer allowed spells per day at all
Includes very strong per-encounter spell caps that also feed into all your other class features

Unlimited spell access is so strong that it keeps the factotum at tier 3 despite those harsh restrictions. In fact if you want to design a Tier 3-4 arcane caster, the factotum is a great place to start.

[Grod_The_Giant]

ngilop:
There are spells that have an appropriate level they can be assigned to (which this fix may or may not give them) and there are spells so far beyond normal adventuring capabilities that no matter where you put them you cannot claim they are balanced with the warblade or psywar or rogue. Those are the uber utility spells like fly, water breathing, etc that irrevocably change the adventuring landscape. With water breathing, the wizard can adventure in the sunken ruins of Atlantis and the fighter remains onshore. This is bad at level 1 and it's bad at level 20. Tier 4 casters can't even achieve this without arcane disciple.
It's not necessarily bad that the wizard can do things like that, though. If the wizard is the guy who gets utility spells, that's a perfectly reasonable role. If being able to cast comprehend languages or water breathing puts you miles ahead of the party fighter, that's more because the fighter is a poorly designed class than because the wizard has spells.

Magic superiority is a problem mainly when it means you can easily-- or worse, accidentally-- overshadow your partymates. When you can replace the rogue with knock and invisibility. When you can replace the fighter with summon monster. But I think the game is more fun for everyone if you give the "mundane" classes abilities that can't be cheaply replaced by magic than if you remove every spell that does something more interesting than 1d6 damage/caster level.

[Just to Browse]

Sure, it's great to have some utility. That is indeed the reason that we have T3 classes with utility (beguiler, dread necro, factotum, bard) but this fix gives them all the utility, which still puts them above tier 3 in a haphazardly-balanced sort of way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sure, it's great to have some utility. That is indeed the reason that we have T3 classes with utility (beguiler, dread necro, factotum, bard) but this fix gives them all the utility, which still puts them above tier 3 in a haphazardly-balanced sort of way.
I think it works, though-- you have more utility than a fixed-list caster, but less power. It's the same reason a mystic theurge is weaker than a straight-classed wizard or cleric despite having twice as many spells.

[Just to Browse]

"It works" could be taken two different ways. Way one is "this is possible", to which I respond "yes" because an example exists (factotum) and can be built on.

Way two is "it's possible and this class does it", to which I say "no" because this obviously has huge power over the factotum from casting alone.

And in the end, a class with casting balanced such that it has access to the full wizard list without going past T3 is functional, but still bad homebrew because it's designed around an optimization ceiling and now it's floor is as bad as a monk's. You couldn't even learn fireball until level 7.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's not a fully designed class; it's just a few ideas. johnbragg asked if such a method could result in a balanced class, and I said yes. He mentioned giving him a few other class features, so until I see the finished product I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[johnbragg]

It's not a fully designed class; it's just a few ideas. johnbragg asked if such a method could result in a balanced class, and I said yes. He mentioned giving him a few other class features, so until I see the finished product I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

The toughest thing will probably be figuring out a spells-per-day and spells-known mechanic. I want my Core-Fix classes to basically fit on index cards, and unique tables goes against that.

I think the class features will be most important at low levels--at higher levels, the nu-wizard has low level spells to play with.

But either as an SLA or more likely a cantrip (making it eligible for Silent, Still and Enlarged metamagic)

Arcane Assistance.
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft +5 ft/2 levels)
Target: One ally within close range and line of sight
Effect: Competence bonus of d6 + 1/2 caster levels
Duration: Concentration

Using your mastery of arcane power, you channel arcane energy into an ally's attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, caster level checks or any other checks where a competence bonus would apply. Your ally gets a bonus of d6 + 1/2 caster levels to the type of roll you specify when casting the spell.

****
A major reason that Tiers are a problem is the way they make the game unfun for Tier 4-5s and even 3s. It's not that the Tier 1 has more tricks, it's that he can do your job as well as you can without much effort. Knock > ranks in Open Locks, Fly >>> ranks in Climb and Jump, Summon Monster ~~ beatstick. With Arcane Assistance, the wizard player is happy because he's using magic to buff an ally, and the ally player is happy because he's extra awesome at his job. (the wizard ability is also "better" than the bard because the wizard player gets to roll a die.)

Does it take too much from the Bard's Inspire Competence shtick? The bard can inspire the entire party, but does that make up for the nu-wizards better skill-buffing ability?

Does it work as a luck bonus?

[Amnoriath]

Fly, water breathing, air walk, water walk, plane shift, dimension door, comprehend languages and tongues, shatter, almost any kind of scrying, nondetection, arcane sight, charm X, suggestion, gaseous form.

Most of those are 3rd-level and below (a third of available spells, and half the proposed spell restriction), wreck the fighter in terms of adventure abilities, and about half of these are actually interesting.


Dimension Door 4th, Plane shift 7th, Air Walk 4th(not available for sorcerers/wizards), Scrying 4th now that we cleared spell levels here lets look at the limitations.
1. Nondetection, insanely expensive
2. Charm X, convenient how you put x but the low level one only works on a single humanoid otherwise monster is yet again 4th.
3. Shatter only ever works against non magical objects, so unless we are dealing with a pathfinder Alchemist it isn't going to wreck anyone's strategy because a potion or oil isn't likely worth the action it takes most of the time in battle. As such enemies often come with convenient buffs making it magical.
4. Water Walk/breathing, should be obvious.
This isn't any attempt to deny the power that the full arcane casters have but you are making this a battle of the core classes and not the proposed changes. If given a bard's progression of spell levels those spells come in 2, 3, 4, and 5 levels later while never getting Plane shift and the like. There is nothing wrong with having a Q so long as some spells are a bit more tailored to not readily replace skills and so that Q isn't always the answer at a given level which is why tier 1's are considered gods.

[Just to Browse]

1 spell is level 7, these others are level 4Funny how level 4 is on the wizard's spell list. In fact, level 4 isn't even the max. And these aren't even combat spells!


1. Nondetection, insanely expensive50 gold is... nothing.


2. Charm X, convenient how you put x but the low level one only works on a single humanoid otherwise monster is yet again 4th.I didn't know you regularly had social campaigns involving non-humanoid conversational entities. I would love to see a new and interesting goliath, thri-kreen, and half-giant world, but unfortunately most races that interact are humanoid because an overwhelmingly large portion of canon races are written like that.

And come on man, level 4 is on the wizard's spell list.


3. Shatter only ever works against non magical objects, so unless we are dealing with a pathfinder Alchemist it isn't going to wreck anyone's strategy because a potion or oil isn't likely worth the action it takes most of the time in battle. As such enemies often come with convenient buffs making it magical.Or, like, any non-magical item out of combat ever? Like macguffins, or chain links holding up drawbridges, or trap levers, or locked doors.


4. Water Walk/breathing, should be obvious.Yeah, it's totally obvious the sheer limitation of being able to adventure in a totally different biome.


This isn't any attempt to deny the power that the full arcane casters have but you are making this a battle of the core classes and not the proposed changes.False. My argument is that this class is not tier 3, because it has access to a number of mundane-overshadowing spells from 0-6. That number is all of them, which is unlike any other Tier 3 caster and puts it above Tier 3 in a very uncomfortable and unbalanced way. I don't care if your mundane is the warblade, fighter, or a badly-played psywar, you will get the same result.


If given a bard's progression of spell levels those spells come in 2, 3, 4, and 5 levels later while never getting Plane shift and the like. There is nothing wrong with having a Q so long as some spells are a bit more tailored to not readily replace skills and so that Q isn't always the answer at a given level which is why tier 1's are considered gods.No, because they have spells that ignore utility of non-caster characters completely at any level and have them in such quantity (again, the quantity is "all") that they are still beyond Tier 3.

In fact, look at the bard. That's a very nerfed caster, with only 2/3 spell access and a harshly limited list compared to the wizard. Yet in spite of that, they are still Tier 3. That's how strong spells are, and if you straight-up replace that list with a wizard list and THEN give them prepared casting from a spellbook then the class is no longer Tier 3 even if you don't give it a familiar.

[Amnoriath]

Funny how level 4 is on the wizard's spell list. In fact, level 4 isn't even the max.

50 gold is... nothing.

I didn't know you regularly had social campaigns involving non-humanoid conversational entities. I would love to see a new and interesting goliath, thri-kreen, and half-giant world, but unfortunately most races that interact are humanoid because an overwhelmingly large portion of canon races are written like that.

And come on man, level 4 is on the wizard's spell list.

Or, like, any non-magical item out of combat ever? Like macguffins, or chain links holding up drawbridges, or trap levers, or locked doors.

Yeah, it's totally obvious the sheer limitation of being able to adventure in a totally different biome.

False. My argument is that this class is not tier 3, because it has access to a number of mundane-overshadowing spells from 0-6. That number is all of them, which is unlike any other Tier 3 caster and puts it above Tier 3 in a very uncomfortable and unbalanced way. I don't care if your mundane is the warblade, fighter, or a badly-played psywar, you will get the same result.

No, because they have spells that ignore utility of non-caster characters completely at any level and have them in such quantity (again, the quantity is "all") that they are still beyond Tier 3.

In fact, look at the bard. That's a very nerfed caster, with only 2/3 spell access and a harshly limited list compared to the wizard. Yet in spite of that, they are still Tier 3. That's how strong spells are, and if you straight-up replace that list with a wizard list and THEN give them prepared casting from a spellbook then the class is no longer Tier 3 even if you don't give it a familiar.

1. You claimed that most were 3 or lower but it really wasn't.
2. It is when you get it and considering that it is for each use it isn't one that is going to get a lot of mileage, especially when it is an explicit anti-spell effect only.
3. Yes, but it won't come necessarily into battle. The DM can control whether or not your local barkeep will actually be of any encounter solving use.
4. You mean you can't have someone throw something at a stationary object?(trap lever, is that some kind of joke?)
5. So the DM isn't expecting specifically tailored spells for when he introduces those specific environments?
6. No, you are assuming all core spells with core casters against the fighting only characters. You assume there is no retailoring of spells that give egregious bonuses or fixes to skills to act as certain tailored spells, however johnbragg has talked about this before. You also assume that when they get it they will be able to end them like they did in normal play, however by the time this character will get access enemies will be throwing the same ones as spell-like abilities for a few levels already if not the anti-versions.
7. Bards are tier 3 because their spell casting is a good supplement to what they already have. Bardic Knowledge is basically a plot excavator, skills are great, bardic music can buff allies and screw with enemies that actually scales. Would they be nearly as strong without it? No, but the bard spells are mostly buffs(not all the good ones) and enchantments. In reality you could majorly increase the repetoire of bardic music to replace its spells and might actually get something better in what it does well.

[Just to Browse]

1. Over 50% are 3 or lower. >50% --> Majority --> Most.

2. People don't walk around all day using nondectection whenever they want. They do it before they're going to go in on an attack mission, or when they have important meetings. If you were dumb enough to spam nondetection in the hopes of never being detected evar then you would run out of spells/day before you'd ran out of money.

3. So this is half the Oberoni fallacy (it's not broken because the DM doesn't break it) and half assuming the players are bad. If the barkeep isn't useful, you don't use charm person on the barkeep. If you're actively screwing your players for using charm person because you don't want them to have info, then that says absolutely nothing about this class.

4. This stretches reaaaaally far. You're using incredulity instead of argument (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity) to try and counter a single example, which is to say you're letting everything else flow and the argument doesn't work and every other example flows.

5. So Oberoni Fallacy?

6. What? I am using explicitly what johnbragg said to make my argument. He has not allowed any spell fixes (so no "tailoring" of individual spells), and he has also said that there is a list of very obvious offenders that he can remove. To follow that, I responded that there is a large number of spells that are not obvious offenders and are in fact capable of putting the wizard at T2 without being banned. I gave a list as an example, and it's the exact same list as the one you quoted. If you really do want to argue my point, I suggest reading the posts again because you seem to be telling me I'm saying something I've never said. Argumentum ex negativo is a fallacy in this case.

7. Bardic knowledge is overcome by their own by basic divination (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clairaudienceClairvoyance.htm) and since knowledge check DCs are actually exorbitantly high for the info they provide, his "plot excavator" is useful in very few scenarios. Inspire courage is not worth the standard action unless you include lots and lots of sourcebooks (the tier system is not based around this), get a free buff round out of combat (and sacrifice all surprise rounds), or wait until the bonus hits about +3 (when the bard has 5th-level buffs that outscale it completely). To say the bard list is mostly buffs is pretty crazy because they come with wizard-spell enchantments, several SoDs, and equal or faster utility.

[Amnoriath]

1. Over 50% are 3 or lower. >50% --> Majority --> Most.

2. People don't walk around all day using nondectection whenever they want. They do it before they're going to go in on an attack mission, or when they have important meetings. If you were dumb enough to spam nondetection in the hopes of never being detected evar then you would run out of spells/day before you'd ran out of money.

3. So this is half the Oberoni fallacy (it's not broken because the DM doesn't break it) and half assuming the players are bad. If the barkeep isn't useful, you don't use charm person on the barkeep. If you're actively screwing your players for using charm person because you don't want them to have info, then that says absolutely nothing about this class.

4. This stretches reaaaaally far. You're using incredulity instead of argument (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity) to try and counter a single example, which is to say you're letting everything else flow and the argument doesn't work and every other example flows.

5. So Oberoni Fallacy?

6. What? I am using explicitly what johnbragg said to make my argument. He has not allowed any spell fixes (so no "tailoring" of individual spells), and he has also said that there is a list of very obvious offenders that he can remove. To follow that, I responded that there is a large number of spells that are not obvious offenders and are in fact capable of putting the wizard at T2 without being banned. I gave a list as an example, and it's the exact same list as the one you quoted. If you really do want to argue my point, I suggest reading the posts again because you seem to be telling me I'm saying something I've never said. Argumentum ex negativo is a fallacy in this case.

7. Bardic knowledge is overcome by their own by basic divination (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clairaudienceClairvoyance.htm) and since knowledge check DCs are actually exorbitantly high for the info they provide, his "plot excavator" is useful in very few scenarios. Inspire courage is not worth the standard action unless you include lots and lots of sourcebooks (the tier system is not based around this), get a free buff round out of combat (and sacrifice all surprise rounds), or wait until the bonus hits about +3 (when the bard has 5th-level buffs that outscale it completely). To say the bard list is mostly buffs is pretty crazy because they come with wizard-spell enchantments, several SoDs, and equal or faster utility.
1. You had about 6 that weren't
2. Hence, why is it a big deal when it is useful against the things you are complaining about?
3. It is euphemism explaining the fact it is a level 1 spell meaning the save DC would be 11+mental mod. In order for it to be consistently effectively you have to pick peon type victims, ie doesn't scale. The same kind of victims will naturally be less and less useful as you advance in levels. Also, it isn't changing the rules if you happen to choose a victim that isn't all that useful
4. It breaks a single mundane item of up to 200 lbs or multiple 1 lb objects in a 5 ft area at 75 ft at a caster level of 20 which allows a will save. I think I know what the spell does. What I am saying is you basically just have a container or small obstacle buster. Your Ubercharger would have been busting down the castle walls about 10 levels ago. Again what is here that will destroy another's strategy?
5. No, the DM would be counting on it as standard if not make sure you have some kind of version of it if you really are doing some kind of Atlantis adventure. There is no rule changing, only seeing what the party may need and/or how they react.
6. Johnbragg had this argument before in another thread similar to this where he said his group has handled this before. So why can't you just trust the man here as it is his request?
7. Bardic Knowledge has open-ended language which can mean any hear say knowledge of stories, tales, or people. While it doesn't identify your monsters just about anything that can be learned about a people, town, or locals.etc is picked. You forget many of the magical bardic instruments and harmonizing crystal echoblade that holds the music for him as well as it still lasts a few rounds after he stops. Also Dragonfire inspiration and Words of Creation changes that very quickly. I said that he does have enchantments(which are his SoD's) but the only reason why they aren't made into bardic music was because the developer's didn't want to make an entire class sub-system, not because bardic music could never do it, ie spells don't make the Bard.

[Just to Browse]

1. OK, now count the total. The total is 17

2. Whut? Nondetection is amazingly useful because it can be used in the scenarios listed. It totally kills enemy scrying, it makes planning stealth missions possible against high-level mages, and it kind of stomps on mundane classes.

3. Are you honestly telling me charm spells aren't good because the version available at level 2 has a low base DC? Because that argument has so many holes it could be used as a pasta strainer.

4. So instead of addressing all of the examples I provided which can be done at level 2, you're instead telling me that shatter can only be possibly useful to destroy "small" 200lb objects at level 20 and therefore it's useless. That's called a strawman.

5. No, Oberoni.

6. So you're telling me (unverifiably) that johnbragg said something different in a thread that isn't this one, and yet despite him never endorsing anything on the matter here it must also be part of his quantum "request" because you say so. That's plenty fallacious.

7. So you're agreeing with me that he needs a bunch of separate sourcebooks in order to be competent, since you seem to have cited three separate things from three separate books. In addition, you're using Oberoni to hint that the bard can just be given plot hooks by the DM because there is some open-ended and rules-defying language in his class feature (instead of following the rules that are Bard Level + d20) which invalidates the argument. And lastly you seem to be agreeing with me that the bard list being "mostly buffs" is wrong because you've let it flow. So we are effectively at the point where I've proved that the bard is being carried into tier 3 by his spells.

[johnbragg]

Points in response to the back-and-forth:

A. The NuWizard is (will be) primarily a spontaneous caster. In terms of game mechanics, he's more of a NuSorcerer using Int instead of Cha, but he's filling the social/gameworld role of the Wizard, poring through dusty tomes etc.

B. The NuWizard is still a book-based arcane caster (his "spells known" are spells he had studied to exhaustively as to master them), so he can cast (but not memorize) spells from a spellbook, at a rate of 1 hour/spell level.

C. There will be some category nerfs of spells.
a. Any spell that duplicates a skill is limited to a +20 bonus for a second level spell. (Knock, Invisibility)
b. Spells that do innumerable different things are split into an innumerable list of spells--Summon Monster, Plane Shift, Polymorph.

D I'm willing to live with the rest. Yes, they're powerful abilities. Either the NuWizard takes them as Spells Known and they're signature abilities, or he has to spend a hour per spell level to make it happen.

E. I originally said


Banning the usual suspects (the Polymorph line, the Teleport line, the Planar Binding line) helps a bit, too. (And imposing rules that limit spells-obsoleting-skills, which makes Rogues feel small.)

Just To Browse has said pretty clearly


My argument is that this class is not tier 3, because it has access to a number of mundane-overshadowing spells from 0-6. That number is all of them, which is unlike any other Tier 3 caster and puts it above Tier 3 in a very uncomfortable and unbalanced way. I don't care if your mundane is the warblade, fighter, or a badly-played psywar, you will get the same result.

We disagree over what constitutes mundane-overshadowing. I don't think water breathing is mundane-overshadowing. It's obviously something mundanes can't do, but I don't think that makes mundanes feel small in the pants, any more than the mundane one-shotting an ogre makes the caster feel small in the pants. So unless the NuWizard wants to go solo the City of the Mermaids, he'd better magic up enough Water Breathing for everybody.

I think Just To Browse has been reading the NuWizard as a prepared caster, and I think I agree that a prepared caster with Magus (or Bard) casting and the full spell list would be more powerful than any of the Tier 3 classes.

F. Any thoughts on Arcane Assistance? Add d6 + CL/2 to an ally's attack/save/skill check as a Competence (or luck) bonus?

G. Casting Progression. I sort of feel that the NuWizard at mid levels should have lots of 1st level spells available, but has to be very selective about where he uses his higher level spells.

[Just to Browse]

Points in response to the back-and-forth:

A. The NuWizard is (will be) primarily a spontaneous caster. In terms of game mechanics, he's more of a NuSorcerer using Int instead of Cha, but he's filling the social/gameworld role of the Wizard, poring through dusty tomes etc.

B. The NuWizard is still a book-based arcane caster (his "spells known" are spells he had studied to exhaustively as to master them), so he can cast (but not memorize) spells from a spellbook, at a rate of 1 hour/spell level. This is mitigated by the common 15-minute workday. Encouraging it is not good, and attempting to balance classes by 15-minute workday shenanigans will not function. If this class can fully access all wizard spells like a regular wizard, it will pick up combat spells for its small list known and then just do like a normal wizard and get the awesome utility everywhere else.


C. There will be some category nerfs of spells.
a. Any spell that duplicates a skill is limited to a +20 bonus for a second level spell. (Knock, Invisibility)
b. Spells that do innumerable different things are split into an innumerable list of spells--Summon Monster, Plane Shift, Polymorph.

D I'm willing to live with the rest. Yes, they're powerful abilities. Either the NuWizard takes them as Spells Known and they're signature abilities, or he has to spend a hour per spell level to make it happen.That means that this class remains Tier 2.


We disagree over what constitutes mundane-overshadowing. I don't think water breathing is mundane-overshadowing. It's obviously something mundanes can't do, but I don't think that makes mundanes feel small in the pants, any more than the mundane one-shotting an ogre makes the caster feel small in the pants. So unless the NuWizard wants to go solo the City of the Mermaids, he'd better magic up enough Water Breathing for everybody. Well it certainly is mundane-overshadowing because the caster can still go around "one-shotting an ogre" and still contribute more outside combat than the mundanes. And it's not just water-breathing; if you had a class that only had a quarter of the cool spells on my list, it would be a fine tier 3 class like the beguiler. The point is the wizard gets all of them and that's why it's still broken. Also, encouraging PCs to build a party of all-wizards just so they can go into the City of Mermaids without anyone being a net disadvantage means the wizard class is too strong. Like the 4e warlord.


F. Any thoughts on Arcane Assistance? Add d6 + CL/2 to an ally's attack/save/skill check as a Competence (or luck) bonus?Sure. This is an interesting concept, but buffs shouldn't have such an RNG-breaking potential for so little cost (max +16 from a level 1 spell), and the variance is too high. +1 is a wasted action, but +6 is godlike. You're better off granting something like a fixed +3 as a standard action at-will.


G. Casting Progression. I sort of feel that the NuWizard at mid levels should have lots of 1st level spells available, but has to be very selective about where he uses his higher level spells.I would make this relative. It will scale much more nicely if the wizard has lots of 1st level spells at 5-6, lots of 2nd level spells at 8-10, lots of 3rds at 13-15, etc. Of course that wrecks havoc with the "fit it on an index card" idea.

[johnbragg]

F. Any thoughts on Arcane Assistance? Add d6 + CL/2 to an ally's attack/save/skill check as a Competence (or luck) bonus?





Sure. This is an interesting concept, but buffs shouldn't have such an RNG-breaking

That's a new term for me, which I suppose means "makes skill checks meaningless unless the DM arbitrarily boosts them to ridiculous levels"?


potential for so little cost (max +16 from a level 1 spell), and the variance is too high. +1 is a wasted action, but +6 is godlike. You're better off granting something like a fixed +3 as a standard action at-will.


I like the variance. Magic should be a little bit random, especially at low levels--maybe it's a little boost, maybe a +5 or +6 means auto-success. I wrote it as a low-level at-will ability (SLA class feature or cantrip), so that the NuWizard would always have something useful and semi-interesting to do when he wasn't casting "Sleep" and the DM told him that if he tried Prestidigiation or Mage Hand shenanigans in combat one more time rocks would fall and books would fly.

At mid-levels, your Rogue 6 buddy is trying to disarm the trap or open the lock, with his +12-15 or so modifier. At DC 25, adding another d6 means almost automatic success. Adding d6+3 is better, but not a game-changer.

At high levels, your mundane buddy is blowing through the skill check with or without your help.

I put in the scaling effect so that it would still be something you consider at high levels, but you'll almost always have a spell that's a better option.

[johnbragg]

And I think I have my spells-known and spells-per-day mechanic

1. Every third level you learn a new spell level. (1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th)
2. For every spell level you can cast, you gain a new spell known and a new spell-per-day at each caster level.

That's the kind of high-level-spells for nearly-unlimited low-level spells tradeoff I think I was aiming at.

[Amnoriath]

2. Whut? Nondetection is amazingly useful because it can be used in the scenarios listed. It totally kills enemy scrying, it makes planning stealth missions possible against high-level mages, and it kind of stomps on mundane classes.

3. Are you honestly telling me charm spells aren't good because the version available at level 2 has a low base DC? Because that argument has so many holes it could be used as a pasta strainer.

4. So instead of addressing all of the examples I provided which can be done at level 2, you're instead telling me that shatter can only be possibly useful to destroy "small" 200lb objects at level 20 and therefore it's useless. That's called a strawman.

5. No, Oberoni.

6. So you're telling me (unverifiably) that johnbragg said something different in a thread that isn't this one, and yet despite him never endorsing anything on the matter here it must also be part of his quantum "request" because you say so. That's plenty fallacious.

7. So you're agreeing with me that he needs a bunch of separate sourcebooks in order to be competent, since you seem to have cited three separate things from three separate books. In addition, you're using Oberoni to hint that the bard can just be given plot hooks by the DM because there is some open-ended and rules-defying language in his class feature (instead of following the rules that are Bard Level + d20) which invalidates the argument. And lastly you seem to be agreeing with me that the bard list being "mostly buffs" is wrong because you've let it flow. So we are effectively at the point where I've proved that the bard is being carried into tier 3 by his spells.
1. No, you don't understand the dependency circle you put yourself in. The thing that stomps on mundanes are the things it protects against exclusively. In other words if you hate it so much why do the things it protects against get a pass?
2. No, it is the truth the qualifies the reality in which any little scenario you bring up assumes it works. You can say all day on how amazing something is but if its DC doesn't have any where to go it plateaus against the same victims.
3. No, a strawman argument is misrepresenting a stance, beating on the misrepresentation, and saying you won. I gave the exact parameters of what the shatter spell is. I then only pointed out that the BSF can destroy something much bigger. I am not saying there is no use but the only use for it is breaking the expensive potions and oils when wands are economical.
P.S. This is what the shatter spell does in which you realize you are wrong in saying that: http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/shatter--2646/
4. "Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni." I did not issue any change in the rules. The spells exist as is and it is ironic that you keep enforcing 3rd level spells because that means they can be obtained as wands. So, a DM making sure a party has these wands for his adventure is entirely with in the rules to do so as well as expect what they do. That is just obvious.
6. He attested to that.
7. If you truly believe that the bard spell casting have the sole power to make it tier 3 than lets see shall we. We get rid of any bardic music, knowledge, spells associated with such, and its skill list replacing it with a Wizard's skills. What are we left with? You are left with a Beguiler with less spells known, less skills, less utility, less spells period, less spell levels, and a better BAB:smallamused:.

[johnbragg]

6. Johnbragg had this argument before in another thread similar to this where he said his group has handled this before. So why can't you just trust the man here as it is his request?

I've gone back over the thread a few times, and I'm not sure anymore what I'm supposed to have said, if I knew in the first place. (There are a lot of "this"es flying around.)

Some of the spells Just To Browse finds mundane-shaming I don't, some I do, but I don't want to drown the class-fix in spell-list fixes. So I'm not including more than a half-dozen spell-list fixes which patch the most egregious offenders.

The rest I'm willing to live with.

[johnbragg]

OK, so right now the draft looks like

"Tier 3 Wizard Fix" (Replaces Wizard, Sorcerer in campaigns with Tier 1-2 bans.)

The (Tier 3) wizard is an Int-based spontaneous caster--he does not have to prepare spells from his spellbooks. He has studied some spells so intensively and deeply that, as long as he has spell slots left, he can cast those spells.

Save DCs and bonus spells per day are based on the wizard's Intelligence.

Spell Progression:
Every three levels (1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th and 16th), the Wizard learns to cast spells of a new spell level, up to 6th level spells.

At each level, the Wizard gains one spell known and one spell per day for each level he can cast. He must have access to the new spells known in his spellbooks.

Spells Per Day, Spells Known Table


CL 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1 1 - - - - -
2 2 - - - - -
3 3 - - - - -
4 4 1 - - - -
5 5 2 - - - -
6 6 3 - - - -
7 7 4 1 - - -
8 8 5 2 - - -
9 9 6 3 - - -
10 10 7 4 1 - -
11 11 8 5 2 - -
12 12 9 6 3 - -
13 13 10 7 4 1 -
14 14 11 8 5 2 -
15 15 12 9 6 3 -
16 16 13 10 7 4 1
17 17 14 11 8 5 2
18 18 15 12 9 6 3
19 19 16 13 10 7 4
20 20 17 14 11 8 5


Class Features:
Arcane Assistance. As a standard action, add a d6 untyped bonus to an ally's roll.
The wizard can tap arcane energy to assist an ally in some task. For as long as the wizard concentrates, add a d6 bonus to an ally's attack roll, damage roll, saving throw, skill check, caster level checks, or any other check to which a bonus relating to level or skill ranks would normally apply. The ally must be within Close (25ft + 5ft/2 levels) range.

Memorized Spell. One spell per day.
The wizard can memorize one spell from his spell book per day, beyond the wizard's Spells Known. This spell counts against the wizard's spells per day, it must be of a level the wizard can cast, and it must be a spell that the wizard has access to in a spell book.

[Just to Browse]

Words

1. So then you concede that when I used the worst "most" it did in fact mean "most"? Because you're flowing the point right now.

2. I don't even understand. Scrying makes casters better than mundanes. Anti-scrying makes casters better than mundanes. Both of those are in the same category because casters can do them in relevant situations and mundanes can't. Just because the caster has a trick that could counter some of his other tricks doesn't mean it's totally OK for either of them to exist. I mean, would you apply that kind of reasoning to wall of fire and energy resistance?

3. You literally told me that shatter can destroy 200 lb objects and in the same breath said that only potions and oils would be economical. You did that after ignoring all the examples I gave except 1 which you discounted using personal incredulity. So yes you have ignored the entirety of my post and are arguing something completely different--that is called a strawman. Either show me that it is impossible to break chain links and that traps and locks have immunity to shatter, or concede the point.

4. You keep telling me that water breathing doesn't break the game if the DM prepares his players with their own versions of water breathing. That literally fits the Oberoni fallacy perfectly because it requires DM intervention to solve the problem. And wands of water breathing, while a totally separate point, also won't work because they can only be used by a short list of classes that are mostly non-mundane (rogues, bards, factotums) or people who could cast water breathing in the first place. So not only does the DM need to bend the rules and give his players free stuff to make it seems like they're not unbalanced, you'd still likely need a caster to do the work anyways.

6. I can't find a quote in this thread that agrees with that, can you show it to me?

7. Whut? So if we get rid of all the class features, and then replace them in a way that isn't reflective of the proposed fix, we get a weaker class? Egads!

Try this. If we get rid of all their class features, change the list to the wizard list, and allow them to prepare spells they haven't memorized over the course of 1/SL hours (like the way the OP described it), then it would appear we have a class with better-than-beguiler utility and similar combat output.


That's a new term for me, which I suppose means "makes skill checks meaningless unless the DM arbitrarily boosts them to ridiculous levels"?It's a way of saying that the bonus is so huge that a dude without this benefit has effectively no way of competing with someone who does have this benefit. When you break the RNG with a bonus, you go so far off one end or the other that there's no point in even rolling, and it kind of defeats the purpose of the mechanics existing in the first place.


I like the variance. Magic should be a little bit random, especially at low levels--maybe it's a little boost, maybe a +5 or +6 means auto-success. I wrote it as a low-level at-will ability (SLA class feature or cantrip), so that the NuWizard would always have something useful and semi-interesting to do when he wasn't casting "Sleep" and the DM told him that if he tried Prestidigiation or Mage Hand shenanigans in combat one more time rocks would fall and books would fly. Then the optimal strategy at low levels is to never ever use in combat because a third of the time you're going to get something useless, and spam it outside of combat for great justice every time the rogue picks a lock or searches for traps (because you have time, and can effectively Take 6). Randomness achieves the opposite of what you, as the DM want.


At mid-levels, your Rogue 6 buddy is trying to disarm the trap or open the lock, with his +12-15 or so modifier. At DC 25, adding another d6 means almost automatic success. Adding d6+3 is better, but not a game-changer.Imagine your level 18 rogue is trying to sneak into the balor's chambers. The balor is appropriately maxed in spot and gets +40 on it, while the rogue has about +35. You can your level 1 at-will ability and grant him at minimum +10, and now he has an edge on the balor on top of the invisibility spell you can grant him. All at the cost of nothing.


I put in the scaling effect so that it would still be something you consider at high levels, but you'll almost always have a spell that's a better option.Numbers already scale, and this really does do better than just about any buff spell I can think of. Effectively automatic success, free full power attack for a fighter, near unhittable-ness for anyone you want to protect, etc.

Penalties to the RNG scale on their own, because -10% to hit at level 1 is still -10% to hit at level 10 and level 20. Your scaling should only be minor, and absolutely should not involve a chance of suckitude or else no one will care to use it until it gets overpowered.

[Amnoriath]

2. I don't even understand. Scrying makes casters better than mundanes. Anti-scrying makes casters better than mundanes. Both of those are in the same category because casters can do them in relevant situations and mundanes can't. Just because the caster has a trick that could counter some of his other tricks doesn't mean it's totally OK for either of them to exist. I mean, would you apply that kind of reasoning to wall of fire and energy resistance?

3. You literally told me that shatter can destroy 200 lb objects and in the same breath said that only potions and oils would be economical. You did that after ignoring all the examples I gave except 1 which you discounted using personal incredulity. So yes you have ignored the entirety of my post and are arguing something completely different--that is called a strawman. Either show me that it is impossible to break chain links and that traps and locks have immunity to shatter, or concede the point.

4. You keep telling me that water breathing doesn't break the game if the DM prepares his players with their own versions of water breathing. That literally fits the Oberoni fallacy perfectly because it requires DM intervention to solve the problem. And wands of water breathing, while a totally separate point, also won't work because they can only be used by a short list of classes that are mostly non-mundane (rogues, bards, factotums) or people who could cast water breathing in the first place. So not only does the DM need to bend the rules and give his players free stuff to make it seems like they're not unbalanced, you'd still likely need a caster to do the work anyways.

6. I can't find a quote in this thread that agrees with that, can you show it to me?

7. Whut? So if we get rid of all the class features, and then replace them in a way that isn't reflective of the proposed fix, we get a weaker class? Egads!


1. Energy resistance actually protects against things outside of wall of fire. The point is you are angry at something that is only capable of stopping something you are angry at. Your in perpetual circle of animosity in which you don't even know what you ought to be specifically angry at.
2. One object remember. You know how small 200 lb's actually is? It might be a small grain cart. I carry more by hand in salt bags in one trip at my job. It isn't abnormally advantageous at all simply because of the damage capable by your fighters. I say the other is more economical because it is getting multiple objects at a time and isn't wasting the mundanes' time to kill things. Your mundanes can break those things or shoot them at longer ranges unless they really need to do something else. As such busting an object doesn't overshadow mundanes' damage.
3. So, they can't get them in loot even though they are perfectly legal? That isn't breaking any rules, it is just common sense to equip your party. How many campaigns involve getting the mysterious item at some point? I guess that is Oberoni too. I almost wondering if I am talking to Vizzini.
4. Since you aren't paying attention. " Banning the usual suspects (the Polymorph line, the Teleport line, the Planar Binding line) helps a bit, too. (And imposing rules that limit spells-obsoleting-skills, which makes Rogues feel small.)"
5. Hey you claim spells made the Bard and wouldn't affect its tier so don't be shocked that a few of its clear strategies are now gone.
You mean it would effectively take him one hour to prepare a level 1 spell? Dang, better hope it is the right one and you know whats coming otherwise it really doesn't.

[Just to Browse]

So you have agreed that I was correct in my statement of "most". Thank you.

1. And nondetection is good at protecting against more than scrying. It protects against divination in the same way energy resistance protects against fire damage. Honestly, we're at the point here where your argument is "nondetection doesn't overshadow melee characters in adventures because... you're dumb". And please, if you want to have a debate, then please make a cogent argument instead of attempting to score points.

2. I had no idea a small grain cart was something mundanes should break in 6 seconds from 75 feet away without a weapon. You must not actually be playing D&D. In addition, please address the arguments I presented initially for the use of shatter or else they flow and prove the point.

3. Woah woah woah, so now instead of just having the wand of water breathing, mundane characters have to go on a separate fetch quest and take it from someone? Because that means the wizard is stomping over mundanes so hard that he can bypass an entire adventure in order to get where he needs to go. And of course you still haven't countered the fact that wands can only be used by people who cast spells or use UMD, which is 95% not-mundane anyways and in no way invalidates my point.

The alternative to this is that you think the DM will make up wands of water breathing with foreknowledge of a water adventure (Oberoni!) or you think the wand is likely to come up on the random wand table (0% chance).

4. Oh I see, so you're telling me that my list of spells that don't invalidate skills because they do things skills aren't even capable of doing are totally OK because johnbragg is planning on fixing a totally different set of spells that I didn't mention, but happen interact with skills. That's called a strawman.

5. I missed your argument here, but now I understand it. You're using incredulity again to show that the bard looks weaker than the beguiler, so it can't possibly be tier 3. Unfortunately you would be wrong. A bard without bard class features and only bard spells is still in lower tier 3, so yes of course replacing his casting with wizard spells will bump him up and yes of course giving him full initiative to dumpster dive through every sourcebook will also bump him up an entire tier because flexibility is power.


You mean it would effectively take him one hour to prepare a level 1 spell? Dang, better hope it is the right one and you know whats coming otherwise it really doesn't.I'm impressed that you honestly consider this to be an argument. I recommend reading the descriptions of prepared casters here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0) so you can understand how prepared casting works and why it's powerful.

[Amnoriath]

So you have agreed that I was correct in my statement of "most". Thank you.

1. And nondetection is good at protecting against more than scrying. It protects against divination in the same way energy resistance protects against fire damage. Honestly, we're at the point here where your argument is "nondetection doesn't overshadow melee characters in adventures because... you're dumb". And please, if you want to have a debate, then please make a cogent argument instead of attempting to score points.

2. I had no idea a small grain cart was something mundanes should break in 6 seconds from 75 feet away without a weapon. You must not actually be playing D&D. In addition, please address the arguments I presented initially for the use of shatter or else they flow and prove the point.

3. Woah woah woah, so now instead of just having the wand of water breathing, mundane characters have to go on a separate fetch quest and take it from someone? Because that means the wizard is stomping over mundanes so hard that he can bypass an entire adventure in order to get where he needs to go. And of course you still haven't countered the fact that wands can only be used by people who cast spells or use UMD, which is 95% not-mundane anyways and in no way invalidates my point.

The alternative to this is that you think the DM will make up wands of water breathing with foreknowledge of a water adventure (Oberoni!) or you think the wand is likely to come up on the random wand table (0% chance).

4. Oh I see, so you're telling me that my list of spells that don't invalidate skills because they do things skills aren't even capable of doing are totally OK because johnbragg is planning on fixing a totally different set of spells that I didn't mention, but happen interact with skills. That's called a strawman.

5. I missed your argument here, but now I understand it. You're using incredulity again to show that the bard looks weaker than the beguiler, so it can't possibly be tier 3. Unfortunately you would be wrong. A bard without bard class features and only bard spells is still in lower tier 3, so yes of course replacing his casting with wizard spells will bump him up and yes of course giving him full initiative to dumpster dive through every sourcebook will also bump him up an entire tier because flexibility is power.

I'm impressed that you honestly consider this to be an argument. I recommend reading the descriptions of prepared casters here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0) so you can understand how prepared casting works and why it's powerful.
1. That is of questionable interpretation as the line itself is qualified by those being scrying, clairaudience..etc and it is a personal effect. Even if it is only spells have the divination category so therefore misplacing animosity. http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2292006
2. But your interpretation is in fact wrong because they are 2(only one object of that weight) options plus up to 10d6 sonic damage to crystalline creatures. That is the point they would have a weapon, someone who can hide and shoot/hit has a better chance of creating an effective distraction than someone in your party waving their hands, speaking, and then a loud ringing noise. Also a mere 10ft boost plus charge closes more distance in a round. It isn't that it isn't handy but it doesn't overshadow mundanes at all.
3. No, you are by definition treating anything a DM does regardless of it being legal as being Oberoni so I am using reducto ad absurdum to make fun of it because it is common thing to come across a mysterious item that advances a plot. Also is it really that hard to say in a port town in a magic world for merchants to be selling them? At this point I think you just love saying it so you can invoke fallacy while you are ignoring the parameters. As for 20 check since this is infact a utility use a human with a charisma 14-16 with the Able learner feat and a masterwork tool can consistently make the check at level 4 or 5 out of combat without wasting skill points.
4. You asked whether johnbragg said it or not. If you want to make fun of him for it I am sure he will appreciate it.:smallannoyed:
5. A Warmage and Duskblade proves the fact that just because you have spells don't mean you are automatically tier 3 and above. After all what is the definition of a tier 4? If that is what all he could do well and someone else can argruably do it better wouldn't that he lost a tier?
6. I know what prepared casting is but yet again we aren't talking about existing classes we are talking about Johnbragg's nuwizard. Since it doesn't have a spellbook I assumed it was a special research option for spells that he didn't have memorized and since you said prepare I assumed it hour by spell level preparation of an unknown spell in which they wouldn't have recorded and would have to do so again.

[johnbragg]

6. I know what prepared casting is but yet again we aren't talking about existing classes we are talking about Johnbragg's nuwizard. Since it doesn't have a spellbook I assumed it was a special research option for spells that he didn't have memorized and since you said prepare I assumed it hour by spell level preparation of an unknown spell in which they wouldn't have recorded and would have to do so again.

The nu-wizard does have a spellbook, he just doesn't need it with him for his Spells Known. Much like a veteran teacher can go without a textbook, or an Islamic scholar or many Christians can quote from memory, they are "beyond the book."

The nu-wizard also has spells in his spellbook that are not his spontaneous-casting list. Those are the spells that he has the option to memorize one of.

I mainly want the spellbook for flavor--the Wizard should be poring over dusty tomes and ancient parchments, and so there should be some mechanical reason to do so.

The nu-wizard is also designed for campaigns without Tier 1-2 casters, so the ability to memorize one spell from the book helps explain why such a variety of spells exist that realistically, no one is going to put on their "Cast Spontaneously" list.

(I might also want to piece together a mechanic from the Red Wizards of Thay circle magic, Incantations and Epic Spells so that a large group of wizards can achieve effects beyond their highest spell-level. But that's separate from the nu-wizard class.)

[Amnoriath]

The nu-wizard does have a spellbook, he just doesn't need it with him for his Spells Known. Much like a veteran teacher can go without a textbook, or an Islamic scholar or many Christians can quote from memory, they are "beyond the book."

The nu-wizard also has spells in his spellbook that are not his spontaneous-casting list. Those are the spells that he has the option to memorize one of.

I mainly want the spellbook for flavor--the Wizard should be poring over dusty tomes and ancient parchments, and so there should be some mechanical reason to do so.

The nu-wizard is also designed for campaigns without Tier 1-2 casters, so the ability to memorize one spell from the book helps explain why such a variety of spells exist that realistically, no one is going to put on their "Cast Spontaneously" list.

(I might also want to piece together a mechanic from the Red Wizards of Thay circle magic, Incantations and Epic Spells so that a large group of wizards can achieve effects beyond their highest spell-level. But that's separate from the nu-wizard class.)

Well I would just make sure that you make it clear that he can't automatically treat those spells in the book as spells known for using magic items then you do have an original 3.x wizard.

[Seerow]

OK, so right now the draft looks like

"Tier 3 Wizard Fix" (Replaces Wizard, Sorcerer in campaigns with Tier 1-2 bans.)

The (Tier 3) wizard is an Int-based spontaneous caster--he does not have to prepare spells from his spellbooks. He has studied some spells so intensively and deeply that, as long as he has spell slots left, he can cast those spells.

Save DCs and bonus spells per day are based on the wizard's Intelligence.

Spell Progression:
Every three levels (1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th and 16th), the Wizard learns to cast spells of a new spell level, up to 6th level spells.

At each level, the Wizard gains one spell known and one spell per day for each level he can cast. He must have access to the new spells known in his spellbooks.

Spells Per Day, Spells Known Table


CL 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1 1 - - - - -
2 2 - - - - -
3 3 - - - - -
4 4 1 - - - -
5 5 2 - - - -
6 6 3 - - - -
7 7 4 1 - - -
8 8 5 2 - - -
9 9 6 3 - - -
10 10 7 4 1 - -
11 11 8 5 2 - -
12 12 9 6 3 - -
13 13 10 7 4 1 -
14 14 11 8 5 2 -
15 15 12 9 6 3 -
16 16 13 10 7 4 1
17 17 14 11 8 5 2
18 18 15 12 9 6 3
19 19 16 13 10 7 4
20 20 17 14 11 8 5


Class Features:
Arcane Assistance. As a standard action, add a d6 untyped bonus to an ally's roll.
The wizard can tap arcane energy to assist an ally in some task. For as long as the wizard concentrates, add a d6 bonus to an ally's attack roll, damage roll, saving throw, skill check, caster level checks, or any other check to which a bonus relating to level or skill ranks would normally apply. The ally must be within Close (25ft + 5ft/2 levels) range.

Memorized Spell. One spell per day.
The wizard can memorize one spell from his spell book per day, beyond the wizard's Spells Known. This spell counts against the wizard's spells per day, it must be of a level the wizard can cast, and it must be a spell that the wizard has access to in a spell book.

Okay let's step back from the general thread argument and actually look at this draft. Because while Browse has his issues with the concept of restricting a caster to 6th level spells to bring it down to tier3-4, this implementation is ridiculous even ignoring those objections.


What exactly was the point of boosting the spells per day to such absurd levels? And that many spells known for spontaneously casting? Your Wizard is seriously as versatile as any 4 sorcerers combined. And then gets an extra "prepared" slot that he can change out daily because why not.


Like seriously, I can't even imagine what made this seem like a good idea. You cut the Wizards spells dramatically to the point of unplayability at 1st level, but by mid levels you have more spells per day than almost any 20th level caster. They may be lower level spells, but you get enough of them, plus enough known that you're probably more versatile than any caster ever printed even with the lower spells per day.

If you want to nerf the Wizard, nerf the damn Wizard. Don't nerf him some and then provide massive buffs to compensate. There is nothing to compensate for. Give him a Bard spells per day progression. If you want to restrict spells known, then do that, but ALSO make him prepare spells from those spells known.

[johnbragg]

Okay let's step back from the general thread argument and actually look at this draft. Because while Browse has his issues with the concept of restricting a caster to 6th level spells to bring it down to tier3-4, this implementation is ridiculous even ignoring those objections.

Thanks. This is what WIP PEACH means, at least to me. I want people to tell me when I'm doing something stupid.


What exactly was the point of boosting the spells per day to such absurd levels? And that many spells known for spontaneously casting? Your Wizard is seriously as versatile as any 4 sorcerers combined.

Flavor-wise, I want the nu-Wizard to have plenty of low-level spells to throw around.

Power-wise, at the level he gets lots of them, 1st level spells are a questionable use of a standard action.

Balance-wise, I don't think anyone's seriously limited by running out of first-level spells at mid-level's anyway, so I see it as more impressive on paper than it is in an actual game. It gives you abilities that you could have for 1-2,000 gp in scrolls stashed in your Hewards' Haversack.


And then gets an extra "prepared" slot that he can change out daily because why not.

Mainly because I want to keep some connection between the wizard and his spellbook.


Like seriously, I can't even imagine what made this seem like a good idea. You cut the Wizards spells dramatically to the point of unplayability at 1st level,

Eh, I'm old enough to remember 1st level wizards in 2nd edition, so "one-spell one-time" doesn't scare me, especially with at-will cantrips and Arcane Assistance as a cantrip (or a 0-level SLA class feature, if there's any difference). Especially compared to "Give him Bard casting!" with NO first-level spells at 1st level.


but by mid levels you have more spells per day than almost any 20th level caster. They may be lower level spells, but you get enough of them, plus enough known that you're probably more versatile than any caster ever printed even with the lower spells per day.

You have more tricks, but less raw power.


If you want to nerf the Wizard, nerf the damn Wizard. Don't nerf him some and then provide massive buffs to compensate. There is nothing to compensate for. Give him a Bard spells per day progression.

With no 1st level spells at 1st level?


If you want to restrict spells known, then do that, but ALSO make him prepare spells from those spells known.

That's an idea I have to ponder. Prepare spells from the Spells Known list, with one "safety valve" spell from the rest of the spell book/portable magical library in the bag of holding.

[johnbragg]

Having thought upon Seerow's critique, I'm going to screw around with the spells per day/spells known table and see how it looks.

Spells Per Day, Spells Known Table

CL 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1 1 - - - - -
2 2 - - - - -
3 3 - - - - -
4 4 1 - - - -
5 5 2 - - - -
6 6 3 - - - -
7 6 4 1 - - -
8 6 5 2 - - -
9 6 6 3 - - -
10 6 6 4 1 - -
11 6 6 5 2 - -
12 6 6 6 3 - -
13 6 6 6 4 1 -
14 6 6 6 5 2 -
15 6 6 6 6 3 -
16 6 6 6 6 4 1
17 6 6 6 6 5 2
18 6 6 6 6 6 3
19 6 6 6 6 6 4
20 6 6 6 6 6 5

He seems a gloomy fellow, compared to the beguiler or the warmage or the dread necromancer.

[ngilop]

you could bump the first level spells up to 8 a day i think and not really hurt the game balance too much.

the think here that you have to reAlIZe is, the NuWizard is not regulated to a specific spell list he can 'learn' any spell. And it 'tier' 3 is your balance point then you have it solidly with being able to pick any spell up to 6th level , 4th level spells can't get you there but neither can 5th. but 6th you bet ya!

[Seerow]

Having thought upon Seerow's critique, I'm going to screw around with the spells per day/spells known table and see how it looks.

Spells Per Day, Spells Known Table

CL 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1 1 - - - - -
2 2 - - - - -
3 3 - - - - -
4 4 1 - - - -
5 5 2 - - - -
6 6 3 - - - -
7 6 4 1 - - -
8 6 5 2 - - -
9 6 6 3 - - -
10 6 6 4 1 - -
11 6 6 5 2 - -
12 6 6 6 3 - -
13 6 6 6 4 1 -
14 6 6 6 5 2 -
15 6 6 6 6 3 -
16 6 6 6 6 4 1
17 6 6 6 6 5 2
18 6 6 6 6 6 3
19 6 6 6 6 6 4
20 6 6 6 6 6 5

He seems a gloomy fellow, compared to the beguiler or the warmage or the dread necromancer.

I'd do a couple things:
1) You can go ahead and bump the spells per day for the first few levels up. I know I said "Bard Progression", but it won't hurt anything if you start the Wizard with 3 spells at first level a la the spontaneous full casters.

2) Having the spells per day and spells known table be the same is still kind of weird. Then again, I was considering doing something a bit weirder. Say the Wizard gains 1 spell known every level (like the Duskblade), that he can cast from spontaneously. These are his fallback spells that he knows like the back of his hand. Then give him 1+1/2 int mod floating spells known. These are his prepared slots. He chooses that many spells in the morning from his spell books, and can cast from these prepared spells spontaneously.

This is a bit more limiting than your current setup (the Wizard ends up with about half as many spells known vs the current draft and even fewer compared to the old draft), but expands the prepared spell mechanic, letting him feel more like a Wizard.

Alternatives:
-Wizard gains 1 spell known per spell level baseline, but can prepare as many as he would normally get from bonus intelligence. This gives more flexibility, but limits higher level slot flexibility.

-Wizard gets a much broader number of spells known. (Say 2 per level plus int bonus slots), but still has to prepare his spells rather than spontaneously casting. This limits the Wizard a lot more, but is probably going to be the best bet given the goal of powering down the Wizard to tier 3. He's still going to have way more diverse utility than anyone else, but he gets stuck with enough disadvantages (lower level spells, limited spells known, and prepared casting) that it should balance out that utilit.

[johnbragg]

Train of thought--my Nu-Wizard is sort of like a mystic theurge, except instead of arcane-divine, he's arcane-arcane. Relative to the base wizard/sorcerer or to the fixed-list casters, he's trading off high-level spells for lots of low level spells.

What if you simply mandate that Tier 1 arcane casters multiclass every other level, and allow wizard-sorcerer as a combination?

At 10th level, a Wizard is casting 4/4/3/3/2, or a Sorcerer 6/6/6/5/3.
My NuWizard at 10th level is casting 10/7/4/1. A Bard 10 is casting 3/3/2/0

A Sorcerer 5/Wizard 5 is casing 6/4 plus 3/2/1, for a total of 9/6/1.

Casting only one third-level spell at 10th level, I don't think the Sorcerer-Wizard reaches the Tier 3 criteria "capable of doing one thing quite well", although with 9 first level spells, 3 of them prepared, technically "capable of doing all things".

[Just to Browse]

attempted spell tableAt this point you're rewriting class features and completely changing he spells/day table, which is takes up a lot of text and space, going far beyond your "index card" approach. We're at the point where a revised spell list is both more efficient and better for balance. You could re-adjust the levels of all wizard spells and have it take less space than arcane assistance plus the new casting description plus the new casting table.


things

1. Nitpicking is all well and good, but you need to address the point. The linked internet debate and your post have yet to show that nondetection does not overshadow mundanes.

2. Again, instead of demonstrating my examples to be false you are ignoring them and pointing out how a separate example fails. Unless you demonstrate my examples are invalid or ineffective, the point flows and shatter overshadows mundanes by allowing casters to do things mundanes cannot reasonably do themselves.

3. False. Every time I have accused you of using the Oberoni fallacy, it is because you have stated that the DM can provide mundanes with water breathing and therefore access to water breathing doesn't overshadow them. That is the only time I have accused you of using Oberoni, and the reason it keeps coming up is because you keep making the same point. If you stop using the Oberoni fallacy, I will stop accusing you of using it.

And I'll agree if a human uses a specific sourcebook feat and takes a specific skill to high ranks or uses a custom item, then specs in an attribute (seriously 14-16 Charisma? And mundane anyways?) he could use a wand of water breathing if the player's were capable of finding a merchant willing to sell it, but that combo is so restrictive that even without the previous Oberoni requirement of the DM allowing players to get stuff from magic mart any time they ever need to consider adventuring underwater, it's still obviously an exception with huge opportunity cost.

4. No, I asked you to provide evidence for him "tailoring" the spells the spells that I wrote down. You provided a quote of him not referencing the spells I wrote down, and then told me I can't read. The onus is still on you to provide an example of him tailoring water breathing, gaseous form, etc. Either that or you can concede the point.

5. You may notice that I never describe the warmage or duskblade, just like I never mentioned the ranger or paladin. This is about a class with powerful sub-wizard spellcasting, namely the bard. Now if you cannot contend this point further, the argument stands.

Also, tiers are a broad categorization of power, not a singular competition. I suggest reading the original description (http://www.brilliantgameologists.com/boards/?topic=1002.0) of the tier system and its constituent classes so you get a better idea how it works.

6. He does in fact have a spellbook, as johnbragg has explicitly stated in response to you and in previous posts. This solidifies your factual contention based off of point 5, so now you need to actually demonstrate the ineffectiveness of bard casting or rely on points 1-4.

[Amnoriath]

Having thought upon Seerow's critique, I'm going to screw around with the spells per day/spells known table and see how it looks.

Spells Per Day, Spells Known Table

CL 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1 1 - - - - -
2 2 - - - - -
3 3 - - - - -
4 4 1 - - - -
5 5 2 - - - -
6 6 3 - - - -
7 6 4 1 - - -
8 6 5 2 - - -
9 6 6 3 - - -
10 6 6 4 1 - -
11 6 6 5 2 - -
12 6 6 6 3 - -
13 6 6 6 4 1 -
14 6 6 6 5 2 -
15 6 6 6 6 3 -
16 6 6 6 6 4 1
17 6 6 6 6 5 2
18 6 6 6 6 6 3
19 6 6 6 6 6 4
20 6 6 6 6 6 5

He seems a gloomy fellow, compared to the beguiler or the warmage or the dread necromancer.

Here is what I say.
1. You have a spell book but you don't actually know the spells they are just a bunch of notes and references you researched(using the normal rules), ergo you can't automatically use x magic item. However you can still use that prepared option you mentioned with and use it in crafting so long as it still takes one day to make said item.
2. You select spells known that you researched according to your level and you can spontaneously cast from that list but are still considered to be prepared spells for metamagic.
3. The easy route, take up Seerow's advice to bumb up his spells per day to compliment other full spontaneous casters making him more viable through out the day. The hard route, get rid of vancian casting all together and look at a psionic power point system.

[Amnoriath]

1. Nitpicking is all well and good, but you need to address the point. The linked internet debate and your post have yet to show that nondetection does not overshadow mundanes.

2. Again, instead of demonstrating my examples to be false you are ignoring them and pointing out how a separate example fails. Unless you demonstrate my examples are invalid or ineffective, the point flows and shatter overshadows mundanes by allowing casters to do things mundanes cannot reasonably do themselves.

3. False. Every time I have accused you of using the Oberoni fallacy, it is because you have stated that the DM can provide mundanes with water breathing and therefore access to water breathing doesn't overshadow them. That is the only time I have accused you of using Oberoni, and the reason it keeps coming up is because you keep making the same point. If you stop using the Oberoni fallacy, I will stop accusing you of using it.

And I'll agree if a human uses a specific sourcebook feat and takes a specific skill to high ranks or uses a custom item, then specs in an attribute (seriously 14-16 Charisma? And mundane anyways?) he could use a wand of water breathing if the player's were capable of finding a merchant willing to sell it, but that combo is so restrictive that even without the previous Oberoni requirement of the DM allowing players to get stuff from magic mart any time they ever need to consider adventuring underwater, it's still obviously an exception with huge opportunity cost.

4. No, I asked you to provide evidence for him "tailoring" the spells the spells that I wrote down. You provided a quote of him not referencing the spells I wrote down, and then told me I can't read. The onus is still on you to provide an example of him tailoring water breathing, gaseous form, etc. Either that or you can concede the point.

5. You may notice that I never describe the warmage or duskblade, just like I never mentioned the ranger or paladin. This is about a class with powerful sub-wizard spellcasting, namely the bard. Now if you cannot contend this point further, the argument stands.

Also, tiers are a broad categorization of power, not a singular competition. I suggest reading the original description (http://www.brilliantgameologists.com/boards/?topic=1002.0) of the tier system and its constituent classes so you get a better idea how it works.

6. He does in fact have a spellbook, as johnbragg has explicitly stated in response to you and in previous posts. This solidifies your factual contention based off of point 5, so now you need to actually demonstrate the ineffectiveness of bard casting or rely on points 1-4.

1. You don't get it do you. Nondetection doesn't actually do anything for stealth in the mundane realm. It does not block you from natural sight. It does not mute you from natural hearing. It does not deodorize you from natural smell. Finally, it does not cover your tracks either physically or mentally. So, it actually doesn't do anything mundane stealth actually does. It only counters certain magical detection measures. As such it is a niche spell against powerful spells but it by no means is something you can rely on for overall stealth capability.
2. Your example is a false dichotomy as it assumes that the one party does not have its resources to do what it does while the other does. Shatter is the quintessential needs everything to work spell. If he can't move his hands, wasted. If he can't speak, wasted. If he doesn't have his pouch, wasted. If you are going to make an argument how something overshadows mundanes assume both parties have what they need to do both. That is what I did before with my points.
3. You haven't proven it as the fallacy requires breaking the rules or homebrewed actions. The DM controls the story, provides the setting, the enemies, and loot. The way you are treating it makes each and everyone of those actions subject to it making all campaigns an Oberoni Fallacy ultimately making it meaningless if you want to actually play. No, Able Learner reduces the cost to normal which then it only requires 4 or 5 ranks as you can take 10 in non-stressful situations and actually I used a masterwork tool which is completely legit. Marshal, Knight, Zhentarim Fighter, CW Samurai, Dragon Shaman, Scout(lots of skills and intelligence doesn't boost anything other than normal), certain Barbarian builds and Courtier could easily have that.
4. Again not paying attention, "C. There will be some category nerfs of spells.
a. Any spell that duplicates a skill is limited to a +20 bonus for a second level spell. (Knock, Invisibility)
b. Spells that do innumerable different things are split into an innumerable list of spells--Summon Monster, Plane Shift, Polymorph." If you are so concerned why don't you actually help instead of harp?
5. Those 2 are very different from the Ranger and Paladin. Ranger and Paladin have big brothers in which they only can do niche things better. Theoretically what the Duskblade and Warmage do is infact better it is just that one isn't really that great of a strategy for spell casters and the other is a different way to deal lots of damage from melee. I know what the tiers are but without skills it can't perform things outside of its spells which are enchantments and illusions. Without bardic music it can't buff well at all or make its lack of effective spell levels viable over the long haul since we established what they are. As for the reduced Wizard you lose 5 to 6 caster levels in your career. The qualifying abilities of tier 1 and 2 is that they have game breaking abilities in combat and game in general at their respective levels. This naturally slows that curve down along with what Johnbragg is talking about. While a lot is at their disposal they don't keep up with the other ones. Would you consider a straight Chameleon build tier 1?
6. In which I gave him actual suggestions to help tame things while make his concept work.

[Just to Browse]

1. It blocks all forms of the common scrying spells, meaning enemies need to be physically present in order to detect you. That is huge, and totally irrespective of mundane stealth abilities. You can go on attack missions or plan your secret meetings without having to worry about unnoticeable sensors.

2. If you think that being able to use a spell component pouch and speak is even with a degree of magnitude in difficulty compared to full body motion, the ability to run, or the ability to blow up 200 lbs of stuff in six seconds without siege weapons, then you are playing in a very different game from D&D. Being silenced or without spell components is so unlikely in comparison to lack of mobility that it's staggering to even make the comparison.

Like in my example, a chain link in a drawbridge. Enjoy breaking that object in 6 seconds at range at level 2.

3. You are breaking the rules by making it such that every single water adventure is located next to a metropolis, magic mart, or merchant selling a custom wand not on the treasure tables. It's like saying fly doesn't overshadow mundanes because the DM could easily have nearby business hubs selling custom wands of fly anytime the players need to travel in 3 dimensions, or would just provide flight anytime the players needed to fight a flying opponent. I'm not even using reducto ad absurdum there, just replacing water with air and water breathing with fly.

Also, please read the use magic device skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm). You explicitly cannot take 10. Also, please look at my contentions with Able Learner--it is not only the potential build, but the unique race and specific sourcebook and strange use of skill ranks that make so horribly specific. Your small list of semi-viable classes (dragon shaman and scout?) and that webpage ACF are still stuck to limited race and feat selection, and a minimum of 2 non-core sources.

4. Right, now please find the skill that shatter, dimension door, water breathing, etc emulate. Either that or find a way to show those spells have "innumerable" different effects in a way that is distinguishable from 90% of the spell list but still meshes with the listed spells. Descriptions of those are: "Gain any kind of mobility or combat attribute you desire, emulate enormous numbers of spells for free, access to all majors components of the multiverse"

And please, stop trying to score points. Attacking me as a person or complaining that I'm doing something I'm not is very annoying.

5. I need you to keep track of the context here. The point of that statement wasn't that "X classes are better, so I don't talk about them", the point was "X classes are not the bard, and this conversation is about the bard". To the bard points; the weakness of inspire courage without excessive splatbooks (not covered by tiers) was already mentioned, and you have not established that bard spells aren't "viable over the long haul" at all. In fact, I have already demonstrated that they have consistent access to combat spells, good utility, and good buffs, which would make them very good in the long haul since buffs and utility scale.

And again, tiers are broad categories of power and not based on direct comparisons. Just because the class is losing 5 levels of spell access doesn't mean it deserves tier 3. If I made a class called "bad beguiler" which was just the beguiler but without armored casting, it would not be qualified as Tier 4 despite being weaker than the beguiler. In a similar sense, the bard with no class features does not drop below Tier 3 and the proposed "tier 3-4 arcane caster" does not drop to Tier 3.

6. Then you concede that has a spellbook. That is all there is to this point, so we can drop it.

[Amnoriath]

1. It blocks all forms of the common scrying spells, meaning enemies need to be physically present in order to detect you. That is huge, and totally irrespective of mundane stealth abilities. You can go on attack missions or plan your secret meetings without having to worry about unnoticeable sensors.

2. If you think that being able to use a spell component pouch and speak is even with a degree of magnitude in difficulty compared to full body motion, the ability to run, or the ability to blow up 200 lbs of stuff in six seconds without siege weapons, then you are playing in a very different game from D&D. Being silenced or without spell components is so unlikely in comparison to lack of mobility that it's staggering to even make the comparison.

Like in my example, a chain link in a drawbridge. Enjoy breaking that object in 6 seconds at range at level 2.

3. You are breaking the rules by making it such that every single water adventure is located next to a metropolis, magic mart, or merchant selling a custom wand not on the treasure tables. It's like saying fly doesn't overshadow mundanes because the DM could easily have nearby business hubs selling custom wands of fly anytime the players need to travel in 3 dimensions, or would just provide flight anytime the players needed to fight a flying opponent. I'm not even using reducto ad absurdum there, just replacing water with air and water breathing with fly.

Also, please read the use magic device skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm). You explicitly cannot take 10. Also, please look at my contentions with Able Learner--it is not only the potential build, but the unique race and specific sourcebook and strange use of skill ranks that make so horribly specific. Your small list of semi-viable classes (dragon shaman and scout?) and that webpage ACF are still stuck to limited race and feat selection, and a minimum of 2 non-core sources.

4. Right, now please find the skill that shatter, dimension door, water breathing, etc emulate. Either that or find a way to show those spells have "innumerable" different effects in a way that is distinguishable from 90% of the spell list but still meshes with the listed spells. Descriptions of those are: "Gain any kind of mobility or combat attribute you desire, emulate enormous numbers of spells for free, access to all majors components of the multiverse"

And please, stop trying to score points. Attacking me as a person or complaining that I'm doing something I'm not is very annoying.

5. I need you to keep track of the context here. The point of that statement wasn't that "X classes are better, so I don't talk about them", the point was "X classes are not the bard, and this conversation is about the bard". To the bard points; the weakness of inspire courage without excessive splatbooks (not covered by tiers) was already mentioned, and you have not established that bard spells aren't "viable over the long haul" at all. In fact, I have already demonstrated that they have consistent access to combat spells, good utility, and good buffs, which would make them very good in the long haul since buffs and utility scale.

And again, tiers are broad categories of power and not based on direct comparisons. Just because the class is losing 5 levels of spell access doesn't mean it deserves tier 3. If I made a class called "bad beguiler" which was just the beguiler but without armored casting, it would not be qualified as Tier 4 despite being weaker than the beguiler. In a similar sense, the bard with no class features does not drop below Tier 3 and the proposed "tier 3-4 arcane caster" does not drop to Tier 3.

6. Then you concede that has a spellbook. That is all there is to this point, so we can drop it.
1. Which is again the problem of scrying, locate object..etc. Overshadowing means one person can do x but another person can do x better or x just as well and y...etc. Nondetection tries to beat the thing that overshadows mundane senses.
2. It is actually level 3 normally in which it would only be 30 lbs which is quite inflated in the d&d world(look at the weapon weights, practically twice that in reality at least). You wouldn't target a link you would need to target the whole thing as the chain there is considered a full object just as you couldn't sunder a spiked chain link or spear head which would vastly exceed the pound limitations described. So you are still insisting on a false dichotomy fallacy? You do realize you are treating any of those three things happening as less likely than a mundane without a weapon right?
3. So, allowing people to buy weapons, armor..etc is an Oberoni Fallacy because you enable them to get what they want? I am sorry but all what I described doing before is nature of commerce which D&D doesn't restrict at all. That is just the DM creating a world which it encourages. This is exactly why that fallacy has those qualifying terms of breaking and changing rules because otherwise anything that increases the power of said individual outside of class abilities can be traced to the DM allowing it to some extent making the fallacy meaningless. You mean the human subtype is a rare race, okay, sure.:smallsigh: It is actually about 6 sourcebooks with another core class going for intimidation. There is always Magic Device Attunement which allows you to not have to roll again for one item for 24 hours once activated. We are still talking about utility.
4. I am not trying to score points just saying what you are doing, again make suggestions
5. The lack of spell levels make for lackluster DC's for many of the enchantment and illusions when facing equivalent opponents for their level or party. Inspire courage gives melee characters an increase in 12-14 damage per hit which is more than a lot of buffs plus the saves can be handy. Also since some charisma synergy and behind line buffing is gone the begging of being a better combatant increases the chance of MAD. Yeah sure there is the decent utility but no person wants to be relegated as the utility especially when others has more at their disposal. The bard does not have access to many of the bread and butter buffs. No greater magic weapon, mighty wallop, or fang..etc, bull's strength or bear's endurance..etc. This makes spontaneous metamagic less likely to be used. Some illusions may help them get out of certain pinches but at this point he is picking on lower level characters in his SoD's or wasting a lot of slots hoping for bad luck for them as well as them not being immune to mind-affecting abilities while just being a little annoying to kill but not that competent in damage over the day.
However lets consider a bad beguiler in the way I treated a bad bard. He still has more spell levels and spells known with intelligence as the main stat making him a better know it all and skill user.
6. I only suggested it to fit his concept. Except you haven't answered my question, is a straight Chameleon build tier 1?

[Just to Browse]

1. ... Yes, and just because it's a counter to a tactic that overshadows mundanes doesn't mean it doesn't overshadow mundanes itself. If enemies use any scrying, the only person who is safe is the one with nondetection, and thus nondetection is an example of overshadowing mundanes.

2. Since you have dropped the restriction argument, I'm assuming you have conceded and it flows.

In the real world the shatter spell does not exist, so I'm not even going to spend time on appeals to realism. Also, the links-are-not-objects is incorrect, because following that logic: Wheels are not objects unless unattached to anything and doors are not lone objects if anchored to a wall. I think you may want to read the false dichotomy fallacy, because to have a false dichotomy requires any sort of dichotomy in the first place.

And you still have yet to show me how to achieve my examples in 6 seconds for 30 lb objects at level 3 now, from 30 feet away. You have insisted this over and over, so I assume it's really easy to prove.

3. No, by allowing people to buy a custom wand of one particular spell right when the players happen to want to go into a water environment is Oberoni fallacy. Sure it might exist in a nonzero number of cases, but you must be awarding this case to players right when they need it in all cases that they need it or else the argument does not work. And that is why it's Oberoni.

It should be obvious that the word "rare" does not apply demographically, but from a list of all possible player races. I recommend looking up the list of playable LA +0 races to understand the magnitude of this statement--the human (effectively sans bonus feat, which you burn for Able Learner) is competing with all other optimization-capable races therein. And if you want to burn more feats or dig through more sourcebooks, that's more strikes against the trick. You are demonstrating a rarer and rarer exception to the rules, to the point where it is obviously NOT representative of "mundane" characters.

4. I have. I suggest reading my responses to johnbragg to determine this.

Do you concede that the suggested spells do not fit within johnbragg's two categories, and thus are not suited to the "tailoring" you mentioned?

5. That's a total of -3 over the course of 20 levels, which is noticeable at high levels but incredibly minor (like inspire courage, but even slower) before then and capable of being overcome later. Your anecdotal is a fallacy in or out of context, reducto ad absurdum regarding utility is a fallacy (you can have non-zero utility and not be "relegated as the utility"), and I suggest re-looking at the bard spell list--they get powerhouse buffs like invisibility, cat's grace, misdirection, tongues, gaseous form, haste, and blink. So he is remaining on the RNG with SoDs at small penalties, using strong buffs, and can pick up utility spells on the side if he really wants to make melee feel small in the pants.

And please track the context of the argument--you made the assertion that because one class is weaker than another, it deserves to be in a lower tier. the Bad Beguiler is the counterexample, and you must concede your position (and thus its support of the "T3 wizard" and "T4 bard") or argue it from another point.

6. With the spellbook conceded, we can switch this to the chameleon topic if you want. The answer is no, and I recommend reading the previous section of the thread (specifically mentioning the factotum, and comparing his raw spell selection to the chameleon's) so that you can understand why.

[johnbragg]

After a few days of the "Tier 4 Ubergestalt vs Tier One" thread on the 3.5 forum, I want to raise the question again--does giving a class gobs and gobs of low-level spells unbalance things?

It's a common refrain that, after low levels, no one is running out of low-level spells anyway. And it's a common refrain that most combats only last 3-4 rounds, which limits how many spells are relevant.

So does it really matter if the NuWizard gets one spell known and spell per day per spell level for each caster level? If, as a practical matter, only your best half-dozen or so spells matter, isn't letting the 15th level NuWizard cast 15 1st level spells and 12 2nd and 9 3rd trivial?

[Just to Browse]

In crazy CharOp like that, spells/day tends to be disregarded because combats last 1 round and you're either dead or the winner in the end, so everybody blows all their resources in round 1 so they can win the arms race.

Do not fall prey to that trap: You are writing a class for players who go adventuring and fight multiple combats each day, and the power differential between a guy that gets 1/day spells and a guy who gets 4/day spells is huge in those scenarios.

[Seerow]

I'm just going to point out in the thread in question, the T4 gestalt having ridiculous numbers of low level spells per day drawn from weak spell lists is what is making the argument go on as long as it has. Getting a bunch of low level spells and being able to react to any situation at the drop of a hat gives that T4G class a serious advantage over the Wizard, while still having the capability necessary to deal with any situation as the need arises. The only argument the T1 side really has is pulling out specific obscure spells or generally acknowledged broken things, and claiming the T4G can't match it. In any actual play scenario the T4G has shown itself more than capable of shining with virtually no prep time and usually without expending any meaningful level of resources.

If anything should be indicating to you that a bunch of low level spells can still be powerful, that thread should be it. I honestly don't know how you're reading it and getting the opposite idea.

[johnbragg]

Do not fall prey to that trap: You are writing a class for players who go adventuring and fight multiple combats each day, and the power differential between a guy that gets 1/day spells and a guy who gets 4/day spells is huge in those scenarios.

But the comparison isn't just 1/day vs 4/day. It's, say, 7/4/1 vs 6/6/4 at level 7 or 10/7/4/1 vs 6/6/6/5/3 at level 10 or 15/12/9/6/3 vs 6/6/6/6/6/6/4 at level 15. (NuWizard vs Sorcerer Spells Per DAy, used for Beguiler, Dread Necro, etc)

Actually, now that I'm doing the math, the Tier 3 fixed-list casters are throwing around just as many spells-per-day at most levels as my NuWizard. They just get higher-level spells, restricted to their specialties.

I'm sure there are splatbook feats and ACFs that let you trade in high-level spell slots for lots of low-level spells, but you rarely see anyone advise taking them. Because 3 Magic Missiles do not equal one Fireball, 3 Feather Falls do not equal one Fly spell, etc.



If anything should be indicating to you that a bunch of low level spells can still be powerful, that thread should be it. I honestly don't know how you're reading it and getting the opposite idea.

No one is spending much time on that thread focusing on the warlock's at-will invocations, or totaling up how many 1st- and 2nd-level spells the T4G or T3G gets from all his different spell lists--the argument is over whether the few gaps in the Gestalt's spell list compared to the Wizards' balance out the chassis and class features. (Some of which is due to the definition of Tier 1 system in terms of versatility.)

[Just to Browse]

But the comparison isn't just 1/day vs 4/day. It's, say, 7/4/1 vs 6/6/4 at level 7 or 10/7/4/1 vs 6/6/6/5/3 at level 10 or 15/12/9/6/3 vs 6/6/6/6/6/6/4 at level 15. (NuWizard vs Sorcerer Spells Per DAy, used for Beguiler, Dread Necro, etc)Yeeeeap, and with unrestricted access for dumpster diving that's just as broken.


Actually, now that I'm doing the math, the Tier 3 fixed-list casters are throwing around just as many spells-per-day at most levels as my NuWizard. They just get higher-level spells, restricted to their specialties.Highlighting for emphasis. Point remains.


I'm sure there are splatbook feats and ACFs that let you trade in high-level spell slots for lots of low-level spells, but you rarely see anyone advise taking them. Because 3 Magic Missiles do not equal one Fireball, 3 Feather Falls do not equal one Fly spell, etc.That's because those feats don't give unrestricted access when they grant more low-level spells. Casters who trade down in slots are losing horizontal power, but you are creating a caster who trades down in slots while simultaneously allowing them to retain their horizontal power. That is why your class is still T2, that is why the ubergestalt is T2. [Magic Missile]x3 < [Fireball]x1, but [Any 1st or 0th level spell]x3 >> [Fireball]x1.

[johnbragg]

[Magic Missile]x3 < [Fireball]x1, but [Any 1st or 0th level spell]x3 >> [Fireball]x1.

This is math which I shall have to ponder.

[johnbragg]

Yeeeeap, and with unrestricted access for dumpster diving that's just as broken.

The dumpster diving is limited in practice by spontaneous casting--the NuWizard has a large list of spontaneous spells compared to the Sorcerer, but it's comparable in size to the fixed-list casters, he just has no restrictions on which N spells he has at his fingertips.

I like the "memorize one spell from your huge library" idea--it keeps the NuWizard connected to his books, which I want for flavor and fluff. But I somehow just realized that it makes him a prepared caster for his highest level spell slot. Even if you monkey with spell-prep-time so that memorizing his sixth level spell takes half his day, he still has the other half.



Highlighting for emphasis. Point remains.

That's because those feats don't give unrestricted access when they grant more low-level spells. Casters who trade down in slots are losing horizontal power, but you are creating a caster who trades down in slots while simultaneously allowing them to retain their horizontal power. That is why your class is still T2, that is why the ubergestalt is T2. [Magic Missile]x3 < [Fireball]x1, but [Any 1st or 0th level spell]x3 >> [Fireball]x1.

Hmm. He's really trading down from his T2 ancestor the Sorcerer, not from his T3 siblings.

(The NuWizard is Tier 3--not as much raw power as the T1s or T2s, but "capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. But just because it meets the technical definition of Tier 3 doesn't mean it's comparable in power to the other Tier 3s.)

[Just to Browse]

He's not tier 3. He is an underwhelming tier 2 with a cavernous optimization floor. If you want to preserve casting from library, then rewrite the spell list.

[johnbragg]

He's not tier 3. He is an underwhelming tier 2 with a cavernous optimization floor. If you want to preserve casting from library, then rewrite the spell list.

By JaronK's definitions, he's a Tier 3. He has less raw power than a Tier 1-2. That doesn't mean that in play or in practice he's balanced with other Tier 3s, though, which is more important.

EDIT: But that's a pointless argument--neither of us is going to convince the other. You're not going to convince me that the NuWizard is a Tier 2--but you may convince me that he's unbalanced and doesn't do the job of making a wizard-replacement who can play nice with fighters and rogues and Tier 3s etc.

[Just to Browse]

By JaronK's definition, he fulfills Tier 2 because he has incredible flexibility (the most important selling point) and a high optimization ceiling (the second most important selling point). When your definition of T3 is "does one thing well, other things OK", then a class that can do everything well is obviously beyond that.

Again, my argument for this being a bad class lies in it its dumpster diving potential and depressingly low optimization floor. For most parties, an actual wizard is better because at least people making suboptimal decisions won't feel like they're playing the monk.

[johnbragg]

By JaronK's definition, he fulfills Tier 2 because he has incredible flexibility (the most important selling point) and a high optimization ceiling (the second most important selling point). When your definition of T3 is "does one thing well, other things OK", then a class that can do everything well is obviously beyond that.

I told myself I'm not going to argue about that. Even though the second definition of Tier 3 is "or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area." Which is where the NuWizard slots in, either spell slots or spell levels behind the fixed-list specialized casters.


Again, my argument for this being a bad class lies in it its dumpster diving potential and depressingly low optimization floor. For most parties, an actual wizard is better because at least people making suboptimal decisions won't feel like they're playing the monk.

I think the optimization floor is realistically a little below the fixed-list casters--the low-op player will consciously or unconsciously pick a role and specialize in it, creating at worst a poor man's warmage without the class features. But if the player plays him for a few levels, he'll start picking up more flexible low-level spells.

EDIT: I suppose one of my blindspots is campaigns that start at mid- to high-levels with new-ish players. A new player building a 10th level caster could create a thoroughly useless character, but that doesn't keep the Sorcerer out of Tier 2, or lead to rules against even-split multiclassing ("10th level? Ok, how about a Cleric 5-Wizard 5?")

(The poorly built NuWizard feels more like the poorly built Bard--"My spells don't fit this challenge/I used up my spells, I guess I'll use Arcane Assistance to help the PC who CAN do something useful while the Bard Inspires Competence.")

As for the dumpster-diving potential, that's a problem. I can write a nerf/ban list for the biggest Core offenders, but if the world has book-wizards, then they're going to sit around writing new spells for fame and renown. Which means that the fluff supports splatbooks. Which means I'm back to Oberoni, with the DM carefully considering each new spell and it's impact.

[Just to Browse]

I told myself I'm not going to argue about that. Even though the second definition of Tier 3 is "or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area." Which is where the NuWizard slots in, either spell slots or spell levels behind the fixed-list specialized casters.Except he can dumpster dive for better buffs than a bard, better SoDs than a beguiler, better stronger minions than a dread necro, and better BFC than a warmage... He is totally absolutely 100% better at those things because you give him free reign over all sourcebooks.


I think the optimization floor is realistically a little below the fixed-list casters--the low-op player will consciously or unconsciously pick a role and specialize in it, creating at worst a poor man's warmage without the class features. But if the player plays him for a few levels, he'll start picking up more flexible low-level spells.The problem is not that sometimes players will perform badly. The point is that there are builds that always suck and can never be chosen if the wizard wants to be competent. You can't go into summoning, you can't play a counter-caster, and god help if you if you foolishly decide to pick up blasting without an orb spell.

EDIT: I suppose one of my blindspots is campaigns that start at mid- to high-levels with new-ish players. A new player building a 10th level caster could create a thoroughly useless character, but that doesn't keep the Sorcerer out of Tier 2, or lead to rules against even-split multiclassing ("10th level? Ok, how about a Cleric 5-Wizard 5?")[/quote]You're absolutely right. It's pretty hard to lead players down the path of optimal choices, but the least you could do is not totally screw half the cool ideas that mages are based upon.


As for the dumpster-diving potential, that's a problem. I can write a nerf/ban list for the biggest Core offenders, but if the world has book-wizards, then they're going to sit around writing new spells for fame and renown. Which means that the fluff supports splatbooks. Which means I'm back to Oberoni, with the DM carefully considering each new spell and it's impact.Yes, you are indeed back to Oberoni. And if that's your endgame solution, then I recommend just keeping the wizard as-is, and considering the placements of spells.

The wizard would be a whole lot less broken if you just re-leveled everything. The more I hang around in this thread, the more I want to do that very thing.

[johnbragg]

Except he can dumpster dive for better buffs than a bard, better SoDs than a beguiler, better stronger minions than a dread necro, and better BFC than a warmage... He is totally absolutely 100% better at those things because you give him free reign over all sourcebooks.


The problem is not that sometimes players will perform badly. The point is that there are builds that always suck and can never be chosen if the wizard wants to be competent. You can't go into summoning, you can't play a counter-caster, and god help if you if you foolishly decide to pick up blasting without an orb spell.

These two paragraphs sound like they're in contrast to each other.

The NuWizard is always spell slots or spell levels behind the specialist fixed-list casters. A bookdiver will find ways around that, but I think a bookdiving player will find feats and ACFs etc that will do the same with the specialist caster.


If the player wants a focused wizard, why not just use one of the specialist casters? I guess there isn't a widely known countercaster specialist caster. But I think that fits more with a homebrewed warlock invocation than a 3X wizard.

Yes, you are indeed back to Oberoni. And if that's your endgame solution, then I recommend just keeping the wizard as-is, and considering the placements of spells.

I think the NuWizard is still a meaningful improvement, balancewise, over the Wizard. The Tier 3 Wizard is meant as part of a package with my Tier 3-4 Cleric replacements (Theophilite Warrior, Theophilite Adept), Wildshaping Rangers, and a still-in-progress spellcasting-only Druid.


The wizard would be a whole lot less broken if you just re-leveled everything. The more I hang around in this thread, the more I want to do that very thing.

More labor intensive than I'm willing to go in for.

[Amnoriath]

1. ... Yes, and just because it's a counter to a tactic that overshadows mundanes doesn't mean it doesn't overshadow mundanes itself. If enemies use any scrying, the only person who is safe is the one with nondetection, and thus nondetection is an example of overshadowing mundanes.

2. Since you have dropped the restriction argument, I'm assuming you have conceded and it flows.

In the real world the shatter spell does not exist, so I'm not even going to spend time on appeals to realism. Also, the links-are-not-objects is incorrect, because following that logic: Wheels are not objects unless unattached to anything and doors are not lone objects if anchored to a wall. I think you may want to read the false dichotomy fallacy, because to have a false dichotomy requires any sort of dichotomy in the first place.

And you still have yet to show me how to achieve my examples in 6 seconds for 30 lb objects at level 3 now, from 30 feet away. You have insisted this over and over, so I assume it's really easy to prove.

3. No, by allowing people to buy a custom wand of one particular spell right when the players happen to want to go into a water environment is Oberoni fallacy. Sure it might exist in a nonzero number of cases, but you must be awarding this case to players right when they need it in all cases that they need it or else the argument does not work. And that is why it's Oberoni.

It should be obvious that the word "rare" does not apply demographically, but from a list of all possible player races. I recommend looking up the list of playable LA +0 races to understand the magnitude of this statement--the human (effectively sans bonus feat, which you burn for Able Learner) is competing with all other optimization-capable races therein. And if you want to burn more feats or dig through more sourcebooks, that's more strikes against the trick. You are demonstrating a rarer and rarer exception to the rules, to the point where it is obviously NOT representative of "mundane" characters.

4. I have. I suggest reading my responses to johnbragg to determine this.

Do you concede that the suggested spells do not fit within johnbragg's two categories, and thus are not suited to the "tailoring" you mentioned?

5. That's a total of -3 over the course of 20 levels, which is noticeable at high levels but incredibly minor (like inspire courage, but even slower) before then and capable of being overcome later. Your anecdotal is a fallacy in or out of context, reducto ad absurdum regarding utility is a fallacy (you can have non-zero utility and not be "relegated as the utility"), and I suggest re-looking at the bard spell list--they get powerhouse buffs like invisibility, cat's grace, misdirection, tongues, gaseous form, haste, and blink. So he is remaining on the RNG with SoDs at small penalties, using strong buffs, and can pick up utility spells on the side if he really wants to make melee feel small in the pants.

And please track the context of the argument--you made the assertion that because one class is weaker than another, it deserves to be in a lower tier. the Bad Beguiler is the counterexample, and you must concede your position (and thus its support of the "T3 wizard" and "T4 bard") or argue it from another point.

6. With the spellbook conceded, we can switch this to the chameleon topic if you want. The answer is no, and I recommend reading the previous section of the thread (specifically mentioning the factotum, and comparing his raw spell selection to the chameleon's) so that you can understand why.
1. So does spell resistance overshadow mundanes because it protects against many spells including scrying, more so than nondetection?
2. I haven't actually. I could point out a shifter unarmed swordsage with beast strike and mountain hammer strike but you would complain about specificity. So I instead decided to point it out for what it was as it being a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy assumes the optimal of one side and the least optimal of the other. You assume no mundane would have their weapon but the spell caster would still have their pouch, be able to move their hands willing, be able to speak clearly, fail the save, and not be threatened...etc especially at level 3 when concentration checks could actually fail yet. You assume that mundanes would not have the one thing that is least likely to be taken away from them in a battle situation but in no similar circumstance the little rube wizard wouldn't be filched from or hindered in anyway possible. Also while you need to target the full cart because breaking the wheel would inflict the broken condition on the cart. The door though is a seperate object as it is a free moving piece that does not break the building if the door is busted.
3. So then you must agree that allowing the mundanes a magical weapon they need is Oberoni as well in which then you fell into exactly what I was saying before. You need to actually break or change the rules otherwise the whole game is an Oberoni fallacy.
4. Yet again he mentioned it and you are making this out to be as if he is doing nothing, so no.
5. a. Invisibility, gaseous form, and misdirection are not buffs as they don't actually increase combat prowess. Invisibility is negated after an attack and considering the fact that the bard doesn't have any abilities that trigger against flat-footed opponents, it is a flee tool. You can't make any forms of attacks or even cast spells while in a gaseous form so you actually decreased your prowess there. Misdirection while handy keeping certain tactics secret only changes the auras you exude as if they were the object's which a will save is allowed.
b. Cat's grace doesn't even make up the increased damage dealt from Bull's strength while its AC boost can be taken away with mundane means and its initiative boost is half of a cheap weapon enchantment in which you don't even need to wield to gain the benefit of.
c. Haste, the one spell here that actually can be of offensive use here except like other spell casters standard actions are far more precious than full attacks especially when the attack in question is likely not nearly on par with other mundanes. Also it is one of the most replicated spells in items. There is actually a haste armor enchantment that has a flat cost that is activated as a swift action.
d. Blink, not a bad choice but in truth ghost touch and like abilities are easy to come by so 20 percent is going to be your standard miss chance and it is just dangerous to use it to walk through things.
e. That is fairly significant because the tiers assume a low to high level single class over a campaign in determining their performance. This becomes worse because they are forced to take higher physical scores because they really aren't behind the lines character any more shaving it at least another 3 away over its career. If the bad bard can not inflict save DC's that scale well it simply isn't always that effective. So it has lost three key avenues of strategies and the spells you gave amount to what before. The bad beguiler though is still a decent behind the lines character with the perks I mentioned.
6. The chameleon gets to select from every arcane and divine list with no set spells known in which it can get both at the same time at an ECL 12. This trounces the bard wizard in every way at an ECL 11.