PDA

View Full Version : Wizard Balancing Ideas [D&D 3.5]



Ziegander
2014-01-03, 10:58 PM
First thought: What if we got rid of material/somatic components (including expensive ones) and replaced them with very expensive focus implements? Fighters have to spend 72,000gp just for a +6 weapon, which is basically a requirement (+1 with +5 worth of special abilities), and near as much or sometimes more for their armor and/or shield. Between 1/4 to, at best, 1/6 of a warrior's wealth by level is spent on just weapon and armor. Not to mention other necessities like MAD enhancement bonuses, miscellaneous bonuses to AC, etc. Wizards don't need to spend any of their WBL to cast worldbreaking spells. Seems wrong, doesn't it, that the lower tier classes must spend more of their WBL to be relevant than the higher tier ones? Well, why not force the Wizard to buy a +X implement to keep up? To cast a 9th level spell the Wizard would need a +10 implement and it costs 200,000gp, just like a Fighter's +10 sword would.

Second thought: What if Wizards didn't learn new spells at each class level? They start first level with the knowledge of Int modifier cantrips and a single 1st level spells. And that's all they ever learn automatically. They can only learn new spells from existing arcane magical writings (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#arcaneMagicalWritings), OR through costly independent research.

How far would a Wizard drop in the tier lists with the above two restrictions imposed on it? I realize that the potential for learning all the spells is still there, and the spell list does still include Tier 1 versatility and power. BUT, this seems to be a very neutered Wizard with real limits (barring infinite wealth and unlimited time shenanigans) on how versatile it can become. With these limits, I might actually make some changes to the Wizard chassis, raising it to d6 HD, medium BAB, and possibly even giving it some minor class features. But what do you think? How much of an impact to these tweaks really have?

johnbragg
2014-01-03, 11:10 PM
Requiring Tier 1-2 casters to spend say half their WBL on a focus item wouldn't close the gap, but it would certainly help.

Taking away the Wizard's free-spells-when-leveling wouldn't have much impact. ARcane magical writings are pretty easy to come by in most campaigns.

ngilop
2014-01-03, 11:10 PM
Wizards would still be 'Tier' 1 curtailing the access to spells doesn't really do much in the long run becuase unlike in 3rd ed, there is no 'nope you can never learn this spell'

The only way to balance wizards is to balance spells or so severly restrict access to spells that the spells the do have access to are not capable of 'breaking' the game (like the warmage and beguiler)

really I think a big step would be nerfing teh spells that do X class job but bbert should be reduced in power and spread out in levels

for example Invisiblity is now a 3rd level spell, there is a first levle spell that adds +X to hide checks, the 2nd level version make ou invibisle for X rounds then regula rold invisiblity is the 3rd level version

this really donest do anyting to check a wizard's world destroying and relaity bending power. and you giving it increased hit die better BaB ( which just screws over the fighter and other combat classes even more) as well as class abilities kinda is just adding salt to the wounds.

Zman
2014-01-03, 11:43 PM
I like Upon Gaining 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells you choose a school of spells to be Banned for that level and above. Basically Wizards are forced to pick and choose which schools they'll have access to, and Specialists are very limited.

For buying new spells, increase their cost to 50 x Spell Level^2 ie learning a 6th level spell would cost 1800gp vs 300gp. 9th level spells would cost 4050gp vs 450gp. This works well if you drop the automatically learned spells to 1 or eliminate them. Much of the Wizards WBL would be spent on learning spells, and be careful about easy ways of learning spells and freebies.

I also use casting a spell or using an SLA deals Non lethal Damage to the Caster equal to the Spell Level. At the least, Casters will want a bit more Con.

Couple those changes with some hot fixes to these spell offenders and IMO you've put a dent in them. It's what I did with my Class fixes and Minor Magic fix. I also took 9th level spells away from casters and slowed their spell accumulation. Not getting 8th level spells until 20th level, 7th at 17th, 6th at 14th, 5th at 11th and 4th at 8th.

Limiting their ability to acquire spells won't drop them a tier, but in play it can slow them down. Requiring them to drop WBL level to cast effectively hardly slows them down.

Grod_The_Giant
2014-01-04, 12:20 AM
I like the first one. I'm not sure how big the balance effect is, but it does seem fair. As a potential alternative, what if spell save DCs were based on focus power-- 10 + focus enhancement + ability modifier? So you could use a weaker focus, just like you can use a weaker weapon, but you'd be less effective.

The second one... meh. Seems like one of those things that has more impact on low-op than high-op. And I do dislike saying "great! You guys leveled up, you all get new abilities-- oh, but not you, Wally McWizard, you've got to wait until you can get back to town and scribe some new spells."

Seerow
2014-01-04, 12:55 AM
I like Upon Gaining 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells you choose a school of spells to be Banned for that level and above. Basically Wizards are forced to pick and choose which schools they'll have access to, and Specialists are very limited.


I like this idea. It'd be much nicer if the schools of magic were better balanced against each other, but even without that I like how it provides a steady narrowing of focus, letting the Wizard still have that capability to cast most kinds of magic, but only getting access to the most powerful forms of some.

I'd even go a step further, making it so you ban 7 schools total over your career, so by the time you get to 9ths, you have only one school you have access to.


I like the first one. I'm not sure how big the balance effect is, but it does seem fair. As a potential alternative, what if spell save DCs were based on focus power-- 10 + focus enhancement + ability modifier? So you could use a weaker focus, just like you can use a weaker weapon, but you'd be less effective.


I also agree with this, combined with limiting the focus to a +5 (like a weapon is).

Possibly also require a second, cheaper, focus that's required for any spell that has a duration longer than instantaneous (basically a focus that is more akin to armor for a fighter).

bobthe6th
2014-01-04, 01:11 AM
Both of these move control over wizard power back to the DM. This wouldn't do anything for an inexpirienced DM except possibly frustrate the wizard with some unlucky drops. If the DM knows what they are doing, and is willing to work with the wizard a little(like letting shops carry a few spells he really wants) while at the same time effectively spot banning some spells, it could have an effect. Though this starts to become DM fiat.

I'm not sure I understand the first idea. Would 1 +10 focus allow the use of all spells, while a +1-8 focus allows spells up to that number and bellow? Or each spell requires a very expensive magic focus?

Personally, the idea I like best is wizards get invocations and a book of rituals for some specific spells.

Vortalism
2014-01-04, 02:13 AM
How would we explain the focus from fluff perspective? Make it like Harry Potter with all those wands and things? And buying a better and more well-crafted piece of birch-tree would allow you to cast 6th level spells?

Seems pretty cool actually, but in that case I would also posit similar situations to the other (full) spell-casting classes. It also gives spellcasters the same equipment vulnerabilities that martial classes posses. If X Caster's staff/wand is broken they're about as useful as Fighter with a dull blade.

Morty
2014-01-04, 12:41 PM
Personally, I like enforcing stricter specialization to curb wizards, but making them use implements sounds like it might work as well. No reason not to combine them either, really. They both scale with level, as it were, so you'd be avoiding the most common pitfall of wizard fixes - namely, that they tend to screw over low-level wizards in their effort to restrain the high-level ones.

Seerow
2014-01-04, 12:51 PM
Personally, I like enforcing stricter specialization to curb wizards, but making them use implements sounds like it might work as well. No reason not to combine them either, really. They both scale with level, as it were, so you'd be avoiding the most common pitfall of wizard fixes - namely, that they tend to screw over low-level wizards in their effort to restrain the high-level ones.


I mentioned in the last post limiting the implements to +5... that would make the highest implement cheaper than the highest weapon unless you started adding properties, which could just ultimately prove more unbalancing.

So as you say.. combine them. Add it with the restriction on schools, and make each school require a different implement (after all, a Fighter doesn't generally use the same weapon for a defensive fighting style as a control fighting style. Why should the Wizard use the same implement for Abjuration as Conjuration?).

So a top level Wizard can cast 1 school at 9th, 2 at 8th, 3 at 7th, 4 at 6th, 5 at 5th, 6 at 4th, 7 at 3rd, and all at 2nd and 1st. To be able to actually use all of these, he needs 8 different implements. 1 +5 implement, 2 +4 implements, 2 +3 implements, , 2 +2 implements, and 1 +1 implement. Priced as weapons, that comes out to about 170,000 gp.

Ziegander
2014-01-04, 02:30 PM
I like the first one. I'm not sure how big the balance effect is, but it does seem fair. As a potential alternative, what if spell save DCs were based on focus power-- 10 + focus enhancement + ability modifier? So you could use a weaker focus, just like you can use a weaker weapon, but you'd be less effective.

I like this, but as I was thinking on it, it really hits the Wizard hard as he/she is leveling up. Requiring for example, 8000gp to be spent to cast 3rd level spells by 5th level is roughly 89% of their WBL. And if they have to buy scrolls or find them just to learn new spells, they have no money leftover for anything.

Anyway, for more clarification, I was thinking that a basic, non-enhanced implement allows a Wizard to cast cantrips and 1st level spells. Maybe a MW one allows at-will cantrips. Whatev. For every level of spells beyond 1st their implement must have a +1 higher enhancement (or equivalent properties), so to cast 9th level spells a Wizard would need to shell out 128,000gp to have a +8 implement. They wouldn't need a +10 implement, because that way lies madness requiring a 2000gp investment just to cast cantrips and an 8000gp investment to cast 1st level spells.

Now, the idea regarding save DCs isn't a bad one at all, making the DC 10 + implement enhancement + ability modifier, but it needs some refining, and cannot be the only restraint applied.


The second one... meh. Seems like one of those things that has more impact on low-op than high-op. And I do dislike saying "great! You guys leveled up, you all get new abilities-- oh, but not you, Wally McWizard, you've got to wait until you can get back to town and scribe some new spells."

Good point (see more below).


I like this idea. It'd be much nicer if the schools of magic were better balanced against each other, but even without that I like how it provides a steady narrowing of focus, letting the Wizard still have that capability to cast most kinds of magic, but only getting access to the most powerful forms of some.

I'd even go a step further, making it so you ban 7 schools total over your career, so by the time you get to 9ths, you have only one school you have access to.

This doesn't seem so bad either.


I also agree with this, combined with limiting the focus to a +5 (like a weapon is).

Possibly also require a second, cheaper, focus that's required for any spell that has a duration longer than instantaneous (basically a focus that is more akin to armor for a fighter).

I only wonder how limiting spell level or calculating save DCs based on enhancement bonus would continue to work with a max +5 enhancement bonus. I do like the idea that different foci/implements serve different functions.


Both of these move control over wizard power back to the DM. This wouldn't do anything for an inexpirienced DM except possibly frustrate the wizard with some unlucky drops. If the DM knows what they are doing, and is willing to work with the wizard a little(like letting shops carry a few spells he really wants) while at the same time effectively spot banning some spells, it could have an effect. Though this starts to become DM fiat.

Absolutely it does, which is why my immediate thought was that they will need other class features to ensure that, even with a jerky DM, they don't just suck.


I'm not sure I understand the first idea. Would 1 +10 focus allow the use of all spells, while a +1-8 focus allows spells up to that number and bellow? Or each spell requires a very expensive magic focus?

My initial idea was the former. Definitely not the latter.

So, what do we have here? A lot of ideas, but nothing necessarily cohesive yet. Yes, I get it, the best way to balance the Wizard is to drastically limit what his spell list can do and then rewrite the spells that are left. I know that. But that is too ****ing hard. So, that's why I'm throwing out what I believe are some new options that, I think, seem to go a long way to curtail the phenomenal cosmic power that is the Wizard. Certainly, in the spirit of these ideas, other, perhaps similar restrictions, would apply to other spellcasters as well.

I still like the implement idea. There could be many of them with inherent and enchanted properties as varied in their uses as weapons. The most obvious is a different implement for each school, but to get more specific we could have implements for touch attacks, implements for subschools, implements for descriptors, implements for casting times, implements for different types of area effects, implements for durations, etc... I don't think it's reasonable to force a Wizard to change his/her implement for every single spell he/she slings, so requiring the associated implement might be going too far, but perhaps a caster level penalty wouldn't go amiss? How to handle the restriction of higher level spells based on the enhancement bonus of an implement, then?

I also still like forcing the Wizard to learn spells through reading or inventing them, if only for thematic reasons. They are bookworms after all. As it does place a lot of their power in the hands of the DM; however, some clear guidelines should be given to show the DM how this might be done fairly. Furthermore, I would argue that the Wizard should gain some additional class features beyond his metamagic feats to give it some advancement independent of DM fiat. He/she starts play with a single 1st level spell; perhaps some class features to make that spell better (aside from metamagic)?

I don't mind the restriction on schools as the Wizard becomes capable of casting higher level spells. However, I am concerned that it seems as artificial restriction from a flavor standpoint. If the Wizard is supposed to be researching his spells, what suddenly makes it impossible for him to continue research on certain types of spells he could research a couple levels ago?

Grod_The_Giant
2014-01-04, 02:42 PM
I like this, but as I was thinking on it, it really hits the Wizard hard as he/she is leveling up. Requiring for example, 8000gp to be spent to cast 3rd level spells by 5th level is roughly 89% of their WBL. And if they have to buy scrolls or find them just to learn new spells, they have no money leftover for anything.
Wasn't that what you were proposing? My suggestion is to leave "how high level a spell can you cast" alone, and make the DC based on the quality of your staff or whatnot.

Ziegander
2014-01-04, 02:45 PM
Wasn't that what you were proposing? My suggestion is to leave "how high level a spell can you cast" alone, and make the DC based on the quality of your staff or whatnot.

Oh no, that is what I was suggesting. I understand, and like your suggestion, I just thought it was in addition to my suggestion. Which, when I started to think about it more, seemed off in the ways I mentioned.

EDIT: And I'd prefer to also limit spell level alongside save DCs because many of the most powerful spells do not offer a save and/or produce a special effect that is not, at least directly, offensive in nature.

Morty
2014-01-04, 03:47 PM
I don't mind the restriction on schools as the Wizard becomes capable of casting higher level spells. However, I am concerned that it seems as artificial restriction from a flavor standpoint. If the Wizard is supposed to be researching his spells, what suddenly makes it impossible for him to continue research on certain types of spells he could research a couple levels ago?

I don't think it's arbitrary. Spells get more and more complicated and esoteric as they get more powerful. Therefore, to learn them properly, a wizard needs to focus on a particular school.

And I certainly agree that it's bad if implements hit low-level wizards for most of their WBL. Like I said, I feel that the problem with many wizard fixes is that what's a hindrance to a high-level game-breaking wizard hits the poor low-level guy like a brick.

Grod_The_Giant
2014-01-04, 04:03 PM
Maybe the increasing number of banned schools only applies to higher-level spells? So your 1st-3rd level spells can come from 6 different schools, your 4th-6th can come from 4 different schools, your 7th-8th from 2 different schools, and your 9th only from your specialist school?

EDIT: I don't think you need to require a ton of different focuses-- mundanes only really need one weapon, and both classes need to spend resources on defensive stuff. If you want to keep focus price scaling on par with weapons, come up with special abilities, so I can buy a +3 Defending Evoking Merciful staff.

Seerow
2014-01-04, 04:13 PM
Normal implement (cost ~10-30gp): 0th-1st level spells
Masterwork implement (cost +300gp): 2nd-3rd level spells
+1 to +5 implement (cost as magic weapon): 4th-8th level spells
+5 Specialty Implement (cost as +8 weapon): 9th level spells


Overall costs, assuming it runs with the proposed progressive specialization:
1 Specialty (9th)-128,000gp
1 +5 (8th)-50,000gp
1 +4 (7th)-32,000gp
1 +3 (6th)-18,000gp
1 +2 (5th)-8,000gp
1 +1 (4th)-2,000gp
2 Masterwork (1st-3rd)-600gp

So to cast everything they have access to by level 17 costs ~240k. At low level, it's trivial to get a normal implement, and even getting masterworks by level 2-3 is trivial. As you get higher level, maintaining 2-8 level appropriate implements gets hard,so wizards will likely start specializing even before forced to by level, but by the end it's pretty trivial to have a half dozen +1-5 implements around.

Ziegander
2014-01-04, 04:19 PM
I don't think it's arbitrary. Spells get more and more complicated and esoteric as they get more powerful. Therefore, to learn them properly, a wizard needs to focus on a particular school.

My problem with that is that it is already more complicated, costly, and difficult for the Wizard to scribe higher level spells into their spellbook as they level (higher skill checks, more gp cost, more time consuming). They just learned Rope Trick last level without problem, but now they can't learn any new Transmutation spells because they had to give up Transmutation to learn the spells they actually wanted? Seems pretty odd to me.


And I certainly agree that it's bad if implements hit low-level wizards for most of their WBL. Like I said, I feel that the problem with many wizard fixes is that what's a hindrance to a high-level game-breaking wizard hits the poor low-level guy like a brick.

Indeed.


Maybe the increasing number of banned schools only applies to higher-level spells? So your 1st-3rd level spells can come from 6 different schools, your 4th-6th can come from 4 different schools, your 7th-8th from 2 different schools, and your 9th only from your specialist school?

That was certainly the way I had initially imagined it to work.


EDIT: I don't think you need to require a ton of different focuses-- mundanes only really need one weapon, and both classes need to spend resources on defensive stuff. If you want to keep focus price scaling on par with weapons, come up with special abilities, so I can buy a +3 Defending Evoking Merciful staff.

That is also more along the lines of how I imagined it to work; however, keep in mind that mundanes generally need at least two weapons, at minimum, one for melee and one for ranged. I would like to enforce that sort of penalty upon casters.

Amechra
2014-01-04, 04:37 PM
Ooh, ooh, and you could convert metamagic to special abilities for Focuses!

So my +1 Fire Admixture staff would be a +5 equivalent focus.

That way, Persist would be an epic Focus Ability...

Might need to overhaul some of the feats. Still, my +1 Still Silent staff would be real nice... as long as I'm holding it.

Maybe set it up so that you need a focus with a magic rating of at least spell level - 4 to cast a spell?

So it would go:
Levels 0 - 2: No focus needed.
Levels 3 - 4: Masterwork focus.
Level 5: +1 Focus
Level 6: +2 Focus
Level 7: +3 Focus
Level 8: +4 Focus
Level 9: +5 Focus

Also, for banning schools... just have them ban the schools from X level up. So, when they hit 7th level spells and ban Transmutation, they can still learn and cast spells from 6th level and lower for Transmutation.

An alternate idea is to give them Duskblade spellcasting, but let them cast higher level spells from their Specialist school from lower level slots. So, for example, a 5th-level Evoker would be able to cast 3rd level Evocation spells and 2nd level spells from other schools. That same evoker at 13th level could cast 7th level Evocations and 4th level spells from other schools.

Morty
2014-01-04, 04:39 PM
My problem with that is that it is already more complicated, costly, and difficult for the Wizard to scribe higher level spells into their spellbook as they level (higher skill checks, more gp cost, more time consuming). They just learned Rope Trick last level without problem, but now they can't learn any new Transmutation spells because they had to give up Transmutation to learn the spells they actually wanted? Seems pretty odd to me.


It seems I misunderstood the intention and thought it was going to work the way Grod describes it here:


Maybe the increasing number of banned schools only applies to higher-level spells? So your 1st-3rd level spells can come from 6 different schools, your 4th-6th can come from 4 different schools, your 7th-8th from 2 different schools, and your 9th only from your specialist school?

Grod_The_Giant
2014-01-04, 04:40 PM
That is also more along the lines of how I imagined it to work; however, keep in mind that mundanes generally need at least two weapons, at minimum, one for melee and one for ranged. I would like to enforce that sort of penalty upon casters.
Ehh... I've never seen a character who spends anywhere near as much money on his secondary weapon as on his primary. There are too many other resources you need to invest to be good at both styles.

johnbragg
2014-01-04, 06:51 PM
Ehhh, I think the beauty of this idea is the simplicity.

To cast spells at their normal spell level, the wizard(/sorcerer?) must have an arcane focus. The arcane focus costs half the WBL of a wizard of the lowest level who can cast that spell.

If the wizard is deprived of the arcane focus, he can still cast, but every spell counts as one spell level higher.

Now you've taken away half the wizard's WBL, money he can't spend on scrolls or wands or bracers of defense or hats or robes etc etc etc.

Seerow
2014-01-04, 09:45 PM
You guys have said a Fighter only needs one weapon to do his job, why make the Wizard get multiple implements?

But fact of the matter is, the Fighter has to get a new weapon to do most new things he might want to try. And most of those 'new things' are more similar than any two schools of magic.

If a Fighter needs to put down his Greatsword to pick up a Ranseur when he wants to get access to reach, or swap to a longsword for Sword and Shield, or swap to a Bow to attack something more than 10 feet away I see no reason why a Wizard shouldn't have to swap between his Orb/Staff/Wand/Rod/whatever to access different schools of spellcasting.

Ziegander
2014-01-04, 10:51 PM
You guys have said a Fighter only needs one weapon to do his job, why make the Wizard get multiple implements?

But fact of the matter is, the Fighter has to get a new weapon to do most new things he might want to try. And most of those 'new things' are more similar than any two schools of magic.

If a Fighter needs to put down his Greatsword to pick up a Ranseur when he wants to get access to reach, or swap to a longsword for Sword and Shield, or swap to a Bow to attack something more than 10 feet away I see no reason why a Wizard shouldn't have to swap between his Orb/Staff/Wand/Rod/whatever to access different schools of spellcasting.

I am inclined to agree.

bobthe6th
2014-01-05, 12:06 AM
Because I have never seen a fighter use anything besides his favored weapon, and maybe a bow as backup. Also, fighter continues to be a terrible analogy... or rather a good indicator of what not to do. If to cast a diffrent school a wizard has to carry a golfbag of staves the low op wizard won't. High op will shrug and get an efficient quiver. It also adds even more to the things the DM has to remember to drop occasionally or frustrate the player...


What if wizards had to research all of their spells? Make it not really costly, or give a crafting reserve just for spells. The fluff is that the free spells the wizard gets are the spells they have been researching for the amount of time sense they last leveled any ways.

Vortalism
2014-01-05, 12:21 AM
Another point that should be made in light of an approach that actually manages to contain the wizard would be: What about the divine casters? Do we maintain that they must also follow a similar process and become semi-archivists or are their spells just not as potent (I personally wouldn't think so) to warrant the balancing that the wizard should receive.

Just a thought but just for a bit of symmetry we can have the Sorcerer and Druid act as the spontaneous versions of each other, with the Cleric (now more like an Archivist) paralleling the Wizard's newfound requirements.

Furthermore I'm starting to prefer the idea of spell research and purchase a bit more than the need to carry around a golf case as if he was Tiger Woods or something. I assume it balances out better if we tie it to WBL, but just making spells expensive and difficult to find is a solution that could be fun to play as well as DM. Also I know that last statement is a bit of a cop-out argument (not to mention also not working on some levels) for most but what if he had to buy more powerful versions of each spells as if it were developed by Apple? Sounds very videogamey but it might work.

6thEdition
2014-01-06, 05:42 AM
Accidental double post, how do I delete posts?

6thEdition
2014-01-06, 05:45 AM
Wizards can't ban 7 schools over their career. There are only 8 schools, Abjuration, Conjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromanacy and Transmutation. The 8th school is Divination, which you cant ban, so everyone's going to be a Divination specialist. :smallsmile:

And plus EMan's Wizard fix doesn't work because they can go generalist, thus losing only four schools (Evo, Ench, Necro, Abj) and leaving the three strongest and broken schools with them. This wizard now has Gate, Planar Binding, Shapechange, Polymorph, Alter Self, Genesis, Contigency by Greater Shadow Evocation, etc. Proceed using Contigency -> Time Stop -> Shapechange/Planar Binding/Gate/whatever.

The only way to nerf wizards, and druids and clerics for that matter, is to look over their spell list and remove every broken spell. Which is difficult. Just say 'Eruarchiartwizcledrus don't exist.

Zman
2014-01-06, 08:48 AM
Wizards can't ban 7 schools over their career. There are only 8 schools, Abjuration, Conjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromanacy and Transmutation. The 8th school is Divination, which you cant ban, so everyone's going to be a Divination specialist. :smallsmile:

And plus EMan's Wizard fix doesn't work because they can go generalist, thus losing only four schools (Evo, Ench, Necro, Abj) and leaving the three strongest and broken schools with them. This wizard now has Gate, Planar Binding, Shapechange, Polymorph, Alter Self, Genesis, Contigency by Greater Shadow Evocation, etc. Proceed using Contigency -> Time Stop -> Shapechange/Planar Binding/Gate/whatever.

The only way to nerf wizards, and druids and clerics for that matter, is to look over their spell list and remove every broken spell. Which is difficult. Just say 'Eruarchiartwizcledrus don't exist.

Actually, they'd have to ban 5 schools, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th. And that is why I also addressed every one of those spells by either elimination 9th level casting, or worked on each spell in turn.

There are no easy fixes. But, slowing progression, limiting schools, and fixing the biggest offenders is IMO the best solution.

PairO'Dice Lost
2014-01-06, 04:27 PM
Apologies in advance for the massive wall o' text.


First thought: What if we got rid of material/somatic components (including expensive ones) and replaced them with very expensive focus implements? Fighters have to spend 72,000gp just for a +6 weapon, which is basically a requirement (+1 with +5 worth of special abilities), and near as much or sometimes more for their armor and/or shield. Between 1/4 to, at best, 1/6 of a warrior's wealth by level is spent on just weapon and armor.

Am I the only one who thinks that the problem here isn't that a wizard doesn't have to spend a needlessly large proportion of his WBL just to have the basic privilege of accessing his primary class feature, but rather that the fighter does?

I mean, if a 20th level fighter wants a +10 weapon with +5 actual attack bonus and +5 worth of abilities, the difference between buying a +10-equivalent weapon or buying a +6 weapon and having his cleric buddy spend ~1/60 of his (completely free) daily spells to cast greater magic weapon on it is a whopping 128,000 gp. And what special abilities is he putting on his weapon, anyway? Keen? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/keenEdge.htm) Dancing? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spiritualWeapon.htm) Speed? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm) Other abilities that they have to pay out the nose for that cost high-level casters a trivial fraction of their (again, completely free) daily spells? What about wizards overshadowing those poor TWFers--they have to buy two +6 weapons, would using Quicken Spell require a wizard to use two implements?

If the problem you're trying to solve is "It sucks that fighters have to waste a whole lot of gold on achieving basic expected performance for their level," the appropriate solution is not "...and therefore wizards should have to waste a whole lot of gold as well to make fighters feel better," it's "...and that's bad, so let's find a way to not force them to do that."


Second thought: What if Wizards didn't learn new spells at each class level? They start first level with the knowledge of Int modifier cantrips and a single 1st level spells. And that's all they ever learn automatically. They can only learn new spells from existing arcane magical writings, OR through costly independent research.

I'm not a fan of this solution either, not only because "Congratulations, Mr. Wizard, you've gained a level! Now you, and only you, need to go on a quest and/or spend a ton of money before you can use any of your new class features!" is not very fun for the wizard's player, but also because this change only nerfs wizards and leaves sorcerers, clerics, favored souls, druids, spirit shamans, psions, wilders, erudites, beguilers, dread necromancers, and bards (and possibly wu jen and archivists, depending on whether you're affecting all book-based casters) completely unaffected--all of whom, while not necessarily T1, can be just as game-breaking and problematic for a DM to deal with as wizards.

Personally, if you were to implement this nerf, I'd do the same thing I would if a DM implemented the reverse ruling (that wizards only get their default 2 spells per level and can never add any more spells through research or buying scrolls): I'd guess that this DM apparently dislikes wizards in particular, decide that there's little advantage to playing a wizard in this game over a sorcerer, beguiler, or dread necromancer, and just play one of those other classes as if you'd just banned the wizard outright.

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

Okay, now that I've been all negative and ranted about why I don't like those ideas, here's how I would try to address the WBL disparity and too-many-wizard-spells issues, spoilered for space:

1) As mentioned, the problem with martial classes' weapons is that you're paying exponential gold for a linear bonus that a caster can get for a logarithmic cost, and that linear bonus is essentially mandatory (either in terms of straight attack bonus to keep getting full use of iteratives, Power Attack, etc., or in terms of needing particular weapon abilities to contribute like splitting and seeking for archers), which really has nothing to do with the wizard in particular or casters in general. To fix that, we need to drastically lower the cost of higher-end weapons, but not in such a way that a low-level fighter can save up all his gold to buy a +5 vorpal greatsword.

The usual solution to the +X part of the problem is an inherent bonuses system, of which there are at least a dozen in the Homebrew forum from which you can pick your favorite. The same can be done with the special abilities, scaling the rate at which you can access special abilities by level. For instance, let's say you can use [BAB/2, minimum 1] worth of bonuses, none of which can be worth more than +[BAB/3, minimum 1]. If a 2nd-level fighter somehow got his hands on Mjolnir, a shock (+1) thundering (+1) giant bane (+2) holy (+2) dancing (+4) warhammer, he would treat it as either a shock warhammer or a thundering warhammer, then at level 4 he could have it advance to a shock thundering warhammer and at level 6 he could choose to meditate for an hour or something and change it to be a giant bane warhammer or a holy warhammer, and so on until he could unlock its full power at level 16.

Meanwhile, Mjolnir would be priced around, say, 10,000gp (a bit higher than the +2-equivalent weapon that +1 shock or +1 thundering are worth normally or that a shock thundering weapon would be worth when using inherent bonuses), so the 2nd-level fighter would be paying a premium for the ability to swap two +1 enchantments around and the 20th-level fighter isn't paying a 118,000-gold tax on a few extra d6s of damage and a few nice low-level buff spells. It's kind of like legacy weapons, but without the suck. :smallwink:

Obviously you don't need to use that particular off-the-cuff solution; any solution along those lines would work, and the bottom line is that you need to restrict overly powerful abilities from low-level martial characters without punishing the already-cash-strapped high-level martial characters with exponential costs.


2) The problem with a wizard's spell acquisition method is not that he can know a bunch of spells (since clerics and druids know their whole list and even a sorcerer knows "only" 34 non-cantrip spells by 20th level), it's that he can learn exactly the spells he wants from the spell list with the most situational-win-button spells without having a given situational-win-button spell taking up a precious spell per day when he doesn't need it. (And also that he doesn't have the divine casters' token "your patron doesn't let you have this spell" restriction, but spells that a DM doesn't allow a divine caster to prepare for whatever reason should probably just be banned for everyone anyway.)

Instead of taking away all the wizard's spells, it would be better to lessen the "magic mart" aspect of spell acquisition and go back to a more 2e-like setup. A wizard should get some spells for free upon level up, but they might be restricted to his specialty school, or might require Spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) checks to know about a particular spell (and not at the usual trivial DC 15+spell level), or some other appropriate restriction so not every wizard ends up with the same spell loadout. Similar restrictions would apply to scrolls and other sources of new spells, with the added restriction that a given city/archive/arcane order/etc. won't have every spell available and a wizard might simply be unable to find a particular spell exactly when he wants it and have to have someone scribe it especially for him, have to spend a few days teleporting around to find it, or the like.

This of course would have to go along with restrictions on clerics and druids so they don't become even more powerful by comparison, but presumably if you're nerfing the wizard's spells known you're planning to do the same to the divine casters.
TL;DR: The problems you outlined are not wizard-specific problems, they are system problems, and while fixing all of WBL and the economics minigame to address them really isn't possible, I think it would still be more effective and more fun for wizards to address them from the system end instead of the wizard end.

Seerow
2014-01-06, 04:31 PM
If the problem you're trying to solve is "It sucks that fighters have to waste a whole lot of gold on achieving basic expected performance for their level," the appropriate solution is not "...and therefore wizards should have to waste a whole lot of gold as well to make fighters feel better," it's "...and that's bad, so let's find a way to not force them to do that."


Personally, I don't see why it's not both.

Make the Wizards waste a bunch of gold to do their shtick, eliminate the requirement of the Fighter wasting a bunch of gold to do theirs. Suddenly now the Wizard has all of his money tied up into be able to cast spells, and his spellcasting mostly has to stand on its own, while the Fighter is more free to pick up all of those magic items that provide more interesting and generally useful effects.

Mind you, it's more like the AD&D style of balance, so not actually really balanced. But the Fighter getting cool and useful magic loot to balance out his mundanity is a solution that the majority of people are willing to accept, and requires minimal changes to the Fighter himself.


Edit: That said, I do like your general set-up for how magic weapons might work. The question is how would you make consistent pricing guidelines for such a weapon? You eyeballed it at 10k, because it's a bit more flexible than a +2 weapon for the low level fighter, and who cares what free stuff the fighter gets at high levels. Is that the general rule of thumb? No weapon costs more than 10-15k? All armor in the 5-6k range?

Also, having magic weapons and armor does some pretty interesting things to the wider economy, depending on how many higher level people are around. Because basically any NPC over ECL 8-10ish is going to have a really awesome set of magic weapons and armor. This is likely an overall desirable side effect, but an interesting one to note.

PairO'Dice Lost
2014-01-06, 05:32 PM
Personally, I don't see why it's not both.

Mostly because I believe that no one should have to do any extra work to be able to competently perform their primary schtick. Wizards use spells to solve problems, so a given wizard should always be able to cast level-appropriate spells to overcome level-appropriate challenges; fighters kill things with weapons, so a given fighter should always have a level-appropriate weapon and be able to use it to kill level-appropriate monsters. If a wizard wants to fill up a few spellbooks' worth of spells or a fighter wants to have three backup swords and a backup bow, then they can spend lots of money on these extra capabilities that aren't necessary for them to contribute, but their primary capabilities should not be WBL- or DM-pity-dependent.

(This is in a general sense, of course; a fighter might not have his ubersword on him at all times, and a wizard might not have a good spell prepared at all times, but they should have the capability to have and use them without needing to set other resources on fire to do so.)


Mind you, it's more like the AD&D style of balance, so not actually really balanced. But the Fighter getting cool and useful magic loot to balance out his mundanity is a solution that the majority of people are willing to accept, and requires minimal changes to the Fighter himself.

The AD&D fighter and wizard might not have been balanced, but they were certainly more balanced. Of course, it wasn't that wizards had to spend all their money on spells and fighters got to spend money on other things, it was that loot tables were heavily tilted in favor of fighter items and you couldn't make or buy whatever you wanted, so the "wizard wastes money, fighter gets cool stuff" solution doesn't actually have that precedent.


The question is how would you make consistent pricing guidelines for such a weapon? You eyeballed it at 10k, because it's a bit more flexible than a +2 weapon for the low level fighter, and who cares what free stuff the fighter gets at high levels. Is that the general rule of thumb? No weapon costs more than 10-15k? All armor in the 5-6k range?

Not a flippin' clue. Like I said, off-the-cuff solution. :smallwink: However, thinking about it more carefully, I would probably come up with a formula involving the lowest plus-equivalent, the highest plus-equivalent, and the total number of powers: given a weapon with four powers at +1, +1, +2, and +5 and one with two powers at +4 and +5, the 1/1/2/5 weapon gets a certain cost markup because it has more powers than the 4/5 weapon and the 4/5 weapon gets a certain cost markup because it's useless to a low-level character and it's better overall.

Then you just fiddle with the factors until your pricing formula gives the kind of outputs you want; for instance, you probable want to ensure that having a few +1 and +2 powers on a weapon is still useful and more cost-effective than loading up on +4s and +5s so that there are enough magic weapons around for low-level characters, otherwise people wouldn't bother crafting them.


Also, having magic weapons and armor does some pretty interesting things to the wider economy, depending on how many higher level people are around. Because basically any NPC over ECL 8-10ish is going to have a really awesome set of magic weapons and armor. This is likely an overall desirable side effect, but an interesting one to note.

Yep, that was an intentional effect; it's not a DM pity artifact if everyone's stuff works that way. :smallwink:

More seriously, you'll note that the power progression I described is based on BAB, not level--a 20th-level fighter can use Mjolnir to full effect, but a 20th-level wizard can only ever use three of its five powers at once and never unlocks a +4 ability--so any martial NPC above ECL 10ish has great stuff while casters need to use their spells to get the same effect, just as you suggested.