Restricting spell levels

[Werephilosopher]

What would happen if "full" casters could only learn up to 6th level spells, and partial casters (Ranger, Bard, Paladin) could only learn up to 4th level spells? Does this make for a quick and easy fix for the "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" concept? What kind of problems could this present for dedicated casters?

[BowStreetRunner]

What would happen if "full" casters could only learn up to 6th level spells, and partial casters (Ranger, Bard, Paladin) could only learn up to 4th level spells? Does this make for a quick and easy fix for the "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" concept? What kind of problems could this present for dedicated casters?

First of all, Bards currently have 6 levels of spells while Paladins and Rangers only have 4. So you can't really lump them together.

Secondly, the way you really need to look at it is that each spell slot is a separate, distinct ability that can be reset from a list of variable options each day (for a prepared caster) or at will from a more restricted list of options (for a spontaneous caster). A fighter's feats come from a variable list but once set cannot be changed. A barbarian's class features aren't even as flexible as a fighter's.

Now imagine that you do one of the following:


Give martial classes slots similar to those of wizards and sorcerers. This is essentially what Tome of Battle does. Provide flexibility to the martial classes that allows them to reconfigure to handle a wide range of problems. Only provide more than a single source-book worth of support.

Give caster classes spells in the form of fixed feats similar to those of fighters. Once chosen, they cannot be reallocated and remained set in stone. Consider how low OP the Divine Crusader tends to be, with a class list of only nine spells. Most of the attempts I have seen to break the class have revolved around trying to increase the size of the spell list for the class.

I think this gives a better idea of what is wrong with casters versus martial characters. The individual spells aren't often that broken when taken singly, and when compared to some of the more powerful martial abilities. It is when you provide a caster with such a deep and wide pool of flexible resources that they truly outshine martial characters.

[Falcon X]

I think your players would get very frustrated as they would be growing so little each level. Most other classes get new stuff in their special abilities. But if your dedicated casters only get access to new things every 3 levels or so, they will get very frustrated and feel completely overshadowed until high levels. A level 10 fighter pitted against only level 3 spells is no contest.
If you want it, thought, Mystic Ranger spell list (Dragon 336) is a good 0-5 druid spell progression. Besides that:

Bowstreetrunner is entirely correct. You would do better to either enhance the warriors, or diminish spell variety rather than spell levels. Maybe both.
Personally, if you are going the route of one spell per level, I would do Warlock or Dragonfire Adept.

My setup:
I would use Tome of Battle to replace Fighter, Paladin, and Monk classes. They are very fun to play and well balanced.
I would only use specialty casting classes. Replace Wizard and Sorcerer with Beguiler, War Mage, and Dread Necromancer. (Duskblade too is a good add-in class) These are incredibly fun to play and balanced well with Tome of Battle.

Outside of that, if I were to start balancing the rest of the group, I would:
- Replace Rogue with Factotum.
- Require druid to take the Shapeshifting Alternate Class Feature. (My personal custom Druid has Shapeshifting, Druidic Avenger, and Mystic Ranger's 0-5 spell progression. Very balanced with the above. Albeit, it functions more like a barbarian.)
- Cleric is the hardest to balance. Might just give it the Spontaneous casting from Unearthed Arcana.