[3.5] Blanket Rebalancing of Wizards in 10 Steps or Less - How viable?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

Let's assume these changes are the only changes made to your campaign. Balance-wise, how much are things likely to change? Fun-wise, how much are things likely to change?

These changes are specifically targeted at Wizards, but, if desired, can also affect all classes. (It makes sense that nixing animate dead for Wizards nixes it for Clerics and other classes as well.)

1: All form altering abilities are banned (polymorph, alter self, etc.) except for abilities which grant specific forms, such as trollshape or displacer form.

2: All permanent minion creation spells are removed, such as animate dead, simulacrum, ice assassin, and the planar binding series. Gate exists solely for interplanar travel. Creating golems and constructs is still possible with the proper feats and resources. Mind control magic (like charm person and dominate monster) lasts a maximum of 24 hours, not counting Extend Spell.

3: Persistent Spell exists as a +4 slot level adjustment feat and applies also to Touch spells without question, but this slot adjustment cannot be mitigated in any way. (Incantatrix, Divine Metamagic, Arcane Thesis, Metamagic School Focus, and so on can exist, but can't reduce the slot level of a Persistent Spell.)

Even with these changes, a Wizard can still be a powerhouse. As many a poster and person have noticed, it's the power of the individual spells (even something as simple as dancing lights (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html)) that makes the Wizard strong. These changes alone don't stop a Wizard from being poweful, but reduce the overall ability to get permanent minions, as well as super versatility from polymorph and co.

[Phelix-Mu]

Sounds like a solid start. Sadly, this is one of those whack-a-mole issues, and it will be hard to get all of them darn moles.

You should also consider how much more valuable certain allies with certain SLAs become with this (and the ways in which other allies and enemies may be horribly gimped) unless many of these changes selectively apply to other creatures.

Finally, some of this stuff also impacts non-tier 1 casters/invokers/binders/etc, making them more or less powerful depending. Might want to iron out whether that is intended and to what extent it occurs.

[Doc_Maynot]

Not to mention that Edict the second would harm Dread Necromancers, and probably Beguilers too.

But hey, the first one would make it so Druids only need to give up the animal companion in exchange for Shapechange

[OldTrees1]

Step 1:
Prohibit any game breaking spells/combos

Step 2:
Nerf any spells or combos that replicate non casters. Limit a caster to mimicing 1 non caster at a time (not 1 per spell) and the mimic is only as effective as a non caster 4-6 levels behind the spell slot used.
This slightly nerfs Dread Necromancers and Beguilers but nerfs Tier 1 casters much more. Maybe let DNs mimic at the 4 level penalty but Wizards would mimic at the 6 level penalty.

[Endarire]

This is a theoretical exercise. I like playing with the brokenish stuff, though if my character feels mostly obsolete compared to the minions he's made, he may reconsider adventuring and just stay home or do something less dangerous.

[malonkey1]

If I wanted to take a real step toward balance, I'd actually bust down all the full-caster classes to half-caster (no more than 6th level). On top of that, I'd also trim the class lists considerably. Wizards would pick 1 specialist school, and 3 banned schools, and they actually have to spend time and resources researching or finding spells, and don't learn them for free upon leveling up. Sorcerers would basically have Bard Spells Known. Clerics get a bare-bones version of the normal list, and their domains each offer more spells (say, 2 at each spell level) instead. Druids have their list trimmed down, and their Wildshape excised entirely or severely nerfed (a la Pathfinder's WS Nerfs).

On the flip side, non-casters would still be behind in versatility. You'd want to say, off the Fighter a bit more by way of buffing/support by way of improved battlefield control options and protective abilities (e.g. ignoring Tumble/5-Foot Step for Attack of Opportunity, blocking attacks against allies with their shield), as well as more opportunity for out of combat usefulness (perhaps some Intimidate-related shenanigans). Rogues would be bumped up to full-BAB, while keeping their normal armor and HD, and gain options to acquire weakened versions of other classes' features (you learn a spell or two, havwe a little prayer bead you rub when you're nervous, you have a pet cat, etc.) Monks would have much better ability synergy, and would possibly need a full rewrite, as they are just, ugh, so awkward. Take out anything that requires it to stand still, offer it bonuses in combat for moving like a Scout, and perhaps make them 4th-level casters or even just pseudocasters with a small list of useful SLAs.

Your fixes for Wizards would likely be helpful, but I feel they're not extreme enough to make a big difference.

But that's just my opinion.

[cakellene]

I don't play casters, but if DM implemented this I would go home.

[OldTrees1]

I don't play casters, but if DM implemented this I would go home.

Why?
I can see it being heavy handed but it does not affect every (or even most) caster character concepts.

So if I had to guess your objection it would be either:
1) The types of casters you like are the kind being banned (Like my dread necromancer would be banned under the OP's rules)
2) You don't like DMs with a heavy handed ban strategy to rebalancing
3) Some other reason

[cakellene]

Too heavy handed for my tastes and it would block wild shape which my monks often use.

[AuraTwilight]

How is a Monk using Wild Shape in the first place?

[TuggyNE]

How is a Monk using Wild Shape in the first place?

Probably some really dubious DrMag ACFs plus some ACF-chaining. I don't even know.

I know you can give a Druid Monk AC bonuses, but that's the other way around.

[Drachasor]

1: All form altering abilities are banned (polymorph, alter self, etc.) except for abilities which grant specific forms, such as trollshape or displacer form.

This is acceptable, but I think Alter Self, Polymorph, and the like should still be in. Just change how they work.

1. Keep the allowed sizes.
2. Remove ability score changes.
3. Then you get some fixed options depending on the spell. You can only choose an ability if the form selected has it.

Alter Self Example:

+2 size bonus to one physical stat that the form has a 12 or higher in.
Scent
Dark Vision 60 ft (up to 120ft at CL 10 or higher)
Low-Light Vision
Swim Speed up to 30 ft (60ft at CL 10 or higher)
Climb Speed up to 30 ft (60ft at CL 10 or higher)
Blindsense (must have CL 10 or higher)
One Energy Resistance of 10
2 Natural Attacks of the form (4 if CL 10 or higher)
At CL 10 you can choose two of the above bonuses.
4. Change duration to 10 min/level

The increased duration and reduced abilities makes them more balanced and allows you to use them for stealth and utility purposes.


2: All permanent minion creation spells are removed, such as animate dead, simulacrum, ice assassin, and the planar binding series. Gate exists solely for interplanar travel. Creating golems and constructs is still possible with the proper feats and resources. Mind control magic (like charm person and dominate monster) lasts a maximum of 24 hours, not counting Extend Spell.

Animate Dead isn't that bad. The biggest problem is that it adds a lot of casting time. I'd say Planar Binding and such in principle isn't bad, but it has some problems in its application. Honestly the standard summoning spells are more problematic, imho.

I'd consider using minion rules from 4E for most magical minions. Have them summon more than one, but they do fixed damage and only have 1 HP (but they have evasion so they take no damage if they save).

Planar Binding and the like really don't need much changing. Remove the charisma check. And the PC needs to provide payment or service exchange to get a deal. Basically just turn it into something that's more or less pure DM arbitration -- or at least more clearly DM arbitration.


3: Persistent Spell exists as a +4 slot level adjustment feat and applies also to Touch spells without question, but this slot adjustment cannot be mitigated in any way. (Incantatrix, Divine Metamagic, Arcane Thesis, Metamagic School Focus, and so on can exist, but can't reduce the slot level of a Persistent Spell.)

I tend to think the biggest problem with Persistent spell is that it is the same adjustment no matter the duration. Really something that lasts 1 hour/level shouldn't be nearly as hard to persist as a 10 min/level, and a 1 round/level spell should be pretty darn expensive.

I would consider altering Extend Spell here actually.
a) +1: Doubles duration, changes 1 hour/level to 24 hours (fixed) -- if that is greater.
b) +2: Increases duration one step. 1 round->1 min, 1 min->10 min, 10min->1 hour. It cannot increase the duration beyond 1 hour/level. This can be applied multiple times (so a +4 modifier increases the duration by 2 steps).
You can apply option (a) after applying option (b). So 1 round/level duration goes to 24 hours with a +7 modifier.

I think that's probably fairly balanced.


Even with these changes, a Wizard can still be a powerhouse. As many a poster and person have noticed, it's the power of the individual spells (even something as simple as dancing lights (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html)) that makes the Wizard strong. These changes alone don't stop a Wizard from being poweful, but reduce the overall ability to get permanent minions, as well as super versatility from polymorph and co.

If anything I think Save or Dies and the like need a total rework. The above doesn't REALLY alter casters all that much. It hoses shapechanging, sure, and it gets rid of some exploits (Efreeti Binding for wishes). But a lot of it really don't alter the balance. And it gets rid of the legitimate uses of Planar Binding and the like (which are probably more common). And it doesn't nothing about summons really.

Though honestly, the whole spell system is such a mess it is probably a lot easier to scrap the whole thing and rebuild it. Use 4E-style rituals for the big stuff like Teleport and Planar Binding, and then have a more free-form system that's more tightly balanced for other things. Granted that's a fair amount of work. On the other hand, really balancing the magic system is a heck of a lot of work if you are serious about it.

[ace rooster]

1: Actually enforce the range rules. An epic wizard cant hit someone he is playing tennis with with an orb or ray without going to the net. At level 5 not even then! (not applicable for evokers)

2: Enforce the rules for sight. In the open there is no spot check to see somone if they are not hiding, so encounters can start at range. (why would anyone go near the wizard) Magic sight enhancements are generally of limited range, so not as much help as you would think against a mundane sniper. This is before you even start on a dark dungeon or night fights. If they can't see it, they can't cast at it... other than evokers.

3: Enforce the duration rules. If the dragon attacks once in the morning, and once in the afternoon, you are going to need to recast that protection spell. 10 mins per caster level less than 3 hours until almost epic. The evokers blasts are exempt though.

These 3 reflect the fact that a wizard is leathal if they can choose the when where and how of a fight. If an encounter has to happen now, here and in these circumstances then the wizard is can be hamstrung.

4: Read the phrase at the end of rope trick regarding bags of holding and the like as a DM hook, and start rolling dice every time they start pulling those shenanigans. Similarly for planar binding Cheese. Do the PCs really want to start pissing of creatures with at will wish? Even the good ones will start to pull stuff on you, and will plan.

5: Craft Wand =/= Craft Wand type. There is an explicit list of permitted wands, staffs, potions, traps and wonderous item types. Adding to this list is worldbuilding and as such the PCs are encouraged to contribute, but the DM just saying no is to be expected. They rules for creating new types of items are in the DMG, and as such the players have no access.

These are not changes, just not letting wizards have things their own way. There are some changes that are needed though.

6: Make base attack actually do something beyond 'you hit again, slightly better'. Some sort of defensive action would synergise with 7, but at least apply it as a penalty to defensive casting so that the level 1 wizard can't be casting with impunity in the face of an epic fighter. Maybe offer a 5ft adjust as an immediate action too.

7: More defensive options, possibly tied to bab, possibly related to shields. As it is the defences of an epic fighter are not much better than a 1st level fighter with the same gear. +10 to fort and +6 to the others is big, but any effect the epic fighter is likely to survive the level 1 has decent chance against!

8: All magic heavy armour grants spell resistance, craft magic armor is level 5 min, so any caster that can make it is high enough level for dispel magic, and 2mm of magic infused steel should be easy to enchant like that. Frankly It is odd that 2mm of magic infused steel has no effect at all on magic, even if that was not what was intended.

I'm out of ideas there, but slowing down combat so that a wizard nova is less deadly is the main aim.

[The Trickster]

8: All magic heavy armour grants spell resistance, craft magic armor is level 5 min, so any caster that can make it is high enough level for dispel magic, and 2mm of magic infused steel should be easy to enchant like that. Frankly It is odd that 2mm of magic infused steel has no effect at all on magic, even if that was not what was intended.

SR is as much of a curse as it is a blessing. SR also effects helpful spells, such as heals, buffs, etc. I would make SR a free action to lower and raise, or just make it work on enemy spells only. Not sure how much it would help in the long run, but it's a start.

[ericgrau]

These things tend to be too little to be meaningful while reducing the number of fun options for someone who isn't trying to break the system. Even for everything up to and including gate. You use gate as a 2 HD/level monster for combat only, you make a fair deal with the creature, or you use it for transportation. Nothing else IIRC. That's probably RAI anyway. And if I was building a calling focused caster I'd be pretty pissed at not being allowed it and the other calling spells (when used fairly). Each option you remove is one less fun option to choose from, whereas anyone breaking the system will simply find another way.

Ditching metamagic reducers is a good idea though; I'd go beyond just persist and ditch them all. They rarely have a fun use outside of breaking the system.

[Gemini476]

Probably some really dubious DrMag ACFs plus some ACF-chaining. I don't even know.

I know you can give a Druid Monk AC bonuses, but that's the other way around.

Dragon Magazine #324, page 97. Wedged between the Bard and Paladin flaws.

Here, let me transcribe the relevant table.
{table=head]Level|Special
1st|Flurry of blows, unarmed strike
2nd|Evasion
3rd|Resist nature's lure
4th|Ki strike (magic)
5th|Purity of body
6th|Wild shape (1/day)
7th|Wholeness of body
8th|Wild shape (2/day)
9th|Improved evasion
10th|Ki strike (lawful), wild shape (3/day)
11th|Diamond body, greater flurry
12th|Wild shape (Large)
13th|Diamond soul
14th|Wild shape (4/day)
15th|Wild shape (Tiny)
16th|Ki strike (adamantine), wild shape (Huge)
17th|Timeless body, tongue of sun and moon
18th|Wild shape (5/day)
19th|Wild shape (elemental 1/day)
20th|Perfect self, wild shape (6/day, elemental 2/day)[/table]

In summary: you lose bonus feats, still mind, slow fall, abundant step, quivering palm and empty body. You gain wildshaping as listed on the table.

Losing the feats is a bit harsh, but it's a pretty decent variant monk all said. The wildshaping is better than the Ranger but worse than the Druid, but I'm not really sure where I'd put the end result.

[qwertyu63]

Why?
I can see it being heavy handed but it does not affect every (or even most) caster character concepts.

So if I had to guess your objection it would be either:
1) The types of casters you like are the kind being banned (Like my dread necromancer would be banned under the OP's rules)
2) You don't like DMs with a heavy handed ban strategy to rebalancing
3) Some other reason

I'm not the person you responded to, but I agree with him. If I had to guess, he meant reason number 2; I'm guessing that mostly because that is why I wouldn't play with a DM using these rules. That and for the reasons ericgrau states; reducing fun means you have failed.

[Firechanter]

Split the Casting Stat, so full casters need at least two high mental stats. Say, one for spell access and bonus spells, and one for saves.
Or if you want to nerf them really hard, Int for access, Wis for bonus, Cha for saves. (The latter would result in Wizards who all stop raising Int at 19, and shore up Wis and/or Cha much higher -- I find that rather weird.)

[OldTrees1]

I'm not the person you responded to, but I agree with him. If I had to guess, he meant reason number 2; I'm guessing that mostly because that is why I wouldn't play with a DM using these rules. That and for the reasons ericgrau states; reducing fun means you have failed.

Yeah. That person agreed that it was reason number 2.
I also do not like the heavy handedness of the OP's idea. That is why I posted an altered version
Summary:
Ban breaking the game
Nerf replacing other PCs

[ace rooster]

Split the Casting Stat, so full casters need at least two high mental stats. Say, one for spell access and bonus spells, and one for saves.
Or if you want to nerf them really hard, Int for access, Wis for bonus, Cha for saves. (The latter would result in Wizards who all stop raising Int at 19, and shore up Wis and/or Cha much higher -- I find that rather weird.)

This isn't much of a nerf, especially for conjurations without saves. They will have a few less spells, but they still have the same defensive options that really put them above everyone else. (ie. they have defensive options.)

[Calimehter]

I have no real beef with any of those changes.

Would classes with wildshape just lose wildshape altogether, or would they get one of the (generally nerfed) Druid ACFs in its place?

[Brookshw]

I don't play casters, but if DM implemented this I would go home.

I have to admit this kinda depresses me.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The only way to really fix the wizard is to fix the casting system.

But for a simple slight fix...

Say that spell books are not books you can buy but the essense of the wizard themselves. They can have only one and they can hold only so many spells. Give them the spells known and spells per day as a Sorcerer. Allow them to receive spells at the same level as they do now.

To exchange a spell out of the book... Make it take a week or two for the book to get attuned to the new spell and the wizard is able to prepare it from the book.

Low tier 1 right there but nowhere near the normal strength.

Also get rid of the concentration spell and casting defensively. Go back to 2e where there was a downside to being a caster. Make getting defensive casting be something like 6th or higher spell (swift action), no concentration check.

6th level: cast a spell of level 1-3 defensively.
7th level: cast a spell of level 4 - 6 defensively.
8th level: cast a spell of level 7 or 8 defensively.

This means that to cast defensively the wizard has to give up something nice in order to not get smacked in the face and lose a spell.

[Just to Browse]

Wizards can still drop SoDs and win fights really hard.

Clerics can still buff really well and outdo the fighter. Everyone completely forgets persist until around level 15, but Quicken Spell is gold.

Druids feel really bad because they can't wildshape, but still outperform pretty much everyone with their animal companion and spells.

T2 memorized casters feel crappier. Dread Necromancers are trash. Dumpster diving is more encouraged.

[watchwood]

I think you guys are all addressing the symptoms, when you should be going to the source of the problem.

Talk the the players you've got who are running high tier/optimized characters, and ask them to tone it down.

[OldTrees1]

I think you guys are all addressing the symptoms, when you should be going to the source of the problem.

Talk the the players you've got who are running high tier/optimized characters, and ask them to tone it down.

2 separate problems:
1) Problem Players
2) WotC made an imperfect game

[ZamielVanWeber]

Might I recommend making all casting stats DAD? It will help close the gap between casters and mundanes by making the casters eat more stats or having to be more careful about spell selection.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

2 separate problems:
1) Problem Players
2) WotC made an imperfect game

Well number two there isn't about an imperfect game... 4e while one of my favorite D&D systems had its flaws but had balance between casters/non-casters.

I would say something more like...

WotC not understanding the product they were selling. Even after years and plenty of proof WotC didn't really address any core problems and used classes like beguiler, warmage, binder, dread necromancers, warblades, crusaders, and sword sages as a sort of band aid.

[ericgrau]

Meh every game system is imperfect. I've seen a lot worse. It's mainly #1, and #2 you mostly tolerate and maybe do a little. As any big attempt to fix it can often make things worse.

And man when are they gonna address the 4e ranger So OP. :smalltongue:. J/k, I don't really care or know much about it, but I hear about it a lot.

[OldTrees1]

Meh every game system is imperfect. I've seen a lot worse. It's mainly #1, and #2 you mostly tolerate and maybe do a little. As any big attempt to fix it can often make things worse.

#2 is fun to try to fix. :smallbiggrin:

[Maginomicon]

The issue isn't so much with wizards as a class, as much as the nature of prepared-type spellcasters in combination with access to the sorcerer/wizard list.

Step 1. Reduce prepared-type caster spell slots to 3/4 or less for each spell level (rounded down, so if you normally have 4 spell slots of that level, you have 3 instead).

Step 2. Make higher level prepared-type spell slots only refillable in longer periods of time. For example, 2nd-3rd level slots only refill in 2 days, 3rd-4th level slots only refill in 3 days, etc. (or some variant of this, scale up and down as you wish).

Step 3. Implement Save Points & Strife (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17053817).

Step 4. Make summoned/called creatures be only controlled by the GM and only follow basic orders to the best of their ability (not be directly controlled by the spellcaster, as they're not dominated), and do the same to animal companions, familiars, psicrystals, cohorts, followers, hirelings, mercenaries, etc.

Step 5. Implement custom Incantations that expend spell slots (a.k.a. "Charged Incantations")

[ZamielVanWeber]

Caveat.to his 2: make sure you remove time compression tricks, otherwise you just encourage higher levels of optimization.

[Drachasor]

The issue isn't so much with wizards as a class, as much as the nature of prepared-type spellcasters in combination with access to the sorcerer/wizard list.

Step 1. Reduce prepared-type caster spell slots to 3/4 or less for each spell level (rounded down, so if you normally have 4 spell slots of that level, you have 3 instead).

Step 2. Make higher level spell slots only refillable in longer periods of time. For example, 2nd-3rd level slots only refill in 2 days, 3rd-4th level slots only refill in 3 days, etc. (or some variant of this, scale up and down as you wish).

Step 3. Implement Save Points & Strife (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17053817).

Step 4. Make summoned/called creatures be only controlled by the GM and only follow basic orders to the best of their ability (not be directly controlled by the spellcaster, as they're not dominated), and do the same to animal companions, familiars, psicrystals, cohorts, followers, hirelings, mercenaries, etc.

I dislike solutions like this. They always seem more like "make the class less fun to play without really making it less powerful."

I don't think the Save Point system is all that great. It adds a lot more paperwork. I'd rather see a SW:SAGA condition track-like system.

[cakellene]

How is a Monk using Wild Shape in the first place?

Wild Monk is a variant monk from Dragon magazine that gives up a few things for wild shape and some nature related bonuses.

[Maginomicon]

I dislike solutions like this. They always seem more like "make the class less fun to play without really making it less powerful."I like to put the "prepared" back in "prepared-type spellcaster". If you don't, fine.


I don't think the Save Point system is all that great. It adds a lot more paperwork. I'd rather see a SW:SAGA condition track-like system.
Keeping track of a whole four extra values on your character sheet is not "a lot more paperwork". If you have an animal companion, you're keeping track of a lot more than that!

[Drachasor]

I like to put the "prepared" back in "prepared-type spellcaster". If you don't, fine.

Making things like that more tedious is generally not a good thing. By reducing spells AND making it take longer to recover spells, you primarily make it so prepared casters, especially at low levels, have very little to do. That's simply NOT FUN. And at high levels it just slows the game down and encourages such casters to...have nothing to do. Again, not fun. This naturally encourages players to heavily min-max spellcasting and punishes players that weren't doing anything wrong.

It's better to actually try to fix the spells if a caster using them is such a problem.


Keeping track of a whole four extra values on your character sheet is not "a lot more paperwork". If you have an animal companion, you're keeping track of a lot more than that!

4 more "hit point" tracks. Doubles the rolls needed for saves. Special rules for recovering those tracks. By paperwork I was including increased handling time. I would have posted in your thread, but you said you listed a number of legitimate concerns you didn't want people discussing so I figured it was pointless. I dislike changes that make the game run slower.

And together these changes are quite punishing to direct damage magic, which generally isn't a problem at all.

[bekeleven]

I recommend the following:


Don't play whack-a-mole. Either build a game where casters are high-powered, or get rid of casters.
Keep two sets of houserules around if you prefer both styles of play. I keep one set for low-op or deliberately tier 1-2 play, and I keep another set of houserules around for tier 3-4 play. My house rules began as a modification of Fax's excellent writeup. The rules relating to class begin,
Bans: Any class with 9s is banned unless mentioned below (Archivist to Wu Jen), except Sublime Way. If you really need them for some reason, they may end up in-game with reduced ACFs and the adept spell progression. Artificers are banned.
Class Rules: No multiclass XP penalty. Fractional BAB and saves, with +2 bump added only once. ACF chaining and equivalencies are allowed on a case-by-case basis. If you want to play something underpowered, talk to me and we can (maybe) buff it a bit. In general, 3.5 has enough stuff floating around to make a concept work at decent power without this. All of my homebrew base classes are in play, although some are modified below.

For reference, I end up giving some classes (Shugenja, Beguiler) Bard progression, keep the Warmage as-is, and slightly buff the healer. I also buff many mundane classes, such as the Monk, Ranger, etc. and nerf a few non-casters like the binder and factotum.

[Maginomicon]

Making things like that more tedious is generally not a good thing. By reducing spells AND making it take longer to recover spells, you primarily make it so prepared casters, especially at low levels, have very little to do. That's simply NOT FUN. And at high levels it just slows the game down and encourages such casters to...have nothing to do. Again, not fun. This naturally encourages players to heavily min-max spellcasting and punishes players that weren't doing anything wrong.

It's better to actually try to fix the spells if a caster using them is such a problem.
I did say scale it up or down as you see fit.

For example, if you're worried about low-level magic being hampered, set it as follows:
0th~3rd level spells: Refill in 1 day (the norm)
4th-6th level spells: Refill in 3 days
7th~8th level spells: Refill in 5 days
9th level spells: Refill in 7 days (a week)


3rd level spells are on the cusp of the "sweet spot" of casters vs mundanes, so making sure that they can't just every morning go "hmmm... how can I be overpowered today?" is critical, any notions of "less fun" be damned. Basically, if you're willing to sacrifice balance in favor of "lonely fun" (a.k.a. overshadowing everyone), then that's on you.



4 more "hit point" tracks. Doubles the rolls needed for saves. Special rules for recovering those tracks. By paperwork I was including increased handling time. I would have posted in your thread, but you said you listed a number of legitimate concerns you didn't want people discussing so I figured it was pointless. I dislike changes that make the game run slower.

And together these changes are quite punishing to direct damage magic, which generally isn't a problem at all.
I'd address how thoroughly invalid these statements are, but I'd be pulling the thread even more off-topic than you already have. Please take it to PM if you genuinely want to continue that discussion with me.

[Drachasor]

I did say scale it up or down as you see fit.

For example, if you're worried about low-level magic being hampered, set it as follows:
0th~3rd level spells: Refill in 1 day (the norm)
4th-6th level spells: Refill in 3 days
7th~8th level spells: Refill in 5 days
9th level spells: Refill in 7 days (a week)


3rd level spells are on the cusp of the "sweet spot" of casters vs mundanes, so making sure that they can't just every morning go "hmmm... how can I be overpowered today?" is critical, any notions of "less fun" be damned. Basically, if you're willing to sacrifice balance in favor of "lonely fun" (a.k.a. overshadowing everyone), then that's on you.

My point there are better and more sensible ways to adjust this that don't require the caster to twiddle his fingers. And you completely ignored my points about how reducing spell slots is a big problem here.

Consider how this affects a Warmage for instance, who is not remotely OP. Or a Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, both of whom would only need light nerfs (focused on certain spells more than anything).

Your fix is a problem because it acts like ALL spells are a problem, when they aren't. In fact, most spells are perfectly fine.

[Just to Browse]

Step 1. Reduce prepared-type caster spell slots to 3/4 or less for each spell level (rounded down, so if you normally have 4 spell slots of that level, you have 3 instead).

Step 2. Make higher level prepared-type spell slots only refillable in longer periods of time. For example, 2nd-3rd level slots only refill in 2 days, 3rd-4th level slots only refill in 3 days, etc. (or some variant of this, scale up and down as you wish).

Please please please do not nerf mages by encouraging a 15-minute workweek.

EDIT: Here is how you fix mages.

Step 1: Remove spells that can never be level-appropriate options.

Step 2: Re-adjust spells at inappropriate levels to their appropriate levels.

Step 3-10: Celebrate.

[Maginomicon]

My point there are better and more sensible ways to adjust this that don't require the caster to twiddle his fingers.

Consider how this affects a Warmage for instance, who is not remotely OP. Or a Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, both of whom would only need light nerfs (focused on certain spells more than anything).

Your fix is a problem because it acts like ALL spells are a problem, when they aren't. In fact, most spells are perfectly fine.
No. My fix is about how prepared-type spell slots are a problem, especially when combined with the sorcerer/wizard list. Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, etc. are spontaneous-type spellcasters. They are not affected by my fix.


And you completely ignored my points about how reducing spell slots is a big problem here.
Fine. Don't reduce the number of spell slots. I listed them in order of how much work you as GM would have to do. Reducing spell slots is the simplest solution.

[Drachasor]

No. My fix is about how prepared-type spell slots are a problem, especially when combined with the sorcerer/wizard list. Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, etc. are spontaneous-type spellcasters. They are not affected by my fix

That doesn't make any sense.

It is ONLY the spell list that causes a problem. And certainly if preparing spells is remotely a problem, it is only because you can prepare bad spells and hence be useless. It isn't because it is a powerful mechanic (though knowing all spells on a large list can be powerful, that's not the same thing).

If the Warmage, Dread Necromancer, or Beguiler prepared spells, they wouldn't be problematic. A Bard wouldn't be either. The PF's Magus prepares spells and he's still just T3.

If the various spell lists show anything, it is that what matters in power is the list itself. The casting mechanic is much less important in terms of raw power. It matters only in versatility and only that if you assume prepared casters have a huge list of spells and can know everything on it and the spontaneous casters have limited spells known. Neither must be the case.

[Just to Browse]

Drachasor, prepared casting makes classes with large lists more powerful. The reason wizards are T1 and sorcs are T2 is because wizards are (theoretically) capable of getting every wizard spell, and thus being able to use those spells to solve every problem with 15 minutes and their spellbook.

EDIT: If you switched the beguiler's casting for memorizing a small number of spells from the beguiler list and spontaneously casting those, it would be the sorcerer-equivalent of the beguiler and be weaker than a prepared-casting version of the beguiler. If you gave the wizard spontaneous access to every spell on the wizard spell list, it would be stronger than the regular wizard.

[Drachasor]

Drachasor, prepared casting makes classes with large lists more powerful. The reason wizards are T1 and sorcs are T2 is because wizards are (theoretically) capable of getting every wizard spell, and thus being able to use those spells to solve every problem with 15 minutes and their spellbook.

It's more complicated than that.

A class with a large list is generally more powerful than a class with a small one (it depends on the spells, of course). But you could have a class that has a limit number of spells known and still prepares spells. If a Wizard was limited to the same number of known spells as a Sorcerer and still prepared spells, he'd be a lot weaker than the Sorcerer.

Similarly, you could have a class that prepares spells and then can spontaneously cast any prepared spell. Maybe they learn them like a wizard, maybe not.

When you are talking about house rule mechanics, the possible ways to work spellcasting even within a discrete spell system can vary a great deal. That's all I was referring to.

There are many nobs to tweak as far as spellcasting goes, but the primary focus has to be on the spell list, because that's where there are problems. An unbalanced spell once per week is an unbalanced spell. Letting someone break the game less often is still letting them break the game. It is better to instead focus on removing the unbalanced spells and ensuring the class always has something fun to do that doesn't break the game.

[Maginomicon]

That doesn't make any sense.

It is ONLY the spell list that causes a problem. And certainly if preparing spells is remotely a problem, it is only because you can prepare bad spells and hence be useless. It isn't because it is a powerful mechanic (though knowing all spells on a large list can be powerful, that's not the same thing).

If the Warmage, Dread Necromancer, or Beguiler prepared spells, they wouldn't be problematic. A Bard wouldn't be either. The PF's Magus prepares spells and he's still just T3.

If the various spell lists show anything, it is that what matters in power is the list itself. The casting mechanic is much less important in terms of raw power. It matters only in versatility and only that if you assume prepared casters have a huge list of spells and can know everything on it and the spontaneous casters have limited spells known. Neither must be the case.What do all of the T1 classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer) have in-common?
Infinitely-expandable repertoires. (or effectively-infinite, if you want to be picky)

On any given day, they can fill any number of roles. That's what makes them T1.

The reason why their repertoires are infinitely expandable is because they are (each in their own way) prepared-type casters. They can swap out their capabilities each day. The most robust and extensible way to reduce that capacity is to (whodathunk it?) reduce how often they can swap out their capabilities.

[olentu]

What do all of the T1 classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer) have in-common?
Infinitely-expandable repertoires. (or effectively-infinite, if you want to be picky)

On any given day, they can fill any number of roles. That's what makes them T1.

The reason why their repertoires are infinitely expandable is because they are (each in their own way) prepared-type casters. They can swap out their capabilities each day. The most robust and extensible way to reduce that capacity is to (whodathunk it?) reduce how often they can swap out their capabilities.

Mag buddy, the healer is a prepared spellcaster.

[Drachasor]

What do all of the T1 classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer) have in-common?
Infinitely-expandable repertoires. (or effectively-infinite, if you want to be picky)

On any given day, they can fill any number of roles. That's what makes them T1.

The reason why their repertoires are infinitely expandable is because they are (each in their own way) prepared-type casters. They can swap out their capabilities each day. The most robust and extensible way to reduce that capacity is to (whodathunk it?) reduce how often they can swap out their capabilities.

And do you know what a T0 is?

Again, it is primarily about the spell list.

The problem I always see with these "quick fixes" is they always seem to be made by people that don't really understand why a Wizard is more powerful than a Sorcerer or that you can make a Wizard that works like a T5. Without understanding why the T1s are T1s you can't fix it. You just end up trying to make it so that a Wizard can break the game a little less often and this often ends up screwing over all the Wizards that aren't breaking the game.

[Maginomicon]

And do you know what a T0 is?

Again, it is primarily about the spell list.
Okay, now you're just being silly. T0 (if it can be said to exist) consists of the Spell-to-Power Erudite and Psionic Artificer. I was using T1 as an example, because T1 is the tier of the wizard (which is what this topic is about).

EDIT: Claiming that the existence of optimization floors invalidates the need to fix an absurdly high optimization ceiling is a ridiculous assertion on its face.

EDIT 2: Come to think of it, you're claiming that the premise of the thread itself is invalid. You're very likely not helping matters.

[Drachasor]

Okay, now you're just being silly. T0 (if it can be said to exist) consists of the Spell-to-Power Erudite and Psionic Artificer. I was using T1 as an example, because T1 is the tier of the wizard (which is what this topic is about).

A wizard that casts spontaneously from his whole list is a T0.

A wizard that uses the Bard list is a T3.

A Wizard that uses the Warmage list is a T4.

A Wizard that uses the Healer list is a T5.

A Sorcerer that uses the Wizard/Sorcerer list is a T2.

A Sorcerer that uses the Bard list is T3.

A Sorcerer that uses the Healer list is still going to be a T5 (maaaybe 4).

Casting mechanic matters, but it isn't nearly as important as the list.

Fixes need to focus on the main source of problems; the spell list. In particular, the problematic spells.


EDIT: Claiming that the existence of optimization floors invalidates the need to fix an absurdly high optimization ceiling is a ridiculous assertion on its face.

Not what I said. I'm saying it is bad design to try to fix the ceiling with a brute force 'solution' that also nerfs the floor. The fix should be focused on the ceiling alone. If done right you can even boost the floor up. And to fix the ceiling, you need to understand the source of the high ceiling. For casters this has always been their spell list.

Fix the list and you fix the problem.

[Maginomicon]

{{scrubbed}}

[olentu]

{{scrubbed}}

Do you know what does exist in game. The healer.

[Drachasor]

{{scrubbed}}

Oh, well, by that measure what you proposed doesn't exist in the game either. Therefore we can't discuss it or the ramifications of it. Certainly we can't start looking at basing a house rule off it. Right?


{{scrubbed}}

The whole point of talking about T4/5 wizards is that these are wizards played at a low OP level. This happens because the player isn't doing high OP for whatever reason. Saying "well, they could suddenly change their entire playstyle" rather misses the point, especially when that point is that you are nerfing the low OP playstyle. And yeah, making these people wait longer to get back spells is nerfing them. Making them have fewer spells is nerfing them.

There are plenty of low OP spells that are easy to expend and can be used in pretty much any fight. A high OP spell isn't just one that can be used in a lot of situations, but a spell that has a lot of power to negate or overcome those situation. Cone of Cold doesn't have a lot of power that way, but you can use it in a lot of situations.

You even seem to acknowledge that the problem is spell choice when you talk about how switching spells means you can change your OP level. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I AM SAYING CASTER BALANCE ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY FOCUSING ON THE HIGH OP SPELLS.

Use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

[Maginomicon]

Do you know what does exist in game. The healer.
I will admit that the healer class is perhaps the most significant class that might be conceivably "hurt" by my fix, as it's a prepared-type caster, but even so, only impacting spell levels 4 through 9 in the way I describe would not significantly weaken the healer except in the ways that it really should be weakened anyway (such as the healer's 9th level spells). The healer's main problem is that unlike almost all other prepared-type casters, it doesn't have the main strength of prepared-type casters (a large spell list). However, this weakness was caused mostly by the fact that the Minatures Handbook was a compartmentalized book with a very limited scope.

Let's put this way:

Sandstorm: It's Hot Outside
Frostburn: It's Cold Outside
Stormwrack: It's Wet Outside
Ghostwalk: It's Dead Outside
Miniatures Handbook: It's War Outside

The healer class was written largely, if I had to guess, so that there'd be some kind of battlefield-centric "healer archetype" among the other class options available in that book (hence the name). In this specific case, I'd go after enhancing the spell list itself, and there's a few good sources out there for what to add to the healer spell list. That's adding to the list though, not taking away. Once this is done, my fix wouldn't affect the healer much more than any other prepared-type class.

[olentu]

I will admit that the healer class is perhaps the most significant class that might be conceivably "hurt" by my fix, as it's a prepared-type caster, but even so, only impacting spell levels 4 through 9 in the way I describe would not significantly weaken the healer except in the ways that it really should be weakened anyway (such as the healer's 9th level spells). The healer's main problem is that unlike almost all other prepared-type casters, it doesn't have the main strength of prepared-type casters (a large spell list). However, this weakness was caused mostly by the fact that the Minatures Handbook was a compartmentalized book with a very limited scope.

Let's put this way:

Sandstorm: It's Hot Outside
Frostburn: It's Cold Outside
Stormwrack: It's Wet Outside
Ghostwalk: It's Dead Outside
Miniatures Handbook: It's War Outside

The healer class was written largely, if I had to guess, so that there'd be some kind of battlefield-centric "healer archetype" among the other class options available in that book (hence the name). In this specific case, I'd go after enhancing the spell list itself, and there's a few good sources out there for what to add to the healer spell list. That's adding to the list though, not taking away. Once this is done, my fix wouldn't affect the healer much more than any other prepared-type class.

Oh, so you actually do agree that the real problem is the spell list, not the casting mechanic. I mean, you must given that you said "the main strength of prepared-type casters (a large spell list)" and even proposed fixing the healer by altering the spell list.

[Maginomicon]

Oh, so you actually do agree that the real problem is the spell list, not the casting mechanic. I mean, you must given that you said "the main strength of prepared-type casters (a large spell list)" and even proposed fixing the healer by altering the spell list.

No. That's not what I said. What I said was that adding spells to a list is a very different beast than removing spells from a list. The fix I described for prepared-type casters would not actually unfairly hurt the healer class at all once the healer class is brought up to something that makes it a viable prepared-type caster in its own right. Further, I said that the healer was not written to be a viable prepared-type caster as-is. It was very likely written to be the army's healbot, literally.

My point was that if you make the healer a respectable class, the fix I described for all prepared-type casters would not hurt the healer class any more so than any other prepared-type class. That is, by adding to a base level of "not sucking", you can start to have a discussion about stuff like the fix I described.

That's an entirely different beast than removing spells. However, it should be noted that the very first thing I said was:

The issue isn't so much with wizards as a class, as much as the nature of prepared-type spellcasters in combination with access to the sorcerer/wizard list.
It's not that I am proposing that the spell list is not a factor, just that access to the sorcerer/wizard list goes hand-in-hand with the nature of prepared-type spellcasting as to why the wizard (the subject of this thread) is horribly horribly overpowered.

There were 5 things on my list of steps, arranged in order by how much work the GM would have to do to implement them. It's much easier to implement step 2 than to implement steps 3, 4, or 5. Most of this page has been focusing on step 2 and not enough on step 4 (which makes summoning/calling sit up and behave) or step 5 (which is very similar to removing spells from the spell list, as it converts them into incantations where access to the incantation procedure can easily be GM-controlled).

All of this focus on my step 2 ignores what steps 4 and 5 can do later on.

[Drachasor]

It's not that I am proposing that the spell list is not a factor, just that access to the sorcerer/wizard list goes hand-in-hand with the nature of prepared-type spellcasting as to why the wizard is horribly horribly overpowered.

Except prepared casters exist that aren't overpowered. There's not one T1 class that exists that can't be changed to any other tier just by changing the spell list.

Indeed, your "fix" doesn't actually make T1s not T1. It just makes things take a bit longer and that's it. And you can turn any T2 spontaneous caster into T1 just by increasing their spell access (doubling spells known will do it).

T1 and T2 is about having game-changing/breaking tools AVAILABLE. And what you've proposed doesn't make them unavailable, it just makes things take a bit longer. Fundamentally it doesn't resolve the issue, because it doesn't change the toolset.

What it does do is make playing a caster that doesn't use game-breakers a lot less fun. A lot of attempted fixes end up being like this.

[Arbane]

Another few possible drops in the fix bucket:

Lower Save or Cry spell DCs by making spell save DCs unaffected by casting-stat, spell level, or BOTH. (AD&D had flat saves for most everything, with the result that high-level characters made saves pretty consistently).

Give non-caster (/binder/manifester/whatever...) classes good Will saves. They're non-magical people taking on walking nightmares for a living, that's the kind of person who SHOULD have immense willpower.

[olentu]

No. That's not what I said. What I said was that adding spells to a list is a very different beast than removing spells from a list. The fix I described for prepared-type casters would not actually unfairly hurt the healer class at all once the healer class is brought up to something that makes it a viable prepared-type caster in its own right. Further, I said that the healer was not written to be a viable prepared-type caster as-is. It was very likely written to be the army's healbot, literally.

My point was that if you make the healer a respectable class, the fix I described for all prepared-type casters would not hurt the healer class any more so than any other prepared-type class. That is, by adding to a base level of "not sucking", you can start to have a discussion about stuff like the fix I described.

That's an entirely different beast than removing spells. However, it should be noted that the very first thing I said was:

It's not that I am proposing that the spell list is not a factor, just that access to the sorcerer/wizard list goes hand-in-hand with the nature of prepared-type spellcasting as to why the wizard is horribly horribly overpowered.

There were 5 things on my list of steps, arranged in order by how much work the GM would have to do to implement them. It's much easier to implement step 2 than to implement steps 3, 4, or 5. Most of this page has been focusing on step 2 and not enough on step 4 (which makes summoning/calling sit up and behave) or step 5 (which is very similar to removing spells from the spell list, as it converts them into incantations where access to the incantation procedure can easily be GM-controlled).

All of this focus on my step 2 ignores what steps 4 and 5 can do later on.

Yes, adding a spell to a list is not the exact same thing as removing a spell from a list. But they both fall under the umbrella of "modifying the spell list" and as such are quite similar.

Eh, sure the healer class sucks. However that is no reason to make them suck more. I have not noticed you putting forth any homebrew in this thread that fixes the healer spell list. Unless you are actually going to do that then it does not change the fact of nerfing the healer.

Hmm, so you are saying that the wizard would be better balanced if it had, say, dread necromancer style casting. But seriously, problem spells are problem spells no matter how you get them. Sure prepared casting from the full list, or dread necromancer style spontaneous casting, or spirit shaman style spontaneous casting, or psychic reformation paired with sorcerer style spontaneous casting gets you access to more problem spells, but unless you ban them/stealth ban them they are still available and still a problem.

Right five things. Since you so object to people ignoring your other steps, allow me to take a look at them.


Step 1. Reduce prepared-type caster spell slots to 3/4 or less for each spell level (rounded down, so if you normally have 4 spell slots of that level, you have 3 instead).

This is a bad change. It hurts people that do not optimize their spell list more then people that do. The less efficient a spell list is, the more slots are needed to archive the same level of effect.

Additionally it promotes the use of the more game disruptive spells by those that know what they are since those spells are more efficient. Because you have not removed those spells this change makes it even more likely that they will be used.


Step 2. Make higher level prepared-type spell slots only refillable in longer periods of time. For example, 2nd-3rd level slots only refill in 2 days, 3rd-4th level slots only refill in 3 days, etc. (or some variant of this, scale up and down as you wish).

Once again this hurts the less experienced or otherwise less efficient players more then the efficient ones and also pushes players towards problem spells. This is basically just another way to remove slots and so has a similar effect to step 1.

However, it is a bit different and so will likely cause another negative effect. If casters have to wait for several days to fill up their slots that means the players of those casters will probably want to wait around for those slots. You've turned the 15 minute adventuring day, that some already dislike, into the 15 minute adventuring week. It can also cause group friction if some of the players are annoyed by the massively extended downtime.


Step 3. Implement Save Points & Strife.

A suggestion that adds additional book keeping multiplied by the number of characters is not what I would call a good idea. Also it looks like it nerfs the already weak blasting spells by adding more layers of protection. Similarly it would seem to nerf debuffs which reduces caster non-caster interaction.

Also it would appear to promote spamming stuff like a billion useless spells off of hirelings or whatever to eat up the defense. That kind of thing adds even more complication and book keeping.

Nerfing already weak spells and adding a bunch of extra book keeping are not what I would call good ideas.


Step 4. Make summoned/called creatures be only controlled by the GM and only follow basic orders to the best of their ability (not be directly controlled by the spellcaster, as they're not dominated), and do the same to animal companions, familiars, psicrystals, cohorts, followers, hirelings, mercenaries, etc.

I think that is rather the way that things already are. Sure, there may be some corner cases but that is not much of a change at all. Sure it doesn't play out that way all the time, but that is generally to speed up gameplay by not having the DM do everything. And anyway, it is not like dominate isn't a thing should it actually matter. But I can't say this is a bad change since I am not actually sure it is a change.


Step 5. Implement custom Incantations that expend spell slots (a.k.a. "Charged Incantations")

Right, since I have no idea how this would work who knows.

Are you removing problem spells and replacing them with this. Well hey, it looks like modifying the spell list was actually the answer all along.

Are you leaving the spells and adding in these. I think that would do nothing. Maybe if it didn't cost spell slots it could help a noncasting party but it does cost spell slots.


And so, there you go. Several changes that I would consider bad, one thing that might not actually be a change, and one thing that I have no idea how it even is supposed to work. And even after all that the spell list is still a problem.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Another few possible drops in the fix bucket:

Lower Save or Cry spell DCs by making spell save DCs unaffected by casting-stat, spell level, or BOTH. (AD&D had flat saves for most everything, with the result that high-level characters made saves pretty consistently).

Give non-caster (/binder/manifester/whatever...) classes good Will saves. They're non-magical people taking on walking nightmares for a living, that's the kind of person who SHOULD have immense willpower.

Well I wouldn't lower the save DC's. Players love it when their spells work on enemies after all. People would really hate that they could never effect anything in the game. Perhaps if you lowered the DC but gave all spells an effect on a miss... Like the effect last for at least one round... Something a kin to 4e it could work.

I know for any non-caster that has one good save what I do is give them a class feature that allows them to pick one of their bad saves and make it a good save. So a Fighter could choose either Reflex or Will to become a good save.