Full Casters as prestige classes

[maniacalmojo]

Saw a similar post about making sorcerers a prestige class and that got me thinking.. What if there were partial casting classes (like adept or something) that have a short casting progression with things like wizard and warmage being prestige classes later that would offer higher level casting.

Like an adept had some skill points and casting up until like fifth or so by twelfth level but he could prestige into wizard which would offer up to ninth level casting but lower hit points and skill points?

Thinking it might help with some of the balance issues with higher tier classes

[Flickerdart]

What would this fix? You have a slower progression at the start, but then it ramps up again if you want to get to 9ths before Epic, and in the end you end up where you started.

[DeAnno]

Making Casters start slower and then finish the same is not fixing the problem really. The disparity at the end is way bigger than at the beginning.

[With a box]

how about caster got only has 3/4 level?
does 15th lv wizard roll well with 20th fighter?

[Flickerdart]

There were a couple of arena matches with 13th level wizards against 20th level fighters, and the fighter only won once. Arena matches aren't necessarily representative of real gameplay, but even the bard, with 6th level spells and a worse list, is two tiers above the fighter. 8th level wizard spells still dominate - there might not be any more time stop or shapechange or gate, but there are still prismatic wall, maze, and polymorph any object/.

[georgie_leech]

how about caster got only has 3/4 level?
does 15th lv wizard roll well with 20th fighter?

Not especially. It was less noticeable in earlier editions, but in 3.5 a general glut of powerful, cheap, and versatile spells, as well as a fundamental reimagining of the saving throw system, makes it so that you just get a more rocket-y rocket tag, where the wizard is reduced to a slightly finer mist if the Fighter gets a full attack off, and the Wizard really wants to land the same SoL/SoD he would have tossed anyway.

[holywhippet]

Wizard tends to dominate over fighters just because certain spells like fly and greater invisibility in open spaces and in close quarters they can just start summoning in monsters to cover them while they toss direct damage spells. 3/4 progression isn't really a hindrance as a lot of the really good spells aren't all that high in level.

Most balanced I've ever seen wizards vs. fighters was the old Dark Sun game on the PC (not sure if it was due to the rules or just the game). Spell caster could do decent damage over an area, but fighters got a lot of attacks and could do a lot more damage to a single target each round.

[SinsI]

Reallistically speaking, all the Wizards should be removed from the combat as completely as possible: there's simply no way swinging a stick of metal and casting something as complex as a summoning spell can be in the same realm of time space; the minimum time to cast anything more complex than Light should be 10+ minutes, with hours, days and weeks for any of the broken spells Wizards get. At most, they should be able to shoot some weak damage effects from ethernal wands, essentially turning into Warlocks.

[holywhippet]

In 2nd edition all rounds lasted one minute regardless of what you were doing - casting, attacking, shooting with a bow etc. This wasn't entirely realistic either as a good archer can unleash a low of arrows in a single minute. Melee attacks made a bit more sense as it might take time to find the opportunity to attack.

It's hard to argue how long a spell should take to cast since wizards aren't actually real (to the best of my knowledge).

[Flickerdart]

Reallistically speaking, all the Wizards should be removed from the combat as completely as possible: there's simply no way swinging a stick of metal and casting something as complex as a summoning spell can be in the same realm of time space; the minimum time to cast anything more complex than Light should be 10+ minutes, with hours, days and weeks for any of the broken spells Wizards get. At most, they should be able to shoot some weak damage effects from ethernal wands, essentially turning into Warlocks.
You forgot the blue text there.

[SinsI]

It's hard to argue how long a spell should take to cast since wizards aren't actually real (to the best of my knowledge).

Realistic as in a realistic way to make them more balanced, not to make them any closer to real life.

[holywhippet]

Technically the balance is already there, it just doesn't work very well. Spell casters have a limited number of spells per day whereas a fighter type can keep swinging their weapons until they run out of HP or opponents. That is meant to be the balance between the two types. It starts to fail hard in 3rd edition because of certain spells which make casters as good at fighting as fighters and then add DMM abuse which lets them be like that all day.

Making them actually balanced is near impossible because the mechanics don't really allow it. 4th edition was an attempt to balance them but it did so by making them mechanically the same.

[heavyfuel]

If you want a way to nerf casters, here's how a friend of mine does it:

- Any spell has a casting time of "spell level²/caster level" rounds. Rounded up, to a minimum of one full round. This way, a 6th level Sorcerer casting Fireball would need 3*3/6 = 1.5, rounded to 2. So 2 rounds;
- If a spell already had a casting time longer than 1 round, you just multiply the duration. For example, a 13 lv Druid casting Control Weather would take 7*7/13 = 3.76 rounded to 4, times 10 minutes. So 40 minutes;
- Orisons and Cantrips are the only spells whose cast time is a Standard Action;
- There are no Immediate spells;
- Swift spells are considered a Standard Action spell, so minimum cast time was 1 round;
- No Metamagic whatsoever; though all spells with a duration of less than "10min/lv" were extended for free.
- No 9th level spells;
- Wild Shape had the "cast time" of a spell whose level was 1/2 the creature's HD, and lasted round/lv instead of hr/lv. So transforming into a 12-headed hydra would be the same as casting a 6th lv spell;
- Druid's Animal Companion equal to the Ranger's.

This didn't really hurt the casters' versatility out of combat, but they no longer could end everything with a standard action. And with this, the Fighter types became, by comparison, better at what they were supposed to be doing in the first place - fighting.

I only played with his houserules twice, once as a Rogue, and once as a Cleric and I gotta say it kind of worked. Sure, my system mastery then wasn't what it is now, so my opinion is biased based on how it felt playing the gimped Cleric then.

[Andezzar]

4th edition was an attempt to balance them but it did so by making them mechanically the same.They gave fighters abilities that are as potent and/or versatile as grease, glitterdust, fly, polymorph etc. or did they simply remove those from the wizard?

@Heavyfuel: Was ToB on the table with those houserules? If so did the more supernatural maneuvers get a similar nerf? How about other supernatural abilities?

[heavyfuel]

@Heavyfuel: Was ToB on the table with those houserules? If so did the more supernatural maneuvers get a similar nerf? How about other supernatural abilities?

I don't think we had ToB then... the DM only allowed the books he had, and maybe something else. I think he had Core 3.5, CW, CArc, CAdv and BoED. I can definitely say no-one was playing any ToB class, so there's that. Edit: He definitely had Spell Compendium as well.

(Su) abilities were up to him. Inspire Courage remained a Standard Action for example, also my Turn Undead. But like I mntioned, the Druid's Wild Shape got a similar nerf.

[Flickerdart]

If you want a way to nerf casters, here's how a friend of mine does it:
Wow. Seems like a great way to encourage casters to use Greater Planar Binding and Animate Dead to march around with armies of minions that replace the fighter entirely, rather than try and buff him. Want to throw a haste on the party fighter? By the time it goes off, the battle will be half-over. Better just run over whatever's around with your zombie that has double his hit dice.

[heavyfuel]

Wow. Seems like a great way to encourage casters to use Greater Planar Binding and Animate Dead to march around with armies of minions that replace the fighter entirely, rather than try and buff him. Want to throw a haste on the party fighter? By the time it goes off, the battle will be half-over. Better just run over whatever's around with your zombie that has double his hit dice.

Pretty sure he also limited any sort of minions to half your HD... I just forgot to mention that. Hell, I probably forgot to mention a few extra house rules as this was like 6 years ago.

There were also no Candles of Invocation, Dust of S&C, and I think creatures abilities whose magical equivalent were beyond the CR in CL were banned too (like the efreeti, CR 8 could only cast like a lv8 Wizard which meant 4th lv spells, so no wish or permanent image)

I'm sure there were more, but these are the ones I remember right now.

[georgie_leech]

They gave fighters abilities that are as potent and/or versatile as grease, glitterdust, fly, polymorph etc. or did they simply remove those from the wizard?



A bit of both; Wizard's lost the excessive Power, Fighters were buffed to the point that they're considered one of the most powerful 4E classes. For the record, they're "mechanically the same" in the same way that Maneuvers and Spells are the same, being a limited set of a larger pool of abilities that have limits on how often they can be used. The actual class features and ability details differ fundamentally in design and purpose; the Fighter having close range high-damage abilities used with weapons that usually target AC, with class features that encourage stickiness, durability, and tanking, while a Wizard has ranged powers that tend to either target multiple creatures or impart status effects like Stunned or Immobilised, with class features that make them more accurate or difficult to resist, and they gain automatic access to magic Rituals.

[SinsI]

Or something like this: basic casters are Warlocks/Dragonfire Adepts/etc., and Fullcasters are prestige classes that don't give them any more invocations (while still progressing their Eldritch Blast/Dragonfire Breath/whatever), instead allowing access to spells; all spells are rituals that have casting time of 10+ minutes.

This fixes both problems with casters: 5 minute adventuring day (since they have the basic Blasting to fall back to) and general overpoweredness of spells in combat.

[Spore]

Give full casters bardic spell progression and make spells above 7th level either feats or items (like those stones for sorcerers).

[sideswipe]

give wizards 1 spellbook with 100 pages. if they run out they can never learn another spell unless they lose the book and pay for new spells.

[Svata]

give wizards 1 spellbook with 100 pages. if they run out they can never learn another spell unless they lose the book and pay for new spells.

If a wizard starts with 18 INT, and only puts down 4 0-level spells (lets say prestidigitation, detect magic, read magic, and mage hand), he can onl fit his normal given progression up to his first 7th level spell. He doesn't even get both of them, just one.

[Shinken]

Complete Warrior has a variant that does pretty much this.

[Andezzar]

Complete Warrior has a variant that does pretty much this.More nonsense from this book? Where can I find it?

[Zubrowka74]

In 2nd edition all rounds lasted one minute regardless of what you were doing - casting, attacking, shooting with a bow etc.

IIRC it was the turn that lasted 60 seconds, or 10 rounds. So same 6 seconds round than 3.X.

[SimonMoon6]

A bit of both; Wizard's lost the excessive Power, Fighters were buffed to the point that they're considered one of the most powerful 4E classes.

Or as Vaarsuvius said to his 4e incarnation in a strip found in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales:


When you said that your allies are as mighty as you yourself are, I mistakenly took that to mean that they were all now as powerful as a wizard-- whereas I now see that what you actually meant was that a wizard was now only as powerful as a fighter or rogue.

[Shinken]

More nonsense from this book? Where can I find it?

By the end of the book, in the 'warrior campaigns' section. Hardly find that to be nonsense. For a book published so early into 3.5, Complete Warrior is fairly well written.

[Andezzar]

By the end of the book, in the 'warrior campaigns' section. Hardly find that to be nonsense.Are you talking about this?
Another method of limiting access to potent spells is to treat the spellcasting classes much like prestige classes. Any character wishing to begin gaining levels as a spellcaster must first be at least a 3rd-level character with 3 ranks each in Spellcraft and an appropriate Knowledge skill (arcana for bards, sorcerers, or wizards; religion for clerics; nature for druids). This requirement ensures that such characters are significantly behind the power curve of a traditional singleclassed spellcaster, but have other talents to fall back on in times of need.That sounds pretty nonsensical to me. It only delays casting but takes away little of the versatility of spellcasting. SOD/SOL spells and summons become less effective but many of the "no save just lose" spells and the plethora of utility spells are still there and still cannot be duplicated by the mundanes.

For a book published so early into 3.5, Complete Warrior is fairly well written.Really? They allowed breaking more than half their PrCs by requiring the character to continually qualify for them. Ability damage (for those requiring feats with ability minimums) or expending some spells (for those requiring being able to cast certain spells) will cause the characters to lose all benefits of the class features of the PrCs in the book. Even though the class features themselves are not lost, there is no rule that the benefits return, if the character again fulfills the prerequisites.

[sideswipe]

If a wizard starts with 18 INT, and only puts down 4 0-level spells (lets say prestidigitation, detect magic, read magic, and mage hand), he can onl fit his normal given progression up to his first 7th level spell. He doesn't even get both of them, just one.

yep, but as trying to nerf them goes it works :)

[Andezzar]

The problem is that a wizard knows all cantrips. I would not be surprised if there are ~100 cantrips across all books.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Reallistically speaking, all the Wizards should be removed from the combat as completely as possible: there's simply no way swinging a stick of metal and casting something as complex as a summoning spell can be in the same realm of time space; the minimum time to cast anything more complex than Light should be 10+ minutes, with hours, days and weeks for any of the broken spells Wizards get. At most, they should be able to shoot some weak damage effects from ethernal wands, essentially turning into Warlocks.

If you want a way to nerf casters, here's how a friend of mine does it:
Um, yeah, I'm calling that out as a violation of Grod's Law (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328767-More-realistic-D-amp-D-Economy/page4&p=17613518#post17613518). I've played a caster (with low system mastery) in Exalted, where spells take 2-3 rounds to cast, and it was an awful experience. Forget balance; it wasn't fun to only get half as many turns as everyone else. But if we don't forget balance... this still isn't great. Full casters still get all the campaign-breaking stuff, but are now forced to sit on the sidelines in combat-- in 3.5, where fights can easily take an hour to finish. A ritual magic/battle magic split (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?325646-The-Ritualist-A-tier-3-crafter-spellbook-user-maybe-%283-5-PEACH%29)isn't the worst idea, if done well, but the battle magic would have to be more relevant than a couple d6's of energy damage every turn, and the ritual magic would still have to fix or ban campaign-breaking stuff like planar binding.

[sideswipe]

The problem is that a wizard knows all cantrips. I would not be surprised if there are ~100 cantrips across all books.

yes he once did. but hey spellbooks get lost all the time.

also on the various spellfinders i dont think i found (excluding third party) more than 20-30. maybe less cantrips.

[Grod_The_Giant]

yes he once did. but hey spellbooks get lost all the time.

also on the various spellfinders i dont think i found (excluding third party) more than 20-30. maybe less cantrips.
D&Dtools lists 35, once repeats are eliminated.

[Andezzar]

yes he once did. but hey spellbooks get lost all the time.Oh, he does not smoke his spells?


also on the various spellfinders i dont think i found (excluding third party) more than 20-30. maybe less cantrips.I count 64 here (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/FindSpell.php).

Switching out the gamebreaking stuff will just be more expensive than normally. This nerf merely annoys the players but does not fix the problem that wizards can reshape reality and fighters can hit hard.

Don't forget to ban the Blessed Book (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#blessedBook).

[heavyfuel]

Um, yeah, I'm calling that out as a violation of Grod's Law (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328767-More-realistic-D-amp-D-Economy/page4&p=17613518#post17613518). I've played a caster (with low system mastery) in Exalted, where spells take 2-3 rounds to cast, and it was an awful experience. Forget balance; it wasn't fun to only get half as many turns as everyone else. But if we don't forget balance... this still isn't great. Full casters still get all the campaign-breaking stuff, but are now forced to sit on the sidelines in combat-- in 3.5, where fights can easily take an hour to finish. A ritual magic/battle magic split (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?325646-The-Ritualist-A-tier-3-crafter-spellbook-user-maybe-%283-5-PEACH%29)isn't the worst idea, if done well, but the battle magic would have to be more relevant than a couple d6's of energy damage every turn, and the ritual magic would still have to fix or ban campaign-breaking stuff like planar binding.

Isn't your law "don't make OP things a chore to use"? Having casters spend some rounds to cast complex spells that are, supposedly, unimaginably difficult to cast making it a "chore"? Maybe. It didn't feel this way when I as playing the Cleric, as I could still have Greater Magic Weapon and a few hr/lv buffs up at all times, so I could contribute in combat quite well.

I also think your logic that it wasn't fun because you were only acting once every X rounds is somewhat flawed. You can say the same thing about regular d&d, where the Psion or Druid can have an action economy that makes them act 10 times for every one time the mundane Fighter or Rogue is acting.

I'm not defending his methods and I don't personally use these rules - though that may be because I ban Tiers 1 and 2 when DMing. I'm just saying that he did manage to nerf casters (read my second post about the other houserules). If it's fun or not, that's gonna vary from person to person, but I had fun, and I'm pretty everyone else had fun too. You could still cast lower level spells, that would still deal damage related to your caster level, regardless of spell level, but anything more complex would require you to consider if it was worth it.

It was just an idea that might work. To be fair though, he was one of the, if not THE, best DMs I've ever played with. So maybe that's why we were all having fun, regardless of his magic system.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Isn't your law "don't make OP things a chore to use"?
It's "you can balance things by making them annoying to use," with the corollary that "doing so is meanest to the least skilled optimizers." Multi-round casting times are certainly a way of making things annoying to use, without really changing their power. Scry-and-die is still perfectly viable with multi-round casting times, for instance, while blasting is not. Also, squeezing the action economy makes it more important to optimize your turns when they do come around. If you're casting ten spells in a combat, you can play around with fun stuff and still contribute in a productive way. If you're casting one spell, it damn well better be game-changing.

(Though I admit that I didn't look at the details of your system; I was responding to the idea in general. On a closer look, yours seems more workable than most)


I also think your logic that it wasn't fun because you were only acting once every X rounds is somewhat flawed. You can say the same thing about regular d&d, where the Psion or Druid can have an action economy that makes them act 10 times for every one time the mundane Fighter or Rogue is acting.
Well, yeah, which is why such shennanigans are usually frowned upon.


It was just an idea that might work. To be fair though, he was one of the, if not THE, best DMs I've ever played with. So maybe that's why we were all having fun, regardless of his magic system.
Could be. My experience was not having fun (despite a good GM) when using a similar magic nerf, so there you go.