Wizard Fix

[MadBear]

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/DrainPower.jpg

Preface:

let me preface this thread by stating that: As I've played 5e, I have not seen the disparity in full caster/half caster/ martial problems that I used to see in 3.5 at all. I've heard reasonable arguments for why full casters are a bigger problem then the others, but I've yet to see any of those problems materialize.

Why the Wizard
With that said, I think the biggest potential problem maker of all full casters is the Wizard. The Sorcerer and Warlock have a far narrower selection, and the bard/cleric lists are usually much less overtly powerful. The wizard is also is capable of growing their spell list to encompass every spell as they adventure. For this reason, I'm going to pick on the wizard and a reasonable way to bring their higher end power down.

The Fix
The fix for this is simple. Wizards can only learn spells of 6 level and higher from the school that they choose. The fluff reason is that only those truly dedicated to their specialty can grasp the nature of these high powered spells. In play this means that wizards will have a vast array of spells from other specializations from spell levels 1-5, but spell levels 6-9 will only be available to specialty schools. This reduces the most abusive part of the wizards arsenal, while keeping them themed. I mean sure, anyone can throw a fireball, but only a true evocation specialist can throw meteors across the battlefield. The only exception is divination spells which would be open to anyone (mainly due to the low amount of divination spells available at all during these levels).

This also reduces the simulacrum silliness, because now you need to get to paranoid 17th level wizards together who will agree to combine their powers to create simulacrums. That isn't to say it won't happen, but now it's a plot device rather then Mr. Wizards solution to everything.

Issue with the Fix

There is one glaring issue with the fix at the moment unfortunately. The current number of spells by school varies widely. Currently between levels 6-9 there are:

Abjuration -6
Conjuration- 11
Enchantment- 7
Evocation- 12
illusion- 5
Necromancy- 7
Transmutation- 10

With that in mind, most of the schools are still really good, and adding a few spells to fill in the gap wouldn't be that hard (or moving a spell from one school to another if appropriate). To be fair the ones that suffer the most are illusion with no level 8 spell (but they get simulacrums so I don't feel that bad), Enchantment during level 7 spells (but they get power word spells so again I don't feel that bad), and that's it. Everyone else at least get 1 spell from each level.

Deja Vu?

This is thread is a bit of a repeat of a thread I made back in September/October (I think, my mind's a little fuzzy and I don't care enough to track down the actual date). I took the suggestions made then, and what I see now in proposing the changes.

Remember

From levels 1-10 the wizard will play exactly the same as he does currently. It's only levels 11+ that the change has any real effect. The reason is that after level 10, most DPR classes don't get a lot more tools in their belt, and instead get better at using those tools. A wizard shouldn't then get a huge increase in tools either, and instead have similar albeit better tools as they level.

Thanks for listening (Even if it is only to bitterly destroy my precious little idea :D )

[Kryx]

As suggested in the other thread I'd only limit 8 and 9. And for all classes, not just wizard.


In my experience 9th level spells are a problem and a couple of 8th level spells. 7th and below are situationaly very strong (and using them in those situations may make them seem overpowered but it is really the right tool for the job).

[Mara]

I do not see what this fixing.

[Sindeloke]

I do not see what this fixing.

Really? It's right there in MadBear's OP. The disparity between a wizard's versatility at high levels and everybody else's.

I like it, personally, just for the flavor of it. I've always felt wizard specialization should be more distinct. As far as balance goes, I think wizards are actually the lesser offenders of the full casters. The DM has a huge amount of control over the wizard's spellbook, since the player can only choose 2 per level and has to hope the DM will provide the rest. Druids and clerics on the other hand just get anything off the list they want, every day, and bards can even poach six full spells off of other classes' lists (or more, with the right subclass).

Much harder to see how you'd apply this idea to them, though (apart from domain themes for clerics, as mentioned in the other thread).

[Mara]

Really? It's right there in MadBear's OP. The disparity between a wizard's versatility at high levels and everybody else's.

Yes. As in, I do not see the problem. It's like wrapping duct-tape around perfectly functional plumbing. I do not see the need for the fix.

[asorel]

If you think the Wizard's versatility is a problem, I suppose you could call this a "fix." However, the Wizard's schtick is its versatility. The reason you want a Wizard in your party is because the class is a walking toolbox. Also, though this is more general 5e design than the Wizard specifically, this edition has typically gone against blocking features or spells out due to specialization.

[Theodoxus]

Yes. As in, I do not see the problem. It's like wrapping duct-tape around perfectly functional plumbing. I do not see the need for the fix.

And that's ok. It's a house rule - it'll work in some houses, and not in others. I think it's quite fitting.

As for Cleric/Druid, were I to adopt this rule, I'd require a cleric or druid to pick a similar 'school' for their spells.

For clerics:
Abjuration has 4 spells (6, 7 and 2 8th)
Conjuration has 7 spells (3 6th, 2 7th and 2 9th)
Divination has 2 6th (I'd likewise allow Divination regardless of specialization)
Evocation has 5 spells (2 6th, 2 7th and an 8th)
Necromancy has 5 spells (2 6th, a 7th and 2 9th)
Transmutation has 3 spells (2 7th and an 8th)

Obviously, Conjuration would provide the greatest bang...

For druids:
Really only Conjuration and Transmutation have sizable schools. I'd make them pick between the two of them, and let the rest of the schools be together for a third choice.


It's a decent ruling that tones down the earthshattering power of a 17th level full caster that isn't already limited by total number of spells known.

[Mara]

I think it's quite fitting. Is it improper to ask why?

[ChubbyRain]

Easy "fix" is to use the "e6 method". You limit spell known to 3 or 4th level at the highest. Make key spells above that be rituals that take hours to perform, such as True Resurrection and True Polymorph. These spells are only in the game if the DM specifically allows it.

They still can have their spell slots, just not spell known. This way they continue to grow and be more useful but their overall power will be closer to everyone else.

This includes all other full casters too. The partial casters don't really have the best spells so some of them may become lower level spells in this system.

[MadBear]

And that's ok. It's a house rule - it'll work in some houses, and not in others. I think it's quite fitting.

As for Cleric/Druid, were I to adopt this rule, I'd require a cleric or druid to pick a similar 'school' for their spells.

For clerics:
Abjuration has 4 spells (6, 7 and 2 8th)
Conjuration has 7 spells (3 6th, 2 7th and 2 9th)
Divination has 2 6th (I'd likewise allow Divination regardless of specialization)
Evocation has 5 spells (2 6th, 2 7th and an 8th)
Necromancy has 5 spells (2 6th, a 7th and 2 9th)
Transmutation has 3 spells (2 7th and an 8th)

Obviously, Conjuration would provide the greatest bang...

For druids:
Really only Conjuration and Transmutation have sizable schools. I'd make them pick between the two of them, and let the rest of the schools be together for a third choice.


It's a decent ruling that tones down the earthshattering power of a 17th level full caster that isn't already limited by total number of spells known.

I love this. I'll totally steal that for the Clerics and druids as well.


Is it improper to ask why?

Let me start by saying, I'm not entirely convinced that full casters totally eclipse others at higher levels, but after hearing stories from multiple people, I believe they have some solid points.

Now to answer the meat of your question, I'll put it this way. After level 11, most martial classes don't get earth shattering abilities. They get useful abilities that help fulfill the role their playing. Wizards on the other hand, get spells that's power is ridiculously powerful. This "fix" would at least make high level wizards unique, and force them to choose a path of specialization so to speak. That way they get spells that fulfill the role they're characters chose, without allowing them to fulfill all roles within a 24 hour notice.

[Theodoxus]

Is it improper to ask why?

No, though to reiterate, I don't think I can express myself in a way that will alter your viewpoint - though that's certainly ok.

I've found, in high level gameplay, that being able to freely mix and match spell effects for greater efficacy creates the largest disparity between magical and mundane. If a fighter knows his wizard buddy is an evoker, using this house rule, he'll know the wizard will be putting out punishing aoe damage, but won't be turning into a dragon and nuking from orbit. Likewise, if the wizard buddy is an abjurer, the fighter knows he'll have the greatest magical protections backing him up, but the wizard won't be laying waste to his enemies with godlike meteors.

Granted, 5th Ed has neutered high level casting with reducing 8th and 9th level spell slots to 1; but I still like the thematic idea of increased specialization - when one knows all the spells, what's the point of being an evoker or an abjurer... you could nuke or shield with the best of either - as a necromancer.

I'm not saying that this is a universal fix - but I think given the fundamental lower powered nature of 5th ed, it is certainly an idea that has merit.

That's all. For me, at my table, I would seriously consider adopting it.

[Rush]

What do you do for the Wizard who specialises in Divination? They've only got two spells, which you've made open to everyone fairly, but that doesn't provide the Diviner with any more options.

I only bring it up because I really like this idea, and I might suggest implementing it in my game, since we're still low level right now, and I thought it would help to mention it. Personally I really like the Diviner as a character trope, though I don't know how the specialisation holds up in play, so yeah. Spells for the Diviner?

I'm thinking, rather than barring them specifically by School, come up with a Spell List for each school to choose spells from in the higher levels, obviously composed largely of spells from their schools, but for allowing us to even out the spells available to each School specialist.

Anyhow, there's my two cents.

[MadBear]

What do you do for the Wizard who specialises in Divination? They've only got two spells, which you've made open to everyone fairly, but that doesn't provide the Diviner with any more options.

I only bring it up because I really like this idea, and I might suggest implementing it in my game, since we're still low level right now, and I thought it would help to mention it. Personally I really like the Diviner as a character trope, though I don't know how the specialisation holds up in play, so yeah. Spells for the Diviner?

I'm thinking, rather than barring them specifically by School, come up with a Spell List for each school to choose spells from in the higher levels, obviously composed largely of spells from their schools, but for allowing us to even out the spells available to each School specialist.

Anyhow, there's my two cents.

I'd say that's totally fair way to do it. As you can see divination would need it's own special niche. Maybe they get to pick spells from all 6th and 7th level spells lists (to represent their greater array of knowledge), 1 8th level spell of their choice, and at 17th level they get wish (which seems like a good spell for a divination wizard to have).

[Jlooney]

Necromancy also take a huge hit from this. They barely get two or three spells a level from their school. Even if you counted cleric spells among them.

[MadBear]

If you think the Wizard's versatility is a problem, I suppose you could call this a "fix." However, the Wizard's schtick is its versatility. The reason you want a Wizard in your party is because the class is a walking toolbox. Also, though this is more general 5e design than the Wizard specifically, this edition has typically gone against blocking features or spells out due to specialization.

I totally agree that this house rule wouldn't fit within WOTC's paradigm this edition, and I see why they didn't do this. As to the wizard being a tool box, I agree. That's why they still get 1st-5th level spells from all spell lists. That's still a huge degree of versatility. The only thing I'm restricting is their versatility for their highest and most powerful spells.

[Slipperychicken]

I haven't yet been convinced of Wizards being overpowered in 5e. The DM still controls what spells they get, and they get very few spells per day over 6th level anyway. I tried playing one around 3rd and 4th level, and I was really underwhelmed in terms of their power.

[RustyArmor]

Minus a few annoying spells like comprehend languages and counterspell (least to me) I agree with Slipperychicken for most part. They took a good enough hit with concentration where they are not the power houses they used to be. I'd say the worst thing for me is the ritual tag for certain spells like alarm and leomunds tiny hut (gods I hate this spell now).

[Psikerlord]

Imo there is nothing to fix aside possibly from Forcecage not giving a save. This is indirectly fixable by allowing Legendary Resistance to allow a save when one is not normally permitted (as well as auto saving when a save is permitted).

I would fix paladins by requiring a bonus action to smite before nerfing wizards. Or deleting the -5/+10 mechanic from those 2 feats. Or scrapping passive perception which is plain broken vs static DCs like traps.

[Sindeloke]

I'd say that's totally fair way to do it. As you can see divination would need it's own special niche. Maybe they get to pick spells from all 6th and 7th level spells lists (to represent their greater array of knowledge), 1 8th level spell of their choice, and at 17th level they get wish (which seems like a good spell for a divination wizard to have).

Hmn, but what if you ban Wish?

I haven't got my book on me - are there any high-level Cleric or Druid divination/necromancy spells that could be reasonably poached? If we're limiting those classes' choices at that level as well it isn't as much stepping on their toes as it would be otherwise.

[rollingForInit]

I'd say that's totally fair way to do it. As you can see divination would need it's own special niche. Maybe they get to pick spells from all 6th and 7th level spells lists (to represent their greater array of knowledge), 1 8th level spell of their choice, and at 17th level they get wish (which seems like a good spell for a divination wizard to have).


Hello Lore Bard. Can I just steal one of your most epic class features? Also, Illusion suffers the same issue. There are no 8th level Illusion spells. There is only one 8th level Necromancy spell, and it's one hell of a boring one for actual adventures since it'll likely only come into play during downtime: Clone. Transmutation only have Control Weather. At level 9, Enchanters only have Power Word Kill, Necromancy again has a very niched spell only (Astral Projection). Also, what's going to happen when they introduce Wizard subclasses not related to spell schools? They've already tried with the Artificer, they'll probably do it again. Those wouldn't get any spells at all. So this fix means serious issues and houseruling extra rules for the houserules both for Diviners, Illusionists, Necromancers and Artificers.

If you think that the issue is the Wizard's versatility, wouldn't it be easier to limit then number of spells they know within the limits of the core rules? After all, whether or not the Wizard finds any high-level spell scrolls to copy is entirely under the DM's purview.

That said, I'm not sure what this really fixes. There's nothing preventing a Wizard from just grabbing the most OP spells. Go Conjuration if you just want to be the King of Versatility, and take Wish, and you'll be able to cast any 8th level spel once per day. Or if be a Transmuter for True Polymorph. Also, if Wizards are broken in this way, Bards surely are as well. They could grab Wish and another 8th- or 9th- level spell from the Wizard. Or any class. Just have your pick of the most insanely broken combo imaginable. But if Bards work because they get so few high level spells, then the better way to handle Wizards would be to not give them any spell scrolls for the highest levels. And tell the players that in advance.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I always found this sort of thing weird. People have a problem with non-caster's lack of versatility and options, so the answer is to take away versatility and options from spellcasters? I never get why the goal is to limit the versatile ones, instead of giving the disadvantaged ones more versatility.

I mean, the likely answer is that it's simpler to take away than to add. It's just always been weird to me.

That being said, at least this change is flavorful, rather than just "no stuff about 6th level."

[MrStabby]

Obviously its DM dependant and probably only working at tables with experienced DMs but the ability to research spells does get round the issue of gaps in the list whilst allowing the DM to consider what is thematic.

I certainly wouldn't want to ban all spells above a certain level - most are fine. The problems are just a couple of polymorph/Wish type effects and in isolation I think that these are not unreasonable for someone who has deeply specialised in a specific school.

If you were just to remove all high level spells from casters it would make going through those levels very boring. Most of a casters abilities are in high level spells and just getting new slots is pretty dull.

I don't really see balance as a problem as it is but maybe that is because I have rarely seen any games go beyond level 16.

[Giant2005]

By RAW, Wizards seem to be balanced by the fact that at high levels they have great versatility but at low levels they are pretty much dead weight.
By reducing the high level versatility, you are removing their compensation for the long slog of mediocrity that they must endure to get there.
Having said that, here is a low level buff option to balance the high level nerf:
Rather than follow the usual spell slot progression, whenever they unlock a higher level spell slot they gain all of the slots of that evel (At level 1 they have 4 1st level spells, at 3 in addition to those they have 3 level 2 spells, at level 5 in addition to those they have 3 level 3 spells etc).

[Strill]

Really? It's right there in MadBear's OP. The disparity between a wizard's versatility at high levels and everybody else's.

How is a Wizard's versatility any different from a Cleric or Druid's versatility?

[Jlooney]

How is a Wizard's versatility any different from a Cleric or Druid's versatility?

Druids and clerics can heal, get more hp, heavier armor, better weapon selection and better class features while still being full casters.... So the question is how are they notore cersitile than a wizard.

[Strill]

{scrubbed}

No they don't. 3d8 + STR is better than cantrips.

[SharkForce]

No they don't. 3d8 + STR is better than cantrips.

you mean 3d8* + (strength or dex) is better than cantrip.

* may not be 3d8 (can be higher or lower).

[Strill]

{scrubbed}
For one, nothing says you have to sacrifice wisdom or constitution for strength. For two, it's a great deal. You're the one with heavy armor. You're the one who should be taking the hits.

Moreover, martial clerics get class features to improve melee abilities, and can take feats like Polearm Master to bump their DPR up dramatically.


{scrubbed}Saving throws are less accurate than attacks.

[SharkForce]

{scrubbed}

because it's easier to boost regular attacks than it is to boost cantrips by a significant margin. also because once you get a magic weapon, your damage becomes much more reliable (very few things have resistance, and i don't think anything has immunity). finally, because opportunity attacks let you hit more often.

also, if you're going for a melee cleric, you don't necessarily need wisdom. it limits the spells you can use effectively, but there are plenty of buffing, healing, and utility spells you could focus on. i don't necessarily think that it is better in general, but it is definitely better for damage-dealing.

[Jlooney]

At least I made a valid point

[SharkForce]

{scrubbed}

rogue damage properly built (read: make sure you can get a bonus attack of some kind) is almost as high as the highest damage builds in the game. it is not, by any means, mediocre.

[Mara]

rogue damage properly built (read: make sure you can get a bonus attack of some kind) is almost as high as the highest damage builds in the game. it is not, by any means, mediocre.
You do know sneak attack is once per turn right?
Bonus attacks increase you chance of landing that one attack.

[rollingForInit]

Wasn't the point that Druids and Clerics are just as varied as Wizards, on average? In one way they are less, because their spell lists are smaller. In another, they are more varied, because they know all of their spells whereas the Wizard has to wait for the DM to give most of them away as loot.

Druids and Clerics may not have the "broken" spells of Wish, Simulacrum or True Polymorph. But the, this "fix" doesn't prevent access to those spells either.

[druid91]

Easy "fix" is to use the "e6 method". You limit spell known to 3 or 4th level at the highest. Make key spells above that be rituals that take hours to perform, such as True Resurrection and True Polymorph. These spells are only in the game if the DM specifically allows it.

They still can have their spell slots, just not spell known. This way they continue to grow and be more useful but their overall power will be closer to everyone else.

This includes all other full casters too. The partial casters don't really have the best spells so some of them may become lower level spells in this system.

I'm going to point out here, one of the most gamebreaking spells in the game is 3rd level. And leaving them nothing else to spend their slots on will only make that worse, not better.

The wizard doesn't require fixing.

[MarkTriumphant]

I'm going to point out here, one of the most gamebreaking spells in the game is 3rd level. And leaving them nothing else to spend their slots on will only make that worse, not better.

Which spell is that?

[druid91]

Which spell is that?

Animate Dead. With low levels of slot investment it's handy. But when you start getting into characters who have nothing else to spend their 6-9th level spells on?

[pwykersotz]

Animate Dead. With low levels of slot investment it's handy. But when you start getting into characters who have nothing else to spend their 6-9th level spells on?

In theory, someone who wanted to apply this cap wouldn't worry about needing to cap a couple individual spells as well to prevent abuse. The question then becomes, are there enough game-breaking low level spells when spammed to warrant reconsidering this as a fix?

[druid91]

In theory, someone who wanted to apply this cap wouldn't worry about needing to cap a couple individual spells as well to prevent abuse. The question then becomes, are there enough game-breaking low level spells when spammed to warrant reconsidering this as a fix?

Which is precisely my point. You open up with such a drastic change, done unwisely, and you start down the road of the homebrew game that almost nobody want's to play because you've cut out half the game for being OP without understanding why things are the way they are.

[ChubbyRain]

Animate Dead. With low levels of slot investment it's handy. But when you start getting into characters who have nothing else to spend their 6-9th level spells on?

Sigh....

That's why you also take a look at anything that is being abused and smack it with a hammer.

Actually it isn't even animate dead that is the problem. The problem is allowing said character to hide away until they get a freaking army of these things. Any DM who does that really deserves what the player will do to their world with an army of undead.

Potential issues when raising an army of undead in the D&D world (from wizard point of view)...

Adventurers sent by gods.

Gods (depending on your world and such)

Adventurers accidently finding them.

Liches who hate to compete for resources.

Liches who are bored and notice another caster who may become a Lich and threaten their seat of power.

Local authorities

Big brother governments/guilds

Factions that have been hired to take out a budding threat.

Animate dead has one glaring weakness, it takes time to amass your army of undead. In that time the world has a chance to react. If the DM does absolutely nothing then that sort of power is OK in the world... At least the wizard isn't chain true polymorohing rocks into ancient dragons for amusement.

[Giant2005]

Animate dead has one glaring weakness, it takes time to amass your army of undead.

The bigger issue is the amount of effort it requires trying to keep such an army under control. Most of these spellcasters probably die at the hands of their own skeletons.

[pwykersotz]

Which is precisely my point. You open up with such a drastic change, done unwisely, and you start down the road of the homebrew game that almost nobody want's to play because you've cut out half the game for being OP without understanding why things are the way they are.

Well, maybe not. My question was in earnest. Can you think of more than four spells that are level 5 or under that are that abusable? If it does require half the game to be retooled, that's bad. If it just requires a couple of specific spell nerfs, that's acceptable.

[druid91]

Sigh....

That's why you also take a look at anything that is being abused and smack it with a hammer.

And this is the sort of thing I was talking about. It's far better to simply sit down with everyone and say "Ok, I know you CAN do these things, but we're not going to, alright? Because it would ruin the fun for everyone involved." Because, well, we're all friends around the table. Y'don't just show up with random strangers and play.

As for maintaining control, maintaining control is easy. In fact, if losing control becomes a question, your army is likely already dead to start with.

[MrStabby]

Frankly trying to find 100 corpses and store them without attracting suspicion before you are done is a bit of a stretch.

[Mara]

You know instead of all these various complicated spell nerfs, you could just be more forgiving on skill and improvised action DCs, along with adding some more magical items if the balance issue is really that present in your campaign.

A few flying mounts goes a long way.

[druid91]

Bag of holding Mr Stabby. Average human weight is 110 Lbs, The skeleton makes up 15% of a humans weight. That makes for 16.5 lbs. Which means you can get about 29-30 skeletons into one bag. Which is more than enough to start your army on.


Well, maybe not. My question was in earnest. Can you think of more than four spells that are level 5 or under that are that abusable? If it does require half the game to be retooled, that's bad. If it just requires a couple of specific spell nerfs, that's acceptable.

Just from what I can think of.

1st level, Witchbolt
2nd level Hold Person
3rd level Animate Dead, Glyph of Warding, Slow
4th level Fabricate

Witchbolt is rather obvious. If you hit, you can deal 1d12 free damage a round until the target is dead. Hold Person is an old style save or suck, you make the wisdom save, or you're screwed.

Animate dead has been touched on, Glyph of Warding has all the problems of explosive runes, only now you can store any offensive spell of 3rd level or lower with it, for a mere 200 GP! Slow hit's up to six targets with a VERY nasty Debuff that makes them unlikely to last very long in 5e's lethal atmosphere.

And Fabricate, as I've touched on in other threads, can be combined with crafting proficiency to make art objects and make large amounts of money rapidly.

[Sindeloke]

You know instead of all these various complicated spell nerfs, you could just be more forgiving on skill and improvised action DCs, along with adding some more magical items if the balance issue is really that present in your campaign.

A few flying mounts goes a long way.

So, what's stopping the wizard, cleric, druid and bard from improvising actions and riding flying mounts?

[Mara]

So, what's stopping the wizard, cleric, druid and bard from improvising actions and riding flying mounts?

Improvised actions? Probably poor scores and low action economy.
As for flying mounts? The more the merrier! (http://www.troll.me/images2/syndrome/everyone-can-be-super-and-when-everyones-super-no-one-will-be.jpg)

[SharkForce]

You do know sneak attack is once per turn right?
Bonus attacks increase you chance of landing that one attack.

yes, i do.

i also know that having a very reliable way of delivering 10d6 damage (along with at least a single d6+5 damage being added in) is worth pretty close to the same damage as having a moderately good chance to deliver 4 separate packets of 2d6+5 damage or having a lousy chance to deliver 4 separate packets of 2d6+15 damage, in either case with a d4+5 or d4+15 of equal chance as appropriate.

and since it's one per turn, you can use it on opportunity attacks *and* during your own turn, because those happen on separate turns.

also, who says bards and clerics are going to have poor ability scores? heck, who says any ability score can't be leveraged? if i have int 20 and a bunch of knowledge skills and you're telling the fighter that athletics lets him achieve impressive results, why can't i use my knowledge skills to great effect as well? perhaps the monster i'm fighting has an allergy to something common, or a weak spot. perhaps my medical knowledge lets me know the pressure points, not just for humans, but for hydras as well. why couldn't my knowledge of history let me recognize that this particular lich fought in a battle where its leg was repeatedly targeted, making it much easier to damage the lich there and incapacitate it more than the HP damage would suggest should happen?

[Magic Myrmidon]

It doesn't really solve the problem of inherent versatility and options, but I think letting crazy things happen with skills is a great idea for all players. Yes, a 30 knowledge should let a player suddenly realize a monster's previously completely unknown weakness. Who cares how you know, divine inspiration, sudden connecting of the dots, whatever.

By the same token, a 30 athletics should let a fighter climb snowflakes, and in this way, effectively fly. Or a 30 acrobatics should let a character balance on grains of sand in a desert storm or clouds. Creative thought is encouraged, and it makes all characters have some pretty crazy options.

[Mara]

also, who says bards and clerics are going to have poor ability scores? heck, who says any ability score can't be leveraged? if i have int 20 and a bunch of knowledge skills and you're telling the fighter that athletics lets him achieve impressive results, why can't i use my knowledge skills to great effect as well? perhaps the monster i'm fighting has an allergy to something common, or a weak spot. perhaps my medical knowledge lets me know the pressure points, not just for humans, but for hydras as well. why couldn't my knowledge of history let me recognize that this particular lich fought in a battle where its leg was repeatedly targeted, making it much easier to damage the lich there and incapacitate it more than the HP damage would suggest should happen?

The knowledge-like checks already give you that kind of information (stuff in the stat block). No they don't give you random bonus damage. Improvised actions are meant to be far more interesting.

I do love improvised actions whenever someone has a problem with martials, I can just be, "That is either a you problem or a DM problem" and then wash my hands of the conversation.
The response to so many "lol caster haxzors!" (http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/822499307_WRZkv/0/1050x10000/822499307_WRZkv-1050x10000.jpg)

[SharkForce]

so, in other words, you do apply a caster fix, by limiting the skills that casters can be good at and buffing the skills that non-casters typically have. guess i know why your game doesn't have problems at high levels.

[Easy_Lee]

This is a bad idea. Here's why:

Preface
Wizards are balanced around the idea of versatility. You play a wizard so that you can do anything, as long as you have the right spell available and the opportunity to cast it. That's the point, and wizards give up a lot this edition (limited concentration, low health, not nearly as many defensive options or spell slots, reduced effectiveness of spells, few offensive spells that don't require a spell attack roll or allow a save of some kind, no metamagic) to get it.

Now some people are saying that Wizards can do crazy things at high levels. Okay. Then they say that martials never get those kinds of world-altering powers. Okay. I don't see a problem yet; the disparity exists in social settings, not in combat, and can be addressed by a DM.

Then there's this change: let's take away the Wizard versatility so that they can't do everything anymore.

Bad Idea

Wizards are balanced against other full casters specifically by their spell selection. Take that away, and wizards will no longer be balanced against other casters. Sorcerers in particular would outshine Wizards.
WotC performed a lot of testing to achieve a reasonable balance between casters and martials. No one else has done as much testing as they did. Hearing about how some people feel Wizards are too strong does not constitute testing. The results of one or two games do not reflect accurately on the classes.
Many people, myself included, are perfectly happy playing a martial at any level. None of us are asking you to take power away from the Wizard.
If Wizards cannot cast the spells needed for the adventure, due to being unable to learn them, then the party is significantly more likely to end up in a situation where no one has a solution to the problem at hand. In the very least, no one will have a solution that works for what the party wants to do.
Wizards on their own are weak and vulnerable this edition. They rely on party members to do many things, and often the best use of one's spell slot is buffing a party member. If Wizards are unable to cast the spells they need to support the party, then the party as a whole will suffer.

And one final point: we don't have nearly enough published modules or campaigns yet, particularly high-level ones, to make an honest ruling on which classes and strategies are the strongest. All we have is a bunch of theory-crafting, in which we are unable to reasonably mock-up anything besides combat. We know that Wizards are fine in the damage department, since fighters can replicate the damage of their strongest spells with an action surge. As to whether wizards are actually overpowered, or even good, in full campaigns remains to be seen.

[Mara]

so, in other words, you do apply a caster fix, by limiting the skills that casters can be good at and buffing the skills that non-casters typically have. guess i know why your game doesn't have problems at high levels.

*eyeroll*

Yes because I don't let casters make an arcane check to add 10d10 damage to fireballs, I'm just nerfing their skills

*agressive eyerolling*

Get back to me when you have a point.

[Magic Myrmidon]

*agressive eyerolling*

Not commenting on anything else here, but I found this concept to be very entertaining.

[SharkForce]

*eyeroll*

Yes because I don't let casters make an arcane check to add 10d10 damage to fireballs, I'm just nerfing their skills

*agressive eyerolling*

Get back to me when you have a point.

i never said anything about adding 10d10 damage to fireballs.

you just said that you encourage creativity with skills and that makes non-casters awesome. then i pointed out that casters also have skills which could be used creatively, and your immediate response was to shut that down and say that it only gives you what's in the book.

unless your definition of creative is very different from mine, no, you don't encourage creativity with skills (in general). you encourage creativity with a very narrow subset of skills that martials are more likely to be good at, and let them do interesting things with those skills, but don't allow the same for other skills. thus, you employ houserules that favour martial characters. you can roll your eyes at me all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you've altered the balance of the game with houserules (i won't argue that martials don't need the help, but then again, i'm also not the one going around the boards talking about how martials are doing great and don't need any help at all based on an experience that is affected by houserules that favour martials).

this probably also goes a long way towards resolving why casters never seem to get mentioned for getting creative if this is a standard thing.

[MadBear]

This is a bad idea. Here's why:

Preface
Wizards are balanced around the idea of versatility. You play a wizard so that you can do anything, as long as you have the right spell available and the opportunity to cast it. That's the point, and wizards give up a lot this edition (limited concentration, low health, not nearly as many defensive options or spell slots, reduced effectiveness of spells, few offensive spells that don't require a spell attack roll or allow a save of some kind, no metamagic) to get it.

Now some people are saying that Wizards can do crazy things at high levels. Okay. Then they say that martials never get those kinds of world-altering powers. Okay. I don't see a problem yet; the disparity exists in social settings, not in combat, and can be addressed by a DM.

Then there's this change: let's take away the Wizard versatility so that they can't do everything anymore.

Bad Idea

Wizards are balanced against other full casters specifically by their spell selection. Take that away, and wizards will no longer be balanced against other casters. Sorcerers in particular would outshine Wizards.
WotC performed a lot of testing to achieve a reasonable balance between casters and martials. No one else has done as much testing as they did. Hearing about how some people feel Wizards are too strong does not constitute testing. The results of one or two games do not reflect accurately on the classes.
Many people, myself included, are perfectly happy playing a martial at any level. None of us are asking you to take power away from the Wizard.
If Wizards cannot cast the spells needed for the adventure, due to being unable to learn them, then the party is significantly more likely to end up in a situation where no one has a solution to the problem at hand. In the very least, no one will have a solution that works for what the party wants to do.
Wizards on their own are weak and vulnerable this edition. They rely on party members to do many things, and often the best use of one's spell slot is buffing a party member. If Wizards are unable to cast the spells they need to support the party, then the party as a whole will suffer.

And one final point: we don't have nearly enough published modules or campaigns yet, particularly high-level ones, to make an honest ruling on which classes and strategies are the strongest. All we have is a bunch of theory-crafting, in which we are unable to reasonably mock-up anything besides combat. We know that Wizards are fine in the damage department, since fighters can replicate the damage of their strongest spells with an action surge. As to whether wizards are actually overpowered, or even good, in full campaigns remains to be seen.

Thanks for the response Easy.

Thought I'd address your points quickly.

1. I'm not forcing you or anyone else to accept these changes. I've already stated that I don't and haven't played in any high level campaigns yet (currently lvl 10 in the game I'm playing).

2. This fix is suited and addressed towards those who see a problem. I know this isn't you, so it isn't a rule that I'd expect you to use.

3. Someone already suggested a good way to include the fix to all full casters, thereby equaling that out.

4. You said I'm taking the wizards versatility away, but lets make sure and be clear. I'm taking away their versatility only at the highest levels of power. They still get all their spell levels 1-5. That's still a huge amount of versatility. I'm not saying that I'm not decreasing it, but you have to at least admit that I'm not taking all their versatility away.

5. The fact that the wizard can act as a mcguffin for almost any situation seems like a bug not a feature. Shouldn't all classes be useful to a campaign? Can the game really be balanced if a wizard is necessitated to be part of the group? My point is that if the wizards versatility being reduced at high levels ruins the group, then wouldn't a player that picked a sorcerer instead of a wizard that didn't take that spell also ruin the group?


The knowledge-like checks already give you that kind of information (stuff in the stat block). No they don't give you random bonus damage. Improvised actions are meant to be far more interesting.

I do love improvised actions whenever someone has a problem with martials, I can just be, "That is either a you problem or a DM problem" and then wash my hands of the conversation.
The response to so many "lol caster haxzors!" (http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/822499307_WRZkv/0/1050x10000/822499307_WRZkv-1050x10000.jpg)

Mara, you're currently committing the Oberoni Fallacy.

The fallacy is stated as such:


The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.

The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed.


You're essentially saying that there is no problem with martials, and then saying it's because you let skills do amazing things that make up for not having spells (which sharkforce also rightly points out that a spell caster could also do).

[Strill]

rogue damage properly built (read: make sure you can get a bonus attack of some kind) is almost as high as the highest damage builds in the game. it is not, by any means, mediocre.

Rogue damage is around 1/2 to 2/3rds that of an equal level fighter. The difference is that Rogues only need one hit to land their sneak attack, giving them increased accuracy, and can get advantage easily, giving them more increased accuracy, and can get a second sneak attack if they get an attack of opportunity.

[SharkForce]

Rogue damage is around 1/2 to 2/3rds that of an equal level fighter. The difference is that Rogues only need one hit to land their sneak attack, giving them increased accuracy, and can get advantage easily, giving them more increased accuracy, and can get a second sneak attack if they get an attack of opportunity.

not once you factor in accuracy.

because they have two chances to land sneak attack (for levels before crossbow mastery, use TWF), the fact that they have a very good chance to land that sneak attack damage puts them pretty near the fighter as far as damage is concerned, unless you're dealing with an enemy that has a ridiculously low AC (that is, the point where it is a near certainty that the fighter will land all their damage). the fighter certainly has higher *potential* damage in any given round (unless the rogue crits or rolls very high), but lacks the big chunk that gets added so long as at least one attack lands.

[Easy_Lee]

4. You said I'm taking the wizards versatility away, but lets make sure and be clear. I'm taking away their versatility only at the highest levels of power. They still get all their spell levels 1-5. That's still a huge amount of versatility. I'm not saying that I'm not decreasing it, but you have to at least admit that I'm not taking all their versatility away.

5. The fact that the wizard can act as a mcguffin for almost any situation seems like a bug not a feature. Shouldn't all classes be useful to a campaign? Can the game really be balanced if a wizard is necessitated to be part of the group? My point is that if the wizards versatility being reduced at high levels ruins the group, then wouldn't a player that picked a sorcerer instead of a wizard that didn't take that spell also ruin the group?

In response to 1-3, that's fine.

In response to 4 above, I'll assume that different levels of play are balanced around the assumption that level 6-9 spells exist. What that means is, if you play a perfect campaign designed for character levels 11+, then that campaign is balanced so that a wizard and a fighter are both useful.

By taking away the wizard's ability to diversify his spells, you have neutered the class. You have taken away the one thing that the class does well, which is to prepare for contingencies. As observed in 3.5 and as is true now, the wizard is remarkably lacking in class features. The have the worst armor and weapon profs, no built-in con prof like a sorcerer, worst health, no bonus ASIs, very limited spell recovery options, and have to complete a long rest to switch up their spells. In addition to that, they have to actively seek out scrolls of those spells they need, as opposed to a cleric or many other casters. The wizard has nothing except for his diverse spell pool and bonuses to spells of his chosen school.

In other words, the wizard is like the fighter of casters. Fighters don't have the rage of a barbarian, the many features of a monk, or the spells, auras, and smiting of a paladin. What they do have is a diverse set of options. They can attack four times per turn, and can turn those attacks into pushes, grapples, or even maneuvers when they have them. What you've done is akin to saying "fighters attack the most, and that's not fair, so we should take away their ability to make the most attacks so they do the same as everyone else."

That seem like a bad idea to you yet? It should.

In response to 5 above, all classes are useful to any well-designed campaign. Very little that can be accomplished with a spell can't be accomplished with someone's class feature. The entire point of the wizard class is to be able to plan ahead, try and guess at what will be needed and make sure you have that spell on-hand. When you plan wrong, you're useless. You aren't like a fighter, who can still attack and push and grapple no matter what he's up against, and who can survive most onslaughts. You're just screwed as a wizard when you plan wrong.

Again, that's the entire point of the class. Plan right, and you'll win. Plan wrong, and you'll die horribly. The nicest thing that can happen to an unprepared wizard is him having to run away from the encounter he didn't prepare for while everyone else adapts to it.

By taking away the wizard's ability to adapt, you pigeon-hole him into only that school of spells he uses. The enchanter becomes useless when his opponent is immune to mind-affecting spells. The illusionist is worthless when dealing with blindsight and truesight. Saying that it's only spells above level 6 is just a cop-out on your part. You know, just as well as the rest of us, that those level 6+ spells are very important at high levels of play. A wizard who's just throwing whatever level 5 and below backup spells he has may as well not be throwing anything. There's only so much he can do as far as prepardness goes when that's all he has to work with.

And one more point: the vast majority of casters will be picking the same basic selection of spells. Over time, a best set of spells really does come about for sorcerers, bards, etc. That applies to everyone except the wizard, who can keep that odd, mostly useless spell around for when he really needs it. By saying wizards can only cast the best spells if they've focused in that school, you do three things:

Severely limit the spells being used by PCs, since the wizard had the most diversity and now has far less
Make anyone who actually wants to play a wizard feel like you're targeting them specifically, and they're going to really hate you when they actually get up to those levels
Irritate the PCs once they see that the bad guys in your campaign always focus in the perfect school for the situation, since they had the premonition that only comes with being a DM
Oh, and one more thing too: you ensure that PCs will only focus in those schools that have level 8 and 9 spells

You can't make changes like these without a considerably amount of testing to make sure you're right. WoTC has done that testing; you and the rest of the playground have not.

I rest my case.

[Pex]

This is a bad idea. Here's why:

Preface
Wizards are balanced around the idea of versatility. You play a wizard so that you can do anything, as long as you have the right spell available and the opportunity to cast it. That's the point, and wizards give up a lot this edition (limited concentration, low health, not nearly as many defensive options or spell slots, reduced effectiveness of spells, few offensive spells that don't require a spell attack roll or allow a save of some kind, no metamagic) to get it.

Now some people are saying that Wizards can do crazy things at high levels. Okay. Then they say that martials never get those kinds of world-altering powers. Okay. I don't see a problem yet; the disparity exists in social settings, not in combat, and can be addressed by a DM.

Then there's this change: let's take away the Wizard versatility so that they can't do everything anymore.

Bad Idea

Wizards are balanced against other full casters specifically by their spell selection. Take that away, and wizards will no longer be balanced against other casters. Sorcerers in particular would outshine Wizards.
WotC performed a lot of testing to achieve a reasonable balance between casters and martials. No one else has done as much testing as they did. Hearing about how some people feel Wizards are too strong does not constitute testing. The results of one or two games do not reflect accurately on the classes.
Many people, myself included, are perfectly happy playing a martial at any level. None of us are asking you to take power away from the Wizard.
If Wizards cannot cast the spells needed for the adventure, due to being unable to learn them, then the party is significantly more likely to end up in a situation where no one has a solution to the problem at hand. In the very least, no one will have a solution that works for what the party wants to do.
Wizards on their own are weak and vulnerable this edition. They rely on party members to do many things, and often the best use of one's spell slot is buffing a party member. If Wizards are unable to cast the spells they need to support the party, then the party as a whole will suffer.

And one final point: we don't have nearly enough published modules or campaigns yet, particularly high-level ones, to make an honest ruling on which classes and strategies are the strongest. All we have is a bunch of theory-crafting, in which we are unable to reasonably mock-up anything besides combat. We know that Wizards are fine in the damage department, since fighters can replicate the damage of their strongest spells with an action surge. As to whether wizards are actually overpowered, or even good, in full campaigns remains to be seen.

Some DMs just can't stand player characters being able to do "powerful" stuff. Anything more than 1d8 + 4 damage with at least 50% chance of missing gives them conniption fits. They can deny it all they want, but that's what it amounts to. All these "fixes", "tiers", "nerfs" are all about this. Quirks that make the game fail to function, such as chain Wishing Simulacrum, yeah put a kibosh on that, but put some mooks to sleep, take one enemy out of a fight for a while, or have a pet for an extra meat shield, oh noes how dare players have such power! The DM's poor monsters!

There's even talk of nerfing Polearm Master. The outrage of one bonus attack for 1d4 + modifier damage from a Fighter!

[Wartex1]

I'd rather just have subclass specific spells. Don't exclude the wizard from all spells above 5th level not from his chosen school, but add some (maybe move a few around as well), that can only be used by that. Don't take options, but still make the subclasses more specialized.

[MadBear]

In response to 1-3, that's fine.

In response to 4 above, I'll assume that different levels of play are balanced around the assumption that level 6-9 spells exist. What that means is, if you play a perfect campaign designed for character levels 11+, then that campaign is balanced so that a wizard and a fighter are both useful.

By taking away the wizard's ability to diversify his spells, you have neutered the class. You have taken away the one thing that the class does well, which is to prepare for contingencies. As observed in 3.5 and as is true now, the wizard is remarkably lacking in class features. The have the worst armor and weapon profs, no built-in con prof like a sorcerer, worst health, no bonus ASIs, very limited spell recovery options, and have to complete a long rest to switch up their spells. In addition to that, they have to actively seek out scrolls of those spells they need, as opposed to a cleric or many other casters. The wizard has nothing except for his diverse spell pool and bonuses to spells of his chosen school.

In other words, the wizard is like the fighter of casters. Fighters don't have the rage of a barbarian, the many features of a monk, or the spells, auras, and smiting of a paladin. What they do have is a diverse set of options. They can attack four times per turn, and can turn those attacks into pushes, grapples, or even maneuvers when they have them. What you've done is akin to saying "fighters attack the most, and that's not fair, so we should take away their ability to make the most attacks so they do the same as everyone else."

That seem like a bad idea to you yet? It should.

In response to 5 above, all classes are useful to any well-designed campaign. Very little that can be accomplished with a spell can't be accomplished with someone's class feature. The entire point of the wizard class is to be able to plan ahead, try and guess at what will be needed and make sure you have that spell on-hand. When you plan wrong, you're useless. You aren't like a fighter, who can still attack and push and grapple no matter what he's up against, and who can survive most onslaughts. You're just screwed as a wizard when you plan wrong.

Again, that's the entire point of the class. Plan right, and you'll win. Plan wrong, and you'll die horribly. The nicest thing that can happen to an unprepared wizard is him having to run away from the encounter he didn't prepare for while everyone else adapts to it.

By taking away the wizard's ability to adapt, you pigeon-hole him into only that school of spells he uses. The enchanter becomes useless when his opponent is immune to mind-affecting spells. The illusionist is worthless when dealing with blindsight and truesight. Saying that it's only spells above level 6 is just a cop-out on your part. You know, just as well as the rest of us, that those level 6+ spells are very important at high levels of play. A wizard who's just throwing whatever level 5 and below backup spells he has may as well not be throwing anything. There's only so much he can do as far as prepardness goes when that's all he has to work with.

And one more point: the vast majority of casters will be picking the same basic selection of spells. Over time, a best set of spells really does come about for sorcerers, bards, etc. That applies to everyone except the wizard, who can keep that odd, mostly useless spell around for when he really needs it. By saying wizards can only cast the best spells if they've focused in that school, you do three things:

Severely limit the spells being used by PCs, since the wizard had the most diversity and now has far less
Make anyone who actually wants to play a wizard feel like you're targeting them specifically, and they're going to really hate you when they actually get up to those levels
Irritate the PCs once they see that the bad guys in your campaign always focus in the perfect school for the situation, since they had the premonition that only comes with being a DM
Oh, and one more thing too: you ensure that PCs will only focus in those schools that have level 8 and 9 spells

You can't make changes like these without a considerably amount of testing to make sure you're right. WoTC has done that testing; you and the rest of the playground have not.

I rest my case.

Thx again Easy,

In response to your response on 4 (this is gonna start getting tedious :smallbiggrin:)

Again, you're painting with a very broad brush. I'm not taking away his ability to completely diversify his spells. In that regard I'm not "neutering" the class, though. What your saying is akin to telling a gardener that he cut down a tree, because he trimmed the branches. Now if you want to be more specific about wizards higher level spells, then I'm happy to speak to that. But I just want to be clear,( and I'd like it if you at least showed that you understand even if you don't agree) that I'm not completely taking away a wizards versatility.

Now I will admit that this "fix" lowers the upper end power of the wizard. This is purposeful though. The idea is that the most powerful of spells comes at a cost of only those who are devoted to that subject can learn them. I think we both agree that from levels 1-10 that both the fighter and the wizard have interesting abilities, and things to do with their actions. From levels 11 onward though, the number of things that a fighter can do, don't rise at the same rate the wizards do. There is no ability that a fighter gets at level 17, that matches the power of a level 9 spell. My idea, is not to take that away from the wizard completely. That's why i'm not a fan of the e6 suggestion (no spells above level 4).

Now keep in mind, from your perspective, the classes are fairly well balanced (or at least that's the impression you've given). So me suggesting a way to lower the wizards power is of course going to look too heavy handed. That's why I've stated that my suggestion is for those who feel that the wizards class pulls away in power from everyone else in the mid-late levels.

In response to your response on 5

Keep in mind that I would now be limiting all full casters thx to a suggestion by Theodoxus. So no, the other classes would not have more versatility then the wizard. You should also note, that my response was mainly to address your criticism that if you restricted the wizards highest level spells the group would suffer. That is obviously not the case, unless you're saying that other focused full casters also make their groups suffer. That is the only point I was making.

I'd also point out that you don't know me, or my group, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't pretend to know what they'd think (you also said that what I said between points 1-3 was fine, so I'm surprised you go back on this in saying that I'm only targeting wizards). This idea is done in good faith, to try and bring all of the classes into a more equal alignment. The fact that some on the boards seem to think this is done to "punish" the wizard is just frustrating. As someone who plays LOL alot, I see people get mad when they nerf a character build. The thing is, sometimes nerfing one aspect of the game is the best way to balance the whole game. Sometimes the best way is to empower the rest of the group. In this particular case, I don't see as easy a way to empower non-full caster classes to bring them to a full casters level. But you're acting like a I've stripped the wizard of all their spells, and then claimed to have fixed the problem.


You can't make changes like these without a considerably amount of testing to make sure you're right. WoTC has done that testing; you and the rest of the playground have not.

I rest my case.

Now I'd say this comment is a bit unfair, and a little hypocritical on your part. Awhile ago you created a guide to "fix the BM ranger". In doing so you found a way to combine the mount rules with the BM rules to create a much more useful BM ranger. In fact it's a really smart idea, and make the companion far more useful then it would be otherwise. Would an appropriate response to your suggestion of what to do really have been " WoTC has done that testing; you have not"? Now, my suggestion goes a bit further then what you did (houserule, rather then combining two rules that weren't obvious to combine at first), but the point is that a decent refutation shouldn't need to include what you said at the end there at all. I'm happy to address your criticism (I like seeing where/how I can make the idea better, which means it needs to be criticized). What I don't fine helpful is a blanket statement of, WOTC is right, and your wrong.

[MrStabby]

It's also worth noting that a lot of these problems that people are trying to fix have been found through testing. A lot of people on these forums have played a lot of games, both as players and DMs and found issues. Denying everyone's experiences as not being valid because we are not WotC doesn't really help fix the issue.

Adopting the perspective that there is no issue is fine and a valid viewpoint. It does just seem odd that people who think there is no issue are the people who write so much, so strongly in a thread looking to fix the issue. It isn't like the people here are telling you to not play the game you want to play it.

[Easy_Lee]

The thing is, sometimes nerfing one aspect of the game is the best way to balance the whole game. Sometimes the best way is to empower the rest of the group. In this particular case, I don't see as easy a way to empower non-full caster classes to bring them to a full casters level. But you're acting like a I've stripped the wizard of all their spells, and then claimed to have fixed the problem.

(snip)

Awhile ago you created a guide to "fix the BM ranger". In doing so you found a way to combine the mount rules with the BM rules to create a much more useful BM ranger. In fact it's a really smart idea, and make the companion far more useful then it would be otherwise. Would an appropriate response to your suggestion of what to do really have been " WoTC has done that testing; you have not"? Now, my suggestion goes a bit further then what you did (houserule, rather then combining two rules that weren't obvious to combine at first), but the point is that a decent refutation shouldn't need to include what you said at the end there at all. I'm happy to address your criticism (I like seeing where/how I can make the idea better, which means it needs to be criticized). What I don't fine helpful is a blanket statement of, WOTC is right, and your wrong.

In regards to the last part of your post, there's no way to fix an idea which was fundamentally biased in the first place.

Here is the bias: "I don't see as easy a way to empower non-full caster classes to bring them to a full casters level."

Casters and mundanes are balanced according to WotC. The entire game is designed around the idea that you want both in your party. The fighter is useful just as often as the Wizard is useful, who is useful just as often as the rogue, and so on. In combat, we can in fact demonstrate this.

The only time balance is a problem is in social situations and crafting, where some spells can function as a win button. Since D&D is not a dedicated social simulator, but a combat-oriented game, this is unsurprising. Further, there are things both the players and DM can do to get around those limitations easily.

Back to the bias, any "fix" requires that there be a problem that needs fixing. You assume that casters are superior to mundanes, though there is no real data to back up this assumption. In fact, were one to base one's opinion on the top DPR threads over on the official WotC forums, one would conclude that fighters, paladins, and barbarians are the best classes.

You could say DPR isn't everything, but that's exactly my point: having a diverse set of spells is not everything. It does not make one automatically win encounters, as any Wizard player can tell you. What does make one win encounters is good teamwork and creativity, thus we're right back to everyone in the party being useful.

My BM trick was not a fix or houserule, but merely an interpretation of two sets of rules that either contradict each other or can be used in place of one another depending on one's interpretation. In other words, it was a "ruling." I wasn't the first to think of it, either. But your proposed Wizard "nerf" transcends ruling and even houserule territory, fundamentally changing the game. As you said, it's a nerf, a major one.

So I conclude that I don't think there is any way to make the idea better, because I don't think it was a good idea in the first place.

[MrStabby]

So I conclude that I don't think there is any way to make the idea better, because I don't think it was a good idea in the first place.

It wasn't a good enough idea so there is no room to improve it?

[Easy_Lee]

It wasn't a good enough idea so there is no room to improve it?

It was a biased idea, fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Imagine if I told someone that we need to place a ban on halfling marriage to discourage halflings from having children, due to the growing halfling population. One might say that we don't even have a growing halfling population, and even if we did then there would be no need for a rule like that because halflings aren't a problem. I would say, "well how would you make the idea better?" And the other would say, "that idea was biased against halflings to begin with, so it cannot really be made better because it proposes to fix a non-problem."

That's how I feel about this nerf.

[druid91]

It's also worth noting that a lot of these problems that people are trying to fix have been found through testing. A lot of people on these forums have played a lot of games, both as players and DMs and found issues. Denying everyone's experiences as not being valid because we are not WotC doesn't really help fix the issue.

Adopting the perspective that there is no issue is fine and a valid viewpoint. It does just seem odd that people who think there is no issue are the people who write so much, so strongly in a thread looking to fix the issue. It isn't like the people here are telling you to not play the game you want to play it.

Actually, they kinda are. By saying "I wanna fix this." that implies they're DMing. And that means someone is going to be forced to play by their rules.

[Sindeloke]

Casters and mundanes are balanced according to WotC.

Sure, but do we have to think WotC is right about everything? You don't, or you wouldn't be proposing not just ways to play BM differently, but massive rules changes to the subclass.

[Mara]

Sure, but do we have to think WotC is right about everything? You don't, or you wouldn't be proposing not just ways to play BM differently, but massive rules changes to the subclass.
I must have play too much pathfinder and 3.5 because the disparity you guys are talking about would barely register in any 3.5/PF game.

[Easy_Lee]

Sure, but do we have to think WotC is right about everything? You don't, or you wouldn't be proposing not just ways to play BM differently, but massive rules changes to the subclass.

I think they're right about this thing because they used the best kind of balance. Specifically, both casters and mundanes fill different roles and have different strengths. That's why you want both. Nerfing either one not only hurts everyone, but isn't needed.

[MrStabby]

I must have play too much pathfinder and 3.5 because the disparity you guys are talking about would barely register in any 3.5/PF game.


True. I think the game is generally superb but if both DMs and players are wanting some adjustments made at a couple of levels I don't see why their views should not be considered. As class balance will be an obstacle to these games I don't see why there should not be a a discussion about the best way to fix them.







The problem doesn't have to be objective (although arguably it is, but I will leave that debate for other people) but the subjective problem that a lot of players are feeling overshadowed by full casters with level 9 spells is real. Saying that they don't feel that way doesn't solve the problem.

I am sure that there are correspondingly tables that feel that the Paladin or the Barbarian are overpowered at some levels as well. I would encourage tables that feel this way to set up a thread to debate how to fix that. If people feeling that way would diminish their enjoyment of the game why not try and fix it?

WotC has made a very good start at balancing the game but even they are open to the possibility that it isn't yet there. This is why they solicit feedback on classes and issued within the game and plan to act on it. Just because they are 90% of the way to awesome doesn't mean that those people from tables that do want some adjustments/house-rules cannot discuss the best way to implement changes.

Repeating that Everything is Fine will not change the perception that a couple of things are wrong, no matter how often it is repeated. Now my players will not be high level for a long time but I know I would be angry if I changed a class from underneath them once we began - any changes I would argue should be advertised up-front rather than telling them they cannot do what they had built their character to do.

[Mara]

IMO: Someone feeling inadequate should not be a reason to make someone else actually inadequate.

You play this game with other people. Dumping on your caster players because of "feelings" is a good way to cause table problems and make the players feel targeted.

[MrStabby]

We don't have a caster yet. No one has selected their class. No one is being dumped upon. This is just about allowing players to express what they want at the table.

Some people feel that the game is balanced all the way up to lvl 20. Some think it breaks apart by lvl 10. Each view is equally valid when it comes to enjoying the game. I have my opinion but I wont assume that it is better than anyone else's. I am open to the idea that the edition may not be perfectly balanced yet. Keeping this open mind I have to listen to what people are saying.

[Mara]

We don't have a caster yet. No one has selected their class. No one is being dumped upon. This is just about allowing players to express what they want at the table.

Some people feel that the game is balanced all the way up to lvl 20. Some think it breaks apart by lvl 10. Each view is equally valid when it comes to enjoying the game. I have my opinion but I wont assume that it is better than anyone else's. I am open to the idea that the edition may not be perfectly balanced yet. Keeping this open mind I have to listen to what people are saying.

By the same token you should be open to the idea that everything is fine. I would default on the side of not changing things until my actual game experiences convince me that change is needed.

[Easy_Lee]

We don't have a caster yet. No one has selected their class. No one is being dumped upon. This is just about allowing players to express what they want at the table.

Some people feel that the game is balanced all the way up to lvl 20. Some think it breaks apart by lvl 10. Each view is equally valid when it comes to enjoying the game. I have my opinion but I wont assume that it is better than anyone else's. I am open to the idea that the edition may not be perfectly balanced yet. Keeping this open mind I have to listen to what people are saying.

I think that a finite metric to judge balance is actually possible, but we need actual encounters of various levels to judge a class against. We don't really have a good source of those right now.

The best we can do is gauge DPR against a target of a given CR. When we do, we generally see that mundanes and gishes do better sustained damage than casters, as it should be. This is only one metric of the game, but it's one where mundanes excel.

We can also see that, against large groups, casters will often shine with their AoE spells, Hunter Rangers notwithstanding. Again, this is not unexpected and is a desirable outcome. It means that both mundanes and casters have their place when it comes to destroying a target.

We can further name situations where one beats the other. Rogues, bards, and shadow monks are the best at stealth, though casters can match and in some ways surpass them by sacrificing resources. Monks are quite good at locking down targets, while casters can also do so but have more ways of doing it. In dealing with ambush situations, mundanes are generally better able to soak damage and deal with bad effects like being grappled or held, while casters generally have better escape tools, monks notwithstanding.

It goes on and on this way. Both mundanes and casters excel in certain areas. The only problem people have is that casters, theoretically, can have a spell ready to deal with most situations. As has been said thousands of times, that does not mean they will have the spell ready and nor does it mean that mundanes can't do the same or a similar thing.

So I really don't understand where the Wizard hate is coming from. This isn't 3.5, where casters could just stack 24-hour buffs or chuck no-show spells like enervation with impunity. Casters across the board have been nerfed all to hell, and the full effect of those nerfs cannot be appreciated through theory crafting alone.

[MrStabby]

I am certainly not one of these people who hates on casters, I think they are generally well balanced. My concern is merely about 9th level spells. I think it would be inaccurate to say that a caster will not have the perfect spell for any occasion known when they have access to wish.

I would also argue that judging classes by damage is certainly the easiest way to judge classes but also one of the worst. Hold Person, Sleep, Detect Traps, Haste, Invisibility and all sorts of other great spells count for nothing by this measure. Saying that a high level caster can't out damage a martial character of the same level in terms of continuous at will damage to one target is to select the one single thing that classes like the fighter excel at and use that as the standard. It is a measure but a very narrow measure capturing only a very small amount of the encounter side of the game and nothing non combat based. The importance of doing damage here is not something I want to understate and Martials ARE good at it. It is their strength here that makes me think there is no real issue at lower levels.

Also people say things like"By the same token you should be open to the idea that everything is fine.". Yes this is pretty much the default position. I come to 5th edition and with no prior experience just guess that top level casters get a few more tricks than other classes and refuse to change my views after hours of playing? Whilst there is a huge amount wrong with this there is one, big huge glaring error. I care about what my players want and what will make them enjoy games. If my players, martial or caster all think that high level casters are "better" by whatever metric they chose to define "better" and they feel the game would be more fun if more people were tempted to play a wider variety of classes then I would be a pretty terrible DM to refuse to take their opinions into account. Even if they are "wrong" by someone outside the groups definition of "wrong" if it means they have a happier time playing then I will adjust.

I think the productive discussion is to talk about the impacts that this will have, how it will change play and if there is more that needs to be done.

[druid91]

I am certainly not one of these people who hates on casters, I think they are generally well balanced. My concern is merely about 9th level spells. I think it would be inaccurate to say that a caster will not have the perfect spell for any occasion known when they have access to wish.

I would also argue that judging classes by damage is certainly the easiest way to judge classes but also one of the worst. Hold Person, Sleep, Detect Traps, Haste, Invisibility and all sorts of other great spells count for nothing by this measure. Saying that a high level caster can't out damage a martial character of the same level in terms of continuous at will damage to one target is to select the one single thing that classes like the fighter excel at and use that as the standard. It is a measure but a very narrow measure capturing only a very small amount of the encounter side of the game and nothing non combat based. The importance of doing damage here is not something I want to understate and Martials ARE good at it. It is their strength here that makes me think there is no real issue at lower levels.

Also people say things like"By the same token you should be open to the idea that everything is fine.". Yes this is pretty much the default position. I come to 5th edition and with no prior experience just guess that top level casters get a few more tricks than other classes and refuse to change my views after hours of playing? Whilst there is a huge amount wrong with this there is one, big huge glaring error. I care about what my players want and what will make them enjoy games. If my players, martial or caster all think that high level casters are "better" by whatever metric they chose to define "better" and they feel the game would be more fun if more people were tempted to play a wider variety of classes then I would be a pretty terrible DM to refuse to take their opinions into account. Even if they are "wrong" by someone outside the groups definition of "wrong" if it means they have a happier time playing then I will adjust.

I think the productive discussion is to talk about the impacts that this will have, how it will change play and if there is more that needs to be done.

Except in 5e casting wish has a chance to prevent you from ever casting it again.

[MrStabby]

Except in 5e casting wish has a chance to prevent you from ever casting it again.


That depends what you do with it.

[Easy_Lee]

That depends what you do with it.

If you have a problem with an individual spell, why not restrict or reword the spell instead of nerfing the classes that can cast it?

[Vogonjeltz]

I haven't yet been convinced of Wizards being overpowered in 5e. The DM still controls what spells they get, and they get very few spells per day over 6th level anyway. I tried playing one around 3rd and 4th level, and I was really underwhelmed in terms of their power.

I'm seeing similarly underwhelming results, I'd be more concerned that the Wizard is now a second-rate class.


Just from what I can think of.

1st level, Witchbolt
2nd level Hold Person
3rd level Animate Dead, Glyph of Warding, Slow
4th level Fabricate

Witchbolt is rather obvious. If you hit, you can deal 1d12 free damage a round until the target is dead. Hold Person is an old style save or suck, you make the wisdom save, or you're screwed.

Animate dead has been touched on, Glyph of Warding has all the problems of explosive runes, only now you can store any offensive spell of 3rd level or lower with it, for a mere 200 GP! Slow hit's up to six targets with a VERY nasty Debuff that makes them unlikely to last very long in 5e's lethal atmosphere.

And Fabricate, as I've touched on in other threads, can be combined with crafting proficiency to make art objects and make large amounts of money rapidly.

Witch Bolt may be one of the worst 1st level spells. For their action they deal a measily 1d12? They could be doing twice that each round as a cantrip. It also fizzles the moment the target is >30 feet away from the Wizard. (i.e. it fizzles immediately in most cases).

Hold Person requires a spell slot and action, uses up concentration (so it can be broken by an ally), and it gives a save every round. Not spectacular.

Animate Dead carries inherent danger for the caster. It's like juggling fire, at some point the Wizard is going to get burned (especially if they find themselves in capable of restoring control over a 24 hour period).

Glyph of Warding costs an absurd 200gp, that's the equivalent of a month of wealthy living for a paltry 5d8 damage. That plus the casting time make it basically an NPC only spell that the DM uses.

Slow is an inferior Hold Person that requires a higher level spell slot. (The only benefit is more targets without having to make the spell slot, even higher).

Fabricate can do something you can already do, but slightly faster. what it doesn't do is find a buyer, so you can certainly expend money faster, but that doesn't guarantee any faster return. If anything the shop rules dictate that there will be no faster return on luxury goods. Interesting as a novelty trick, but pretty pointless for the purpose you've stated.

Each of the spells mentioned have huge limitations that offset the benefits of doing something quickly.


It doesn't really solve the problem of inherent versatility and options, but I think letting crazy things happen with skills is a great idea for all players. Yes, a 30 knowledge should let a player suddenly realize a monster's previously completely unknown weakness. Who cares how you know, divine inspiration, sudden connecting of the dots, whatever.

By the same token, a 30 athletics should let a fighter climb snowflakes, and in this way, effectively fly. Or a 30 acrobatics should let a character balance on grains of sand in a desert storm or clouds. Creative thought is encouraged, and it makes all characters have some pretty crazy options.

We differ on this in that I think if something is impossible, it's just straight up impossible. So although the check wouldn't (in my game) allow a character to climb things with virtually no substance and nothing holding them aloft (snowflakes), it would allow them to make improbable jumps or other feats of strength.


you just said that you encourage creativity with skills and that makes non-casters awesome. then i pointed out that casters also have skills which could be used creatively, and your immediate response was to shut that down and say that it only gives you what's in the book.

Typically casters lack the ASIs to buff the non-core stat AND they lack the default access (in other words, you must jump through hoops to even attain proficiency) to skills that are most receptive to improvisation.

Wizard skills are almost all passive: Arcana, History, Insight, Religion are all passive things. Investigation and Medicine have active components, but what pray-tell is being improvised there? I'm receptive to ideas, but literally nothing springs to mind.

Yeah, it's entirely possible for a Wizard to pick up Soldier for Athletics...but their str is almost certainly their 8 stat and if they blow all their ASIs making it not terrible they're forsaking a good Int which is much more critical to their success as a class. That leads to them being relatively unlikely to be good at any Athletics/Acrobatics checks. So I agree, possible, but it's entirely improbable.

I agree with Easy_Lee that the Wizard is extremely well balanced through rigorous testing. I can't see a point to hamstringing them even more, they're already the weak sister of this edition.

[asorel]

I'm seeing similarly underwhelming results, I'd be more concerned that the Wizard is now a second-rate class.


(snip)


I agree with Easy_Lee that the Wizard is extremely well balanced through rigorous testing. I can't see a point to hamstringing them even more, they're already the weak sister of this edition.

I wouldn't call them weak, but balanced by a different mechanic. Base wizards have minimal class features, which are compensated for by spells. Similarly, base Fighters are balanced by receiving more ASIs (and thus more potential Feats), and additional attacks.

[Magic Myrmidon]

We differ on this in that I think if something is impossible, it's just straight up impossible. So although the check wouldn't (in my game) allow a character to climb things with virtually no substance and nothing holding them aloft (snowflakes), it would allow them to make improbable jumps or other feats of strength.

I have a feeling that this is just a preference/taste in games thing, but may I ask why not? The books do list that a DC 30 is an impossible task, so it's not like letting those sorts of things happen is "against the rules". It also only works when it is level-appropriate. Due to bounded accuracy, it's not really possible until level 15 (or so, AFB), when characters are meant to be plane-jumpers, and certainly aren't on the level of normal humans by any means. And at that point, those abilities are hardly OP in terms of the effects they cause.

[Mara]

I have a feeling that this is just a preference/taste in games thing, but may I ask why not? The books do list that a DC 30 is an impossible task, so it's not like letting those sorts of things happen is "against the rules". It also only works when it is level-appropriate. Due to bounded accuracy, it's not really possible until level 15 (or so, AFB), when characters are meant to be plane-jumpers, and certainly aren't on the level of normal humans by any means. And at that point, those abilities are hardly OP in terms of the effects they cause.

DC 30 is nearly impossible.

I would rule that jumping on snowflakes to be an acrobatics check.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Ah. Well. 35 should be impossible, then. :p

Jumping on snowflakes, sure, but climbing them is what I was hoping to do. So, grabbing onto a snowflake and throwing myself up using it as leverage.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but, you know, rule of cool should just be a thing when you get around 17th level.

[Mara]

Ah. Well. 35 should be impossible, then. :p

Jumping on snowflakes, sure, but climbing them is what I was hoping to do. So, grabbing onto a snowflake and throwing myself up using it as leverage.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but, you know, rule of cool should just be a thing when you get around 17th level.

Sounds acrobatic to me.

Athletics would be like swimming up a waterfall or climbing up smooth ice or Leaping buildings or throwing dragons.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Fair enough. It's just an example, really, but yeah, acrobatics works. The examples you used for athletics make for a better example of crazy strong stuff to do.

Seems like we do agree on letting skills do really over-the-top things, though.

In 5e, though, using skills for this sort of thing is a bit wonky with the existence of expertise. A bard or rogue is easily better at throwing trees than the big strong fighter.

[MadBear]

Sounds acrobatic to me.

Athletics would be like swimming up a waterfall or climbing up smooth ice or Leaping buildings or throwing dragons.

may I ask, what you would use as a DC to:


Leap a 10ft fence
Leap a 2 story building
Leap a 3 story building
Leap over a castle?


Seriously, I'm kinda curious what you would consider that.

[Mara]

may I ask, what you would use as a DC to:


Leap a 10ft fence
Leap a 2 story building
Leap a 3 story building
Leap over a castle?


Seriously, I'm kinda curious what you would consider that.
Depends on strength score and if they have a bonus to jumps.

For example a thief with 20 dex and 14 str would not need to roll for the 10ft fence. I would say DC 20 for 2 stories and DC 25 for 3 stories. Castle walls are normally 3 stories so same DC.

For the less able the DCs would go up.