Setting idea - stronger martials?

[Kantolin]

This is more of a thought exercise than anything else, really.

Anyway, I was contemplating a setting/worldset with a somewhat limited class list. Thus causing... well, here's the list.

Accepted Martial Classes: Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Ranger, Duskblade, Psychic Warrior, Factotum, Scout, Spellthief, Cryptic, Dread, Aegis, Marksman, totemist, incarnate

Accepted Caster Classes: Shadowcaster, Healer, Adept, maybe Warlock, probably not but maybe warmage, probably not but maybe Vitalist.

Other noncasters are probably okay, it's just that the general goal is 'martial classes are almost certainly more generally powerful than caster classes', and this is just as public knowledge as 'powerful wizards can shape the world' that is the pseudo default. So casters aim around tier 4ish, while martials aim around tier 3ish. Ideally, the shadowcaster rules the roost insofar as 'devoted caster' goes, and the game would start at level 6-8ish.

There will then be some shenanigans that allow anyone on the 'caster classes' list to make most or all magic items (Except the ones that replicate spells that don't now exist, of course). Obviously, prestige classes that let you break lines are not acceptable for casters (Or anyone, I guess, but I presume there isn't a lot a martial can do to get up to tier 2). So presume that whatever the (say) healer is doing still falls within the realm of tier 4-5.

I'm mostly curious how this would alter the world from a thematic sense more than a mechanical one - how would this change the way the world reacts to people of these classes. That said, are there any gigantic mechanical pitfalls I'm not noticing?

Edit for possibly some clarity, from my below post:
In the settings I'm used to, wizards (and sometimes druids, although generally not clerics) have an air of mystique to them. The 'oh no, that's a wizard, he can turn me into a potato' general schtick.

That's more what I'm looking at changing from a thematic standpoint than other things, and part of that comes from using the 'noticeably weaker' casters. Now, the plucky teenager looking for a quick route to power will want to sell his soul to devils in order to be a crusader or something, and instead of the archmage snubbing his nose at 'lesser' professions like duskblades (or clerics) and such, you have swordmasters snubbing their noses at lesser professions like shadowcasters.

I mean things like that a lot more than not having astral projections of a clone's astral projection or similar sillyness. But there are still things that shadowcasters/healers/adepts can do that the generally-martial-adepts cannot, so it's not like they're anything resembling useless.

(So really, mostly 'wizards')

[Flickerdart]

Given that very few settings actually reflect the consequences of spellcasters' power (since WotC rarely gave credence to the idea that not all classes are equally strong) this will do more or less nothing. Magic is prominent in Eberron but most people who benefit from the magitech are not themselves PC-classed characters. Magic is pivotal in Athas, but the guys in charge are in charge because they're high-level, not just because they're casters.

[A_S]

Mechanically, this should be fine. It's basically just "ban all Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes," which is a perfectly effective (if maybe ham-handed) strategy for smoothing out some of 3.5's worst balance issues. Throw in a few laser-guided DM vetoes, and you should end up with a mechanical environment that balances "but I want to be a guy who gets stuff done with magic" pretty well against "no you can't be an omnipotent super-wizard."

In terms of its effect on the setting as a whole, I think Flickerdart's on the money. Basically no settings besides Tippy's Points of Light really bother to even try to include large-scale societal effects of high level spellcasters in their world-building. So removing them isn't going to get you anything that looks all that different from most existing D&D settings. Any differences you decide to include are going to be based on what you want to throw in there as the DM.

As for how people react to spellcasters...that's going to depend heavily on the setting, it's not going to be a result of mechanical changes. Like, we know there aren't any Tier 1-2 casters, but how common are Tier 3 casters? Are they super rare, or does every village have a Healer or two, and every thieves' guild employes a coven of Beguilers? Is there some huge religious taboo against the use of magic, or is it just seen as part of the natural order? Is spellcasting heavily controlled by the state, like in FR's Amn, or no? These are all things that the DM has to decide when making the setting; they're not predetermined by the choice to ban Tier 1-2 casters.

[Kantolin]

Those are both very true points, which makes me think I'm being unclear, heh.

In the settings I'm used to, wizards (and sometimes druids, although generally not clerics) have an air of mystique to them. The 'oh no, that's a wizard, he can turn me into a potato' general schtick.

That's more what I'm looking at changing from a thematic standpoint than other things, and part of that comes from using the 'noticeably weaker' casters. Now, the plucky teenager looking for a quick route to power will want to sell his soul to devils in order to be a crusader or something, and instead of the archmage snubbing his nose at 'lesser' professions like duskblades (or clerics) and such, you have swordmasters snubbing their noses at lesser professions like shadowcasters.

I mean things like that a lot more than not having astral projections of a clone's astral projection or similar sillyness. But there are still things that shadowcasters/healers/adepts can do that the generally-martial-adepts cannot, so it's not like they're anything resembling useless.

(So really, mostly 'wizards')

[Brova]

Accepted Martial Classes: Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Ranger, Duskblade, Psychic Warrior, Factotum, Scout, Spellthief, Cryptic, Dread, Aegis, Marksman, totemist, incarnate

Accepted Caster Classes: Shadowcaster, Healer, Adept, maybe Warlock, probably not but maybe warmage, probably not but maybe Vitalist.

Those are ... weird lists to have. The martial classes are probably okay (although Factotum over Rogue is odd). A couple of them (Incanate, Totemist, maybe Scout and Spellthief) suffer from just not being good enough, but you haven't missed anything in particular.

But those casters are not acceptable at all. Being a Warlock is almost strictly worse than breaking out the acid flasks as a rogue. A Healer does not get combat actions (seriously, sanctuary and 1/day remove disease?) and in exchange heals just as well as a cleric. That's not in any way acceptable as a life choice.

Basically, you've reversed the problem that 3.5 has by default. Now casters are trap options that are insultingly terrible, and martials rule the roost. You're right back where you started, except that now the party just dies to a Lantern Archon or a dragon, instead of hoping the casters memorized the right cheese to save them.

Having martials be "better" than casters in any meaningful way is bad, because you are telling people that concepts like "Gandalf" and "Professor X" are less acceptable than "Frodo" and "Wolverine" (note: the reverse is also true). If you do want martials a balanced playing field, and are for some reason averse to just playing with the Tomes, your classes should look like this:

Martial: Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage (probably with full BAB), Ranger, Duskblade, Psychic Warrior, Rogue, maybe "Fighting Man" (a gestalt of Fighter, Barbarian, and Marshall).

Caster: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Sorcerer (probably with some spell restrictions and class features), Druid (with no Wild Shape or Animal Companion), Warmage (with some way of keeping up on damage), and maybe "Occultist" (a gestalt of Binder and Warlock).

That's as many options as you get out of the box, and the power curve is basically flat for as long as D&D makes any sense (watch the Sorcerer, Druid, and Beguiler). Some of the martials probably still deserve to be Gestalted with Fighter, and casters are still good, but stuff is basically workable.

[A_S]

@OP,

In the absence of obvious mechanical superiority (like in regular D&D where casters are obviously superior), it's gonna come down to DM calls about in-setting cultural stuff to decide who gets to look down upon whom profession-wise. For instance, in Garth Nix's book Clariel, there's a form of magic which is highly effective, but also very difficult to become good at. As a result, having skill in it is looked down upon by well-to-do snooty aristocrats, who see putting that much hard work into something as the kind of behavior only people who have to work for a living would bother with.

-----


[snippage]
I disagree with a lot of this. The main exception is that you're right about Healers being terrible; they should be given some love to keep them from feeling irrelevant.

Other than that: Warlocks have damage issues if you don't let them take Hellfire Warlock, but they're not that bad. They have lots of cool tricks with invocations (all day buffs, at-will flight, at-will invisibility, good crowd control with the tentacles, various other stuff), they make excellent budget Artificers (UMD bonus, crafting abilities), and their bonus damage isn't hosed by "haha half the monster manual is immune to precision damage." I don't consider "strictly worse than rogue" to be a defensible claim.
Incarnate and Totemist are amazing. At least high Tier 3. For sure punch their weight alongside the ToB classes. What about them isn't good enough?
Modifying Sorcerer to bring it down from Tier 2 basically means writing your own spell list for them, which is a substantial homebrew project.
Druid is probably still Tier 1 even only with its spell list (though this can be argued; see lots of discussion about the Tier of the Spirit Shaman class).
I mean, the OP's lists aren't precisely the ones I would have picked either, but yours are equally weird.

[BilltheCynic]

So, you want a setting where martial classes are noticeably stronger than most caster classes. The guy who posted the Tier System (http://www.brilliantgameologists.com/boards/?topic=1002.0) for classes, JaronK, also posted some houserules he made for a low magic setting without using something like E6. I'll just quote him here:


In my game, I wanted a low magic game, with characters using skills and martial abilities to solve problems instead of spells. So, I did the following:

Psionics don't exist (not familiar enough with them) {My note: If you wanted to include a weaker version of psionics, you could quadruple the powerpoint cost of all their abilities and force them to make a DC 10*power level concentration check every time they attempt to manifest the power. If they fail the check, they are dazed for one round. If they fail the check by 5 or more they are stunned for 1d4+1 round}

When preparing a spell (or preparing a spell slot, which spontaneous casters must do), you must take 1 hour per level of the spell. At the end, the DM makes a hidden DC 10*spell level check, where any D20 roll equal to or less than the level of the spell is an automatic failure. The skill for the check is Knowledge Nature for nature casters (Druids, Rangers, etc), Knowledge Religeon for divine casters (Clerics, Paladins, etc), and Spellcraft for arcane casters (Wizards, Bards, etc). When you try to cast the spell, if you've succeeded on the check it goes off normally. If you fail, the spell fails and you take a backlash effect, randomly chosen depending on the school of the spell you tried to cast (so failed necromancy spells do things like cause permanent wisdom decreases and negative energy damage, failed conjurations summon powerful things that attack you or teleport you into physical objects, etc). The save DC against backlash effects, if there's a save at all, is 5*spell level. Every time you cast a spell there's a chance of dying. As such, spellcasters are HEAVILY nerfed, and not expected to be played. When creating magic items, the spells required must be cast every day... so bad idea!

No humanoids or monsterous humanoids (which includes all PCs) can use Spell Like abilities, except for those granted by the Binder and Warlock classes (since those classes draw their power from outside sources).

The game is Gestalt.

All players get the benefits of Vow of Poverty, plus the bonus feats from that are any bonus feat you want (not just exalted), without the drawbacks (you can still use gear). However, there are no useful magic items in the game, so it's all mundane gear. As such, gear is far less important in my game... any random sword works as well as any other, so you can lose all your stuff, punch out a guard, steal his sword, and rock out.

All players heal rapidly when out of sight and no one's after them (fast healing equal to your HD, only when I as the DM decide you're between encounters).

Classes that had casting can, with DM permission, swap out their casting for any one other class substitution ability... for example, the Bard can swap casting for an Animal Companion because of the UA Fey Varient Bard.

Basically, it's a low magic heroic fantasy game. And remember, I like Tier 3 as a balance point. So what do these house rules do to balance?

Well, Tier 1 and 2 are completely gone. All of them depend on spellcasting which is now nerfed, so most of those classes drop to Tier 5-6 (except the Druid, who's Tier 3... yeah, Wild Shape is that powerful). The top tier classes are now the normal Tier 3 guys plus the Druid, except that the Beguiler drops to around Tier 5/6 and the Dread Necromancer does too. Sadly, the Healer and Warmage are also nerfed, but they didn't fit in the campaign world anyway.

The gear changes mean certain specialized equipment dependent builds don't work (Warblade Crossbow archers, for example), and Wild Shape based classes get pumped up (Druids and Wild Shape Rangers) but otherwise changes are minimal as far as balance is concerned.

Healing classes are basically unnecessary, though still handy, so Crusaders are useful to have.

Warlock and Binder invisibility powers are awesome against other humanoids.

Overall, that's about the effect I wanted. The entire party can optimize like crazy and they're still maxing out at Tier 2 if they really work at it, and are usually Tier 3 otherwise.

You can make changes as needed to fit the setting.

[Brova]

Warlocks have damage issues if you don't let them take Hellfire Warlock, but they're not that bad. They have lots of cool tricks with invocations (all day buffs, at-will flight, at-will invisibility, good crowd control with the tentacles, various other stuff), they make excellent budget Artificers (UMD bonus, crafting abilities), and their bonus damage isn't hosed by "haha half the monster manual is immune to precision damage." I don't consider "strictly worse than rogue" to be a defensible claim.

Well, there are various ways to get around the precision damage issue (notably, wands of grave strike and the like).

But the Warlock's problem is that it can't really solve problems with its abilities. Flight is totally useful, and obsoletes "vermin" and "animals" as threats. But for things that can actually threaten you (i.e. flying creatures or creatures with ranged attacks), it's not that useful. That's true for a lot of warlock powers. They make reasonable face characters, and doing stuff at will can be broken in weird ways, but they don't have a lot of combat punch. A 5th level Warlock is attacking once around for as much as the bonus damage on one of the Rogue's attacks, and he can't even fly. That's not particularly impressive (though it's kinda rough, and I've not run the warlock through an SGT).


Incarnate and Totemist are amazing. At least high Tier 3. For sure punch their weight alongside the ToB classes. What about them isn't good enough?

What is? What is an Incarnate doing with his tiny bonuses to attack and damage and 3/4 BAB? He doesn't get utility spells, he doesn't get save or dies, and he doesn't have any source of bonus damage (iirc, I haven't read MoI in a while). The Totemist is in a better boat, what with natural attacks and all, but I'm still not sold on a melee class that gets 3/4 BAB.


Modifying Sorcerer to bring it down from Tier 2 basically means writing your own spell list for them, which is a substantial homebrew project.

Eh. If you nix the obvious problem spells (anything that gets you minions, anything related to polymorph, really anything that lets you comb through the MMs for power) and buff or ban the bad spells (evocations), you end up with a serviceable class that doesn't destroy the game. The bigger issue is that Sorcerers don't have class features, which is more a "feel bad" thing than an actual problem.


Druid is probably still Tier 1 even only with its spell list (though this can be argued; see lots of discussion about the Tier of the Spirit Shaman class).

Well that's because the way Druid's learn spells is borked. There is no reason why Druids should pick up new and arbitrary powers because splats you've never heard of happen to exist. I should probably have mentioned this in the original proposal, but I suggest giving Druids the core list and one arbitrary pick every level (or maybe just two when they get a new spell level). That does a not awful job of sticking them on a manageable power curve. If you're still worried, just give they back the wolf and make them cast as a bard.


I mean, the OP's lists aren't precisely the ones I would have picked either, but yours are equally weird.

Not really. Those classes cover the roles you need, though they're light on sneaky guys, and Druid and Sorcerer probably need a once over on the spell list. I could see some sort of Warlock kuldge that got some buffs to its blast and some better invocations replacing the Sorcerer, but that's a lot of work.

The key insight is that classes have to be able to defeat level appropriate challenges for as long as you expect the game to list. Everything on my list should go 50/50 on the level 5 and level 10 SGTs, and probably good on the level 15. Healers, Shadowcasters, and Scouts can't.

[Kantolin]

In the absence of obvious mechanical superiority (like in regular D&D where casters are obviously superior), it's gonna come down to DM calls about in-setting cultural stuff to decide who gets to look down upon whom profession-wise.

I suppose that's fair indeed as well.

There does need to be at least /some/ allure to cause mystique, but that is fairly regardless of power (most of my shadowcasters are pretty arrogant). I mainly wanted part of the crunch to mostly coincide with the fluff, so I guess I'm not certain what I want on the thematic side after all. These are good ideas and points that have been said, though, and thank you.



Those are ... weird lists to have. The martial classes are probably okay (although Factotum over Rogue is odd).

While I also disagree about your analysis of the incarnum pair and such, martial classes aren't as strictly limited. The goal is 'primarily, physically-oriented people are the martial-adept-or-psionic-with-6ths variety' for the setting. If someone would like to be a marshal or something then we can talk, heh, but a schtick would be they'd be uncommon for the setting.

Whereas on the caster end, those would be more fiercely limited. If someone wants to play a psion, then the goal becomes to homebrew something down to the same power level as the other casters in the setting.

Edit for an addition: You know, as an amusing note, that means weaker martials kinda swap thematic places with shadowcasters as well. They make the 'people in charge' scratch their heads a little, but they also bring useful things to the table.



Basically, you've reversed the problem that 3.5 has by default. Now casters are trap options that are insultingly terrible, and martials rule the roost.

Perhaps my overall intent wasn't clear either, then. This is not some sort of 'I want to utilize this to balance D&D' idea. This is 'For a particular setting, what would change about the world if martials in fact ruled the roost', with some mechanics to back that change. Like playing in a 'no magic' or a 'everyone is a mage' or a 'Arcane magic doesn't work, but psionics and divine magic is okay' setting.


You're right back where you started, except that now the party just dies to a Lantern Archon or a dragon, instead of hoping the casters memorized the right cheese to save them.

What? A good deal of those classes are versatile enough to solve lantern archons and dragons. Tier 3-4 is certainly neither weak nor useless by definition. There is, in fact, only one tier 5 class on there - and they're one of the tier 5s that can optimize out of their tier as necessary.


and are for some reason averse to just playing with the Tomes

That, more or less, is more of the goal. A 'tomes game' would actually have about this type of balance. It's just that six classes, five because I cannot be bothered with the truenamer, is less variety between classes than I'd prefer - so I opened it up to some more martial tier 3s.

(Presuming by 'tome game', you mean 'Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer' - or the tome of battle and tome of magic classes.)

(Also, I'm not completely sure about your list either, presuming your goal /is/ focused balance. Sorcerors are, quite certainly, not 'weak', and nor is druid casting)


But those casters are not acceptable at all. Being a Warlock is almost strictly worse than breaking out the acid flasks as a rogue.

I disagree heavily with this. Even in tremendously low optimization, the warlock's consistent, reliable damage and overall resiliency makes him valuable. In higher optimization tables, he has an array of tricks he can bring to the table. A warlock is most often able to aid a party, especially a party that's lacking tier 1 and 2 units.


A Healer does not get combat actions (seriously, sanctuary and 1/day remove disease?) and in exchange heals just as well as a cleric. That's not in any way acceptable as a life choice.

Actually, a healer is intended as a combat healer. They're quite poor at it, mostly because healing in D&D doesn't scale well, mind you, but that is the intent. And in this case, 'heals just as well as a cleric' becomes the main draw due to the distinct lack of any other class doing that, which is part of why I'm hesitant to allow the vitalist since this is one of the rare situations where a healer will be a valuable member of the team, as they would be one of two (Maybe 3) people who gets any kind of 9ths at all.

Also, while healers are objectively worse than clerics and clearly in the tier 5 range, you can bump them up to 4 with a bit of effort. It's an optimization thing again - sanctified spells themselves can nudge them up if necessary. In this case, they're /probably/ the best healers avaliable as well.

And I do not agree with the vibe that being a support character is 'not in any way acceptable as a life choice'. This is from someone who has, in fact, /played/ a healer the class and generally enjoys not being the damage monkey (Although usually my support characters are more buffmage than healmage).

[Vhaidara]

So, you seem to have a mix of Pathfinder and 3.5 (mostly PF psionics). I recommend, in that case, replacing the Tome of Battle Classes with Path of War (basically, ToB for PF, with actual editing instead of a 5 year old with a crayon) and the Incarnum classes with the Akashic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Dreamscarred-Press-Introduces-Akashic-Mysteries) classes.

I actually really do feel you should allow the Warlock. If you want to remove the high OP powers of the class, remove the Item Creation and UMD abuse class features, and maybe give Eldritch Blast a small buff. Then you have Warlock as your blast mage, Healer as the bandaid, Shadowcaster as the sneaky mage, and maybe allow Bard (but not Sublime Chord) as your social caster?

[Troacctid]

What is? What is an Incarnate doing with his tiny bonuses to attack and damage and 3/4 BAB? He doesn't get utility spells, he doesn't get save or dies, and he doesn't have any source of bonus damage (iirc, I haven't read MoI in a while). The Totemist is in a better boat, what with natural attacks and all, but I'm still not sold on a melee class that gets 3/4 BAB.

"Oh noes, I don't have an extra +2 to hit or an extra attack (at a -5 penalty, as a full-round action) from my BAB! I guess I'll just have to console myself with the +4 to hit and three extra attacks (at no penalty, as a standard action) from my soulmelds."

If you do the math on Incarnates and Totemists, you'll find they stack up just fine numbers-wise compared to traditional martial classes.

[Kantolin]

I recommend, in that case, replacing the Tome of Battle Classes with Path of War and the Incarnum classes with the Akashic classes.

I actually was considering this particular change. The main reason I omitted it is because it didn't seem particularly necessary - it's a bit of a leg up where it isn't really needed for this setting idea. There's a lot of variety already in the 'older' ToB and MoI classes. Realistically, the amazing DSP psionic classes also aren't completely necessary, but I like including them there for some extra options, particularly on the sneaky end of things. Also I am madly and unabashedly in love with DSP psionics, heh.

(This is in no way meant to be a bash against the Path of War/Akashic classes, mind you, nor am I saying they're overpowered or some such nonsense. If someone came up to me 'hey, can I be a warder?' I'd probably say okay. :P)


with actual editing instead of a 5 year old with a crayon

This got me in trouble at work for poking around the forums due to suddenly bursting into laughter. :smallbiggrin:


I actually really do feel you should allow the Warlock. If you want to remove the high OP powers of the class, remove the Item Creation and UMD abuse class features, and maybe give Eldritch Blast a small buff. Then you have Warlock as your blast mage, Healer as the bandaid, Shadowcaster as the sneaky mage, and maybe allow Bard (but not Sublime Chord) as your social caster?

I'm /thinking/ Warlocks are okay, but warlocks have some wonky tricks which make me at least hesitant. Still, you're probably right - and the 'caster roles' are also good points.

I'm really hesitant to include bards, though. The goal is that casters are tier 4, and bards are quite soundly tier 3.

...I think what I'm really afraid of is that I don't want some other caster to usurp the shadowcaster as 'best caster' for this particular setting, as I really like them having the most potent ninths. That's also why I'm hesitant about warmages more than other things. Most of the responses above didn't even /mention/ the shadowcaster. C'mon, give the poor shadowcaster some love!

[Vhaidara]

The thing with PoW is that it is adaptable. I have literally seen entire parties built of Warders or Warlords, with no one using the same combat style and still covering every role (DPR, Buffer, Tank, Spot Healing)

The biggest advantage is the disciplines. They support a much greater variety of characters
Black Seraph: I AM A ****ING DEMON POWERED MURDER MACHINE
Broken Blade: I can kill you with my pinkey.
Golden Lion: Once more into the breach, my friends!
Iron Tortoise: Hey, Sword and Board is GOOD now.
Primal Fury: THOG SMASH!
Scarlet Throne: My name is Inigo Montaya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Silver Crane: By the power of the Light, I purify you!
Solar Wind: I shoot fire arrows (I prefer the Playtest's Tempest Gale as a base archery discipline)
Steel Serpent: I hit you and your body stops working properly.
Thrashing Dragon: This is going to look like the inside of a Cuisinart
Veiled Moon: I'm over here now!

[Brova]

Perhaps my overall intent wasn't clear either, then. This is not some sort of 'I want to utilize this to balance D&D' idea. This is 'For a particular setting, what would change about the world if martials in fact ruled the roost', with some mechanics to back that change. Like playing in a 'no magic' or a 'everyone is a mage' or a 'Arcane magic doesn't work, but psionics and divine magic is okay' setting.

Alright then. The setting you get is a lot like medieval Europe (assuming you nerf Warlock crafting). Most of the setting transforming stuff comes from spells which don't exist in this world. The setting is still rough around the edges unless you nerf the spellcasting of Dragons and various abilities like wish.


What? A good deal of those classes are versatile enough to solve lantern archons and dragons. Tier 3-4 is nothing compared to weak.

Dragons, maybe. While Dragons are under CR-ed by a big chunk of levels, they do show up late enough in the game that you might have options.

But Lantern Archons are nuts. They have greater teleport at will, meaning they can run away from any fight. They have aid at will, meaning they secretly have 7 more HP (on average) and +1 more to hit. They fly, meaning most low level martial characters can't bring their real damage to bear. They have DR 10/lolnope, meaning that arrows do nothing to them. They attack touch AC, meaning they hit damn near everyone in the party. And to top it off, they win initiative (on average) against anyone without Improved Initiative or 18 Dex. Oh, and they're CR 2. The fight with a monster can teleport ambush you, can't be hurt by your weapons, and flies with perfect mobility happens before you can get 2nd level spells.

Every fight with a Lantern Archon goes like this:

Round One: Lantern Archon wins initiative, hits a dude with a light ray, retreats 60ft. Maybe a warlock deals less damage than it has temp HP.
Round Two: Lantern Archon greater teleport's away.
Later: Round One happens again when the PCs least expect it.


That, more or less, is more of the goal. A 'tomes game' would actually have about this type of balance. It's just that six classes, five because I cannot be bothered with the truenamer, is less variety between classes than I'd prefer - so I opened it up to some more martial tier 3s.

(Presuming by 'tome game', you mean 'Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer' - or the tome of battle and tome of magic classes.)

No, I'm referring to the Tomes by Frank and K. They're fan supplements that seek to correct some of the more egregious imbalances of 3.5. Found here (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453).


I disagree heavily with this. Even in tremendously low optimization, the warlock's consistent, reliable damage and overall resiliency makes him valuable. In higher optimization tables, he has an array of tricks he can bring to the table. A warlock is most often able to aid a party, especially a party that's lacking tier 1 and 2 units.

I am incredibly unimpressed by damage that is the equal of what a Rogue gets on one of his attacks. I am willing to accept that there are levels where Warlocks bring some utility to the table, but it can't really cover for a fundamental lack of combat power. At will shatter and permanent flight are okay, but you need to back that up with powers that make people fall down.

Arguments about low op games are on some level pointless, because basically everything is viable there. If you're steamrolling published adventures with an oversized party, you can be a Warlock or a Fighter or a Healer and still do things. That doesn't mean the Warlock is balanced, just like the fact that a Wizard sucks if your whole campaign is set in a Dead Magic Zone doesn't make Wizards bad.

Discussion of high op D&D is weird, because it has a variable floor and no ceiling. It is true that the most powerful character ever created is a warlock (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Wish_and_the_Word_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_ Build%29#The_Wish_2), but you're never going to play him in a game, so who cares. Assuming we mean something on the level of a Beguiler or Wizard playing competently but not abusively (so no chain binding or persist cheese), the Warlock is completely unimpressive in combat because he does not compete with the Rogue's ability to flask people to death in one round, the Beguiler's ability to charm people in one round, or the Wizard's ability to be a Wizard. Out of combat he gets some vaguely useful utility at will, little of which seems to be particularly better for being "at will" rather than "a couple of times a day".

I'm not saying that being a Warlock isn't something you can do in game, or that you can't play a Warlock in your home game and have fun. I'm saying that if you play a Warlock, there are other characters out there that do all the things you do better.


Actually, a healer is intended as a combat healer. They're quite poor at it, mostly because healing in D&D doesn't scale well, mind you, but that is the intent. And in this case, 'heals just as well as a cleric' becomes the main draw due to the distinct lack of any other class doing that, which is part of why I'm hesitant to allow the vitalist since this is one of the rare situations where a healer will be a valuable member of the team, as they would be one of two (Maybe 3) people who gets any kind of 9ths at all.

Also, while healers are objectively worse than clerics and clearly in the tier 5 range, you can bump them up to 4 with a bit of effort. It's an optimization thing again - sanctified spells themselves can nudge them up if necessary. In this case, they're /probably/ the best healers avaliable as well.

So you are specifically including a class that does something that is not level appropriate, while acknowledging that the things it does are not level appropriate? Sorry, no. Classes either need to be valuable options or not exist. Anything else is just being cruel to people who want to play but don't have the rules knowledge to pick a real class. This isn't acceptable when D&D does it with the fighter, it's not acceptable when you do it with the Healer.


And I do not agree with the vibe that being a support character is 'not in any way acceptable as a life choice'. This is from someone who has, in fact, /played/ a healer the class and generally enjoys not being the damage monkey (Although usually my support characters are more buffmage than healmage).

No, you can be a support character and still be valuable. You just have to provide level appropriate support. For example, the battlefield control Wizard. While glitterdust won't kill anyone, it disables people in a way that provides appropriate and meaningful support to the party. Another example is the War Weaver. A War Weaver supports his team by buffing them, and is still a level appropriate option because he has a meaningful impact on combat.

Again, I'm not saying that you can't play a Healer in a game and come out okay. You can (and, apparently have). It's just that you will be worse than a Cleric that does the same thing.

[Kantolin]

The thing with PoW is that it is adaptable.

Haha, if you keep posting then I'm going to have to stop being on Giants at work, as the spontaneous laughter you're making me do is defeating the purpose of 'occasionally glancing between boxes'. I've always had a cursory interest in Path of War as everything DSP makes is gold, but I've always also still had lots more to do with my psychic warriors, aegii, dread, and the rest and thus never really focused on it.

But those are the best descriptions ever.

Either way, though, that's neither here nor there. Whether they're warblades or wardens, they'll still be flexible martial units who will be ruling the roost.



The setting is still rough around the edges unless you nerf the spellcasting of Dragons and various abilities like wish.

I dunno again. 'Team tier 3-4' can handle appropriate opponents and such, but hey.


Every fight with a Lantern Archon goes like this:

Round One: Lantern Archon wins initiative, hits a dude with a light ray, retreats 60ft. Maybe a warlock deals less damage than it has temp HP.

...what?

I find it very hard to believe that a team that is Warblade, Crusader, Shadowcaster, Warlock will not be able to solve a lantern archon. O_o Especially one that shows up over and over again, even with how tremendously few mysteries a shadowcaster has at level 2.


No, I'm referring to the Tomes by Frank and K.

Ah. I'm not as fond of those tomes as my groups very rarely play at a level of optimization which makes them appropriate.

Also, I believe you are arguing for something very different than what this setting is meant to represent. I'm not - distinctly /not/ - trying to say 'This is the only way of making a balanced game'. I'm not saying this makes a balanced game at all (in fact, I'm saying precisely the opposite!) Really, this is much more akin to 'everyone must have half their levels be an incarnum class' or 'Divine magic doesn't work in this setting' - it's a 'Hey, look at this interesting setting idea' topic.


I am willing to accept that there are levels where Warlocks bring some utility to the table, but it can't really cover for a fundamental lack of combat power.

Most people agree that warlocks are tier 4. If you disagree, this may not be the best topic to bring that argument to the table.


Arguments about low op games are on some level pointless, because basically everything is viable there.

I usually look at both low and high optimization when making settings. My group tends towards low op, but I also have been in higher op groups.

This setting seems to work in both ends. Or at least, works about as well as a more typical 'tier 3/4 game', unless a typical tier 3/4 game absolutely /must/ have a bard in it or something. Either way, neither end is 'pointless'.


I'm saying that if you play a Warlock, there are other characters out there that do all the things you do better.

I believe this is true for just about every class that isn't in tier 1. It's certainly not unique to what is basically a slightly tweaked 'tier 3/4 setting'.



So you are specifically including a class that does something that is not level appropriate, while acknowledging that the things it does are not level appropriate?

In this setting, healing is pretty hard. It can still be accomplished by other people using healer-made wands, but that's still incentive for healers to be around (if not moreso). Remember, this setting is lacking in tier 1-3 casters entirely.



Anything else is just being cruel to people who want to play but don't have the rules knowledge to pick a real class.

Comments like this are why I'm pretty sure you're arguing for something other than what this topic is aiming for.

I mean, the setting is, and expressly, 'these martial types are more powerful than these magic types'. My being correct (due to class selection) is, if anything, /less/ likely to make someone be surprised by 'whadya mean a monk doesn't punch things well' or sommat. :P

I'm being extremely up front about things. This setting isn't going to be a big surprise to anyone.



No, you can be a support character and still be valuable. You just have to provide level appropriate support. For example, the battlefield control Wizard.

Yes - but that's a bad comparison again. Indeed, just about everything can be done much more efficiently with a higher tier class.

But there aren't any wizards (or clerics), so your healguy choice is the healer or the adept. Or the crusader, but that's for some combat healing and not for in general healing.


Again, I'm not saying that you can't play a Healer in a game and come out okay. You can (and, apparently have). It's just that you will be worse than a Cleric that does the same thing.

And that is also not a concern - everyone is worse than a cleric. I am aware that everyone is worse than a cleric - especially since these casters are in the tier 4 range! Heck, I've stated this several times.

Although in this case, the game is probably overall more okay than normal since you don't have tier 1 classes playing around with tier 4s, you have tier /3/ classes playing around with tier 4, so it won't be so bad since there is no cleric to be compared to in the setting.

Still, the goal is more about theme than 'I am trying to rebalance D&D'.

[Brova]

I dunno again. 'Team tier 3-4' can handle appropriate opponents and such, but hey.

That's true. The issue isn't that Djinn are insurmountable opponents. The issue is that Dragon's sorcerer casting or wish emulating spells undermine the setting's attempts to avoid the power of full casters. It's not a huge issue, but it's something to bear in mind - it has to be addressed somehow, even if it's just "no dragon casting, no wish".


...what?

I find it very hard to believe that a team that is Warblade, Crusader, Shadowcaster, Warlock will not be able to solve a lantern archon. O_o Especially one that shows up over and over again, even with how tremendously few mysteries a shadowcaster has at level 2.

Okay, let's do a rough rundown of the party.

Offenses:

The Warblade and Crusader are wielding greatswords, with 18 Strength. Then deal 2d6+6 on a hit, for an average of 13 damage. That's pretty good, but because they deal neither bludgeoning nor magic damage let alone both, they do three points to the Lantern Archon a round. Of course, this assumes they can force the LA to melee, which they cannot because it flies and teleports to a degree that makes a mid level Wizard envious. They can't hurt the LA at all with ranged attacks (bows cap at 1d10 for the heavy crossbow), unless the Warblade chose as his one stance the Iron Heart stance that gives an extra d6.

The Shadowcaster can't hurt the LA at all, and his "spells" are anemic.

The Warlock can actually hurt the LA with Eldritch Blast, but it does at most six damage. The LA gets that much temp HP from an at-will casting of aid over fifty percent of the time.

Defenses:

No one has much of a reason to invest in Dex, so the LA hits everyone on a 10 or higher.

The Warblade gets a d12, and let's be generous and give him 16 Con. He has 24 HP. The LA gets two attacks for 1d6 each, and drops him in three and a half rounds on average.

The Crusader gets a d10, and the same 16 Con. He has 22 HP. He still takes three and a half rounds to die, but requires slightly worse rolls.

The Shadowcaster and Warlock both get a d6, and 14 Con. They have 11 HP, and die in a round and a half each.

It takes the LA three attacks to kill the only person who can consistently injure him, and seven more to kill the person who might be able to. And it can retreat at any time to rebuff with aid.


Also, I believe you are arguing for something very different than what this setting is meant to represent. I'm not - distinctly /not/ - trying to say 'This is the only way of making a balanced game'. I'm not saying this makes a balanced game at all (in fact, I'm saying precisely the opposite!) Really, this is much more akin to 'everyone must have half their levels be an incarnum class' or 'Divine magic doesn't work in this setting' - it's a 'Hey, look at this interesting setting idea' topic.

Okay. I don't notionally object to the idea that you could have an interesting setting by doing this. I just think that you've picked a list of casters that is not up to snuff.


Most people agree that warlocks are tier 4. If you disagree, this may not be the best topic to bring that argument to the table.

I have objections to the construction of the tier system, and believe that Warlocks are not adequately powerful. I agree that this is not likely to be the place to have that discussion, however.


This setting seems to work in both ends. Or at least, works about as well as a more typical 'tier 3/4 game', unless a typical tier 3/4 game absolutely /must/ have a bard in it or something. Either way, neither end is 'pointless'.

It is true that you can make a balanced party with those class options. Rogues hold their own perfectly well, Warblades and Crusaders are good for as long as any martial class is, and a bunch of other things are viable. My objection is mostly that you've included some trap options, primarily the casters but possibly also stuff like the Spellthief (which loses a lot of luster when people generally don't have spells).


I believe this is true for just about every class that isn't in tier 1. It's certainly not unique to what is basically a slightly tweaked 'tier 3/4 setting'.

Mostly, but not entirely. It is true that Wizards get all of the Fighter's class features as a spell (gogo heroics), but emulating the Rogue's ability to kill things with flasks is harder. And it doesn't really matter if someone can do your concept "better" as long as your concept is level appropriate. A Wizard outshines a Warlock not because he can easily acquire a weak at will attack (although he can, see reserve feats), but because he can deal with level appropriate encounters in a way a Warlock can't. A Wizard also outshines a Rogue, but that's not a concern because Rogues have the ability to stab people in the kidneys for amounts of damage that make you sit up and notice.


In this setting, healing is pretty hard. It can still be accomplished by other people using healer-made wands, but that's still incentive for healers to be around (if not moreso). Remember, this setting is lacking in tier 1-3 casters entirely.

Martial Spirit is a 1st level stance. It heals 2 HP whenever you make an attack. That's just as good at out of combat healing as a healer is, and in combat healing is a joke.


Comments like this are why I'm pretty sure you're arguing for something other than what this topic is aiming for.

I mean, the setting is, and expressly, 'these martial types are more powerful than these magic types'. My being correct (due to class selection) is, if anything, /less/ likely to make someone be surprised by 'whadya mean a monk doesn't punch things well' or sommat. :P

I'm being extremely up front about things. This setting isn't going to be a big surprise to anyone.

Sure, if you're up front about it, it isn't a problem. The fact that Fighters exist wasn't the issue with 3e's balance - the fact that they were presented as equal to Wizards was. As long as you're upfront about the fact that Shadowcaster isn't a class you should actually be, that's fine.


And that is also not a concern - everyone is worse than a cleric. I am aware that everyone is worse than a cleric - especially since these casters are in the tier 4 range! Heck, I've stated this several times.

Again, it's not that you're worse than a Cleric. It's that you're not level appropriate. The fact that Wizards are better than Sorcerers doesn't invalidate the Sorcerer. Because Sorcerers are still fundamentally capable of solving combat problems in a way Fighters or Samurai aren't.


Still, the goal is more about theme than 'I am trying to rebalance D&D'.

If you're looking to avoid caster power, why not just declare that no casters exist and stick in some rituals to get restoration or raise dead or other spells the game needs? That avoids any concerns of trap options, and lets you avoid having to line item veto things like Healers randomly getting gate.

[Kantolin]

That's true. The issue isn't that Djinn are insurmountable opponents. The issue is that Dragon's sorcerer casting or wish emulating spells undermine the setting's attempts to avoid the power of full casters.

I'm okay with 'dragons are stronger than the party' in a scenario where they would be anyway. Whatever problem dragons are giving is likely to happen in your average tier 3/4 party anyway. These people certainly aren't ineffective, which if anything makes encounters with dragons more rather than less interesting.

Of course, this depends on optimization, but everything depends on optimization.


Okay. I don't notionally object to the idea that you could have an interesting setting by doing this.

Actually, it seems like the problem is that you /do/ object to the setting idea in its entirety, heh.

Which isn't necessarily a horrible thing, mind you. A lot of people would object to an all-psionics game, or an incarnum-focused game. A lot of people would also object to a game focused on Frank & K's Tomes. I'm fine with people saying 'Eh, I don't like the idea'.

I certainly wouldn't surprise people with /any/ game idea, in case it is one they're not as fond of. It is, in fact, imbalanced - less so than regular D&D, though, but hey. That sign is hanging on the door.

...as a note, I find it interesting that you're particularly supportive of rogues. A rogue would have a much more difficult time with quite a few enemies than a warlock.


My objection is mostly that you've included some trap options, primarily the casters but possibly also stuff like the Spellthief (which loses a lot of luster when people generally don't have spells).

Realistically, there aren't terribly many sneaky options in general. The spellthief's spellcasting is comparatively valuable in a setting where it's one of the extremely few ways to actually get at wizard spells, and that's the main reason I included him at all.

Remember, the largest problem with balance comes when you have two people who are far apart from each other in overall potency. In a team consisting of a fighter, a monk, an and adept, introducing a wizard would be a problem.


A Wizard outshines a Warlock not because he can easily acquire a weak at will attack (although he can, see reserve feats), but because he can deal with level appropriate encounters in a way a Warlock can't.

And again, you seem to be certain that for some reason, tier 3/4 classes are incapable of functioning. I don't get it.


Martial Spirit is a 1st level stance. It heals 2 HP whenever you make an attack. That's just as good at out of combat healing as a healer is, and in combat healing is a joke.

Oh indeed - the crusader makes a terrific in combat healer. This, however, is primarily due to efficiency - in a given round, healing for 2 is not terribly focal (It's just that the crusader can also smack someone).

There's plenty of room for a healer to function in a party. It seems you only play at very high levels of optimization that a healer cannot reach, which surprises me only because apparently a rogue can, and I'm used to rogues falling off the relevance wagon long before many other classes. I mean, I dunno - if you're in a high optimization game, a healer can go through some hoops to expand his spell list, can get at turning for divine metamagic, sanctified spells will help, get domains, yadda. Whatever's appropriate. If you're in a low optimization game, then the healer being 'the best healer' is a useful thing.



It's that you're not level appropriate.

I could go bring up lists of monsters you'll fight, but meh. At this point, I'm willing to just agree to disagree - a level 6-8 shadowcaster is likely to contribute at /least/ as much to the party as a rogue would, and can certainly play around with a warblade or the like.


If you're looking to avoid caster power, why not just declare that no casters exist

That once again is not the goal of this setting. This still isn't 'I am trying to do this to fix balance issues with D&D'. Although interestingly, it does /end up/ being a bit more balanced due to the lack of 'wizard and samurai in the same party'. Crusader and healer are much closer in value. But eh.

[HammeredWharf]

That said, are there any gigantic mechanical pitfalls I'm not noticing?

Yes, healing.

An average D&D party needs healing for the game's pace not to be terribly slow. I don't mean just Cure spells, but also things like removing diseases, curses, various wacky things that require Heal or Restoration, etc. In your setting, the only ones capable of that are Healers, so the party has to either have a healer - and no one want to play the healbot - or visit the town after every second encounter. Neither sounds appealing.

My suggestion? Allow some other healing classes, most notably Shugenja from Complete Divine. Call it Elementalist if you want to avoid eastern fluff. Water Shugenjas are good healers and not too boring otherwise.

[Sam K]

Don't have the time to read everything in here, so just giving my main points:

Allow the T3 casters (beguiler, bard, dread necro, warlock and binder).

This allows you to have the feel of magic (and you can get access to many "must have" spells if you make the investments), but you still have clear limits to the powers of magic.

For example, a beguilier is scary because he can play tricks on your mind and eventually make you a mind-slave, but if he fails that the warblade can cut him down quickly. The dread necro may leave you defenseless with crowd control and then send an army of undead against you, but if the swordsage sneaks up on her she doesn't have many defenses.

Also, with these class restrictions casters will have an additionaly disadvantage: everyone else can fight all day! Assuming your healing comes from a crusader (or binder, I suppose, assuming they can bind something that heals) that do not run out of spells, the martials can keep fighting until they need to sleep. The casters may have some flashy powers that are more powerful than even high level strikes (dominate person, for example) but they will have few uses of that compared to the martial characters abilities.

Just ban rope trick!

[Flickerdart]

That's more what I'm looking at changing from a thematic standpoint than other things, and part of that comes from using the 'noticeably weaker' casters. Now, the plucky teenager looking for a quick route to power will want to sell his soul to devils in order to be a crusader or something, and instead of the archmage snubbing his nose at 'lesser' professions like duskblades (or clerics) and such, you have swordmasters snubbing their noses at lesser professions like shadowcasters.
The archmage will still consider everyone else to be beneath him, because his priorities are different. Hell, academics in our world would die against a wrestler or soldier in a moment, and yet would consider both of these professions to be far beneath them.

[Kantolin]

Yes, healing.

An average D&D party needs healing for the game's pace not to be terribly slow. I don't mean just Cure spells, but also things like removing diseases, curses, various wacky things that require Heal or Restoration, etc.

That actually sounds like a systemic problem more than anything else. Someone being forced to be the shugenja (especially 'because we need a healer, take healing abilities) is just as bad. Someone being /forced/ to be the cleric 'because we need a healer, memorize restoration spells' is just as bad.

Now, what you're /saying/ makes some sense - that if someone /is/ forced to be the healer, other classes at least allow you to do some other things so they'll be mildly amused. And while I can see that point, the overproblem is that the player was forced to be a class they did not want to be, and that's lame by itself and not something I want regardless of class - I don't want 'There /must/ be a wizard' nor 'there /must/ be a druid'.

Not to mention, generally the comment is 'You don't need a healer, get wands/potions/magic items', which do exist (they're expressly not being limited). Which is actually what I'm used to having happen in my groups as we often don't have a divine caster around, not because Clerics 'can only be healers' or some such, but because people have arrays of things they want to be.

But aaanyway, I do need to look at how the world handles curses and the like. The group can utilize wands, potions, have a healer, or end up with a friendly NPC, or whatever everyone normally does about 'healing is necessary'.

(In addition, while I am fond of Shugenja, they're a bit too potent for what I'm aiming for here. As are Spirit Shamans, which I'm also quite fond of despite their wonky positions as spellcasters, which is why they're not included. I actually ran a really fun game where the request was 'please try to take as much of your build as possible from not-core', which led to a really fun fire shugenja with the house rule that you could accept any element and ban any other element, so he banned earth. But that's neither here nor there, heh.)



Allow the T3 casters (beguiler, bard, dread necro, warlock and binder).

This allows you to have the feel of magic (and you can get access to many "must have" spells if you make the investments), but you still have clear limits to the powers of magic.

That's not at all the goal of this setting. This isn't 'I want magic to be more limited than it normally is', nor is it 'I'm trying to rebalance D&D', heh. The general goal is 'Martial types are T3ish, caster types are T4ish, so the martials are generally more potent but the caster types work out'. Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and Bards are a bit too strong for what I'm aiming for - although I do like the suggestions above about warlocks.

Although yeesh, there's a lot of fuel here involving 'tier 4 is /bad/'.


Just ban rope trick!

Obviously, I either was unclear in my opening post, or people are poking their heads in, seeing a list of classes, and making reasonable presumptions, heh. Maybe I need to be more careful with my opening post's wording to make it clear that this isn't 'Magic is overpowered so I want it nerfed' or something.



The archmage will still consider everyone else to be beneath him, because his priorities are different.

This is a very good point.

These and several prior comments are reminding me that I need to do the setting writeup for this setting to reinforce the overall feel.

Still, I am getting a few good suggestions to look at amidst the clarifications, so I'd generally like to say thank you to this forum.

[sideswipe]

too lazy to read all the posts, but i like the idea of trying to make melee better. adding POW and banning t1/2's works.

though instead i would allow t1/2's but ban 7th -9th level casting and give bard progression. polymorph is now not accessed until level 10, big difference, nerf it by HD = 1/2 CL. and by ban 7th's to 9th's i mean they never existed ever.

ban planar binding and stuff too.

since the summons are now spread further they drop in relative power.

[SangoProduction]

Just play 4th edition. It does the job of making martial classes half-way decent, while slightly toning down caster classes.
Or, if you really don't like that, go with a D20 modern/future/past campaign. Magic very much takes a back seat to other classes. Give people Archaic Weapon Proficiency, and the D&D equipment and go wild.

[HammeredWharf]

That actually sounds like a systemic problem more than anything else. Someone being forced to be the shugenja (especially 'because we need a healer, take healing abilities) is just as bad. Someone being /forced/ to be the cleric 'because we need a healer, memorize restoration spells' is just as bad.

Now, what you're /saying/ makes some sense - that if someone /is/ forced to be the healer, other classes at least allow you to do some other things so they'll be mildly amused. And while I can see that point, the overproblem is that the player was forced to be a class they did not want to be, and that's lame by itself and not something I want regardless of class - I don't want 'There /must/ be a wizard' nor 'there /must/ be a druid'.

Not to mention, generally the comment is 'You don't need a healer, get wands/potions/magic items', which do exist (they're expressly not being limited). Which is actually what I'm used to having happen in my groups as we often don't have a divine caster around, not because Clerics 'can only be healers' or some such, but because people have arrays of things they want to be.

But aaanyway, I do need to look at how the world handles curses and the like. The group can utilize wands, potions, have a healer, or end up with a friendly NPC, or whatever everyone normally does about 'healing is necessary'.

I should've probably specified that Cure spells aren't my main point. Spells like Restoration, Heal (to remove specific debuffs) or Resurrection are. In a normal game, they can be cast by a variety of classes. Cleric and Druid both have decent options and Wizards can do their usual T1 thing and summon/bind something that can cast these spells. They don't have to carry the spells around, either. They can just rest and cast them afterwards.

[Sam K]

That's not at all the goal of this setting. This isn't 'I want magic to be more limited than it normally is', nor is it 'I'm trying to rebalance D&D', heh. The general goal is 'Martial types are T3ish, caster types are T4ish, so the martials are generally more potent but the caster types work out'. Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and Bards are a bit too strong for what I'm aiming for - although I do like the suggestions above about warlocks.

Although yeesh, there's a lot of fuel here involving 'tier 4 is /bad/'.

Ok, so you are actually looking to specifically limit "casters" rather than "magic"? I'm asking because swordsages and crusaders can easily do things that are as magical as beguilers and bards.

I really think you should allow bards (but not sublime chord, obviously), if only because they have access to quite a few of the healing/cure/remove debuff spells a party needs, and because much of their power is actually in making melees better. Martail adepts with bard and white raven support is the stuff of (melee) legends. While bard is T3, much of that power is in helping OTHERS deal with dangerous situations.

Is this a theoretical exercise, or are you actually trying to make a playable setting?