PDA

View Full Version : Would you still play a wizard?



Brother_Franklin
2007-06-19, 05:17 PM
For those you who play Wizards or Sorceres, still be willing to play them if your DM made you take a +1 LA. You could still start on the same level, but obviously you might fall "behind" as time goes by.

tarbrush
2007-06-19, 05:23 PM
Yeah. Sorcerers it'd hurt more, as waiting till 5th to get second level spells is a little too long, but wizards would still hold up.

KIDS
2007-06-19, 05:23 PM
I suppose this is more like a poll....

no. No way. If he wants to nerf the class, have him remove Shapechange and Gate. Attaching LA to something is just poor custom and plain annoying.

Tengu
2007-06-19, 05:25 PM
To teach the DM a lesson, I'd play an artificer.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-19, 05:25 PM
Are we talking "only X race that has a +1 LA can be arcane casters", or are we talking "if you play a sorceror or wizard, I'm going to give you a +1 LA, because those classes are too strong"?


Either way, No. I don't like playing wizards. I sometimes will splash a level, for low level spell buffs, but I prefer fighters, rogues, and rangers.

Spiryt
2007-06-19, 05:31 PM
I don't know if I would play wizard cause i usually don't play them.

But anyway, what do you think? I think it would be good idea to make fullcasters life more difficult, but the problem sounds:
Multiclassing - it's quite free and easy in 3.5, and thats good.
So, somebody would want to take a level in wizard (some reason)... Would he also take +1 LA from this one level?

CASTLEMIKE
2007-06-19, 05:32 PM
Can I buy it down at level 3? Otherwise it depends on what else you change to the rules.

Casters are fun to play but sorcerers are already the spellcaster most gimped mechanically. They have +1LA to spellcasting and a very finite spell list. Their primary ability is charisma and they do not get charisma skills like diplomacy. The real caster abuses are with level 9 spells and a few key feats. Take them out of your game or introuduce The Tome of Battle the Book of Nine Swords to your players.

In a low magic setting where spells are hard to come by a good wizard player can excel just using the PHB and his leveling spells and nothing else although the Collegiate Wizard feat is a good idea in that type of setting to double the spells learned leveling and even more for a Specialist or a Variant Domain Mage compared to a standard wizard.

One of the prime class features is that you don't lose anything for PRCing and should do it as soon as possible which is a very unusual class feature.

Sticking to Core that grants you 13 levels to devote to ACM and Loremaster if your campaign goes up to 20 levels. If you go Eldritch Knight you lose another CL and the Battle Sorcerer variant isn't core it's SRD.

The second is less record keeping for players and DMs. Letting them take normal Spell Mastery or getting Educated like the Wilder or a Collegiate Wizard variant and obtain more known spells. MotAO or GMoW are two of the better PRC fixes by providing very limited spell pool access. A single level in Beguiler does an awful lot with the Ultimate Magus PRC and an Intelligence based Spellcaster for a nice fix. Abjurant Champion and Archmage are also nice.

Look at what the Spellcaster Variant gets for losing a spell or look at what the Warmage and the Beguiler get in comparison to the sorcerer.

Their divine counterparts the Favored Soul knows more spells than they do has some really cool spells like Anyspell, Anyspell Greater and Miracle if you ever make it that far, more feats to provide armored casting, lots of cool abilities that normally cost a feat in a build, D8, all good saves plus the diplomacy skill. If double abilities for spellcasting warrants increasing known spells and I can have more known spells as a sorcerer for using two primary abilities like Int (more skills) and Char as a variant I'm all for it.

Their psionic counterparts get extra feats just like wizards plus their primary abillity grants them more skills for a skill based campaign. Under the rules they can learn more known powers by spending experience instead of feats.

My fix would be giving the wizards and sorcerers the SRD variant domain mage (but it would be a bonus known spell to a sorcerer) the spells are already chosen and making 9th level spells as the basic and most easy to learn and research Epic Spells. No level 9 spells before level 21. Primary casters are limited to level 8 spells like Bards are limited to level 6 spells normally and Adepts are limited to level 5 spells. Most games are not Epic and this destroys some of the more killer Timestop, MDJ, Miracle and other spell abuses. Of course a lot of builds would level up to level 21 Epic caster builds.

This is pretty easy if you use delayed spell progression levels like the Adept and throw in a bonus feat to the base sorcerer say levels 5, 9, 13 and 17 get PRCing PCs still receive the delayed level to spellcasting but not the bonus feat just the PRC benefits. I'd throw in the +1 Wujen Spell Secrets at levels 1,3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-19, 05:32 PM
Yeah, I would. I would also note this is a rather ineffective way of nerfing them. It hurts at low levels (when they're not a strong class yet) and doesn't hurt all that much at higher ones (when they are). Plus, there's always CoDzilla.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-06-19, 06:13 PM
LA +1 full casters? Yes please. Not so much a rule as a guideline, but in my games I prefer keeping the generally harmless non-batman, non-cleric-zilla PCs at a higher level. Preferably with an LA of more than just +1.

Not at low levels, though. Casters don't really come into their power until 7th-9th level or so.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-19, 06:26 PM
Here's a thought... cap the prime spellcaster classes at level eight. The higher levels simply don't exist. Higher spellcasting ability is available through prestige classes, but these cannot be picked "at will" but require extensive questing. Make it so players can't "delay" gaining a level, so that they'll have to take a level or two of e.g. rogue in the meantime.

Conjurer
2007-06-19, 06:39 PM
To teach the DM a lesson, I'd play an artificer.

Took the words out of my mouth... except I was going to say Druid.

Deepblue706
2007-06-19, 06:43 PM
Yeah, okay, I would...on one condition.

I must be granted eternal access to the following spells:

Frigus IX (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=041125)

Unda Pugneus (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=041127)

lacesmcawesome
2007-06-19, 07:02 PM
I'd give him an adjustment...
an adjustment of his FACE!

In seriousness, no, I wouldn't. It's too much hassle for a class that I really don't have much inclination to.

But I would be a little angry with him, because it would seem a little unfair to me, though i guess that the class is pretty unfair to the rest of the players, being as powerful as it is.

Miles Invictus
2007-06-19, 07:08 PM
Base spell level off of caster level. At CL 3, you get 2nd level spells. At CL 5, you get 3rd level spells, and so on.

Only base caster classes give full CL progression. Caster prestige classes and non-caster base classes (not non-caster prestige classes) give half CL progression for a single spellcaster class. Theurge classes give half CL progression to two spellcaster classes. Spell save DCs become 10 + 1/2 CL + primary spellcasting stat, rather than being based on spell level.

It doesn't completely balance spellcasters, but it does mitigate some of the cheesier combinations. A Wizard 10/Prc 10 will have awesome special abilities and a base DC of 15 + Int, while a Wizard 20 will have spellcasting and a DC five points higher. That's a pretty big difference -- especially when you consider that spells per day is based on CL, too.

Probably needs a bit of tweaking, though.

Brother_Franklin
2007-06-19, 07:11 PM
Thanks for all the responses. This gave me a lot of good ideas. I've been thinking of a newish setting. (Not like to publish just to play in.) I want wizards and sorcerers, but I want them to be rare for flavor reasons. And I was also worried about some of the balance issues I've been hearing on this board.

Druid I was going to replace with spirit shaman. It fits more with my world which has a lot of rampaging elementals and that live side by side with some tribal humans.

And any non-core arcane classes are right out. Unless, their in as replacements.

How about for the sorcerer, I just have them all pop half dragon somewhere around level 7 to 11. (Like a 1d4 chance until it happens starting level 7.) It fits with the idea that they are rare and special and keeps the time stops down.

The wizards, I might just make a rule that even their 'free spells' must be found or researched somehow. I'll look up the domain wizard thing. I'm playing around with the idea that all spells come from sorcerers. So maybe after level 14 or so, you have to find a sorcerer to follow.

As for the power-clerics, I'm planning to divine up all the classes a bit (even the arcanist), so they will feel less special. Agian this has to do with the flavor.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-06-19, 07:35 PM
Lots of options. Giving the sorcerer the +1 dragon blooded template might be a little nicer to the PCs giving them the choice to pursue that draconic heritage further particularly with LA to start buying down the half dragon template.

In D20 modern wizards are basically a 10 level PRC the basic wizard with a few more feats and skill points and can not be entered until level 4 that also might work for your campaign.

In your campaign you could wizards to be a PRC and require taking levels in sorcerer or adept as a prerequisite and being able to cast level 2 spells. Another option would be to use the Ur-Lord/Ur-Priest PRC or the Divine Chamption PRC and convert them or blend them into an Arcane Lord PRC a PC could enter at level 5 or 8 depending on prerequisites.

Maybe a Educated Wilder variant sorcerer which wouldn't be bad with Anyspell or Anyspell Greater as an option and a Reserve Feat.

In the end if no one wants to play one you know you overgimped it.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-06-19, 09:10 PM
Here's a thought... cap the prime spellcaster classes at level eight. The higher levels simply don't exist. Higher spellcasting ability is available through prestige classes, but these cannot be picked "at will" but require extensive questing. Make it so players can't "delay" gaining a level, so that they'll have to take a level or two of e.g. rogue in the meantime.


I tried putting a cap on caster's levels once. I happily went back to Forgotten Realms Epic Caster Overdose afterwards.



Brother_Franklin: You sure about the suddenly becoming a half-dragon part? It sounds a little, well, sudden. Half-Dragon is LA+3, so you'd technically be boosting the sorcerer's ECL by a large amount.
I suggest instead that you take a cue from the Dragon Disciple PrC and give the half-dragon elements gradually, avoiding any crazy jumping from ECL 6 to ECL 10.

Damionte
2007-06-19, 09:16 PM
I wouldn't play it, and I wouldn't do it as a GM.

To balance casters i'm more inclined to pick out the individual spells I have issues with and come up with solutions on a case by case basis whith my group, than to try and throw a jury rigged blanket solution over thwe classes which doesn't work.

Reptilius
2007-06-19, 09:21 PM
A LA for a wizard, huh? Please tell your DM that...

HE'S A MORON THAT'S RUINING THE GAME I LOVE!!!

Thank you for your time.

Seriously, though. It completely wounds them. If he wants to nerf casters, get rid of the broken spells, like Polymorphs. Don't punish them because they're good.

Ditto
2007-06-19, 09:38 PM
If you want arcane casters to be rare, just make them rare. Tell your players to consider other options, and be prepared to get ogled at/treated as a devil-worshipper/(obscure bumpkin reaction) in the course of the campaign.

+1 LA isn't going to kill a caster, it's just a little bit annoying. A Wiz19 is still going to kick some major butt when matched against an Xxx20.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-19, 10:14 PM
Absolutely. But it strikes me as an inadequate and awkward way to try to balance them, if that's the goal. If that isn't the goal, come up with something other than nerfing them.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-20, 03:43 AM
If you want arcane casters to be rare,

Yep. That's also an automatic nerf for wizards, because if wizards are rare, then finding another guy's spellbook is also rare. Another auto-nerf is simply not giving the wiz two free spells to pick each level.

To nerf divine casters, make it clear that their Deity does Not Approve of cheese. Or, restrict metamagic feats to arcane casters; frankly I've always considered it a bit silly that you can use a mortal feat to improve the magic given by a god.

Dhavaer
2007-06-20, 04:03 AM
Out of curiosity, would Gate be any more balanced if the casting time to call creatures was 10 minutes (like planar binding)?

Tobrian
2007-06-20, 04:07 AM
Short answer: no.

Long answer: I'd leave the group. What's the point if the DM starts highhandedly discriminating against one kind of character class while coddling the others?

What is it with people beating up on the arcane casters??? :smallmad:
Wizards already are one of the most disadvantaged core classes (less spells per day than divine casters, 2 bad saves, worst hit die, lowest base skill points, worst BAB, few feats, no armor, bad weapon selection, huge amount of time and of money goes into maintaining spellbook and scrolls, not to mention XP costs for scrolls, potions, items, etc etc). Seriously if you think wizards are too powerful you have something wrong with your head. Or you are running D&D campaigns like computer games like Diablo.

I never hear a word of complaint from these people about classes like the druid, now do I? And the druid gets FAR more powers while being a full caster. :smallmad:

Edited to add:

Yep. That's also an automatic nerf for wizards, because if wizards are rare, then finding another guy's spellbook is also rare. Another auto-nerf is simply not giving the wiz two free spells to pick each level.

So then what? The wizard does not get any spells? WotC likes to think that the sorcerer's ability to gain new spells for free and to cast them without spellbook and having more spell slots per day than the wiz is balanced out by giving the wizard access to a bigger more versatile list of spells, and giving him the ability to expand daily casting with scrolls (that he first has to scribe of course). Sheesh.

"Versatility" is pretty much their holy cow. All those other arcane core classes they invented (Duskblade, Warmage, Warlock, Beguiler and others) get special powers shoved up every orifice just to "make up" for them having a (huge) fixed list of spells or spell-like powers... because the poor weebles don't have the "versatility" of the wizard! *rolls eyes*

So by taking away the wizard's two free spells per level, AND making it even harder to find and copy new spells you pretty much make the class obsolete. I'd rather not have a power than having that power on paper but then having it nerfed so much that in reality it's useless or imposible to use. :smallmad: Same goes for spells. What good is a spell that sits there and takes up a slot when it gets retroactively downsized so much that it doesn't fulfill its original function anymore? Then I'd rather have them tell me the spell does not exist, and that's it.

Dhavaer
2007-06-20, 04:11 AM
I never hear a word of complaint from these people about classes like the druid, now do I?

Read this forum for a week and you'll hear a lot of complaints about the druid. Cleric, Druid and Wizard are what is referred to as the 'Power Three', being the three most powerful classes in the game. Wizards have Time Stop, Cloudkill, Forcecage, Mordy's Mansion et al, Clerics have Divine Power and that other spell that makes them Fighters with full casting, and Druids are giant bears with full casting.

Bosh
2007-06-20, 04:16 AM
Seriously if you think wizards are too powerful you have something wrong with your head.
Thinking that all full casters > all non-full casters (at least in core, things get a bit different if you throw TOB) is the consensus view on every D&D forum out there. The only real arguement is wether divine or arcane is more powerful (the majority opinion goes something along the line of Druid/Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer/the rest for core, with Clerics edging out Druids if they get to use divine metamagic).

Magic (if used intelligently) is so much more powerful than other stuff in D&D once you start getting to the middle levels that it gets silly. 3.5 edition D&D is BADLY broken balance-wise and the only thing that keeps that brokeness from ruining most campaigns is that many players do not play full casters to anywhere near their full potential (i.e. arcane casters being blasters and divine casters being heal bots).

That said, giving wizards LA is a pretty ham fisted way to balance them.

Tobrian
2007-06-20, 04:19 AM
Read this forum for a week and you'll hear a lot of complaints about the druid.

I know I've participated in that thread. I've not been posting here only since yesterday.


Magic (if used intelligently) is so much more powerful than other stuff in D&D once you start getting to the middle levels that it gets silly. 3.5 edition D&D is BADLY broken balance-wise and the only thing that keeps that brokeness from ruining most campaigns is that many players do not play full casters to anywhere near their full potential (i.e. arcane casters being blasters and divine casters being heal bots).

And at middle to high levels the rogues can be spellthieves, the fighters can be mage slayers with rings of spell turning, etc... Not to mention that at higher levels most monsters have elemental resistances, spell resistance etc.

If people playing fighters really are so jealous of those wizards having spells why don't they multiclass their own characters with Spellsword or Warmage?

How do you define "full potential"? Arcane casters being blasters is the worst and stupidest thing you can do with the class, IMO. See monsters with spell resistance above. And you do run out of high-level spells, while the fighter types can do their thing all day.

How often are you playing 18th level characters? Does Timestop really come up that often?

Why do I get the feeling that most D&D players out there run their games like Arena Fight PvP games, where the only thing that matters is optimizing the characters for maximum effective combat power?

When I think about "using magic intelligently", I usually think "divination spells".

Fine. Let's massively restrict the powers of spellcasters. I'm fine with that if you also restrict the availability of ALL and any magic items for non-spellcasters, and use the non-spellcasting versions of paladin and ranger. After all where would all that stuff come from?

Dhavaer
2007-06-20, 04:24 AM
I know I've participated in that thread. I've not been posting here only since yesterday.


I never hear a word of complaint from these people about classes like the druid, now do I?

I'd like to hear how these two statements aren't contradicting each other.

Tobrian
2007-06-20, 04:42 AM
I'd like to hear how these two statements aren't contradicting each other.

Because the people who want to nerf the wizard usually aren't the ones who complain about the divine spellcasters.

raspberrybadger
2007-06-20, 04:42 AM
Yes, I would still play a wizard if it had +1 LA. Mostly because I am willing to play a sorcerer, which is already pretty much 'wizard with +1 LA'

Seriously, even then, a properly played wizard is in no way weaker than the other classes in terms of practical contribution in and out of combat situations.

Still, I would suggest that LA is a poorly matched mechanic for a class balance issue. Something like requiring a level of expert before advancing to Wizard 2 makes more sense to me. It deprives the wizard of a CL, but it doesn't drop his hp further into the floor, and it lets players further individuate their characters by selecting strange skills for a single level.

Droodle
2007-06-20, 04:59 AM
Personally, I'd just go through all your books, make a list of broken spells, and either tweak them so they are balanced or ban them outright. My personal favorite with really broken spells is to allow them but add a hefty chance of the spell backfiring. Wizards are a lot less likely to cast timestop if there's 50% chance of the wizard being frozen in time while everyone else still gets to act.

Dhavaer
2007-06-20, 05:03 AM
Because the people who want to nerf the wizard usually aren't the ones who complain about the divine spellcasters.

Really? I've noticed the opposite, people either complain about both, or neither.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-20, 05:51 AM
So then what? The wizard does not get any spells?
No, then the player does not get free pick of his spells. RAW says the player can pick whatever he likes; it is not at all unreasonable for the DM to say the wizard must pick at least one spell of his specialty school, or may pick only one at his highest spell level, or may only pick from spells "commonly known" in his campaign. Flavor-wise, that makes a lot of sense - if you were the wizard who invented Time Stop, would you be sharing that with everyone, or guarding it like a trade secret?

Bosh
2007-06-20, 05:57 AM
And at middle to high levels the rogues can be spellthieves
Dipping in spellthief would just make a rogue weaker.


the fighters can be mage slayers with rings of spell turning, etc...
So fighters can be good because of a magic item that can be used by everyone including commoners? That doesn't make any sense.


at higher levels most monsters have elemental resistances, spell resistance
Elemental resistance doesn't matter that much since dealing damage is a tactically poor way of playing a wizard and far more critters at high levels are resistant to sneak attack.


If people playing fighters really are so jealous of those wizards having spells why don't they multiclass their own characters with Spellsword or Warmage?
Dipping into Spellsword or Warmage would only make a fighter weaker. Also making a warmage gish would be the weakest possible gish.


How do you define "full potential"?
What I mean is that if everyone plays using poor tactics the gap between full casters and non-casters shrinks since it takes more tactical knowledge to play a caster than a non-caster (more spells to keep track of). Also many people try to use 2nd edition or MMORPG tactics in D&D 3.5 which are ill-suited to casters.


How often are you playing 18th level characters?
I never play much above 10th level. The massive power of casters at double-didget levels is one of the main reasons for this.


Arcane casters being blasters is the worst and stupidest thing you can do with the class
Precisely. And that is how many many people play wizards. This is why in actual game play wizards are often not as powerful as they are on paper.


When I think about "using magic intelligently", I usually think "divination spells".
That brings up another point. Casters are indisputably more useful than meleers out of combat.

Human Paragon 3
2007-06-20, 10:33 AM
It might be the way I play, but I tend not to notice the power gaps too much. D&D is a cooperative game after all. When we play, the fighter (or monk or soul knife) doesn't complain about the Druid/Cleric's power- he is damn glad to have a druid/cleric in the party because we'd hardly come out alive without his battlefield control, healing and summons. And the Arcane Caster isn't constantly overshadowing our meleers either. The wizard is damn glad to have a high-powered fighter in the party tying up enemies, delivering more damage than the wizard could by power attacking, grappling enemy casters, etc.

Telonius
2007-06-20, 11:07 AM
To the OP - sure. Falling behind a level tends to happen anyway with scroll scribing XP cost. But I would prefer some other methods to limit wizards' power.

herrhauptmann
2007-06-20, 11:32 AM
Falling behind a level tends to happen anyway with scroll scribing XP cost.
The exp loss due to scribing and crafting has been mostly negated with some errata printed a while ago.
3 Things in that ritual:
1st level spell: A willing subject can donate his own experience points when crafting a magic item. Can not be coerced, must be present every day of crafting.
Ritual: Person pours their experience into a special object which is then included in the crafting process. This way, the fighter can go off to kill balors while the town wizard enchants a new sword for him
Feat: Taking this feat means that you can use someone else's feats, skills, spells, class ability to meet the prereq's for creating a magic item. Say the wizard is making a holy longsword for the paladin. Obviously the wizard doesn't have bless weapon, and the cleric doesn't have 'craft magic arms and armor'. Now this doesn't matter anymore, the cleric just has to be present at each day of crafting so he can cast bless weapon.
One of the parties I'm in is planning to make full use of these abilities and the contents of the Magic Item Compendium.

Now that my friends are powering their own magic items, I can go spend exp on scrolls and wands without falling too far behind.

EDIT:
I would still play a wizard with the +1LA, but probably not a sorceror. I like better the idea of finding other ways to limit a wizard's strength. Speaking of, I personally think the feat 'spellcasting prodigy' is a great way for casters (especially arcane) to improve themselves. Your casting stat is essentially 2 points higher for purposes of starting spells, spells per day, and DC. It's like 1/2 spell focus, but for all schools.

Telonius
2007-06-20, 11:41 AM
Kinda sorta. Our group uses that system too, and my caster is still falling behind because of his extensive collection of personal-use scrolls. I only have scribe scroll, not any other craft feats, so I'm not making arms, armor, or wondrous items for the group (where crafting assistance would really help).

Jorkens
2007-06-20, 11:43 AM
Without wanting to get into the 'are wizards overpowered' argument, if you do think that wizards are overpowered at high levels wouldn't slowing the level progression right down at higher levels make more sense than introducing a flat +1 LA?

Indeed, I guess that in an ideal world you could try to peg all the classes XP requirements to level to the point that if everyone gains XP at the same rate, they gain levels at a rate that keeps them balanced. This would involve a totally unprecedented level of agreement about how powerful any given class is at any given level to do it properly, though...

Talya
2007-06-20, 11:44 AM
I suppose this is more like a poll....

no. No way. If he wants to nerf the class, have him remove Shapechange and Gate. Attaching LA to something is just poor custom and plain annoying.



Actually, it's not poor at all. It's basically just a return to the 2e idea of making spellcasters require more experience to level than other characters. Even in a non-epic campaign, a LA+1 character can still hit 20...they aren't epic until their ACTUAL level is 21, not their ECL, so they can still hit the same level of power. It just takes them longer.

I'd be inclined to do something more along the lines of requiring a wizard to get 30% more experience at every level (and a cleric/druid +20%, a sorceror +10%), and leaving the melee classes alone.

Ditto
2007-06-20, 11:51 AM
What would the justification be for that sort of penalty? I can see how it would scale things more appropriately, but what exactly is the reason that killing three orcs with a fireball doesn't teach you as much as killing them with a pointy stick? I'd be open to that idea, but I'd like to have some sort of fluff to match with it.

Jorkens
2007-06-20, 11:53 AM
Basically, I think it'd be that learning to bend reality to fit your wishes by sheer force of will is quite hard...

Talya
2007-06-20, 11:57 AM
What would the justification be for that sort of penalty? I can see how it would scale things more appropriately, but what exactly is the reason that killing three orcs with a fireball doesn't teach you as much as killing them with a pointy stick? I'd be open to that idea, but I'd like to have some sort of fluff to match with it.

The justification is simple: It's harder to learn magic than it is to learn to use a sword. In fiction, accomplished wizards are generally beings of immense power, far surpassing the rest of us mere mortals...but very very few people ever become accomplished wizards. The dedication and intense study required takes much longer to learn, so a wizard can still aspire to their ridiculous levels of power, but it should take them longer to do it. Likewise, a druid or cleric's penalty would represent the fact that they are NOT studying or attempting to learn more from their encounters, they are serving their deity or similar element. And perhaps those deities require more proof of competence to grant additional power to their servants.

Sorcerors (being the weakest of the pure casters by far) can be explained away in that they do their magic instinctively, so it takes less time for them to learn than a wizard. It's still harder than swinging a pointed stick.

Ditto
2007-06-20, 12:16 PM
I sort of agree with the wizard rationale, but if you want to reflect intense study then I would require an RP element of intense study. I don't know how much more you learn about magic from killing 13 orcs than 10 orcs. You need a different kind of studying. In another thread someone suggested not giving wizards the two free spells every level, or at least restricting their choice. I agree they should have to earn that magic somehow, but if someone wanted to go through 20 levels without picking up many more spells than Mage Armor and Fireball, I'd say let them cast at CL20. They're happy, and so am I. It would behoove them to take the time to seek out new spells in game, and prevent automatic leveling in the way that unbalances them the most - wide selection of spell virtually without restriction.

I have no idea what you mean by 'clerics and druids are NOT attempting to learn from their encounters'. They're not *studying* anything in particular, sure, but they don't have to. They gain their spellcasting powers quite literally through experience - learning about the way they interact with the world around them, that's what WIS is all about. They don't need to demonstrate 'proficiency' with their magic, they just have to make sure Pelor thinks what they're doing is a good idea. Druids I could see requiring a little more time to understand nature better, because nature doesn't usually talk directly to a druid like clerics can with their gods (or their heralds).

Sorcerers require some hands-on training, I guess... sort of like Handle Animal being a CHA skill, you get better at it as time goes on through direct interaction. The 'innate' thing is difficult, still, because

In any event, fighters still need to perfect their manuevers. That's why they get all those feats, right? They're demonstrating proficiency in a new technique. They need to learn about how their bodies work in the art of battle. Rogues sneak attack more effectively, that takes mad skillz - definitely a reflection of INT and study of 'How deep til I cut that hamstrings out?' Monks smell bad, so whatever. Ranger and paladin, with their half-casting and sometimes-useful skill sets, might warrant a penalty because they just don't have their act together. They're the kid brothers of druids and clerics - I'd just as soon let nature/god(s) let them know how they're doing and 'Keep up the good work!' in the same way as their casting cousins.

Everyone needs training and learning downtime. The only ones I could see quite explicitly requiring out-of-combat time to learn more are wizards (or cloistered clerics (sort of) or archivists (obviously)) - but that should be reflected through RP and hunting things down via quests, not limiting all aspects of character advancement (saves, BAB and class abilities) because of versatility's power creep. Every class has some aspect that ought require out-of-combat training, and there are tons of other ways to earn XP.

lukelightning
2007-06-20, 02:58 PM
I see DMs do this with the same motivation "to make mages rare/special/exotic/whatever."

Then you go around getting attacked by fiend-blooded alienist, mind-flayer sorcerers, and medusa warmages....and mages don't seem so rare or special.

Vaniel
2007-06-20, 03:12 PM
Why put level adjustments to a base class? :smallconfused:

I'd still play a Wizard if the DM forced it on me. One level won't change a lot, really. I'll just have two less spells to use at level 19 than 20, meh.

/Vaniel

Yakk
2007-06-20, 04:17 PM
This is a bad idea, because casters are weaker than other classes at low levels, and stronger than a class 1 level above them at high levels.

What this change does is make the low-level wizard worse, and doesn't really fix the problem at higher levels.

Abbott
2007-06-20, 05:33 PM
I disagree that wizards are overpowered. I had an argument with a friend over who would kill the other first, a 5fighter10Order of the Bow initiate or a 15-level wizard. I came up with some rather nice tactics that would allow the wizard to kill the initiate without trouble, but the thing is, the wizard HAS to be prepared. After all, a wizard is only his spell selection. In the above scenario, if the wizard hasn't prepared wind wall or some other anti-archery spell, he's in deep trouble. Likewise, if he normally specialises in fiery magic of doom and comes across a bunch of fire elementals, he likewise isn't going to be of much use because he can only do his stuff a limited amount of times per day.

A fighter doesn't have to be prepared 'cause he can always do his thing, same with a rogue. Even if they face trouble, they still have enough generic good stuff to get out of it. However, a wizard doesn't have generic good stuff, he's either brilliant or rather useless.

Grey Paladin
2007-06-20, 06:08 PM
I would, without a doubt, In fact I did so in 2nd edition with an effective LA of +2.

then again that was in 2nd edition, where 9th level characters were nearly epic, and where I could simply Greater Dig the hell out of anything that couldn't fly and then drown those that survived the 100 ft/level long fall.

give me one other ECL 11 character that could solo an army in 4 rounds.

Wizards are more powerful then any other class, it is only fair that they should level far slower, but this should be the only nerf you introduce to the class if the intention is to balance them and not strip them of their classical D&D status as the heart of the party. (Fighter's only there to take blows and save the wizard some spells, Cleric's there to heal the fighter and the Wizard, and the Rogue's only purpose is to conserve the wizard's spell slots)

Edit:
I do not understand why people keep insisting Wizards suck at lower levels, Sleep is a friggin' "I win" button, a 1st level character that can win 3 out of 4 encounters for a level 1 party each day seems anything but weak to me, later on you have Deeper Slumber, and when you hit 7, you Win.

Bosh: I do not know what 2E you played, but my tactics haven't changed a bit, wizard spells were simply significantly nerfed with the absence of the custom EXP charts, so blasting became less effective, but I always played an illusionist so I didn't blast in 2E anyway.

Gralamin
2007-06-20, 06:26 PM
I find that the best way to balance a wizard is to talk to the player, and come to an agreement of just how far into cheese they will go.

This works for one reason:
THERE IS NO PROBLEM, IF NO ONE MAKES IT A PROBLEM

Reptilius
2007-06-20, 06:29 PM
Well, if you're forced to have an LA, spite your DM by taking every single broken spell you can find. That's what I'd do. If you can't have fun, make sure NO ONe has fun. Your DM will be so bothered he'll remove the LA in exchange for picking non-cheesy spells.

Bosh
2007-06-20, 09:58 PM
This is a bad idea, because casters are weaker than other classes at low levels
Depends on how you play them. At first level the wizard has color spray and sleep which can be MASSIVELY powerful, a 1st level cleric is probably more useful than a 1st level fighter in most adventures and 1st level druids are the most powerful 1st level character if they have a good animal companion.


a 5fighter10Order of the Bow initiate or a 15-level wizard.
Definately the wizard, order of the bow initiate is a weak prc and you stuck it on a weak base class.


the wizard HAS to be prepared
Or have just one good will save based save or die spell.


A fighter doesn't have to be prepared 'cause he can always do his thing, same with a rogue.
That's an advantage that a wizard has, flexibility. The wizard can change his abilities day by day the fighter and the rogue can't. If the fighter is a trip-monkey then he's screwed against certain opponents no matter how much he prepares same goes for the rogue vs. things that can't be sneak attacked. The wizard can adapt to meet challenges while the rogue and fighter can't, why you thinnk that that is a disadvantage is beyond me.


Bosh: I do not know what 2E you played, but my tactics haven't changed a bit
The difference I'm referring to is that damage dealing spells tended to me more effective in 2nd edition than 3rd, especially at high levels.


If you can't have fun, make sure NO ONe has fun.
How very mature of you.