Looking to make wizards unappealing to players. [Archive]

frogglesmash

2017-03-01, 05:25 AM

As the title says I want to make wizards an unappealing choice for player characters, the reason being I want them in my campaign as creators of magic items, sages, beings of great power etc, but I don't want but I don't want my players playing T1 casters. I realize it would be far simpler to simply ban wizards, making them an npc only class, but I don't like having options that are limited only to NPCs, it feels underhanded.

My idea was to make wizards capable of casting any spell written in their spell as many times as they like so long as their spellbook is on hand, however casting times are massively inflated (anywhere from a minute at the shortest, to an hour or more at the longest). They would also have an arcane focus to which they could attune a number of spells (no more than 5-7 at max level) which they'd be able to cast with their normal casting times using a limited number of spell lots (less than 10 at 20th level) this casting would work similarly to that of a 5th edition warlock.

The effect I'm hoping to achieve with all this is a caster capable casting a vast number of spells, but who is of limited use in combat while not being completely helpless.

As far as I can tell this should work, but I'd appreciate it if the playground could tell me if and why this won't work, and how I could do it better.

On a side note: I would like to try and do a similar thing for clerics, but I feel their access large number of long term buffs makes this nerf far less effective.

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 05:55 AM

weckar

2017-03-01, 06:05 AM

How will such a change affect sorcerers? The attuning thing makes them superior in nearly any combat scenario.

frogglesmash

2017-03-01, 06:29 AM

I am a bit confused, the title and the first paragraph pretty much say opposite things...

However, as super strong nerf for Wizards and casters in general I think you are in the right direction.
What I would do is, some or all of:

-slow down magic, full round _minimum_,
-ban or nerf persist metamagic,
-ban the ridiculous classes like Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil or Incantatrix (if in a Wizard guide a class is marked as _strong_ it should not be there),
-hourserule that SR or TS are _always_ allowed,
-remove/reduce the ways to make metamagic cheaper,
-protection and immunities can always fail (e.g., True Sight might fail to see through an Illusion if the caster fails a opposed check of Spellcraft of whomever caster the illusion),
-remove the extra range for spells, (e.g., Meteor Swarm has range "Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)", just use the 400ft.)
-remove "utility" spells that make whole classes ability redundant (e.g., knock),
-remove/nerf divination spells (this can be made indirectly, like adding easy ways to protect places or people).

About the last point, in my settings with a Spellcraft check people can make special markings that protect a place or a person until physically removed.

It should be playtested of course, but the basic idea is making caster much weaker but still plenty of options. Hopefully it makes gish or fighters more attractive.

I messed up the title, but it's fixed now.

I agree with most of your ideas, however I feel that 4, and 7 are unnecessary, and that 9 depends heavily on the specific campaign. I think 8 might be unnecessary simply because everything else makes wizards an inappropriate choice for adventuring. I'm also heavily against 6 simply because as a player, it's incredibly galling when effects don't work as they should, especially if I spend a lot of gold to gain access to said effects.

How will such a change affect sorcerers? The attuning thing makes them superior in nearly any combat scenario.
I don't plan at using sorcerers in my campaign at all, let alone changing them, but if I did they'd be far superior to wizards when it comes adventuring, the reasons being a) with these changes wizards will only ever 5ish spells (at 20th level) at a time that they can cast with combat appropriate casting times, and B) They will be limited to casting only 7 or so spells a day (again this is at 20th level). The sorcerer on the other hand can cast somewhere around 50 spells a day and has about 30 spells that are always combat ready.

AnachroNinja

2017-03-01, 06:53 AM

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 06:54 AM

I agree with most of your ideas, however I feel that 4, and 7 are unnecessary, and that 9 depends heavily on the specific campaign. I think 8 might be unnecessary simply because everything else makes wizards an inappropriate choice for adventuring. I'm also heavily against 6 simply because as a player, it's incredibly galling when effects don't work as they should, especially if I spend a lot of gold to gain access to said effects.

Of course those are just random ideas based on my experience, a way to brainstorm. About point 6, I think it's a problem of D&D that some many powerful things can easily negated removing the sense of risk in the game.

On the other hand, it's nice to reward powerful things, that's why I don't suggest a plain "20%" of failure or something. But I suggest some kind of opposed checks, if you are powerful you are still probably fine. But a part of rare chases, the risk is always there. Besides, I think skills are so underpowered in d&d that I think it's nice to make them more useful.

Heck, a Wizard can make its own whole career with just 5 ranks of Spellcraft! (assuming 5 Knowledge arcana for the synergy)

As a player, what I think its important is predictability, just explain how your house rule work, and if something comes unexpected just go by RAW for the session and fix it between the games. This assumes your players are all responsible adults that want to have fun, not use their characters to satisfy delusion of grandeur and go whining when you fix something. On the other hand, as Master I expect that you are open that when a rule change the players want to adapt the characters to it without too much trouble.

ace rooster

2017-03-01, 07:44 AM

The limitation of lengthened casting times is that it does nothing to affect long duration buffs, which is where the wizard really shines. A wizard that is prepared for a fight can still have dozens of spells up, only now their mates have to wait longer for it to happen. I would suggest limits to number of spells active at a time, in a similar way to base attack bonus. ie: you can have one spell active at your full caster level, plus one at -5 caster level, and so on.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-01, 08:06 AM

I wrote a homebrew class for this exact setup: slow-casting of rituals, the potential to store some in a magic item, and powered up reserve feats for regular combat. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325646

Tohsaka Rin

2017-03-01, 08:23 AM

Just sit down with your players, and tell them honestly why you don't want them playing wizards.

I can promise you that will go down much better than seeming to come off as trying to directly punish anyone interested in rolling up a wizard.

You will almost always get better results from trying to work with your players, than doing things that will make them think you're trying to work against them.

Aetis

2017-03-01, 08:25 AM

Tohsaka Rin

2017-03-01, 08:32 AM

I would talk to them and explain what you are trying to do, instead of making bunch of houserules and pray that they get your message.

You are the DM. There is nothing underhanded about telling your players not to play wizards.

Agreed. It would only be underhanded if you said 'no wizards in this campaign', then threw npc wizards in their face.

Saying 'no PC wizards in this campaign, but they'll still exist for the purposes of making sweet loot for you guys, and someone to get divination intel/scouting from' isn't underhanded at all.

Players are usually much more open-minded when a DM comes to them, being honest about their misgivings about certain things.

weckar

2017-03-01, 08:36 AM

I fully assume these limitations apply to NPC wizards as well?

You also say "I don't plan at using sorcerers in my campaign at all", so wouldn't any player wanting to be a wizard just play that instead?

EldritchWeaver

2017-03-01, 08:44 AM

Regarding the lengthening of casting time, I'd like to add this can have far-reaching consequences. Consider as example the house rule that a spell needs as many rounds as the spell level. Many fights are over within 5 rounds, so spells of a higher level than 5 aren't usable inside of combat at all. For those still somewhat interesting to cast:

* The caster needs to stand still for several rounds (taking 5-ft steps can be ignored)
* The caster needs to withstand any attempts of interruption (a fighter closing in becomes an existential threat as you can't cast a spell in defense without giving up your current spell and possibly the best spell takes to long to cast as well)
* The target of the spell needs to remain valid over the time the casting is going on (good luck with that)
* The party needs to deal with the challenge without the help of the party member in the meantime (effectively punishes the whole group)

So with this rule a caster during combat can only effectively use 1st level spells or a crossbow.

If you only disallow standard, swift and immediate actions (goodbye, feather fall) to cast spells, this still restricts the mobility of the casters. Assuming this is a general rule, this affects other classes aside of the wizard as well, for examples the cleric and the ranger. So the frontliners are getting hosed, too, whereas a wizard can simply ride a mount and use its move actions. Or be invisible and use only spells which don't do direct damage. So I'm not sure how the proposed rules affect the wizard capabilities in a way, which achieve your goal. It seems to me that either the roles remain which you don't want them to have or have enough impact that you can simply outright ban the class.

Personally, banning something outright is more honest compared to changing a class so it basically is not longer recognizable.

weckar

2017-03-01, 08:52 AM

ExLibrisMortis

2017-03-01, 09:57 AM

Replace all t1-t2 full-9ths casting with bard progression-casting, and make Sublime Chord-style PrCs for each individual school of magic. Be up front about it with your players: explain to them that magic is Too Damn Powerful, and this is the best solution. Adjust all monsters to match.

Don't try to disguise a ban as a "new mechanic". If you don't want your players playing t1 casters, ban t1 casters.

Alternatively, replace wizards with artificers and erudites.

Cosi

2017-03-01, 10:07 AM

Honestly your best bet is just talking to your players and explaining your goal to them. They are more likely to work with you in achieving the feel you're going for if they know what's going on then if they are just being shut out of a class with nerfs and house rules that are obviously directed at making them do what you want without trusting them with the conversation.

Just my two cents.

I would talk to them and explain what you are trying to do, instead of making bunch of houserules and pray that they get your message.

You are the DM. There is nothing underhanded about telling your players not to play wizards.

This is how you should do things. If you don't want to play a game where people play Wizards, just explain that when you're pitching the game to your players. Anything else is just needlessly complicated, and will end up being worse than if you'd just said "hey, I'd rather people didn't play Wizards".

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 10:11 AM

I find funny how people are against house rule, but accept all kind of nonsense just because it has been written by some official Wizard of the Coast author.

For one, I agree with frogglesmash. D&D has mass of nonsense, feel free to fix it as you like. As long your players are cool with it and you told them clearly.

Dezea

2017-03-01, 10:14 AM

I do really like the fact that Grod answered your thread, since I was about to quote his signature.

All of this being said, I do think It could hurt you in the long run to ban your player from ever playing a wizard. Tools like teleportation, scrying, wishing, tend to become highly needed tools for a high level party, and deprieving your player from it could actually hugely limit what you can makes them face.

That being said, I'm always in favor of a gentleman agreement with my player when wizard is concerned, and ask them to take the cheese to a minimum level. So far, by being outright clear about it OOC no problem ever happened. Furthermore, I like where you are going with all your idea about wizard being old sage, and I think it would be a great roleplay opportunities for a player. (So far, almost all my player have played the "Young and ambitious" archetype, wich is getting a bit repetitive).

Good luck !

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 10:18 AM

That being said, I'm always in favor of a gentleman agreement with my player when wizard is concerned, and ask them to take the cheese to a minimum level.

Everybody it's own, in my party the "gentleman agreement" never worked. When a player states it usually it means: "sure, I will be a essentially immortal character with nigh-infinite power, but I will hold back" that is kinda nonsense.

Sir Bills

2017-03-01, 10:19 AM

Put the Dread Sorcerer King as Villain.

Wizards will have a big problem! LOL

Quertus

2017-03-01, 10:22 AM

I'd say in on team "talk to your players".

Note that I a) play wizards, and b) play hard mode. If you went your route, and gave me an interesting challenge, it might actually make me even more likely to play a wizard.

Now, the biggest problem in both scenarios is if you actually have a really good reason for not wanting anyone to play a wizard. Say, you're planning on transporting them to another world, which doesn't have D&D planar geography / D&D magic, where they might suddenly find their entire class nerfed or even useless. In such a case, be prepared to work with your players on solutions: retraining rules, spell research, etc.

Or you could be planning on introducing a "Wizard plague", or even sudden death / extermination scenario ala Narn mind walkers, where, suddenly, wizard is no longer a valid option, time to roll up a new character.

Or even a Matrix-inspired "wake up, this was all just a dream to give you the skills you need for the real world" - and the real world doesn't have magic (so, obviously, that's not what the Operator would have trained you to use).

So, if your players don't read these boards, why don't you want PC mages?

EDIT:
I find funny how people are against house rule, but accept all kind of nonsense just because it has been written by some official Wizard of the Coast author.

For one, I agree with frogglesmash. D&D has mass of nonsense, feel free to fix it as you like. As long your players are cool with it and you told them clearly.

When I sit down to play chess, I don't want to have to figure out how all of your "rebalanced" pieces, that now live on a 9x9x3 board, work. I don't care how "silly" or "unrealistic" it was that clergy can move faster than cavalry, or that masonry can move at all. I don't want to have to choose my board setup between choices like "The Polygamist King" and "The Theocracy". I just want to play chess, **** it.

That's what I, at least, have against excessive house ruling. House rules should be minimal. You should reasonable expect that everyone can read and fully understand all of your house rules, and all of their ramifications, in session 0. Otherwise, the cognitive load makes your game less... elegant.

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 10:26 AM

Note that I a) play wizards, and b) play hard mode. If you went your route, and gave me an interesting challenge, it might actually make me even more likely to play a wizard.

This actually sounds contradictory. If you want to play hard, play a Paladin.

Dezea

2017-03-01, 10:27 AM

Everybody it's own, in my party the "gentleman agreement" never worked. When a player states it usually it means: "sure, I will be a essentially immortal character with nigh-infinite power, but I will hold back" that is kinda nonsense.

To be honest, if a player want to go on the cheese highway, they can essentially do it with a commoner, for that matter. I find that looking at the party and making sure that noone is making other character useless is a good way to see if things go poorly. In short, if the wizard accept to use more haste than forcecage, and is always willing to spend some round dim.dooring his buddies around the battlefield, noone will really care if he his an "essentially immortal character". He will mostly be "That nice teammates who use his power for the team"

Cosi

2017-03-01, 10:32 AM

-protection and immunities can always fail (e.g., True Sight might fail to see through an Illusion if the caster fails a opposed check of Spellcraft of whomever caster the illusion),

If you make true seeing fail, you just made Illusionists even better.

-remove the extra range for spells, (e.g., Meteor Swarm has range "Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)", just use the 400ft.)

... why?

-remove "utility" spells that make whole classes ability redundant (e.g., knock),

knock is totally fine. It's more expensive and has less uses than Open Lock, of course it's going to be better.

The limitation of lengthened casting times is that it does nothing to affect long duration buffs, which is where the wizard really shines. A wizard that is prepared for a fight can still have dozens of spells up, only now their mates have to wait longer for it to happen. I would suggest limits to number of spells active at a time, in a similar way to base attack bonus. ie: you can have one spell active at your full caster level, plus one at -5 caster level, and so on.

This is true. Making magic take longer to cast doesn't hurt the problem Wizards (WBLmancers, planar binding abusers, Incantatrixes), but it demolishes the balanced Wizards (BFCers). That's exactly the opposite of what you want to do.

Dezea

2017-03-01, 10:34 AM

This is true. Making magic take longer to cast doesn't hurt the problem Wizards (WBLmancers, planar binding abusers, Incantatrixes), but it demolishes the balanced Wizards (BFCers). That's exactly the opposite of what you want to do.

[/QUOTE]

Also this. This very very much. And made much worse by the "No spell per day limit". A coherent view on your world would lead to an insane tippyworld

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 10:35 AM

To be honest, if a player want to go on the cheese highway, they can essentially do it with a commoner, for that matter.

While interesting (I really mean that) perhaps we should focus on the OP topic. I think there are many good ideas, I second also changing the casting tables with Sublime Chord inspired prc. It requires more work, but it had color and fluff in a nice way imo.

Quertus

2017-03-01, 10:46 AM

This actually sounds contradictory. If you want to play hard, play a Paladin.

Hmmm... point. I feel I need a familiar telling me how surprised they are how often I fail to communicate by not using enough words.

I like playing wizards. I find magic - in theory / in most any system - fun.

But I also do a lot of things people consider "hard mode". I enjoyed playing a character who started at level 1 when the party was level 7 (and had him take a vacation when he started catching up). I role-play - often highly disadvantageously (my signature wizard, for whom this account is named, is, among other things, tactically inept) - rather than play as the determinator, the pinnacle of optimal choices. I rules lawyer, not for my benefit, but for accuracy.

So, give me a wizard that is actually an interesting challenge, and it's win-win. :biggrin:

And don't get me started on my Real Paladin. Nobody wants to see that. :smalleek:

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-01, 10:55 AM

I do really like the fact that Grod answered your thread, since I was about to quote his signature.
True. There are a lot of good ways to deal with full casters; "make them infuriating to play" will never be one of them. Long casting times with no replacement combat option is possibly the worst, because it's not just frustrating, it's BORING.

Zanos

2017-03-01, 10:56 AM

I'm on team "talk to your players."

Not wanting your players to be wizards(and other T1s) and then nerfing wizards so they're specifically bad for players to use but still making it an available option just creates a trap option where someone might play a wizard anyway and then suck because you didn't explicitly tell anyone that it's an NPC class now.

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 10:58 AM

Not wanting your players to be wizards and then nerfing wizards so they're specifically bad for players to use but still making it an available option just creates a trap option where someone might play a wizard anyway and then suck because you didn't explicitly tell anyone that it's an NPC class now.

And since when this is a problem? Half of the classes in Core are traps. It's part of d&d design.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-03-01, 11:02 AM

And since when this is a problem? Half of the classes in Core are traps. It's part of d&d design.
It is the bad part of D&D design. That's why it's a problem.

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 11:10 AM

On the other hand frogglesmash seems to think that Wizards have a design problem, and he want to fix it.

Since it's fantasy any decision is pretty much arbitrary and equally valid. The d&d authors thought it was fine that a wizard can do everything better than everyone else, frogglesmash does not agree. Speaking with the players won't change design decision, as speaking with players won't make a Monk/20 more a pleasure to play.

AvatarVecna

2017-03-01, 11:11 AM

"I want to ban wizard for being too powerful, but lack the balls to actually do it, so I'm going to stealth-nerf it into being an NPC class to teach those cheating optimizers a lesson for trying to play an iconic class".

If I may propose an alternative: maybe get a decent idea of overpowered spells/tactics - or at least overpowered spells/tactics that steal the show from other players and discourage those fun-ruining abilities/tactics, letting the mages be good at something that synergizes with the party rather than rendering the party useless? That way the players can play an iconic class with being broken, and you'll have successfully avoided the T1 Wrecking Ball problem without having to ban classes or nerf things behind your players backs with the intent of pulling a "gotcha" midgame.

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 11:31 AM

Or... maybe we should help frogglesmash in what he asked instead of trying to convince him that he is wrong. Since, anyway, all the choices are pretty much arbitrary.

Zanos

2017-03-01, 11:31 AM

And since when this is a problem? Half of the classes in Core are traps. It's part of d&d design.
Ah yes, the classic "the patient has cancer, so if we give him more cancer it shouldn't matter."

At least when the original designers did it it was an accident.

Or... maybe we should help frogglesmash in what he asked instead of trying to convince him that he is wrong. Since, anyway, all the choices are pretty much arbitrary.
Making wizards unavailable for player use is his intent. People are free to think he's going about it the wrong way. If you don't want something to happen, just say that you don't.

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 11:33 AM

At least when the original designers did it it was an accident.
I used to think that at the time of 3.0, since 3.5 it cannot excused as an accident anymore.

Making wizards unavailable for player use is his intent. People are free to think he's going about it the wrong way. If you don't want something to happen, just say that you don't.
His intent is making them less unappealing, exactly as a Monk/20 is less appealing to most than a Warblade/20.

However, I do see your point, replace them with Magewright was my first idea.

Dagroth

2017-03-01, 12:07 PM

I used to think that at the time of 3.0, since 3.5 it cannot excused as accident anymore.

Wizards were broken back in 2.0. Humans were also broken, because other races couldn't take most classes and were level-limited in most of the classes they could take.

There was a game system (I can't recall the name now) where each player played a super-powerful Wizard. Each player also played adventurers who worked for the other player's Wizards. So adventures would rotate. One adventure player-A would be the Wizard who sat back at his tower while the rest of the players went out and did something he needed done. This sounds like the kind of world the OP is trying to make, only without the players being any of the Wizards.

I don't see the problem of flat-out saying "Wizards are an NPC class", because that's the way you want your game. It's no different than saying "No Dragon Magazine stuff" or "Core Rules only".

Cosi

2017-03-01, 12:15 PM

I do think what OP is looking for is critical here. Why do they want Wizards to be unappealing?

If you just don't want PCs to play Wizards, just ban Wizards.

If you want a low magic setting, play E6 (or some similar variant).

If you want Wizards to be mysterious, mandate that all Wizards come from a suitably obscure part of the setting.

As it is, the apparent goal in OP is to have Wizards simultaneously be "beings of great power" and "not appealing to players". That doesn't really work. Also, it's not clear why you'd want to ban Wizards wholesale rather than just problem spells like planar binding or polymorph. The Wizard that just casts glitterdust has never been broken.

Since it's fantasy any decision is pretty much arbitrary and equally valid.

No, any goal is equally valid (and even then not really, because goals like "make the game suck" are obviously stupid). That doesn't mean any decision is equally valid. If I want to vacation in Miami, buying a plane ticket to Prague is a bad decision. Similarly, if your goal is to make Wizards unappealing, giving them all the castings they want of planar binding but no castings of glitterdust is the exact opposite of what you want to do.

There was a game system (I can't recall the name now) where each player played a super-powerful Wizard. Each player also played adventurers who worked for the other player's Wizards. So adventures would rotate. One adventure player-A would be the Wizard who sat back at his tower while the rest of the players went out and did something he needed done. This sounds like the kind of world the OP is trying to make, only without the players being any of the Wizards.

I believe you're thinking of Ars Magica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Magica).

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 12:24 PM

No, any goal is equally valid (and even then not really, because goals like "make the game suck" are obviously stupid). That doesn't mean any decision is equally valid. If I want to vacation in Miami, buying a plane ticket to Prague is a bad decision. Similarly, if your goal is to make Wizards unappealing, giving them all the castings they want of planar binding but no castings of glitterdust is the exact opposite of what you want to do.

Thanks for clarifying my sentence after removing it from the context.

Segev

2017-03-01, 12:25 PM

Part of the difficulty is that you have conflicting goals: you want the NPC wizards to be sages, scholars, item crafters, and men of great power, but don't want it to be appealing to players. That last one, at the very very least, will be appealing for exactly the reasons you want to make it unappealing.

As a quick side question, though, how do you feel about a rogue playing a faux wizard? Using UMD, he could have scrolls and wands and eventually staves sufficient to fake the 3.5 wizard class. You're saying you want wizards as item crafters, so items will be out there. (In fact, a wizard PC playing an item crafter is how I'd overcome most of the obvious nerfs: Can't use my spells quickly? That's why I have wands and scrolls!)

To design what you're asking for, we need a very clear picture of your goals. What do you want players doing, and what DON'T you want them doing?

animewatcha

2017-03-01, 12:50 PM

What about...
"Hey guys, Wizards are a no-go for this campaign! I am not comfortable with them and am hesitant about other arcane casters ( sorceror! If you are wanting to play one like a warmage, ask me first along with saying what you plan on doing with it. Also, if any of you are taking prestige classes, run the class and spell list by me first to look at. I will take care of the magic item aspect"

Simple enough. Players are let known upfront. DM gets advanced notice as to arcane casting.

Cosi

2017-03-01, 01:09 PM

Thanks for clarifying my sentence after removing it from the context.

Your context wasn't really important. I don't see how your position that "D&D as written has dumb stuff in it" in any way falsifies the notion that you can make decisions that don't advance your goals.

Telok

2017-03-01, 01:34 PM

Malroth

2017-03-01, 01:35 PM

first you have to eliminate all the problems in the game magic is needed to solve. Invisible foes, Flying enemies, incoporeal enemies, Damage reduction, regeneration, Energy drain, Poison, debilitating status effects, and anything hidden beyond the means of a perception check all become impossible to overcome without a full caster. Expect your front liners to go from 4-5 encounters per day down to 1 encounter per month as natural healing becomes the norm. Even straight up melee foes will become much more lethal than usual because of the lack of battlefield control and shutdown combined with the much much lower combat numbers the party will be sporting compared to what the designers assumed they'd be having.

Once the background assumptions of the game are free for a no playable caster environment Artificers as a substitute for the other Casting classes is actually very close to what your initial post was trying to accomplish. Very limited spells per day, cast mostly from items, spells mostly have long casting times etc.

Segev

2017-03-01, 02:03 PM

And oddly enough the 15-minute adventuring day completely disappeared.

What caused this? I'd think the increased preparation time would do quite the opposite: the casters would insist on not just 8 hours, but 24 hours to prepare new spells. The rest really doesn't seem like it'd impact the 15 minute adventuring day either way. I'm curious what made this happen.

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 02:35 PM

Your context wasn't really important. I don't see how your position that "D&D as written has dumb stuff in it" in any way falsifies the notion that you can make decisions that don't advance your goals.

Dumb? Who said that? My point is the opposite, it's arbitrary to say that "Wizards=Gods, Monk=Peasants" is dumb or good design decision. Being fantasy, both interpretations are equally valid.

I did not express in the most clear possible way, but the context would pushed this point: Monk=Gods that blows up planes, Wizard=old crazy fools is another design decision that is equally viable than the D&D one. Of course it would require lots of changes from splatbook dnd3.

For some reason it seems you understood that I meant that whatever you do, the result is the same. I am not a native speaker, sorry if it was unclear. The point again is: I do not understand all this animosity against the OP that wants Wizard weaker.

The rest really doesn't seem like it'd impact the 15 minute adventuring day either way. I'm curious what made this happen.
I join this request! It sounds it should happen the opposite.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-03-01, 02:44 PM

The point again is: I do not understand all this animosity against the OP that wants Wizard weaker.
That is not what the OP is asking for, and not what the OP is suggesting as homebrew rules. That's why you aren't getting the point: you're reducing the OP's suggestion to a simple nerf.

As has been explained, the OP is in a 'having your cake, and eat it, too'-situation. I quote directly from the OP: "I want [wizards] in my campaign as creators of magic items, sages, beings of great power", and opposed to that: "but I don't want my players playing T1 casters". Or, to simplify: "I want wizards to be awesome, but I don't want my players to play any". That is different from "I want wizards weaker", and much more unacceptable (I think most people agree that wizard nerfs can be appropriate, but withholding awesomeness rarely is).

The OP's specific mechanical suggestions would violate Grod's Law something fierce, which is another concern, but one that can be addressed easily.

Telok

2017-03-01, 02:45 PM

What caused this? I'd think the increased preparation time would do quite the opposite: the casters would insist on not just 8 hours, but 24 hours to prepare new spells. The rest really doesn't seem like it'd impact the 15 minute adventuring day either way. I'm curious what made this happen.

A combination of peer pressure and boredom I think.

A 9th level specialist wizard can run 64 spell levels, for 16 solid hours of uninterrupted prep time if he's changing all his spells. Since I run games with random encounters and active opponents having a short stint of work every second or third day wasn't a good way to get things done. Plus the non-casters didn't want to wait around that long just because someone had premature casting syndrome.

What ended up happening was an emphasis on long duration buffs, reserve feats/non-spell options, and using just a couple spells each encounter. It was a nice change from just having everything swamped with magic every fight.

Pugwampy

2017-03-01, 02:48 PM

A Level one wizard is super unattractive .

Start the campaign at level one and make your encounters pro fighter friendly and rub it in that fighters will score more in your game.

tedcahill2

2017-03-01, 02:58 PM

Instead of making wizards a pain in the ass to play mechanically, you could have a setting the reflects wizards as a bad option.

My mind goes to the world of Dragon Age, all wizards have to be a member of the Circle of Mages (which you could put an exceedingly high cost on), and any mage outside the Circle are considered Apostates, with a standing order for any law in the land to detain on sight.

Bounty hunters would be after them, guards would be a huge issue, and the punishment for being an Apostate can be death.

That should deter a lot of players. Either that, or just say that wizards are not available to the players. I don't considering it a **** move to exclude certain options. Just tell them, "I have a particular campaign idea in mind, and wizards are a part of it, but not within the party." If they can't handle that, they're not good players.

etrpgb

2017-03-01, 03:01 PM

"I want [wizards] in my campaign as creators of magic items, sages, beings of great power", and opposed to that: "but I don't want my players playing T1 casters". Or, to simplify: "I want wizards to be awesome, but I don't want my players to play any". That is different from "I want wizards weaker", and much more unacceptable (I think most people agree that wizard nerfs can be appropriate, but withholding awesomeness rarely is).

Very good points. I think I got it better now. Thanks.

Dagroth

2017-03-01, 03:09 PM

frogglesmash

2017-03-01, 03:10 PM

"I want to ban wizard for being too powerful, but lack the balls to actually do it, so I'm going to stealth-nerf it into being an NPC class to teach those cheating optimizers a lesson for trying to play an iconic class".
a) I'm not stealth nerfing, everything will be above board, and b) I don't mind optimization, but as a DM I have trouble challenging my players when they optimize past a certain level. I'm not trying to "teach them a lesson", I'm trying to limit their power to manageable levels.

Now, in response to everyone saying I should just talk to my players, I agree and fully intend to do so. The thing is though, I really don't like banning things that I'm going to be using as a DM, I realize that this might not be 100℅ logical, but I'd rather say "yes you can play this class, but it will be challenging and not fun because I've changed to be more appropriate for NPCs" than say "no, you can't play this class, but all my NPCs can."

Now about my actual goals. I plan to have a series of fixed list caster classes, each focused on one school of magic (think Dread Necro) available to players, wizards would be generalists who are essentially exchanging the ability to cast spells at a moments notice for the ability to know all the spells, essentially relating to the wizard in a tower role. I realize that at higher levels my changes would make spells like planar binding, and long duration buffs very effective, but I consider this a feature, after all, high level wizards should be powerful otherwise what's the point? Despite this I think my changes will still make wizards an unappealing choice for players because actually playing through the lower levels of this class will probably be very tedious and very likely to get you killed. The biggest issue that I can think of is that I'm overlooking some very effective low level long term buffs. I also intend to have wizards be very uncommon in the game world if that changes anything.
On a side note, if any of my players decide to play a wizard simply because of the new system, that's fine, I'll only have a problem with them if their power grows too great for me to handle, but that's something I'd handle OoC regardless of what class they're playing.

Segev

2017-03-01, 03:16 PM

So the Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, War Mage, Summoner, etc. will be PCable; it's just the spellbook-toting prepped genericaster you want as an NPC-only (or at least NPC-encouraged) class? Am I understanding you correctly?

I ask to make sure anything I suggest is pointing the right way.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-01, 03:24 PM

That is not what the OP is asking for, and not what the OP is suggesting as homebrew rules. That's why you aren't getting the point: you're reducing the OP's suggestion to a simple nerf.

As has been explained, the OP is in a 'having your cake, and eat it, too'-situation. I quote directly from the OP: "I want [wizards] in my campaign as creators of magic items, sages, beings of great power", and opposed to that: "but I don't want my players playing T1 casters". Or, to simplify: "I want wizards to be awesome, but I don't want my players to play any". That is different from "I want wizards weaker", and much more unacceptable (I think most people agree that wizard nerfs can be appropriate, but withholding awesomeness rarely is).

The OP's specific mechanical suggestions would violate Grod's Law something fierce, which is another concern, but one that can be addressed easily.
That's kind of unfair; from my understanding, the OP wants magic to have a strong presence in the setting, without having to deal with god-wizard PCs. That's a valid desire. And I think the solution, making magic powerful-but-time-consuming, is a good way to relegate it to NPC spheres. I certainly don't think that ritual magic violates Grod's Law-- it's a nerf, to be sure, but it's a simple and direct one. It does weaken blasting/battle magic more than anything else, mind, but that's sort of a different question.

So, frogglesmash, your solutions are, in increasing order of homebrewy-ness,

Talk to your PCs and explain to them that while you want plenty of magic in your world, you don't want to deal with high-tier casters, and ask that they stick to less-powerful classes. In turn, make sure you represent high-tier caster NPCs as non-adventurer-types.
Replace the Wizard class with Artificers, who fit the role you're proposing to a T.*
Implement your proposed ritual-magic changes. Long-but-at-will casting is fine, but you do need something to do in combat, and that something should be strong reliable enough to still be fun. I don't think "very limited spells/day" is a good way of doing it, though "limited spells available" isn't bad. Perhaps something more like the Duskblade's many-low-level-slots would be better. Or Recharge Magic. Or lean heavily on Reserve Feats. But at that point...
I (and others) have homebrewed rituals-and-reserve-feat casters (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325646)from scratch-- basically taking your idea and building it into a full class.

EDIT:
Now about my actual goals. I plan to have a series of fixed list caster classes, each focused on one school of magic (think Dread Necro) available to players, wizards would be generalists who are essentially exchanging the ability to cast spells at a moments notice for the ability to know all the spells, essentially relating to the wizard in a tower role.
I've literally done that exact project for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-(3-5))

*Mind, Artificers can be hella powerful, frequently in a Grod's-Law-Violating "way too complicated to use well" sense, but I suspect most groups won't figure out how to break the game with them anyway, and they're probably a lot easier to hammer into something reasonable without seeming too harsh. Make them use a spellbook instead of emulating spells with UMD, say, and maybe limit them to either the Wizard or Cleric list, and you've gone a long way. Cut out that one combo that gives you infinite hero points for wands and limit their ability to use metamagic on items (say, no more than 1/3 your Artificer level total adjustment at a time) and you've probably gotten the rest of the way there. Maybe speed up infusions to a full-round action as an apology.

frogglesmash

2017-03-01, 03:24 PM

ExLibrisMortis

2017-03-01, 03:24 PM

The thing is though, I really don't like banning things that I'm going to be using as a DM, I realize that this might not be 100℅ logical, but I'd rather say "yes you can play this class, but it will be challenging and not fun because I've changed to be more appropriate for NPCs" than say "no, you can't play this class, but all my NPCs can."
Okay, this I support in principle, and your fixed-list casters are a great idea, but then why do you need wizards for NPCs? Why not simply use artificers, who can craft any spell, but need weeks or months to do so?

That's kind of unfair;
Hmm... on second thought, a bit, yes. I do apologize. For the record, I think what Frogglesmash is trying to do is completely reasonable, but I think the solution to "no god wizards, only NPC sages" is to chuck out the wizard entirely, because there are classes to replace it.

Actually, on that note: may I recommend the Magewright as a simple, low-power, NPC-only (by design!) magic item crafter? It's in the Eberron Campaign Setting, page 256.

frogglesmash

2017-03-01, 03:28 PM

Okay, this I support in principle, and your fixed-list casters are a great idea, but then why do you need wizards for NPCs? Why not simply use artificers, who can craft any spell, but need weeks or months to do so?
The long and short of it is that I personally think wizards are cooler than artificers.

Flickerdart

2017-03-01, 03:34 PM

You could try one thing - remove the existence of all spellbooks aside from architectural spellbooks from Complete Arcane. The inability to refresh spells while away from base will make the class very unappealing to adventurers, but your typical NPC wizard (especially one that "starts out" being able to teleport home at the end of the day) doesn't much care.

Segev

2017-03-01, 03:40 PM

The architectural spellbooks solution is an interesting one that might work if you expect your PCs to be the typical "travel to location" sorts.

What about Artificers do you feel is less cool than Wizards? I ask because it does sound like Artificers fit the role you want pretty well.

Coidzor

2017-03-01, 03:48 PM

The long and short of it is that I personally think wizards are cooler than artificers.

As mentioned, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You're probably just going to have to suck it up and go with what's the better, more workable solution.

Dagroth

2017-03-01, 04:33 PM

The long and short of it is that I personally think wizards are cooler than artificers.

Well yeah...

You want a world with Merlin & Gandalf. Where Wizards are powerful, mysterious figures with abilities beyond the ken of mortals.

There's nothing wrong with this.

Unless the enemies are going to be Wizards, you're not keeping anything from the Players IMHO.

Mordaedil

2017-03-02, 03:45 AM

If you want to put restrictions on wizards, I'd probably look towards how mages are treated in Dragon Age, or if you want a magic restricted setting, there was that one period in Dragonlance that lent itself fairly well to a magic-less setting.

NichG

2017-03-02, 03:49 AM

Barstro

2017-03-02, 08:34 AM

'It takes one day per spell level in order to prepare a spell in a spell slot'

Of course, then everyone can just go and use scrolls and wands for everything... Or, play a Reserve Feat specialist I suppose.

I assume that Bigby's Adam Smith's Invisible Hand ties back to the effort and opportunity costs of producing scrolls. If it now takes a day per level to cast a spell, then the value of scrolls goes up. As value goes up, price will likewise increase until demand and supply even out.

Heck, it would be a good political issue for this type of world where the Wizard Guild does not permit the scribing of scrolls except by licensed and bonded guild members. Many pens will be broken in their attempt to continue the monopoly.

Quertus

2017-03-02, 08:46 AM

A combination of peer pressure and boredom I think.

A 9th level specialist wizard can run 64 spell levels, for 16 solid hours of uninterrupted prep time if he's changing all his spells. Since I run games with random encounters and active opponents having a short stint of work every second or third day wasn't a good way to get things done. Plus the non-casters didn't want to wait around that long just because someone had premature casting syndrome.

What ended up happening was an emphasis on long duration buffs, reserve feats/non-spell options, and using just a couple spells each encounter. It was a nice change from just having everything swamped with magic every fight.

That's odd. I feel my mages would be pushed in the opposite direction with these rules. That, and / or be pushed to work for the "active opposition".

Because, under the current rules, my mages focus on long buffs, and throw few spells in combat. Under these rules, they could get hit by random encounters at any time, and so always need to be prepared to nova. Thus the whiney 5-minute work day wizard*. Who, when he sees this as a failing plan due to active opposition, is unintentionally helping them anyway, may as well make it official, and intentionally actively side with them.

* EDIT: let's be fair, it would be the whiney party forcing the wizard (and especially the cleric bandaid dispenser) into a 5-minute work day. Because, for some odd reason, people don't want to die, and so want their big guns loaded before they get into potentially dangerous situations.

Uh... Gods are awesome, and you can't play Gods.

Wizards are awesome, and you can't play Wizards.

What is the difference?

No difference, both are equally against D&D's roots of playing a wizard destined for godhood. :smalltongue:

So here's the "what"

Now about my actual goals. I plan to have a series of fixed list caster classes, each focused on one school of magic (think Dread Necro) available to players, wizards would be generalists who are essentially exchanging the ability to cast spells at a moments notice for the ability to know all the spells, essentially relating to the wizard in a tower role.

And the why

I'm trying to limit their power to manageable levels.

That's basically it, I should also point that my motivation isn't just about power levels, but also about thematics.

But why not just not have wizards?

The long and short of it is that I personally think wizards are cooler than artificers.

Because wizards are cool.

I agree with you there. That's why I play wizards. :smallcool:

So... you want your NPCs to be cool? But not your PCs? ... Care to rethink that?

Despite this I think my changes will still make wizards an unappealing choice for players because actually playing through the lower levels of this class will probably be very tedious and very likely to get you killed.

You realize this a) is already true of wizards, b) doesn't stop people from playing wizards, and c) really sounds to me like you would really love to violate Grod's law in unspeakable ways.

On a side note, if any of my players decide to play a wizard simply because of the new system, that's fine, I'll only have a problem with them if their power grows too great for me to handle, but that's something I'd handle OoC regardless of what class they're playing.

What qualifies as power too great for you to handle? Have y'all played together before, for them to have some idea of what you can handle, and you to have some idea of what they do, and how to talk to them about this?

hifidelity2

2017-03-02, 09:56 AM

I did this and here is how I did it.

I brought back AD&D magic.

1) It takes 15 minutes per spell level to prepare a spell or spell slot. Thus it takes five hours to prepare four 5th level spells.
2) No concentration skill. The checks still exist, but there is no skill to invest in (and thus no magic items to boot it either).
3) No free spells learned. Spells must be learned from somewhere or created through research.
4) No magic mart. The corner store in a mid-sized town does not have scrolls of PAO, SM8, etc., for sale. There are people who sell potions and some magic items, but commonly you have to get custom items made or make them yourself.

Casters were still dangerous and scary and powerful. People still played a beguiler, a warmage, a druid, and half-casters. And oddly enough the 15-minute adventuring day completely disappeared.

The only actual complaint that I got was when I gave the party a quarter million gold piece payday. They complained that they didn't want to buy the stuff the stores had and didn't want to wait for things to be crafted.
This is useful to reign them back in

A number of small skirmishes can quickly use up all of a wizxards spells and a few nights of being disturbed by wild animals etc stops them re-learning

Another thing is to bring in spell components – make them track them and if needed make it that they have to be fresh where possible with a spell failure (or reduced effect) if not
For a stay at home wizard this is not a problem but its hard to adventure if you needing a small cart of spell components following you

No 3) is you tell them what spells that can learn via what you hand out. The PC can want “Spell X” but if you never have it in a spell book then they can’t learn it (I use this for GURPS as the mental spells are far too powerful once you get up a few “levels” )

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-02, 10:48 AM

A number of small skirmishes can quickly use up all of a wizxards spells and a few nights of being disturbed by wild animals etc stops them re-learning
"You can play a wizard but I'll never let you cast spells" is rude and disingenuous. Any serious effort to curb spells/day only pushes players AWAY from reasonable tactics (blasting, de/buffing, BFC) and TOWARDS overpowered-but-efficient ones like minionmancy, persistent spells, and the like.

Another thing is to bring in spell components – make them track them and if needed make it that they have to be fresh where possible with a spell failure (or reduced effect) if not
For a stay at home wizard this is not a problem but its hard to adventure if you needing a small cart of spell components following you
By all that is good and holy, DO NOT DO THIS. No one wants to play Spreadsheets and Spider-counting here. You're doing nothing but making the class incredibly aggravating. You might as well demand that the player solve a calculus problem before casting a spell.

Incidentally, one of the earlier posts made a good point: if you slow the Wizard down, you'll effectively slow the entire group down. Players are, generally speaking, neither stupid nor *******s. They'll wait for the Wizard, because they'll want the CHARACTER'S power with them, and they'll want the PLAYER to have fun too. Their characters will have to sit and wait, but they'll just say "next week, we..." and move on.

Telok

2017-03-02, 02:07 PM

That's odd. I feel my mages would be pushed in the opposite direction with these rules. That, and / or be pushed to work for the "active opposition".

Because, under the current rules, my mages focus on long buffs, and throw few spells in combat. Under these rules, they could get hit by random encounters at any time, and so always need to be prepared to nova. Thus the whiney 5-minute work day wizard*. Who, when he sees this as a failing plan due to active opposition, is unintentionally helping them anyway, may as well make it official, and intentionally actively side with them.

I don't really get what you're driving at here. What I mainly did was ditch defensive casting and increase the downtime of the 15 minute day from ~10 hours, to 24+ hours. Perhaps you're assuming that a few random encounters and active opposition means that the PCs are under constant attack? Because that's not the case, encounters aren't always combat and 'active opposition' just means that the NPCs aren't waiting around without doing anything while the PCs dwadle along. The necromancer reanimates stuff in his dungeon between attacks, the bandits move to a different location, stuff like that.

Coidzor

2017-03-02, 02:12 PM

The whole gods and wizards thing just makes me think OP wants to make Wizards cease to be a character class and instead be a form of demigod or a Native Outsider like Rakshasas or Gandalfs.

Dwarf Fortress does have Wizards as their own species, too, so there's that, I suppose.

Incidentally, one of the earlier posts made a good point: if you slow the Wizard down, you'll effectively slow the entire group down. Players are, generally speaking, neither stupid nor *******s. They'll wait for the Wizard, because they'll want the CHARACTER'S power with them, and they'll want the PLAYER to have fun too. Their characters will have to sit and wait, but they'll just say "next week, we..." and move on.

Plus, you don't inherently lose any time as the bunch of dudes and/or dudes sitting at a table and/or in a voice chat online by waiting a day in town as opposed to just spending the night at the inn and then scarpering.

So the idea of the other players being unwilling to wait "extra" time is just plain silly. Either there's no wait or the DM plays their hand by coming out and saying "no, you don't get to prepare spells."

Barring some kind of situation where there's always a race against time, which is generally a terrible idea because of conservation of drama and narrative fatigue and such.

Segev

2017-03-02, 02:16 PM

IT generally doesn't have to be a race against time for time to be a pressure. Just because my birthday is more than a month away doesn't mean that adding days to our plans to do each of 4 things this month won't interfere with my birthday plans. If we do it without extra days added, we can easily do them before then. If we keep adding days and days to each of them, though...

Quertus

2017-03-02, 03:11 PM

I don't really get what you're driving at here. What I mainly did was ditch defensive casting and increase the downtime of the 15 minute day from ~10 hours, to 24+ hours. Perhaps you're assuming that a few random encounters and active opposition means that the PCs are under constant attack? Because that's not the case, encounters aren't always combat and 'active opposition' just means that the NPCs aren't waiting around without doing anything while the PCs dwadle along. The necromancer reanimates stuff in his dungeon between attacks, the bandits move to a different location, stuff like that.

Ah. I misunderstood, then. That makes lot more sense, and sounds like it would drive that behavior.

Although randomly encountering the duke without your diplomacy boosts and rerolls could prove fatal, too, I suppose...

GoodbyeSoberDay

2017-03-02, 03:32 PM

How to make wizards unappealing: Make them look like Mialee:
http://www.wizards.com/global/images/books_dnd_livingdead_pic2.jpg
But seriously, you may not want to formally ban wizards for whatever reason, but your goal is still to effectively ban them, i.e., have no PC actually take the class. It's like WotC assigning LA/RHD to worrisome monsters, saying "well... you can play them, but the LA and RHD are so high that you will weep if you actually choose to play them."

If you want to do that, fine, I guess. To my mind, you're effectively banning "wizard" and then inventing a new NPC class to take that role anyway, but that's not a really important distinction as long as you're upfront about it, and those built-in limitations still exist when your wizard NPCs are in a spot of trouble. The worst case is that a player mistakes your motives as a balancing move and rolls up an unplayable character - or finds an infuriating workaround - all because you want to present the illusory possibility of it being a PC class.

Zanos

2017-03-02, 03:52 PM

How to make wizards unappealing: Make them look like Mialee:
http://www.wizards.com/global/images/books_dnd_livingdead_pic2.jpg
Leave Mialee alone! Like Hennet is any better:
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/b/b8/Hennet_Sam-Wood_PHB3e.jpg

Telok

2017-03-02, 03:59 PM

To my mind, you're effectively banning "wizard" and then inventing a new NPC class to take that role anyway, but that's not a really important distinction as long as you're upfront about it, and those built-in limitations still exist when your wizard NPCs are in a spot of trouble.

I think the goal is to have the effects and abilities of generalist wizards available in the game to PCs and BBEGs as NPC assistants, but to replace the generalist "I can do anything and everything" wizard with themed beguiler, necro, warmage, classic illusionist, type casters at the PC level. The OP would probably be just as happy to leave wizards as-is if the players wouldn't build the batman wizards and limited themselves to themed spells and abilities. Although then you could just enforce a homebrew wizard substitution that pushed them into the appropriate themes.

And, yeah, the WotC casters generally look like wannabes or idiots who got hit with the ugly stick and went back for more.

GrayDeath

2017-03-02, 04:01 PM

Aside from the obvious player talk, I support the "Make them strictly regimented in World" and "Architectural Spell Books only" directions.

Simple, fluffy, and not actually nerfing the wizard, just making them less attractive for "general Adventuring".

Also, as it works with almost anything, give them Alignment requirements.

Should do the trick, no?

etrpgb

2017-03-04, 05:09 PM

Another rules supported possibility is using the Sanity rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm). Casting spells, in any way (casting, wands, scrolls...) cause loss of Sanity. Just keep in check how it is possible to heal sanity and try to keep it hard to get in normal adventuring. You can also simply keep the Sanity rules for spells and remove it for the rest.

All the spellcasting based classes like Wizard or Archivist will stay pretty much Tier1 because spells are still as powerful, but adventuring will be much more difficult unless there are Heal and Miracle spells behind every corner.

Psyren

2017-03-04, 05:14 PM

The only real way to "fix wizards" is the thing few people want to do, namely fixing the spells themselves. Otherwise, you need to have players you can trust that are capable of following a gentleman's agreement. If you can't trust them (why are you playing with them?) then heavy houserules or banning is the next best resort.

frogglesmash

2017-03-04, 08:36 PM

Clistenes

2017-03-04, 09:12 PM

Coidzor

2017-03-04, 09:20 PM

I'm not trying to fix wizards, I'm changing their role in the game world by changing their mechanics.

Your desire to do it to Clerics too suggests that there's something more than that at play.

Simply put, unless you're in need of rules to run these things as antagonists to the party, what you described in your OP and this thread makes it sound like you want Wizards to be made of handwavium and be able to do whatever you need them to do at the moment, but only in limited contexts or areas.

frogglesmash

2017-03-04, 09:52 PM

Your desire to do it to Clerics too suggests that there's something more than that at play.

Simply put, unless you're in need of rules to run these things as antagonists to the party, what you described in your OP and this thread makes it sound like you want Wizards to be made of handwavium and be able to do whatever you need them to do at the moment, but only in limited contexts or areas.
If I was trying to fix wizards why would I want my players to avoid the class? Making wizards an inappropriate choice for players is the antithesis of a fix. On a side note: The reason I'm considering changing clerics as well is because I want cleric NPCs fill a role similar to that of the wizard, but with more religious/priestly leanings On an even more to the side note: Why would I need to handwave anything for wizards to be able to do anything I want? They can already do that. Besides, it's not like having vanilla wizards in any way restricts the PCs ability to pay for spell castings.

Couldn't you just ban Wizards, making them an NPC class? Giving them the option of playing a Wizard, but ruining the class so they hate it sounds like a bad idea... Wouldn't it be much better to outright tell them they can't play Wizards?

I mean unless I'm springing this on my players all sudden like, don't explain the reasons behind it ,and just completely avoid communicating with my players I can't see how it's worse than a ban.

dhasenan

2017-03-05, 12:48 AM

Couldn't you just ban Wizards, making them an NPC class?

That's a narrative problem, albeit not an insuperable one. There are plenty of NPCs around who can fly and blind people and see invisible things and conjure tentacles, and that's barely even touching on the good stuff. But they refuse to leave their cities to go with the party to save the world or whatever.

If the party's doing small, relatively unimportant things, that can work. Wizards have a lot of demands on their time, and you're not rich enough or important enough to get one to help out.

If wizards are all part of the ruling class (by restricted instruction materials and a lot of scrying for enforcement, for instance) and you're trying to overthrow the government, that also works. You might get one or two rogue wizards to join your faction, but they'll also have a ton of demands on their time, and they'll probably have to keep a low profile anyway.

If they're terribly rare, or if they come with a required Evil alignment, or something like that, that could also explain it.

Anyway, this goes into worldbuilding, and that's hard to get right. Easier to say that nobody can rise so high than to explain why the players can't but NPCs can.

Zanos

2017-03-05, 03:10 AM

frogglesmash

2017-03-05, 03:45 AM

It seems unusual to me that you want wizards to be specifically unappealing for players to play, yet still considered a valid choice for a player to select as a class. Are those sentiments not at odds with one another?

Do the same traits not also apply to all NPC classes? Commoner is a terrible class, but there is nothing to prevent a player from playing one.

etrpgb

2017-03-05, 04:46 AM

So, up to now we had many ideas:

- give up, the most common suggesion. Just ban, or make the NPC classes. By experience a blanket ban of Tier1,2 classes and one by one acceptance of Marvelous PrC works fine. You just have to adapt a bit few PrC. For example the Fochlucan Lyrist must be changed since without Druids there is no official way to get druidic.
- give up, and hope in the gentleman agreement. In my experience, this never works. Or better, it works until the challenges are easy. When they become difficult the Wizards suddenly remember that then can solve everything in a standard action.
- nerf, slower spells, ban of "everyone should have this" spells, etc.. Hard to get, as the list of broken spells is long and very subjective. For example, I find Persist Metamagic ridiculous, in this board is one of the favorite feats.
- sanity, just use or adapt the official optional rules about sanity. Wizards are powerful, but it's very uncommon to live by spells since each time you cast a spell you lose (spell level)d6 of sanity points and the most sane person has 99. Healing is possible, but slow and difficult.
- put limits on the setting. The knowledge is very secretly guarded, Wizards come from only one school, magic display is frowned upon.

To move forward, what strikes you fancy?

Tohsaka Rin

2017-03-05, 04:57 AM

Do the same traits not also apply to all NPC classes? Commoner is a terrible class, but there is nothing to prevent a player from playing one.

"I don't want people to eat hamburgers in my house, but I'm not going to outright tell my friends to not order them. Instead, I'll spit on the hamburgers, and hope they get the message."

You're making a false equivalency: Commoner was always a terrible choice, but playing a Wizard didn't start out that way, until you changed it.

enderlord99

2017-03-05, 05:17 AM

"I don't want people to eat hamburgers in my house, but I'm not going to outright tell my friends to not order them. Instead, I'll spit on the hamburgers, and hope they get the message."

Can I sig this?

NichG

2017-03-05, 05:38 AM

It seems unusual to me that you want wizards to be specifically unappealing for players to play, yet still considered a valid choice for a player to select as a class. Are those sentiments not at odds with one another?

Well, not everything in a setting needs to be convenient to an adventuring lifestyle, no? You could have a character who can exert tremendous power via choosing who they marry and then making political decisions for target country for the next 40 years, but it's not compatible with how adventurers exert influence. So conceptually, this is just turning wizards into the same kind of thing.

etrpgb

2017-03-05, 05:39 AM

Nerfing Wizards is a touchy subject in the forum...

My question is different, aren't you afraid that your players will simply play an Archivist or a Druid if you manage to tone down the the Wizards (definitely not with the help of this thread)?

Tohsaka Rin

2017-03-05, 11:28 AM

Can I sig this?

Be my guest. Just use my kind of gross analogy responsibly. Don't drink and sig.

Quertus

2017-03-05, 06:02 PM

I mean unless I'm springing this on my players all sudden like, don't explain the reasons behind it ,and just completely avoid communicating with my players I can't see how it's worse than a ban.

If you make it feel like you want all the cool toys, and don't want to share them, then it's worse.

Nerfing Wizards is a touchy subject in the forum...

My question is different, aren't you afraid that your players will simply play an Archivist or a Druid if you manage to tone down the the Wizards (definitely not with the help of this thread)?

Or a cleric, or an arcane spellcaster, or a sorcerer, or...

Or do you not really care about all those other classes? Do you really just want to risk player ire just to enforce a certain feel for a specific class in your setting?

Flickerdart

2017-03-05, 07:35 PM

Or do you not really care about all those other classes? Do you really just want to risk player ire just to enforce a certain feel for a specific class in your setting?

I don't see why he's "risking" anything. "Wizards are not meant for PCs in this setting - consider another full caster" is a perfectly fine thing for a DM to say. If a player refuses to play anything but a wizard no matter what, this is not the game for him. Nobody else is affected.

NichG

2017-03-05, 09:44 PM

IME, players will generally accept it though the occasional player might either try to circumvent the spirit of the ban, negotiate a personal exception, or argue against it on the basis of an abstract argument about how the game is supposed to be played. In this context, I think people find bans more acceptable than nerfs.

However, if a ban applies to PCs but not NPCs, that trips most players' warning flags. It suggests something unfair is about to happen. In that case, it may be that nerfs are more acceptable than bans. That is to say, you can address the unfairness point by saying 'you can in fact take this option if you insist, but its probably not going to turn out well for you'.

The thing is though, that claim had better actually be true or your nerf will backfire. 'Wizards aren't a good match for PCs because magic turns you Evil' -> 'thats fine, lets just do an evil game!'. 'Wizards aren't a good match for PCs because there's an organization dedicated to their eradication that is supported by every world government' -> 'Well that sounds quite unjust, lets play a group of hidden wizards dedicated to dismantling that organization!'. 'Magic saps your sanity' -> 'My guy is fatalistic, that's why he became an adventurer'. Danger is the wrong motivator - adventurers are exactly the subset of the population who sit at the extremes of the risk/reward curve.

Similarly, using OOC factors such as tedium or complicated accounting are problematic as they're explicitly unfair (the NPCs don't have to deal with their player's attention span), and that will be sensed by the players.

Mordaedil

2017-03-06, 02:33 AM

If you want to hamper wizards a little bit without outright making them unplayable, try turning the sorcerers progression into the bard and backwardly apply it to the wizard, which operates differently as a prepared caster. Remove spellcasting from the bard completely, but give the bard the rogue skill list (but not trapfinding) to compensate. Remove the bard countersong ability.

Congrats, you've nerfed the wizard to the point where it feels like spellcasting hasn't quite matured in your setting, but still offer a lot of the same options as before.

ace rooster

2017-03-06, 08:30 AM

How about removing the ability to cast spells* while making scrolls, wands, and staffs use a spell slot of the appropriate level. Doesn't nerf their item crafting at all (actually makes it far more important), but makes every use of magic much more work intensive (for the character, only a little bit for the player). Sorcerors then make much more sense, as the ability to actually cast spells is a huge deal, while wizards are far more reliant on their scrollbooks.

* I don't mean getting rid of the slots. I mean that they keep the spell slots, just can't cast spells out of them. They have to find other ways of using them, such as crafting items.

By far the most important thing for dealing with something as versatile as a wizard is calling out shenanigans where they occur, though tell your players this is what you are doing. If you tell them up front that WBL, minionmancy, and item based shenanigans will be shot down, you don't need to work out exactly how you deal with every situation before it arises. For example, if a player then tries to sell a wall of salt, you can tell them that no it doesn't work. You could think quickly, and come up with an in universe reason like "salt touched by magic loses it's value", but it is important to make sure in advance that you are able to just say "no, because metagame reasons", and have it accepted. You should be able to present general rules, such as "there are no shortcuts", and have them accepted, rather than having to come up with specific reasons why every possible shortcut fails (the int 26 Big Bad thought of them all, even if you didn't). If you can, encourage the players to start coming up with in universe explanations for your metagame decisions. For example, give them free reign to say things like "the crystal is tied to the material. Any rapid shift in those ties would cause it to shatter", based only on the fact that you have said "you will have to walk it out".

I also find maguffins are quite effective at limiting options. If the quest is "get item from A to B, with monsters in between", you can easily say that "the maguffin does not respond well to being off the material plane, even for an instant", to avoid teleports (and even rope trick camping). "The maguffin weakens outsiders and those of weak will in a large radius" prevents minionmancy. They can be a great way of temporarily shutting down tactics that you want the PCs to have access to, just not now.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-06, 08:43 AM

However, if a ban applies to PCs but not NPCs, that trips most players' warning flags. It suggests something unfair is about to happen. In that case, it may be that nerfs are more acceptable than bans.
Which I think is the general idea here-- "Tier 1 casters are banned because in this setting [mechanical reason that makes them unsuitable for adventuring]."

Zanos

2017-03-06, 09:37 AM

Do the same traits not also apply to all NPC classes? Commoner is a terrible class, but there is nothing to prevent a player from playing one.
You should probably stop your players from playing commoners, actually, unless you're doing something with commoners such that they can actually contribute to the game and be enjoyable to play.

Cosi

2017-03-06, 09:49 AM

I also find maguffins are quite effective at limiting options. If the quest is "get item from A to B, with monsters in between", you can easily say that "the maguffin does not respond well to being off the material plane, even for an instant", to avoid teleports (and even rope trick camping). "The maguffin weakens outsiders and those of weak will in a large radius" prevents minionmancy. They can be a great way of temporarily shutting down tactics that you want the PCs to have access to, just not now.

Do not ever do this. Ever. Nothing screams "bad DM" like "your abilities arbitrarily don't work because they don't follow my rails". If you want PCs with teleport to fight encounters you put in their way, make them care about those encounters. It is roughly infinity times better to get players to engage on their own terms than it is to force them to engage by hosing their abilities. The former encourages investment in the world and developing connections to the characters you create. The latter discourages creativity and makes PC abilities feel useless.

Flickerdart

2017-03-06, 10:32 AM

ace rooster

2017-03-06, 11:14 AM

Do not ever do this. Ever. Nothing screams "bad DM" like "your abilities arbitrarily don't work because they don't follow my rails". If you want PCs with teleport to fight encounters you put in their way, make them care about those encounters. It is roughly infinity times better to get players to engage on their own terms than it is to force them to engage by hosing their abilities. The former encourages investment in the world and developing connections to the characters you create. The latter discourages creativity and makes PC abilities feel useless.

There is a big difference between rails and boundaries, and there is a whole universe between an ability being instant win and useless/hosed. Being able to teleport to an objective is still huge, and the ability to teleport back from scouting ahead is also still powerful. Those are creative. Doing the quest "retrieve the crystal" by teleporting to it, then teleporting back; is not. Creativity is about working within boundries. If the boundries are too tight, there is little scope for creativity, which is why railroading is bad. If there are no boundries though, then there is very little reason to do anything other than read an internet guide. Also bad.

The whole point is not forcing them to engage. You give them a choice to engage, and consequences for avoiding it. Teleport would still be a highly effective disengage, for the whole party. They would have to choose to give up the objective for it though. If things are going bad, it would probably be the best idea. A better idea might have been for the PCs to secure the route before getting the objective. There are no rails preventing them doing this, and teleport would be very useful for it. On the other hand it might alert the lich who guards the crystal before you get there. Is this less creative than scry and die?

We bury the macguffin and go a-teleporting where we please.

lol,ok. The king still wants the macguffin for his mantlepiece though. He probably won't pay you for burying it.

Flickerdart

2017-03-06, 11:18 AM

lol,ok. The king still wants the macguffin for his mantlepiece though. He probably won't pay you for burying it.

That's fine. Lots of money to be made elsewhere. It's not like the PCs would be the only professionals in the history of all time to refuse a mission because it compromised their strategic and tactical capabilities.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-03-06, 11:21 AM

lol,ok. The king still wants the macguffin for his mantlepiece though. He probably won't pay you for burying it.
Teleport the king's mantlepiece to the MacGuffin. Problem solved.

MacGuffins are by definition meant to be 'plot-required', so if the plot is 'long and difficult trek', then sure, the MacGuffin emits a continuous dimensional lock effect to a radius of 200', why not. But if you do that, it had better be the same damn reason the king wants it (high-efficiency security system), not some arbitrary restriction because you decided "the party has it too easy travelling", completely unrelated to the item's actual function. That is exactly the difference between rails and boundaries. Boundaries make sense, because they use in-universe constructs (known spells and powers) to create interesting possible strategies. Rails are metagaming constructs along the lines of "the party can't complete quests too easily".

In other words: if there is no in-universe reason to limit the party's tactics, you shouldn't limit said tactics. If there is an in-universe reason to limit the party's tactics, count on the party making that decision for themselves (provide adequate information when prompted, such as through divinations and knowledge checks).

Elkad

2017-03-06, 11:39 AM

The king still wants the macguffin for his mantlepiece though. He probably won't pay you for burying it.

I can still hide it and clear everything in my path via whatever means I want, until it feels safe to dig it up and make a speed-run via max-CL phantom steed or jujuzombie mercury dragon or something.
While the rest of the party imitates motorcycle cops escorting a motorcade by covering my front/rear/flanks via highspeed teleports.

Stretching the full-caster spell tables until it looks more like bards is something I've considered. It would mean tossing most of the epic rules as well (or moving them to L30ish).
New spell level every 3 levels instead of every 2, with 9th coming online at L25. It would be a big rewrite though. You'd have to fiddle with spell tables for basically every class.

Then if you want your NPC to have Wish and Gate, you just tack a few more levels onto him.
High level scrolls would still be around, just more expensive and rare.
Etc.

ace rooster

2017-03-06, 11:43 AM

Teleport the king's mantlepiece to the MacGuffin. Problem solved.

MacGuffins are by definition meant to be 'plot-required', so if the plot is 'long and difficult trek', then sure, the MacGuffin emits a continuous dimensional lock effect to a radius of 200', why not. But if you do that, it had better be the same damn reason the king wants it (high-efficiency security system), not some arbitrary restriction because you decided "the party has it too easy travelling", completely unrelated to the item's actual function. That is exactly the difference between rails and boundaries. Boundaries make sense, because they use in-universe constructs (known spells and powers) to create interesting possible strategies. Rails are metagaming constructs along the lines of "the party can't complete quests too easily".

In other words: if there is no in-universe reason to limit the party's tactics, you shouldn't limit said tactics. If there is an in-universe reason to limit the party's tactics, count on the party making that decision for themselves (provide adequate information when prompted, such as through divinations and knowledge checks).

I'm less fond of the radius dimensional lock, because it affects PC's ability to affect themself. Limiting the impact of PC abilities on a scenario is one thing, but limiting the impact of a PC's abilities on that PC is very different. The second interferes with player agency in a way that the first does not.

Well you could just have 20 other crystals that the king wants that can be teleported. They are dealt with by the court wizard in his lunch breaks though, because he can just teleport there and back. This one is assigned to the PCs because it is not easily retrieved. Good enough in universe reason?

The definition of Macguffin I was using was something having properties that have plot or subplot implications. The crystal itself might not be plot critical, but the difficulty of transporting it has implications on the subplot of retrieving it. In particular, it actually makes it a subplot.

Cosi

2017-03-06, 11:46 AM

Doing the quest "retrieve the crystal" by teleporting to it, then teleporting back; is not.

I agree. But "go retrieve the crystal" is not a quest for 10th level characters. It is a quest for 1st level characters. When you get teleport, you should face challenges where teleport is a part of the solution, not challenges where it is the whole solution but doesn't work because lolrailroad.

The whole point is not forcing them to engage. You give them a choice to engage, and consequences for avoiding it. Teleport would still be a highly effective disengage, for the whole party. They would have to choose to give up the objective for it though. If things are going bad, it would probably be the best idea. A better idea might have been for the PCs to secure the route before getting the objective. There are no rails preventing them doing this, and teleport would be very useful for it. On the other hand it might alert the lich who guards the crystal before you get there. Is this less creative than scry and die?

Yes. "Clear the dungeon" is something you can do as a starting character. Obviously "use your level appropriate abilities" is more creative than that.

The reason to give people levels is so that they can solve problems that are different from the ones they solved at low levels, or solve the problems they solved at low levels in new ways. If you just want to play the 1st level adventure "go into the dungeon and get the item" with different enemies, there are more than enough CR 1 monsters to do that as long as your group lasts.

Of course, you could make the challenge more interesting. Maybe there are several crystals that have to be grabbed in quick succession. Maybe you step back a level and the crystal is just one option for solving a problem like "the kingdom has been cursed and rain no longer falls". Maybe acquiring the crystal is one step in a larger plan. Maybe multiple teams of comparable ability are searching for the crystal and you have to protect it from them after capturing it. It's not hard to write high level plots.

Telok

2017-03-06, 01:46 PM

Of course this is all losing sight of the fact that the OP wants to bend wizard/tier 1 abilities to fit the setting and the game. Not bend the setting and the game to fit wizard abilities, that way lies tippyverse.

ace rooster

2017-03-06, 02:02 PM

I agree. But "go retrieve the crystal" is not a quest for 10th level characters. It is a quest for 1st level characters. When you get teleport, you should face challenges where teleport is a part of the solution, not challenges where it is the whole solution but doesn't work because lolrailroad.

Depends on the crystal. You get into an circular arguement where it is not a quest for 10th level characters because they can just use teleport. As I described, teleport is a powerful tactic, and often will just solve problems, but that doesn't mean it that there will not exist problems it will not solve. Those problems may be a small subset, but they are important because they are the ones not easily solved.

Yes. "Clear the dungeon" is something you can do as a starting character. Obviously "use your level appropriate abilities" is more creative than that.

The reason to give people levels is so that they can solve problems that are different from the ones they solved at low levels, or solve the problems they solved at low levels in new ways. If you just want to play the 1st level adventure "go into the dungeon and get the item" with different enemies, there are more than enough CR 1 monsters to do that as long as your group lasts.

They don't have to be different problems. There is no reason to limit the type of problem any level of character faces more than we have to. I am showing how limiting the strategic power of some abilities actually opens up different types of adventure, while not limiting tactical creativity. In particular, by shifting the objective from each side killing the opponent to securing a maguffin, we can limit the strategic power of abilities by limiting their effect on that maguffin without nerfing the power of abilities in other situations at all.

Of course, you could make the challenge more interesting. Maybe there are several crystals that have to be grabbed in quick succession. Maybe you step back a level and the crystal is just one option for solving a problem like "the kingdom has been cursed and rain no longer falls". Maybe acquiring the crystal is one step in a larger plan. Maybe multiple teams of comparable ability are searching for the crystal and you have to protect it from them after capturing it. It's not hard to write high level plots.

So, how does the group grab several crystals in quick succession without using teleport? In attempting to avoid making PC abilities useless, you have put them into a scenario where there are railroaded into using one. How do you protect against high level adventurers that are equally able to teleport out with it? Most importantly, how do you do this without penalising players that are not wizards, or having credible threats that are not wizards? High level plots are quite easy to write, but high level plots that don't instantly degenerate into wizard Xantos chess are not.

This is why this is relevant to this thread. Wizards overshadow everything else because of their strategic power, which can actually be limited without curtailing their tactical power overly.

I can still hide it and clear everything in my path via whatever means I want, until it feels safe to dig it up and make a speed-run via max-CL phantom steed or jujuzombie mercury dragon or something.
While the rest of the party imitates motorcycle cops escorting a motorcade by covering my front/rear/flanks via highspeed teleports.

See, isn't that more fun than teleporting it out? :smallcool:

ExLibrisMortis

2017-03-06, 02:30 PM

I'm less fond of the radius dimensional lock, because it affects PC's ability to affect themself. Limiting the impact of PC abilities on a scenario is one thing, but limiting the impact of a PC's abilities on that PC is very different. The second interferes with player agency in a way that the first does not.

Well you could just have 20 other crystals that the king wants that can be teleported. They are dealt with by the court wizard in his lunch breaks though, because he can just teleport there and back. This one is assigned to the PCs because it is not easily retrieved. Good enough in universe reason?

The definition of Macguffin I was using was something having properties that have plot or subplot implications. The crystal itself might not be plot critical, but the difficulty of transporting it has implications on the subplot of retrieving it. In particular, it actually makes it a subplot.
Dimensional lock in a 200' radius isn't limiting player agency any more than a rock that refuses to be carried through teleports :smallconfused:. If the objective is to carry the MacGuffin to the king, you just want to teleport the rock (with teleport object or otherwise). Both 200' DL and "material plane only" DM fiat do the same (prevent that family of solutions), except that the first makes the MacGuffin useful and annoying, and the second just makes it annoying, and doesn't rely on existing mechanics.

On the second: Yes, that'd be an in-universe reason, but then you're wondering why said court wizard isn't spending a spell slot on lesser planar binding. I would sooner give the assignment to retrieve 20 DL-projecting MacGuffins to a party with teleport, plus a reward for speedy completion (the court mage is busy warding the palace, in the absence of proper anti-teleport measures). Now, the 10th-level party is wondering how to spend their spell slots: teleport is good (but costs two slots per run), lesser planar binding will work on multiple rocks (but not on strongly protected ones), walking is cheap (but slow), and so on. That's player agency right there: the need to prioritize and to choose between plans.

Cosi

2017-03-06, 02:33 PM

Depends on the crystal. You get into an circular arguement where it is not a quest for 10th level characters because they can just use teleport.

It's not a quest for 10th level characters because it's exactly a quest for 1st level characters. "Go over there and kill those people" is a 1st level quest because it requires only abilities you have at first level (namely, a movement speed and attacks). You can make higher level versions of it (for example, go to hell and kill those devils), but they're higher level because they rely on higher level abilities (namely, plane shift).

As I described, teleport is a powerful tactic, and often will just solve problems, but that doesn't mean it that there will not exist problems it will not solve. Those problems may be a small subset, but they are important because they are the ones not easily solved.

Yes, I pointed out a few. But "here's a problem that teleport trivializes, except you can't use teleport because I didn't think of it" is a bad challenge. High level plots should ensure that high level characters are a portion of the solution because of how the scenario is designed, not because they just arbitrarily don't work.

They don't have to be different problems. There is no reason to limit the type of problem any level of character faces more than we have to.

Yes there is. The only reason to have levels is so that you can do things at 10th level you couldn't do at 1st level (and things at 20th level you couldn't do at 10th level). If your 10th level adventure is "walk over there and get the McGuffin", and your 1st level adventure was "walk over there and get the McGuffin", why gain the intervening levels at all? Why not just have an adventure where the treasure is guarded by kobolds and a wyrmling dragon, then one where it's guarded by goblins and wargs, then orcs and an ogre?

So, how does the group grab several crystals in quick succession without using teleport?

Split the party. Use minions. Have abilities similar to teleport.

How do you protect against high level adventurers that are equally able to teleport out with it?

That seems like an open-ended problem players would have to solve creatively.

Most importantly, how do you do this without penalising players that are not wizards, or having credible threats that are not wizards?

Give the non-Wizards relevant abilities. Use things like Clerics, Demons, or Dragons that have magic but aren't Wizards.

This is why this is relevant to this thread. Wizards overshadow everything else because of their strategic power, which can actually be limited without curtailing their tactical power overly.

You've missed a step. Why are Wizards overshadowing Fighters? Why aren't Fighters sucking? Why is the fact that having more abilities solves more problems the fault of the character that gained abilities?

See, isn't that more fun than teleporting it out? :smallcool:

No. I had to run through encounters I don't care about because my DM stopped me from using an ability that was written on my character sheet because he was bad at writing plots.

Zanos

2017-03-06, 02:46 PM

11th level characters, their items, their actions, and their associates are considered legendary by the legend lore spell. Walking 500 miles while fighting bandits isn't really something the party should be concerned with at that point. If you make travel encounters scale with the party the world consistency just falls apart.

Teleport is very frequently just a replacement for "you travel for two weeks while killing all the 3rd level bandits that try to screw with you and arrive at the dungeon of despair containing the macguffin." You usually can't teleport to places you aren't at least passingly familiar with anyway.

Quertus

2017-03-06, 02:57 PM

I don't see why he's "risking" anything. "Wizards are not meant for PCs in this setting - consider another full caster" is a perfectly fine thing for a DM to say. If a player refuses to play anything but a wizard no matter what, this is not the game for him. Nobody else is affected.

Ah, sorry, the risks I was discussing were in the nerf, not in the direct communication.

You should probably stop your players from playing commoners, actually, unless you're doing something with commoners such that they can actually contribute to the game and be enjoyable to play.

Strongly agree. Far too many GMs who claim to care about game balance will bend heaven, earth, and sanity to nerf things, but won't lift a finger to fix trap options. For shame!

However, I don't remember the OP saying anything about game balance. Or even story reasons, despite my promoting. Just setting fluff reasons.

Coidzor

2017-03-06, 03:38 PM

Which I think is the general idea here-- "Tier 1 casters are banned because in this setting [mechanical reason that makes them unsuitable for adventuring]."

Except it's only Wizards and to a lesser extent Clerics. Which makes it even weirder than just banning T1 or T1 and T2.

Cosi

2017-03-06, 07:25 PM

Strongly agree. Far too many GMs who claim to care about game balance will bend heaven, earth, and sanity to nerf things, but won't lift a finger to fix trap options. For shame!

Exactly. Your goal when changing the game should always be to buff before you nerf, nerf before you ban, and ban only as a last resort.

However, I don't remember the OP saying anything about game balance. Or even story reasons, despite my promoting. Just setting fluff reasons.

Maybe instead of trying to ban Wizards as a class, you could change the game so that there are mechanics that make sedentary casters more powerful. Then you have the desired effect of there being a class of casters who are mysterious, powerful and live in towers, but PCs can just play Wizards. Like if planar binding took a couple of weeks to cast, but was permanent.

frogglesmash

2017-03-06, 08:16 PM

I might as well further explain the fluff reasons behind the concept. The plan is to have series of fixed list casters like the warmage. There will be one for each school of magic plus a healer, and a war cleric. The druid spell list is already thematically focused so I'm not sure if I want to give casting like a sorcerer or a fixed list like the rest (I'm leaning toward the latter). In addition to those classes there will be two generalist classes with casting as described in my original post; one divine, and one arcane (I'm probably going to base the divine class off of archivist instead of the cleric). It would be nice to keep the power level of the themed classes fairly close to each other, but that's not the main focus. The idea behind all of this is that the themed casters practice a small variety of spells rigorously, and exclusively. Insane amounts of repetition combined with learning a variety of highly technical casting "shortcuts", and the fact that similar spells require similar techniques to cast mean that these themed casters can cast their spells quickly and from memory. The generalists take a more theory based approach to casting, learning the ins and outs of how magic functions. This top down approach to magic allows them to cast a much wider variety of spells, the trade off being increased costing times and reliance on a spell book. Sorcerers will be exceedingly rare individuals who have inborn magical abilities, I'm talking 1 every few thousand years i.e. a major plot element if one shows up.

etrpgb

2017-03-07, 04:27 AM

About all the idea shown so far, do you like some?

Sheogoroth

2017-03-07, 04:25 PM

Don't make wizards LESS fun. Just make them MORE risky!

High risk, high reward. That was the original idea of wizards in 1E and AD&D if I understand it correctly. 3.5's 1d4 was a step up.

There are three ways of doing this-

1. With Great Power comes Great Insanity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WithGreatPowerComesGreatInsanity)
The philosophy behind this being that magic is the stuff of deities and as such inherently beyond mortal comprehension. To attempt to do so scars one's mind a little each time to the point where the more powerful a wizard becomes and the more he uses his abilities or changes and learns spells- the more unalterably and completely insane he becomes. Makes a lot of sense that if you're mastering the powers of the cosmos, it's probably pretty hard to stay grounded in reality and the little intangibles like the value of sentient life or ethics (http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20081015.gif).
Look to Call of Cthulhu's magic system and D&D types of insanity for actual mechanical changes, but aside from that his alignment should constantly be shifting towards CE as his own form of "right" and "wrong" materialize based on his newfound powers.

2. Magic is Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/DarkSun)
Dark Sun does this very well, but it's woven into the setting. If you want to staple it on I would recommend making everyone in the world absolutely HATE wizards(though that could work well with any of these.) But if you want to attach magic being less attractive to your existing universe, this is the least appealing. Similar to above, but that magic requires a source. Maybe the wizard has to constantly kill and drain souls to recharge his spells, maybe he has to suck the life out of the local nature to charge his spells. Maybe he needs blood. Rather than insanity, magic requires life- maybe the player is sapping some of the goodness in his heart(a little corny) or his own life-force. Up to you.

3. Magic is Unnatural (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/traps-hazards-and-special-terrains/hazards/environmental-hazards/radiation/)
You can blend this one with number 1, but essentially magic is essentially radioactive. It's kinda like how in Akira, the children are the only ones who can actually control their power, but the drugs that make them able to do so cause the degeneration of their bodies and rapid aging. So you've got a running tally of how much he uses magic and his hair falls out, his skin begins flaking off, his muscles begin to degenerate and he loses fine motor skills and develops a speech impediment. He frequently begins getting sick and some of the symptoms rub off on those around him, and so on until he has lost the ability to walk and he can barely communicate. Bonus points if you give him mutations and cancerous growths
His radiation counter goes down over time, but it forces him to make a decision every time

The goal of each of these is to Force the player to make a decision every time he casts a spell- no more is he the walking invincible toolbox/flamethrower/airplane. Now he's just a gambler, hoping and praying that his next roll of the dice won't cost him everything.

Zanos

2017-03-07, 05:37 PM

2. Magic is Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/DarkSun)
Dark Sun does this very well, but it's woven into the setting. If you want to staple it on I would recommend making everyone in the world absolutely HATE wizards(though that could work well with any of these.) But if you want to attach magic being less attractive to your existing universe, this is the least appealing. Similar to above, but that magic requires a source. Maybe the wizard has to constantly kill and drain souls to recharge his spells, maybe he has to suck the life out of the local nature to charge his spells. Maybe he needs blood. Rather than insanity, magic requires life- maybe the player is sapping some of the goodness in his heart(a little corny) or his own life-force. Up to you.

Dark Sun actually buffs casters mechanically which can be interesting, as defiling makes spells a lot more powerful. Then you have the sorcerer kings sitting in their cities and ruling over the lands with an iron fist, but low level casters are pretty much SoL and going to be strung up. It works out as a fair deterrent to playing an arcane caster, even if that wasn't the intent.

Flickerdart

2017-03-07, 08:57 PM

Making magic stronger and riskier is a terrible idea. Players will see "stronger," all make mages, and then whine as soon as system shock deletes their brains.

Zanos

2017-03-08, 12:17 AM

Making magic stronger and riskier is a terrible idea. Players will see "stronger," all make mages, and then whine as soon as system shock deletes their brains.
Going crazy is a secondary risk of magic in Dark Sun, the primary risk is being obliterated by a sorcerer king(hopefully this doesn't summon him) or being hanged by townsfolk before you're a high enough level to start sorcerer kinging yourself.

Cosi

2017-03-08, 10:51 AM

2. Magic is Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/DarkSun)
Dark Sun does this very well, but it's woven into the setting. If you want to staple it on I would recommend making everyone in the world absolutely HATE wizards(though that could work well with any of these.) But if you want to attach magic being less attractive to your existing universe, this is the least appealing. Similar to above, but that magic requires a source. Maybe the wizard has to constantly kill and drain souls to recharge his spells, maybe he has to suck the life out of the local nature to charge his spells. Maybe he needs blood. Rather than insanity, magic requires life- maybe the player is sapping some of the goodness in his heart(a little corny) or his own life-force. Up to you.

This is not a stable solution. If magic is as useful as D&D magic, people aren't going to just ignore it. At some point, some king will realize that instead of murdering all the Wizards, you can hire the Wizards and conquer all the people who kept on murdering their Wizards. Or some Wizards will conquer territory of their own.

Psyren

2017-03-08, 04:18 PM

Going crazy is a secondary risk of magic in Dark Sun, the primary risk is being obliterated by a sorcerer king(hopefully this doesn't summon him) or being hanged by townsfolk before you're a high enough level to start sorcerer kinging yourself.

Clearly they should level as Clerics and then retrain :smallbiggrin:

Sheogoroth

2017-03-08, 05:26 PM

This is not a stable solution. If magic is as useful as D&D magic, people aren't going to just ignore it. At some point, some king will realize that instead of murdering all the Wizards, you can hire the Wizards and conquer all the people who kept on murdering their Wizards. Or some Wizards will conquer territory of their own.

I believe that argument is negated by how powerful, at least canonically, diabolism and necromancy are in most settings.
Necromancy in particular- on the surface it 'should' be an easy sell to any king that this decrepit old psychopath that stinks of death can effectively double the output of any army you put on the field.

Flickerdart

2017-03-08, 05:32 PM

I believe that argument is negated by how powerful, at least canonically, diabolism and necromancy are in most settings.
Necromancy in particular- on the surface it 'should' be an easy sell to any king that this decrepit old psychopath that stinks of death can effectively double the output of any army you put on the field.

Prestidigitation is a 0th level universal spell. All wizards can smell of roses - much nicer than the king's own knights, who come from a time before showers have been invented and spend their days doing physical activity while encased in heavy metal armor.

Afgncaap5

2017-03-09, 12:38 AM

One possible way would be to do lots and lots of preemptive legwork for the lore and culture of wizards. Don't ban schools necessarily, but have a guide for different traditions of wizardry that can grant access to different spells or kinds of spells. You want magic missile? Well, the dwarves of the Skara Brae Tower, the Morgum Hold Cabal and, weirdly enough, the magicians of a single thieve's guild in North Lumberhold are the ones who've developed (effectively identical barring the color) spells that are collectively called Magic Missile. The good news is, these guilds tend to be friendly and their secrets are easy to learn.

Bestow Curse? Now that's tricky... the Shadow Weavers know, but they guard their secrets like a hungry dog guards its bone, and of course Skara Brae Tower has a version of this but they don't even tell their friends. You'd develop it yourself when you "level up" (whatever that means) but there's something about it, be it the discrepancy of leylines or an error in your development formula, that's keeping you from really figuring it out. On the other hand, Mordrem the Cruel had a tower just a few miles from town, and he was notorious for developing new versions of the spell just to make new curses fun to cast... find an old spellbook of his and it might help you figure out what you're missing. He's not been seen in seventy years, he's probably dead.

This can be a really fun method, but it's a *lot* of work, and putting some PH spells behind quest-walls doesn't appeal to every player (but *some* players love it.) You'd need to work out different magical traditions and figure out what they all had going for 'em. It's a headache, but you can get some good results.

frogglesmash

2017-03-09, 03:50 AM

About all the idea shown so far, do you like some?

Stuff I will probably use:

1. My own, initial idea
2. Many of the nerfs to magic in general i.e. banning/nerfing problematic PrCs, metamagic feats, and spells.
3.Grod's Ritualist Class, and fixed list casters, and some of his mundane anti magic ideas from the other thread he started.
4. Using Sanity and/or Corruption rules could be interesting, though I'd probably have to change them to fit my campaign setting.
5. Setting based restrictions.
6. Increased dependence on magic items i.e. staffs, wands etc.
7.The "radioactive" magic thing (maybe)

One possible way would be to do lots and lots of preemptive legwork for the lore and culture of wizards. Don't ban schools necessarily, but have a guide for different traditions of wizardry that can grant access to different spells or kinds of spells. ~snip~

This solution seems geared towards having player wizards which is not what I want.

Vogie

2017-03-09, 10:22 AM

4. Using Sanity and/or Corruption rules.
5. Setting based restrictions.
6. Increased dependence on magic items i.e. staffs, wands etc.
7.The "radioactive" magic thing (maybe)

This combination makes me think of a setting that is very close to an outsider's plane, so certain styles of magic have serious consequences. For example:
1) the divination spells act similar to the palantíri from LotR - A character Using things like Scry, Commune, and the like allow the existential Others to see them, and invade their minds, bringing in sanity as a thing that's a problem.
2) the dimensional conjuration spells (teleport/gate/plane shift/et cetera) acts like either

the FTL drives from Battlestar Galactica, causes massive aoe damage if used near people or structures. This could be shown to the players as a betrayal of the King, and the betrayer teleports away... taking a chunk of the building with him.[/INDENT]
the effects of the Subtle Knife from the His Dark Materials series - each use of this style of spell spawns Others, including soul-sucking specters, into the world. This can also be used as a plot point - When a NPC wizard teleports away, the PCs are attacked by a Otherworldly beast that spawns from the teleport.
3) the Evocation and Necromancy spells are specifically taxing, acting in Corrupting/Radioactive Magic manner. The Evocation school is taxing on the caster's body, while the Necromancy Spells are taxing on their Sanity or Humanity.
4) Because of this, there are wizards, but most of them are focused on Abjuration, Enchantment, Illusion, and non-dimensional Conjuration. Those that have dabbled in the more dangerous arts are largely elders, domesticated, or crafters of the "safe" spells of their schools into magic items

frogglesmash

2017-03-09, 03:01 PM

I should specify that While all the options listed interest me, I probably won't use all of them at the same time

atemu1234

2017-03-09, 03:34 PM

True. There are a lot of good ways to deal with full casters; "make them infuriating to play" will never be one of them. Long casting times with no replacement combat option is possibly the worst, because it's not just frustrating, it's BORING.

Yeah, you have to be really careful with your nerfs, or else it will just make the game impossible to play.

"You can play a wizard but I'll never let you cast spells" is rude and disingenuous. Any serious effort to curb spells/day only pushes players AWAY from reasonable tactics (blasting, de/buffing, BFC) and TOWARDS overpowered-but-efficient ones like minionmancy, persistent spells, and the like.

By all that is good and holy, DO NOT DO THIS. No one wants to play Spreadsheets and Spider-counting here. You're doing nothing but making the class incredibly aggravating. You might as well demand that the player solve a calculus problem before casting a spell.

Incidentally, one of the earlier posts made a good point: if you slow the Wizard down, you'll effectively slow the entire group down. Players are, generally speaking, neither stupid nor *******s. They'll wait for the Wizard, because they'll want the CHARACTER'S power with them, and they'll want the PLAYER to have fun too. Their characters will have to sit and wait, but they'll just say "next week, we..." and move on.

Seconded. Bookkeeping being more difficult doesn't make the class less optimal, and is liable to just make the characters hate you. and you do not want a player to go Old Man Henderson on you.

Leave Mialee alone! Like Hennet is any better:
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/b/b8/Hennet_Sam-Wood_PHB3e.jpg

Hey, at least Hennet looks like he could be a person you see walking around, albeit in belt-based fetish-gear. Mialee in core artwork looks like she's been hit in the face with a shovel.

Sheogoroth

2017-03-10, 12:20 PM

I should specify that While all the options listed interest me, I probably won't use all of them at the same time

Go big or go home!

enderlord99

2017-03-11, 05:38 AM

This solution seems geared towards having player wizards which is not what I want.

Then don't let them. Seriously, how are you not getting this?

frogglesmash

2017-03-11, 05:53 AM

Then don't let them. Seriously, how are you not getting this?

I don't like banning character options if I intend to use them for my NPCs, instead I would prefer a more organic way of discouraging them without making them feel like I'm being unfair. I've already said this at least once or twice, so I'm not sure how you aren't getting it. You may not agree with my position, but that's not my problem.

enderlord99

2017-03-11, 06:02 AM

I don't like banning character options if I intend to use them for my NPCs

...Yet you intend to punish people who make use of those options by making the game less fun for them, and you claim that just discussing it with them (like we've all been suggesting) would somehow be more unfair.

Is this assessment accurate?

Elysiume

2017-03-11, 06:19 AM

frogglesmash

2017-03-11, 06:27 AM

...Yet you intend to punish people who make use of those options by making the game less fun for them, and you claim that just discussing it with them (like we've all been suggesting) would somehow be more unfair.

Is this assessment accurate?

That assessment is not accurate.
I've already stated multiple times that I intend on discussing the changes with my players. It's also worth noting that the changes I want to make are motivated in part by how I want my campaign setting to work. If you'd read through this thread properly you would already know this.

frogglesmash

2017-03-11, 06:46 AM

If you don't want players to play wizards, what can you do? Make them weaker, more cumbersome, or more complicated to play. The issue is that you could do all three, and someone could still decide to play a wizard. Then you end up with someone who's playing a character that drags down the team, either in power level or in terms of sucking up real life time/in game resources--and also is going against a core tenet of your campaign setting.

If you don't want your players playing a wizard, don't let them play a wizard. Worrying about the risk that they still play a wizard given X constraints and Y houserules on how wizards work seems like it's not giving your players enough credit, as well as hamstringing your ability to customize wizards to fit your setting. Put me down as another person who thinks it's worth talking to your players. You can try to discourage them as organically as you want, but I feel like the discussion keeps circling back to "...but what if they still roll a wizard given Z?"

1. I want wizards to fill a non adventuring/sedentary role role in my campaign.
2. I want to discourage players from playing wizards but if they play one anyways, I'll live, and I wont punish them for it.
3. Nerfing wizards is only punishment for playing wizards if I do it without warning my players, otherwise it's their own damn fault for playing a class I explicitly told them would be no fun to play.
4. I intend on explaining/discussing all changes with my players.
5. I will have thematically focused, fixed list casters to replace wizards at the player level.
6. I do not want to ban wizards, and trekking me to do so is not a productive use of anyone's time.
7. I understand that banning is okay, and actually intend on banning a number of spells, the difference here being that neither PCs or NPCs will have access to them.

I hope this clears things up for you and anyone else who cares.

Segev

2017-03-11, 10:58 AM

Let's say your party is out, traveling around, and they meet up with a wizard on the road. An NPC. What should their reaction be? What should they expect this wizard to be capable of? Should they be concerned about offending him in the short-term? In the long term? Any more or less than they should, say, an orc chieftan?

Under what conditions should they fear a wizard? Under what conditions should they consider a wizard a push-over, at least in the short term? Should they ever encounter a wizard who is a pushover, at least in the short term, due to the conditions in which they encounter him? If not, does that mean the wizard avoids those conditions, or that those conditions are actually difficult to orchestrate? If the former, what does it cost the wizard to avoid those conditions? What opportunities? If the latter, you can't achieve your goal, because that means an adventuring wizard just ensures he prevents those conditions from being orchestrated.

Afgncaap5

2017-03-11, 11:20 AM

Well... one way to make wizards have a non-adventuring, more sedentary lifestyle might be to convert them to all of the non-talent aspects of Spheres of Power. If you replace all wizard spells with SoP-style rituals (which nearly all take several minutes at a minimum and tend to levy costly material components.) An army with a wizard would go from a caster who casts a fireball after six seconds and grabbing a pinch of sulfur to a caster who casts a fireball after half an hour and using up 25 gp of a material component (volcanic glass crystals, or maybe just esoteric chemicals like you'd find in fireworks.) That basically turns a wizard from a superpowered, mobile problem solver for the military into, effectively, an anthropomorphic catapult that takes half an hour to reload. They'd still be the sort of person that a king or merchant might call on to help solve a specific problem, but they wouldn't necessarily be the sorts of people who'd run into dungeons to look for treasure.

One benefit of this method is that the spells themselves don't really change; a player who can understand magical writings could read the wizard's ritual book just like a spellbook, and could still cast them as vancian spells if their class permits them to do so.