House rules to tone down casters

[tedcahill2]

So I had a thought, while thinking about rule that 1's always miss 20's always hit (when rolling attacks).

'Why don't casters have to make a check whenever they cast a spell.'

There's a scene the the movie The Last Samurai, where Tom Cruise is so sure his Japanese troops, with their shiny new guns, are not ready to face the samurai in battle. To prove his point he commands a private to load and fire at him, whilst he yells and shoots at his feet. The private is a complete mess, and misses his shot. Point being, battles are a hectic experience, and I would imagine meticulously making the signs or saying the words to cast a spell, would require a fair amount of concentration.

I'm considering house ruling that any spell, that does not already require an attack roll, requires the caster succeed at a spell check DC 10 + spell level, in which they add their caster level and their primary casting attribute to their roll (additional +2 synergy bonus for having 5 ranks in concentration). Like with attack rolls, and 20 will automatically succeed, and a 1 will automatically fail. Failure in this case would not cause them to expend the spell, they simply fail to cast it with that action.

Thoughts?

[Zephonim]

This doesn't fix anything at all.


If anything make any standard action spell take a full round action and increase dc's for losing concentration.

[MesiDoomstalker]

This doesn't fix anything at all.


If anything make any standard action spell take a full round action and increase dc's for losing concentration.

Even less than that. A level 1 caster has, at minimum, 55/45 shot of casting his spell (level 1, DC 11, needs a 10 or higher). And that's assuming his casting stat is only an 11. If he has a decent casting stat (16), then he'd only need a 7 or higher.

Now advance to 5th level and 3rd level spells. The DC is 13. Lets assume our 16 stat caster doesn't have a +2 Stat item and stuck at 17 for the moment, but also did the logical thing of taking at least 5 ranks in Concentration. So his bonus vs. a DC 13 is +10. Only needs a 3 or higher. At 5th level, it's already trivial to pass the check. Does it make it so a few spells fail? Ya. But in an average day, you won't lose any of your best spells. On the average day, you won't even lose your second best spells either. By 7th level your only failing on a 1 for your best spells.

My point, if you want checks to cast spells, it needs to scale faster than spell level. Or the bonus needs to scale slower.

[RedWarlock]

Yeah, doesn't do a thing. Most of the time, they'll already make that DC, and it'll only get easier with increased levels, which is where more of the caster problems are anyhow. (Maybe if the DC was spell level x 2, like PF's concentration, then you'd scale better, but still.)

My big tweaks are to things like splitting up single-stat primary casters to depend on 2 different stats for DC and bonus spells/spell level, and making concentration and defensive casting a lot tougher. Combat Casting *enables* rather than buffs def. casting (can't do it at all otherwise) and the DC is 15 + spell level x 2, as Pathfinder. Failing the check doesn't lose the spell, just wastes the action, though.

Also, look at fixing/eliminating problematic spells. (For instance, in my own game, I tweaked polymorph and summoning-type effects so that you only have so many 'creatures' available to use with those spells. Prep casters select the creature to summon when they prepare the spell, while learned casters have a limited number by caster level that accompanies the knowledge of the spell.)

[Godskook]

1.90+% of spells *DO* require rolls. Touch Attacks, Spell Resistance, Saves.

2.Spells are resource gated already. Wanna tone down casters? Force them to run out by making days last longer than the players want them to last.

3.Mage Slayer is an awesome feat for enemies, just saying.....

4.Players like having agency. Making spells less controllable reduces player agency via randomness, which isn't....ideal.

5.Many of the worst offenders of spells are buffs. This does nothing to affect buffs because failure during a downtime buffing session is meaningless.

*Insert plug for E6 variants here*

[MesiDoomstalker]

1.90+% of spells *DO* require rolls. Touch Attacks, Spell Resistance, Saves.

2.Spells are resource gated already. Wanna tone down casters? Force them to run out by making days last longer than the players want them to last.

3.Mage Slayer is an awesome feat for enemies, just saying.....

4.Players like having agency. Making spells less controllable reduces player agency via randomness, which isn't....ideal.

5.Many of the worst offenders of spells are buffs. This does nothing to affect buffs because failure during a downtime buffing session is meaningless.

*Insert plug for E6 variants here*

As far as rolls are concerned, the percentage of enemies with SR isn't much and generally back-loaded in the higher CRs. Those with attack rolls (touch or otherwise) are not that common.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder Unchained has an Active Spellcasting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/active-spellcasting-variant-rules/) variant that makes casters roll like this. You can combine this with Limited Magic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/limited-magic/) to give them more reasons to roll as well.

[heavyfuel]

1.90+% of spells *DO* require rolls. Touch Attacks, Spell Resistance, Saves.

3.Mage Slayer is an awesome feat for enemies, just saying.....


Wut? Have you never played with/against a God Wizard? Buffing spells require no roll, and even if they aren't so many in raw numbers (they are, but just for the sake of argument), they are extremely prevalent in normal gameplay (fly, haste, [see]invisibiltiy, greater magic weapon, magic vestment, the list goes on and on)

On a different note, I find Mage Slayer to be extremely underwhelming as they can always take a 5ft step before casting, and can't be surprised by it like with Roy's Spellsplinter Maneuver.

[icefractal]

On a different note, I find Mage Slayer to be extremely underwhelming as they can always take a 5ft step before casting, and can't be surprised by it like with Roy's Spellsplinter Maneuver.If you're really focusing on Mage Slayer, I'd assume you'd combine it with a large threatened area - spiked chain + Large size, for instance, and something like Improved Trip so the mages can't just walk away from you. And/or Thicket of Blades - what 5' step?

While it's totally possible for a mage to be prepared for that kind of situation and have defenses/contingencies that prevent it, not all of them do. And without those, it's pretty much game over.

[heavyfuel]

If you're really focusing on Mage Slayer, I'd assume you'd combine it with a large threatened area - spiked chain + Large size, for instance, and something like Improved Trip so the mages can't just walk away from you. And/or Thicket of Blades - what 5' step?

That's a lousy argument. It's like saying Knowledge (Religion) is the best skill in the game because you can ascend to Pun-Pun with it. While Mage Slayer can be strong as part of a combo, by itself, it fails at its job, and only gimps your character (waste of a feat, -4 to all caster levels)

Also, you shouldn't assume that. While this is very well known combo, not everyone wants to play a control fighter. I'd even say the vast majority of people that play melee characters don't. The feat does nothing for them.

Lastly, if you're at a table where this level of optimization is normal, the caster probably has some way to deal with you. Swift/Immediate action spells never provoke, nor does an Anklet of Translation. I'm not saying Spiked Chain + Large Size is TO, but neither are the countermeasures I proposed.

However, my original reply was meant as more of a sidenote and we probably shouldn't unrail this thread. If you want to continue the conversation I suggest a new thread

[Crake]

Pathfinder Unchained has an Active Spellcasting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/active-spellcasting-variant-rules/) variant that makes casters roll like this. You can combine this with Limited Magic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/limited-magic/) to give them more reasons to roll as well.

Those two variants look pretty neat, I might try them out on my NPCs in an upcoming low-magic game. None of the players are playing spellcasters anyway, so it'll only serve to make the game easier on them :smalltongue:

[Fizban]

1.90+% of spells *DO* require rolls. Touch Attacks, Spell Resistance, Saves.

2.Spells are resource gated already. Wanna tone down casters? Force them to run out by making days last longer than the players want them to last.

3.Mage Slayer is an awesome feat for enemies, just saying.....

4.Players like having agency. Making spells less controllable reduces player agency via randomness, which isn't....ideal.

5.Many of the worst offenders of spells are buffs. This does nothing to affect buffs because failure during a downtime buffing session is meaningless.

*Insert plug for E6 variants here*
This. Now, you want to tone down casters, you gotta hit them in the actual problem areas: ammo and range. Buffs are OP thanks to durations, which are a function of ammo, and calls for full-round actions to reduce mobility are actually a response to range. The grandiosely titled Philosopher's Stone (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?210623-3-5-Magic-Remix-The-Philosopher-s-Stone) is a simple set of root level changes that address these problems quickly, by shaving off bonus spells, slashing the standard ranges and durations, and a couple other nods.

For less sweeping changes, you can double down on cutting spell slots. Here's a secret they don't want you to know: those 4+ spells per day each "OP" caster has can more accurately be counted as one spell per party member. There are a bunch of buffs you're supposed to cast on the party simply to survive various situations, but over time people forgot and stopped accepting that reality. Cutting base spells per day down to 1 at each level (2 for spontaneous casters) still leaves them with plenty enough spell slots to snag some glory, their share of glory and not everyone else's. This approach assumes that your game is already designed not to screw over people for lacking survival buffs, by encounter design, magic item distribution, or character builds, but should work wonders for toning down all-caster parties by leaving them with merely twice the expected amount of spells. I wouldn't recommend combining it with the Philosopher's Stone except under the most grueling of parties though.

Edit: hmm, that limited+overclocked magic looks like a pretty solid variant, aside from not addressing what I'd call the root issues, but basing the check on spellcraft gives a massive advantage to int casters as always. More importantly, you run into the same problem as truename magic and any other "roll for a thing you don't usually roll for" system: a fixed known DC that's the same target for every character with the same skill. It's the same as if every monster had the exact same AC for their CR, and every character had full BAB and used the same stat for their attack rolls. The reason rolling to hit works is because foes can and do have vastly different ACs based on multiple factors, many of them visible, while each character can have vastly different attack rolls based on multiple factors, many of them inherent to their stats and class. The only way to come close to replicating this is to base the spell roll targets on. . . well pretty much on AC (someone just had a thread about giving cold iron armor SR, basically that).

[Aharon]

Such a mechanic is already in the game - concentration checks are an excellent tool to hinder casters:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?498396-Short-guide-to-forcing-concentration-checks-and-other-mean-caster-blockers

[Ashtagon]

What the guy above said. The rules to simulate being distracted in battle are already in place through Concentration checks.

[DMVerdandi]

1. Spell points.
Not only have spell points, but have a refreshing mechanic. Rest(Short and long ala 5e) allows you to gain spell points. HOWEVER, Keep the amount of spell points you can have fairly low. Maybe 1/4th of what has been generally put out in the variant. Also making them vitalizing as well.

The idea is that if a wizard at his peak can cast like 2 9th level spells and then be tapped out until his points are refreshed, it kind of makes you allocate your resources a bit better, but rewards use of lower level spells, as they come back faster.

2. Long Duration spells.
Make it so that spells keep the amount of SP used locked away until the duration ends.
If a spell caster wants to cast a spell that has a duration of 10 mins per level, and is at level 20, and the spell costs 15 sp, Those points are sequestered away, and cannot be regained, even when resting. They only come back after the duration ends, naturally or by canceling the spell prematurely THEN resting.

3.Magic stat.
Having a stat that solely grants magic power is a great idea IMO, because it allows for skills dependent on it to exist. Having a magic resistance skill that gives /SR/ for example, or one that modifies saves. Also, it can allow you to use that stat for primary casting, but bonus spell points can come from a secondary stat based on the class. Wizard would get bonus spell points from INT, Cleric WIS, and so on.

4.Decent Cantrips
I have liked the cantrips that have come from the later editions, and generally they work pretty well. Give them little effects that they can do anytime, anywhere, and the real world changing stuff can be from that small pool of power that they have spell points in.

[Darth Ultron]

Thoughts?

Won't change anything. As you wrote it, casters will just about always make the roll. Mostly it will just take up game time.

Some great Tone Down Ideas:

*Use the 1E/2E rules for spell effects, with a tweak or two for whatever edition. For example changing shape was dangerous and might harm or kill a character.

*Add Wild Magic-3X/Pathfinder really, really, really overly puts down the idea in stone that ''this spell does this'' always. So cast a spell and it does what ''page 144'' says it does, All Hail the Rules. Well, change that.....make magic more mysterious and vague and not always so clear cut.

*Do away with the ''everyone knows every spell'' in the world stupid rule and limit the spells that can be used.

*Add just a tad more ''magic resistance'' to all foes. Better saves, magic items, templates and such can boost everything and tone down magic.

*The most complex one is to alter magic and spells so it makes sense and is playable with lots of houserules. It takes some work, but you can fix all of the problems, even more so all the ''tricks'' players will do or try.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The best simple fix is probably to slow down casters' progression to new spells to something like Bard levels (with perhaps a slight boost for low-bab casters). Or only use partial casters-- if you plunder Pathfinder, the Alchemist, Magus, Hunter and Warpriest cover quite a bit of ground.

Combine that with a quick ban list for spells you find truly problematic (I saw "any spell that makes you flip through the monster manual" as a decent rule of thumb once) and excessively weak noncasters (Fighters, etc) and you should see an improvement.

I highly recommend NOT cutting back spells/day or significantly increasing casting times. Doing so is not only less fun (because you don't get to do your thing nearly as often), but pushes casters TOWARDS the most broken spells-- if you only get to cast one spell per fight, it had better be a doozy.

[tedcahill2]

What the guy above said. The rules to simulate being distracted in battle are already in place through Concentration checks.

But there are only specific things that trigger the need to make a concentration check, simply casting a spell while in combat is not one of them. Also, skills don't automatically fail on a 1 like these checks would.

[Fizban]

The best simple fix is probably to slow down casters' progression to new spells to something like Bard levels (with perhaps a slight boost for low-bab casters). Or only use partial casters-- if you plunder Pathfinder, the Alchemist, Magus, Hunter and Warpriest cover quite a bit of ground.
I read a fix once that wanted to restrict casters to the Adept progression except under certain conditions, which is a bit over-complicated and results in some weird spell progressions, but the Adept spells per day table is also available. It's a nice little progression actually, but the delays are huge.

I highly recommend NOT cutting back spells/day or significantly increasing casting times. Doing so is not only less fun (because you don't get to do your thing nearly as often), but pushes casters TOWARDS the most broken spells-- if you only get to cast one spell per fight, it had better be a doozy.
Except you don't have one spell per fight: this is a nerf meant for optimized parties, meaning you'll still have at least two spells of every level you can cast thanks to bonus spells, plus consumables. You pass one spell per fight at 3rd level.

And you just suggested cutting casters down to Bard progression-which reduces their spells per day far more. Delaying entire tiers of spells and bonus slots does the same thing, while also delaying access to the higher level spells that people actually want. People expect a 9th level Wizard to Teleport, not still be waiting for Dimension Door, and the divine caster role is dependent upon receiving their status removal/prevention on time. If you can keep them from passing out in shock and actually build it, I'd expect people to actually enjoy base 1/day more than a Bard progression. And as you already said, if there are any actually problematic spells, you should be banning them in the first place rather than just delaying them. Unless your plan is to delay them and also end the game before those levels, which is just sloppier banning.

*10th level comparison w/20 stat: Bard has 5/4/3/1, base 1/day Wiz has 3/2/2/2/2. That's two 5ths and two 4ths compared to one 4th and three 3rds, the Bard is clearly losing on high level spells per day and has only a slight advantage on 2nd and lower spells. 5th level comparison: 5/2 vs 3/2/2, Bard progression has it even worse. 15th w/24? 6/5/5/4/3 vs 3/3/3/2/2/2/2, a combined seven 3rd-4th vs a combined eight 3rd-7th. Analysis shows that Bard progression is far worse than base 1/day thanks to the bonus spell system (which is why the Philosopher's Stone axes it). I did say that only the most egregiously powerful parties should take both nerfs at once.

And if the whole party is optimized casters I'd say that's still not entirely a bad idea. Char-op says that one high level spell ends the fight, four party members, four encounters per day, that's one spell each plus change. The math's pretty simple, enough that I'd love to see a "sufficiently optimized" party try to actually step up to the claims and then get annihilated by the forces of chaos (dice and the unexpected).


On Concentration as the mandatory roll: yeah, that's way better than spellcraft. Doesn't fix the rest of the problem, but I've had a thought: adding BAB to Tumble DCs is popular, adding BAB to Concentration DCs probably also a thing that's come up, use that. Any time you're within charging or ranged weapon distance of a foe, you have to roll Concentration based on their BAB to cast. Add a bonus to your check for taking a full round action to cast. And trying to close your eyes and pretend they're not there doesn't help.

Edit: apologies to anyone trying to read this before/while I edit, all kinds of typos in the analysis portion.

[Ashtagon]

But there are only specific things that trigger the need to make a concentration check, simply casting a spell while in combat is not one of them. Also, skills don't automatically fail on a 1 like these checks would.

If you're not "threatened", then you're not really "in combat" though.

In all seriousness though, one approach I like is to replace the "10 + spell level" part of spell save DCs with just "15".

[Fizban]

If you're not "threatened", then you're not really "in combat" though.
In DnD, threatened means being within melee reach, which is about 5-10 feet, and ranged weapons never count as threatening. In real life, there's a concept for which I've forgotten the name regarding the fact that a guy with a melee weapon can close a huge distance in the time it takes to draw, aim, and fire a gun (the distance is quite close to DnD charge distance for a 30' speed), and people take cover when bullets are flying. Don't remember the distance at which the movie example takes place at, but the point is that he's being threatened by noise and gunfire, not even a direct melee attack.

The concentration check to avoid provoking when threatened (in melee) is a good start, but only covers dropping your guard against melee attacks, not the actual stress of concentrating in the face of enemy fire, spellcasting, or just being within charge range of a guy with pointy stick. Hence the new mechanic.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I read a fix once that wanted to restrict casters to the Adept progression except under certain conditions, which is a bit over-complicated and results in some weird spell progressions, but the Adept spells per day table is also available. It's a nice little progression actually, but the delays are huge.

Except you don't have one spell per fight: this is a nerf meant for optimized parties, meaning you'll still have at least two spells of every level you can cast thanks to bonus spells, plus consumables. You pass one spell per fight at 3rd level.
Didn't realize you were still allowing bonus spells, but still; it's no fun to cut your ability to use your class features so sharply. It's a nerf that hurts weak casting strategies (healing and blasting most notably) much more than strong ones (buffing, BFC, summoning, and especially downtime minionmancy and divination), which is usually a poor sign.


And you just suggested cutting casters down to Bard progression-which reduces their spells per day far more.
That's why I also suggested boosting spells/day for low-BAB casters like the Wizard, who can't fall back on weapon combat like the Cleric and Druid can. (To be precise, I'd recommend a progression as a Bard of 1 level higher, with 7th level spells appearing at 18th level, and with +1 spell/spell level/day. Add another +1 for being a spontaneous caster, and a third bonus spell or some bonus Reserve feats if you're a low-BAB caster. I'd also suggest a hard cap on how many spells a prepared caster can choose from at any one time, so they're more of a prepared-off-a-big-list-of-spells-known-- sort of like how Wizards theoretically work if they can't scribe too many extra spells)


Delaying entire tiers of spells and bonus slots does the same thing, while also delaying access to the higher level spells that people actually want. People expect a 9th level Wizard to Teleport, not still be waiting for Dimension Door, and the divine caster role is dependent upon receiving their status removal/prevention on time.
That's... kind of the point? It draws the game out more, extends the sweet spot before the crazy strong spells start popping up. It slows the quadratic growth of casters so it more closely parallels the linear growth of other characters. The Bard list has a lot of the same crazy-strong spells as the Sorcerer/Wizard list does, but do you hear the same complaints? No, because the really strong spells come at a more appropriate time. Of course you're restricting access to higher-level spells; that's the entire point of toning down casters. We're just going about it in different ways-- your method pushes you farther into the "one-punch-man" archetype the designers perhaps originally intended, while mine is more of a "less power, more punches" strategy.

You get 2nds ASAP and the iconic thirds at the same time as a Sorcerer does (6th level), after which the progression slows down-- game-changing 4ths at level 9 (a two-level delay), campaign-changing 5ths at 12th (three levels late), solid 6ths at 15th (five levels late), and you you top out at world-changing 7ths at 18th (six levels late)-- spells like Greater Teleport, Finger of Death, Control Weather, and Holy Word make pretty good capstones.

If you run into problems with status recovery (and I don't think you will; most of those seem to cluster around 3rd to 4th level, which are barely delayed), you can drop those spells down a level, or just hold off on poorly designed if-you-don't-have-this-spell-you-loose monsters.


On Concentration as the mandatory roll: yeah, that's way better than spellcraft. Doesn't fix the rest of the problem, but I've had a thought: adding BAB to Tumble DCs is popular, adding BAB to Concentration DCs probably also a thing that's come up, use that. Any time you're within charging or ranged weapon distance of a foe, you have to roll Concentration based on their BAB to cast. Add a bonus to your check for taking a full round action to cast.
BAB-to-defensive-casting-DC is good. You might also throw in a 5e style limit on how many active spells you can have at once, and/or force you to make Concentration checks when damaged to maintain even non-Concentration duration spells.

[MesiDoomstalker]

If you're not "threatened", then you're not really "in combat" though.

In all seriousness though, one approach I like is to replace the "10 + spell level" part of spell save DCs with just "15".

Uh. A flat 15 save DC is all kinds of problematic. At low levels, your DC is really high (equivalent of having an 18) but as your level goes up that 15 becomes more and more pitiful till (around 8th level or so) enemies only fail saves on a 1.

[Snowbluff]

Didn't realize you were still allowing bonus spells, but still; it's no fun to cut your ability to use your class features so sharply. It's a nerf that hurts weak casting strategies (healing and blasting most notably) much more than strong ones (buffing, BFC, summoning, and especially downtime minionmancy and divination), which is usually a poor sign.


This. Don't forget DC casting is nerfed by lowering spell levels as well.

Spellcasting isn't a problem at all. Spells are a problem. If you want to limit the power of spell casters, talk to your players about what kind of spells are appropriate for the level of game you are playing.

[Jormengand]

I'm considering house ruling that any spell, that does not already require an attack roll, requires the caster succeed at a spell check DC 10 + spell level, in which they add their caster level and their primary casting attribute to their roll (additional +2 synergy bonus for having 5 ranks in concentration). Like with attack rolls, and 20 will automatically succeed, and a 1 will automatically fail. Failure in this case would not cause them to expend the spell, they simply fail to cast it with that action.

Thoughts?

Clearly, you should make it a truespeak check, with a DC of 15, plus twice the target's CR, or the target's CL if it's an item, or ten times the spell's level if it doesn't target. That would be fair.

[Psyren]

Didn't realize you were still allowing bonus spells, but still; it's no fun to cut your ability to use your class features so sharply. It's a nerf that hurts weak casting strategies (healing and blasting most notably) much more than strong ones (buffing, BFC, summoning, and especially downtime minionmancy and divination), which is usually a poor sign.


This. Don't forget DC casting is nerfed by lowering spell levels as well.

Spellcasting isn't a problem at all. Spells are a problem. If you want to limit the power of spell casters, talk to your players about what kind of spells are appropriate for the level of game you are playing.

I agree that spells themselves are the true culprit but these approaches are not mutually exclusive. I can implement nerfs like Limited Magic, Simiplifed Spellcasting and Esoteric Components while also making specific problem children like Planar Binding into more difficult-to-use Rituals and outright banning things like Sacred Geometry. And because a lot of the work has been done for me (both by the initial designers and the crowdsourced community that have used these rules in practice) it won't even be that difficult.

[Fizban]

I'd also suggest a hard cap on how many spells a prepared caster can choose from at any one time, so they're more of a prepared-off-a-big-list-of-spells-known-- sort of like how Wizards theoretically work if they can't scribe too many extra spells)
That one's as easy as just not giving the wizard access to every spell they want, as nothing ever guaranteed it. Clerics and Druids a bit more problematic but when I look for bombastic spells there's only so many standouts. The easiest solution is to give them PHB+X spells known.

We're just going about it in different ways-- your method pushes you farther into the "one-punch-man" archetype the designers perhaps originally intended, while mine is more of a "less power, more punches" strategy.
I also prefer leaving the full range of spells intact if for no other reason than so the DM doesn't have to fiat their existence in for special occasions, and I'd think it'd be easier to convince people to accept a nerf that leaves their highest level spells intact.

7ths at 18th (six levels late)-- spells like Greater Teleport, Finger of Death, Control Weather, and Holy Word make pretty good capstones.
But with no room for more. When you're fighting monsters that get Wail of the Banshee (possibly even a few levels ago), knowing the best you can ever do is Finger of Death seems a little lackluster. Resurrection, True Resurrection, Mind Blank, Discern Location, Miracle, Wish, all tools for high level adventures with high level monsters that are cut off, some of which are required to deal with 18th level monsters and will need to be subbed in. Really, I think there's fewer spells that need to be delayed than there are that are harmed or cut off by the delay, but that's all grit to taste.

If you run into problems with status recovery (and I don't think you will; most of those seem to cluster around 3rd to 4th level, which are barely delayed), you can drop those spells down a level, or just hold off on poorly designed if-you-don't-have-this-spell-you-loose monsters.
Aside from Resurrection/True Resurrection it's mostly Stone to Flesh (as it's already higher level than it should be), but Death Ward and Restoration for fighting undead are the other biggies. Swarms of incorporeal undead are used often by killer DMs and modules alike and they're supposed to be survivable by spamming Death Ward/Restoration, delaying those (and reducing the base casts)* make a CR->EL based ghost ball much harder to stop so they'll need to drop. Freedom of Movement and Water Breathing not quite as bad as long as you have the option of not entering the water/grapple range.

There's also magic items, with all consumables going up in price unless there are mysterious crafters with the original progressions, and tons of permanent/daily items that ought to go up in price as well. The optimized party has more spells to burn thanks to WBL optimization, but properly applying the full changes of 6th level casting would reduce that power at the same time (and be a ton of work).

*I'm doing the same of course and assuming magic items/multiple divine casters are covering it, which is less likely if the items are more expensive and/or the divine casters are allergic to filling their top slots with passive survival buffs.

[Zanos]

This. Don't forget DC casting is nerfed by lowering spell levels as well.

Spellcasting isn't a problem at all. Spells are a problem. If you want to limit the power of spell casters, talk to your players about what kind of spells are appropriate for the level of game you are playing.
I agree.

Nothing is inherently overpowered about Vancian casting, or any of the other magic systems in 3.5. The problem is that some spells are much more impactful than others at the same level. Blanket nerfs are inevitably going to hurt weaker casting strategies harder, which is less than ideal. And I personally don't think some of the stronger spells are necessarily broken. Solid Fog is really good, but used intelligently it supports the party more than it overshadows them, and doesn't really break the game. On the other hand, animate dead, planar binding, and polymorph can effectively replace a fighter or whatever your favorite fighter analog is, which is bad.

The best "fix" for spellcasting is going to take a bit of time, where you go through the available spells and ban the ones you think are problematic. I recommend starting with the polymorph and planar binding lines.

[Deeds]

When all else fails you could talk to your players about your expectations on spell use.

[tedcahill2]

Does spell casting become inherently more balance if you simply remove the wizard class? It seems like a lot of the issues I read about are the fact that a wizard, given the time and resources, can adapt to any situation ever.

So what if I just run a no-wizard game. Would I see more balanced casting from the other classes?

[Zanos]

Does spell casting become inherently more balance if you simply remove the wizard class? It seems like a lot of the issues I read about are the fact that a wizard, given the time and resources, can adapt to any situation ever.

So what if I just run a no-wizard game. Would I see more balanced casting from the other classes?
No. Druids and Clerics are actually a little worse in this respect, because they automatically know their entire lists, and are capable in other roles besides.

Wizards are the poster child for spellcasters because they're the most spellcasty of the prepared casters. Also nature is dumb and religion is lame.

[JNAProductions]

Does spell casting become inherently more balance if you simply remove the wizard class? It seems like a lot of the issues I read about are the fact that a wizard, given the time and resources, can adapt to any situation ever.

So what if I just run a no-wizard game. Would I see more balanced casting from the other classes?

Somewhat? Depends how high-op they are. At high enough op-fu levels, Sorcerers are basically Wizards, for instance.

[Deeds]

Does spell casting become inherently more balance if you simply remove the wizard class? It seems like a lot of the issues I read about are the fact that a wizard, given the time and resources, can adapt to any situation ever.

So what if I just run a no-wizard game. Would I see more balanced casting from the other classes?
Wizard is merely the poster child for tier 1.

[Ashtagon]

Uh. A flat 15 save DC is all kinds of problematic. At low levels, your DC is really high (equivalent of having an 18) but as your level goes up that 15 becomes more and more pitiful till (around 8th level or so) enemies only fail saves on a 1.

And yet... it makes for a fairly close emulation of how in 1e/2e, the spell's level had no intrinsic effect on how difficult the spell was to save against. It's a buff to lower level spells, true, but it's also a nerf to higher level spells, which is where the SoD madness mostly lies.

[JNAProductions]

Right, which would lead players to using Minionmancy (no saves), buffs (no saves) or some of the no-save, just suck spells.

[Telok]

And yet... it makes for a fairly close emulation of how in 1e/2e, the spell's level had no intrinsic effect on how difficult the spell was to save against. It's a buff to lower level spells, true, but it's also a nerf to higher level spells, which is where the SoD madness mostly lies.

My preference is also for something more like AD&D casting.
1) Remove the Concentration skill. There is no longer a skill here to put skill points into or to boost in any way.
2) No bonus spells for high stats. Makes the classes that are supposed to have more spells per day actually have a meaningful difference.
3) No save DC boosters outside of the primary casting stat. Keeps saving throws relevant.
4) No caster level boosters to negate SR. Keeps spell resistance relevant.
5) SR applies to all spells. Keeps spell resistance relevant.

If you want you could just swap in the old AD&D spells, but you may be surprised. They were powerful. Haste was literally an extra full round of actions, it won combats hands down and no questions asked. It was the year of ageing and the associated system shock roll that kept it in check. Polymorph was very similar to 3.5 polymorph, very powerful. But it too carried the system shock roll for shapechanging with it.

[Ashtagon]

Right, which would lead players to using Minionmancy (no saves), buffs (no saves) or some of the no-save, just suck spells.

Any of which are still better than having a PC slain on a single die roll.

[JNAProductions]

And when they get fed up with not having access to spells and resort to using Arcane Thesis to toss out an Irresistible Phantasmal Killer at 13th level, that's better?

[Zanos]

My preference is also for something more like AD&D casting.
1) Remove the Concentration skill. There is no longer a skill here to put skill points into or to boost in any way.
2) No bonus spells for high stats. Makes the classes that are supposed to have more spells per day actually have a meaningful difference.
3) No save DC boosters outside of the primary casting stat. Keeps saving throws relevant.
4) No caster level boosters to negate SR. Keeps spell resistance relevant.
5) SR applies to all spells. Keeps spell resistance relevant.

If you want you could just swap in the old AD&D spells, but you may be surprised. They were powerful. Haste was literally an extra full round of actions, it won combats hands down and no questions asked. It was the year of ageing and the associated system shock roll that kept it in check. Polymorph was very similar to 3.5 polymorph, very powerful. But it too carried the system shock roll for shapechanging with it.
2nd edition spells were actually more powerful to make up for all the stuff you're talking about bringing back, most of which was pretty frustrating to deal with. Oh, and fireball did the same damage but enemies had much less health.

1) So spellcasting automatically fails if you're distracted? If an enemy with reach walks next to you you're just SoL?
2) 2 slots per level is a pretty meaningful difference. Even if your primary casting stat is stacked that's still probably 30-40% more spells.
3) They are relevant. The issue with this at high levels is the difference between the scaling of good vs. bad saves more than anything to do with spell saves. Boosts to DCs really aren't that common.
4) SR numbers are relevant unless you invest build resources to make it less relevant.
5) Probably fair, at least for spells that directly affect something.

It seems like you've pretty much restricted any method of investing feats or otherwise to make yourself better at casting, even in niche ways. Since most SR/Saves are keyed for a roughly 50/50 chance of success, an enemy with spell resistance has about a 25% chance of being affected by any given spell, which seems like garbage to me. Or just incentive to play a summoner.



And when they get fed up with not having access to spells and resort to using Arcane Thesis to toss out an Irresistible Phantasmal Killer at 13th level, that's better?
I think it's 15 + Ability Modifier instead of 10 + Spell Level + Ability modifier, which is only a major malus for your highest level spells.

[JNAProductions]

Well, there two versions. The original just disallows saves. Too bad, it happens.

The other version increases save DC by 10.

[Zanos]

Well, there two versions. The original just disallows saves. Too bad, it happens.

The other version increases save DC by 10.
No, I meant for the proposed house rule.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Does spell casting become inherently more balance if you simply remove the wizard class? It seems like a lot of the issues I read about are the fact that a wizard, given the time and resources, can adapt to any situation ever.

So what if I just run a no-wizard game. Would I see more balanced casting from the other classes?
Depends. Wizards are arguably the best in terms of raw spellpower, but Clerics and Druids can pull off most of the same stuff.

If it's specifically the flexibility that's bothering you, removing prepared (full) casters certainly helps a lot. A Sorcerer or Favored Soul is much more predictable, outside of excessive cheese that I'm assuming your players are reasonable enough not to use. If you want to go farther, limiting casters further to thematic lists (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-(3-5)) (as the Beguiler or Warmage) is even better. Doesn't do much about the power of certain spells, and you can certainly optimize a Beguiler or something into a holy terror, but it's an improvement.

Basically, quick fixes for caster superiority are hard, because the problem is baked so deeply into the system.

[Telok]

1) So spellcasting automatically fails if you're distracted? If an enemy with reach walks next to you you're just SoL? If they can hit you
2) 2 slots per level is a pretty meaningful difference. Even if your primary casting stat is stacked that's still probably 30-40% more spells.
3) They are relevant. The issue with this at high levels is the difference between the scaling of good vs. bad saves more than anything to do with spell saves. Boosts to DCs really aren't that common. My table often sees DCs of 30 at 15th level, your experience may be different
4) SR numbers are relevant unless you invest build resources to make it less relevant. Or have access to wands of True Casting or just choose SR=no spells
5) Probably fair, at least for spells that directly affect something. The whole conjuration/SR=no thing really is an issue because spell immunity is actually pretty meaningless

It seems like you've pretty much restricted any method of investing feats or otherwise to make yourself better at casting, even in niche ways.

Since the topic of the thread is toning down casters, yeah cutting off the ability to make casting even better than it already is sounds just fine. As for the other concerns that's pretty close to how casting was in AD&D and wizards and clerics didn't have problems being decent classes then.

[Zanos]

3) DC 30 at 15 would be 10+8+12 with highest level spells, which is either a 34 casting stat or equivalent amount of other increases. Average data across CR 15 shows an average save of +16 at CR 15. A 14 or higher to save is pretty nasty, but the save isn't irrelevant and CR = APL encounters aren't supposed to be difficult anyway.

Getting a 34 casting stat at level 15 is probably outside of WBL unless you blew literally all your wealth on a tome and a headband, but I suppose SF or GSF or similar could account for the difference.

In any case I checked the SRD for monster special abilities and found the following at CR 15:
Dragon Breath Weapons (DC 25-27)
Marut Fists (DC 31)
Neothelid Breath Weapon (DC 30)

So DCs in that range at that level aren't insane.

4) Wands of true casting take a standard action to activate, which blows your entire turn. You can't buy a quickened wand of it either because that's a 4th level spell. I agreed with you that SR = No spells shouldn't really exist.
5) I meant more for summoning stuff or dropping a rock on someone with telekinesis. Conjuration orbs not having SR is dumb, but there's other situations where it's indirect enough that SR shouldn't really apply.


Since the topic of the thread is toning down casters, yeah cutting off the ability to make casting even better than it already is sounds just fine. As for the other concerns that's pretty close to how casting was in AD&D and wizards and clerics didn't have problems being decent classes then.
We both already agreed that AD&D spells were actually more potent than the are in 3.5 in many cases.

[Arbane]

Anyone plugged Spheres of Power (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/spheres-of-power/) yet? It's for Pathfinder, and I keep hearing nice things about it as a way of reining in the spellcasters.

Seems to me (part of) the problem with D&D casters is that the basic model in older editions was "I have a few Win Buttons prepared, now I have to expend them at the best times." But 3.X expanded that into "I have ALL the Win Buttons". Vancian spellcasting is supposed to balance power of spells with their one-shot nature, and I don't think it worked.

[TotallyNotEvil]

... Talk to your players?

I mean, there are some spells that sort of taint the rest by association, such as Polymorph and Celerity or even stinkier cheese such as Shivering Touch, while Dim Door or Solid Fog or even the infamous Orbs aren't really that bad.

Give some incentives to play spontanous casters (maybe actual class features, for one). Already tones down strenght to far, far more reasonable levels.

The problem really are the spells, not the spellcasting mechanic, IMO. Just do away with what really breaks the game, I find the rest works out reasonably well. Not allowing them to thrawl through the most obscure sourcebooks for broken ones also helps.

Blanket nerfs/buffs have to be very well thought out, because the math is built into the system, and it's easy to not see the repercurssions of what you just did.

A few stronger-than-usual magic items for the non-casters, and allowing/incentivizing Tome of Battle or Incarnum and such should do the trick.

I wouldn't mess with reducing spells/day, wizards and crossbows are infamous for a reason.

[EldritchWeaver]

Anyone plugged Spheres of Power (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/spheres-of-power/) yet? It's for Pathfinder, and I keep hearing nice things about it as a way of reining in the spellcasters.

Seems to me (part of) the problem with D&D casters is that the basic model in older editions was "I have a few Win Buttons prepared, now I have to expend them at the best times." But 3.X expanded that into "I have ALL the Win Buttons". Vancian spellcasting is supposed to balance power of spells with their one-shot nature, and I don't think it worked.

Not to my knowledge. But SoP has divided powers into basic and advanced, the latter which are literally world-changing. You can keep the problematic effects out of the game, while still allowing the non-problematic ones on case-by-case basis. Or maybe the half-blanket approach "no advanced talents except from these spheres". Like you could leave the Life sphere in to deal with resurrections and other "get the party back on their feet" effects, but deny scrying or large scale destructive effects.

In addition, as SoP is far more multi-classing friendly (caster levels stack from different classes), you can even weaken the casters further by enforcing that no high-caster classes (meaning caster level = class level) may be used or say that at most half of the levels may be from high-caster classes and the rest is from mid-casters (caster level = 3/4 class level) and low-casters (caster level = 1/2 class level). But that may not be necessary as casters are limited like sorcerers in their known spells (although you can push that somewhat).

[Ualaa]

If you went with a Spheres of Power system, the system already breaks talents into normal talents and advanced talents, with the default being that advanced talents are not available unless the DM allows them.

Anything that changes the nature of the game world drastically, is generally an advanced talent. Gandalf could not just Teleport Frodo and the Ring to the fires of mount doom... So warp effects, beyond the range of a dimension door are advanced talents.

You could further restrict things by allowing specific spheres only... rather than an Incanter has this many talents, spend them how you want... An Incanter has access to these specific spheres if they follow this tradition and a different set for another tradition.

You could make several traditions to simulate different styles of magic, maybe making each at war with the others so casters have an enemy irregardless of what the adventure has you doing... if you're openly a practitioner of magic, then other traditions are aware of you and will likely surprise you at the worst possible time.

If you were to restrict the Spell Points, or force drawbacks as part of a tradition and not allow spell points, that would also be a nerf to casters. In the Sphere system, most effects can be used freely in a base form and with the expenditure of a spell point, there is an enhanced form.

The drawback, 'Draining Casting' would make a caster seriously consider when to use magic. Basically, any casting of anything, whether it uses a spell point or not, causes non-lethal damage that scales with your caster level. Worse, these magic non-lethal hit points of damage can only be cured with rest, once per day. So if your caster has 40 hit points, and has cast 20 non-lethal damage worth of spells up to this point, they're 20 non-lethal damage, or 21 actual damage (at which point non-lethal exceeds lethal, and they pass out) from being out of the battle.

[Mordaedil]

I suppose if you ban clerics, druids, wizards and sorcerers from your gamecore, you would have a fairly balanced game. Actually, remove fighter as well.

Now your choices are barbarian, bard, monk, ranger, rogue or paladin. Your bard can serve as both the party healer and spellcaster, but won't outshine any of the other classes that much. You can call the barbarian a fighter, the monk a pugilist, the bard a spellcaster if it makes you feel better.

[EldritchWeaver]

I suppose if you ban clerics, druids, wizards and sorcerers from your gamecore, you would have a fairly balanced game. Actually, remove fighter as well.

Now your choices are barbarian, bard, monk, ranger, rogue or paladin. Your bard can serve as both the party healer and spellcaster, but won't outshine any of the other classes that much. You can call the barbarian a fighter, the monk a pugilist, the bard a spellcaster if it makes you feel better.

Oracles are still allowed? Or do you just refer to core classes? If you'd expand the list to newer classes, then it would be simpler to say to ban all 9th level casters and to use unchained versions of the classes, where available. Chained rogues and monks are after all relatively bad and on par with the fighter.

Still you might need access to select high level spells. In that case employ ritual rules for out of combat availability (including GM permission). There are the ones from Spheres of Power or from Occult Adventures, which you can look at.

[Zanos]

Oracles are still allowed? Or do you just refer to core classes? If you'd expand the list to newer classes, then it would be simpler to say to ban all 9th level casters and to use unchained versions of the classes, where available. Chained rogues and monks are after all relatively bad and on par with the fighter.

Still you might need access to select high level spells. In that case employ ritual rules for out of combat availability (including GM permission). There are the ones from Spheres of Power or from Occult Adventures, which you can look at.
He was referring to 3.5.

[EldritchWeaver]

He was referring to 3.5.

Oh right, still, the overall idea remains true. Later base classes were better balanced in 3.5, too.

[Jormengand]

Actually, remove fighter as well.

Now your choices [include]... monk.

I'm confused at the logic behind removing the second-weakest class but not the weakest one.

[The Vagabond]

When I want to nerf high-level spellcasters, I usually just limit the highest level spell they can cast by some abitrary method (haven't fully developed it yet, because parsing through entire spell lists is a physical hell). A wizard can prepare and cast any spell of their school (With Conjuration (Creation) spells being moved to Evocation), but can only cast spells of an opposing school if a bard of equal level could (So first level spells at first level, second level spell at level four, third level spells at eight, ect.)

Haven't created spell groupings for non-wizard classes yet, though. Stuff like Bloodline spells, a given descriptor, Saving throw (harmless), saving throw (Will), or some other specification should work. The best method would be to simply design "Spheres" and "Bloodlines" for each nine-level caster, but that's very, VERY time intensive, and cannot be handled on a corporate level.

This doesn't completely eliminate the high-level abilities of a given spell-caster, but does severely hamper plenty of their ambitions. Grants the Wizard all of his toys, but encourages him to focus on a given area. The more troublesome spells I plan on turning into Rituals, where a given spell of the same school, or two opposing schools, are cast at once. This makes a lot of abilities notably more difficult to use, keeping it out of the hands of most PC's unless the DM decides otherwise.

So Simalcrum would require a casting of Shadow Conjuration (Greater), and, let's say for now Summon Monster VII, making it a very high level option, or requiring two wizards to cast.

An alternate method I've always wanted to see developed would be to take an opposite approach, and take some feats, and instead grant them as options that can be trained into by spending time. Like having a player be able to grapple without provoking attacks of opportunity by spending three days training, or granting a dwarf Shatterspell (http://archivesofnethys.com/Feats.aspx?Category=Combat) by spending a year and a day training with a BaB of 10. Shifts the power up for mundanes, while opening up options to mechanize abilities that would be to niche to spend a feat on. It would be, however, balanced in a similar way to how Spellcasting is currently, which to say, balanced more by player knowledge than by the spells themselves.

[Mordaedil]

I'm confused at the logic behind removing the second-weakest class but not the weakest one.

I honestly just took out the fighter because it isn't particularly exciting to play and is essentially just a feat chugging class. I left the monk in because it still has something in the way of flavor, but honestly I have no special connection to the monk, so axing it too is fine.