Soft ban on Tier 1 and 2 classes?

[heavyfuel]

Unlike a hard ban, a soft ban would still allow players that really, REALLY want to go for a specific class to go for it, but at a disadvantage that exists as way to discourage them. These would be clearly laid out in front of the players before character creation even begun. The idea is not to punish players, but, again, to discourage certain classes.

The disadvantages can vary from purely mechanical to purely role-play and anything in between, but let's focus on mechanical ones for now. I'll throw some numbers around for the sake of example, don't get too hung up on them though:


A classic example of this is having lower point-buy for some classes. This is even suggested in the Tier System for Classes post. StP Erudites still exist, but they only get 20 PB compared to everyone else's 32 or something along these lines

Something else can be giving XP penlties to specific classes, similar to how multiclass XP penalties work in a real game (or better, in a real game where they aren't houseruled away). Taking a level in Druid means you'll be receiving 20% less XP until you leave the Druid class.

Perhaps even straight up chassis nerfs, though I don't really like this idea. Clerics getting a Wizard's chassis (d4s, poor Fort saves, half bab) makes them much less attractive. So is a Wizard with 1 less spells per day at every level.


I think this is definitely better than hard banning these classes and saying only I, the DM, have access to them.

My personal preference is option 2, giving XP penalties, as it allows for easy multiclassing and simply delays the strength of these classes.

Any opinions and suggestions are welcome.

[Jormengand]

XP reductions are weird and wonky, because lower-level characters get more XP from encounters anyway, meaning the druids and wizards will be stuck basically permanently one level, and no more than that, behind, except that at certain points they won't even be that far behind.

You could put some kind of meaningful price or restriction on actually casting spells, although that would cause problems for bards and such as well. You can try things like fixed sorcerer lists (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20843044&postcount=3). Or you can rely on your players not to abuse the classes horribly.

[Gildedragon]

It depends what you're going for, worldwise. Personally I'm fonder of either cutting out the OP spells, or limiting the level of spell accessible.
Additionally I like to give everyone access to Incantations (see UA/SRD) for all manner of things, particularly rezzing and ability damage healing and suchlike.

[EldritchWeaver]

Softbanning things IMO simply doesn't work. Either you kill of the use of the class completely or someone discovers a way how to make the restrictions matter less - or not at all. Usually in the latter case, that doesn't stop the problem builds. Like reducing the number of spell slots increases the reliance on long duration spells.

If you really dislike the tier 1 casters, completely ban them. You could prevent them from using a library of spells, which means to fix the lists or require a spell known mechanism. But then you need to ensure that the classes still work by themselves or in relation to other classes. As the prepared casters have their greatest strengths in their flexibility, turning them into (divine) sorcerers removes their distinguishing feature. And positions them in a niche which is occupied by sorcerer and favored soul. Which means either the new wizard is outright worse than the sorcerer or you change the wizard into some variant of sorcerer, which competes for the very same players.

Or backport Spheres of Power, where nearly all casters are fixed-powers spontaneous casters.

[Eldariel]

I like making Calling dangerous (remove the out-of-school effect Cha-check) and going with average 1 round cast time spells. Plus of course restrict metamagic reduction and remove free MM or cap by max castable level. Makes allday buffing harder and casters a bit slower in combat, giving opponents windows to act and making protection more important: martial niche, hooray! (Kinda). Of course, stupid broken stuff is banned or nerfed.

[Pleh]

There is no perfect solution. Even the strongest bans aren't going to work if the players won't concede to the gentleman's agreement.

If they agree to not try to break the game, it doesn't matter if they try to play pun pun. They can play down to the proper tier. If they can't, or won't, restrain themselves, fighting against their competitive spirit will only frustrate someone and push others to work harder to "win".

Best thing to do is say, "I don't want my story to compete with T1/T2 characters." And let them know that cooperation with this restriction is a prerequisite to playing your game. Then work with them case by case if there needs to be compromise.

There's also always the danger of reverse psychology. Sometimes, by targeting character options to discourage their use, you inspire that player's creativity to imagine how much more exceptional that option is in this world. Who wouldn't want their character to be even more unique, edgy, and related to the specific campaign setting than by being the exception to the world's rules?

Beyond that, I've always liked when my DMs could give a solid list of what books were allowed. I know Core Only can still be broken, but some books help T1 classes more than others.

Along the same line of thought, there is also E6. You could improvise the ruleset so T1/T2 classes are prestige classes or base classes with only 6 levels

[Ualaa]

Spheres of Power, an alternate magic system for Pathfinder, has a section called 'Disadvantages'.

You could take a look at that.
For example, casting a spell could cause non-lethal damage, which scales with your caster level.
The higher you are, the more non-lethal you take per casting.

And unlike normal non-lethal damage, the only way to recover this is through rest and recuperation.
Magic cannot cure it, by any means.

There are around a dozen general drawbacks to choose from.
Not saying you need to use a Spheres of Power drawback, just that that is a source of inspiration, that provides a negative for being a Tier 1 class without messing around with the chassis of the class.

Maybe you assign three drawbacks to the Tier 1 classes, and 1 drawback (or 2) to the Tier 2 classes.
Or perhaps different drawbacks such that a Wizard has A/B/C while a Cleric has B/E/F and a Druid has G/H/J.

[Dingoman]

I think the best possible option is to talk with your players and find what exactly they want to do with their character, and let them flourish in that area. I've got a 13th level archivist/malconvoker in a long running campaign, and he's a boss at summoning monsters. He's got a prayerbook full of utility spells too, but they're mostly focused on buffing the party and his summons and on bending his planar bindings to his will. The DM isn't stingy with adding spells to his prayer book, but if he was it would really limit the options. Same with Wizards, since they have identical mechanics when it comes to learning and preparing spells.

If your concern is with them outshining the other characters, maybe beef up those that lag behind, or have a talk with the individual players and ask them to take more of a team approach. As someone said earlier in the thread, putting boundaries around a player that isn't going to respect the team nature of the game isn't going to stop their attempts to break past those boundaries.

[The Viscount]

It's difficult to pull off a soft ban. I think the better way would be to go about restricting spell lists or access, such as not allowing the wizard to learn new spells by buying scrolls/copying from others spellbooks. Or as said just make it a hard ban, and talk with players about finding something close to what they want among the rest of the classes.

Lowering the point buy is not a strong barrier, since the T1 and T2 casters can for the most part get by with only investment in their casting stat, most of them are close to if not actually SAD.

[lylsyly]

I think it all really depends on your players and how they feel about not having the classes available ...

In the Friday night SRD campaign I run there are no Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, or Wizards :shocking:

Bards cast from level 1, get a familiar, and use the Arcane list.
Paladins cast from level 1, get a mount (at level 1), and use the Cleric list.
Rangers cast from Level 1, get an animal companion (at level 1), and use the Druid List.

There are no spells higher than level 3, no summon monster or planar allies (due to the cosmology setup I use), but I kept the SNA spells :extremelyshocked:

Yeah, it makes everybody a gish (sorta), but my 5 players are having fun with the campaign (been 15 weeks as of last Friday) and that is really the only thing that counts, right?

[Pleh]

Lowering the point buy is not a strong barrier, since the T1 and T2 casters can for the most part get by with only investment in their casting stat, most of them are close to if not actually SAD.

You can strengthen this barrier by additonally placing ability score caps, like 5e did. Laying down a solid 16 cap score (then allowing race bonuses to push to 18 or 20, but being selective with available races) will naturally push any point buy to disperse the points and min max slightly less.

I'm not recommending a specific cap, just giving examples of possibilities.

[Florian]

As usual, it´s not the classes that are powerful, it´s the spells and a "soft ban" will not change that.

It´s easier to be up front with the players and simply say what is and isn´t allowed at the table and go from there.

[OzzyKP]

The biggest built in restriction to magic classes is that their spells are limited per day, unlike a martial class who can attack all day long. In practice however this doesn't come up due to the limited number of encounters and limited length of battles.

I think an elegant way to balance things would be to just have a grueling day of adventure. Double the number of encounters and those Tier1 folks are going to be twiddling their thumbs more after their spells are gone.

[Gildedragon]

The biggest built in restriction to magic classes is that their spells are limited per day, unlike a martial class who can attack all day long. In practice however this doesn't come up due to the limited number of encounters and limited length of battles.

I think an elegant way to balance things would be to just have a grueling day of adventure. Double the number of encounters and those Tier1 folks are going to be twiddling their thumbs more after their spells are gone.

That actually just pushes towards DMM persist and Incantatrix style shenanigans.

[Jormengand]

The biggest built in restriction to magic classes is that their spells are limited per day, unlike a martial class who can attack all day long. In practice however this doesn't come up due to the limited number of encounters and limited length of battles.

Martial classes are limited: not in how much they can attack but in how much they can safely get attacked. Sure, you can classify this as further strain more on the cleric's spell slots than anything else, but it's not entirely fair to do so and it just makes the fighter feel more reliant on the cleric.

[Cosi]

I think you need to step back and explain why you want to do this. Are you concerned that casters will overshadow non-casters? Are you concerned that casters will break your campaign? What exactly are you trying to achieve by making being a caster slightly less good?

[RedWarlock]

In that situation, I would go with dismantling their systemic advantages via refit. Chassis is one way, though a secondary concern. I prefer dropping them to slower casting progressions (bard or so). Borrow the Magus/Warpriest caster charts from PF for wizards/clerics&druids, that kind of thing.

PB can be ignored, XP gets wonky with multiclass, they make it harder to start but don't impact the actual play.

[Pugwampy]

I would rather buff the lower tier classes instead of nerfing the higher tier ones .

[Esprit15]

Like others, I'd say the best solution is to remove the problem spells. Don't want resurrections? The spells don't exist anymore. Teleporting around the world makes travel too easy? Teleportation spells don't exist. It tends to be less clunky to remove the specifically problematic elements of magic users than to try and dissuade people from using them.

[Hackulator]

Better to just control what sort of things they can get in game, and maybe nerf some of the insanely overpowered spells. Don't let them take the most broken spells or feat combos if they are already tier 1. Make sure they understand there will be limitations on their power and you want the game to be fun for all all classes. Trust your players, and if they abuse that trust annihilate their characters with more optimized characters because you are the GM and you can do that.

[Elkad]

Point buy penalties don't work. I just start with a level of Rogue or Ranger or something, and then put 19 levels into whatever full-casting class I want.

If you are going to give an XP penalty, it needs to be big. 20% isn't enough. 50% is probably right. 1e and 2e used something similar. L2 was 1250xp for a Thief, but 2500xp for a Magic-User

You can also massively restrict spell lists. All the spells are there, but the "free" spells come off a tightly held list - including for Clerics. Everything else has to be researched individually, with a discount if you find a scroll or someone to train you (50% ?). But that pretty much just falls under "making something annoying to use isn't balance".

You can nerf specific spells. Like planar binding. Require Truenames - so you end up calling the same Efreet over and over. Who not only won't have another Wish to grant, he'll get increasingly annoyed with you. For various Polymorph/Shapechange effects, use the restricted rules from Pathfinder, or Giant's own proposed houserules. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com)

I've considered just rebuilding the spell tables. Make each spell level take 3 class levels instead of 2. 5th level spells at 13th level. 25th level to get your first 9th.


I would rather buff the lower tier classes instead of nerfing the higher tier ones .

Shy of giving them full casting of their own, that isn't possible. You can flavor those spells as the Fighter punching a hole in reality and stepping through, but it's still Teleport.

[Hackulator]

Point buy penalties don't work. I just start with a level of Rogue or Ranger or something, and then put 19 levels into whatever full-casting class I want.


What GM would ever let you get away with that?

[Gildedragon]

What GM would ever let you get away with that?

Say the PC is gunning for Enlightened Fist or Arcane Trickster or Anima Mage or suchlike... Picking the right class for one's first level becomes super important.
It not only makes a ton of sense to set Wiz or other fullcasters for later (because of how skillpoints work) but also because one would have a V significant stat advantage by picking something else at lvl 1

[Hackulator]

Say the PC is gunning for Enlightened Fist or Arcane Trickster or Anima Mage or suchlike... Picking the right class for one's first level becomes super important.
It not only makes a ton of sense to set Wiz or other fullcasters for later (because of how skillpoints work) but also because one would have a V significant stat advantage by picking something else at lvl 1

I didn't ask why it was a good idea, I asked what GM would create a rule for containing the power of primary casters and then be ok with you getting around it in a manner that is clearly against his intentions.

[Gnaeus]

We often gestalt, due to only having 3 active PCs. T1s can't gestalt, and T2s can only gestalt with NPC classes pretty much solves it for us. We wind up with lots of ToB or Incarna with half casting.

[Elkad]

I didn't ask why it was a good idea, I asked what GM would create a rule for containing the power of primary casters and then be ok with you getting around it in a manner that is clearly against his intentions.

If the GM is supposed to enforce it by whim, where is the line?
Can I dip Cleric 1 for Travel Devotion on my Fighter?
How about 3 levels of Wizard to get my own Invisibility and other minor magics on my Rogue?
What if I spend my whole career alternating between Paladin and Sorcerer one level at a time? If that's OK, why wouldn't Paly2, Sorc10, Paly+8 be OK? It still ends up 10/10.
How about a nice Bard. Meets the rules fine. Oops, there he goes into Sublime Chord. Does he have to unspend those extra starting points?

[Godskook]

I think this is definitely better than hard banning these classes and saying only I, the DM, have access to them.

1.Why? Why do you think soft-banning is better? Is it just your assessment of the rules in a theoretical sense, or do you have reasons?

2.There's absolutely nothing wrong with the DM having tools the PCs do not. The game, as a medium, is designed around this as a fundamental premise. You don't like it as a general standard, you'll need to do *FAR* more houseruling than you've proposed here.

3.Who says you as the DM have access to them? That's not a legitimate presumption in the world of houseruling where you think Tier 1s are overly powerful for PCs. Its just as plausible, albeit a different balance point, to delete the classes from your world entirely, along with anything else.

[Hackulator]

If the GM is supposed to enforce it by whim, where is the line?
Can I dip Cleric 1 for Travel Devotion on my Fighter?
How about 3 levels of Wizard to get my own Invisibility and other minor magics on my Rogue?
What if I spend my whole career alternating between Paladin and Sorcerer one level at a time? If that's OK, why wouldn't Paly2, Sorc10, Paly+8 be OK? It still ends up 10/10.
How about a nice Bard. Meets the rules fine. Oops, there he goes into Sublime Chord. Does he have to unspend those extra starting points?

The line is pretty clear, don't purposely do stuff to try to get around the rules. If at some point you have a reasonable in game reason that you are changing over, that's fine. If you actually have players who will lie to you about their intentions to get around the rules of your game, the problem is the people you are playing with, not the rules.

[Gildedragon]

The line is pretty clear, don't purposely do stuff to try to get around the rules. If at some point you have a reasonable in game reason that you are changing over, that's fine. If you actually have players who will lie to you about their intentions to get around the rules of your game, the problem is the people you are playing with, not the rules.

At which point you might as well have a gentleman's agreement over the expected power level; making the caster nerf redundant

[Hackulator]

At which point you might as well have a gentleman's agreement over the expected power level; making the caster nerf redundant

I mean that's how most the games I play in are. Casters are nerfed by people understanding that sometimes the DM will just say "no" to you having a certain spell or using some insane combo. However, if you want to have more specific rules for clarity that's fine too. The rules are there so players know how things are supposed to work in your game. If someone is actively trying to get around those rules and lying to you to do so, they are a problem player.

To be honest, reading about the issues people have in their games here I have to assume I'm probably just older than most of the posters here and the people I play with are a little more grown up.

[Dimers]

I like the idea of gestalt combos based on tier. If you play a tier 1 class, that's all you get. Tier 2 can gestalt with tier 6, tier 3 can gestalt with tier 5, and you can gestalt two tier 4s together. That's part "soft ban" and part "making everyone else awesome".

I haven't tried this in actual play, though.

[Gildedragon]

I mean that's how most the games I play in are. Casters are nerfed by people understanding that sometimes the DM will just say "no" to you having a certain spell or using some insane combo. However, if you want to have more specific rules for clarity that's fine too. The rules are there so players know how things are supposed to work in your game. If someone is actively trying to get around those rules and lying to you to do so, they are a problem player.

To be honest, reading about the issues people have in their games here I have to assume I'm probably just older than most of the posters here and the people I play with are a little more grown up.

There's a couple things: people don't much complain about serviceable to excellent players or DMs. So you see fewer threads about the stuff. I mean a "Help! My players are very reasonable!" or a "My DM is lenient but fair: what can I do about it?" thread would be kinda silly.
Also a lot of the stuff here is theoretical: going for text based rulings and implications, or trying to make a build super efficient.
Like, say, my latest character is a generalist arcane domain (custom: healing) wizard into Warweaver + abridged Spellguard (eliminating the first level) not because I yearn to break the game on my knee but because the party is all martials and healing and artillery are sorely needed. So I go for a more powerful than standard character with the understanding I'm playing support and not main damage dealer.

[Elkad]

The line is pretty clear, don't purposely do stuff to try to get around the rules. If at some point you have a reasonable in game reason that you are changing over, that's fine. If you actually have players who will lie to you about their intentions to get around the rules of your game, the problem is the people you are playing with, not the rules.

You have to define what "getting around the rules" is. You can't get by on "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Or you end up arguing people who see their own decision as completely rational and in the spirit of the game.

So you have to judge what is a lie and what isn't? Sure, my example Ranger1/Wizard19 might be, but just playing your character and seeing where life takes him leads to interesting class choices in many cases.

My characters are never planned out more than a level or two in advance, and often not even that. I adapt them to fit the party and their own experiences.

If I make a 14 Int fighter, am I automatically suspected as a future cheesemonger? Maybe I just want to be like Roy and have some skillpoints.

Bard to Sublime Chord starts out as an average T3, but moves into T2 handily at the upper levels. Do you tell him he has to start with the lower pointbuy? What if he's new and not only doesn't know what Tiers are, he hasn't even heard of Sublime Chord, he just wants to make a Bard cause it looks cool?

How about the low-op player that wants a Druid because it comes with a cute kitty? And then will spend her days as a T3 buffing her pet, casting heals in combat, and blasting stuff with Call Lightning (Incidentally, I've just described most of my wife's characters. High-Op to her is using SNA for whatever animal has the best melee attack. No Venomfire Fleshrakers. No summoning stuff with it's own casting. She doesn't even use Wildshape).

And what if you have 2 Druids? One played like that, and one that's memorized Eggy's full handbook and wants to take every trick? Do they have to get different pointbuys?

[Jay R]

People are enjoying the game as it's written. Therefore you don't need to fix it.

[Nifft]

A classic example of this is having lower point-buy for some classes. This is even suggested in the Tier System for Classes post. StP Erudites still exist, but they only get 20 PB compared to everyone else's 32 or something along these lines

Something else can be giving XP penlties to specific classes, similar to how multiclass XP penalties work in a real game (or better, in a real game where they aren't houseruled away). Taking a level in Druid means you'll be receiving 20% less XP until you leave the Druid class.

Perhaps even straight up chassis nerfs, though I don't really like this idea. Clerics getting a Wizard's chassis (d4s, poor Fort saves, half bab) makes them much less attractive. So is a Wizard with 1 less spells per day at every level.


I don't think you can balance characters across tiers in any simple way.

If you're looking for a game where the PCs are all roughly balanced against each other, then I'd suggest you sit down with them and hear what they want to play, and get them to all agree to a small band of tiers -- if everyone wants to play either a T2 or a T3, you're fine, as those play nicely with each other.

[StreamOfTheSky]

That actually just pushes towards DMM persist and Incantatrix style shenanigans.

I have long adventuring days and even travel days I do all encounters along the way condensed into a single day of the travel (but still usually not that many).
I also ban Incantatrix and Persistent Spell and Nightsticks (w/o those two, DMM itself is actually pretty fair).

Check and mate. :smallcool:

[Eldariel]

People are enjoying the game as it's written. Therefore you don't need to fix it.

Just because people enjoy something doesn't make it perfect. Nor that all players in a given group find it agreeable. Certainly, further improvements can enable greater and more varied enjoyment.

[LTwerewolf]

I have long adventuring days and even travel days I do all encounters along the way condensed into a single day of the travel (but still usually not that many).
I also ban Incantatrix and Persistent Spell and Nightsticks (w/o those two, DMM itself is actually pretty fair).

Check and mate. :smallcool:

I also ban the poorly written incantatrix, but I let people use a single nightstick. It just doesn't stack with itself.

[Florian]

If the GM is supposed to enforce it by whim, where is the line?

The line is very clear and it´s an up-front deal: Lower PB but T1/T2 as options, higher PB and the option is off the table for that character. Your choice, but once made, you´ve got to stick to it.

[Schattenbach]

Some lazy solution might be to use Sanity rules (www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm) in some way that's bad for spellcasting. You could use different progressions (as far as Sanity-related issues for spells go) for the different class tiers, too, as well as to make it clear that Mind Blank and such isn't helping much as far as preventing Sanity loss through spellcasting goes.

[weckar]

Why not just go for the hard ban? Nobody can use them, not even the DM?

[Jay R]

Why not just go for the hard ban? Nobody can use them, not even the DM?

Because they're popular, and the game works well with them.

You're trying to "fix" one of the best parts of the game.

[heavyfuel]

Wow, this kinda blew up. I'll try to respond to some of the more popular arguments

Q: Why do it in the first place?
A: Cuz I don't feel like dealing with high level spells in the players' hands ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Q: So why don't I hard ban them?
A: I really don't like hard bans. Plus, the world I'm building doesn't really make sense unless high level spells are in play.

Q: Can't I ban them for players only?
A: Maybe the player REALLY wants to play a real Wizard. Not a warmage blaster, nor a beguiler illusionist. But a proper Wizard, who has access to all sorts of spells. I don't want to forbid these player from doing so, but I am trying my best to discourage them.

Also, I DO think it's unfair if players don't get to use the same resources as the DM. Imagine if you tell your DM about Shivering Touch and he bans it cuz it's way too strong, only to use it against your group two sessions later to CdG the group's Fighter. Wouldn't you feel cheated? I would.

Q: Shouldn't I just go for a gentleman's agreement?

Well, the soft ban is in addition to the gentleman's agreement my players and I have had since forever. But the agreement by itself is simply not good enough. What I, the DM, consider OP, might be something the players don't.


I guess that's it. If I missed anything or if any other questions arise I'll make another post

[Pleh]

Because they're popular, and the game works well with them.

You're trying to "fix" one of the best parts of the game.

"Best" being rather subjective here. Whether a character build works well with the rules or handles well for a player is not the same thing as meshing well with the campaign setting.

But you're right that the problem with any kind of player power ban contradicts the fundamental rpg principle of the power fantasy. That's why the best solution here is to communicate to the players that *this specific* story is trivial and unfun to play if they just break the rules over the wizard's knee

[Florian]

@heavyfuel:

That actually _are_ pretty lame arguments. As gms, we use things that are pretty unique to our side of the table all the time, beginning with creating a setting.

[Hackulator]

You have to define what "getting around the rules" is. You can't get by on "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Or you end up arguing people who see their own decision as completely rational and in the spirit of the game.

So you have to judge what is a lie and what isn't? Sure, my example Ranger1/Wizard19 might be, but just playing your character and seeing where life takes him leads to interesting class choices in many cases.

My characters are never planned out more than a level or two in advance, and often not even that. I adapt them to fit the party and their own experiences.

If I make a 14 Int fighter, am I automatically suspected as a future cheesemonger? Maybe I just want to be like Roy and have some skillpoints.

Bard to Sublime Chord starts out as an average T3, but moves into T2 handily at the upper levels. Do you tell him he has to start with the lower pointbuy? What if he's new and not only doesn't know what Tiers are, he hasn't even heard of Sublime Chord, he just wants to make a Bard cause it looks cool?

How about the low-op player that wants a Druid because it comes with a cute kitty? And then will spend her days as a T3 buffing her pet, casting heals in combat, and blasting stuff with Call Lightning (Incidentally, I've just described most of my wife's characters. High-Op to her is using SNA for whatever animal has the best melee attack. No Venomfire Fleshrakers. No summoning stuff with it's own casting. She doesn't even use Wildshape).

And what if you have 2 Druids? One played like that, and one that's memorized Eggy's full handbook and wants to take every trick? Do they have to get different pointbuys?

I just choose to trust my players. I make my rules and intentions clear to them and then don't worry about it too much. If someone ends up multiclassing into something I take their word that it wasn't a scam from the beginning, but I've been DMing for literally over 20 years and if someone becomes a problem its super obvious.

As for the two druids, there are lots of ways to deal with that. If someone is playing a companion based druid and falls behind the rest of the party, I'll just give them a better companion or find a way to buff the one they have if they are attached to it. It's really not hard. As for someone who wants to use every cheese option that exists, I just say no.

[Schattenbach]

Wow, this kinda blew up. I'll try to respond to some of the more popular arguments

Q: Why do it in the first place?
A: Cuz I don't feel like dealing with high level spells in the players' hands ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Q: So why don't I hard ban them?
A: I really don't like hard bans. Plus, the world I'm building doesn't really make sense unless high level spells are in play.

Q: Can't I ban them for players only?
A: Maybe the player REALLY wants to play a real Wizard. Not a warmage blaster, nor a beguiler illusionist. But a proper Wizard, who has access to all sorts of spells. I don't want to forbid these player from doing so, but I am trying my best to discourage them.

In that case, slapping high Sanity loss as cost on the problematic classes / types of spells seems like one of the easiest solutions. You even have some decent argument for making these classes not only unattractive but also outright unsuiteable for PCs ... the high sanity loss those classes suffer from time to time combined with the high reality-altering power they possess makes it - from most somewhat more advanced societies point of view - likely necessary to put them under strict observation. As in ... these classes usually don#t adventure ... or don't adventure once they're past a certain point.

[heavyfuel]

@heavyfuel:

That actually _are_ pretty lame arguments. As gms, we use things that are pretty unique to our side of the table all the time, beginning with creating a setting.

Aside from creating the setting and getting to use monsters and traps more often than players, is there really anything else?

You can make the argument that that our characters aren't limited by XP and can therefore use builds that don't work on low levels but are great at higher ones. But the option to try these builds is still available to players

[Gildedragon]

Wow, this kinda blew up. I'll try to respond to some of the more popular arguments

Q: Why do it in the first place?
A: Cuz I don't feel like dealing with high level spells in the players' hands ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then just ban those spells. Or put a cap on max Spell Level. Spell slots of <wherever> through 9 still exist but are for metamagic-ed lower level spells

Q: So why don't I hard ban them?
A: I really don't like hard bans. Plus, the world I'm building doesn't really make sense unless high level spells are in play.Incantations. Yes this will put them back into the PCs hands but in a more limited fashion.

Q: Can't I ban them for players only?
A: Maybe the player REALLY wants to play a real Wizard. Not a warmage blaster, nor a beguiler illusionist. But a proper Wizard, who has access to all sorts of spells. I don't want to forbid these player from doing so, but I am trying my best to discourage them.

Also, I DO think it's unfair if players don't get to use the same resources as the DM. Imagine if you tell your DM about Shivering Touch and he bans it cuz it's way too strong, only to use it against your group two sessions later to CdG the group's Fighter. Wouldn't you feel cheated? I would.
Dont be trying to discourage them. It is weird and manipulative and comes off as if any nerf you add to casters is personal (which it is cause you're trying to get them particularly to not use a wizard). For it not to be personal the nerfs would need to be such that even you as the DM won't use the wizards in encounters... at which point you might as well hard ban; otherwise you're just trying to expiate yourself from the fact you functionally have two rule sets one stringent one for pcs and one lax one for your side. Don't.


Q: Shouldn't I just go for a gentleman's agreement?

Well, the soft ban is in addition to the gentleman's agreement my players and I have had since forever. But the agreement by itself is simply not good enough. What I, the DM, consider OP, might be something the players don't. the agreement is all that you really need. If things get too high power for you then you talk to the Players... or have them meet more powerful enemies.
Overall what I get from this is "I don't like the idea of the players having characters more powerful than me"

[The Vagabond]

My simple method of nerfing 9 level spellcasters is by limiting their highest level spells: Clerics are limited to 9 level spells in their cleric's total domains, but can cast any of their other spells if a bard of equal level could. So a cleric of Desna could, at third level, prepare Align Weapon, remove paralysis, and Aid, plus any domain spell, and may request other cleric spells for their god to grant. At fourth level, they can prepare any second level cleric spell. This goes on for an indeterminate period of time.

For Wizards, they can prepare any spell from their own school at any level, but can only prepare spells from other schools as a bard of equal level would. So a Conjuration (Summoner) focused wizard could prepare any summoning spell at 3rd level, and any non-barred wizard school spells at 4th.

[Cosi]

Q: Why do it in the first place?
A: Cuz I don't feel like dealing with high level spells in the players' hands ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Has it occurred to you to play E6 (or with some other level cap) instead of trying to nerf casters? If you don't want people to cast 6th level spells, it seems quite reasonable to simply play E10, where no one ever casts any 6th level spells. Then people can play Wizards, and you never have to worry about whatever spells concern you.


Q: So why don't I hard ban them?
A: I really don't like hard bans. Plus, the world I'm building doesn't really make sense unless high level spells are in play.

Why are you designing a world that only makes sense with high level spells in it if you don't want to deal with high level spells?

[heavyfuel]

Has it occurred to you to play E6 (or with some other level cap) instead of trying to nerf casters? If you don't want people to cast 6th level spells, it seems quite reasonable to simply play E10, where no one ever casts any 6th level spells. Then people can play Wizards, and you never have to worry about whatever spells concern you.

Why are you designing a world that only makes sense with high level spells in it if you don't want to deal with high level spells?

We are finishing a 3 years long E6 campaign, so yeah, it has occurred ut us :smallbiggrin:


In that case, slapping high Sanity loss as cost on the problematic classes / types of spells seems like one of the easiest solutions. You even have some decent argument for making these classes not only unattractive but also outright unsuiteable for PCs ... the high sanity loss those classes suffer from time to time combined with the high reality-altering power they possess makes it - from most somewhat more advanced societies point of view - likely necessary to put them under strict observation. As in ... these classes usually don#t adventure ... or don't adventure once they're past a certain point.

It's a nice suggestion, but I don't want every caster to be insane and under heavy surveilance


Incantations. Yes this will put them back into the PCs hands but in a more limited fashion.

Dont be trying to discourage them. It is weird and manipulative and comes off as if any nerf you add to casters is personal (which it is cause you're trying to get them particularly to not use a wizard). For it not to be personal the nerfs would need to be such that even you as the DM won't use the wizards in encounters... at which point you might as well hard ban; otherwise you're just trying to expiate yourself from the fact you functionally have two rule sets one stringent one for pcs and one lax one for your side. Don't.
the agreement is all that you really need. If things get too high power for you then you talk to the Players... or have them meet more powerful enemies.
Overall what I get from this is "I don't like the idea of the players having characters more powerful than me"

Like I told Cosi, we are playing an E6 campaign and it's full of incantations, I just want to do them again

And how can something that is told straight up be manipulative? It's fair game to warn players about houserules, and if they don't like them, they better have a damn good argument against it. One that is supported by at least the majority of the other players.

It's hardly a hard ban if the wizards they encounter suffer the same penalties they suffer (lower level due to XP penalty or lower ability points due to lower PB)

The idea that I don't like players being stronger than me is ridiculous to say the least. Even the most optimised PC can't compete with NPCs if the DM doesn't want them to. The only thing is that it's a lot more work for the DM. Work he may not be willing to do cuz he works two jobs and plays a game to have fun, not to come up with increasing complex builds

[Elderand]

It's hardly a hard ban if the wizards they encounter suffer the same penalties they suffer (lower level due to XP penalty or lower ability points due to lower PB)

NPC are whatever level the dm decide they are, any XP penalty only impact player characters. And given how sad spellcasters generally are, lower point buy for spellcaster will have almost zero effect on them.

[heavyfuel]

NPC are whatever level the dm decide they are, any XP penalty only impact player characters. And given how sad spellcasters generally are, lower point buy for spellcaster will have almost zero effect on them.

Not necessarily. As Jormengand said in the very first reply, these characters will only be a level or two behind. A very simple solution is to say that a Lv9 druid is CR 11 and gives the appropriate xp (which probably makes the CR system more accurate)

[Pleh]

It's a nice suggestion, but I don't want every caster to be insane and under heavy surveilance

Well, the sanity rules build in a sharp need for balance. Wizards walk the metaphysical razor's edge. Many don't go crazy, but that's because they know ancient wizard mental exercises to stay grounded. The higher the spell level, the more difficult it is to shoulder the strain on your mind.

You have a world built on the backs of high magic users who gave up their minds in shaping the course of civilization.

No one can really put them under surveilance, because wizards are masters of nondetection. No one can restrain them to an asylum, because they have all manner of tools to escape a prison.

Most insane high level wizards simply slip away into another plane (where their behavior looks more normal) or to some secluded dungeon where they can continue their "study" without interruption.

But fear not, humble blaster mages. The ravages of your spells will not easily break your will as those that shape the fabric of reality often do.

[Gildedragon]

And how can something that is told straight up be manipulative? It's fair game to warn players about houserules, and if they don't like them, they better have a damn good argument against it. One that is supported by at least the majority of the other players.
Because instead of saying what you wanot, ie no 9-casters, or no broken casters, or suchlike, you instead want to make casters suck so much for the PCs that the PCs won't take the class.


It's hardly a hard ban if the wizards they encounter suffer the same penalties they suffer (lower level due to XP penalty or lower ability points due to lower PB)

The idea that I don't like players being stronger than me is ridiculous to say the least. Even the most optimised PC can't compete with NPCs if the DM doesn't want them to. The only thing is that it's a lot more work for the DM. Work he may not be willing to do cuz he works two jobs and plays a game to have fun, not to come up with increasing complex builds
Mmmm nope. NPCs can get by with lower point buys or more situational/limited use abilities because of how they appear.
For example: if all characters in the world get only 1 wish ever, PCs will save it for some great effect, campaign end probabever; NPCs will blow it on stat boosts or banishing the PCs elsewhere or some other relatively trivial use. Or the discussion in savage species re. Mummy rot.
So essentially the nerfs that the PCs feel, swing the situation much more in the NPCs favor.
Like if spellcasting carried taint: PCS, especially good ones, will avoid casting. NPCs, villains, won't.

[Jay R]

The best solution to over-powerful PCs is to play the game at the lower levels, where the classes are more balanced, and all characters are challenged equally.

[Jormengand]

Honestly, the best way to deal with this is just to say up-front: "Though there will be Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes in the game, I'd really rather you didn't play them. If you definitely want to, that's fine, but you're going to have to work with me and I want to check your spell/power selections."

[Eldariel]

The best solution to over-powerful PCs is to play the game at the lower levels, where the classes are more balanced, and all characters are challenged equally.

Where's the fun power in that? And if you can't challenge high level PCs, we aren't trying.

[Godskook]

Aside from creating the setting and getting to use monsters and traps more often than players, is there really anything else?

1.Everything that has disproportionate value to NPCs relative to PCs, such as potions. For 300g, an NPC can have an item PCs gladly pay 16kgp to own. A 5-charge wand of fireball lasts the rest of the NPC's life, but barely survives a session in the hands of a PC.

2*.Everything that has a different value for CR compared to RHD+LA. They basically all have lower CR modifiers. Seriously, a young Red Dragon is ECL *19*, but only CR 7. Wanna know how many actual PCs play young Red Dragons by RAW? Basically 0. You're not keeping up with level 19 PCs with that. You're weaker than a Fighter with a flight magic item. Hell, he probably flies better than you too, in-combat. If you think this counts as "letting the PCs have access too", you're fooling yourself.

3*.Everything without an LA modifier. Including *CLASSICS*, such as Dragons, Trolls, and Divine Ranks. Back to Red Dragons, where our Young Red Dragon ages 1 category, becomes CR 10, but is suddenly ECL -. If we assume LA+6, the comparable party is ECL 22, and this un-LA-able dragon is the DM's villain at CR 10, which means unfortunate PCs might see him as early as level 6(1/4 of 15% of encounters are CR+4-ish) or less(5% are CR+5 or more).

[heavyfuel]

1.Everything that has disproportionate value to NPCs relative to PCs, such as potions. For 300g, an NPC can have an item PCs gladly pay 16kgp to own. A 5-charge wand of fireball lasts the rest of the NPC's life, but barely survives a session in the hands of a PC.

So? These are all options you have. You don't have to use them.

I never said the DM doesn't have access to things the players do, I just said it's unfair to use such things.

As for points 2 and 3, they refer to monsters, which I've already conceded it's somethings players can't do as effectively.

[johnbragg]

Quick and Dirty.

Leave the Tier 2s alone. They already have built-in limitations with their spells known.

For the Tier 1s, drop their spells-per-day to the Bard casting progression, advanced one level (so that the first level Tier 1 caster gets a first level spell.)

Go ahead and ban the Tier 5s. Refluff Barbarian Rage into Battle Focus for players who want a martial who isn't a barbarian.

[Morphic tide]

Well, I'd have actually accessible spells be restricted to the Bard's spell slot level progression, thereby forcing them to take metamagic feats to be using their higher level slots effectively and holding off problem spells until they are less problematic or, in the case of 7-9ths, never getting them or only getting them in Epic. For Wizards, you can hold them back by not packing a magic mart of scrolls. Make them have issues getting ahold of scrolls for the problem spells or do away with access to them, making the Wizards either not get access to them or having to spend their valuable 2 spells per level on it, limiting their arsenal. You can even force them to meet particular requirements, like Shadowcasters do, needing to get spells in chains you put together.

Don't soft-ban them. Soft-ban the problematic spells by making them unable to be used until later on and making them have harsher requirements. Polymorph spells got an Errata that makes it so that you need to have a piece of the creature you are turning into as an expended material component. Enforce this, and make it hard or impossible to get ahold of abusable creatures through it.

Druids should be hard-banned though. There's no nerf that doesn't overhaul the class entirely that makes them t3. Getting rid of all their spellcasting leaves them t2 thanks to Wildshape and Animal Companion. Animal Companion and Wildshape each are easily t4 things entirely on their own, with a good argument for t3.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I also ban the poorly written incantatrix, but I let people use a single nightstick. It just doesn't stack with itself.

I'm fine w/ allowing a single night stick, too. I just banned them completely, it was simpler and there's other ways to get more turn uses per day. But allowing 1 is fine.


Druids should be hard-banned though. There's no nerf that doesn't overhaul the class entirely that makes them t3. Getting rid of all their spellcasting leaves them t2 thanks to Wildshape and Animal Companion. Animal Companion and Wildshape each are easily t4 things entirely on their own, with a good argument for t3.
Umm...Wizards and Clerics are stronger than Druids, though. And w/ enough splat support, Sorcerers arguably are, too.

Better spell list trumps all the Druid stuff.
"I can summon lots of meat shields." "I can summon things with spell-like abilities and other unique features to exploit."

"I get a pet Fighter." *casts an enchantment spell* "Hey, look! So do I! A literal Fighter, with actual bonus feats and an Int slightly higher than 2!"

"I get all sorts of kelp, vine, and thorn spells to halt movement and shut down warriors." "That's cute, I actually get spells to shut down the real threat...other casters."

"I can turn into all sorts of creatures." "So can I, except with less restrictions than you."

"Yeah? Welll...I get nifty class features!" "I get Wish/Miracle. And the prestige classes both of us will take outstrip those 'nifty' features anyway."

[LTwerewolf]

I'd have to disagree with druids being the weakest of the three. Eggynack makes a better argument out of it than I do though.

[Nifft]

With shapechange, Druids also get access to wish as (Su).

In my experience, Druids are quite competitive with the other T1s.

That said, I suspect this isn't the right thread for this discussion.

[Godskook]

As for points 2 and 3, they refer to monsters, which I've already conceded it's somethings players can't do as effectively.

Ok, so you're conceding the *VAST* majority of DM options. Do you think you still have a point when you say "is there really anything else?"? Cause at this point, I'm inclined to think you're agreeing with Florian and I when he said "That actually _are_ pretty lame arguments. As gms, we use things that are pretty unique to our side of the table all the time", except for the fact that you've been trying to contradict that point at every post you reply to on it.

(Also, I wasn't sure how wide you extended the term monster from your previous post, but now I know it at least extends as far as Drow.)

[heavyfuel]

Ok, so you're conceding the *VAST* majority of DM options. Do you think you still have a point when you say "is there really anything else?"? Cause at this point, I'm inclined to think you're agreeing with Florian and I when he said "That actually _are_ pretty lame arguments. As gms, we use things that are pretty unique to our side of the table all the time", except for the fact that you've been trying to contradict that point at every post you reply to on it.

(Also, I wasn't sure how wide you extended the term monster from your previous post, but now I know it at least extends as far as Drow.)

You can have whatever interpretation of this you prefer. The thing is, DMs use creatures that were made to be used as NPCs. Nothing wrong with that.

That doesn't mean only DMs should use things made for PCs (the classes are in the PLAYER'S handbook, after all)

Arguing that "DMs use monsters, therefore there's no problem with them playing a class they banned from the players" is honestly laughable

[Pugwampy]

Shy of giving them full casting of their own, that isn't possible. You can flavor those spells as the Fighter punching a hole in reality and stepping through, but it's still Teleport.

Okay i see now . Its a high level campaign . Play at level 1 . Spell chuckers are useless at level 1 and most level 1 games wont go beyond level 10.

Life for the overworked DM is just that easy .

[Eldariel]

Okay i see now . Its a high level campaign . Play at level 1 . Spell chuckers are useless at level 1 and most level 1 games wont go beyond level 10.

Life for the overworked DM is just that easy .

Psh. Spellcasters are only weak on level 1 if they have no clue of what they are doing. And who wants to play level 1 anyways.

[johnbragg]

Wow, this kinda blew up. I'll try to respond to some of the more popular arguments

Q: Why do it in the first place?
A: Cuz I don't feel like dealing with high level spells in the players' hands ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Q: So why don't I hard ban them?
A: I really don't like hard bans. Plus, the world I'm building doesn't really make sense unless high level spells are in play.

OK. So high level spells have to be available, but not easily.

Are you sure you need to mass-nerf Tier 2 casters? Because that would make the spells available, but for any given caster you'd have a limit to the size of the problem--you can come up with a workable gentlemen's agreement/houserule system for planar binding, or polymorphing, or summoning, or Wall of X infinite money shenanigans, without having to rewrite the entire 3x spell system.

You can limit the Tier 2s further if you houserule that the most flexible spells (polymorph, summoning, planar binding) are actually NOT infinitely flexible and the lists are somehow limited.

If you can live with that, then you declare that the specialization is the price of ultimate power, and limit the "Tier 1" casters to the Bard's spells per day table, maybe advancing it one level (the 1st level Bard only has cantrips), maybe adding 7th level spells at 18-20.



Q: Can't I ban them for players only?
A: Maybe the player REALLY wants to play a real Wizard. Not a warmage blaster, nor a beguiler illusionist. But a proper Wizard, who has access to all sorts of spells. I don't want to forbid these player from doing so, but I am trying my best to discourage them.

OK. I think the limited-progression wizard has the flavor of a wizard, at the expense of usually being one spell level behind in firepower, with a LOT fewer spells per day.

If you're starting at 10th level, Mialee could go Sorcerer (6/6/6/5/3 per day, 5/4/3/2/1 known) or Wizard* (3/3/3/1 per day, knows ALL TEH SPELLZ)

[Pugwampy]

Psh. Spellcasters are only weak on level 1 if they have no clue of what they are doing. And who wants to play level 1 anyways.

No one who wants to be a spellchucker thats who . :smallbiggrin:

I always DM at level 1 . My favorite beasties are level 1 and 2 beasties. The new kid who knows nothing of this will appreciate being level 1 .

The higher level your players , the harder your work becomes , why rush it ?

[Morphic tide]

Important thing to note about t1 classes: Tiers are an optimizer's construct. If you take away the magic mart and summoning, Wizards suddenly drop below t1 because they have fewer answers to problems than Sorcerers. If you give no downtime greater than a day, Artificers have to do their crafting while the rest of the party sleeps, because that's the only half-sure 8 hours of inactivity they get. Interrupting this ruins whatever they were working on.

You can do a lot of nerfing of t1 classes with campaign circumstances, because several of the t1 classes are dependent on access to downtime, raw GP, particular loot or seeing certain things. For Druids, you can require them to pass a Knowledge check upon seeing an animal/plant/elemental to be able to turn into it, giving two layers of control by making it so that you must allow them to see the creature and they must pass a Knowledge check you set the rules for.

[Godskook]

Arguing that "DMs use monsters, therefore there's no problem with them playing a class they banned from the players" is honestly laughable

Yet you don't bother to give any valid reason as to why its laughable.

There's no qualitative difference here, regardless of sourcebook, between "monsters" and "classes" that makes it "not ok" for a DM to use base classes he refuses to give his players, while it being ok for him to use Dragons.

*LAUGHABLY*, certain monsters actually require this very conflict, as they get tier 1 casting classes as racial features, at progressions that sometimes make them superior to taking levels in the actual classes. Planetars, notably, have access to 9th level spells, casting as a Cleric, but is only CR 16. So in that case, not only would you have to violate your own ruleset to use a Planetar, but you'd be getting more power for your buck than if you had just built a Human Cleric 17.

[Keltest]

Personally, I don't like the idea of a soft ban either, but if you insist on doing it, one way is to require access to a trainer before you can level up in a specific class. They still get XP, they just cant actually get the benefits of the next level without a trainer. Somebody to help you actually improve what youre doing based on your experience. Fighter traners can be in every camp, town, city, cave, bog and swamp where people live, while any wizard trainer to get you past 3rd level is only in the capitol's palace. If they put in the effort to go back and get that wizard level every time they level up, theyre obviously determined to play it, and if the party wont or cant make that run there, the wizard is still getting XP, so he can either multiclass if he wants to, or level up the next time they actually make it to the trainer.

[Morphic tide]

Personally, I don't like the idea of a soft ban either, but if you insist on doing it, one way is to require access to a trainer before you can level up in a specific class. They still get XP, they just cant actually get the benefits of the next level without a trainer. Somebody to help you actually improve what youre doing based on your experience. Fighter traners can be in every camp, town, city, cave, bog and swamp where people live, while any wizard trainer to get you past 3rd level is only in the capitol's palace. If they put in the effort to go back and get that wizard level every time they level up, theyre obviously determined to play it, and if the party wont or cant make that run there, the wizard is still getting XP, so he can either multiclass if he wants to, or level up the next time they actually make it to the trainer.

To extend this, you could base it on the Starting Age section. Essentially, use the Random Starting Age table for the difficulty of locating training, and the Tier for the difficulty of the levelling event. Sorcerers, for instance, are in the lowest rung, alongside Barbarians and Rogues. So they seem like they should need no actual trainer, given that all three are very much low-skill in-universe classes.

However, Sorcerers are t2, so they should need something significant to get a level up. Rogues, similarly, are rather effective in a lot of situations. Barbarians are rather narrow-use, though. So, Sorcerers should need something moderately expensive/hard to come by under this setup, while Rogues seem like they need something more than just "I level up." Barbarians? They have basically nothing but combat and their fluff is very heavily focused on being fuelled by raw Rage over skill.

So, Sorcerers can level up through high-magic events. Kill a Dragon of, say, at least half your hit dice and bathing in its blood would be a perfectly acceptable example. Hard to find Dragons and outright killing them is difficult, so gaining a level in a t2 class by doing so seems appropriate. Basically, magical creature with spell-like or racial casting as a thing to kill, or stuff involving magical materials or higher-level caster exposure as requirements for levelling. Rogues, meanwhile, can be going through a fairly simple test of skill with any thief's guild group for the level-up. Not strictly training, but rather doing a mission that actually requires player skill instead of just mechanical power. Barbarians just level, possibly with the singular condition of it being during or immediately after a fight with CR>ECL, something that is easy to have happen.

Then Fighters, Paladins, Bards and Rangers are the next age group up. Fighters need actual training, yes, but it needs to be dirt-cheap and dead-easy and/or able to have them self-teach when needed due to how low they are on the versatility and power. Same for Paladins and Rangers. Bards, though, have abilities that make them problematic in the hands of a good player, so it needs some controls on it. I don't know what to do, but it's kinda complicated.

For the top tier of starting age, you have Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Monks. Clearly, Wizards, Clerics and Druids need specialized training that's hard to come by, possibly from magical beings relating to their own powers at higher levels. Monks though... Are hard to work into the pattern. They are one of the worst classes in the entire game, although they can be improved a surprising amount by feats players typically don't look at. Like the feats that improve Natural Attacks, such as Improved Natural Attack which bumps up the damage dice of a natural attack by one size category.

[RoboEmperor]

Nothing beats a gentlemen's agreement.

Low-op I just play a wizard that summons spiders to net enemies with, or go blaster. I have yet to encounter a DM who says summon monster is too powerful.

If I go BFC and my DM says he's having too much trouble designing encounters that don't get annihilated by web, polymorph, or stinking cloud, I pick different spells.

A lot of gimmicky fun builds that are no where near tier1's power requires wizard/cleric as entry points.

If a DM bans classes, then he is just saying he wants to have a different type of game, one that is more mundane focused rather than caster focused, and the wizard players just find a different game. No hard feelings, but again, a good DM would look at the build as a whole instead of banning the entry point class.

If a DM soft-bans classes in an attempt to "balance" them, then he is going to make more changes through out the game, and whenever a player thinks of a way to play around that restriction the DM is going to get angry and nerf them harder, which would probably completely destroy the player's build. This scenario never ends well. In addition, these soft bans kill the weaker wizard builds like summoner.

[AnimeTheCat]

A fairly easy way to bring wizards in balance with Sorcerers is to limit the availability of scrolls and other wizards. Keep wizards as reclusive smart guys who send others to do their work, let the high level spells in the game but force the players to find them through research, scraps of ancient research that they can decode in short down times, or the sort. Make them work for their keep. soft-ban in game works best for me and it doesn't require any system modification, just limitations on the availability for magic user specific stuff like staves, scrolls, and wands.

In game, use traps or small, brief, and frequent encounters to slowly whittle down the party. Hit the squishier characters and force the cleric to heal or use other resources. Most animal types won't stay and fight if they see they're losing, they'll run away and live to fight another day. A group of quasi intelligent goblins or kobolds will strike from a distance to lure the party in to traps and slowly whittle them down to make them easier prey for the upcoming ambush that will certainly force the hand of the party casters. without the availability of scrolls, wands, and staves the party spell casters will be forced in to a more supportive role as opposed to dominant game changers.

Finally, if you pick out the most overly talked about spells such as the planar allies, and the celerity chain of spells, and all the other things that people complain and argue about on here, you don't have too much work ahead of you. you're only taking a few options away and then later you're forcing the party to adapt and fall in to distinct roles.