Campaign Starting Soon, Help with Tiers

[tedcahill2]

I want to run a game with classes in the tier 2 to 3 range, but I also don't want to exclude anything.

A) How can I tone down the tier 1 casters?

Achivist and Wizard: instead of preparing any spell they know each morning, what if they could only attune to a single spell book? They could cast any spell in there spellbook without preparation, but adding or changing the spells in there spell book would take time and money.

Cleric: make fixed list

Druid: retrieve spells like a spirit shaman, ban natural spell

Artificer, Sha'ir and Wu Jen: dunno not familiar enough with class

Alternatively can all of these classes be brought down to tier two by making them choose and cast spells like a sorcerer?

B) How can I tone up the tier 4 and 5 classes?

Allow anyone selecting a tier 4 or 5 class to gestalt it with another tier 4 or 5 class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I know these aren't perfect fixes, but do they do enough to balance things better around tier 2 and 3?

[ATHATH]

Have you considered running an E6 game?

You could also just ask your players to aim for the Tier 2-3 range when designing their builds and have them go over their builds with you before the game starts.

[Jormengand]

There's no point in the wizard existing if it's just going to cast like a sorcerer. Ditto archivist and spontCleric.

Spell retrieval is better than prepared casting (you get to prepare new spells each day, AND cast spontaneously off your spells prepared). If you want a T3 druid, remove its casting entirely or nerf it to ranger levels.

Artificer, Sha'Ir and Wu Jen are really weird classes; players are unlikely enough to want to play them in specific that they need to be addressed, but you can always limit T1 casters to 7th-level casting (fiddle around with PifRo's spells setting until you get one that you like, for example this (http://pifro.com/dnd/NEW/?F=NOcustom&B=BBBB20&H=68&C=archivist.customA.&S=2&V=16752) might be good, though I'd give the 4th cantrip about level 5).

As for T4-5 classes, you can root around for fixes, but the gestalt option isn't bad either - warrior//rogue is actually a real class and so is fighter//expert.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Limiting how many spells/spell level prepared casters makes them more predictable, which helps; as long as your players aren't jerks, you should be fine from there. (I recommend ~3 new spells/class level-- the Cleric gets their domain spells and one of their choice, then three of their choice; the wizard gets their two automatic spells on level-up and can master one more at some point during the level). Similarly, a gestalt T4-5 character should be plenty playable and potent at most tables. Heck, T4//T5 ought to be fine in most cases, especially with a little help pointing at the right options.

(One more suggestion: the Druid has to take the Shapeshift ACF from the PHB 2, but the stat boosts are inherent, and compatible with things like Wilding Clasps. They also maybe can still get an Urban Companion, as the Ranger class feature from the Cityscape Web Enhancement)

Honestly, the game isn't as bad as the reading the forum might have you think. Avoid the truely busted spells and the truely dysfunctional classes and you should be fine.

[Mike Miller]

You could also just ask your players to aim for the Tier 2-3 range when designing their builds and have them go over their builds with you before the game starts.

This. Tell the group what classes are not in the campaign. Done.

[tedcahill2]

There's no point in the wizard existing if it's just going to cast like a sorcerer. Ditto archivist and spontCleric.

Spell retrieval is better than prepared casting (you get to prepare new spells each day, AND cast spontaneously off your spells prepared). If you want a T3 druid, remove its casting entirely or nerf it to ranger levels.

Artificer, Sha'Ir and Wu Jen are really weird classes; players are unlikely enough to want to play them in specific that they need to be addressed, but you can always limit T1 casters to 7th-level casting (fiddle around with PifRo's spells setting until you get one that you like, for example this (http://pifro.com/dnd/NEW/?F=NOcustom&B=BBBB20&H=68&C=archivist.customA.&S=2&V=16752) might be good, though I'd give the 4th cantrip about level 5).

As for T4-5 classes, you can root around for fixes, but the gestalt option isn't bad either - warrior//rogue is actually a real class and so is fighter//expert.

Is that DMG warrior/expert of UA?

[Godskook]

Have you considered running an E6 game?

Seconding this. E6 variants are *GREAT* for limiting absurdity-based power.

[tedcahill2]

Seconding this. E6 variants are *GREAT* for limiting absurdity-based power.

We've tried E6 and as a group just didn't like it very much.

[Jormengand]

Is that DMG warrior/expert of UA?

I meant the actual NPC warrior and expert - rogue//warrior and fighter//expert are examples of 4//6 and 5//5 gestalts, whereas the UA warrior is T5 and the UA expert is T4. In particular, rogue//warrior is decent because it gains the warrior's ability to hit on top of the rogue's ability to do damage and use skills, and fighter//expert is decent because it gains the expert's ability to use skills on top of the fighter's ability to hit things with sticks. It won't stand up to a real spellcaster, but at least it can actually provide some contribution to encounters, if not a level-appropriate one.

[johnbragg]

Thought experiment for replacing the Tier 1 casters.

First, make them spontaneous casters. Wizard is now an Int-based Sorcerer. Clerics and Druids use the Spontaneous Divine Caster option. Sorcerers? MAgical powers based on special-snowflake bloodlines are known as Warlocks, with or without refluffing.

Second, since the game assumes that a variety of spells are somewhat available to the PCs, we build in an escape hatch. Tier 1 casters CAN use one of their spells-per-day slots to memorize and cast a spell from a book, using a Spellcraft check.

But the Spellcraft check is harder than the book value. Instead of 15 + SL, how about 20 + (SL*CL), scaling the same way magic item prices scale. So casting a 1st level spell from a spellbook is a DC 21, a



SL
DC


1
21


2
26


3
35


4
48


5
65


6
86


7
111


8
140


9
173



And then to hit those ridiculous DCs, you start adapting systems like Circle Magic. This means casting a low-level utility spell for a scroll is doable, with a reasonable amount of effort. Getting a mid to high level spell requires the PCs to either gather allies willing to help or go through significant shenanigans to get their Spellcraft check boosted that high.

[Dancingdeath]

Gentlemen's agreement. Ask everyone to try and not break the game. Look over their characters to ensure that's the case. Rip up any character sheet that violates that agreement and have them make a non broken character or invite them to leave and replace them with a non munchkin.

For weaker characters ask them to use high optimization and throw every feat and ACF you can at them that will help to get them to tier 3 at least.

Balance is more about your players and their choices than about the RAW or inherent imbalance in the classes. Most of that you can address as the DM unless someone is intentionally trying to break the game.

[Florian]

I want to run a game with classes in the tier 2 to 3 range, but I also don't want to exclude anything.

Don´t try and create an illusion of choice. Making something so unattractive that no-one will play it is worse than simply outright saying what classes you don´t want at the table and name the honest reason why.

[ATHATH]

This. Tell the group what classes are not in the campaign. Done.
I'd recommend just telling the players to aim for a certain tier instead- banlists tend to encourage loophole-finding and squeezing Tier 1-levels of power out of obscure/unbanned sources. A "talk with me before trying to make a build with this class in it" list would probably work fine, though.

[Sam K]

I want to run a game with classes in the tier 2 to 3 range, but I also don't want to exclude anything.

A) How can I tone down the tier 1 casters?

...

I know these aren't perfect fixes, but do they do enough to balance things better around tier 2 and 3?

Honestly, the gap seems far bigger between T2 and T3, than it is between T1 and T2. T2 characters still have a out-of-the-box selection of possibly world-breaking powers that T1 classes have, where as T3 characters are far more predictable.

I would just ask my players what they want to play, and try to work with them to either fit that into the prefered tiers or fix those classes. Bob wants to play a fighter because he loves the idea of being the guy with the shield up front, protecting his friends from hordes of enemies? Maybe he would enjoy playing a crusader (which can usually hang with the T3 guys) instead? If someone is really hell-bent on playing a T1 or T5 class, find out why and try to work with them. Maybe Jane wants to play a wizard because she really likes being able to be the utility person of the team, having the right spell to support whatever play the party is going to try today - that's far less overbearing than if she wanted to play the God-o-mancers the forums can spew forth. Likewise, it seems a lot of people who play T5 classes do so because they don't see the appeal of power, or think that more flexible classes are too much book keeping - if so, letting them gestalt isn't going to make that problem go away.

All in all, I guess I'm saying "talk to your players", then try to solve any specific problems that comes up. While the tier system is useful for spotting possible party inbalances, it is only game defining in an environment where people really put in the effort to optimize.

[Dancingdeath]

Sam K I love your sig. Hilarious.

[Zanos]

Do you know your players well?

In my experience most of the forum complaints about tier 1 casters don't really come up all that often.

[DMVerdandi]

Hmm... Well, I generally agree with the people who say "talk to your players". To be honest, if you are playing 3.5/PF, everyone is pretty much in agreement of how the "caster disparity" works. Full casters are strong, and baked into at LEAST the combat challenges expected to go on through the day. So tell them not to use any tricks they found on the forums, because you want everyone to have fun.



So...

Balancing full casters
1.Give them more low end utility and staying power.
One of the worst problems with spell casters is the late onset of survivability. Generally this can be assisted by making cantrips infinite casts, but I would go one higher and say give them infinite casts on 1st level spells. There are far better spells in 1st level, and ones that you can keep casting until the end of your career, however that can't be said of cantrips, which are so arbitrarily weak that even having them infinitely doesn't really help.


2.Use the spell point system.
Doing so makes them more flexible at the top end, but here is the secret. The more flexible they are, the less they are inclined to find loopholes in the system.

Secondly, you can adjust the amount of spell points they have access at the start, and possibly doing things like capping the amount to a 10th level spell point caster, which would give them less to "nova" with, and re-encouraging the use of those 1st level spells again. They can always fall back on those.

3.Make everyone use the Generic spell caster class. Give them all the class feature to take a familiar/casting focus (which can be any item or tool designated). This familiar/focus can hold up to 10+ casting stat extra spells known. The spells can be changed with a spell craft check and a ritual that takes 1 hour per spell level.

4. Make all casting classes into a feat.
Now, in choosing the generic caster, you are only privy to one list, but by taking these feats you gain access to other lists. Each has a stat requirement of 16 of the primary casting stat. (WIZ=INT, CLER=CHA). Bonuses apply to all spells

WIZARD: +1 Familiar/Focus spells every time you take it; Swapping spells is reduced by 1 hour each time you take it at a minimum of one hour.

CLERIC: Can cast without risk of arcane spell failure; choose one domain. Can now cast from that domain spontaneously.

DRUID: Can cast Summon nature's ally spontaneously;Gain handle animal and survival skills. Can take wild shape feats (Each time you want wild shape progression, you purchase as a feat at normal levels prerequisite ).

PSION:Eliminate somatic and verbal requirements for spells; (Psionic powers are now just spells.)

6.Spellcaster gains free progression of spells up to level 9. For them the caster class feats open up spell LISTS, not spell levels.

Balancing bottom tier classes.
1.If you don't have a casting class, Increase skill points to 6+int. Caster skill points are so low because they cannot be bothered to focus on other skills. They also get 3 free skills not on their list as class skills.

2.All Half Casters and manifesters now gain Spell points/Power points at the rate of full caster/manifesters. but level of spells cast remain the same.

3.Use generic warrior and expert classes.

4. Make Maneuvers, incarnum, and spell casting a feat that you can take, with each level of progression being one feat. Warrior and expert cannot take more than 6 levels of spell casting feats. Each purchase of the feat gives them 1 level of spell casting, which can only be purchased at even levels.

5.When purchasing maneuvers, the Warrior gains them with a full level progression table, much like spell caster has a full progression table of spells. The warrior can however only purchase one school of maneuvers per feat.


6. Bonus feat can be used to purchase any class features from other classes that show up, such as rage, or sneak attack, but they must be purchased at level presented, and if they are progressions, the initial class ability must be purchased first. The level purchased is only a minimum, however. Class abilities can be purchased with a higher level bonus feat (I.E, first die of sneak attack can be purchased at level 18)

[Zombimode]

I want to run a game with classes in the tier 2 to 3 range, but I also don't want to exclude anything.

A) How can I tone down the tier 1 casters?

Achivist and Wizard: instead of preparing any spell they know each morning, what if they could only attune to a single spell book? They could cast any spell in there spellbook without preparation, but adding or changing the spells in there spell book would take time and money.

Cleric: make fixed list

Druid: retrieve spells like a spirit shaman, ban natural spell

Artificer, Sha'ir and Wu Jen: dunno not familiar enough with class

Alternatively can all of these classes be brought down to tier two by making them choose and cast spells like a sorcerer?

B) How can I tone up the tier 4 and 5 classes?

Allow anyone selecting a tier 4 or 5 class to gestalt it with another tier 4 or 5 class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Before you start fiddling with Things: is there actually a concrete problem with your game you are trying to fix?

Because if not and you are doing this because you read something in the Forums, please don't. From my experience 3.5 works fine as is for the vast majority of Groups (or with Alteration made with consideration for this specific Group). I advise strongly against making sweeping changes before you know how the game works out for your group.

[Sam K]

Sam K I love your sig. Hilarious.

I don't know if that was sarcastic or not, so I will simply assume that I'm awesome at sig-making :) *beam* Thank you!

[Dancingdeath]

I don't know if that was sarcastic or not, so I will simply assume that I'm awesome at sig-making :) *beam* Thank you!

I was being sincere. I don't do sarcasm online. There's no font for that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, the gap seems far bigger between T2 and T3, than it is between T1 and T2. T2 characters still have a out-of-the-box selection of possibly world-breaking powers that T1 classes have, where as T3 characters are far more predictable.
Not necessarily-- T2 vs T3 is a matter of spell choice as much as anything. A Sorcerer who knows things like Fireball, Unseen Servant, and Invisibility will play juts fine with Warblades and even Rogues.

[Florian]

Honestly, the gap seems far bigger between T2 and T3, than it is between T1 and T2. T2 characters still have a out-of-the-box selection of possibly world-breaking powers that T1 classes have, where as T3 characters are far more predictable.

Yes and no. Naturally, you can pack any game-breaking spell on a T2 framework, but that limits your actual contribution to any scene or fight drastically.

[Fouredged Sword]

Making wizards stick to the spells they get during advancement and ban writting scrolls into their spellbook makes them tier 2 in practice.

The difference between tier 1 and 2 isn't power, but rather the ability to rebuild themselves at a whim.

[Sam K]

Not necessarily-- T2 vs T3 is a matter of spell choice as much as anything. A Sorcerer who knows things like Fireball, Unseen Servant, and Invisibility will play juts fine with Warblades and even Rogues.

Doesn't the tier system assume somewhat optimized choices though? A wizard who prepares only sub optimal spells will also play well with warblades and rogues.

But this does raise an interesting question:

OP, are you trying to limit T1 characters because of their flexibility or because of their raw power? Do you worry about them bypassing your world, breaking it, or just killing everything it throws at them?

[Zanos]

Doesn't the tier system assume somewhat optimized choices though? A wizard who prepares only sub optimal spells will also play well with warblades and rogues.
I was about to say that myself. Wizard with fireball and sorcerer with fireball are doing the same thing.

In any case I'll reiterate that proactively fixing problems isn't a great idea with regards to 3.5. See what kind of characters people come up with in the first session, then see if you need to talk to anyone.

[johnbragg]

Doesn't the tier system assume somewhat optimized choices though? A wizard who prepares only sub optimal spells will also play well with warblades and rogues.

To be pedantic, the Tier system assumes roughly equal levels of optimization. So the fireball-slinging wizard alongside the sword-and-board fighter, and the planar-binding minionmancer alongside a barbarian ubercharger. Indeed, one rough suggestion is to allow more optimization of lower-tier classes.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Brilliant tier fix:
t1 is required to lose one caster level before level 5, 9, 13, and 17.
t2 is required to lose one caster level before levels 8 and 15 only.

(n.b. this is mostly a way to get a lot of gishes (which I like), it doesn't actually rebalance tiers at all)

[NOhara24]

Gentlemen's agreement. Ask everyone to try and not break the game. Look over their characters to ensure that's the case. Rip up any character sheet that violates that agreement and have them make a non broken character or invite them to leave and replace them with a non munchkin.

For weaker characters ask them to use high optimization and throw every feat and ACF you can at them that will help to get them to tier 3 at least.

Balance is more about your players and their choices than about the RAW or inherent imbalance in the classes. Most of that you can address as the DM unless someone is intentionally trying to break the game.


Do you know your players well?

In my experience most of the forum complaints about tier 1 casters don't really come up all that often.

These guys know their stuff. OP, don't worry about buffing/nerfing classes before the game even starts unless you know two things:

1) Who is playing what
2) The optimization level of the party

I made this mistake while trying to make Monk not terrible and I had a very experienced player decide to take Monk in light of seeing my changes and exploit them. Now he's like Bruce Li on crack and I'm thinking about undoing the changes because he's a monster in combat and the only way to control him is with save-or-suck spells.

Start playing the game and see what everyone is like before you make any changes - we here in the playground tend to operate in a bit of a bubble. The average D&D player doesn't have the time or energy to break the game like we so often complain about with T1 casters.

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, there's a lot we don't have here. All sources allowed? Is campaign going to be 1-20? How experienced are the players?

Remember, Druids are quite likely weaker than Wizards and Clerics in high level, high op play. But we get threads about them because a low op Druid who thinks bears are cool can massively outperform the monk by accident. But then so can a swordsage.

But I would agree that the best general solution is encouraging players to aim for T2-4, and getting more specific when you have an idea of who wants to play what. "Fix T1" is way harder than "my players want to play Soulknife, beguiler, warblade, Druid, x sources allowed, levels 3-15. What should I do?

[rel]

tell your players:
I want the game to be at this tier with this theme for these reasons. Use whatever resources you like to build your characters as long as your final build falls within the chosen tier range.

Bear in mind that certain classes like the druid and cleric get access to a tier 1 spell list so if you want to play these classes make sure you can play them without pulling out tier 1 tricks when the chips are down.

[Kaleph]

I agree with those who mentioned that the game isn't necessarily so unbalanced/unplayable even when Tier 1 classes are available; just agree with them the builds, so that you're reasonably sure that no PC can replace an entire party, or has access to shaenigans.


Wizard: make sure he plays batman, batman is party-friendly. Also, ban broken prestige classes, taint and limit (through a reasonable use of RAI) polymorph and planar binding. Ah, and no strange metamagic combos with sanctum spell, etc.
Cleric: just say that the nightsticks don't stuck, and ban the broken prestige classes.
Druid: give it to the "weaker" player.
Artificer: it's maybe quicker to ban it, than to limit its brokeness potential (with the risk of making it underwhelming compared to the amount of micromanagement it implies)
Archivist: control the amount/type of spells they get access to through scrolls. Also, avoid strange PrC combinations and ban the usual broken stuff.
StP Erudite: without shaenigans this class is tier 3.
Sha'ir: see wizard.

[Fouredged Sword]

One thing I have found that greatly reduces the versatility of the prepared casters without reducing their power is to force them to pre-select options when they prepare their spells. They don't prepare "Alter self" They prepare "Alter Self to Orc.". They don't prepare "Summon Monster 3" they prepare "Summon Celestial bison".

It helps prevent wizards from just preparing all their most flexible spells and keeping them as "solve any problem" buttons that can be selected on the fly.

[Uckleverry]

One option to tone down clerics and druids is to make them use the spontaneous divine caster variant from UA. In addition, druids would only use the two variants from PHBII. Thus a druid would cast spontaneously but not summon nature's ally without specifically learning the individual spells (instead trading slots for the fast healing ability), and would not have wild shape and thus Natural Spell.

Wizards could perhaps be toned down by making them all be focused specialists (Complete Mage). This would retain most of their wizardy flavor but restrict their versatility.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Wizards could perhaps be toned down by making them all be focused specialists (Complete Mage). This would retain most of their wizardy flavor but restrict their versatility.
Nah, that wouldn't work. Focused transmuters and conjurers are very strong, and banning enchantment/necromancy/evocation is quite acceptable. Wizards could be toned down by forcing them to specialize and giving them only 1-2 generalist slots per level (bonus spells are specialist slots). They'd still be really strong, of course, but that's going to be the case until you break up Conjuration and Transmutation as schools.

[Uckleverry]

I don't see how focused specialist would be stronger than your suggestion. The issue with wizards is their amazing versatility, and the inherent power of spells. If you always ban 3 schools, your versatility suffers, especially since you won't be fixing it through spell trigger and completion items (possibly not until higher levels thru Use Magic Device).

[Fouredged Sword]

I don't see how focused specialist would be stronger than your suggestion. The issue with wizards is their amazing versatility, and the inherent power of spells. If you always ban 3 schools, your versatility suffers, especially since you won't be fixing it through spell trigger and completion items (possibly not until higher levels thru Use Magic Device).

The problem is that you can ban evocation, necromancy, and enchantment and lose very little. Conjuration alone is a tier one casting list. What you don't have access to in the moment is just a summons away.

What would be funny would be to force all wizards to play focused specialist evokers or abjurers and ban ether conjuration or transmutation, and two other schools of their choice.

[emeraldstreak]

Optimization > tier.

[Uckleverry]

Right, but how is a focused specialist stronger than a regular specialist wizard with slightly fewer slots per day? That's my confusion.

It's difficult to tone down wizards without losing the essence of what being a wizard is, but making them ban 3 schools is perhaps one way to accomplish that. The weaker schools aren't irrelevant at all since many powerful effects ascribed to wizards come from them (charm and domination, undead minions, plus if you lack evocation you have a tougher time dealing with certain enemy types -- it's still beneficial to blast here and there).

[Fouredged Sword]

Right, but how is a focused specialist stronger than a regular specialist wizard with slightly fewer slots per day? That's my confusion.

It's difficult to tone down wizards without losing the essence of what being a wizard is, but making them ban 3 schools is perhaps one way to accomplish that. The weaker schools aren't irrelevant at all since many powerful effects ascribed to wizards come from them (charm and domination, undead minions, plus if you lack evocation you have a tougher time dealing with certain enemy types -- it's still beneficial to blast here and there).

The problem is that Conjuration has no problem doing those things. You can summon minions, summon things to charm and dominate, and blast all you want with the conjuration effects that are as good as evocation blasting or if you are lazy, summon something to blast for you.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I don't see how focused specialist would be stronger than your suggestion. The issue with wizards is their amazing versatility, and the inherent power of spells. If you always ban 3 schools, your versatility suffers, especially since you won't be fixing it through spell trigger and completion items (possibly not until higher levels thru Use Magic Device).
Schools are not equal. Some schools do few or no unique things, and some schools can duplicate most of another school. Banning more schools is not effective until you force players to ban Conjuration or Transmutation. Which is totally a thing you could do, of course. It would work, but at that point, you should just reassign a lot of Conj/Trans spells to other schools.

A focused specialist would have 3 + bonus generalist slots (with 3 banned schools) and 3 specialist slots per spell level, more than a regular specialist, which increases versatility. Increasing your intelligence increases your versatility, because you get more generalist slots. If specializing in Conjuration, this would generally be the most powerful thing you can do, apart from being an elf generalist domain wizard.

With my suggestion, a specialist would have 1 generalist slot (with 2 banned schools) and 4 + bonus specialist slots per level (or 2 generalist/3+bonus specialist). So apart from not buffing the number of slots, versatility is sharply limited by the limited number of generalist slots, which doesn't increase with intelligence. A conjurer with only one non-Conjuration prepared per spell level is effectively locked out of most schools, but retains the ability to cast any spell, given a day on which they don't need that slot for other stuff.

You could also make non-specialist spells take two slots. That'd certainly cut down on out-of-school spellcasting.

[Uckleverry]

The problem is that Conjuration has no problem doing those things. You can summon minions, summon things to charm and dominate, and blast all you want with the conjuration effects that are as good as evocation blasting or if you are lazy, summon something to blast for you.

You can do all that -- at higher levels. And summons and called beings have their own vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

Without evocation, you have a tougher time dealing with swarms for example. Same with undead, especially incorporeal undead.

If the weaker schools are so weak as to render them irrelevant to a wizard's tier categorization, how come all optimized wizards aren't conjuration transmutation focused specialists? Because those schools do have powerful effects that play their part in making the wizard class the versatile powerhouse it is.

[Uckleverry]

Schools are not equal. Some schools do few or no unique things, and some schools can duplicate most of another school. Banning more schools is not effective until you force players to ban Conjuration or Transmutation. Which is totally a thing you could do, of course. It would work, but at that point, you should just reassign a lot of Conj/Trans spells to other schools.

A focused specialist would have 3 + bonus generalist slots (with 3 banned schools) and 3 specialist slots per spell level, more than a regular specialist, which increases versatility. Increasing your intelligence increases your versatility, because you get more generalist slots. If specializing in Conjuration, this would generally be the most powerful thing you can do, apart from being an elf generalist domain wizard.

With my suggestion, a specialist would have 1 generalist slot (with 2 banned schools) and 4 + bonus specialist slots per level (or 2 generalist/3+bonus specialist). So apart from not buffing the number of slots, versatility is sharply limited by the limited number of generalist slots, which doesn't increase with intelligence. A conjurer with only one non-Conjuration prepared per spell level is effectively locked out of most schools, but retains the ability to cast any spell, given a day on which they don't need that slot for other stuff.

You could also make non-specialist spells take two slots. That'd certainly cut down on out-of-school spellcasting.

You still only lack access to 2 schools, and daily spell slots are not the issue with wizards. Otherwise pearls of power would be among the top 3 items a wizard would want, which is hardly the case.

When you have banned schools, you can't use scrolls, wands, or staves of the schools either (and Use Magic Device won't really come online until high levels). That in and of itself is a serious blow to your versatility and ability to adjust on the fly. A focused specialist is much less versatile than a regular specialist -- one or two extra spell slots per spell level is not even close to losing access to an entire school of spells, levels 0-9.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A focused specialist is much less versatile than a regular specialist -- one or two extra spell slots per spell level is not even close to losing access to an entire school of spells, levels 0-9.
For a Conjuration specialist (and there will be a lot of those), having only one Transmutation/Abjuration/Divination per level per day is worse than having no Necromancy. Forcing the wizard to rely on wands or staves makes them less versatile, because there are serious costs involved, and you can't get nearly as many wands/staves as you can get spells.

Look at two staples that conflict: haste and dispel magic are both third-level non-Conjuration spells. A wand of dispel magic costs 11 250 gp, or 22 500 gp for the 10th-level version, which means it's half your WBL to even buy one on-level. Staffs? The cheapest of any of them doesn't come online until level 8, and if you want dispel magic on a staff, you'll have to wait until level 14 (assuming, as usual, that you don't spend more than half your WBL on one item). If you're thinking of scrolls, I hope you're willing to shell out 75 gp per caster level to get it on-level, which is only 4.1-1.5% of WBL for the 5-10 level range. Your focused specialist pays this cost once, writes it in their spellbook, and devotes one of four generalist slots to it. It's not so easy for the limited specialist.

In short, it's not viable for a limited-generalist slots-wizard to get these effects. They can, if they must, but really, you'd rather leave your everyday spell effects to the sorcerer, the beguiler, or even the warlock, who aren't so limited in their schools (clerics, of course, are still t1 regardless of this fix, so they'd be the top pick). That leaves the wizard free to provide all Conjurations and occasional utility stuff. In fact, it might encourage wizards to leave their generalist slots open, to prepare spells as needed during the day (alternatively, they'll prepare the biggest gun of each spell level (once), which is at least predictable, and a hard choice to boot).


Oh, and you asked why optimized wizards aren't all focused specialists? Well, domain wizards are pretty sweet, as are elf generalists, and the combination is just to die for. (Literally. Necropolitan is a great way of mitigating the elven constitution penalty.) Incantatrices are required to ban another school, as well, and that fourth ban becomes tricky.


N.B. Some cheese will get around the limit one way or another. A conjurer will bind or summon creatures with abilities they cannot get as spells, a transmuter will turn into something with the same. I figure that's the same whether you ban a school or limit your spell slots.

[Uckleverry]

A focused specialist will have a vast list of spells they won't have access to until perhaps the highest levels, assuming Use Magic Device. If you only have 2 prohibited schools, your access to various spell effects is greatly increased. There's no way around this, and it seems ludicrous to claim that someone with a few extra slots is MORE versatile than someone with access to an entire school of spells.

Moreover, while it's true that fully charged spell trigger items are expensive, it's possible to purchase and find partially charged versions. And remember, PCs are not adventuring into infinity but rather have a set amount of encounters per level, and each level you get more treasure. 50 charges of dispel magic or even haste is most likely an overkill. How many times would you cast dispel magic from, say, levels 5-10? Maybe 30 times or so.

Also, there are tons of useful spell effects available in all schools that you won't use more than a handful of times. The more schools banned, the fewer of those you have access to, and thus you have less versatility.

And fewer spell slots is not a massive issue thanks to wizards' ability to rest often. The 5 minute adventuring day is a concept for a very good reason.