PDA

View Full Version : Easy Wizard fix



rockdeworld
2008-06-03, 04:28 AM
I hear a lot about how wizards are broken, and almost every time someone says that, they're talking about higher level wizard spells (or lower-level cheese). So why not
-remove all spells over 3rd level, and
-make saves = 10 + CL/2 (min 1) + Primary casting stat

This eliminates virtually every broken or super-powered, destructive spell (from Enervation to Celerity to Limited Wish to Time Stop), and allows the wizard to keep their basic (handy) spells.

Will it work? If this seems too simple, remember the title.

Gorbash
2008-06-03, 04:37 AM
What you just said could be interpreted as:

Easiest way to fix wizards is to kick them out of the game. Voila!

Remove spells over 3rd lvl? Are you insane?

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-03, 04:37 AM
That would pretty much make them useless later on in the game. I'd say the best stratergy is just to ban spells which are broken to the point of being impossible to counter (eg: Windwall, Celerity, Time Stop, te Polymorph line) should be sufficient. Also, how is Limited Wish particularly broken? It ould be useful for a Sorcerer who didn't mind spending Exps. to cast spells which they don't have room on their list for, but I don't tend to see it as a good choice for Wizards.

bosssmiley
2008-06-03, 04:38 AM
Congratulations, you've just re-invented D&D's E6 mod. :smallconfused:

Bag_of_Holding
2008-06-03, 04:39 AM
That'd actually boost the saving throw DC for many spells- so things like charm person might actually have a use for something other than making people... like you.

I actually like the idea as long as the campaign level doesn't go beyond 5th level :smallbiggrin:

Nebo_
2008-06-03, 04:39 AM
Wow! That is fast. Too bad it's not effective.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-03, 04:44 AM
I don't know if wizards would be useless in high-level play with ony access to spells of 3rd level and lower (alter self, fly, haste, etc. still apply), but there really wouldn't be a whole lot of motivation to play a wizard. I mean, you'd probably still be more useful than a straight fighter, but if 3rd-level spells represent the pinnacle of arcane knowledge...meh.

Think about it another way, after 5-6th level you'd never really learn anything significantly more powerful than you already know. You'd know lots and lots of spells, but they'd all be individuall weak. Would higher-level spell slots still exist (useful for memorizing low-level spells), or would these slots be removed as well? If they're removed you'd probably run out of spells pretty quickly each day.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-03, 04:45 AM
It would probably lead to a lot of multi-classing if Wizards didn't get anything to compensate for a lack of level 4 spells. Where would this fit in with other full casters?

Grey Paladin
2008-06-03, 05:36 AM
With spells only going up to 4th level, and Wizards still getting upper level slots for Metamagic then I think this can actually work rather well, of course, you must do the same to all Casters in the game.

EDIT: Ban Spell Thesis, give Wizards 3.0 Polymorph and Command, make a Feat that lets you learn a single 5th level spell every time you take it, with progressively difficult perquisites each time, Wizard Level X being one of them to discourage multi-classing.

Ban Incanatrix.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-03, 05:56 AM
Then we'd play psions.

Grey Paladin
2008-06-03, 05:59 AM
Then we'd play psions.

In Spac- With spells!

Solo
2008-06-03, 05:59 AM
This is the worst idea since Abraham Lincon said to his wife "Honey, it is dreadfully boring this evening. Let's go catch a play."

Griffin131
2008-06-03, 06:01 AM
This is the worst idea since Abraham Lincon said to his wife "Honey, it is dreadfully boring this evening. Let's go catch a play."
teh roofles, they are there!

Talic
2008-06-03, 06:05 AM
So, in other words, Wizard 7, Something else 13?

I mean really, people, limiting the spells isn't what should be the focus. Limiting the flexibility is what makes wizards less powerful.

I typically restrict myself to no more than 3 books for spell selection (Spell compendium counts as 2 choices). I avoid any spell which I feel is overpowered. If you were to cut a wizards spell slots and bonus spells at each level in half (min 1), but gave them the ability to cast any prepared spell twice a day, you'd typically end up with something that reduces the wizard's flexibility, and limits his ability to do everything.

Grey Paladin
2008-06-03, 06:08 AM
Talic: You don't get the DC boost, nor the extra spell slots under such a system, if you multiclass at 7.

Really, such a Wizard can still spam save or lose with insanely high DCs (due to DC=10+1/2 CL+Stat Modifier as the OP has stated) using only low level spell slots.

This just removes all the Contingency cheese, Celerity, and Suck or Die spells.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-03, 06:15 AM
I agree with Illiterate Scribe here about Psions. In regards to doing the same thing with other full casters, that would really cause problems (getting rid of Raise Dead and Heal wouldn't really nerf the Cleric that much, but they would harm the other party members a lot). The method suggested here would also eliminate a lot ofspells which aren't broken.

Talic
2008-06-03, 06:23 AM
Talic: You don't get the DC boost, nor the extra spell slots under such a system, if you multiclass at 7.

Really, such a Wizard can still spam save or lose with insanely high DCs (due to DC=10+1/2 CL+Stat Modifier as the OP has stated) using only low level spell slots.

This just removes all the Contingency cheese, Celerity, and Suck or Die spells.

As well as most other abilities that are widely considered useful. Again, it's not about gutting the latter half of the class. It's about restricting versatility. As long as a wizard can be everything, he's overpowered. Only by removing that ability, and forcing the wizard to choose what he will be, only then does he lose power.

Rather than essentially banning all spells above level 5, and empowering everything below level 5, why not limit the problems? Your solution is much like:

EMT: It's a sprained ankle.
EMT2: Yup. If I remember my training correctly...
EMT: Amputate the leg, Gets rid of any sprain immediately.
EMT2: Yes, yes, I was getting to that. Fetch the vodka, the hacksaw, and the mallet to knock this poor guy out.

If the wizard has a problem, you don't solve it by amputating the class. You go in, and address the problem.

Grey Paladin
2008-06-03, 06:42 AM
Even if the poor bastard's only capable of casting Evocation he can still take out w/rArch characters with ease.

Now imagine the same character focusing on Illusion or Transmutation.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-03, 06:46 AM
What did you mean by "w/rArch", Grey Paladin? i know a few other people have suggested limiting Wizards to 1 school, but this usually results in several people saying that it would make Wizards too weak (Frosty and I were developing an Abjurer/Conjurer and Diviner/Transmuter with the intention of replacing Wizards with them (along with Warmages, Beguillers and Dread Necromancers), but we haven't made any progress on that for ages (I'll try and find the thread which mentiones the Abjurer/Conjurer).

EDIT: Here's a rough outline of the class: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4055352&highlight=Tempest#post4055352 . The thread also features the spell list which I came up with for the proposed Diviner/Transmuter.

Grey Paladin
2008-06-03, 07:24 AM
The Warrior Archtype, I don't know why I've used that term as its an ancient holdover by now.

Aquillion
2008-06-03, 07:25 AM
Once again: Why do people always focus on wizards? Druids and clerics are actually even worse in many ways. And yet people constantly, constantly talk about the wizard problem; you rarely ever see anyone suggesting that druids or clerics be reduced to 3rd level spells (Ironically, druids would probably still be quite playable with just 3rd level spells, easily more powerful than any non-full-casting class.)

Now, first of all, this suggestion flat-out fails for reasons that have nothing to do with wizard power or where you want to take the class. No matter what your goals or ends, a class that basically stops advancing after 7th level is dull. "Rip two-thirds of the spells out of the books" is also an undesirable solution -- you're eliminating a massive portion of the game, including hugely detailed things that depend on them (you won't be able to run most published adventures over 7th level in this system, since they'll often use spells you ripped out of the books; you won't be able to use many PRCs; most of the magic items will be impossible to construct without heavy houseruling, etc.) The best Wizard fixes would find a way to solve balance issues with minimal impact on anything else, leaving as much else intact as possible.

I think the problem is that people want to solve the "wizard problem" by radically redefining what a wizard is. That much is fine -- I think that this suggestion is an awful way to go about it, but we have perfectly good approaches to that solution already. It's called 4th edition, go play it.

But I also think that other solutions exist -- I believe that it is possible to preserve the iconic versatility and power of a 3rd edition full caster, while still altering them in ways that would prevent them from eclipsing other classes and dominating high-level play.

First of all, there are some spells and other things that have to be removed (or drastically nerfed into a totally different form.) The Celerity line has to go. The Polymorph line is iconic enough that I'm reluctant to remove it completely, but it has to be drastically changed (there are many very good suggestions for this.) Gate has to go or be drastically rewritten, too (even if you're not using it exploitively, gating in something twice your HD is never going to be balanced.) Contingency needs to be either removed or drastically scaled down in scope. There are a few other specific spells out there, but you get the idea.

Some spells that don't have to be removed, though: Knock, a common target, isn't really all that powerful, and honestly rogues still play fine -- they don't need it removed (I would fold Open Locks into Disable Device, though, for lots of reasons.) You can't replace an entire skill monkey with magic as easily as most people say (there's a reason why even when talking about full-casting 'ideal parties', they still include a beguiler for skill-monkey stuff.) At worst, if the wizard really wants to spam it, Knock just allows your rogue to avoid spending skill points on Open Lock and spend them on something else instead... that doesn't really hurt them much.

Foresight is another overrated spell. It's great in PVP duels and theoretical "You'll never kill me, nyah nyah" exercizes, but compared to other 9th-level spells it's not so hot, and in an actual party it's just not a big deal. Its only real combo is with Celerity, which has to be removed anyway.

Now, for actual fixes, we can look at literature and get an idea of what the limitations of most wizards should be.

One that leaps out: Spells take time to cast. This has always struck me as one of the most absurd things about 3rd edition. Fighters need full round actions to full attack, while wizards can throw around even their most powerful spells as standard actions. Basically, this is backwards -- wizards should take a (relatively) long time to cast most spells, while cutting someone up with a sword should be easy.

There's not too much granularity in our turn system, though. A spell can take one round to cast, or two rounds, and two rounds is often too long to be useful. One possibility that occurs to me is to have some sort of 'initative delay' system, where a spell that you start casting on initative count 7, say, goes off at count 12. There's some problems with this (the guy who goes just before you can't respond to your spells, but the guy who goes just after you can? Well, the guy who goes first can delay his action if he really wants to... In fact, anyone can delay their actions until after enemy casters. This could get weird.)

If you cast a spell you should always provoke an attack of opportunity, no exceptions, and if you're hit at all when casting the default assumption should be that you lose the spell -- there could be exceptions, of course, and concentration checks, but it should be hard to keep it.

Another possibility is to add some disincentive to throwing magic around constantly -- sort of like Mage's Paradox or Ars Magica's Twilight points. Put in a chance for spells to go catastrophically wrong, no matter how slim, and wizards will be less likely to use them when they don't have to -- in other words, leaving room for the more 'reliable' methods of other party members. I don't entirely like this, though (it doesn't fit the D&D theme), and it depends on a really, really overpowered concept of magic, even beyond what D&D has at the moment.

Setting-based reasons not to use magic can be useful, too. In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf uses very little magic because he warns that using any powers at all was like "writing 'Gandalf is Here' in letters of fire a mile high for all to see." This requires a powerful arcane BBEG whose attention the players generally want to avoid, but it can work pretty well -- the higher-level the spell, the more unwelcome attention it brings you. Long-range magic like teleportation and scrying carries particularly high risks.

Oh. And this is obvious, but it still needs to be said: Some classes Just Don't Work. Sure, you can RP as them and have fun if you like RPing or your group or your DM or whatever, but the class mechanics for these classes isn't very fun. These classes tend to be weak, and trying to scale the wizard (or anyone else) down to them is a bad idea. You are never, no matter how hard you work at it, going to be able to balance wizards with anything approaching 3rd edition's theme against someone whose basic role in combat is "I power attack and hit things really hard." Nearly every core melee class falls into this trap to a degree.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-03, 07:34 AM
Would making players chose either the Focussed Animal or Shapeshifter Druid variants (while possibly stopping them from being able t spontaneously cast SNA spells) work for balancing them? Also, apart from removing Righteous Might and Divine Power, what else would help with Clerics, Aquillion? I'm in favour of having more Wizard spells taking longer to cast, but I'm not too sure about Twighlight Points.

wodan46
2008-06-03, 07:59 AM
Limiting Wizards to 1 school, and decreasing the rate at which they gain access to spell levels to every 3 regular levels (lvl1, lvl4, lvl7, lvl10, etc.), would make them more balanced. This would eliminate the infinite toolbox that Wizards have, which gives them far more choices and escapes and loopholes than any non-caster.

Druids and Clerics should also have reduced access to spell levels, with Druid's having Wildshape eat spell slots and be unable to cast while in alternate form, and Clerics having most spells shifted to various domains, and be able to cast only from a domain or a few basic spells.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-03, 08:09 AM
Yeah, only 3rd level spells would make them too limited.

Going on that idea, though, how bout this:

Only up to 6th level spells. You can use 7th, 8th, and 9th level slots for metamagic, and Gain 1 bonus feat every 4 levels instead of 5.
Sorcerers, druids and clerics get same restrictions, and 1 bonus feat every 6 levels.
Half-casters are unchanged. Bards and others full casters need to be seen in a case by case basis.
To not nerf casters too much, all metamagic spells would count as actual higher level spells, i.e., a empowered fireball counts as a 6th level spell, instead of a 3rd level spell. The Heighten Spell feat would no longer be needed. This is just so 9th level spells are still hard to resist.


This would remove the higher level win-buttons, and force casters to be creative with their metamagic, while giving a couple more feats.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-03, 08:14 AM
The problem with that Wizard fix is that it would mean the rest of the party not being able to benefit from certain spells until much later on (such as Magnificent Mansion and Telepathic Bond), and some spells would end up as being epic level. Also, limiting Wizards to just 1 school would make them 1-dimentional (this is why I suggested having another couple of Beguiller-like classes to replace Wizards).

Both of my Druid ideas would solve Natural Spell while limiting the Druid to either having a strong anmal companion or the ability to turn into an animal, and reducing the access that both of them have to spells could lead to them not being able to cast some spells which aren't used very often which may still be essential depending on the situation (Deathward and Remove Blindness/Deafness are 2 which spring to mind. I don't like them that much, but you'd probably like the Ultimate classes: http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Classes . If you're not familiar with the Druid variants I mentioned, they are both on http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Classes-Base.pdf .

I still don't think that the spells which they can access are a problem (I honesltly wouldn't bother with playing as a Full Caster if spell levels were eliminated like that.

Burley
2008-06-03, 08:18 AM
This is how I, on the DM side, fix over-powered wizards: Don't let them be over-powered.
This is how I, on the player side, fix over-powered wizards: Don't let them be over-powered.
Too many people assume that every spell is available in every campaign. In my campaign, there are a lot of spells that simply haven't been discovered yet. The players don't have access to them. And, if the player wants to "research" the spell, they're gonna have to work for it, with in-game time and money, and maybe some XP. If I say you can't find a spell in a library to copy (read: I don't want you to have that spell), and you want to "research" it and make it anyways, it's gonna be like crafting a magic item.
As a player, who played a batman wizard for a while (not my cup-o-tea, personally), there were a lot of spells that could have helped my party, but weren't in my character concept, or would have been so "insta-win" that the other players wouldn't have fun.

So, the easy fix: Don't break it.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-03, 08:22 AM
That is a good point from the DM's perspective. I tend to play like that as well, so I probably wouldn't be a problem if I was playing as a Wizard.

rockdeworld
2008-06-03, 08:25 AM
Wow, this got big fast. Fun :smallbiggrin:

For discussion purposes, I'll try to answer some of the questions posed (and pose some of my own).


Also, how is Limited Wish particularly broken?
I'll let Emperor Tippy take this one, although the effect "Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects..." comes to mind (for its ambiguity).


Congratulations, you've just re-invented D&D's E6 mod.
What? What's that?


Wow! That is fast. Too bad it's not effective.
You posted that without supplying any reasons. Where's the supporting statements? Bad debate procedure -_-


Would higher-level spell slots still exist (useful for memorizing low-level spells), or would these slots be removed as well?
Sure they would still exist.


This is the worst idea since Abraham Lincon said to his wife "Honey, it is dreadfully boring this evening. Let's go catch a play."
As always Solo, your posts make me laugh with mirth not to be found in others of its ilk. I love reading your posts.


Why do people always focus on wizards?
Well I was going to say you could also reduce a cleric's school to CLW only, and a Druid to SNA only, but I thought I'd keep it to arcane casters atm. And wizard is cited the most on these boards.


I think the problem is that people want to solve the "wizard problem" by radically redefining what a wizard is. That much is fine -- I think that this suggestion is an awful way to go about it, but we have perfectly good approaches to that solution already. It's called 4th edition, go play it.
So your suggestion for me to fix a wizard is to play a different game?


Another possibility is to add some disincentive to throwing magic around constantly -- sort of like Mage's Paradox or Ars Magica's Twilight points.
Sanity system. I've heard it described as such, anyways (I have yet to check it out).


Druids and Clerics should also have reduced access to spell levels, with Druid's having Wildshape eat spell slots and be unable to cast while in alternate form, and Clerics having most spells shifted to various domains, and be able to cast only from a domain or a few basic spells.
For druids, WotC made that rule and then promptly broke it (Natural Spell).

For clerics, maybe just not allowing them to cast arcane spells would fix the problem?

Telonius
2008-06-03, 08:30 AM
Once again: Why do people always focus on wizards? Druids and clerics are actually even worse in many ways. And yet people constantly, constantly talk about the wizard problem; you rarely ever see anyone suggesting that druids or clerics be reduced to 3rd level spells (Ironically, druids would probably still be quite playable with just 3rd level spells, easily more powerful than any non-full-casting class.)


I think they focus on Wizards because (at least in my experience) most players don't see actual CoDzillas in action.

In my experience, few beginning players end up playing Druids. The fluff of the Druid suggests that he's all about having an Animal Companion, and summoning other animals to fight for him. A beginning player will see that and think, "Holy crap, I have to keep track of, like, five different character sheets if I play that!" Then they'll go play something easier, like a Barbarian or a Ranger. By the time a player has mastered the game enough to the point where they'd be comfortable playing a Druid, they're usually mature enough to realize that the game is a cooperative exercise, and will try not to break things.

Cleric is another issue. If a beginning player does pick Druid, they're likely to build DruidZilla by accident. (All you need is Natural Spell and you're there; it's just that powerful out of the can). But in order to really unleash holy whoopass as a Cleric, there are a series of spells you need to cast. This usually doesn't happen by chance - most beginners who want to play a holy fighter, play Paladins. Beginning Clerics are usually too worried about healing the Fighter to think they can actually get involved in melee. And things like DMM and multiple nightsticks involves even more complexity and game mastery - there's no way you fall into that sort of thing accidentally. So again, by the time they realize they can do that sort of thing, they're more likely to be mature about it.

But with Wizards? Wizards are supposed to be casting spells that mess with people. It's their thing. If you want to play somebody who's casting spells, you usually want to play a Wizard. Since Wizards have their power from versatility, even a couple sessions will show them which spells are useful and which aren't. The Wizard can just buy another spell, instead of rebuilding the whole thing if he makes a mistake in spell choice. While it's not quite as easy to play as (say) a Barbarian, even a novice player could reasonably be expected to build a pretty powerful Wizard just by looking at the spell lists.

So, you have a beginning group that has (usually) no druid, a cleric that isn't living up to his melee potential, and a wizard who's significantly powerful even at low levels. That, I think, is the root cause of people specifically complaining about Wizard power far more than the nearly-as-powerful Cleric and Druid power.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-03, 08:31 AM
The DM could easily stop Limited Wish from becoming a problem due to it being slightly vague in regards to what it can do. I think bosssmiley was refering to a slightly modified system which has level 6 as the highest level which characters can reach (it's this point where most of the classes are regarded as being balanced if I remember correctly). Going back to Aquillion's comment, you may like D20 Modern: spells only go up to 5th level, and a lot of other effects need complex rituals to use. When you mention Clerics having access to Arcane spells, are you refering to some Domains?

FlyMolo
2008-06-03, 12:59 PM
Once again: Why do people always focus on wizards? Druids and clerics are actually even worse in many ways. And yet people constantly, constantly talk about the wizard problem; you rarely ever see anyone suggesting that druids or clerics be reduced to 3rd level spells (Ironically, druids would probably still be quite playable with just 3rd level spells, easily more powerful than any non-full-casting class.)

Now, first of all, this suggestion flat-out fails for reasons that have nothing to do with wizard power or where you want to take the class. No matter what your goals or ends, a class that basically stops advancing after 7th level is dull. "Rip two-thirds of the spells out of the books" is also an undesirable solution -- you're eliminating a massive portion of the game, including hugely detailed things that depend on them (you won't be able to run most published adventures over 7th level in this system, since they'll often use spells you ripped out of the books; you won't be able to use many PRCs; most of the magic items will be impossible to construct without heavy houseruling, etc.) The best Wizard fixes would find a way to solve balance issues with minimal impact on anything else, leaving as much else intact as possible.

I think the problem is that people want to solve the "wizard problem" by radically redefining what a wizard is. That much is fine -- I think that this suggestion is an awful way to go about it, but we have perfectly good approaches to that solution already. It's called 4th edition, go play it.

But I also think that other solutions exist -- I believe that it is possible to preserve the iconic versatility and power of a 3rd edition full caster, while still altering them in ways that would prevent them from eclipsing other classes and dominating high-level play.

First of all, there are some spells and other things that have to be removed (or drastically nerfed into a totally different form.) The Celerity line has to go. The Polymorph line is iconic enough that I'm reluctant to remove it completely, but it has to be drastically changed (there are many very good suggestions for this.) Gate has to go or be drastically rewritten, too (even if you're not using it exploitively, gating in something twice your HD is never going to be balanced.) Contingency needs to be either removed or drastically scaled down in scope. There are a few other specific spells out there, but you get the idea.

Some spells that don't have to be removed, though: Knock, a common target, isn't really all that powerful, and honestly rogues still play fine -- they don't need it removed (I would fold Open Locks into Disable Device, though, for lots of reasons.) You can't replace an entire skill monkey with magic as easily as most people say (there's a reason why even when talking about full-casting 'ideal parties', they still include a beguiler for skill-monkey stuff.) At worst, if the wizard really wants to spam it, Knock just allows your rogue to avoid spending skill points on Open Lock and spend them on something else instead... that doesn't really hurt them much.

Foresight is another overrated spell. It's great in PVP duels and theoretical "You'll never kill me, nyah nyah" exercizes, but compared to other 9th-level spells it's not so hot, and in an actual party it's just not a big deal. Its only real combo is with Celerity, which has to be removed anyway.

Now, for actual fixes, we can look at literature and get an idea of what the limitations of most wizards should be.

One that leaps out: Spells take time to cast. This has always struck me as one of the most absurd things about 3rd edition. Fighters need full round actions to full attack, while wizards can throw around even their most powerful spells as standard actions. Basically, this is backwards -- wizards should take a (relatively) long time to cast most spells, while cutting someone up with a sword should be easy.

There's not too much granularity in our turn system, though. A spell can take one round to cast, or two rounds, and two rounds is often too long to be useful. One possibility that occurs to me is to have some sort of 'initative delay' system, where a spell that you start casting on initative count 7, say, goes off at count 12. There's some problems with this (the guy who goes just before you can't respond to your spells, but the guy who goes just after you can? Well, the guy who goes first can delay his action if he really wants to... In fact, anyone can delay their actions until after enemy casters. This could get weird.)

If you cast a spell you should always provoke an attack of opportunity, no exceptions, and if you're hit at all when casting the default assumption should be that you lose the spell -- there could be exceptions, of course, and concentration checks, but it should be hard to keep it.

Another possibility is to add some disincentive to throwing magic around constantly -- sort of like Mage's Paradox or Ars Magica's Twilight points. Put in a chance for spells to go catastrophically wrong, no matter how slim, and wizards will be less likely to use them when they don't have to -- in other words, leaving room for the more 'reliable' methods of other party members. I don't entirely like this, though (it doesn't fit the D&D theme), and it depends on a really, really overpowered concept of magic, even beyond what D&D has at the moment.

Setting-based reasons not to use magic can be useful, too. In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf uses very little magic because he warns that using any powers at all was like "writing 'Gandalf is Here' in letters of fire a mile high for all to see." This requires a powerful arcane BBEG whose attention the players generally want to avoid, but it can work pretty well -- the higher-level the spell, the more unwelcome attention it brings you. Long-range magic like teleportation and scrying carries particularly high risks.

Oh. And this is obvious, but it still needs to be said: Some classes Just Don't Work. Sure, you can RP as them and have fun if you like RPing or your group or your DM or whatever, but the class mechanics for these classes isn't very fun. These classes tend to be weak, and trying to scale the wizard (or anyone else) down to them is a bad idea. You are never, no matter how hard you work at it, going to be able to balance wizards with anything approaching 3rd edition's theme against someone whose basic role in combat is "I power attack and hit things really hard." Nearly every core melee class falls into this trap to a degree.
I agree with this completely, but spoilered because it is so damn long.

Casting: full round action. Casting Defensively: Impossible. Hanging onto a spell while being hit should be hard, but barely possible. That right there would fix most of the problems. Also, allowing a pair of attacks as a standard action with BAB +15 would be good for melee peeps.

Aquillion
2008-06-03, 06:12 PM
So your suggestion for me to fix a wizard is to play a different game?Well, I mean, I kinda think that your suggestion to fix the wizard amounts to playing a different game. "Eliminate all 3rd level spells" is simple to say, but its effects are much more sweeping than any of the things I suggested. It would require serious changes to nearly every creature and encounter the players run into at higher levels -- suddenly, say, their ability to do special damage to high-level regenerating creatures is vastly reduced. They don't have things like Greater Dispel Magic to nullify enemy casters (which are often not wizards, but creatures with SLAs and innate sorcerer casting.) And so on. I think it's fair to say that when your changes are that sweeping, you'd probably be better off finding a system built with that in mind from the ground up (and there are several.)


Well I was going to say you could also reduce a cleric's school to CLW only, and a Druid to SNA only, but I thought I'd keep it to arcane casters atm. And wizard is cited the most on these boards.For the cleric: Very bad idea. No raise dead line? No restoration line? No Break Enchantment, greater dispel magic, or remove curse? You're nerfing everyone with this particular change, not just the cleric, in ways that will change the game much more drastically and in ways I can't really think you intend.

The cleric is really the easiest to fix, anyway -- remove every personal buff from their list, and they'll still be powerful, but not overwhelming (and much of their power will support the party so directly that it's unlikely anyone will complain.) Don't allow nightsticks. Implement a houserule for Divine Metamagic like the one for the bardic equivilent, saying that you can't DMM a spell to higher levels than your highest-level spell. As someone else said, these hardly even impact the way your typical new player plays a cleric anyway, so it's not a huge change and leaves in all the vital things they do to keep the game running.

For the druid your suggestion would work. Of course, the druid would still be at least somewhat playable if you removed its spellcasting entirely, so it's not hard to come up with fixes for that... druid casting doesn't have a huge impact on the metagame, unlike cleric or wizard casting. Eliminating the druid does take a way a bit of of healing / support magic, though, which is a shame -- Reincarnation isn't broken, for instance, and there's no reason to take it away.

I would remove Natural Spell, and furthermore say that any buffs on the druid end or are suppressed when Wild Shape is used (the most dangerous use of Druid magic is often buffing themselves.) Of course, they'll still be able to buff their companion or summons, but at least not while wild shaped themselves.

Artificers might be a good class to look at for how to build a 'powerful' class that works. They're generally considered one of the most powerful classes in the game, but you rarely see complaints about them... I think this is because the fact that they have to burn money to really go nova (even relatively reasonable amounts) keeps them from dominating play, while many of their other abilities help the entire party (other party members are likely to look more kindly on the Artificer if they're making items for everyone.)

Also, you have to decide what to do with teleportation and scrying spells. They help everyone, but can also disrupt some things if the DM doesn't handle them well. One suggestion (made in the Dungeonomicon) was to have them blocked by 40 feet of dirt, or thinner amounts of other substances. This lets players teleport to the dungeon, or within the dungeon to an extent; but it keeps them from teleporting right up to the BBEG or whatever, or scrying them.

You might also lengthen the casting of teleport and other 'instant escape' spells, so players can't just zip out of combat. This has drawbacks, though; it could result in more TPKs, since the players have fewer reliable ways to escape.

FMArthur
2008-06-03, 07:31 PM
Is the word "fix" in the title being used as a synonym for "neuter"? Because that's the vibe I'm getting from this topic.

rockdeworld
2008-06-04, 12:57 AM
"Fix" usually means "balance"

Bleh, I'm tired of participating in this rotten debate anyway -_-

It was only half a joke to start with (I mean, come on - you can't fix something that intricate with something so simple, usually). The only part I really like is the scaling save progression, since I think lower-level spells with higher save DCs are always good, except the good ones (save enervation) tend to get outclassed at higher levels by spells that do the exact same thing and more.

People sure get riled up easily though. Sorry about leading you on.

Tempest Fennac
2008-06-04, 02:16 AM
Just before you pull out of it, how well do you think the ideas which Aquillon and I suggested would work?

Grey Paladin
2008-06-04, 03:42 AM
Aquillion:
Why should encounters be changed?

As is, D&D is a cakewalk, in my group we regularly fight things thrice our CR just for challenge (aka a good chance for one of us to actually die) and we don't even use cheese, we're mere veterans.

Giving the opposition abilities the party cannot hope to perform pretty much forces teamwork and planning to overcome the vastly more powerful foes.


Secondly, I do not see how such a system hurts the Wizard's versatility nor weakens him *too much*, do you truly need something higher then 5th level scaling spells with effects like Fear, Cloud Kill, Confusion, Bands of Steel, Stinking Cloud, Touch of Idiocy, Ray of Stupidity, Solid Fog, Dominate Person, Delusions of Grandeur, Shadow Conjuration and Deep Slumber all having a *higher* DC then in Raw? Not to speak of the power and versatility of 3.0 Polymorph.

Did you look at the list of 1st-5th level spells in the spell compendium? I doubt that w/rArch, even Tome of Battle ones, even have half as many options.

As to Clerics&Druids, Ban Natural Spell, Divine Metamagic, and Nightsticks and cap them at 4th level spells (but still give them higher level spell slots, like Wizards) with feats to learn 5th level ones, Limit the number of rounds Druid can spend Shapeshifted to 2/Class level a day.

A round is 1/5th of an average battle, if one of them wishes to be utterly useless for a round to be on par with the fighter for the next one, so be it.

Keld Denar
2008-06-04, 08:03 AM
You'd just have wizards casting Glitterdust, Grease, and Web for their entire character's career instead of just the first 7 level or so. Since the DCs scale, why not? Glitterdust is an AoE win button for your generic mook mob and even most higher level melee boss characters. Web is horribly inconvienient for just about anyone that Glitterdust wouldn't work on. Grease is and forevermore shall be the golem slayer and rogue enabler.

All you are doing is making the wizards life as boring as the fighters traditionally is. Instead of saying "I power attack, again" he says "I glitterdust, again" except with a larger proportion of win attached to it.

Ixtli
2008-06-04, 09:25 AM
I think that the wizard can be one of the most powerful character in game, but not an "unbalancing" one.
This idea is due to reading rulebooks without proper attention, according to me.

Wizard can give you versality and ability to solve a difficult situation in original ways.
Limiting to 3rd lvl is just killing this class, because a wizard is much more than fireballs and "save or die" spells.

For instance polymorph spells aren't so unbalancing.
3.0 edition
In "tome and blood" you can find the revised official version of "polymorph other spell".
Among other limitations, the creature you want to change your target in must be the minimum between:
- 15 HD
- wizard caster level
- target HD

The first phrase in "polymorph any object" and "shapechange" tells that the spell is similar to "polymorph other" and in the spell description there are no other hints to HD.
This means that "polymorph any object" and "shapechange" are also limited to 15 HD monster.
So ... Yes, you can become a gold dragon with "polymorph any object" and get its intelligence, but only a juvanile one (with 18 intelligence, if I remember correctly).

The above mentioned things apply also to 3.5 edition (but here shapechange is limited to 25 HD, according to errata corridge).
Please note that in this case with polymorph you also get Ex offensive abilities only (as constrict): those do not include regeneration, fast healing etc.

Of course, the above mentioned spells are good ones, but they are not unbalancing according to me.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-04, 09:53 AM
I think that the wizard can be one of the most powerful character in game, but not an "unbalancing" one.
This idea is due to reading rulebooks without proper attention, according to me.

Wizard can give you versality and ability to solve a difficult situation in original ways.
Limiting to 3rd lvl is just killing this class, because a wizard is much more than fireballs and "save or die" spells.

For instance polymorph spells aren't so unbalancing.
3.0 edition
In "tome and blood" you can find the revised official version of "polymorph other spell".
Among other limitations, the creature you want to change your target in must be the minimum between:
- 15 HD
- wizard caster level
- target HD

The first phrase in "polymorph any object" and "shapechange" tells that the spell is similar to "polymorph other" and in the spell description there are no other hints to HD.
This means that "polymorph any object" and "shapechange" are also limited to 15 HD monster.
So ... Yes, you can become a gold dragon with "polymorph any object" and get its intelligence, but only a juvanile one (with 18 intelligence, if I remember correctly).

The above mentioned things apply also to 3.5 edition (but here shapechange is limited to 25 HD, according to errata corridge).
Please note that in this case with polymorph you also get Ex offensive abilities only (as constrict): those do not include regeneration, fast healing etc.

Of course, the above mentioned spells are good ones, but they are not unbalancing according to me.

According to you according to you. Unfortunately for you, you are wrong.

In 3.5, no spells refer to polymorph other, and they have very specific limits:

Alter Self: "The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level."
Polymorph: "The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level."
PaO: arguably the same 15HD limit, but even that's pushing it. And since you can turn a Shrew into a Manticore, the subject HD is clearly not a limit.
Shapechange: "The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD)."

So a shor t list of crazy town would be:

Alter Self: Ravid for 60ft perfect fly speed and +7 Natural Armor
Dwarven Ancestor for +14 Natural Armor
Polymorph: Give your Familiar a Str score of 30, and have him go to town. Turn your Rogue into a Hydra with seven heads
Turn your Fighter into a Dragon
PaO: Turn your Fighter into a Fire Giant permanently, giving him an increase in Str, Con, maybe Dex, and Int, forever, also a size increase.
Shapechange: Supernatural abilities, don't get me started. You can share it with your familiar and fly around as dragons breathing all over everything, or turn into a Shadesteel Golem and be immune to everything and have a free action negative energy burst plus 60ft perfect fly speed. Or turn into a Chocker in Core to get an extra standard action. Or a Chronypx or whatever two headed bird to get two standard actions, two move actions, two swift actions, and huge stat boosts and a fly speed.

wodan46
2008-06-04, 10:47 AM
Below are 2 methods of fixing casting while keeping the high level spells (it is assumed that DM bans cheese combos), and also increasing the effectiveness of low level wizards.

Method 1: Spells have increased casting time
Spells consume 1 minor action per spell level, no more than 1 spell may be cast or partially cast in a turn. So meteor swarm eats 3 rounds, while Magic Missile is a borderline free action, allowing your Level 1 Wizard to fight. Attempting to do combos would be very difficult, as enemies would simply attack you and disrupt the spell long before you have a chance to finish your combo. Would also make for tense moments where your party buys time for the Wizard to drop his big spells. Nice and dramatic.
(Working under the assumption that you have 3 actions a turn, all of which can be used as minors, and thus its 1/3 a round per spell level.)


Method 2: Spells have unlimited casting, but fatigue increases failure rate
You can cast spells any number of times, but casting increases you chance of spell failure, some of which wears off quickly, some of which is more lasting.

Every spell you cast successfully: -1 per spell level, -1 per level over 6.
Every round: reduce spell failure by 1 per 4 character levels, include fractions.
Every time you cast spells of total spell level equal to your character level, -1 until your next extended rest. This includes the above spell level 6 penalty.

At level 1, you would no longer suck as much, and can cast multiple level 1 spells, but each one is harder to cast and it takes a while to recover. By Level 4, you can cast Level 1 spells with no temporary penalty, only the till-rest penalty. By level 17, you can drop Meteor Swarm as much as you want, but you take a whopping -8 penalty towards your next spellcast and have to wait a turn or 2 to catch your breath, or you could focus on casting level 4 spells with no penalty.

Ixtli
2008-06-04, 03:58 PM
I would like to reply to Chosen of Vecna, even if I think that maybe we're getting a bit out of topic (so I'm begging pardon for this digression).

I'm sorry, I usually I play 3.0 D&D and not 3.5 so I started talking about 3.0: my intention was just to tell that the 15 HD limit that is roughly present in both editions.

If we are talking about 3.5 all spells refer to "alter self" since:
-polymorph refers to "alter self" spell description
-polymorph other and shapechange refers to "polymorph" spell description (and so to "alter self")

In alter self there are a couple of interesting limits that also influence its more powerful bigger brothers.
The first is "the new form must be within one size category of your normal size".
So if your size is medium, it means that you can assume only a small-medium-large form
This limits "polymorph" but not "shapechange" or "polymorph other" (the size limit is 100 cu. ft./lvl for objects and the examples in spell description seem to bypass this limit)

The second one is the number of attacks ("A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks ... than normal.").
So if you're a wizard/sorcerer you get your 1 (or maybe 2 melee attack in case of full attack action) per round at your standard base attack bonus modified by new str. and size modifiers.
This limit is not removed by any other of the "polymorph serie spells".

I only have MMI and MMII, so I don't know some of the creatures you mentioned.
But I have to say that according to me some of your exemples aren't correct.
With "alter self" your normal form don't change: so if you're a humanoid (usual standard PC race) you can't become a Ravid that is an outsider (and even if you're a native outsider, the fly ability of Ravid is a Su ability, and alter self can't give you that kind of abilities)
I think that you need at least PaO to turn your rogue in a hydra (huge size), but I can't imagine why you should do that since your target won't be able to make more attacks than usual. Maybe to let the rogue demonstrate that he can hide notwithstanding his new huge size ;)

According to me every fighter should be turned in a fire giant as soon as possible (even if they'll have troubles in finding an inn suitable for them) or in a troll if he doesn't meet the level requirements for giants.

Shapechange ... OK! I admit that shapechange is a very powerful spell, but according to me when you'll be able to use it you'll need it to survive.
I just want to remind that the caster assumes the form of a creature, but doesn't became that creature.
I mean that he'll be able to use and benefit from a lot of Su and Ex abilities, but Hp remains the same (usually low amount, compared to that of the original creature).
Also some forms won't allow your mage to use his (or her) spells and ... and if you're a player you have also to be careful to use shapechange at its maximim potential: DMs tend to learn all those dirty tricks from players ;)

There are also some other drawbacks.
i.e. if you're in shadesteel golem form, your contingency won't work and your cleric won't be able to cure you since you're immune to magic.
You have also to be careful if you became a creature that is bigger than the room you are in ...

About the share spell ability of familiars.
If you cast 1 "shapechange" the familiar must be no farther than 5 feet (and must remain at that distance or the spell will fade from him) so that both you and your little friend will benefit from the spell (two dragon breath at the same time with one spell!).
If you cast 2 "shapechange" (one on you and the other on the familiar) you can have 2 fully independent dragons at the same time etc ...

PS of course if I have misunderstood something I'll be glad for any clarification