# Killing a Wizard is Easy... if you know how.



## Empath Negative (Apr 5, 2012)

Endlessly we debate about how overpowered spellcasters are vs. melee.


Chop off the top two levels of spells (8th and 9th) for Wizards, Sorcs, Clerics and Druids 5th and 6th for Bards, 3rd and 4th for Pallies.

Clerics and Druids would still be exceptionally powerful, however. 


To combat this for Clerics each Cleric would gain an additional turn undead attempt per level (in addition to the turn undead attempts they get already) but Clerics would have to sacrifice a turn undead attempt for every spell he wished to cast outside of his domains, save for cure or inflict spells.

For example, a Cleric with the Animal and Plant domain that wished to cast a prepared "Divine Might" would also have to sacrifice a turn undead attempt to do so.


For druids, change the Natural Spell feat to require the consumption of a Wild Shape use whenever they cast a spell while wild shaped.



Casters using the Wizards spell progression would not increase in spell level (but would increase caster level) at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th lvl (i.e. when they get a bonus feat).

Casters using the Sorcs spell progression would not increase in spell level (but would increase caster level) at 5th, 10th, and 15th.

Casters using the bardic spell progression would not increase in spell level (but would increase caster level) at 5th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 16th, and 19th, 20th.


I would leave Pally, Ranger, and Hexblade spellcasting as is.



Again, it would make the game more difficult... but it would also keep the game more balanced and arguably more fun for everyone involved.


----------



## xigbar (Apr 5, 2012)

CoDzilla doesn't really need 8th or 9th level spells. Nor does a Wizard. I would say this bumps everyone down one on the tier system, but it does nothing to bump up the melee classes. I think Legend's attempt at condensing the spell list was one of the most respectable example I've ever seen. 

Also, your posting style seems familiar, but feel free to ignore my paranoia.


----------



## BriarMonkey (Apr 5, 2012)

Instead of all those changes, which are a lot, why not just introduce a very simple pair of mechanics.

First, with 3.x/PF only Arcane casters have a spell failure chance with armor.  Make every spell caster have a spell failure chance with armor, regardless of if divine, arcane, etc.  Just using the same mechanic for all casters does a lot for consistancy.

And, have all spell casters make a spellcraft check to successfully cast their spell.  Successful check, and the spell works; unsuccessful check, the spell is lost.

That'd be a lot simpler than what you propose, and depending on how you set up the spellcasting DCs, much more efficient.


----------



## xigbar (Apr 5, 2012)

BriarMonkey said:


> Instead of all those changes, which are a lot, why not just introduce a very simple pair of mechanics.
> 
> First, with 3.x/PF only Arcane casters have a spell failure chance with armor. Make every spell caster have a spell failure chance with armor, regardless of if divine, arcane, etc. Just using the same mechanic for all casters does a lot for consistancy.
> 
> ...




Depends on the DC. If it's too high, people unfamiliar with the system wil flop, and it'll just encourage further optimization by people who know how.


----------



## kitcik (Apr 5, 2012)

The fact that wizards can lose their top two power levels of spells and still be far better than melee'ers tells you just how unbalanced this is.

Need a more general nerf. A chance of spell failure or, as in 1E, a real chance for disruption.


----------



## Sekhmet (Apr 5, 2012)

Again, you're punishing players for picking a class they want, rather than rewarding players. Whenever you punish, players are unhappy, and the ultimate goal of any DM should be to have a good time. Unhappy players =/= good times.

Try to think of a way to reward non-casters instead, like giving them a free Vow of Poverty without the downsides. They can still own and use gear like normal, but they get all those cool bonuses to help bring them up to par.

 Or even better, realize that the magical/mundane rift only appears when you consider versatility. Give noncasters a couple of spell like abilities so that they don't rely on casters for all their needs - a minutes per day, broken up however you need, Fly, Primary Stat Buff +4, and short range teleport, plus an area of effect attack (at a set dice/level, not based on their weapon/stats), and a once/day Sanctuary. 
 This small change helps mundane characters be more reliable on their own, without needing the casters to hold them by the hand and unleash them only to chop up the enemies as if they were a Summoned Monster. It also doesn't hurt casters at all.


 I use Option #1 and #2 here Tier System for Classes for helping my mundane characters, rather than either of the ideas above. It has helped a lot, actually. The mundane characters never feel outshadowed for too long, and the casters are still very content with their schtick.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Apr 6, 2012)

kitcik said:


> Need a more general nerf. A chance of spell failure or, as in 1E, a real chance for disruption.




A very easy and general nerf is to allow only up to one-half of your character levels to apply to a full caster class.

I generally prefer to increase the power and versatility of other classes, rather than boofing the casters, but it is pretty easy to do the latter, and more difficult to do the former.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Apr 6, 2012)

...And I still think the way to balance casters and non-casters is to give non-casters spells.

Seriously, who wants to play in a magical fantasy world and not use magic?  That's like being in a Star Wars game and not being Force Sensitive.

Silly people.


----------



## Naoki00_ (Apr 6, 2012)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> ...And I still think the way to balance casters and non-casters is to give non-casters spells.
> 
> Seriously, who wants to play in a magical fantasy world and not use magic?  That's like being in a Star Wars game and not being Force Sensitive.
> 
> Silly people.





I agree more with the "buff melee" approach, but personally I have to disagree with this quote lol. to use the star wars example, what about us that want to be Han or Chewy, (or better yet Boba Fett), none of which had 'magic' but still kicked major tail. in my games regrettably I nerf magic, since I haven't found a way to pump melee up that the whole groups happy with.

What i do first is base the casting on a point system, you want to cast a lv 0 spell? half a point from the pool. lvl 1? 1 point, etc. and the more 'magic' based you are the more points you gain each level. (lowest is 1+ casting mod, medium is 2+ casting mod, and highest is 3+ casting mod.) I find in my games this limits the spells used enough to make magic not seem so invasive and the end all answer. Second I mostly take out the utility spell like knock, or change them around slightly to make them more situational. and lastly I just completely did away with some spell levels (7-9, though some spells of those levels I made instead into rituals.) this at least seems to make my group very happy with both class types.

As for the actual 'killing' of mages, we created items that either nullify magic for a short time, or act as magical EMPs, making effects or spell casters lose their ability to channel the energy from other places and realms, though these are expensive and usually hard to get, and so are saved for emergencies.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 7, 2012)

> I agree more with the "buff melee" approach, but personally I have to disagree with this quote lol. to use the star wars example, what about us that want to be Han or Chewy, (or better yet Boba Fett), none of which had 'magic' but still kicked major tail.



Yes, but in the Star Wars RPG, if you're not a force user, you are massively outclassed.

Or so I hear.


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 7, 2012)

Perhaps... eliminate spell progression entirely?

You only gain spells based on high intellect, wisdom, and so forth... this would require wizards and sorcerers to become MUCH more dependent on scrolls, potions, wands, staves, rods, and so forth.

Which actually sounds about right...


----------



## Dandu (Apr 7, 2012)

Run a game like that, see if people enjoy it.


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 7, 2012)

Dandu said:


> Run a game like that, see if people enjoy it.






You know... they very well might...


----------



## Sekhmet (Apr 7, 2012)

Empath Negative said:


> Perhaps... eliminate spell progression entirely?
> 
> You only gain spells based on high intellect, wisdom, and so forth... this would require wizards and sorcerers to become MUCH more dependent on scrolls, potions, wands, staves, rods, and so forth.
> 
> Which actually sounds about right...




Can't really think of any fantasy wizard that was constantly pulling scrolls out of his hammer space, which means it doesn't sound right at all.


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 7, 2012)

Sekhmet said:


> Can't really think of any fantasy wizard that was constantly pulling scrolls out of his hammer space, which means it doesn't sound right at all.




You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Why would I think scrolls could ever be an integral part of the Wizard class?

I mean its not like they, specifically, have the ability to scribe them at level one or anything. The developers clearly never suspected an idea like mine might come about.


----------



## Sekhmet (Apr 7, 2012)

Empath Negative said:


> You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Why would I think scrolls could ever be an integral part of the Wizard class?
> 
> I mean its not like they, specifically, have the ability to scribe them at level one or anything. The developers clearly never suspected an idea like mine might come about.




Merely mentioning there was no precedence, there is no need to be passive aggressive.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Apr 7, 2012)

Who'd want to kill a Wizard? They're so cute...


----------



## xigbar (Apr 7, 2012)

Empath Negative said:


> You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Why would I think scrolls could ever be an integral part of the Wizard class?
> 
> I mean its not like they, specifically, have the ability to scribe them at level one or anything. The developers clearly never suspected an idea like mine might come about.




You're right, it's pretty clear they never suspected it.


----------



## Endur (Apr 7, 2012)

Are wizards powerful? sure.  The key is to avoid wizards being the equivalent of Gandalf while the rest of the party is the equivalent of the thirteen dwarves from the Hobbit.  And that level of power disparity should not happen if the melee classes and the wizard classes are approximately the same level.

I don't recommend changing the class.  I prefer in game solutions.

My role-playing suggestions:
1)If one player is dominating combat, make the other players the focus of role-playing.  Involve them in the role-playing by making them related to an NPC or the center of the quest.
2) If a combat is over fast, that means more time for role-playing.
3) If wizards mass-producing magical items is an issue, control the amount of time available in the adventure for item creation.


My tactical suggestions:
1) After every rest, ask the wizard player for a copy of his written list of memorized spells.  You'll have a copy behind the DM screen.  That will reduce the wizard's versatility.  
2) Enforce spell components, verbal, and somatic gestures.  No spell casting while swimming, bound and tied, silenced, etc.
3) If the NPCs know that the wizard is the most powerful member of the party, have them target the wizard.  Imagine this is american football, the wizard is the quarterback, and the defense wants to sack the quarterback.
4) Use anti-magic field (Beholders), spell immune creatures (golems), and spell resistance creatures (DRAGONS).
5) Throw more powerful opponents at the party (EL+4, etc.).  
6) Use outer planar adventures with different planar qualities.
7) Use opponents who are even more powerful than EL+4, but have a special weakness.  i.e. an EL+10 opponent, who can be defeated by a special weapon wielded by one of the non-wizard characters.  The other party members have to help distract and defend the wielder while the wielder destroys the BBEG.
8) Worst case scenario: use Wizards (possibly with templates) as BBEGs


----------



## Dandu (Apr 7, 2012)

Empath Negative said:


> You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Why would I think scrolls could ever be an integral part of the Wizard class?
> 
> I mean its not like they, specifically, have the ability to scribe them at level one or anything. The developers clearly never suspected an idea like mine might come about.




I think it is evident that the developers clearly never suspected a lot of things.



> 5) Throw more powerful opponents at the party (EL+4, etc.).
> ...
> 7) Use opponents who are even more powerful than EL+4, but have a special weakness. i.e. an EL+10 opponent, who can be defeated by a special weapon wielded by one of the non-wizard characters. The other party members have to help distract and defend the wielder while the wielder destroys the BBEG.



Question: How do the weaker members of the party survive those encounters?


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 7, 2012)

Empath Negative said:


> Perhaps... eliminate spell progression entirely?
> 
> You only gain spells based on high intellect, wisdom, and so forth... this would require wizards and sorcerers to become MUCH more dependent on scrolls, potions, wands, staves, rods, and so forth.
> 
> Which actually sounds about right...






This situation might be ideal for utilizing reserve Feats.


Wizards would still have access to extremely powerful spells, making their round to round interactions less "spell" dependent and more lesser effect dependent.


Think of it like this...

Let's say we could numerically quantify the experience of the classes.

Something ideal might read like:

Fighter: 3,3,5,5,5,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,3,3,3,4,5,5

Wizard: 2,2,2,3,3,8,2,2,3,3,4,9,2,2,3,8,2,2,9



The Fighter has a higher round to round "experience", but never reaches the same pinnacles as the Wizard.. but also never reaches the same lows.


----------



## Sekhmet (Apr 7, 2012)

Empath Negative said:


> Something ideal might read like:
> 
> Fighter: 3,3,5,5,5,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,3,3,3,4,5,5
> 
> ...




I think in this scenario, the Wizard would only ever get to participate in combats very infrequently. Most combats are over in the first three to four rounds, and this system wouldn't allow for "slow" classes to have any real interaction with combat.

Perhaps loosening up the restrictions on Quicken Spell*, allowing it to work as Spontaneous Quicken, and having multiple round casting times be more normal would even it out, without penalizing or rewarding anyone.
An idea might be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells being 1 round, 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells being 2 rounds, and 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells being 3 rounds. Or 1st and 2nd being 1 standard action, 3rd and 4th being 1 round, 5th and 6th being 1 round and 1 standard action, etc... 
 As long as you don't go over 4 rounds, your wizard should still be able to contribute to every combat without feeling left out, and the party will feel like they're doing more. 
 This would give even more reason to be a party buffing wizard, rather than a controller, but no one has ever complained that their BuffStick was OP. 

 *Quicken would be usable 3/day, and reduce any spell's casting time to 1 swift action, as long as their casting time falls within the normal limits of that level. IE: using the first example casting times, it could reduce a 9th level spell of 3 rounds down to 1 swift action, but any 9th level spell with an unmodified casting time of more than 3 rounds would not be a candidate for Quicken.


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 7, 2012)

Sekhmet said:


> I think in this scenario, the Wizard would only ever get to participate in combats very infrequently. Most combats are over in the first three to four rounds, and this system wouldn't allow for "slow" classes to have any real interaction with combat.
> 
> Perhaps loosening up the restrictions on Quicken Spell*, allowing it to work as Spontaneous Quicken, and having multiple round casting times be more normal would even it out, without penalizing or rewarding anyone.
> An idea might be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells being 1 round, 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells being 2 rounds, and 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells being 3 rounds. Or 1st and 2nd being 1 standard action, 3rd and 4th being 1 round, 5th and 6th being 1 round and 1 standard action, etc...
> ...





Most combats are over in three or four rounds in the current paradigm... where wizards can conjure the heralds of the gods every other fight... and they can by level 20 hurl fireballs with impunity all day long. Of course, under that system, fights wouldn't last especially long.

In the system I'm proposing spells become a much more strategic resource because you just don't have many of them, you have potent lesser effects... but you can't at level 20 with 28 intelligence (which isn't exactly hard)... summon an engine of destruction from the bowels of hell five times per day....


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 7, 2012)

Endur said:


> My tactical suggestions:
> 1) After every rest, ask the wizard player for a copy of his written list of memorized spells.  You'll have a copy behind the DM screen.  That will reduce the wizard's versatility.
> 2) Enforce spell components, verbal, and somatic gestures.  No spell casting while swimming, bound and tied, silenced, etc.
> 
> 7) Use opponents who are even more powerful than EL+4, but have a special weakness.  i.e. an EL+10 opponent, who can be defeated by a special weapon wielded by one of the non-wizard characters.  The other party members have to help distract and defend the wielder while the wielder destroys the BBEG.




Points 1 and 2 aren't countermeasures for casters, they're countermeasures for _cheaters_.  If you have players routinely ignore components, swap memorized spells, and similar, your problem there is the players, not the class.

Regarding point 7: currently, most challenging fights are left up to the wizard to defeat, with the other party members doing whatever until then.  If you replace "special weapon wielded by one of the non-wizard characters" with "spell wielded by one of the wizard characters," that brings us back to exactly the power and spotlight problems that currently exist, so why would that fix anything?


----------



## James the Newbie (Apr 7, 2012)

Personaly I think the best way to improve the fighter and the monk is to add DR to the fighter every other level on top of DR from any other souse and add DR at every level past 5th for the monk

This results in fighters being good at low levels (like seems to be intended) and monks getting better as the game progresses (As already works)

The other one is to literally double non casting classes hit die and BAB and then increase the EL of everything. Your then running a high level campaign where close quarters experts, really are that. also give classes like ranger and bard 1.5 HD and BAB

Not sure if either of these effectively work, I just wanted to give you guys something to mull over maybe


----------



## rgard (Apr 7, 2012)

Dandu said:


> Yes, but in the Star Wars RPG, if you're not a force user, you are massively outclassed.
> 
> Or so I hear.




Agreed, but that didn't stop my players from playing Fringers, Nobles, Scoundrels, Soldiers, Scouts, and Tech Specialists.

I didn't understand their choices.  Whenever I played in somebody else's campaign, I'd play a Jedi Guardian.  For me there wasn't much point if my character wasn't cutting off limbs with a light sabre.


----------



## Endur (Apr 7, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Points 1 and 2 aren't countermeasures for casters, they're countermeasures for _cheaters_.  If you have players routinely ignore components, swap memorized spells, and similar, your problem there is the players, not the class.




I see it as an issue of accounting.  If I force the player to give me a copy of his memorized spells every time he rests, its likely the spell list will be nearly identical every time.  On the other hand, if he only writes his spell list down one time, he is more likely to make changes.

With regards to material components, some players hand wave and assume they have components without actually checking.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> Regarding point 7: currently, most challenging fights are left up to the wizard to defeat, with the other party members doing whatever until then.  If you replace "special weapon wielded by one of the non-wizard characters" with "spell wielded by one of the wizard characters," that brings us back to exactly the power and spotlight problems that currently exist, so why would that fix anything?




In my experience, clerics are more powerful than wizards.  But I usually don't play level 15+, so I miss out on the 8th and 9th level spells.  Below level 15, I don't see the wizard as winning most of the challenging fights.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 7, 2012)

> In my experience, clerics are more powerful than wizards. But I usually don't play level 15+, so I miss out on the 8th and 9th level spells. Below level 15, I don't see the wizard as winning most of the challenging fights.



What do you define as "winning"?


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Apr 8, 2012)

Endur said:


> With regards to material components, some players hand wave and assume they have components without actually checking.



There's a Feat for that.  If the DM wants to make it even easier for a caster by giving a free feat, hey, why should the player complain?  However, if the DM says the player needs to account for the materials, then that's completely within the rules, and keeps the caster accountable.  In a thread about reigning in the Wizard etc, enforcing this aspect of spellcasting is a very fair and balanced way to do so.
My Factotum complains about finding and eating a live spider every time he uses _Spider Climb_. Gnawing on asphalt he's ok with by now.



Dandu said:


> What do you define as "winning"?


----------



## Endur (Apr 8, 2012)

Dandu said:


> What do you define as "winning"?




Sorry I was referring to the previous poster's comment that he sees most challenging combats being up to the wizard to defeat.


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 8, 2012)

Whats truky bizarre is that the argument against my "natural talent" limitation hinges on the beluef that if you dont get to play god at the table to everyone elses jobah... Well.. Youll just have to take your ball and go home.

The natural talent limitation is an easy to implement, no frills balancer that still allows the spell caster everything they had access to before... Just in reduced quantity. Thereby making it more strategic and less overpowering (as every other form of casting comes with a relatively heavy cost, from scrolls to reserve feats, to wands and rods..).


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 8, 2012)

And enchantments ridiculously long duration spells now improve that schools viability considerably.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Apr 8, 2012)

We can have endless "Nerf This" and "Balance That" conversations here but it really all comes down to whatever the DM and players at any particular table discuss and agree upon.  The reason why there are so many opinions is because there are so many different people and play styles.  What works for one group won't for another, etc.


----------



## kitcik (Apr 8, 2012)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> We can have endless "Nerf This" and "Balance That" conversations here




Yay!


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 8, 2012)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> We can have endless "Nerf This" and "Balance That" conversations here but it really all comes down to whatever the DM and players at any particular table discuss and agree upon.  The reason why there are so many opinions is because there are so many different people and play styles.  What works for one group won't for another, etc.




Strange how counciliatory we all get when a reasonable balance for wizards is placed on the table...

Goes from fighters suck, lets just eliminate the class and.. Just give everyone spells to... Well uh.. You know.. All classes are balanced in their own way at the gaming table.

Uh huh.


----------



## Greg K (Apr 9, 2012)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> .
> Seriously, who wants to play in a magical fantasy world and not use magic?  That's like being in a Star Wars game and not being Force Sensitive.



A lot of people.


----------



## Greg K (Apr 9, 2012)

Empath Negative said:


> Chop off the top two levels of spells (8th and 9th) for Wizards, Sorcs, Clerics and Druids




I'd rather start  with 

1. Use the bard's progression of Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers,and Wizards t

2. Make Clerics and Druid's Spontaneous divine casters (per Unearthed Arcana)  severely limiting the number of spells known (or even removing the druid for a Nature based cleric)

3. Limit the Clerics spells known to their deity's domains and a handful of other spells (e..g, Augury, Bestow Curse, Remove Curse, Mark of Justice, Atonement). If  you need your cleric's to be healers give them a few cure spells. For Planar Ally spells, the DM creates a specific Planar Ally for each deity. This ally is what is summoned every time.

4. Limiting Wizards and Sorcerers to spells they find.

5.  Maybe, make all wizards specialists with tailored spell lists (DMG variant: Spell Lists). I would bring in other specialists wizards from 2e supplements:  Alchemist, Artificer, Geomancer, Song Mage, Wild Mage, Dimensionalist, Elementalist, Force Mage, Mentalist, Shadow Mage.

6. Increase the cost and length of time required for crafting potions and scrolls and not give scribe scroll and remove Scribe Scroll as an automatic ability for wizards

7. Ditch natural spell or place more feat pre-requisites.

8. Go through the spell lists, rewrite,  re-level and remove spells.

9. Uncouple extra attacks from BAB and make them feats.  Give the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger these feats automatically.  No extra attacks for the Cleric or Druid without spending feats.


After that, I would
a. Boost skill points for the fighter and some of the other classes. Add some new skills.
b. Incorporate the Book of Iron Might maneuver system or something similar that allows martial types to inflict ability score penalties, inflict other penalties, daze, stun, knockback, knock prone, temporarily blind or deafen, disable natural attacks,  disable certain supernatural attacks (e.g., beholder's eye stalks) with melee and ranged attacks.
c. incorporate a Press the Attack feat that I saw somewhere that allows a character to make an additional five foot step in response to another character (e.g., a spell caster) doing the same.

Again, not a full list of what I would do, but where I would start.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 9, 2012)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> ...And I still think the way to balance casters and non-casters is to give non-casters spells.
> 
> Seriously, who wants to play in a magical fantasy world and not use magic?  That's like being in a Star Wars game and not being Force Sensitive.
> 
> Silly people.




I (and many others) think that Han Solo is more fun than Luke Skywalker.



Endur said:


> Are wizards powerful? sure.  The key is to avoid wizards being the equivalent of Gandalf while the rest of the party is the equivalent of the thirteen dwarves from the Hobbit.  And that level of power disparity should not happen if the melee classes and the wizard classes are approximately the same level.




But in 3.X _they aren't_.



> I don't recommend changing the class.




Why not.  They aren't approximately the same power level - which you say is a bad thing.  So why not change it?



> I prefer in game solutions.
> 
> My role-playing suggestions:
> 1)If one player is dominating combat, make the other players the focus of role-playing.  Involve them in the role-playing by making them related to an NPC or the center of the quest.




In short the DM needs to make up the system shortfall.



> 2) If a combat is over fast, that means more time for role-playing.




If you aren't roleplaying in combat, why not?



> 3) If wizards mass-producing magical items is an issue, control the amount of time available in the adventure for item creation.




It takes one day to make a wand of Cure Light Wounds (or almost any scroll).  You need to set things up such that the wizard doesn't get a single day of downtime.  And certainly never two in a row.  At this rate roleplaying will end up with PTSD.



> My tactical suggestions:
> 1) After every rest, ask the wizard player for a copy of his written list of memorized spells.  You'll have a copy behind the DM screen.  That will reduce the wizard's versatility.
> 2) Enforce spell components, verbal, and somatic gestures.  No spell casting while swimming, bound and tied, silenced, etc.




You mean that this will prevent cheating.  Well, yes.  Not having players that cheat helps.  But the balance problems are even with this in place.  (And the fighter's screwed while bound and has problems swimming in his armour and fighting at the same time).



> 3) If the NPCs know that the wizard is the most powerful member of the party, have them target the wizard.  Imagine this is american football, the wizard is the quarterback, and the defense wants to sack the quarterback.




1: This is normal.
2: This means that combat revolves even harder around the wizard.
3: In 3.X there are very few means to help the fighter prevent this.



> 4) Use anti-magic field (Beholders), spell immune creatures (golems), and spell resistance creatures (DRAGONS).




Anti magic fields are annoying but there are very few monsters with one.  Especially that the wizard should let get close enough.  As for Spell Resitance and Spell Immunity, all the spell resitance in the world isn't going to save you from glitterdust (or any of dozens of other spells).  And Spell Immunity "works exactly like [URL="http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Spell_Resistance"]spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome"[/url].  Meaning you can still glitterdust a golem quite happily.  These are tools in an arms race - the wizard has plenty of ways of beating them.  (Walls of Iron have no time for SR or Magic Immunity.  Once there they are there).



> 5) Throw more powerful opponents at the party (EL+4, etc.).




Making the non-casters completely irrelevant.



> 6) Use outer planar adventures with different planar qualities.




And?  The wizard is versatile enough to get round this.  Especially if he knows what to expect.



> 7) Use opponents who are even more powerful than EL+4, but have a special weakness.  i.e. an EL+10 opponent, who can be defeated by a special weapon wielded by one of the non-wizard characters.  The other party members have to help distract and defend the wielder while the wielder destroys the BBEG.




Ah.  The farmboy with a mcguffin.  Because this doesn't look at all patronising.



> 8) Worst case scenario: use Wizards (possibly with templates) as BBEGs




And that's the problem.  The answer to magic is more magic in 3.X.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Apr 9, 2012)

In the campaign that I am currently running, I have done a few things to make the non-caster classes more powerful and versatile in relation to the caster classes.

1.  Players choose the attributes for their characters, rather than rolling for them or applying some point buy limitation.  Spellcasting classes usually require only one (or two) good stats to be effective, while non-casters usually require all (or nearly all) of them to be good for full effectiveness.

2.  All types of characters can create magic items on their own, without need for a spellcaster.  Spellcasting characters usually require fewer magic items to be fully effective, while non-casters are much more reliant on 'the big six' items to do a good job.

3.  All characters gain a feat at each character level.  Spellcasters get to use a (nearly) limitless number of spells to break the normal game rules, while non-spellcasters are dependent upon feats to accomplish this.  Giving everyone more opportunities to break the rules makes everyone more versatile.

4.  All characters gain max ranks in one of each of the craft, knowledge, perform, and profession skills.  This ties in a bit with the magic item creation rules I'm using, but also gives all of the characters an opportunity to make some use of role-playing skills a bit without a need to sacrifice their combat ability.


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 10, 2012)

Seriously guys. My solution may be the best ever.

Just take away any base slots the characters get from classes.

This means a cleric would still have a second lvl domain spell slot at lvl 3, but no class based spell slots. Only if his wisdom is high enough may he cast other spells of that level.

Im telling you, this is one of the best balances for spell vs. Melee in pkay ever. Youll still have issues with some problematic spells byt those issues will be nowhere near as pronounced.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 10, 2012)

It's so great it doesn't even need play testing!


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 10, 2012)

Dandu said:


> It's so great it doesn't even need play testing!




I know, right? Why bother troubling that multi million dollar corporation I got hanging out in my back forty that i NORMALLY go to when I want to suggest changes to a table top roleplaying game I don't own.


*facepalm*


Incidentally, check out this new mini I found.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Apr 10, 2012)

Dandu said:


> It's so great it doesn't even need play testing!






Empath Negative said:


> I know, right? Why bother troubling that multi million dollar corporation I got hanging out in my back forty that i NORMALLY go to when I want to suggest changes to a table top roleplaying game I don't own.




You don't need to provide us with play testing from that multi-million dollar corporation in your backyard; just your group's experiences will do. Perhaps you can explain to us what your group's initial reactions were? How did their impressions change over the course of the campaign? What were the unintended consequences of this rule change? Did you see an increase in usage of scrolls and wands? Did you see an increase in the "15-minute adventuring day?" Etc.

It would also be a good idea to detail for us your group's general composition. Perhaps your player's skill levels with optimization, strategic and tactical considerations? Was the game played as a sandbox or a more structured linear campaign? You know, give us some details so that we can determine whether or not this solution may be "the best ever."


----------



## Dandu (Apr 11, 2012)

Empath Negative said:


> I know, right? Why bother troubling that multi million dollar corporation I got hanging out in my back forty that i NORMALLY go to when I want to suggest changes to a table top roleplaying game I don't own.
> 
> 
> *facepalm*
> ...




As a development team member for a roleplaying game system, I can say that giving a rules change some basic playtesting does not require much money at all. Certainly not multiples of millions of dollars, though it'd definitely be nice if we had that.

Good day to you, sir, and may you have fun with your best solution ever.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Apr 11, 2012)

Jacob Marley said:


> You don't need to provide us with play testing from that multi-million dollar corporation in your backyard; just your group's experiences will do. Perhaps you can explain to us what your group's initial reactions were? How did their impressions change over the course of the campaign? What were the unintended consequences of this rule change? Did you see an increase in usage of scrolls and wands? Did you see an increase in the "15-minute adventuring day?" Etc.
> 
> It would also be a good idea to detail for us your group's general composition. Perhaps your player's skill levels with optimization, strategic and tactical considerations? Was the game played as a sandbox or a more structured linear campaign? You know, give us some details so that we can determine whether or not this solution may be "the best ever."




That's a good point.

Here's a brief summary on how the rules changes that I've detailed above were accepted by my own players...

The attribute spread has been accepted happily, and only one of the players felt the urge to put 18 in every attribute.  That player is a shameless and known powergamer, and the other players do not seem to mind, so I am okay with that.  He is playing a wizard, so those other attributes are not all that helpful to him anyway.

My other power gamer is playing a monk/rogue, which is a huge shift from his unending horde of CoDzilla characters. I consider this to be a huge win.

After a few hiccups, mostly due to a miscommunication in the way that the rules work, the players have taken to making their own magic items with gusto.  Almost every session, someone decides that they need to make a new magic item.  They don't always have the time to do so in-game, but more often than not, they do so.  The characters are maintaining an even keel with a (modified) wealth by level guide.  They have the items that they want.  And, I can feel free to throw whatever kinds of challenges at them that I feel the urge to do without worrying if they've got the magical oomph for it.

The feat per level thing has made all of the characters really REALLY good at their chosen schtick.  Giving all of the monsters at feat for each of their Hit Dice has made combats very interesting, if a bit harder to prep.  I've got a two week lead-time between sessions, so prep hasn't been too big a deal, yet.

The extra skills has given each of the characters a way to relate to the game-world that is tangentially related to adventuring, and has led to some cool role-play stuff already.  I'm hoping to see even more of that.

This is after eight sessions so far.  It has been pretty successful, I think.


----------



## Malachei (Apr 15, 2012)

Dandu said:


> As a development team member for a roleplaying game system, I can say that giving a rules change some basic playtesting does not require much money at all. Certainly not multiples of millions of dollars, though it'd definitely be nice if we had that.
> 
> Good day to you, sir, and may you have fun with your best solution ever.




Indeed. Which system are you working on, [MENTION=85158]Dandu[/MENTION]?


----------



## Dandu (Apr 15, 2012)

This one.
See what Brian Clevinger has to say about it if you lack the time to read through a +160 page PDF.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Apr 15, 2012)

Malachei said:


> Indeed. Which system are you working on, @Dandu ?




Dandu Is Working On Legend.

EDIT: Aww, Ninja'd.


----------



## xigbar (Apr 15, 2012)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> Dandu Is Working On Legend.




Origininja'd.


----------



## Malachei (Apr 15, 2012)

Dandu said:


> This one.
> See what Brian Clevinger has to say about it if you lack the time to read through a +160 page PDF.




Of course, I know this one. That means you must have been (and still be) pretty busy.


----------



## Empath Negative (Apr 16, 2012)

If only thoae folks at wizards of the coadt had known to invest in playtesters. Those FOOLS. Why oh why didnt someone tell them all they needed were playtesters and everything would be fine!

 So GTFO with this playtester bull. Why should anyone here suggest an idea to improve the game if someone else is just going to say go playtest it, and no sense discussing it.

Have an idea? Have a suggestion? Go  yourself if you havent "playtested" it. Dont have the time or resources to playtest? Well go  yourself we wont talk about it here unless you do.

Whatever.

*Mod Note*: Ladies and gents, EN World is a family-friendly site.  While we have a language filter, that is a last-resort thing, not intended to allow you to use nasty words with impunity.  Rude language is just rude.  Keep it clean, folks, and it'll help you keep it civil.  Thanks.  ~Umbran


----------



## Malachei (Apr 25, 2012)

I think given the publishing pressure, WOTC has done an excellent job. 

Yes, there are issues, but that is to be expected of any system that has so many sourcebooks you can fill a complete book shelf with it.

On why writers have to be fast, you may wish to refer to the excellent blog entry by Robert Schwalb: Crapping on your dream.

I don't know what the root cause is, but you can see that in most creative jobs: Only a very small percentage gets paid well, and a huge number of talented writers have to compensate by producing a high quantity. A game designer must be an idealist, of sorts. Most jobs pay a lot better.

And I really dislike that gamers are always ******* on game designers. I think we should respect designers for the dedication they put into their work.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 26, 2012)

Eh.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Apr 26, 2012)

what disappoints me most about this thread is after 4 pages, I still don't know an easy way to kill a wizard.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 26, 2012)

Love's Pain


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Apr 26, 2012)

Dandu said:


> Love's Pain



Nice.  

But not if you're a crotchety old grumpy Wizard with no friends.  If CHA is your dump stat, you're considerably less likely to end up the target of this spell.  

But still, excellent suggestion.


----------



## xigbar (Apr 26, 2012)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> what disappoints me most about this thread is after 4 pages, I still don't know an easy way to kill a wizard.



By playing one. If you can get it close enough, however, the Mage Slayer feat on a large creature with a spiked chain with multiple ways to extend reach could work.


----------



## kitcik (Apr 26, 2012)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> Nice.
> 
> But not if you're a crotchety old grumpy Wizard with no friends. If CHA is your dump stat, you're considerably less likely to end up the target of this spell.
> 
> But still, excellent suggestion.




Actually, it works better if they have no friends. It's when they are "Mr. / Ms. Popularity" that you have an issue. By the time you cast it enough to kill them all and finally finish off the wizard, you will probably be screwed...


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 30, 2012)

Forced Multi-classing

No one can take more than 1 (2 or 3 or 4 you decide what) levels of a class in a row.

1 Wizard 1 
2 Rogue 1
3 Wizard 2
4 Rogue 2

This essentially would cap you at 5th level spells across the board.

It won't stop your Wiz/Cleric combos, but its a flat rule for everyone.
And it's usually at 5th level magic where most games begin to feel the pinch of the wizard overcoming most things.

Now you have to bear in mind this greatly effects the CR's of many critters at the 'name levels' and up (8+).

-------------------------------------------
As a side note, I'm actually playing a melee guy right now and having a ton of fun doing it.


----------



## xigbar (Apr 30, 2012)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Forced Multi-classing
> 
> No one can take more than 1 (2 or 3 or 4 you decide what) levels of a class in a row.
> 
> ...




You'd still be able to take PrCs that advance caster level, and end up with 9th level spells.


----------

