(Brainstorming/Friendly Debate) Evening the playing field: Spells as Feats

[DoomHat]

Of all the complaints and attempted fixes for D&D on this board, the number one issue seems to be trying to balance out the difference between casters and non-casters.
Most of the solutions seem to involve either making non-casters into scaled down casters (ToB), shuffling around the math so that some class features mean more and or some spells mean less, or changing some portion of combat rules.

Some will no doubt disagree, but to me the heart of the issue is that casters increase in power exponentially and mundane characters do not. The Psion is a pretty clear example of this.
I level 1 a Psion has 2 PP.
At level 2 they add 4, bringing them to 6
At level 3 they add 5, bringing them to 11
At level 4 they add 6 (17PP), at level 5 they decide 7 is for suckers and add 8 (25PP).
Why would they do this? No other stat in the game progresses like this, but it fits the progression of spell power almost to a tee. Dirt weak to start, begins snowballing around mid level, then goes bonkers.

I’m not sure this can be fixed without a complete shakedown/rebuild of the system. A Rouge’s class features take up two pages, a Sorcerer’s class features take up two pages and then also a full chapter.

My preference is to just turn each spell into a Feat. Everyone gets two Feats a level from their class list. Have a straightforward and universal progression for the resource used to power feats. Maybe every class has a “Feat Die” along with their “Hit Die”. Wizard has a d4 HD and a d10 FD, while a Fighter has a d10 HD and a d4 FD. Or maybe Feats are powered by Action(FATE, Edge, Void, Chi, Drama, Plot, ect.) Points? Something that can be used as a reward for particular in game behaviors.

Naturally normal Feats as we know them will either need to be massively buffed or called something else. I’d like to just call them Skills and toss the whole skill system out the window. So for example, Power Attack, Craft Magic Item, and Dodge are now Skills. If you want to be exceptionally good as some particular action take the Lesser (Blank) Expertise Skill, then take Full (Blank) Expertise, then Improved, then Greater.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

[Eldan]

I don't entirely agree with making spells into feats, though the idea isnt bad: I would really prefer characters with more than just two abilities to start out.

However, allow me to instead go on a tangent on something else you mentioned:
Feats as skills. I'm not sure about Dodge, but an idea I threw around earlier on these boards was Weapon Focus as a skill, which I think was generally well received. It was something like "Get +1 to hit for every four ranks in this skill, and +1 to damage for every 3 ranks in this skill". Which gave about the same overall increase as taking Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization on the early levels. I think this would work fine, and something similar could be done with a few others that really aren't worth their feats.

[Veklim]

Hrm...spells as feats eh...?

I'm with you on the concept at least, although perhaps a slightly easier (and arguably more adaptable) method could be a feat for each spell level instead. That would put you to level 7 spells at 18th assuming you start with level 1s and make the prereqs as spellcraft ranks, level 2 spells would require 6 ranks, level 3 needing 9, etc. It would screw with the idea of other feats for spellcasters, but perhaps it's an avenue worth exploring?

[DoomHat]

I don't entirely agree with making spells into feats, though the idea isnt bad: I would really prefer characters with more than just two abilities to start out.

Why? That’s what non-casters get. Lets look at Pathfinder.
A lvl 1 Rogue gets Sneak attack and Trapfinding, both about as powerful as Feats. A lvl 1 Paladin gets detect evil and once a day Smite evil, again, both effects you could expect form taking feats. Ranger gets three things that amount to class excusive feats. The Monk gets four.
But I can see why you might feel two abilities at first level is pathetic. At first level a Wizard gets an animal minion that comes bundled with Skill Focus, so that’s two feats. They also get an arcane school, which gives them two more feat like abilities. They also have Cantrips, which grant another 4 at will abilities dubiously feat level, arguably better. Then, they get three 1st lvl spells a day and Scribe Scroll as a cherry on top. Not even counting the 1st lvl spells, that’s 9 feats.
Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Bards get similar hot sloppy love.
So the question is, would you rather give all non-casters an additional 7 static benefits and 3 daily abilities at first level or just make it so each class gets 2 potent niche protected abilities.

However, allow me to instead go on a tangent on something else you mentioned:
Feats as skills. I'm not sure about Dodge, but an idea I threw around earlier on these boards was Weapon Focus as a skill, which I think was generally well received. It was something like "Get +1 to hit for every four ranks in this skill, and +1 to damage for every 3 ranks in this skill". Which gave about the same overall increase as taking Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization on the early levels. I think this would work fine, and something similar could be done with a few others that really aren't worth their feats.

I want something even simpler, the exact opposite of that. I want to cut out skills entirely and have every feat simply read like a class feature. Instead of saying, 'I have X ranks in Perception', you’d say, 'I have Improved Perception Expertise so I get a bonus to spotting things equal to my level'. In this case Weapon Focus would read something like, “+1 to attack and damage rolls at 1st level and an additional +1 for every three levels thereafter (4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th).”

And then, for reasons I’m about to explain, I want to call Feats Skills instead.
It’s crazy, I know, and I probably shouldn’t bring it up in this thread because it will likely derail things. I only brought it up because I wanted to make the word Feat mean something else. I’m a big believer in the power of words and what “Feats” actually do in D&D has never really felt right with the word.
Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines it.
1feat
noun \ˈfēt\
Definition of FEAT
1: act, deed
2 a : a deed notable especially for courage b : an act or product of skill, endurance, or ingenuity

Examples of FEAT
a performer known for her astonishing acrobatic feats
an exceptional feat of the human intellect
Writing that whole report in one night was quite a feat.
It was no mean feat.

In D&D a “Feat” is a small, static bonus. I think anything that’s called a Feat should be dynamic. They should be called upon occasionally and have a huge dramatic impact. Casting a spell is a Feat, to me. So I want to make Spells available to everyone, but call them Feats, and I want to take what are now called “feats”, and call them Skills instead. And finally, I’d like to take what are now called skills, set them on fire, and throw them off a cliff.

Hrm...spells as feats eh...?

I'm with you on the concept at least, although perhaps a slightly easier (and arguably more adaptable) method could be a feat for each spell level instead. That would put you to level 7 spells at 18th assuming you start with level 1s and make the prereqs as spellcraft ranks, level 2 spells would require 6 ranks, level 3 needing 9, etc. It would screw with the idea of other feats for spellcasters, but perhaps it's an avenue worth exploring?

This is an interesting way to take my idea that doesn’t screw with the rules as they stand to badly. I like it, but would insist that it be divided further by school. So you in order to take level 2 Necromancy you need level 1 Necromancy and 6 ranks in spellcraft. That strikes me as a far more sane degree of flexibility.

[Veklim]

This is an interesting way to take my idea that doesn’t screw with the rules as they stand to badly. I like it, but would insist that it be divided further by school. So you in order to take level 2 Necromancy you need level 1 Necromancy and 6 ranks in spellcraft. That strikes me as a far more sane degree of flexibility.

That makes much sense actually. Might be a good idea to roll divination and universal spells into one school for those purposes but that's actually not bad at all...

This needs some elaboration, gimme a while and I'll start knocking some stuff up to this effect.

[Falin]

Honestly, the problem isn't that casters get powerful effects, there's nothing overtly wrong with casters being powerful. The real problem, as I see it, is that casters have no limits. Fighters stab things in the face, and that's about the limit of what they do. Casters have no such limit, the wizard can literally do whatever they want and anything they can't do they can just wait until tomorrow to do. So the trick isn't to make spells into feats, but rather to define the spell caster's abilities better.

[Yitzi]

I don't really like that idea...the casters are supposed to have high versatility (not as high as they actually have, but higher than spells-as-feats would allow). Which should be compensated for by having to conserve resources and being easier to block.

And the reason that casters' resources increase quadratically (not really exponentially) is, as far as I can tell, the same as the reason that most spells increase in duration as you level up: At high levels, combats are supposed to last longer, thereby requiring more spells per fight.

But (you ask) they don't, and a fight can generally be ended with 1d3 spells? That's the problem that needs fixing. Once that's dealt with, fight length should increase the significance of casters' limited spells/day to the point where things are far more balanced.

[Eldan]

Why? That’s what non-casters get. Lets look at Pathfinder..

Oh, I didn't mean the caster-noncaster divide was okay. What I meant was I'd rather have everyone start with three to five abilities, like casters do, instead of giving everyone one thing, like fighters have.

[Veklim]

What I meant was I'd rather have everyone start with three to five abilities, like casters do, instead of giving everyone one thing, like fighters have.

I'm gonna feel dirty for saying it but...4th ed kinda does that quite well.

Ouch.

[Shadow Lord]

Why? That’s what non-casters get. Lets look at Pathfinder.
A lvl 1 Rogue gets Sneak attack and Trapfinding, both about as powerful as Feats. A lvl 1 Paladin gets detect evil and once a day Smite evil, again, both effects you could expect form taking feats. Ranger gets three things that amount to class excusive feats. The Monk gets four.
But I can see why you might feel two abilities at first level is pathetic. At first level a Wizard gets an animal minion that comes bundled with Skill Focus, so that’s two feats. They also get an arcane school, which gives them two more feat like abilities. They also have Cantrips, which grant another 4 at will abilities dubiously feat level, arguably better. Then, they get three 1st lvl spells a day and Scribe Scroll as a cherry on top. Not even counting the 1st lvl spells, that’s 9 feats.
Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Bards get similar hot sloppy love.
So the question is, would you rather give all non-casters an additional 7 static benefits and 3 daily abilities at first level or just make it so each class gets 2 potent niche protected abilities.



I want something even simpler, the exact opposite of that. I want to cut out skills entirely and have every feat simply read like a class feature. Instead of saying, 'I have X ranks in Perception', you’d say, 'I have Improved Perception Expertise so I get a bonus to spotting things equal to my level'. In this case Weapon Focus would read something like, “+1 to attack and damage rolls at 1st level and an additional +1 for every three levels thereafter (4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th).”

And then, for reasons I’m about to explain, I want to call Feats Skills instead.
It’s crazy, I know, and I probably shouldn’t bring it up in this thread because it will likely derail things. I only brought it up because I wanted to make the word Feat mean something else. I’m a big believer in the power of words and what “Feats” actually do in D&D has never really felt right with the word.
Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines it.
1feat
noun \ˈfēt\
Definition of FEAT
1: act, deed
2 a : a deed notable especially for courage b : an act or product of skill, endurance, or ingenuity

Examples of FEAT
a performer known for her astonishing acrobatic feats
an exceptional feat of the human intellect
Writing that whole report in one night was quite a feat.
It was no mean feat.

In D&D a “Feat” is a small, static bonus. I think anything that’s called a Feat should be dynamic. They should be called upon occasionally and have a huge dramatic impact. Casting a spell is a Feat, to me. So I want to make Spells available to everyone, but call them Feats, and I want to take what are now called “feats”, and call them Skills instead. And finally, I’d like to take what are now called skills, set them on fire, and throw them off a cliff.



This is an interesting way to take my idea that doesn’t screw with the rules as they stand to badly. I like it, but would insist that it be divided further by school. So you in order to take level 2 Necromancy you need level 1 Necromancy and 6 ranks in spellcraft. That strikes me as a far more sane degree of flexibility.

Wait, so you want to make it so that everyone is a caster? You want to both give casters a protected niche and make it so everyone can cast spells. Punch me if I'm wrong, but those two don't go together. Also; you want to take away Skills? That... just wouldn't work mechanically; the game has had Skills since 1e. It is, in my opinion, one of the most important distinctions between D&D and every other RPG. And your example with Pathfinder is ill suited, since all of the other classes get more Hit Die, which, by your definition, should count as a Feat, they get better Base Attack Bonuses, which should count as a Feat, and they commonly have more Skill Points and/or Skills, which should, once again, count as a Feat. And getting a level of spells is more accurately a Feat, so they aren't that much different, if you compare their ' Feats. '

Edit: I'm sorry if the above comes across as Rude, I didn't intend for it to come across like that.

[DoomHat]

Honestly, the problem isn't that casters get powerful effects, there's nothing overtly wrong with casters being powerful. The real problem, as I see it, is that casters have no limits. Fighters stab things in the face, and that's about the limit of what they do. Casters have no such limit, the wizard can literally do whatever they want and anything they can't do they can just wait until tomorrow to do. So the trick isn't to make spells into feats, but rather to define the spell caster's abilities better.

Powerful effects are cool, I like powerful effects. The problem is not that casters have powerful effects, it is that they have all the powerful effects, while some classes have none. I think that everyone should have some powerful effects, but nobody should be stuck with none and no one should have them ALL. That is the problem.
Spells are pretty damn well defined. What needs to happen is to limit their availability down from infinite.

I don't really like that idea...the casters are supposed to have high versatility (not as high as they actually have, but higher than spells-as-feats would allow). Which should be compensated for by having to conserve resources and being easier to block.

And the reason that casters' resources increase quadratically (not really exponentially) is, as far as I can tell, the same as the reason that most spells increase in duration as you level up: At high levels, combats are supposed to last longer, thereby requiring more spells per fight.

But (you ask) they don't, and a fight can generally be ended with 1d3 spells? That's the problem that needs fixing. Once that's dealt with, fight length should increase the significance of casters' limited spells/day to the point where things are far more balanced.

That would require a systematic rewrite aimed at hovelling every upper level spell. This would require a lot of work at the risk of making the game boring. I say to you now, nothing is worth that risk.

Oh, I didn't mean the caster-noncaster divide was okay. What I meant was I'd rather have everyone start with three to five abilities, like casters do, instead of giving everyone one thing, like fighters have.

Okay, that’s what I wanted to know. So, if we’re not cutting down casters, how do we go about building up everyone else.

Wait, so you want to make it so that everyone is a caster? You want to both give casters a protected niche and make it so everyone can cast spells. Punch me if I'm wrong, but those two don't go together.

Only if you assume it natural for casters to have, by default, access to all schools. Basically I would like to, for example, take invisibility from the wizard, and give it to the rogue. Buffs should be Other Only, so they can’t be hogged to themselves. I want to bust the magic monopoly.

Also; you want to take away Skills? That... just wouldn't work mechanically; the game has had Skills since 1e. It is, in my opinion, one of the most important distinctions between D&D and every other RPG.

I’m afraid I must disagree. An RPG without a skill set is an exception. Out of the 33 core book PDFs I have saved to my hard drive, only 4 don’t have a skill mechanic. Also, the skill system was always an optional plug-in until 3rd. Frankly the way 4th does it cuts down on book keeping, but I’m not so keen on the restricted options.

And your example with Pathfinder is ill suited, since all of the other classes get more Hit Die, which, by your definition, should count as a Feat, they get better Base Attack Bonuses, which should count as a Feat, and they commonly have more Skill Points and/or Skills, which should, once again, count as a Feat. And getting a level of spells is more accurately a Feat, so they aren't that much different, if you compare their ' Feats. '

I think you should take a closer look. Most of them have the same chassis as the rogue. All the rogue has for compensation is skills. Skills that are famously moot in the face of spell power.

Edit: I'm sorry if the above comes across as Rude, I didn't intend for it to come across like that.

It's alright. Tone is hard to maintain in pure text.

[Shadow Lord]

Only if you assume it natural for casters to have, by default, access to all schools. Basically I would like to, for example, take invisibility from the wizard, and give it to the rogue. Buffs should be Other Only, so they can’t be hogged to themselves. I want to bust the magic monopoly.


I’m afraid I must disagree. An RPG without a skill set is an exception. Out of the 33 core book PDFs I have saved to my hard drive, only 4 don’t have a skill mechanic. Also, the skill system was always an optional plug-in until 3rd. Frankly the way 4th does it cuts down on book keeping, but I’m not so keen on the restricted options.


I think you should take a closer look. Most of them have the same chassis as the rogue. All the rogue has for compensation is skills. Skills that are famously moot in the face of spell power.



It's alright. Tone is hard to maintain in pure text.

But restricting buffs to others only just doesn't make sense, from a fluffy point, and why would a Rogue be casting Invisibility? I can understand a rogue getting cool extraordinary abilities that are similar to magic. That actually really cool. But it makes little sense for a Rogue to actually cast magic.

And I have never, ever, ever heard of a Caster hogging their spells to themself. Maybe my group is just nice like that, or maybe it's not a common occurence, but a non-blaster is supposed to do three things; Buff, Debuff, and Battlefield Control. And I actually prefer the Tier 3 casters that each specialize in one school of magic, so we can agree there.

[Falin]

Spells are pretty damn well defined. What needs to happen is to limit their availability down from infinite.

No, I'm sorry, but they're not. Unless your definition of spells is "they can do anything" spells are just a mess of every effect the designers could think of. Defined, may be the wrong word here, perhaps I’d be better served saying limited. But really I do mean that spell casters need to be better defined. There are a few ways to do this just off the top of my head.

1. Lesser magic: Wizards are great for little tricks like putting people to sleep, stunning, fooling people senses, that kind of stuff. Gives them allot of tricks but means magic lacks stopping power, not entirely bad but you’d have to basically rewrite everything in D&D… but basically any change to magic would do that so whatever. Oh, but keep healing magic no matter how far you take this, a world without clerics is a horrifying thought.

2. Support magic: This could be played a couple of ways. First, casters are buffers and healers. Second, casters are walking artillery pieces. Third casters are either or. I would go with the last one but whatever.

3. It’s been mentioned here before but single school caster’s isn’t a bad idea, except that it may actually gimp them into TOO well defined roles which would mean you’d need several casters to function as normal in a game.

[DoomHat]

But restricting buffs to others only just doesn't make sense, from a fluffy point, and why would a Rogue be casting Invisibility? I can understand a rogue getting cool extraordinary abilities that are similar to magic. That actually really cool. But it makes little sense for a Rogue to actually cast magic.

There's all kinds of fluff justifications for just about anything. How about enchanting your own body, outside a few exceptions, blocks the outward flow of energy, thus creating the risk of a terrible feed back response.
As for rogues casting invisibility, that's why I was looking to change the name of the rule mechanic currently called "spells". I'd like to change the name to Feats. So Wizards have Arcane Feats, Fighters have Marshal Feats, Clerics have Divine Feats, Rogues have Shadow Feats, and so on. They'd all function the same way mechanically (as spells), but they'd each be geared to a different niche. Pass Wall, Invisibility, Knock, and anything else that would have rendered a rogue irrelevant are now rogue exclusive class abilities instead.

And I have never, ever, ever heard of a Caster hogging their spells to themself. Maybe my group is just nice like that, or maybe it's not a common occurence, but a non-blaster is supposed to do three things; Buff, Debuff, and Battlefield Control.

Then you haven't been hanging out on these very boards a lot? I'm not sure how to address that statement. I mean, if you haven't you haven't, and blessed be your gaming group.

No, I'm sorry, but they're not. Unless your definition of spells is "they can do anything" spells are just a mess of every effect the designers could think of. Defined, may be the wrong word here, perhaps I’d be better served saying limited. But really I do mean that spell casters need to be better defined.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. You're actually trying to say Magic is poorly defined? Well then yes. I totally agree. One of my favorite core books, Reign, has an excellent section on the subject of how to define magic in a given game/setting. It asks a set of important questions like, just what is magic supposed to do, what can't it ever do, who has access to it, how does it effect society. D&D answers almost none of these questions.
The only definition we have is what individual spells do, that there are a number of distinct schools, and a number of distinct ways(classes) to interact with it (whom each, for some reason learn from most if not all schools). I'm content to just work from what we've got but force just a bit more specialization on casters. Maybe wizards and sorcerers are limited to only three or four school from char gen on? Maybe they can branch out from there at some cost? Maybe one school really is quite enough thank you? We can't know until we slap something together and playtest it.

[Immonen]

It's a good idea, but there are ways to nerf magic-users without going outside the system.

IMC, I keep the wizard on a very limited spell list. He can only learn spells he's seen before (and there aren't many mages in the world), and he doesn't automatically get new spells out of the PHB when he levels. This effectively keeps him down to 3rd-level spells and occasionally one high-level spell that he gleans from a boss fight. The cleric gets the same spiel, if we had one.

3rd-level spells, from what I've seen, are really where a magic-user's power shoots up. By keeping them here (and limiting their options even within that area), they can't just ignore the other party members, and there are no major system changes. Quick, clean and easy.

[DoomHat]

This is the solution to a whole slew of problems from magic items to multiclassing. Just force the players to roleplay the acquisition of their goodies. This allows the DM to better regulate precisely what species of absurdity they're willing to allow, and the players appreciate their toys more, having had to earn them.
It’s an elegant fix.

You have been given a box that contains, among other things, all evil in the universe.
Step 1: Do not open box
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

But taking casters down a peg isn’t all I want to do. Casters (to my mind) have more interaction with the game. I’d like every class to be able to take part in that.

[Veklim]

Ultimately it depends on the type of campaign a DM is willing to make/run. Most of my campaigns take a decidedly sedate approach to many situations, with just as many social and mystery aspects as there are combats. The group I'm currently running has 3 power/combat builds and 3 skill/social builds running together, and you'd be amazed how often it's the wizard and the fighter/psion who complain about not having enough to do.

I will not, even for the breifest of misguided moments, suggest that the gaping chasm between mundane and magic is at all acceptable, but it does depend HEAVILY on the style of campaign you run. I've had wizards spend 2 or 3 levels looking for a library before now, which wasn't happening at any great rate because they were all in a desert in a foreign land, and teleport spells were hard to find (running a wayfarers guild setup who jealously guarded their secrets).

It's not that hard to find an in game balance, but there will always be moments when a wizard shines through regardless, like the time my super-nasty cunning villain rolled twin 1s against a phantasmal killer and promptly croaked before the group even found out what was going on. These things happen.

There will always be discussion, debate and homebrewing, all in the name of that ever-elusive 'game balance', a concept akin to utopia (fine and dandy until you try and put people into the equasion). At least this is a reasonably fresh look at the caster conundrum.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Skill feats need to suck less.

By level 3, I can cast Share Talents, a 10min/lvl buff on all skills between two people that at least one of them has at least one rank in, that allows the use of untrained skills, thereby rendering almost all dual skill-based feats (such as Alertness) irrelevant. By level 3, I can also cast Master's Touch for any skill for any person, which largely renders Skill Focus irrelevant.

Scale up the bonuses there for the feats, so they suck less.

[Dryad]

I see what you're getting at, but using the term 'feats' is misleading to my mind.
One possibility is taking existing spells, powers and manoeuvres, make them all work in the same way as manoeuvres (or so-called 'encounter powers') and simply let people pick new ones as they level up ('feats,' but not quite).
However, that would lead the cleric, wizard, psion and sorcerer classes especially dull, since they have.. Well; no class features to speak of apart from their spell progression. Of course; since these classes have none of that, they should get more bonus spells than others, but still.

I think that is the biggest problem with this idea: Not so much power as boredom. Spellcasters get new levels of tricks every other character level, while many other classes get something new each level. And even then, the tricks a caster should get are never really 'new' in flavour; they simply perform a different move, which is quite similar to the previous move in many, many ways.

Personally, I much prefer to play non-caster characters (and druids, admittedly) because they gain something new nearly every level. Sorcerers and wizards are dull, and especially on low levels, run out of juice incredibly quickly.
But this 'feat' idea, to me, doesn't seem to fix this problem. If anything, it would allow non-casters even móre goodies ('spell feats' are not normally included, so it would feel much more as a new class feature for non-casters than it would feel like class features for casters) while full casters will still seem relatively bland (and, to compensate, still probably be more powerful, since they're getting considerably more 'spell feats' to compensate for their lack of class features).

[DoomHat]

To Veklim
Thank you.

To Lonely Tylenol
I.. wait, what?

To Dryad
I'm starting to agree that the usage of the word 'feat' in this discussion is causing needless confusion, but it has yielded a few good comments and not inconsiderable interest in the topic.
I disagree that casters would need to become any more castery then they are. As I already demonstrated, a lot of casters already have non-spell class features pouring out of their ears (and if you'd like to argue that point then I counter with the fact there's nothing stopping us from making it true). I'd prefer that casters fill oddball niches not covered by anything based in sanity. Rogues get super thieving powers, fighters get smashy powers, Druids are one with the natural world, bards warp perception, wizards are basically medieval scientists, and sorcerers are turning slowly into monsters.

I'm afraid that I can't even begin to comprehend the argument that mundane characters get more interesting things more often. A non-caster is lucky to get 1 new class feature that just amounts to a minor bonus or extra use of something from an earlier level (a bonus feat basically). A caster however gets two or three new toys a level, each distinct and potent, sometimes along with a bonus feat.

Edited for clarity

[Lonely Tylenol]

To Lonely Tylenol
I.. wait, what?

Overhauling the spell/feat systems doesn't mean anything if spells are still patently better than feats on an individual basis... Unless you mean to say that these "feats" can be taken by anyone (so a Fighter can take Mage Armor as a "feat").

I mean, Dodge is terrible compared to Mage Armor, or worse, Great Mage Armor, from a simple numbers perspective.

The obvious example of this is skills. Every skill-based feat, ever, is replaced by two level 2 spells--Share Talents and Master's Touch--which are more flexible (in that you can change the bonuses; they're not locked in) and give greater quantifiable bonuses when you need them.

Not that many people use Share Talents or Master's Touch, or any of the skill feats (unless they're required for a PrC), mind you, but if I had the option, I'd always choose the former over the latter.

Which brings me to my point: the Fighter is a low-tier class, and the Wizard, by contrast, a high-tier class, because spells are good and feats are awful. It's not a matter of quantity; if the Fighter gained two feats per level, he'd still suck, because almost all the feats he can take are bad, and even the good ones are so miniscule in comparison to spells of analogous utility and availability that any sane person would choose one over the other.

Any systemic overhaul you plan to do has to address this problem: on a point-by-point basis, spells are just better at what they do. You can make feats scale, or spells not scale, or something to that effect, but you have to do something to address this problem.

[Dryad]

I'm afraid that I can't even begin to comprehend the argument that mundane characters get more interesting things more often. A non-caster is lucky to get 1 new class feature that just amounts to a minor bonus or extra use of something from an earlier level (a bonus feat basically). A caster however gets two or three new toys a level, each distinct and potent, sometimes along with a bonus feat.

I vehemently disagree. The caster simply gets more power every other level, but nothing interesting. Just an overhaul of a previous spell that's more powerful, and has a different name. Furthermore, it has a limited amount of uses per day, which, while not changing anything about the power of the ability, makes it less interesting because it is less a part of the character.
A non-caster gets a class ability, however, that is defining for their class, that progresses with their class, and becomes a part of their character.
Sneak Attack, for instance, is a key rogue ability. It sets the feel for the rogue.
Otto's Magnificent Mansion, however, is not a key wizard ability. It's for when wizards get bored, and even then, it isn't anything distinctly 'wizardly' other than being part of their spell list.
Fighter bonus feats, while never being able to get close to full spell progression, will always feel like you're defining and specializing your character along the lines of things you want your character to do, things that feel right, and things that fit your character theme. Spells, however, provide no such thing. They just give you more power. The 'specialist' thing that wizards have going on is but a poor substitute.

Spells are something you have purely for power. They don't add anything to a character apart from power. Their limited usage (per day) combined with the fact that you can basically prepare a different list for each day makes spell-progression itself a non-defining aspect of a character.
As such, mundane characters get more interesting class abilities (on the whole; the Druid class is a distinct exception to this rule) even though these class abilities are, beginning at medium levels, far less powerful. It's not just about power; it's about immersion. It's about defining a character, about what sets her apart from the rest.

Allowing mundane characters to pick up 'spell feats' grants them more defining goodies. You can have a rogue with, for instance, spider climb and stealth, or maybe charm person/monster, or maybe... These choices all compliment the rogue class, so they add more defining goodness to the class.
No matter the amount of 'spell feats' you could grant a sorcerer, though, it will simply amount to this: 'This spell goes boom, this spell protects me, this spell makes me be elsewhere.' There is no synergy with existing class features, there is no general feel that connects these spell feats. You won't choose things based on how well they work with your character concept; you'll choose them based on how powerful they are. A rogue, ranger, fighter, paladin, whathaveyou will choose the spells to match their style, improve their style, and make themselves more interesting as well as more powerful. A full caster, like a wizard, cleric or sorcerer will simply and ónly add more power to their list, but it will essentially remain as boring as it is now.

[Yitzi]

That would require a systematic rewrite aimed at hovelling every upper level spell. This would require a lot of work at the risk of making the game boring. I say to you now, nothing is worth that risk.

I'm working on such a rewrite (for Core spells only; I'm not insane) at the moment, and I think it should be doable. After all, only a small number of spells can really end an encounter that quickly, and most are either easy to see how they're broken or easy to defend against (via stuff like Death Ward and PfE.) And I don't see what's boring about a game where the typical wizard spell is on par with the direct-damage evocations in terms of power.

[Falin]

Well to begin with evocation spells haven't kept up with the power level of the creatures they're supposed to be used on. And for another evocation is rather vanilla compared to other schools of magic.

[Shadow Lord]

I still think the best way to even the playing field is by making specialist casters of every school, and a general caster with a more varied amount of spells known, but limited spells per day. All of these would be base classes, by the way.

But the most important thing to do first is to bring all spells to a middle ground; not as weak as evocation, not as strong as transmutation, but in the middle. Then you can really even stuff out. And there shouldn't be Divine Magic. Maybe Divine Healing, and maybe a few cool Smite abilities, but I have never liked Divine Magic, and I feel it doesn't make sense. And, nonetheless, there should be no, ' Divine Magic can be used with Armor. ' I don't like it, not one bit.

[Falin]

We already have specialist casters, and we already have generalist casters, and both have limited spells per day. But it's not really a limit.

As it has already been established powerful effects aren't the problem. Unlimited effects are. We don't need to bring powerful effects down to par, because even bringing them down to evocation level maked them better than stabby types. The key is to actually limit what casters can do. See my earlier post.

So disregarding power level for now, because changing the power of spells would be a nighmare world from which there is no escape. How does one go about effectively limiting the effects a caster has access to?

As for devine spellcasters. How do they not make sense? Preists have always been seen as inherently powerful. Hell, the pharos were basically preists, and they were seen as gods. Not ruling by decree of a god. But as actual gods in human flesh. As to spell failure. It was never an effective way to limit casters anyway, so what would the point be of taking it away from clerics?

[Immonen]

I'm going to agree with Shadow Lord here. Clerics are nothing more than wizards who lose attack magic for healing magic, which could itself just be a different type of arcane magic.

There's no reason that my wizard should be able to destroy souls by channeling energy from the negative energy plane but can't heal people by channeling energy from the positive energy plane. From a fluff perspective, it just doesn't make sense.

Additionally, clerics should have some spell failure chance while armored because they are wizards with different spells. Why should the healer, of all people, be allowed to wear armor when the glass cannon that is the wizard is left high and dry? Either no spell failure, or spell failure all around.

[Yitzi]

I mean, Dodge is terrible compared to Mage Armor, or worse, Great Mage Armor, from a simple numbers perspective.

Most of the time, that's not so clear. Sure, dodge is only +1 against 1 opponent and Mage Armor is +4 against all opponents, but on the flip side Mage Armor doesn't stack with your actual armor, while dodge does.

Well to begin with evocation spells haven't kept up with the power level of the creatures they're supposed to be used on.

And as a result you have to use more of them per battle. Which is the whole point of what I said: At higher levels, battles should take longer.

And for another evocation is rather vanilla compared to other schools of magic.

True; other schools would still be more subtle and interesting, even if they're no more powerful.

We don't need to bring powerful effects down to par, because even bringing them down to evocation level maked them better than stabby types.

Are they? Let's compare:
A classic evocation-level spell would be fireball or some similar 1d6 damage/level spell. At level 20, that does an average of 70 damage on a failed save.
A raging barbarian (since fighters need a boost, barbarians are better for comparison) at level 20 can be assumed to have 42 strength (18 base plus 5 from advancement, 5 inherent, 6 enhancement, and 8 from rage) for a +16 modifier. So with a +5 greataxe that's 1d12+29, or an average of 35.5 (assuming no power attack, no extra-damage enhancements, etc.) So about half as much damage.
But that's not all. After the first round, the barbarian's based his opponent. If the opponent moves away, it (in addition to giving up its own full attack) provokes an AoO, so the barbarian gets 2 attacks (at full BAB). If it doesn't, the barbarian begins the next turn based (or a 5' step away from based), so can full attack, which in most cases is even better. In contrast, the evoker can only get extra attacks with Quicken Spell, which burns spell slots quickly and substantially decreases the DC for half his spells. He probably still can do somewhat more damage against moving targets than the barbarian if he really wants to, but at the cost of running out even faster.
Of course, it gets more complicated; the evoker's spells are ranged and often can hit multiple enemies, but are also usually easier to construct ablative defenses against and are subject to spell resistance (which, barring some serious penetration capability, will push things strongly in the barbarian's favor.) And of course the barbarian has stronger defenses (especially against rogues; the barbarian is probably the best anti-rogue base class in core.)

[Falin]

Additionally, clerics should have some spell failure chance while armored because they are wizards with different spells. Why should the healer, of all people, be allowed to wear armor when the glass cannon that is the wizard is left high and dry? Either no spell failure, or spell failure all around.

Well because the glass cannon can stand back can blast stuff, but the healer has to go up to the front lines if they want to heal the stabby types? Even if they didn't healers are ALWAYS the priority target. Trying to kill the fighter while the cleric is still standing is a suckers bet, and any powerful creature knows it. So what do they do? They ignore the pin pricks the fighter is giveing them and attack the guy the wil basically make it impossible to to kill the fighter before they drop first.


EDIT: sorry yitzi missed your post

To begin with, you're comparing a third level spell to a twentieth level character who’s absolutely maxed for damage so there’s that. Even cast by a twentieth level wizard it’s not really a fair comparison. Now ignoring the fact the damage of fireball maxes at 10 dice, lets maximize and empower the spell your wizard was casting as an eighth level spell it does 180 points of damage. Or if using the actual spell, 90 points of damage in an area mind. Which both reinforces that casters are better stabby types than stabby types if they want to be, and that evocation isn’t all that great. Chain lightning, lvl 6 actually does deal 20d6 damage at level 20 and it can still be maximized or empowerd.

Second, even if the barbarian deals more damage, which he/she probably doesn’t because full attack is a crapshoot after level ten without houserules. Evocation spells also usually carry some form of status effect as well as damage, like nausea, bound, stunned, dazed, ect. So to bring spells down to evocation level you’d need to take that into consideration. Also, if the barb’s opponent moves away it can withdraw which means not AoO at all, though the barbarian can then charge it.

[Yitzi]

To begin with, you're comparing a third level spell to a twentieth level character who’s absolutely maxed for damage so there’s that.

Actually, I'm comparing a 9th level spell (as an actual fireball will have too low a DC, plus it will max out at 10 dice as you noted); I simply gave fireball as the classic example (since damage output doesn't really do more damage per caster level than that anyway.)

Now ignoring the fact the damage of fireball maxes at 10 dice, lets maximize and empower the spell your wizard was casting as an eighth level spell it does 180 points of damage. Or if using the actual spell, 90 points of damage in an area mind.

Of course, using maximize and empower means that your DC is going to be very poor, so you're actually looking at a tiny bit better than half that of that 95, and next to nothing if the enemy has evasion.

Chain lightning, lvl 6 actually does deal 20d6 damage at level 20 and it can still be maximized or empowerd.

Of course, that still comes at a cost to DC, and you lose most of the area-effect nature. A maximized chain lightning will still be impressive, to be sure (assuming an 11 to save against a normal 9th level spell, it'll do an average of 81 damage), but not all that much better than the barbarian on an attack+AoO, and a lot easier to protect or resist against.

Second, even if the barbarian deals more damage, which he/she probably doesn’t because full attack is a crapshoot after level ten without houserules.

How so? Evading it, so far as I can tell, requires both giving up your own full attack and taking an AoO, which is, if not quite as good, still pretty good.

Evocation spells also usually carry some form of status effect as well as damage, like nausea, bound, stunned, dazed, ect.

Not the core ones, so far as I can tell; perhaps I should have specified that I meant the core ones.

So to bring spells down to evocation level you’d need to take that into consideration. Also, if the barb’s opponent moves away it can withdraw which means not AoO at all, though the barbarian can then charge it.

It also means the opponent just gave up his entire attack. Unless he's kiting, that's no way to win a fight. (And if he's kiting, you need ranged anyway, which is even harder to prevent a full attack from.)