Simple Caster Limitation

[dextercorvia]

In the full casters get Bard progression example I gave, I would limit the other classes to 6th level spells as well. I would probably increase the number of Eclectic Learnings to match the extra spells that a Sorcerer could pick out.

1/2 CL doesn't really work. A CL that low is just not enough to beat SR, doesn't let quality party buffs like Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment reach their full potential.

Eliminating 6th level spells too wouldn't make caster's worthless, but likewise, it isn't their 6th level spells which are still letting them outclass melee.

It is just the fact that they get new interesting class features from a huge list at every level.

[dextercorvia]

new page glitch

[Ashtagon]

This is the second person who has suggested that, and it sound reasonable. The only thing I worry about is the guy who, for his concept, wants to be nothing but a frail bookworm.

...

This concern is why I suggested allowing a wizard to dual-class as a (for example) evoker/necromancer.

Edit: It may be worth allowing the classes to stack for the purpose of effective caster level only (not for spells per level or spells known).

[GenghisDon]

Banhammering the Tier 1's out of existance probably works too.

[GenghisDon]

In the full casters get Bard progression example I gave, I would limit the other classes to 6th level spells as well. I would probably increase the number of Eclectic Learnings to match the extra spells that a Sorcerer could pick out.

1/2 CL doesn't really work. A CL that low is just not enough to beat SR, doesn't let quality party buffs like Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment reach their full potential.

Eliminating 6th level spells too wouldn't make caster's worthless, but likewise, it isn't their 6th level spells which are still letting them outclass melee.

It is just the fact that they get new interesting class features from a huge list at every level.

I like the bard progression idea as well, and to be honest L6 spells work well as the "new L9", in that they are a quantum leap. It depends how much one wants to reduce the full casters.

[Hyde]

I see your mastery of English usage is rivaled only by your tact.

Tact is for people who are wrong.


No, really, I'm just in a bad mood today, and I'm taking it out on you guys.

I'm sorry.

[Lonely Tylenol]

For reference, here's a level-by-level breakdown of what would actually happen in the original proposed situation (for those interested). This is assuming a party of two Fighters and a Wizard (as a three-person party is the easiest way to create experience counts divisible by 1,000) that fights 10 encounters at CR level for the Fighters. It's a rough approximation (as I grouped all 10 encounters together and gave enough XP to level up all at the same time, instead of staggering it so the Wizard and Fighter level up separately), but is more or less accurate.

{table=head]Fighter Experience|Fighter Level|Wizard Experience|Wizard Experience (halved)|Wizard Level
0|1|0|1
1,000|2|1,000|500|1
3,000|3|3,000|1,500|2
6,000|4|6,000|3,000|3
10,000|5|10,400|5,200|3
15,000|6|16,400|8,200|4
21,000|7|24,400|12,200|5
28,000|8|34,400|17,200|6
36,000|9|46,400|23,200|7
45,000|10|60,400|30,200|8
55,000|11|76,400|38,200|9
66,000|12|94,400|47,200|10
78,000|13|114,400|57,200|11
91,000|14|136,400|68,200|12
105,000|15|160,400|80,200|13
120,000|16|186,400|93,200|14
136,000|17|214,400|107,200|15
153,000|18|244,400|122,200|16
171,000|19|276,400|138,200|17
190,000|20|310,400|155,200|18[/table]

The reason that this happens is that, once the Fighter reaches level 5 (and the Wizard reaches level 3 + 2,200 xp), the Fighter becomes 2 levels ahead of the Wizard in an environment that begins to scale CR a little differently (where levels 1-3 follow the same ruleset regardless of where you fall within those levels). At this point, the Wizard needs twice as much xp as a Fighter two levels lower than it to advance in level (for example, a 11th-level Fighter needs 11,000 xp to level up, but a 9th-level Wizard would need 18,000 xp, or 9,000 xp twice, to level all the same); however, an at-CR encounter for the Fighter is a CR+2 encounter for the Wizard, and xp works such that a CR+2 encounter gives twice as much experience (for that level) as an at-CR encounter would give, so while the Fighter levels up at exactly 10 at-CR encounters, and the Wizard levels up at exactly 20 at-CR encounters, the scaling actually works such that the Wizard would fight 10 CR+2 encounters, and level uniformly with the Fighter (if xp is distributed in huge chunks). Additionally, the Wizard would have 2,200 xp to spare for item crafting, if he so desires, which means that if wealth is distributed evenly, the Wizard should actually be (2,200*25)/2 gp, or 27,500 gp, richer. (If the Wizard levels separately, then the times that the Wizard is one level below the Fighters would push the Wizard closer to being exactly two levels behind the Fighters, but never moreso. This would decrease the amount of actual experience the Wizard has at their disposal to craft with as time goes on, but there would always be some surplus--just that the surplus shrinks with every level, so the sooner it is spent, the better.)

If the Wizard should choose to fall more than two levels behind the Fighters, for whatever reason, then the "xp is a river" fact can be truly exploited, as the Wizard will actually level up faster than the Fighters (the Wizard will still be 3 levels behind, but each level, will essentially have a "craft reserve" of extra experience he can spend without falling behind further), so if wealth is distributed uniformly, the Wizard will become progressively richer than his party mates without falling further behind in experience than he already is.

Of course, this isn't the stated purpose of the original poster--just an explanation of how (and why) the simple fix isn't quite as simple as it appears at face value.

[SowZ]

For reference, here's a level-by-level breakdown of what would actually happen in the original proposed situation (for those interested). This is assuming a party of two Fighters and a Wizard (as a three-person party is the easiest way to create experience counts divisible by 1,000) that fights 10 encounters at CR level for the Fighters. It's a rough approximation (as I grouped all 10 encounters together and gave enough XP to level up all at the same time, instead of staggering it so the Wizard and Fighter level up separately), but is more or less accurate.

{table=head]Fighter Experience|Fighter Level|Wizard Experience|Wizard Experience (halved)|Wizard Level
0|1|0|1
1,000|2|1,000|500|1
3,000|3|3,000|1,500|2
6,000|4|6,000|3,000|3
10,000|5|10,400|5,200|3
15,000|6|16,400|8,200|4
21,000|7|24,400|12,200|5
28,000|8|34,400|17,200|6
36,000|9|46,400|23,200|7
45,000|10|60,400|30,200|8
55,000|11|76,400|38,200|9
66,000|12|94,400|47,200|10
78,000|13|114,400|57,200|11
91,000|14|136,400|68,200|12
105,000|15|160,400|80,200|13
120,000|16|186,400|93,200|14
136,000|17|214,400|107,200|15
153,000|18|244,400|122,200|16
171,000|19|276,400|138,200|17
190,000|20|310,400|155,200|18[/table]

The reason that this happens is that, once the Fighter reaches level 5 (and the Wizard reaches level 3 + 2,200 xp), the Fighter becomes 2 levels ahead of the Wizard in an environment that begins to scale CR a little differently (where levels 1-3 follow the same ruleset regardless of where you fall within those levels). At this point, the Wizard needs twice as much xp as a Fighter two levels lower than it to advance in level (for example, a 11th-level Fighter needs 11,000 xp to level up, but a 9th-level Wizard would need 18,000 xp, or 9,000 xp twice, to level all the same); however, an at-CR encounter for the Fighter is a CR+2 encounter for the Wizard, and xp works such that a CR+2 encounter gives twice as much experience (for that level) as an at-CR encounter would give, so while the Fighter levels up at exactly 10 at-CR encounters, and the Wizard levels up at exactly 20 at-CR encounters, the scaling actually works such that the Wizard would fight 10 CR+2 encounters, and level uniformly with the Fighter (if xp is distributed in huge chunks). Additionally, the Wizard would have 2,200 xp to spare for item crafting, if he so desires, which means that if wealth is distributed evenly, the Wizard should actually be (2,200*25)/2 gp, or 27,500 gp, richer. (If the Wizard levels separately, then the times that the Wizard is one level below the Fighters would push the Wizard closer to being exactly two levels behind the Fighters, but never moreso. This would decrease the amount of actual experience the Wizard has at their disposal to craft with as time goes on, but there would always be some surplus--just that the surplus shrinks with every level, so the sooner it is spent, the better.)

If the Wizard should choose to fall more than two levels behind the Fighters, for whatever reason, then the "xp is a river" fact can be truly exploited, as the Wizard will actually level up faster than the Fighters (the Wizard will still be 3 levels behind, but each level, will essentially have a "craft reserve" of extra experience he can spend without falling behind further), so if wealth is distributed uniformly, the Wizard will become progressively richer than his party mates without falling further behind in experience than he already is.

Of course, this isn't the stated purpose of the original poster--just an explanation of how (and why) the simple fix isn't quite as simple as it appears at face value.

Oh, wow, thanks. Yeah, that helps show why this doesn't work at all. Jeez. I guess I would have to do the add LA at certain levels of the caster as proposed earlier if I wanted to implement a similar system.

[kitcik]

If you want a quick and dirty fix for full casting vs. non-casting classes, make the XP needed to advance from one level to the next be double that if you want to level up in a full caster class. So just find the difference between the XP you have at, say, level ten and at level eleven and double the difference. That is the XP that one must gain to get the eleventh level of wizard.

If the character is multiclassing, instead of doubling the XP find out the normal XP to get to the next level and then add the difference in XP as if they were leveling up with all their mundane class levels removed. (Does that make sense?)

Classes like Warlock, Bard, Psychic Warrior, etc. or other classes that start out with casting but don't have a full progression are one third more expensive, XP-wise.

In this way, multiclassing between casting and non casting classes may be more prevalent, (it is a more viable option, at least,) and magic becomes harder to master than mundane skills. (Which is how it should be, I think.) It also helps game balance some. Sure, it still doesn't address the core issue of versatility and being able to replicate entire lines of class features or feat chains with one spell, but when to be a tenth level wizard you will have to adventure with a twentieth level barbarian, the caster will definitely need and rely on their mundane allies more.

This should work. Thanks for solving this problem.

[LordBlades]

Ah, it is ONLY the fighter that's aweful, got ya.

'I only said that the fighter is awful' doesn't imply 'other classes aren't' (most of them are, but there are exceptions)

Not that I agree, at L20 a Fighter could easily do everything you quote for the L10 wizard (or caster X)...it's called gear.

Almost anything can be solved by throwing enough WBL at it. thing is, the more you spend on duplicating features you need but don't get from class (like flight for example), the less you have for enhancing the features that you do have.

If one wants polymorph cheese games...go all the way.

One man's cheese is another man's balanced rule.

Greater Cloak of Transformations: Polymorph 5/day. CL15
Cost: 120,000 gp Req: Craft wondrous item, polymorph, 4,800 XP 60,000 gp

How's the L20 Fighter doing vs the L10 Wizard now? He's only got 640,000 gp more in gear.

You spent 1/6th of a level 20 char WBL to duplicate the effects of something that the wizard got almost for free and has been doing from level 7. On top of that, wizard still does it better with Draconic Polymorph.

What? That's a bad item? really? maybe polymorph is just a bad spell.

You really seem mad. Did a wizard steal your lunch money or something?

Regardless, the game isn't actually about the party killing itself, but about the party overcoming challenges together.

And therefore the question shouldn't be 'can a wizard kill a fighter?' but rather 'will the party be more effective if guy X played a wizard instead of fighter?'

[GenghisDon]

Actually, under the premise, your wizard is only L10, with a BAB of +5, regardless of his HD 10 or less form. The fighter would have BSB +20, and a 15 HD form. $ well spent. It's a flawed & faulty premise, but maybe you are being a tiny bit silly comparing L20 characters to L10? tiny bit?

I'm not mad at all, in fact on a rare occassion I played I tested out the polymorph cheese. Yeah it can utterly dominate. It was boring after a game. boring isn't fun. YMMV, of course.

Strangely, I've always enjoyed wizards (or variant wizards) when I've played, over almost 30 years now, from B/X & AD&D1e till now. I play very rarely, but hate wizards? nope.

As to the last...I think the argument stands in favour of barbarian/fighter/rogue/ranger/paladin/monk/ect being there rather than wizard #2. Sometimes the wiz will suck, and spells that replace them actually work FAR better on them than the wizard himself. I suppose that isn't true if one only plays L17+, but good luck on the all wizard party at L1 without extreme DM cooperation.

The cooperation factor is actually at it's root about FUN. Is the game more fun with only wizards/clerics/druids? "Effective" is actually pretty moot. Any DM inexperienced enough or so lacking in confidence that they don't modify the encounters to fit the PC's isn't a very good DM (hopefully they get better). OTOH, having to do so with characters of wildly varying power is MUCH more difficult, & generally results in either a "free pass" for the munchkin/power gamers or hoplessness & death for those that are not. With fun as the actual goal, which way should a group go?

[LordBlades]

Actually, under the premise, your wizard is only L10, with a BAB of +5, regardless of his HD 10 or less form. The fighter would have BSB +20, and a 15 HD form. $ well spent. It's a flawed & faulty premise, but maybe you are being a tiny bit silly comparing L20 characters to L10? tiny bit?

Not at all. The wizard has a 10 hd form, with +8 str, can have a bab of 10 as well (via either Arcane Disciple or the suboptimal Tenser's Transformation), can get an extra attack and +1 to all attacks from Haste (fighter has to pay for it), has GMW (fighter needs to pay for it again), has a floating fighter feat with Heroics and can hit touch AC with Wraithstrike. Not to mention defenses.

As to the last...I think the argument stands in favour of barbarian/fighter/rogue/ranger/paladin/monk/ect being there rather than wizard #2. Sometimes the wiz will suck, and spells that replace them actually work FAR better on them than the wizard himself. I suppose that isn't true if one only plays L17+, but good luck on the all wizard party at L1 without extreme DM cooperation.

So many people use that argument. Let's say you have a wizard and a fighter. Wizad buffs fighter, fighter attacks. Net result: enemy got hit with a melee attack . Now let's consider 2 wizards (one replacing the fighter), Wizard 1 buffs himself, wizard 2 casts a spell at the enemy. Net result: enemy got hit with a spell, which is significantly more powerful than a melee attack usually.

Also, unfortunately a lot of awesome melee buffs (like the Bite of X line) have a range of Personal, so you can't put them on the fighter.

A 4 man wizard party probably would have some trouble at level 1, but a 3 wizards 1 druid (or cleric) can work just fine.

The cooperation factor is actually at it's root about FUN. Is the game more fun with only wizards/clerics/druids? "Effective" is actually pretty moot. Any DM inexperienced enough or so lacking in confidence that they don't modify the encounters to fit the PC's isn't a very good DM (hopefully they get better). OTOH, having to do so with characters of wildly varying power is MUCH more difficult, & generally results in either a "free pass" for the munchkin/power gamers or hoplessness & death for those that are not. With fun as the actual goal, which way should a group go?

Exactly, that's why its better to try and have characters of relatively close power levels in the group. An all wizard game can be fun. An all fighter game can be fun. It's when you're trying a wizards and fighters game that you might run into trouble. And it's not always the guy with the powerful char that is to blame. If somebody brings a fighter into a Cleric, Wizard, Druid group, then he's to odd one out.

[Andorax]

If someone wanted to be a dedicated scrawny bookworm, he could always swap back and forth between Wizard and Psion.

Really, it seems like you're struggling to find a complicated answer when a simple one ought to solve it.

Restrict full casters in that they can't go over half their level in the full-casting class...or give the bard progression to full casters (I'd say let them keep their own spell lists)...maybe give pal/ranger casting progression to bards, and call it a day.

[dextercorvia]

A 4 man wizard party probably would have some trouble at level 1,

I agree with the rest of your point. But I take exception with this. The only thing that a level 1 Wizard party would have difficulty with is traps. And they could probably handle most of those with an Unseen Servant, or Mage Hand, etc.

[LordBlades]

I agree with the rest of your point. But I take exception with this. The only thing that a level 1 Wizard party would have difficulty with is traps. And they could probably handle most of those with an Unseen Servant, or Mage Hand, etc.

Traps were the main thing i thought about in regard to that too

[dextercorvia]

Traps were the main thing i thought about in regard to that too

What is the druid adding then?

[LordBlades]

What is the druid adding then?

Disposable minions(AC and summons when needed)

[dextercorvia]

Wizards can do both of those things. In fact in an all Wizard party, I would recommend that one of them be a minionmancer of some kind (budding Malconvoker would be fine).

[Batou1976]

I've had a bunch of random ideas as I read this topic, so I'm gonna fire em off. Apologies if I end up not making any sense to you.

-Why do full casters need "crunch" nerfs to keep them from breaking the game? Actions have consequences, after all.
Within Dragonlance, there are the Orders of High Sorcery. If any of their members try some of the game breaking/ world dominating cheese I've read about, the Conclave is sure to take notice and take action against them. Renegades (mages who refuse to join the OoHS) are similarly dealt with.

Within the Wheel of Time story, Aes Sedai are bound by the Three Oaths, and are subject to Tower law. The Oaths can literally stop someone from "breaking the world" with the One Power in some ways, and any "trick" or plot one might try that isn't covered by the Oaths could result in the Tower deciding/ being forced to "deal" with you.

A Wiz20 doing things like farming bound efreeti for wishes, or engaging in other world/ material plane/ multiverse dominating shenanigans would attract attention. Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that inspires heroic adventurers to go on quests to shut down said shenanigans?

And that's just mundane, material plane forces who would take exception. Some of the most egregious "tricks" a wizard can pull should certainly merit the attention of a deity/pantheon/ other consortium of epically powered beings. Gods, Archdevils, and the like tend to detest mortals getting too big for their britches. If a wiz20 can solo Odin from Deities & Demigods and live (much less win)... well, the DM played Odin way wrong, IMO.

I guess, basically my point is- build controls into your world and story, rather than messing with the mechanics of the game and/or banning problematic feats and spells. Make it clear to the players that if they get crazy with the Cheez Whiz, there are forces out there that can, and will, take them down. HARD.

EDIT: Awesome. I've managed to kill *another* thread.

[Batou1976]

I also forgot to mention, you're right about fencing being easier to learn than spellcasting. Well, at least, it should be.

From what I've been exposed to in my time in ARMA, in period one could know nothing about swords, study for about a year under a fechtmeister and become a decently skilled fencer in about a year. Not a Ftr20, or even 10, to be sure, but skillful enough to be competent in defending himself with confidence. Compare that to how long one must study medicine to become an MD, or computer science to be capable of designing an OS- these are real world disciplines that to me seem to be of a complexity analogous to wizarding.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I also forgot to mention, you're right about fencing being easier to learn than spellcasting. Well, at least, it should be.

From what I've been exposed to in my time in ARMA, in period one could know nothing about swords, study for about a year under a fechtmeister and become a decently skilled fencer in about a year. Not a Ftr20, or even 10, to be sure, but skillful enough to be competent in defending himself with confidence. Compare that to how long one must study medicine to become an MD, or computer science to be capable of designing an OS- these are real world disciplines that to me seem to be of a complexity analogous to wizarding.

Right. What you've just described is the level of experience one is expected to have when they have reached level 1. Which is reflected in the "background" entry for each class, and in the difference in starting age.

[Batou1976]

Right. What you've just described is the level of experience one is expected to have when they have reached level 1. Which is reflected in the "background" entry for each class, and in the difference in starting age.

Yeah, I guess I was a bit ambiguous. I didn't mean to equate earning an MD with being 1st level. That would be more like earning your bachelor's, I think.

Anyhow, what I was trying to say is- one can become competent with a sword, and grow from there, faster than one can attain mastery of medical or computer science.

[dextercorvia]

Yeah, I guess I was a bit ambiguous. I didn't mean to equate earning an MD with being 1st level. That would be more like earning your bachelor's, I think.

Anyhow, what I was trying to say is- one can become competent with a sword, and grow from there, faster than one can attain mastery of medical or computer science.

No. MD's pretty appropriate. A wizard may not have a full baccalaureate experience, but he is expected to have had several years of schooling specific to his field. He might be green when he comes out of school, but he's earned the right to be called Wizard. This is a lot like the (american anyway) tradition with docs. When the come out of med school, they are MD's they can be called Dr. So and So. But they are also interns, with several more years of practical education to work through before the receive the full acceptance of their colleagues as equals.

That is being Wizard 1. And, what LT was saying is that is reflected in the much older starting age for a Wizard.

[roguemetal]

It's not too hard to limit casters mildly without OBNOXIOUS XP penalties which still become moot points at a certain level. Simply houserule a few spell changes, maybe create lower save DCs for certain spells, limit the full casters (and only full casters) to PHB I, and you have a pretty balanced situation. Most casters are broken due to spells or PrCs that were never made to be in conjunction with one another, or by abusing buffs which can be ruled to not stack, regardless of bonus type. The main abusive abilities I've found to need changes have been:

Shapechange/Polymorph (change to prevent spellcasting out of it)

Wish/Miracle (ALWAYS up to interpretation of deity/outsider, regardless of effect)

Gate (limit what can be called)

Planeshift (limit planes accessible, subjects must be willing)

Dispel Magic/Greater Dispel/Disjunction (doesn't affect held/equipped items)

For everything else, merely use your own judgement and with this, most melee builds can stand next to casters. Just avoid Samurai, and only attempt sword-and-board with half-casters.

[Murg]

Well I think Tylenol decisively demonstrated that penalizing casters' XP is not the best solution to the problem.

So what about messing with their action economy instead?

What if each spell's casting time was multiplied by its spell level? So a 3rd level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 3 rounds to cast. An 8th level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 8 rounds to cast. A 5th level spell with a casting time of 1 minute would instead take 5 minutes to cast, ect.

And no spell/effect/ability/item could be used to circumvent this longer casting time. So wands, contingency spells, quicken spell feats, wishes, ect. would not be a way to get faster magic.

To prevent casters from being relegated to the role of pre-combat "buffers/summoners" a second simple rule is needed: No more than one buff can be active on a character at any time, and no more than 1 minion can be controlled at any time.

With these two simple rules I think Tier 1s would be more like Tier 3s, and Tier 2s more like Tier 4s.

Some caster apologists might say that having a wizard spend 8 rounds casting a spell is boring, I say it would streamline combat and balance caster vs. noncaster versatility.

A Fighter's options each round are attack, attack, or attack. A wizard's options are dozens of spells. Casters are so powerful because of their versatility; that versatility should come at a price.

What do you think? Would this work?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well I think Tylenol decisively demonstrated that penalizing casters' XP is not the best solution to the problem.

So what about messing with their action economy instead?

What if each spell's casting time was multiplied by its spell level? So a 3rd level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 3 rounds to cast. An 8th level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 8 rounds to cast. A 5th level spell with a casting time of 1 minute would instead take 5 minutes to cast, ect.

And no spell/effect/ability/item could be used to circumvent this longer casting time. So wands, contingency spells, quicken spell feats, wishes, ect. would not be a way to get faster magic.

To prevent casters from being relegated to the role of pre-combat "buffers" a second simple rule is needed: No more than one buff can be active on a character at any time.

With these two simple rules I think Tier 1s would be more like Tier 3s, and Tier 2s more like Tier 4s.

Some caster apologists might say that having a wizard spend 8 rounds casting a spell is boring, I say it would streamline combat and balance caster vs. noncaster versatility.

A Fighter's options each round are attack, attack, or attack. A wizard's options are dozens of spells. Casters are so powerful because of their versatility; that versatility should come at a price.

What do you think? Would this work?

With no way to mitigate the extraordinary length of casting time, you've just relegated all casting classes to NPC status. A gish might still be a playable PC but barely.

[NichG]

Eh, I don't agree. Druids would still be quite powerful, Clerics would be reasonable to play given that they have other things they're good at than just slinging spells. Even wizards would be quite playable, but you just have to change how you think about the class. Instead of 'I have these spells to cast them in combat', its 'I have these spells so that I can make wands of them if I need to act in combat' and off you go.

Edit: I noticed wands are also slow, so gotta change tacks there. I'd probably focus on a single long-duration buff with a lot of mileage to be relevant in combat: Alter Self, Polymorph, etc. Maybe use Abjurant Champion to be a competent combatant while still maintaining good casting for out of combat. Alternately: Reserve Feats!

Spellcasting becomes even more about magical MacGyver, since you only use it when you have time - otherwise, you rely on other things. Thinking about Wizards as 'battlefield control' types in such a system would be a mistake; they'd still have a role though.

I hear it said a lot 'if you apply X nerf to this powerful thing, no one will ever play it!'. I think there's a bit of truth there, in that people who are used to how powerful it was will feel like it isn't living up to their past experience. However in general there should be an entire spectrum of responses starting from 'a few people play something else instead' down to 'no one will play it'. This particular adjustment may be more on the end of the spectrum where it drives people away, but I think its an overstatement that it would be 'relegated to NPCs'

[TuggyNE]

What if each spell's casting time was multiplied by its spell level? So a 3rd level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 3 rounds to cast. An 8th level spell with a casting time of 1 round would instead take 8 rounds to cast. A 5th level spell with a casting time of 1 minute would instead take 5 minutes to cast, ect.

And no spell/effect/ability/item could be used to circumvent this longer casting time. So wands, contingency spells, quicken spell feats, wishes, ect. would not be a way to get faster magic.

To prevent casters from being relegated to the role of pre-combat "buffers/summoners" a second simple rule is needed: No more than one buff can be active on a character at any time, and no more than 1 minion can be controlled at any time.
[...]
What do you think? Would this work?

Like most simple fixes, this has a ton of collateral damage. T3/T4/T5 casters (Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Healer*, Beguiler, Warmage, DN, etc) have their casting nerfed into the ground needlessly. Meanwhile, there is still a subset of T1 gamebreaker spells that care not at all about casting time, and don't even care much about minion count. So the result is that T1 generally moves to T2, T2 stays about the same, T3 and below full casters drop to ... T5?, and partial casters forget about their spells entirely.

As a side note, just what do you have against buffing and summoning? Most of the time, buffing is a party-friendly tactic, and is often necessary for high-level mundanes to survive. ("You now have a choice between death ward, energy immunity, or greater magic weapon while fighting this demilich. Choose wisely.") Even summoning or minionmancy needn't be broken, as long as you can't control NI monsters with powerful spell-likes.

[Murg]

As a side note, just what do you have against buffing and summoning? Most of the time, buffing is a party-friendly tactic, and is often necessary for high-level mundanes to survive. ("You now have a choice between death ward, energy immunity, or greater magic weapon while fighting this demilich. Choose wisely.") Even summoning or minionmancy needn't be broken, as long as you can't control NI monsters with powerful spell-likes.

My primary concern was that restricting casting time only stops casters from being game breaking during combat. Thus, a wizard might decide to spend his entire repertoire of spells on buffs or summons pre-battle, while during the battle he would play a minimal (direct) role.

[dextercorvia]

My primary concern was that restricting casting time only stops casters from being game breaking during combat. Thus, a wizard might decide to spend his entire repertoire of spells on buffs or summons pre-battle, while during the battle he would play a minimal (direct) role.

And the truth is your fix would only make it so casters broke the game outstide of combat. This would make them entirely unplayable within the context of a usual game. This would force casters to be crafters, which would just destroy the game in ways you haven't dreamed of.

No 17th level wizard is going to wait 9 rounds to cast a spell in combat (it would be over by then, one way or the other), and a level 1 spell is going to do nothing to change things by then. The DCs are too low, and the effects are just laughable in combat.

As was mentioned. Melee is going to be even more hosed by your only 1 buff rule.