Quick fix for wizards.

[johnbragg]

You probably want to weaken T2 casters as well, since the power discrepancy is quite close, but yeah- it's goofy that wizards et al are both the most powerful AND most versatile classes. That's just poor design. It probably wouldn't hurt to have unrestricted-access casters top out at, oh, 7th level spells, specialists and spontaneous casters at 8th, and focused specialist classes at 9th.

OP wants a quick fix. "You want good, you want it fast and you want it cheap--the best you can do is two of those."

Looking more closely at my (I'd say our but I don't know if you want credit.) Let's call the "prepared arcane caster with the bard's spell progression + 1 level" the Generalist.

Just looking at highest spell level, and assume everyone's rocking an 18 casting stat, and raises some other attribute as they level.
1-2 G 1, S 1
3. G 2, S 1.

Spoiler

Show

Generalist is casting 3 1sts, 1 2nd per day, Specialist is spamming 6 1sts from 3 spells known.

4-5. G 2, S 2.
6, 7 G 3 S 3.
8 G 3, S 4.
9. G 4, S 4.
10-11 G 4, S 5.
12-13 G 5, S 6.
14. G 5, S 7.
15. G 6, S 7.
16-17. G 6, S 8.
18-20. G 6, S 9. (You might let the generalist have 7th level spells at this point with the same 0 1 2 progression.

Good or bad, that's what the comparison looks like.

[Cosi]

The quick fix for Wizards in 3.5 is to ban the really annoying/powerful spells (polymorph, planar binding, etc) and give the people who under-perform special bonuses. So if the Rogue insists on moving into melee to flank, he gets the Cloak of Shadows which gives him telepouncing, shadow conjuration, and a 50% miss chance. When the Fighter stops measuring up, he discovers that he is secretly the incarnation of Thor, so he can fly and hit people with lightning bolts. And so on.

Any explicit fix is going to end up missing things (which looks like endorsing those things as okay) and still not resolve major issues with most characters.

[Grod_The_Giant]

OP wants a quick fix. "You want good, you want it fast and you want it cheap--the best you can do is two of those."

Eh, both of my methods work pretty quickly, I feel like. I think the slightly-modified-bard progression

Spoiler: Slightly-Modified-Bard-Progression

Show

Level	0	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th
1st	3	0	—	—	—	—	—	—
2nd	3	1	—	—	—	—	—	—
3rd	3	2	0	—	—	—	—	—
4th	3	3	1	—	—	—	—	—
5th	3	3	2	—	—	—	—	—
6th	3	3	2	0	—	—	—	—
7th	3	3	3	1	—	—	—	—
8th	3	3	3	2	—	—	—	—
9th	3	3	3	2	0	—	—	—
10th	3	3	3	3	1	—	—	—
11th	3	3	3	3	2	—	—	—
12th	3	3	3	3	2	0	—	—
13th	4	3	3	3	3	1	—	—
14th	4	4	3	3	3	2	—	—
15th	4	4	4	3	3	2	0	—
16th	4	4	4	4	3	3	1	—
17th	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	—
18th	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	0
19th	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	1
20th	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	2

Casters with low BAB get bonus spells/day (+1 spell/day/spell lv), as do spontaneous casters (+1 spell known/spell lv and +1 spell/day/spell lv), with the two bonuses stacking in cases like the Sorcerer.

You might also limit the size of a wizard's spellbook(s) and the number of different spells a cleric or druid can potentially prepare (5 spells/class level, isn't bad, working out to around 15 spells known/spell level) but that's a different issue from the progressions.

is the closest thing to a successful quick-and-dirty caster fix you can get. You have a few issues with healing spells lagging behind CR, but it's not terribly difficult to either adjust their levels back ("any spell on the Healer's list is one level lower, to a minimum of 1st," "spells that restore HP or remove conditions are one level lower," etc) or just be a bit more careful with what monsters you use. 6th level casters very rarely overshadow decently-made T3/T4 characters, while still having enough magic to feel magic.

[johnbragg]

Eh, both of my methods work pretty quickly, I feel like. I think the slightly-modified-bard progression

Casters with low BAB get bonus spells/day (+1 spell/day/spell lv), as do spontaneous casters (+1 spell known/spell lv and +1 spell/day/spell lv), with the two bonuses stacking in cases like the Sorcerer.

You might also limit the size of a wizard's spellbook(s) and the number of different spells a cleric or druid can potentially prepare (5 spells/class level, isn't bad, working out to around 15 spells known/spell level) but that's a different issue from the progressions.

is the closest thing to a successful quick-and-dirty caster fix you can get. You have a few issues with healing spells lagging behind CR, but it's not terribly difficult to either adjust their levels back ("any spell on the Healer's list is one level lower, to a minimum of 1st," "spells that restore HP or remove conditions are one level lower," etc) or just be a bit more careful with what monsters you use. 6th level casters very rarely overshadow decently-made T3/T4 characters, while still having enough magic to feel magic.

Adding 7th level spells is a pretty natural fit, and would probably be more popular if Sublime Chord didn't make it irrelevant for Bards.

I'm not sure about the bonus spell per spell level. Mid level casters aren't running out of spells anyway. Low level casters are supposed to run out of spells. I think it adds more complexity than it's worth for a quick-and-dirty fix. But if you're running the fix as "Here's the table" it's probably fine. (If you're running the fix as "look up the bard progression in the SRD, add one level, and then add one spell per day and one spell known per spell level", you're now probably confusing a new player and irritating a veteran player.)

I say leave the Tier 2 casters alone, Oberoni is enough to handle Tier 2 problems. Oberoni, like the poor, will always be with us if we're not rewriting the spell list or banning generalist casters entirely.

I like the idea of limiting the spellbook to 5 spells per caster level, but I've just made the Generalist trade off firepower for versatility. Maybe instead of the bonus spell known/spell per day per spell level, we just go ahead and let the versatile spellcasters cast spontaneously from their list of 5-15 spells per spell level, since they're gimped on spells per day?
A 5th level Sorcerer with 18 Charisma is casting 12 spells per day from a list of 6. A 5th level Arcane Generalist would be casting...7 spells from a list of 25.
A 10th level Sorcerer with 18 Ch is casting 30 spells, 9 of them 4th and 5th, from a list of 15, the Arcane Generalist is casting 14 spells, two of them 4th level, from a list of 50.

That's not a bad balance at first glance. I do think there should be a provision for the generalist caster to adjust his or her "spells known". The standard rule of spending a day learning a new spell seems like a decent brake on promiscuous list-swapping, now that learning a new spell requires unlearning and old one. (Of course you can re-learn the old spell later.) Arcane casters spend the day studying their spellbook, divine casters spend the day praying (or meditating). That means I'd tweak the 5 spells per caster level to "5 new spells of your highest spell level."

That adds a neat aspect to the generalist casters--they can do a lot of things, but only a few times. And they can do pretty much ANYTHING (level appropriate), but they need extra time to do it.

Limiting spellcasters to 15 spells per spell level also helps Mr Oberoni, as he only has 15-30 possible level-appropriate headaches instead of the entire Spell Compendium. (Plus whatever spell your player is currently working on swapping into his spellbook.)

Healing is a pretty easy fix if you find you need it--declare the vigor line to be an aspect of the cure wounds line, or bump up the cure wounds dice from d8 to d12 or 2d6--or just make it a flat value. How long has it been since rolling to see how many hit points you cure during combat was fun?

[johnbragg]

Hmm, so how long is my "quick fix" now?

Arcane Generalist (replaces Wizard).

Use Bard spells-per-day progression, moved up one level. (So 1st level AG starts with his Int bonus spell only.)
The Arcane Generalist can cast any spell from your spells known as long as you have a spell slot available.
At each level, your Arcane Generalist can learn 5 spells of the highest spell level you can cast (spells known), as long as you have the spell in your spellbook.

If your ARcane Generalist wants to change his or her Spells Known, he or she can spend one full day studying the new spell. He or she must have access to the spell (from a scroll or other spellbook), to add to his or her spellbook. When the Arcane Generalist learns the new spell, he or she drops one Spell Known of that level so that she is still at 5, 10 or 15. The old Spell Known is still in the spellbook, and the AG can later re-learn it, dropping a spell of the same level.

[Cosi]

I don't understand why people think it's more important to screw around with the rate at which Wizards get spells, or the number of spells which they know, than to fix the spells which are actually broken. This system still lets a Wizard with planar binding break the world. It still doesn't tell you what polymorph even nominally does. I'm pretty sure you can jack the "versatility" constraints all to hell by using alter self or polymorph to turn into a creature with innate casting and pick different spells than the ones you know.

Seriously, "Wizards cast too many spells" should be the last thing you look at when trying to balance magic in 3.5, not the first. Fundamentally, any fix that thinks getting evard's black tentacles at 7th level is a bigger deal than getting planar binding ever at all is not worth the time it took to type it.

[johnbragg]

I don't understand why people think it's more important to screw around with the rate at which Wizards get spells, or the number of spells which they know, than to fix the spells which are actually broken. This system still lets a Wizard with planar binding break the world. It still doesn't tell you what polymorph even nominally does. I'm pretty sure you can jack the "versatility" constraints all to hell by using alter self or polymorph to turn into a creature with innate casting and pick different spells than the ones you know.

Seriously, "Wizards cast too many spells" should be the last thing you look at when trying to balance magic in 3.5, not the first. Fundamentally, any fix that thinks getting evard's black tentacles at 7th level is a bigger deal than getting planar binding ever at all is not worth the time it took to type it.

That's an Oberoni problem. "Oberoni, like the poor, will always be with us if we're not rewriting the spell list or banning generalist casters entirely."

[Cosi]

That's an Oberoni problem. "Oberoni, like the poor, will always be with us if we're not rewriting the spell list or banning generalist casters entirely."

What? That's not a counter argument. If it is in fact true, as I have alleged, that the problem with Wizards is the broken spells on their list and not, as you seem to believe, the fact that they can at the beginning of the day prepare black tentacles or minor creation or wall of fire or polymorph, then how are we supposed to justify nerfing the number of spells they know, but not the broken spells they know?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't understand why people think it's more important to screw around with the rate at which Wizards get spells, or the number of spells which they know, than to fix the spells which are actually broken. This system still lets a Wizard with planar binding break the world. It still doesn't tell you what polymorph even nominally does. I'm pretty sure you can jack the "versatility" constraints all to hell by using alter self or polymorph to turn into a creature with innate casting and pick different spells than the ones you know.

Seriously, "Wizards cast too many spells" should be the last thing you look at when trying to balance magic in 3.5, not the first. Fundamentally, any fix that thinks getting evard's black tentacles at 7th level is a bigger deal than getting planar binding ever at all is not worth the time it took to type it.

Because the problem with casters isn't just a few stand-out broken spells. If that was the case, we wouldn't be spending years arguing-- we'd just ban the handful and be done. The problem is bigger than that. It's that magic provides more power, faster, and in more flavors than anything else. It's that wizards get encounter-ending spells when fighters are just getting extra attacks. It's that the cleric can play 20 questions with god when the rogue is still making sneak attacks. It's that fly makes melee types cry, it's that wind wall shuts down archery, it's that knock can open even the toughest lock. It's not that they cast too many spells-- I want them to have enough spells to throw them around like candy. The problem is linear warriors, quadratic wizards. Reducing the rate of spells available makes that curve shallower, extends the sweet spot when different classes are on roughly the same footing.

And stopping "planar binding to break the world" is a lot less important than black tentacles. The former is a high-op thing. It takes time and knowledge and system mastery to make it really strong-- it's an expert's tool, and experts are either polite enough to follow gentlemen's agreements, or rude enough that you'll have problems anyway. The latter is much easier to use. No book delving, no op-fu, nothing but noticing that it makes it much harder for small enemies to do anything. To look at things through the lens of my own law:

• The munchkin still uses broken spells, but they come online later and some of the worst are completely unavailable. His power is delayed.
• The reasonable player still has plenty of toys to play with. His power is reduced, but his enjoyment is not.
• The new player still throws around fireballs and invisibility. He doesn't really get any weaker, and he doesn't really notice the change.

Why is 6th level casting a good solution? Because it weakens without hurting. It reduces power, but doesn't use irritating restrictions. You can still throw around most of your favorite spells. With the boost to spells/day, you can do it just about as freely as you could before. The feel of playing a mage is still there, but raw strength is objectively reduced. Look at classes in that range-- Bards, Psychic Warriors, Psychic Rogues, Duskblades, Hunters, Warpriests, Alchemists, Investigators, Skalds, the Magus... those are all great classes. They're all balanced classes. Maybe that should tell you something.

Of course there are other solutions. there always are. Buff the **** out of mundanes, go through ginormous lists and pull out spells that you deem imbalanced, create specialized caster classes... they're all valid. But reducing the progression is one of the simplest.

[Beheld]

Because the problem with casters isn't just a few stand-out broken spells. If that was the case, we wouldn't be spending years arguing-- we'd just ban the handful and be done. The problem is bigger than that. It's that magic provides more power, faster, and in more flavors than anything else. It's that wizards get encounter-ending spells when fighters are just getting extra attacks. It's that the cleric can play 20 questions with god when the rogue is still making sneak attacks. It's that fly makes melee types cry, it's that wind wall shuts down archery, it's that knock can open even the toughest lock. It's not that they cast too many spells-- I want them to have enough spells to throw them around like candy. The problem is linear warriors, quadratic wizards.

And your inability to see that this is a problem with warriors not wizards is the reason you will never actually come up with a successful solution.

One level 1 PC is supposed to be able to beat a level 1 Orc. One level 3 PC is supposed to be able to beat 2 orcs. One level 5 PC is supposed to be able to beat 4 orcs. One level 7 PC is supposed to be able to beat 8 Orcs. Once level 9 PC is supposed to be able to beat 16 Orcs, and one level 12 PC is supposed to be able to beat infinity Orcs.

The rules say that a single Fire Giant is worth 7 Ogres. The solution is not, and never has been, to nerf all the classes that are capable of dealing with level appropriate opposition until no one can.

Look at classes in that range-- Bards, Psychic Warriors, Psychic Rogues, Duskblades, Hunters, Warpriests, Alchemists, Investigators, Skalds, the Magus... those are all great classes. They're all balanced classes.

Those are mostly terrible classes and they either 1) Aren't balanced against the the actual challenges you face at all, 2) Are only balanced because of class features that are at least as good as their casting.

[Anlashok]

And your inability to see that this is a problem with warriors not wizards is the reason you will never actually come up with a successful solution.

It's quite clearly a problem with both. Warriors lack necessary tools to deal with a good chunk of the threats they're intended to face innately, but it's still very evident that spellcasting his horrendously poorly tuned and full of extremely disruptive, problematic spells and mechanics even if you ignore their martial counterparts entirely.

Those are mostly terrible classes and they either 1) Aren't balanced against the the actual challenges you face at all, 2) Are only balanced because of class features that are at least as good as their casting.

Terrible classes? That list tends to be some of the better designed ones in the game, with a few exceptions. Certainly better executed than your traditional fighter or wizard.

[johnbragg]

What? That's not a counter argument. If it is in fact true, as I have alleged, that the problem with Wizards is the broken spells on their list and not, as you seem to believe, the fact that they can at the beginning of the day prepare black tentacles or minor creation or wall of fire or polymorph, then how are we supposed to justify nerfing the number of spells they know, but not the broken spells they know?

I have no objection to nerfing the broken spells they know. But even though "the most broken spells are in Core"(TM), not all of the broken spells are in Core. And a non-broken spell can become broken if you're not reading it correctly, or carefully.

Limiting the Arcane Generalist to 5/10/15 Spells Known of their highest spell level means that the DM only has to worry about adjudicating that many spells. If polymorph shows up on the players' Spells Known, then the DM has to talk to the player about polymorph in his or her campaign and set limits. Or not, and be prepared for polymorph abuse. But there's some predictability, if the Arcane Generalist has charm monster, shadow conjuration, enervation, polymorph, mnemonic enhancer, the DM doesn't have to worry too much about summon monster IV shenanigans, or stone shape. Or at least the DM has a day's warning game time of what's coming, since AG has to spend a day learning summon monster IV and dropping charm monster

[Grod_The_Giant]

And your inability to see that this is a problem with warriors not wizards is the reason you will never actually come up with a successful solution.

Yes, warriors need more toys. Casters need fewer toys. Leaving one side alone isn't ideal, but you might have noticed that this thread is about fixing wizards, not the entirety of the game. An ideal solution would certainly attack the problem from all fronts, but you might have noticed that it's not quick. In fact, it's pretty much a complete system rewrite. You're not exactly playing the same game anymore.

Those are mostly terrible classes and they either 1) Aren't balanced against the the actual challenges you face at all, 2) Are only balanced because of class features that are at least as good as their casting.

You are objectively wrong. Psychic Warriors, for instance, have feats and powers-- where are the "class features as good as casting?" Magus and Duskblade get spells and ways to use spells. The Bard without magic would be pretty crappy, even with a pumped Inspire Courage/DFI thing (hooray, you can spend most of your build resources to get a full-BAB class' numbers!)

(Also, johnbragg, I wasn't talking about "prepared casters cast spontaneous from a list of X spells known/level;" I meant that they have a limited list of spells available, from which they select what to prepare every day)

[CharonsHelper]

One easy fix for casters for in-combat, is to increase casting times. Make nearly all spells take a full round, with a few of the most potent taking 2-3 rounds (ex: teleportation would be in the latter category).

This allows foes to react to spells before they're cast if they have Spellcraft (duck for cover or shoot the caster to try and break their concentration) and has the added benefit of making counter-spelling viable.

Admittedly - this doesn't do much to keep them from craziness out of combat, though more mundane ways to counter spells would help there. (lead-lined buildings are about the only current mundane method of stopping any spell-casting)

[johnbragg]

(Also, johnbragg, I wasn't talking about "prepared casters cast spontaneous from a list of X spells known/level;" I meant that they have a limited list of spells available, from which they select what to prepare every day)

Yes, that was my idea. It makes the Arcane Generalist almost like a fixed-list caster.

[Necroticplague]

One easy fix for casters for in-combat, is to increase casting times. Make nearly all spells take a full round, with a few of the most potent taking 2-3 rounds (ex: teleportation would be in the latter category).

This allows foes to react to spells before they're cast if they have Spellcraft (duck for cover or shoot the caster to try and break their concentration) and has the added benefit of making counter-spelling viable.

Admittedly - this doesn't do much to keep them from craziness out of combat, though more mundane ways to counter spells would help there. (lead-lined buildings are about the only current mundane method of stopping any spell-casting)

The craziness out of combat is where I find most of the problem lies, though.

[LTwerewolf]

There's no quick fix that will actually work because it's a complex problem. If you want to actually fix wizards, you need to overhaul the system. Quite a fan of spheres of power's take on it.

[Beheld]

It's quite clearly a problem with both. Warriors lack necessary tools to deal with a good chunk of the threats they're intended to face innately, but it's still very evident that spellcasting his horrendously poorly tuned and full of extremely disruptive, problematic spells and mechanics even if you ignore their martial counterparts entirely.

By what metric? Full casters are very well tuned to the opposition they face. Aside from Polymorph and Minion granting spells (And even there, Summon Monster if fine), there are basically no spells in the entire game that is poorly tuned to the actual opposition you will face.

Yes, warriors need more toys. Casters need fewer toys. Leaving one side alone isn't ideal, but you might have noticed that this thread is about fixing wizards, not the entirety of the game. An ideal solution would certainly attack the problem from all fronts, but you might have noticed that it's not quick. In fact, it's pretty much a complete system rewrite. You're not exactly playing the same game anymore.

Except that if you attack the game from only the fronts needed (buffing crap classes) then you don't have to redesign the whole game.

Your plan to nerf the casters, then rewrite the entire MM to match the nerfed casters is in fact, a lot of work, but you can just choose to not do either of those things, and the balance is fine.

You are objectively wrong. Psychic Warriors, for instance, have feats and powers-- where are the "class features as good as casting?" Magus and Duskblade get spells and ways to use spells. The Bard without magic would be pretty crappy, even with a pumped Inspire Courage/DFI thing (hooray, you can spend most of your build resources to get a full-BAB class' numbers!)

Psychic Warriors are a terrible class that can't keep up. Same for Duskblade. I don't know specifically about the Magus, but I suspect the same. Yeah, a Bard who only DFIed and dived a bunch of splats to do as much with music as possible would, alone be a terrible character you wouldn't even bother playing, because it's at best half a class, but so is Bard spellcasting. If you had a choice between being a Bard with no music and just Bard spellcasting, and literally lighting your character sheet on fire, you should pick the second one. Which is my point, two half characters can approximate whole character to some degree, but that only works when you recognize that the bard progression casting is half of a real character, and you need a class feature or set of class features that add another half character to the class.

What you are doing is proposing that you turn all the casting classes into half of a character, and then just walk away. That's a terrible idea if you aren't going to add a bunch of class features to compensate.

[dascarletm]

DnD was designed as a team game. Characters need not be able to face challenges alone. Their ability to contribute to a team is a better metric to look at. If a class has the ability to fulfill all/most roles, it is too wide-sweeping.

[Cosi]

Because the problem with casters isn't just a few stand-out broken spells. If that was the case, we wouldn't be spending years arguing-- we'd just ban the handful and be done.

That doesn't follow at all. People could continue to argue that Wizards are broken for any number of other reasons. For example, Wizards are better than Fighters. If you think it is axiomatically true that the game should be balanced to the Fighter, you're going to demand Wizard nerfs. For another example, look at the logic that gave the world 4e. Wizards can do stuff to influence the plot. If you think players aren't supposed to influence the plot, that's bad.

It's that fly makes melee types cry,

D&D is a fantasy game. The characters in it are parts of fantasy stories. If you can't deal with flight, an ability possessed by Harpies, Dragons, and Rocs the world over, that's because you are not a real character. Not because people shouldn't get flight.

it's that wind wall shuts down archery,

Yes, and evasion shuts down fireball. But Wizards don't complain about that, because they are real characters and have more than one way to attack people.

it's that knock can open even the toughest lock.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. knock and Open Lock represent an ideal balance between casters and non-casters. knock is single use and trades off with combat spells. Open Lock is multi-use and trades off with other skills. It's trivial to imagine situations where the advantages of one or the other might make the party Wizard or the party Rogue come out ahead.

Reducing the rate of spells available makes that curve shallower, extends the sweet spot when different classes are on roughly the same footing.

You're forgetting that it's not just casters that pull ahead at high levels. If the Fighter can't deal with the Wizard casting fly at 5th, how is he supposed to deal with the Trumpet Archon at 14th, who flies all the time and has full Cleric casting?

And stopping "planar binding to break the world" is a lot less important than black tentacles.

Why? You have yet to show that the Wizard who casts black tentacles is too good. If the Wizard who casts color spray at 1st is fine, and the Wizard who casts web at 3rd is fine, why is the gap that develops between casters and non-casters the fault of the Wizard? Is stinking cloud more than appropriately better than web in a way that web isn't when compared to color spray?

It's quite clearly a problem with both. Warriors lack necessary tools to deal with a good chunk of the threats they're intended to face innately, but it's still very evident that spellcasting his horrendously poorly tuned and full of extremely disruptive, problematic spells and mechanics even if you ignore their martial counterparts entirely.

I wouldn't say "full of". It's really polymorph abuse, minions, and maybe breaking the economy. Most of the spells people call out as "disruptive" are just ways for players to gain agency in a story.

If polymorph shows up on the players' Spells Known, then the DM has to talk to the player about polymorph in his or her campaign and set limits. Or not, and be prepared for polymorph abuse. But there's some predictability, if the Arcane Generalist has charm monster, shadow conjuration, enervation, polymorph, mnemonic enhancer, the DM doesn't have to worry too much about summon monster IV shenanigans, or stone shape. Or at least the DM has a day's warning game time of what's coming, since AG has to spend a day learning summon monster IV and dropping charm monster

But that doesn't limit the power of casters at all. If you are allowed to abuse polymorph or charm monster, you are going to rapidly become more powerful than even a normal progression Wizard without those options. You are refusing to fix the actual problem in favor of hitting balanced characters with the nerf stick.

Yes, warriors need more toys.

Yes.

That's why the quick fix is the same it's always been. When the Fighter falls behind, he gets an artifact sword. Not one of the BS Weapons of Legacy, an honest to go magic sword. Like the Subtle Knife, which is Vorpal, cuts holes between dimensions, and can cut time itself to mimic celerity. Or an Otataral Sword that eats magic in a battlefield sized area. Or any number of other pity items mundanes need to compete. That is the quick solution, not heavy handed nerfs to casters.

Casters need fewer toys.

No.

Casters need a few of their toys altered (polymorph, minions), and they could certainly have some of their toys fiddled with (for example, I would be okay with teleport type effects being moved around). You could make a case that casters should be more themed, but the overall package of "things casters can do" is fine.

There's no quick fix that will actually work because it's a complex problem. If you want to actually fix wizards, you need to overhaul the system. Quite a fan of spheres of power's take on it.

Kind of. If you want martials to be viable, and want the system to be explicitly functional (as opposed to having valves for the DM to fix stuff), then no you can't. But if you're willing to put release valves on that demand, you can fix things easily. The Artifact Sword solution I've been pushing works. There are problems with it, and I've discussed them in other threads, but it does let martials do something. You can also ban non-casters. That works too. It's mechanically better, but people get riled up at the idea of not being able to write Fighter on their character sheet, despite the fact that Fighters are terrible.

[dascarletm]

Wizards can do stuff to influence the plot. If you think players aren't supposed to influence the plot, that's bad.

...
Literally anyone can influence the plot. Talking/making decisions influences it. I'm curious how you define plot if you think non-casters cannot influence it. Have you read any book/seen any movie where a character influences the plot that lacks wizard casting? I mean, that's just objectively incorrect.

D&D is a fantasy game. The characters in it are parts of fantasy stories. If you can't deal with flight, an ability possessed by Harpies, Dragons, and Rocs the world over, that's because you are not a real character. Not because people shouldn't get flight.

1. DnD is a team game. If your team can deal with flight, then you can deal with flight. Not every character needs a tool to handle a situation. It is fine for a team game if certain situations need an X. Then the character with X can handle the situation. If your team lacks X, then luckily the game has a living, breathing, thinking, person to adjust what situations you face.
2. I guess every character in every piece of fiction lacking flight isn't "real" (assuming we are using some definition of your design instead of the traditional usage of real. As fiction none of them are "real"). That's ludicrous.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Psychic Warriors are a terrible class that can't keep up. Same for Duskblade. I don't know specifically about the Magus, but I suspect the same. Yeah, a Bard who only DFIed and dived a bunch of splats to do as much with music as possible would, alone be a terrible character you wouldn't even bother playing, because it's at best half a class, but so is Bard spellcasting. If you had a choice between being a Bard with no music and just Bard spellcasting, and literally lighting your character sheet on fire, you should pick the second one. Which is my point, two half characters can approximate whole character to some degree, but that only works when you recognize that the bard progression casting is half of a real character, and you need a class feature or set of class features that add another half character to the class.

What you are doing is proposing that you turn all the casting classes into half of a character, and then just walk away. That's a terrible idea if you aren't going to add a bunch of class features to compensate.

You're playing a very different game than I am. A very different game than anyone I've ever talked to or interacted with in real life, in fact, along with most forum-goers. If only full casters are strong enough to contribute in your games, then yes, anyone who's not a full caster will look bad by comparison, but I don't think that's anything remotely resembling the common experience. 6th level spellcasting is easily enough to contribute to encounters.

[johnbragg]

You're playing a very different game than I am. A very different game than anyone I've ever talked to or interacted with in real life, in fact, along with most forum-goers. If only full casters are strong enough to contribute in your games, then yes, anyone who's not a full caster will look bad by comparison, but I don't think that's anything remotely resembling the common experience. 6th level spellcasting is easily enough to contribute to encounters.

I think it's pretty obvious that there is a style of 3X that's evolved around Tier 1 casters. OTher classes may not fit too well, but the CR system does. If that's the game you're playing, then it's nonsensical to try to slow down Tier 1s to match characters who aren't contributing or are barely contributing.

[Cosi]

Literally anyone can influence the plot.

Direct is probably a better term. Wizards have abilities that actively allow them to do things. Compare teleport for travel and overland travel. If you have teleport and want to go to the Ice Rift, you just do that. Whereas if you have to take a boat or walk, getting there is an adventure in and of itself.

1. DnD is a team game. If your team can deal with flight, then you can deal with flight. Not every character needs a tool to handle a situation.

What situations does the Fighter handle?

2. I guess every character in every piece of fiction lacking flight isn't "real" (assuming we are using some definition of your design instead of the traditional usage of real. As fiction none of them are "real"). That's ludicrous.

A "real character" in the sense in which I am using it means one who is able to effectively contribute to all parts of an adventure at all levels of the game. As opposed to characters like Barbarians, who stop mattering by 10th level absent DM pity.

I think it's pretty obvious that there is a style of 3X that's evolved around Tier 1 casters. OTher classes may not fit too well, but the CR system does. If that's the game you're playing, then it's nonsensical to try to slow down Tier 1s to match characters who aren't contributing or are barely contributing.

That's the default game. Absent some other balance point (no T3 does not count as a balance point, do not make me do that again), that's the only one you can constructively aim for. Also, probably the best balance point to aim for because it means you can just use standard monsters without worry.

[johnbragg]

That's the default game. Absent some other balance point (no T3 does not count as a balance point, do not make me do that again), that's the only one you can constructively aim for. Also, probably the best balance point to aim for because it means you can just use standard monsters without worry.

That's a really legitimate position. It's the game by RAW and by CR. Players need to adapt to the game as-it-is.

It might be generational, but I think it's also possible to aim at a pre-3E balance point, where an OOTS style party saw everyone contributing. I suppose we want to extend the range of levels where the Tier 4 classes contribute, from level 10 to say level 15. (Possibly because we can't convince enough people to play E6 with us.)

[Beheld]

1. DnD is a team game. If your team can deal with flight, then you can deal with flight. Not every character needs a tool to handle a situation. It is fine for a team game if certain situations need an X. Then the character with X can handle the situation. If your team lacks X, then luckily the game has a living, breathing, thinking, person to adjust what situations you face.

If you as a member of your team contribute **** and All to your team, then no one really cares if the team can handle it without you. If you as a character can contribute to one out of every 10 encounters, no one really cares that the team can handle the other 9 without your help. You are not a member of the team, you are basically that arena champion fanboi from Oblivion, useless, annoying, but present.

Now, because it's a cooperative storytelling game you play with your friends, and your friends are presumably not *******s, they will graciously modify their characters personality to pretend you count as an equal team member. Just like you can totally play a Cleric of Hextor and a Cleric of Hieronious in the same party without them killing each other because you choose to alter them to make it work because you don't want to tell your friend he can't play the character he wants.

2. I guess every character in every piece of fiction lacking flight isn't "real" (assuming we are using some definition of your design instead of the traditional usage of real. As fiction none of them are "real"). That's ludicrous.

1) The statement was "deal with flight" depending on the goals, situation, and powers of the respective parties, there are lots of ways to deal with flight without being able to fly. Fighters have zero of those, but they can exist.
2) Or you know, they are low level characters. If you are a character that loses every time no matter what to harpy archer, you are a low level character.

That's a really legitimate position. It's the game by RAW and by CR. Players need to adapt to the game as-it-is.

It might be generational, but I think it's also possible to aim at a pre-3E balance point, where an OOTS style party saw everyone contributing. I suppose we want to extend the range of levels where the Tier 4 classes contribute, from level 10 to say level 15. (Possibly because we can't convince enough people to play E6 with us.)

You could also just make the characters that don't match better. And then Roy can lead the party as he is in a low level adventure, and then when the party gets to level 7+ he can get actual abilities, so that it's not an ongoing joke by readers and even characters in the strip that he's actually super incapable of doing anything.

You can still play a character who is like Roy at low levels, he just has to get better when he faces better opposition.

[dascarletm]

Direct is probably a better term. Wizards have abilities that actively allow them to do things. Compare teleport for travel and overland travel. If you have teleport and want to go to the Ice Rift, you just do that. Whereas if you have to take a boat or walk, getting there is an adventure in and of itself.

In both of your scenarios the characters have directed the plot. They both decided "go to the Ice Rift." If the DM wants there to be no adventure in reaching that place then there isn't either way. If he/she wants an adventure where they try to reach this fictional place, then there will be one. Both characters can direct the plot away from the Ice Rift, by virtue of deciding not to go there.

Built in abilities that allow you to just do things aren't necessarily good for the game. Struggling to achieve your goals is the point of playing. In this scenario the Wizard cut-out part of the game, while our hypothetical non-caster has influenced the story by choosing the method of travel.
I would argue that not having an ability to instantly achieve a goal is better story-wise.

What situations does the Fighter handle?

I'm not an expert on what fighters can or cannot do. Either way it is irrelevant to my point. There are plenty of classes in-between Fighters and Wizards. The dichotomy presented is a false one.

A "real character" in the sense in which I am using it means one who is able to effectively contribute to all parts of an adventure at all levels of the game. As opposed to characters like Barbarians, who stop mattering by 10th level absent DM pity.

Adventures are created by the DM. (unless it is a published one). I have as a DM created plenty of scenarios where Barbarians above level 10 are relevant. A DM can make any character irrelevant at any level.

[Cosi]

It might be generational, but I think it's also possible to aim at a pre-3E balance point, where an OOTS style party saw everyone contributing.

You can still do that. It's just that the party is Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Rogue (and the Rogue ends up gimped out of combat at high levels).

I suppose we want to extend the range of levels where the Tier 4 classes contribute, from level 10 to say level 15.

I think using the language of the tiers is a mistake. Both because they are pointless, and because the definitions they give are unhelpful. Making the Fighter good shouldn't be about keeping him useful, it should be about making him compete with Wizards.

There are a variety of ways to do that, but the only one that is really narratively satisfying and easy to write is to force the Fighter to pick up some casting. Either actual casting, or SLAs. The progression should probably look like this:

1 - 5: Guy with sword (Aragon, Conan)
6 - 10: Guy with sword and superhuman strength. (Hercules, Captain America)
11 - 15: Guy with sword and magic. (Elric, Tool)
16 - 20: Guy with magic who sometimes uses a sword. (Rand al'Thor, Anomander Rake)

And you can keep casters to that with minimal modification. You can go from LotR to Chronicles of Amber to Malazan to Dominions. And given that those are all things people want to do, and all things the game at least sort of does, I see no reason to abandon them.

(Possibly because we can't convince enough people to play E6 with us.)

This is also a solution. The classes are nearly perfectly balanced if you don't let people get past 6th, so you could just do that.

In both of your scenarios the characters have directed the plot. They both decided "go to the Ice Rift." If the DM wants there to be no adventure in reaching that place then there isn't either way.

No. If the Fighter wants to go to Ice Rift, the DM can stop him by declaring that there are pirates, or bad weather, or no passage because of ice. If the Wizard wants to go there, he just does. Traveling and teleporting are fundamentally narratively different.

I would argue that not having an ability to instantly achieve a goal is better story-wise.

Unless all your goals are "go to a location you know and do a thing there", teleport does not do that. It simply allows you to achieve different goals. Unless you want to suggest that Creatures of Light and Darkness or the Malazan Book of the Fallen are not good stories because the characters in them can teleport.

Adventures are created by the DM. (unless it is a published one). I have as a DM created plenty of scenarios where Barbarians above level 10 are relevant.

Such as?

[dascarletm]

If you as a member of your team contribute **** and All to your team, then no one really cares if the team can handle it without you. If you as a character can contribute to one out of every 10 encounters, no one really cares that the team can handle the other 9 without your help. You are not a member of the team, you are basically that arena champion fanboi from Oblivion, useless, annoying, but present.

I'd appreciate you not inventing arguments on my behalf.
Nowhere did I say that this hypothetical character doesn't contribute at all, or 1/10 times. In fact if you read what I said, I said:

It is fine for a team game if certain situations need an X. Then the character with X can handle the situation. If your team lacks X, then luckily the game has a living, breathing, thinking, person to adjust what situations you face.

This implies there are certain situations where one character can shine. Did I say this is 9/10 times? No. I did not. In fact the implication is that it is not the norm.

Now, because it's a cooperative storytelling game you play with your friends, and your friends are presumably not *******s, they will graciously modify their characters personality to pretend you count as an equal team member. Just like you can totally play a Cleric of Hextor and a Cleric of Hieronious in the same party without them killing each other because you choose to alter them to make it work because you don't want to tell your friend he can't play the character he wants.

1) The statement was "deal with flight" depending on the goals, situation, and powers of the respective parties, there are lots of ways to deal with flight without being able to fly. Fighters have zero of those, but they can exist.
2) Or you know, they are low level characters. If you are a character that loses every time no matter what to harpy archer, you are a low level character.

Flight honestly isn't a really good example of things non-wizards (note: I'm saying non-wizards. Anytime you are bringing up a fighter that is your own invention) can handle. Anyone can grab a ranged weapon, or have an item/mount capable of flight. Characters need not be able to intrinsically have the capability to do any one thing. Having inherent weaknesses is fine, and makes characters more interesting.

I'm sure this is all really pointless to explain. I imagine I'll get some more toxic responses, but this is my viewpoint take it as you wish.

[johnbragg]

You could also just make the characters that don't match better. And then Roy can lead the party as he is in a low level adventure, and then when the party gets to level 7+ he can get actual abilities, so that it's not an ongoing joke by readers and even characters in the strip that he's actually super incapable of doing anything.

You can still play a character who is like Roy at low levels, he just has to get better when he faces better opposition.

The problem is that it's hard to figure out abilities that help Roy keep up with V that also fit narratively. Thematically, I'd say a high-level fighter should be able to do anything that you could see Chuck Norris doing with a roundhouse kick or Hulk Hogan doing by flexing extra hard. (Dispel Magic delivered by roundhouse kick, Iron Heart Surge, [i]break enchantment[/b] delivered by a sharp slap to the face still don't do much to stop a Time Lord, or for that matter to help a Time Lord stop another Time Lord.