Quick fix for wizards.

[Cosi]

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.

1. Grod brought up flight.
2. If you're not going to defend the Fighter, you do need to defend something. What class is designed appropriately?

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.

Roy is good at planning right? Sound like he could pick up Wizard spellcasting. Or turn into Thor. Or go the gadget route and become Iron Man. It's not really a hard problem.

[johnbragg]

(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.

Actually even at 1st level the druid and his pet run rings around the Fighter. But that's a different thread.

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)

Forced rebuild at level 10 as a cleric? That's not a terrible idea.

[dascarletm]

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.

They don't have to be.

DM wants you to get there unhindered.
"You cast teleport and arrive at the Frozen Rift."
"You take a boat and arrive at the Frozen Rift."
DM doesn't want you to get there unhindered
"You teleport, but are stopped/diverted by <Halaster's teleport cage, Forbiddence etc, or a Weirdstone>."
"You travel by boad, but there is too much ice."

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.

I see you thought I meant teleport specifically. That's not what I was saying. I was expanding, and to be clear I'm not saying characters having/not having certain abilities makes stories good or bad. On the contrary, I'm saying it doesn't matter.

Such as?

My most recent game which involved a barbarian had them competing against various outsiders in a Highland-Gamesesque tournament held by Kord. The barbarian (level 17, pathfinder) won, and advanced the plot by gaining Kords favor.


EDIT: "If you're not going to defend the Fighter, you do need to defend something. What class is designed appropriately?"

I was talking about characters without intrinsic abilities not being able to partake in the plot. That is what I responded to.

[Cosi]

Actually even at 1st level the druid and his pet run rings around the Fighter. But that's a different thread.

Yup. Druids are good at 1st. Although the Fighter can still contribute, at least somewhat. He has a reasonable attack, and his thumbs and rope solve a diverse set of non-combat problems.

Forced rebuild at level 10 as a cleric? That's not a terrible idea.

Sort of. My vision of it has ten level base classes, some of which are casters and some of which are not. At 10th, the non-casters get a pile of casting (so the Rogue becomes a Beguiler, the Marshal becomes a Warmage, and so on), and then you pick up a PrC that takes you to twenty. So the Fighter gets to just be a Fighter at 1st, then graduates to Captain America at 6th, and then at 11th he becomes a Planar Champion or something and gets magic powers.

DM wants you to get there unhindered.
"You cast teleport and arrive at the Frozen Rift."
"You take a boat and arrive at the Frozen Rift."
DM doesn't want you to get there unhindered
"You teleport, but are stopped/diverted by <Halaster's teleport cage, Forbiddence etc, or a Weirdstone>."
"You travel by boad, but there is too much ice."

Yes, the DM is able to screw you regardless of what nominal abilities you have. Why does that make your abilities irrelevant?

Seriously, Creatures of Light and Darkness versus Lord of the Rings. Read them and observe the difference that teleport makes on possible stories.

My most recent game which involved a barbarian had them competing against various outsiders in a Highland-Gamesesque tournament held by Kord. The barbarian (level 17, pathfinder) won, and advanced the plot by gaining Kords favor.

But how does any part of the Barbarian class enable that at all? What ability did he have written on his character sheet that made that uniquely possible for him?

[Beheld]

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.

No, it's really easy to figure out what abilities would make Roy keep up with V, he just has to stop being a Fighter. It's really time we all admitted that "Guy with no magic powers who hits things within 5ft of him" is a low level concept, and Roy would have to upgrade to something else which does have supernatural powers. Whether he gets those powers from magic blood like Superman, or by using cool gadgets that for some reason only work for him (I actually hate this system for a cooperative storytelling medium, but whatever) like Batman, or through training that unlocks super techniques that allow him to do crazy things, like Benders, or by deals with the figurative or literal devil, he needs to get cool abilities that help him beat level appropriate challenges, and those abilities do not need to be Finger of Death at will, they can totally be things that let him deal with challenges while still holding and using a sword. Maybe he stabs people's shadows instead of them, and he can teleport through shadows and look out of other shadows. That's fine, Cool stuff, and he's still a guy who stabs things with a sword, it's just that sometimes you need to be able to hurt a giant Dragon 100ft overhead with that sword, so you might need to stab his shadow instead of trying to fly up and catch him (even though he's way faster than you).

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:

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.

I wasn't attributing an argument to you. I was rebutting your argument. Your argument was that "If the Team can do it, it doesn't matter if a character is a useless piece of crap." That's a bad argument. If a character isn't contributing they aren't contributing, and that's what we have been talking about this whole time, characters that do not contribute. It is in fact 9/10, which is why I used that number.

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.

Flight is a great example, because it becomes a thing you need to deal with at level 5 when Harpies are a thing. At level 5, some classes can use range weapons to deal with harpies and some can't. At level 8 some characters get class feature mounts that can fly, and that can work sometimes and not others when facing dragons, avorals, arrowhawks, genies, vrocks, bone devils, and zelekauts. But it's a only the first of many hurdles, and the number of character concepts that just flat refuse to raise to that mediocre bar while demanding that they keep getting to play all the way to level 15-20 is unfortunately, staggeringly large.

Whether or not you can deal with a specific flying challenge without flying is dependent on a number of factors, and it's fine if there are some characters that can't deal with all of those challenges, but man, it would be great if people didn't say "No! I should be able to play a character that doesn't fly and can't use ranged weapons with appropriate skill and be a level 15 character." Which is a whole lot of what people actually say.

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.

I think this might go better if you stop assuming everything I say is a toxic, since there was nothing in the last post that was toxic.

[dascarletm]

Yes, the DM is able to screw you regardless of what nominal abilities you have. Why does that make your abilities irrelevant?

Seriously, Creatures of Light and Darkness versus Lord of the Rings. Read them and observe the difference that teleport makes on possible stories.

I have read similar stories. I like both. Neither is better than the other. That is my opinion. Do you believe that Lord of the Rings was a terrible story, and all the characters were irrelevant to the plot? Did their decisions not direct the plot in any way?
This leads me to believe otherwise:

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

But how does any part of the Barbarian class enable that at all? What ability did he have written on his character sheet that made that uniquely possible for him?

Rage, and the Auspicious Mark Rage Power.

[dascarletm]

"If the Team can do it, it doesn't matter if a character is a useless piece of crap." That's a bad argument. If a character isn't contributing they aren't contributing, and that's what we have been talking about this whole time, characters that do not contribute. It is in fact 9/10, which is why I used that number.

Ah yes, I remember saying that

[Cosi]

I have read similar stories. I like both. Neither is better than the other. That is my opinion. Do you believe that Lord of the Rings was a terrible story, and all the characters were irrelevant to the plot? Did their decisions not direct the plot in any way?

Lord of the Rings is a low level story. The characters don't have the option to take the Ring to Mount Doom by teleporting there, or by flying there, or by tunneling there, or by in any way bypassing the plot. They can't attempt a military conquest of Mordor, or negotiate with Sauron, or call up an army. They can take the Ring to Mount Doom by walking there, and do some holding actions in the meantime.

The point of high level is that you have new and different options (as well as new and different challenges) than you did at low level. You can teleport past obstacles, which means that you are challenged by a different set of obstacles (specifically, obstacles you can't circumvent with teleport). You can direct the plot more than you could when your choice was "brave the blizzard or brave the Mines of Moria".

Rage, and the Auspicious Mark Rage Power.

No, none of those abilities allow you to invoke Kord's favor by calling a tournament. Try again.

[Hal0Badger]

On the topic:

Making casters choose a school (which something I have tried earlier) tends to lead casters into most powerful schools there is, because schools are not balanced to each other. Abjuration for example, may hold essential spells (like dispel magic), but being a conjurer brings much more to the table for the player, especially on combat terms.

Another similar fix could be fixed spell lists, like beguiler's or dread necromancer's, though it requires too much work. Right now I am just openly banning polymorph, binding and some more spells, with a quick note that I may alter how the spells works in the future since there can be some spells I am missing out or potential abuses with some metamagic feats. Though I rarely shot down good and clever uses of spells, especially if they are used out of their written structure but still in a logical way.

As a side note: It amuses me that how Cosi and Beheld hijacks every balance thread, brings up fighters vs wizard arguments and get into engaged long discussion with long posts and quotes.

[dascarletm]

No, none of those abilities allow you to invoke Kord's favor by calling a tournament. Try again.

Appantly they did. Since it happened.

[Cosi]

Appantly they did. Since it happened.

No, they don't. DM pity caused it. Just like it's DM pity if the DM allows you to use your basket weaving skill to solve any challenge you face because you rolled a Commoner.

Seriously, how does that story play out any differently if the Barbarian is a Cleric? Oh, I know, he can actually ask Kord for a favor instead of jumping through DM pity hoops.

[Beheld]

As a side note: It amuses me that how Cosi and Beheld hijacks every balance thread, brings up fighters vs wizard arguments and get into engaged long discussion with long posts and quotes.

If a thread is about balancing the game, it hardly counts as hijacking to talk about balancing the game.

[dascarletm]

No, they don't. DM pity caused it. Just like it's DM pity if the DM allows you to use your basket weaving skill to solve any challenge you face because you rolled a Commoner.

Seriously, how does that story play out any differently if the Barbarian is a Cleric? Oh, I know, he can actually ask Kord for a favor instead of jumping through DM pity hoops.

You asked when the barbarian in my game was relevant. He was relevant in my game during that situation. In case you were wondering I never felt pitty for the guy.

[Cosi]

You asked when the barbarian in my game was relevant. He was relevant in my game during that situation. In case you were wondering I never felt pitty for the guy.

But he was relevant for reasons completely disconnected from abilities he has. If the actions characters take are not effected by the abilities those characters have, why have rules at all?

[dascarletm]

But he was relevant for reasons completely disconnected from abilities he has. If the actions characters take are not effected by the abilities those characters have, why have rules at all?

The powers I listed directly enabled him to win.

[Cosi]

The powers I listed directly enabled him to win.

Would he have won if he was a Cleric? That seems obvious, given that Clerics are better than Barbarians. Then clearly, his Barbarian-ness did not in fact contribute to his ability to achieve his goal. What's more, the Cleric could have directly achieved the goal in question (whatever Kord did for them) by casting one of his spells.

The characters ability to be Barbarian literally contributed less than nothing to solving this problem. Compare that to the Cleric's plane shift, the Druid's control weather, and the Wizard's teleport, all of which allow characters to actively and directly achieve their goals.

Seriously, where is the disconnect here? What part of the difference between "having abilities" and "not having abilities" has not been sufficiently explained?

[dascarletm]

Would he have won if he was a Cleric? That seems obvious, given that Clerics are better than Barbarians. Then clearly, his Barbarian-ness did not in fact contribute to his ability to achieve his goal. What's more, the Cleric could have directly achieved the goal in question (whatever Kord did for them) by casting one of his spells.

The characters ability to be Barbarian literally contributed less than nothing to solving this problem. Compare that to the Cleric's plane shift, the Druid's control weather, and the Wizard's teleport, all of which allow characters to actively and directly achieve their goals.

Seriously, where is the disconnect here? What part of the difference between "having abilities" and "not having abilities" has not been sufficiently explained?

The disconnect is you asked when did a barbarian contribute. I answered. His abilities let him do a thing. Others being able to do it better does not negate what happened. You didn't ask when was a barbarian the best suited for a task. Again, You asked when was one able to contribute. I answered.

Also in regards to literally contributing less than nothing, I'll tell you that his abilities did not make the problem harder to solve. So you are factually incorrect on that one.

[johnbragg]

I don't like it. A Wizard with only one school of magic might as well be a Sorcerer. I don't play Wizards so that I can not have a wide range of spells known. That's practically the whole point of a Wizard. If this rule were in play, I would probably just never play the class--I'd be a Cleric or Druid or Archivist instead.

How would you feel about the "Arcane Generalist", who learns 5 spells/ level and casts them spontaneously, but can take a day and swap them out for others in his spellbook?

(I'd give divine prepared casters the same nerf)

On the topic:
Another similar fix could be fixed spell lists, like beguiler's or dread necromancer's, though it requires too much work.

Arcane Generalist is practically a fixed list caster, and pretty much every AG will have a different list.

As a side note: It amuses me that how Cosi and Beheld hijacks every balance thread, brings up fighters vs wizard arguments and get into engaged long discussion with long posts and quotes.

It's not a hijack in a thread titled "Quick Fix For Wizards." I don't think they're having this argument in the psion thread or the throw-based ranger thread or the Underdark homing pigeon thread.

[Troacctid]

How would you feel about the "Arcane Generalist", who learns 5 spells/ level and casts them spontaneously, but can take a day and swap them out for others in his spellbook?

(I'd give divine prepared casters the same nerf)

I'd actually consider that an overall buff. Spontaneous casting is quite a bit better than preparing each slot individually, and you no longer have to spend gp to learn new spells. Probably more fun to play than the standard Wizard. I don't know how you're treating specialists in this system, though—if you're just removing that option, I'd be sad, because specialization is a great way to add flavor to a character and there are some cool options that go with it. Also, I'm not sure I like that this marginalizes Sorcerers even further by giving Wizards spontaneous casting.

[Beheld]

How would you feel about the "Arcane Generalist", who learns 5 spells/ level and casts them spontaneously, but can take a day and swap them out for others in his spellbook?

How is this note just a better Wizard (and Sorcerer). If they can cast 5 spells per level and change it each day, then that's already what Wizards do, except they don't cast spontaneously from the 5 they prepare.

[johnbragg]

I'd actually consider that an overall buff. Spontaneous casting is quite a bit better than preparing each slot individually, and you no longer have to spend gp to learn new spells. Probably more fun to play than the standard Wizard. I don't know how you're treating specialists in this system, though—if you're just removing that option, I'd be sad, because specialization is a great way to add flavor to a character and there are some cool options that go with it. Also, I'm not sure I like that this marginalizes Sorcerers even further by giving Wizards spontaneous casting.

Well, you'd still have to spend the gp to get a hold of the spell in the first place for your library. But that's not a huge cost.

Specialist wizards. Hmmm. Extra spell per spell level per day doesn't change. how about 6 spells known per level, 2 of which must be in the chosen school.

When I came up with this, the idea was that the Arcane Generalist was using the bard spells per day progression plus one level, so the Sorcerer is casting a lot more spells than his Arcane Generalist brother (likewise for their cleric equivalents), and from level 10 up, the Sorcerer has a higher max spell level. Especially at low levels, the Arcane Generalist needs something so that he's not looking at a 6 second adventuring day.

If you're using the Arcane Generalist idea with the Wizard spells per day, I think it replaces both the Wizard and the Sorcerer. If you really like the Sorcerer fluff, you could maybe use the Warlock chassis, and use your favorite spells as Invocations.

[johnbragg]

How is this note just a better Wizard (and Sorcerer). If they can cast 5 spells per level and change it each day, then that's already what Wizards do, except they don't cast spontaneously from the 5 they prepare.

Not each day. IF they want to swap out spells, it takes an entire day to learn each new spell. It brings the wizard closer to the fixed-list casters, who cast spontaneously from about 12-18 spells per spell level. The AG was conceived with the idea of using the Bard + 1 spells per day progression.

So setting aside bonus spells, a while a 5th level sorcerer is casting 10 1st and 2nd level spells (from a list of 6). A 10th level AG is casting 10 spells (1 4th level spell) from a list of 50, while a 10th level Sorcerer is casting 20 (8 4th and 5th) from a list of 15.

Setting aside bonus spells:
A 5th level AG can cast 5 1st & 2nd level spells (from a list of 25), a 10th level AG can cast 10 spells (1 4th) from a list of 50, a 15th level AG can cast 16 (2 5th, 0 6th).
A 5th level Sor can cast 10 1st and 2nd level spells (from a list of 6), a Sorcerer 10 is casting 20 (8 4th and 5th) from a list of 15.
A 5th level Wizard can cast 6 1st-3rd, a 10th level Wizard can cast 12 (5 4th and 5th), a 15th level Wizard can cast 26 (6 6th-8th).

The Arcane Generalist has a much harder time swapping out spells than the Wizard, is slower to gain new spell levels, and is capped at 6th level spells. (You could easily add 7th level spells to the progression at 18th level.) He has fewer spells per day than the Sorcerer, but has a lot more options.

(And he needs something to make him useful for more than one round per day at 1st level.)

[Beheld]

Oh it has the Bard Progression, then whatever, throw it in the trash can next to all the other 6th level casters with no class features.

He can spontaneously cast 0 4th level spells from 5 spells known.
He can spontaneously cast 2 3rd level spells from 5 spells known.

A Sorcerer with a Bloodline feat can cast 3 5th level spells from 2 spells known.
5 4th level spells from 3 spells known.
and 6 3rd level spells from 4 spells known.

The Sorcerer has like 500 times the spell slots and basically the same spells known, except they are significantly more varied because he has higher level ones, and it only gets worse from there.

So in addition to your class not having level appropriate abilities, and not having enough spell slots to go through the day, it also doesn't even have a wider spell selection than the Sorcerer.

[Troacctid]

If the spell progression is nerfed, then it's not worth it. I would not play that class.

[johnbragg]

Oh it has the Bard Progression, then whatever, throw it in the trash can next to all the other 6th level casters with no class features.

He can spontaneously cast 0 4th level spells from 5 spells known.
He can spontaneously cast 2 3rd level spells from 5 spells known.

A Sorcerer with a Bloodline feat can cast 3 5th level spells from 2 spells known.
5 4th level spells from 3 spells known.
and 6 3rd level spells from 4 spells known.

The Sorcerer has like 500 times the spell slots and basically the same spells known, except they are significantly more varied because he has higher level ones, and it only gets worse from there.

So in addition to your class not having level appropriate abilities, and not having enough spell slots to go through the day, it also doesn't even have a wider spell selection than the Sorcerer.

2 3rd level spells from 15 known. HE learns 5 at 6th, 5 at 7th, 5 at 8th. So he has about the same number of spells available as the fixed-list casters, but later.

[Cosi]

His abilities let him do a thing.

No, they didn't. His abilities and contingent circumstances let him do a thing.

Consider...

How would his Rage ability gain Kord's favor absent a tournament to win? It wouldn't.

How would the Fighter's sailing ranks take him to the edge of the world absent a boat?* They wouldn't.

How would the Ranger's Track feat find evidence of a demon's retreat from a teleport assault which leaves no tracks? It doesn't.

Compare...

How does a Druid's ability to raise the dead work absent a tournament? The Druid uses it, and the dead are raised.

How does the Wizard's teleport take him to the edge of the world absent a boat? The Wizard uses it, and he goes there.

How does the Cleric's ability to use divinations to contact the gods find evidence of a demon's retreat from a teleport assault which leaves no tracks? The Cleric uses it, and he receives confirmation.

It's fine to have some situations where characters can't reliably use their abilities to overcome a particular challenge. But that situation is low level. It does not become high level if a 17th level character does it, that 17th level character is just lame.

*: This is a somewhat weak example, as you can generally expect to buy boats. Insert a bit about "without fighting the pirates/dragon turtle/other wandering monster" if you really care.

Also in regards to literally contributing less than nothing, I'll tell you that his abilities did not make the problem harder to solve. So you are factually incorrect on that one.

Have you heard of opportunity cost? A Cleric could win the tournament and still be able to see the future and summon angels. What is the Barbarian bringing to the table that is role protected?

[Beheld]

2 3rd level spells from 15 known. HE learns 5 at 6th, 5 at 7th, 5 at 8th. So he has about the same number of spells available as the fixed-list casters, but later.

Oh, then that's still terrible, because he has really low level effects, but he does carry around more utility. But like, you have to realize, when people say versatility is power, they are wrong. Casting 5 spells of a given spell level makes you really strong if that's a level appropriate spell level, casting 15 isn't 3 times as strong, its 1.1 times as strong. So if you are still casting from way too few spells per day off spell levels that are way too low, then you are still not level appropriate.

Basically, that's a great Adept class, because it belongs with all the other NPC classes.

[Exemplis]

Amusing dispute...
Each side argues for the concept that objectively exist only in their heads and refuses to understand opposing one. It's apples to oranges again.
One side states that non-spellcasting classes are poorely designed to adress appropriate-CR threats by RAW, which is undoubtly true. But fails to understand that RAW arent rules of physics and cannot prevent any character from contributing to any story. The game that is played by a group of people is a system of immensely higher meta-level than RAW system. RAW give you tools - you choose which ones to use, and which not. The only limitation is one's imagination. If one imagines that high-level games must include demon-bindings, teleports, angelic summonings and chatting with gods and finds this types of games intersting - that's fine. But his preferences do not restrict others from having their high-level games with more mundane flavor even if they are based on the same set of rules.

Back on the topic - I think the idea to slow down casting progression to bard+1 for all full-CL casters is a nice one, but then we must move bards to ranger+1 progression and so on.. And give all full-BAB classes fighter feat progression...

[ekarney]

To be fair, the wizard list is the most powerful, and there exist similar easy/obvious nerfs for most of the others.

I'd actually argue that Archivist at least has the potential to be far more powerful, depending on your reading of what spell's they're allowed.

[johnbragg]

Amusing dispute...
Each side argues for the concept that objectively exist only in their heads and refuses to understand opposing one. It's apples to oranges again.
One side states that non-spellcasting classes are poorely designed to adress appropriate-CR threats by RAW, which is undoubtly true. But fails to understand that RAW arent rules of physics and cannot prevent any character from contributing to any story. The game that is played by a group of people is a system of immensely higher meta-level than RAW system. RAW give you tools - you choose which ones to use, and which not. The only limitation is one's imagination. If one imagines that high-level games must include demon-bindings, teleports, angelic summonings and chatting with gods and finds this types of games intersting - that's fine. But his preferences do not restrict others from having their high-level games with more mundane flavor even if they are based on the same set of rules.

Except they're not playing by the same set of rules. If you're playing by WOTC RAW, then the non-casters (or tertiary casters) are, mechanically, standing around while the full casters move the plot forward. The DM can always integrate the noncasters into the plot by manipulating the plot, but you could do the same if the noncasters were playing Commoners or Aristocrats. I think Cosi has a point that at a certain level, he picks 11, the game changes. I'd say it's story-appropriate at that point to declare that, to continue levelling, mundanes need spellcasting or the equivalent. I kind of like my idea that they get chosen by a patron of some sort, and rebuild their first ten levels as a gish. I don't have details, but I'd look at the UA battle sorcerer spell progression?

The alternative is some set of homebrewed class rules where the full casters dont get (as much) access to demon-binding and angel summoning and planar shenanigans, and the mundanes get something that keeps the spotlight on them in combat, at least.

Back on the topic - I think the idea to slow down casting progression to bard+1 for all full-CL casters is a nice one, but then we must move bards to ranger+1 progression and so on.. And give all full-BAB classes fighter feat progression...

Well, the Bard is a level behind the Arcane Generalist. The Bard's spell list is comparable to the cleric or wizard list, but he or she is restricted to the normal Spells Known table. IF the Arcane Generalist (or cleric counterpart) needs a spell she doesn't have, she can buy it at the MAgic MArt today, spend tomorrow studying it and cast it the next day. The difference between the AG and the RAW wizard is that the AG has to "forget" a spell to add one.

I could see tweaking the rule that it takes one day to add a spell to the spellbook (RAW), and *another* day to add it to Spells Known.

If you're giving all full-BAB classes the Fighter feat progression, we need a class or two to replace the old sad fighter. OTOH, we already did.