D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

[Grundy]

I agree with all of your points, except #4.
1,3,5,6,7,&8 are all problems because of how the spells are written, which was my point. I like what I see so far on the fighter to address #2.
As to weak low level casters, the only one in core would be the wizard, perhaps. But given a handful of xp and gold, and a few days in town, the wizard can have so many scrolls that she'll never run out of spells. It's easy for a sorcerer to do the same, or cleric or Druid, even though the divine casters are strong without it. Bards are weaker, but there's plenty of utility from 0 level spells, too.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Originally Posted by Grundy

As to weak low level casters, the only one in core would be the wizard, perhaps. But given a handful of xp and gold, and a few days in town, the wizard can have so many scrolls that she'll never run out of spells. It's easy for a sorcerer to do the same, or cleric or Druid, even though the divine casters are strong without it. Bards are weaker, but there's plenty of utility from 0 level spells, too.

That may be how it actually turned out, but their intention was level 1 wizards went around just casting 1 Magic Missile per day and hiding under a rock for the other 4 encounters after that.

[navar100]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

The problem with 3.x spellcasting is actually several problems. Here is a short, non comprehensive list

1) Spells got better as you leveled up, meaning your old abilities get more powerful as you also gain new more powerful abilities.

The whole point of leveling is to get better stuff. Spells becoming more powerful compared to lower level is a feature, not a problem.

2) Non spellcasters usually only had a few options, where as spellcasters had dozens of viable options.

That's the problem. Non-spellcasters were not getting comparable better stuff as the levels increase, at least until a certain book late in 3E came out that gave warriors nice things.

3) Individual spells were quite broken and rarely balanced well.

Agreed, though I think some people make more noise about particular spells than is warranted. Still, I agree with the concept that some spells could use a revision or just removed.

4) Spellcasters, especially Arcane casters, were balanced by having a weak low level experience to justify a powerful late level experiance.

Agreed, bad form. Low level should not mean pathetic weakness, and everyone should be equivalent in strength as the levels progress. It is perhaps inherent that some classes may be better at others at a given level by virtue of when class abilities are available, but it should not be a large gap and quickly fixed the following level.

5) Typically, a spell was as good or better than a mundane ability that did the same thing.

I call this "depends". Knock is a common example. It's all well and good a wizard could cast Knock, use a scroll, or use a wand, but why do so when the rogue is right there? Why bother using up the resource? Cast Knock when the rogue is not there. However, this can fall into #3 above.

6) A single spell often did several things or had an extremely long duration, meaning limited slots was not an issue.

A feature, not a bug. There's nothing wrong with a spell being useful. That's the whole point.

7) There was very little you could do to stop a spellcaster.

Depends on gaming group, not necessarily meaning DM has anti-magic fields and golems everywhere.

8) Spells suffered from extreme power creep.

That is a matter of play preference. It is not a crime for a PC to be powerful. The problem is non-spellcasters do not increase in their power at the same rate. Despite #3, it is ok for a spell to be powerful. Non-spellcasters should have their equivalence.

All of these problems need to be addressed in 5e, and so far several of them have.

As long as they don't throw away the baby with the bathwater.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by navar100

As long as they don't throw away the baby with the bathwater.

Please don't edit your comments into the quote, it makes it hard to respond.

Originally Posted by navar100 & TheOOB

1) Spells got better as you leveled up, meaning your old abilities get more powerful as you also gain new more powerful abilities.

The whole point of leveling is to get better stuff. Spells becoming more powerful compared to lower level is a feature, not a problem.

You misunderstand. Getting new powers that are better is good. Getting new powers that are better while your old powers also get better is what makes the Wizard quadratic.

2) Non spellcasters usually only had a few options, where as spellcasters had dozens of viable options.

That's the problem. Non-spellcasters were not getting comparable better stuff as the levels increase, at least until a certain book late in 3E came out that gave warriors nice things.

That book even explicitly calls it "Blade MAGIC". Those are still spellcasters, they use magic. They're just gishes.

6) A single spell often did several things or had an extremely long duration, meaning limited slots was not an issue.

A feature, not a bug. There's nothing wrong with a spell being useful. That's the whole point.

Casters get spells AND feats. Many spells do multiple things.
Non-casters get feats and one or two class features. Each feat or class feature does one, maybe two things.
Again, casters get exponentially more options.

8) Spells suffered from extreme power creep.

That is a matter of play preference. It is not a crime for a PC to be powerful. The problem is non-spellcasters do not increase in their power at the same rate. Despite #3, it is ok for a spell to be powerful. Non-spellcasters should have their equivalence.

Seems to me it would be easier to power down casters than to try to power up mundanes. Last time they tried powering up "mundanes" we ended up with ToB, which is just more magic.

[Kurald Galain]

The biggest problem with spellcasters in 3E is that 2E had numerous drawbacks and balancing mechanisms that made magic weaker, and that were removed for 3E (and no, I'm not talking about the "weak at low level, strong at high level" part).

My personal preference is for fighters to be more powerful, and wizards to be more versatile. Yes, this is a possible way to balance things; many other RPGs let you make a power/versatility tradeoff. It just needs to be done right.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

The biggest problem with spellcasters in 3E is that 2E had numerous drawbacks and balancing mechanisms that made magic weaker, and that were removed for 3E (and no, I'm not talking about the "weak at low level, strong at high level" part).

My personal preference is for fighters to be more powerful, and wizards to be more versatile. Yes, this is a possible way to balance things; many other RPGs let you make a power/versatility tradeoff. It just needs to be done right.

Like, fighter-types are designed for damage output and high hp, and caster-types are designed for utility and support but not direct damage output?

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Like, fighter-types are designed for damage output and high hp, and caster-types are designed for utility and support but not direct damage output?

Yes.

I think it would be good if wizards were forced to specialize. Just because magic is really versatile doesn't mean that every wizard can do all of that. For example, if you make a wizard based on summoning magic, you can't just add the best buff spells to your repertoire because that's not your specialty. Conversely, if you make a buffing wizard, you can't just cast Summon Monster XVII because that's not your specialty either. Pick one shtick and stick with it. The last thing we need is every wizard cherry-picking from a long, long list of spells printed.

[Stubbazubba]

Originally Posted by navar100

The whole point of leveling is to get better stuff. Spells becoming more powerful compared to lower level is a feature, not a problem.

Your conclusion does not follow from your argument; the whole point of leveling is to get better stuff, which is not the same as making the stuff you already have better. Slight difference, but it's significant in this case; casters are doing both, which makes their gains in power huge at every level, compared to any reasonable base-line. They can get newer, shinier toys to replace the old ones, or they can improve their old ones without getting new ones, and either of those is sensible, mechanically-speaking, but both is just unnecessarily complicated, both to play and certainly to balance.

That is a matter of play preference. It is not a crime for a PC to be powerful. The problem is non-spellcasters do not increase in their power at the same rate. Despite #3, it is ok for a spell to be powerful. Non-spellcasters should have their equivalence.

I don't think 'power creep' means what you think it means. Power creep is when a class gets more and more powerful as more splatbooks are released which introduce more powerful options in an attempt to make the book attractive to players. Naturally, these are usually spells, not combat maneuvers. Even feats are usually quite tame, because for some inexplicable reason, some people actually get uncomfortable when you talk about giving non-casters nice things. So one of the big main draws for a new splatbook are all the new spells inside, because spells are largely inconsistent in power curve and flexibility anyway, so that's where the power creep gets in.

[Clawhound]

Combos are another creep. The more things that you can combine, the more likely that you'll get a great combo. Some combo is good, and should serve you well in limited circumstances, but once a combo becomes used all the time, then you have a balance issue.

For 3rd, you had the added problem that spellcasters could far more easily get whatever magic item that they wanted, further increasing the number of possible combos that they could use. For example, stacking night sticks, which made an entire class of uber-cleric possible.

With the de-emphasis (I hope) on magic items in Next, that should help moderate combo-ism to situational advantage.

[navar100]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Seems to me it would be easier to power down casters than to try to power up mundanes. Last time they tried powering up "mundanes" we ended up with ToB,

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Originally Posted by noparlpf

which is just more magic.

Which it's not.

They tried powering down magic to the point where magic doesn't exist at all, but they angered a large portion of their fanbase in the process.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by navar100

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I don't like ToB much myself, mostly because it's a book of gishes, and just adds even more magic instead of actually fixing the disparity between casters and mundanes.
(As might become evident in the rest of this post, I have some strong feelings about this.)

Which it's not.

Go open up your ToB. Just humor me. Go the the contents page. See how it says, "Chapter 3: Blade Magic"? Go to page 4. It says, "The Sublime Way is not magical--at least, not in a normal sense." Meaning that it is magic, just a different sort of magic from the "normal" arcane and divine magics. "A master of the Sublime Way can perform martial exploits that are nearly superhuman--and, in fact, some of them actually transcend the natural." Supernatural = magic; remember, supernatural abilities don't function in an Antimagic Field. Page 5 says, "Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords describes a system of special combat "spells" known as the Sublime Way, the Nine Disciplines, or blade magic." If they didn't want it to be another form of magic, they shouldn't have called it magic and directly likened maneuvers to spells. On page 8 in the description of the Swordsage, it says, "Swordsage: Also known as a blade wizard, a sword sage is a martial artist who has learned how to invoke a unique form of magic to accomplish truly superhuman (and supernatural) exploits." And on page 15: "A master of martial maneuvers, the swordsage is a physical adept--a blade wizard whose knowledge of the Sublime Way lets him unlock potent abilities, many of which are overtly supernatural or magical in nature." Now tell me this isn't magic. They literally just said that it is magic. Again on page 15, the blurb about Swordsage abilities: "Depending on which disciplines he chooses to study, a swordsage might be capable of walking through walls, leaping dozens of feet into the air, shattering boulders with a single touch, or even mastering the elements of fire or shadow." Tell me that isn't magic. Tell me that it's possible to walk through a wall or create fire from nothing without magic.

The one distinction from "real" magic is that some maneuvers are extraordinary and function in an AMF. The supernatural ones don't, though, so quite a few maneuvers are definitely magical.

[navar100]

Tome of Battle has been argued to death. There's another thread right now about the Fighter discussing it. Go there.

Edit: OMG! Another one just opened up in the 3E forum about giving maneuvers to the base classes.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by navar100

Tome of Battle has been argued to death. There's another thread right now about the Fighter discussing it. Go there.

Edit: OMG! Another one just opened up in the 3E forum about giving maneuvers to the base classes.

If you still disagree that it's magic, there's no point in arguing further. I've stated my position and argument. I'm not on an holy mission to force it down your throat.

[Grundy]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

The biggest problem with spellcasters in 3E is that 2E had numerous drawbacks and balancing mechanisms that made magic weaker, and that were removed for 3E (and no, I'm not talking about the "weak at low level, strong at high level" part).

My personal preference is for fighters to be more powerful, and wizards to be more versatile. Yes, this is a possible way to balance things; many other RPGs let you make a power/versatility tradeoff. It just needs to be done right.

Out of curiosity, since its been so long since I've looked at a 2e book, what were those drawbacks? I remember disrupted spells, but no more.

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Grundy

Out of curiosity, since its been so long since I've looked at a 2e book, what were those drawbacks? I remember disrupted spells, but no more.

Off the top of my head,

• Spells get disrupted when you're hit, no concentration check allowed
• Higher-level spells are easier to disrupt, magical weapons are easier to disrupt with, per plus (this depends on their speed factors)
• Enemy saving throws depend on their level, not yours, and thus become easier for enemies the higher level you and they are; whereas the opposite is true in 3E
• Numerous spells have drawbacks written into the spell itself; e.g. Lightning Bolt bounces back at you if mis-aimed, Shout can permanently deafen the caster, etc
• No metamagic feats exist
• More XP required to level up; the amount gets silly around level 9. Also, you get 6th and higher level spells one character later than in 3E
• Wizards get no bonus spells for high ability scores, although clerics do
• And last but not least, by default a wizard's spells are limited to what he can find during the adventure, plus he has to roll to learn a spell; no free spells of the player's choice every level

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

[*]No metamagic feats exist
[*]And last but not least, by default a wizard's spells are limited to what he can find during the adventure, plus he has to roll to learn a spell; no free spells of the player's choice every level

In fact, while there are metamagic effects in 2e, there are very few of them, they're spells (and so subject to normal spell learning rules) that you have to cast right before casting the spell to be metamagicked (and so you can't stack them very well if at all), and they have level caps they can effect so you can't metamagic higher-level spells.

Lots of caster options were like that in AD&D, you got plenty of new toys to play with but they kept the philosophy of including drawbacks and paying for power. Not like 3e, where they had to ruin the perfectly good concept of metamagic feats with a proliferation of metamagic reducers.

[Grundy]

Ah, yes. Now I remember why the flawless 3.x magic system sticks in my craw so much. It used to have some risk attached. Now the worst consequence is a made save, if one is allowed.
I'm suddenly thinking about the very useful IRL skill of estimating distance (and spatial awareness in general) especially in combat. What if the area in area effect spells was variable? Not a lot- maybe 10% or the nearest integer.
Many spells have a random number or targets/hd effected. Why not area?

[Flickerdart]

3.5 doesn't have power creep for spells. Almost all the big stinkers are Core, and almost nothing that came afterwards was even close to the power of, say, Shapechange.

[obryn]

At least in 1e (which I'm more familiar with) There's also ...

* Need to pass a Learn % chance in order to learn a spell
* Spell Components. Which are incredibly annoying and seldom-used but served as checks to frequent casting.
* Spell memorization times. If you're a higher-level caster and you blow all your spells, it might take days for you to prepare them all again.
* Costs of transcribing spells into your spellbook are fairly steep - as are the new books when your current one runs out of pages.
* Along with the drawbacks listed before, some spells actually aged a caster (or a target) a number of years. Haste and Wish are biggies, here.

3e basically took away all the downsides of spellcasting while leaving the upsides intact.

-O

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

3.5 doesn't have power creep for spells.

Yes it does. Celerity, Wraithstrike, and Shivering Touch are some low-level examples. Also, the various means of reducing metamagic cost are non-core. 9th-level spells are not a practical problem in most campaigns, since they wouldn't even come close to that level.

Yes, Core is unbalanced and contains some overpowered spells; but the problem became much, much worse with splatbooks. Hence, power creep.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

Yes it does. Celerity, Wraithstrike, and Shivering Touch are some low-level examples. Also, the various means of reducing metamagic cost are non-core. 9th-level spells are not a practical problem in most campaigns, since they wouldn't even come close to that level.

Yes, Core is unbalanced and contains some overpowered spells; but the problem became much, much worse with splatbooks. Hence, power creep.

Disagree. There are good spell outside of core, but the most powerful spells are still found in the PHB. Nothing as powerful as Shapechange/Wish/Time Stop/Planar Ally/Gate/Disjunction has ever been printed in a splat. The most powerful spells in splat books are still far less powerful than certain core spells. Additionally, in my opinion, The average power of a spell did not markedly increase as more splatbooks were printed. Thus, I believe it is incorrect to say that "the problem became much, much worse with splatbooks" .

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Menteith

There are good spell outside of core, but the most powerful spells are still found in the PHB. Nothing as powerful as Shapechange/Wish/Time Stop/Planar Ally/Gate/Disjunction has ever been printed in a splat.

The issue is not about spells printed but about spells in use. Pretty much everything you list here is level 9, so it's clearly not going to be used in the vast majority of campaigns. Yes, printing a level-3 spell in splatbooks that is much stronger than the level-3 (or 4) spells in the PHB1 is still power creep. And because they become available at low level, level-3 spells are used in many more games than level-9 spells are.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

The issue is not about spells printed but about spells in use. Pretty much everything you list here is level 9, so it's clearly not going to be used in the vast majority of campaigns. Yes, printing a level-3 spell in splatbooks that is much stronger than the level-3 (or 4) spells in the PHB1 is still power creep. And because they become available at low level, level-3 spells are used in many more games than level-9 spells are.

You're claiming that "the problem became way, way worse" in splatbooks.

What control spells are way, way better than Grease, Glitterdust, and Web?

What buffs are way, way better than Enlarge Person, Alter Self, Mirror Image, and Haste?

What utility is way, way better than Silent Image, Charm Person, Rope Trick, and Summon Monster X?

I'll accept that there are splatbook spells which are good, and I'll agree that the metamagic reducers which make Mailmen decent are non-Core, but I won't agree that there was some kind of huge power creep in spells. If I'm running a Batman Wizard, odds are most of my spell list is from Core.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

A good way to think of power creep as relates to spells would be "Which spells does the optimal sorcerer pick?" Starting with core, he picks up shapechange, planar binding, etc. every time. None of those top-tier spells is going to be replaced when splatbooks come out with new spells, since with a limited number of spells known he's not going to settle for less. However, celerity will almost certainly bump a spell out of its slot and take its place, as will shivering touch, etc.

Averaging over all spells printed, the power of an individual spell known probably didn't change much or even decreased, because for every wraithstrike published there was a breath flare, a dispel ward, and several other less-than-amazing spells. But an individual caster doesn't care about the power of all spells everywhere, he cares about the power level of the spell selection he can put together, and that has definitely increased in leaps and bounds. Even if 90% of a Batman wizard's spellbook is full of so-good-you-have-to-take-them core spells, the fact that the remaining 10% went from less-good-but-still-nice core spells to so-good-you-have-to-take-them non-core spells means that power creep is definitely noticeable.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

...means that power creep is definitely noticeable.

Agreed with that. I'm objecting more to the idea that it because significantly worse as compared to Core only.

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Menteith

Agreed with that. I'm objecting more to the idea that it because significantly worse as compared to Core only.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is Are we seriously going to argue about whether something is noticeable or significant or both, and if there's even any difference between these two words (that are considered synonyms by my thesaurus)?

(edit) for the record, the Batman Guide lists nine level-2 spells from core, and eight from out of core. Is the difference between 9 excellent spells and 17 excellent spells noticeably significant, or significantly noticeable?

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

for the record, the Batman Guide lists nine level-2 spells from core, and eight from out of core. Is the difference between 9 excellent spells and 17 excellent spells noticeably significant, or significantly noticeable?

If you already have enough variety to handle 95% of all encounters, it's not a huge boost going to 99%. I believe that the spells in core can already handle 95% of appropriate encounters without an issue. I don't feel that a relatively small boost in versatility is indicative of an significant or noticeable power creep, as a core Wizard can already handle just about everything already. You can't give a huge boost to a class that can already do everything.

[navar100]

Some pre-3E drawbacks were unfun, such as being aged to cast the spell, needing a day to prepare all your spells when high level. It was like punishing the wizard for the audacity of doing what he's supposed to be doing. However, not all drawbacks were unfun.

Casting times were interesting and could be used again. Most spell casting times were the level of the spell. If you go on initiative count 18 casting a 5th level spell, you would start casting on 18 and it goes off on 14. A lot can happen between them. Your initiative count next round would still be 18.

Needing to make a spellcraft check to learn a spell would be alright. If you fail, I would prefer you didn't have to wait a level to try again. You could at no cost, but if you wanted to try again before then you would pay goldpieces or maybe a small amount of XP. However, if you must wait until next level, i.e. gain a rank in spellcraft, I could get over it. A new idea that has floated around before is to give spell prerequisites before you can learn a spell. For example, you need to know Burning Hands before you can learn Flaming Sphere or Scorching Ray. You need to know Flaming Sphere and Scorching Ray before you can know Fireball, or maybe just one of them since Fireball isn't that powerful, but the big booms certainly need lots. Gate might require Protection From Foo, Magic Circle Against Foo, Teleport Without Error, Plane Shift, Summon Monster of at least V, and a high number of ranks in Spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, and Knowledge Planes.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Originally Posted by navar100

Needing to make a spellcraft check to learn a spell would be alright. If you fail, I would prefer you didn't have to wait a level to try again. You could at no cost, but if you wanted to try again before then you would pay goldpieces or maybe a small amount of XP. However, if you must wait until next level, i.e. gain a rank in spellcraft, I could get over it. A new idea that has floated around before is to give spell prerequisites before you can learn a spell. For example, you need to know Burning Hands before you can learn Flaming Sphere or Scorching Ray. You need to know Flaming Sphere and Scorching Ray before you can know Fireball, or maybe just one of them since Fireball isn't that powerful, but the big booms certainly need lots. Gate might require Protection From Foo, Magic Circle Against Foo, Teleport Without Error, Plane Shift, Summon Monster of at least V, and a high number of ranks in Spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, and Knowledge Planes.

The main problem with requiring skill checks, of course, is that skill checks are so easy to boost in 3e, and a secondary problem is that if you're basing the DC on spell level it goes up by a different rate than Spellcraft ranks based on whether it's using ranks, 2*ranks, or whatever (i.e. the Truenamer problem).

One variation on the prerequisites idea that I liked, tried by one of the DMs in my group, was the following, spoilered for the tangent:

Spoiler

Each spell requires a DC 15 + 5*spell level Spellcraft check to learn it, but each spell has one thematically-related prerequisite spell per spell level. Each of those prerequisite spells that you already know reduces the DC by 2 (so a 9th level spell has 9 prereqs and knowing all 9 reduces the DC from a near-impossible 60 to a manageable 42), and if you fail the check for a given spell you can retry the roll each time you learn one of the prerequisites. Additionally, specialists take a -4 Spellcraft penalty for spells outside their school and generalists take a -8 penalty on checks to learn spells of any school, each school has a different associated Knowledge for the Spellcraft synergy bonus (Kn:Planes for Conjuration, Kn:Religion for Necromancy, etc.), and of course prevent any magical enhancements to the skill check like +30 Spellcraft items or guidance of the avatar or whatever from applying because the Laws of Magic are a jerk like that.

A 1st level wizard with max Spellcraft and +2 Int would need to roll a 12 to learn a 1st level spell of his specialty school while only an 18 Int generalist could even have a chance to pick up 1st level spells at 1st level; a 20th level generalist wizard with +10 Int, 5 ranks in the appropriate Knowledge, and max Spellcraft can roll at most 47 on that Spellcraft check, making it practically impossible to learn a spell without almost all of its prereqs, while if he were a specialist he'd need only 1 or 2 prereqs from his specialty school.

That system is probably more complex and less friendly to generalists than most people would want, but I think it does a nice job of encouraging thematic spell groupings while being forgiving of players who want a more eclectic spell selection.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

The main problem with requiring skill checks, of course, is that skill checks are so easy to boost in 3e, and a secondary problem is that if you're basing the DC on spell level it goes up by a different rate than Spellcraft ranks based on whether it's using ranks, 2*ranks, or whatever (i.e. the Truenamer problem).

One variation on the prerequisites idea that I liked, tried by one of the DMs in my group, was the following, spoilered for the tangent:

Spoiler

Each spell requires a DC 15 + 5*spell level Spellcraft check to learn it, but each spell has one thematically-related prerequisite spell per spell level. Each of those prerequisite spells that you already know reduces the DC by 2 (so a 9th level spell has 9 prereqs and knowing all 9 reduces the DC from a near-impossible 60 to a manageable 42), and if you fail the check for a given spell you can retry the roll each time you learn one of the prerequisites. Additionally, specialists take a -4 Spellcraft penalty for spells outside their school and generalists take a -8 penalty on checks to learn spells of any school, each school has a different associated Knowledge for the Spellcraft synergy bonus (Kn:Planes for Conjuration, Kn:Religion for Necromancy, etc.), and of course prevent any magical enhancements to the skill check like +30 Spellcraft items or guidance of the avatar or whatever from applying because the Laws of Magic are a jerk like that.

A 1st level wizard with max Spellcraft and +2 Int would need to roll a 12 to learn a 1st level spell of his specialty school while only an 18 Int generalist could even have a chance to pick up 1st level spells at 1st level; a 20th level generalist wizard with +10 Int, 5 ranks in the appropriate Knowledge, and max Spellcraft can roll at most 47 on that Spellcraft check, making it practically impossible to learn a spell without almost all of its prereqs, while if he were a specialist he'd need only 1 or 2 prereqs from his specialty school.

That system is probably more complex and less friendly to generalists than most people would want, but I think it does a nice job of encouraging thematic spell groupings while being forgiving of players who want a more eclectic spell selection.

I like it, it's interesting. Definitely restricts casters more.