Throwing down the Tyranny of the Spellcaster.

[mkill]

None of the above.

To properly power classes (etc.) against each other, you need a general framework of what PCs are expected to be able to do at level X.

For example, level 3 boundaries could be:
* avg. 15 dmg per round
* 50 damage to one enemy in a 1/fight big gun
* deal 15 dmg per enemy in a big area blast 1/fight
* blind an enemy for 2-3 turns
* give an enemy -2 to attacks until the end of the fight
* ...

Then, make sure that Fighter, Wizard and all other classes stay within this general framework, neither completely exceeding it nor falling behind hopelessly.

And of course, this is an art, not a science.

As a fairly simple example, you can design a class that can do a lot more single-target damage, but is somewhat of a glass cannon and has to be protected by other party members.

If you have a class like the Wizard, with hundreds of options, it's almost impossible to do perfectly. Just take a spell like mirror image - creative players will do ingenious things with it, others won't.

And of course, there is the issue of daily ressources vs. number of fights per day, which you have to solve in some way if this has to work.

 

[KidSnide]

I think the first step in fixing wizards is making sure that fighters and rogues get enough at middle and high levels to keep up. Whether that consists of cool exploits or simple bonuses, at 15th level fighter needs to be a serious badass, not just some guy with a high BAB and a bunch of hit points.

Once you give wizards breathing room, I would control the size of their spellbook. Yes, wizards should choose from a wide range of spells, but each wizard should know a more limited number. (Presumably, Vancian wizards would be able to fit more spells in their book at the cost of having to pick the ones available that day.)

Then I would make the more powerful spells more dangerous to cast. An opportunity attack is easy to shift out of in 3.x and 4e, but that need not be the case for a more complicated spell. Maybe a wizard engaged in melee is only capable of quick minor (at will?) spells without risking an OA.

As someone suggested up-thread, I also agree that low-level spells shouldn't get more powerful as the wizard gains levels. Access to more and higher level spells should be enough.

-KS

 

[Dice4Hire]

One of the main problems of pure spellcasters is them taking the top 5% of spells 95% of the time. If the spell selection were far stricter, then they would be less powerful and more balanced.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

I am taking notes on who is and who isn't a beholder itt. All Beholders should expect an adventuring party at their door step within the next couple of days and more to come after.

Miserable creatures.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

As per poll above:

There are several ways to nerf magic-users. As a wizard/sorcerer/etc. player, which of the following appeals most to you

For me, the answer is to get rid of these boring classes I never play that don't cast spells.

How about we just keep the casters where they're at and the muggle classes can step their games up. Perhaps the question for the non casters should be, "Do you want a realistic class that can't keep up with the casters at high levels or will you accept something super heroic to maintain balance?"

 

[FireLance]

I'd say have everything, and let the individual player decide what he wants for his spellcaster.

At the base is a system of at-will magic, balanced by being of low power and unreliable. This is the province of darts (or javelins) of fire that require an attack roll to hit and deal slightly less damage than a melee or ranged attack from a fighter.

Then, add a system of more powerful, more reliable spells, but limited in terms of resources. Resource limits must continue as the character gains levels: maybe no more than ten spell slots at any one time, with no more than half being of the highest level available to the spellcaster.

Then, give the spellcaster the option to reduce the power of his spells in exchange for more spells: breaking up an N level slot into two N-2 level slots, for example.

Then, give the spellcaster the option to trade limited options for more spells. Maybe if at least one-third of the spells that the spellcaster prepares for the day are of a particular school or type, he gets a slot which he can only use for spells of that school or type.

Then, give the spellcaster the option to trade longer casting time for more power. Some spells can have lesser effects if cast in just one round, and greater effects if cast over two or more rounds. Of course, the payoff must be worth the wait.

 

[Bluenose]

I believe only the first two -- Limiting Options and Limiting Power -- are really practical for a tabletop RPG where you want players of wizards and players of fighters to have fun.

And yet there are a lot of RPGs that make magic less reliable and/or taking a long time to cast, and the players of those will often claim they're having fun. If you're really objecting to strong saving throws/spell resistance, then that includes several editions of D&D.

 

[Yora]

A big problem is, that spells don't serve as an alternative when the party is lacking an expert for a task, but that spells often perform a better job than the supposed expert even if the party has one.
Using a spell to do something that is an ability of other classes should always be the second choice. Not the first!

Also, spellcasters need to be squishier. As it is, spellcasters can use spells to protect themselves better from harm than warrior can with their heavy armor.

 

[Andor]

For me, the answer is to get rid of these boring classes I never play that don't cast spells.

How about we just keep the casters where they're at and the muggle classes can step their games up. Perhaps the question for the non casters should be, "Do you want a realistic class that can't keep up with the casters at high levels or will you accept something super heroic to maintain balance?"

None of the above.

To properly power classes (etc.) against each other, you need a general framework of what PCs are expected to be able to do at level X.

For example, level 3 boundaries could be:
* avg. 15 dmg per round
* 50 damage to one enemy in a 1/fight big gun
* deal 15 dmg per enemy in a big area blast 1/fight
* blind an enemy for 2-3 turns
* give an enemy -2 to attacks until the end of the fight
* ...

Then, make sure that Fighter, Wizard and all other classes stay within this general framework, neither completely exceeding it nor falling behind hopelessly.

And of course, this is an art, not a science.

As a fairly simple example, you can design a class that can do a lot more single-target damage, but is somewhat of a glass cannon and has to be protected by other party members.

If you have a class like the Wizard, with hundreds of options, it's almost impossible to do perfectly. Just take a spell like mirror image - creative players will do ingenious things with it, others won't.

And of course, there is the issue of daily ressources vs. number of fights per day, which you have to solve in some way if this has to work.

No. There is a problem here, and that is availability of magic. Traditionally D&D worlds have portrayed magic as something with a very high access cost. To be a wizard takes years of difficult study and practice while you learn to gargle the star spangled banner while bending your fingers into geomtrically imrpobable tangle and holding an image of impossible things in your head. To be a Sorcerer requires a skanky grandmother who was not picky about her sleeping companions. To be a Psionisist requires putting up with endless years of the other children taunting you for your premature baldness.

Magic is not something everyone does. Therefore not everyone should do it. The figher does not throw fireballs or leap over small giants in a single bound.

There are other ways to approach fantasy. In a game like Earthdawn or Heroquest or Worldtree everyone has magic, it is part of everyday life. Every class has access to exraordinary powers. And frankly if there isn't some absurd requirement to gain access to magical powers this just makes sense. If there was no barrier to entry then you'ld have to be an idiot to not use magic just because you think swords are cooler.

But that's not traditional D&D. In D&D magic is hard, tricky, rare stuff and not everyone can do it.

Now, balance. At the end of the day balance boils down to the notion that a guy who refuses to use the proper tools for the job should be just as effective at it as a guy who performs the job correctly. A monk should be just as effective in combat as a fighter fully kitted out with armour and weapons. Really? Who here favors the unarmed guy in a Chuck Norris vs Main Battle Tank scenario? A rogue should be just as good at unlocking doors as a wizard casting knock. Ok. Which is faster, lockpicks or a shaped charge?

Magic is a technology in D&D. Technology makes you better at things, that's why we use it. It has drawbacks as well. It you want a 2' wide by 3' deep hole dug the quickest and easist thing to do is grab a shovel. You could call in a backhoe or bulldozer but it will take longer and cost more. If you want a 20' x 30' hole on the other hand.... Shaped charges will get through a door no problem but lockpicks are quieter and less obvious. Yes, years of dedicated combat training might allow an unarmed fighter to defeate a shmoe in plate mail with a sword, but then again shouldn't the guy with the fighters kit have just as many years of training? Who really thinks that for two combatants of equal skill a suit of armour and a deadly weapon should provide no tangible advantage?

So no. I do not favor fighters having just as many tricks as mages or bringing mages down to the general level of suck of the rest of the party. I would however be perfectly fine with a mages general combat "at-wills" being no more effective than a javalin and making all his other magics rituals that take rounds or minutes. Who really imagines the mighty and arcane rituals of wizardry taking no longer to perform than a punch to the face?

 

[AlioTheFool]

I'm so tired of everyone always wanting to ruin spellcaster classes. To me, given the choice, I'd eliminate "sword and board" classes. I can't personally stand "I hit it with my axe" classes because they seem completely shallow. I wouldn't advocate removing them from the game though.

Balance is the answer, and it's something 4E figured out how to do. All (at least all core) classes in 4E are balanced enough that no one is an "I win" button. It didn't involve nerfing wizards, it simply involved making all classes have things to do every turn that were interesting.

There is no reason why DnDNext can't also have fun things for everyone to do every round. Then everyone gets to be happy. Unless you simply want to get revenge on some ancient wrong committed toward you in the past by a wizard played by someone in a previous edition, which is exactly what threads like this sound like.