Try it in your game? Remove caster level.

[Visigani]

I've been pondering various ways to bring Wizards and Clerics and Druids more in balance with The Monk (The Most Balanced Class in the Game).


And although it wouldn't be the end all be all, effectively "removing" caster level might be a long step towards doing so.


When I say "remove" caster level I mean that spells are cast at their minimum normalized caster level.

This, strangely enough, would benefit casters like Sorcs and Favored Souls with their slower progression.

A fireball cast by a level 16 Wizard would do 5d6 damage, a fireball cast by a level 16 Sorc would do 6d6 damage.

Abilities that modified caster level would still apply. A Cleric with the good domain would cast blade barrier at caster level 12 rather than 11.

This would apply to spell resistance as well, making magic missile rather useless against devils and demons and other foes with spell resistance.

Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feats would act as normal. Heightened spells would be cast at the appropriate new caster level.

Spells that would normally improve with caster level (i.e. magic missile, scorching ray, create undead) don't.

 

[Dandu]

This would apply to spell resistance as well, making magic missile rather useless against devils and demons and other foes with spell resistance.

Just like the Monk!

 

[Vegepygmy]

This would apply to spell resistance as well, making magic missile rather useless against devils and demons and other foes with spell resistance.

If I were to do something like you suggest, I'd just get rid of spell resistance entirely. Casters would be nerfed enough already.

Heightened spells would be cast at the appropriate new caster level.

Yes, Heighten Spell would become almost too useful to pass up. (In fact, I'd consider just granting it as a bonus feat to all casters.)

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like these houserules. For years, evocation's sat on its high horse (created via conjuration, but it doesn't know that, so shush!), enjoying the best spells in the entire game. The entire game. Mocking all those other schools filled with buffs like flight and invisibility, debuffs like slow andray of exhaustion, save or loses like hideous laughter, and no SR damage spells like the orbs (hey, wait a second...). None of those schools got the awesomeness of throwing "Xd6 damage, save for half, SR negates, energy resistance neuters" spells, they just had to wallow and cry with the scraps the designers left them.

Finally! A houserule the manages to nerf the most overpowered school in the game while leaving all the weak, pathetic ones largely untouched! Brilliance, I say!

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's complicated, but not a bad idea. Nothing wrong with making spells less powerful. Doesn't address the fundamental issue (i.e. mages can teleport and stuff) but wouldn't hurt and might help at high levela.

 

[Dandu]

That's complicated, but not a bad idea. Nothing wrong with making spells less powerful. Doesn't address the fundamental issue (i.e. mages can teleport and stuff) but wouldn't hurt and might help at high levela.

Doesn't address the other fundamental issue, which is that nerfing the overpowered classes does nothing to help the underpowered ones. Now, instead of half the team rocking the face off of a Balor while the other half stands on the sidelines uselessly, you have an entire party who can't do squat.

 

[Visigani]

Doesn't address the other fundamental issue, which is that nerfing the overpowered classes does nothing to help the underpowered ones. Now, instead of half the team rocking the face off of a Balor while the other half stands on the sidelines uselessly, you have an entire party who can't do squat.

You'd so be right if you weren't so wrong. A Banish spell cast by a 17th level cleric would still banish 24 hit die worth of demons, its saving throw would stay the same and though it would be less effective against spell resistance it would certainly not be useless. It would still be effective against a balor, for example.

Further, despite the presumption of the "Generous DM" you usually have (you know, when you presume the Wizard would have access to anything, anywhere, etc etc and the DM never ever rules "not in my game") you fail to take into account the balancing factor the DM at the table would bring.

Unless he's nail his junk to plywood stupid the DM usually has a pretty good idea of what his crew can handle, what their capabilities are.

What my suggestion does is reduce the overt muscularity of the casting classes while still retaining their overall usefulness. The Wizard can still chuck fireballs but he's not chucking micro nukes. He can still become invisible but he's doesn't sit down on my couch and watch the in daily show and eat my popcorn.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Do you plan to nerf all the monsters as well? CR is established assuming the strong ones stay strong.

With that said, your suggestion seems to have merit.

However, the line, "The Monk (The Most Balanced Class in the Game)" makes "Balance" mean mediocre across the board.

 

[Shin Okada]

I can easily imagine that spell-caster PCs will start to rely more on scrolls and other consumable items. As their lower-level spell slots are nerfed down, they need some other things to complement.

By the way, if you tries to use Monk as the measurement for game-balance, why are you trying to nerf down spellcasters only? Monk is widely considered to be one of the weakest class. So, you should better nerf down almost all the other classes, too.

 

[Dandu]

You'd so be right if you weren't so wrong. A Banish spell cast by a 17th level cleric would still banish 24 hit die worth of demons, its saving throw would stay the same and though it would be less effective against spell resistance it would certainly not be useless. It would still be effective against a balor, for example.

And the monk is doing what during this battle?

Further, despite the presumption of the "Generous DM" you usually have (you know, when you presume the Wizard would have access to anything, anywhere, etc etc and the DM never ever rules "not in my game") you fail to take into account the balancing factor the DM at the table would bring.

Unless he's nail his junk to plywood stupid the DM usually has a pretty good idea of what his crew can handle, what their capabilities are.

So if we're going to rely on the DM to manually balance things and set appropriate encounters tailored to a party's weaknesses and strengths... why do we need to change anything mechanically?

What my suggestion does is reduce the overt muscularity of the casting classes while still retaining their overall usefulness. The Wizard can still chuck fireballs but he's not chucking micro nukes. He can still become invisible but he's doesn't sit down on my couch and watch the in daily show and eat my popcorn.

You know, if wizards chucking micro-nukes was actually the problem, we would be getting somewhere.