How would you houserule (nerf) magic at high levels.

[ProfessorCirno]

OK, I see your question now.

I was making the point that, despite what I often see posted here about wizards being better than fighters at everything, they are actually not as good at actually doing damage to opponents. their ability to ablate hit points is far worse than equivalent level fighters.

i.e. fighters are currently better than wizards at a major element of combat.

Thus my point stands - if wizards are less good at finishing a combat with damage, but have more general utility, where is the problem? Presumably in the save-or-end-fight spells (which are a bit of a gamble - and is the issue the presence of the spells or the ease of cranking up save DC? What if save DCs were always 10 + half caster level and saves were always + half defenders level, and classes have one strong save with +2 on top of that - and all ability bonuses were ditched (both on DC and save)? Would a base 55% save against equal level foes be OK? or should it be a better chance of saving? Perhaps DC is just 10+ spell level with no improvements, so 1st level spells are always just DC11 to save?

Is it the plot bypassing spells? What if they were rituals that could be learned by anyone with the appropriate feat (as per 4e)?

Wizard power in combat doesn't come from pure damage spells though - nor does it come from SoDs, to be honest. It comes from battlefield control. You could do direct damage to maybe kill off one enemy, or throw a wall of force between half the enemy and your own team, effectively "killing" far more, or at least ending their threat. Or summoning several monsters to stand between them and you to act as a "living" wall. Or fog spells, or...you get the idea. What wizards do is turn a fight against ten enemies into a fight against one (with nine trapped in various methods of control) and the one left is blinded and bewildered.

...If the wizard is being nice.

If the wizard is not being nice, then it's flying and invisible and then uses a polymorph spell to become a better fighter then the fighter and then a summon spell to summon more fighters and that's the end of the fighter. Or it cranks up the SoD to hilariously high - if not flat out unbeatable - levels and then destroys everything in one hit. Or it never even interact with the bad guys and instead just teleports past everything entirely.

And that's just the wizard. This isn't even touching druids or clerics who took the name "CoDZilla."

See, here's where I think a lot of people get blocked off - combat isn't just about damage. If anything, in 3e and 4e, damage plays a relatively low role in the fight once you get past levels 1-3, unless you can successfully one-shot a baddie. Being able to control the fight is what wins it, and that's what wizards do best - not blasting. Web, not Acid Arrow. Sleet Storm, not Fireball.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Why are fighters around then?



The problem here is that, at least in my experiences, that doesn't deter wizards from casting the spells, it just makes them groan and get irritated when the spell backfires. A spell being "risky" doesn't make it balanced, it means the player has less fun when the penalties settle.

I think I had more fun in WFRP when my spells DID fail than when they didn't.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The main issue is the idea of a mundane/magical divide. In other words, we want fighters to be mundane and normal, but we let wizards get away with not being such.

That idea is the biggest reason the problem exists - and it's one that needs to go the way of the dodo. A mundane/supernatural divide amongst PCs doesn't work in RPGs.

That's your opinion and one not everyone shares. I don't want my fighters to have supernatural abilities. But being very good with a sword is not very mundane imo. But it has to be in the realm of normal human possibility - or at least not exceed it by much or there's no reason to play a fighter. Otherwise, I'm just a mage with a sword.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

How to nerf the 3e wizard:

I'll skirt Plane Sailing's warning with this 1st one that the best way to nerf the wizard is to follow the damn rules.

1. For 3e, change to the Pathfinder ruleset where they addressed the wizard. There is a similar thread on the Paizo forums where a poster makes a very valid point. Essentially, read and follow the damn rules! How many times do people only realise when pointed out that certain spells have longer caster times (Sleep, Silence, Summoning etc.)? How many times is the wizard forced to make a concentration check when casting (in other words readying to disrupt a wizard through damage)? Do people realise that concentration checks are now more difficult than before?

Pathfinder made a stack of subtle changes that dramatically affect the capacity of the wizard, so long as they are followed.

2. Get rid of problem spells or splat books. Essentially don't allow the complete series or particularly the spell compendium. Again, change to pathfinder's selection of options and you will benefit by the subtle nerfing that the wizard receives.

3. Spells that tread upon the toes of other classes (particularly fighters and rogues) should be changed into "rituals" or preferably single-use magical items. Eg. Knock being turned into a single use magical paste that can be purchased from a witch or alchemist with decidely loose morals. Summoning should be turned into a ten minute ritual that lasts for a longer set period of time. You can bring your extra-friends along to a combat but you can't bring along any during; allowing all players to "control" summonings rather than the wizard player alone getting the massive time imbalance to themselves.

4. However, to nerf the wizard further if necessary, I would enforce concentration checks for all wizard spells (with a standard DC). The sorcerer on the other hand is free of such casting requirements as their magic comes more naturally.

5. Aside from this, I would overhaul the whole system and make casting an at will but potentially risky exercise if you are stretching beyond your character's capacity or ken. Maybe one day I'll sit down and write such a system up.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That's your opinion and one not everyone shares. I don't want my fighters to have supernatural abilities. But being very good with a sword is not very mundane imo. But it has to be in the realm of normal human possibility - or at least not exceed it by much or there's no reason to play a fighter. Otherwise, I'm just a mage with a sword.

Then the wizards should not be WMDs.

If it's a low magic gritty game, then it should be such. If it's a high magic bombastic "high fantasy" game, then it should be such.

What you should not do is try to play both at the same time.

 

[Leatherhead]

If wizards can now hold equal to fighters in damage, what do fighters have left?

Fighters had something to begin with? (Someone had to say it )

But if I had to nerf high level magic I would get rid of Contingency (and that one spell that lets you cast whenever you want to) and limit buff stacking to start with.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Flat 5% chance of spell failure per spell per level. On failure, roll on the wild magic table.

Casting a spell burns 1 hp per spell level that can only be regained by natural rest.

A better concept might be to craft limited spell lists by theme or type of magic, then restrict what lists the spellcaster can use. That way they can be very capable, but not in as many areas, and can't necessarily use spells to make the rest of the party irrelevant.

 

[airwalkrr]

With regards to 3rd edition only, there is a fairly neat fix which helps balance magic immensely. All spells have a minimum 1 round casting time. (Only a select few like feather fall are exceptions.) This means that on the wizard's turn, he starts casting, and the spell isn't completed until the following round. With this rule, you don't even need to worry about whether spells provoke attacks of opportunity. Everyone who is acting gets a chance to disrupt the casting if they like, and the harder they hit, the harder a time the wizard is going to have getting the spell off.

I've actually run 3e with this rule myself for the last six months. I think it works incredibly well at balancing out casters. Every monster who doesn't know how to do magic knows that magic is very powerful and panics whenever they see a caster about to lay down the hurt. They naturally want to stop that caster at all costs. That leaves the more "mundane" characters with the duty of protecting the caster until the spell is completed.

To give casters a more reliable, but costlier method of getting their spells cast, wands and scrolls take standard actions to activate. That means if it is absolutely imperative that you get that magic missile spell off, you whip out the wand.

Now this does very little to limit "hyper-buffing" or utility spells, but it does dramatically impact the way casters can affect battles. The worst-case scenario is that fighters, rogues, and their ilk feel marginalized because they see themselves as lackeys forced to defend the casters. But seen in a more positive light, this is known as "teamwork" and is very positive for a roleplaying game.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

High level spells?

Nonlethal damage, regular Hit Point damage, fatigue/exhaustion, or temporary Con loss to caster. Preferably of a kind that can only be recovered through natural rest.

High level mages need to be debilitated more quickly. The main problem with them is they just keep going because they have so many damn spell slots.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

With regards to 3rd edition only, there is a fairly neat fix which helps balance magic immensely. All spells take a minimum full round action to cast. (Only a select few like feather fall are exceptions.) This means that on the wizard's turn, he starts casting, and the spell isn't completed until the following round. With this rule, you don't even need to worry about whether spells provoke attacks of opportunity. Everyone who is acting gets a chance to disrupt the casting if they like, and the harder they hit, the harder a time the wizard is going to have getting the spell off.

A 1 round action (full round being more a combined move/standard) for effectively all casting seems a little unfair on the wizard funnily enough. If your enemies ready actions against the wizard when he or she casts, then you will find that the effect is almost the same without needing to change the rules. This forces the wizard to cast from cover which means that a lot of their "cone" shaped and close-range spells are nowhere near as effective. This makes a big difference in play without having to literally present an invitation to hit the wizard that a 1 round action does. Converting all standard action spells to "full-round" action spells would however be interesting, denying the wizard from any movement aside from a 5ft. step.

In any case and which ever way you look at this and regardless of casting length, disrupting the spellcaster seems to be a decidely uncommon tactic for a lot of players when in actual fact it should be foremost in their mind.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise