The (Generalist) Rogue, Bard, and Wizard. One of these things is not like the other.

[Zustiur]

One question that comes to mind is, "What score should we be aiming at?"
If the rogue has B, A-, B and the bard has B, B+, A+, what are we aiming for the wizard to have? If the wizard is currently A, A- and A+, then should we assume that he needs to be reduced to the Bard's level, or does he need to go down further to the rogue's level?

On a related note, how do the specialist wizards fit into this?
It would be nice (and too much to expect) if the key areas you've identified fitted in with wizard schools. They don't, but let's try spotting their focuses anyway:
Abjuration - Combat, Defence
Conjuration - Exploration, Circumvent Obstacle/Trap
Divination - Social, Gather information
Enchantment - Combat, Support
Evocation - Combat, Offence
Illusion - Social, Resolve Aggression Without Conflict
Necromancy - Combat, Control
Transmutation - Exploration, Mitigate Exposure/Hazards
(Whether you think I've got those right or not, is irrelevant to the point I'm making)

Surely we can assume that a specialist wizard should be A or even A+ in his chosen field. Therefore, shouldn't the generalist wizard be A- at best in these fields?
What's the point of being a diviner if the generalist is just as good at gathering information?

One possible way of achieving this, would be to limit more spells to a given school. That is, you can only get particularly good divination spells if you are a diviner. A generalist can never learn those spells. Nor can they learn the best illusion spells, or the best evocation spells, etc.

I think we need to cut down on more than just the areas you've marked in red; but the selection of them, should be made by looking at what the specialists can do. In other words; while reducing their abilities based on how it 'breaks the game' is important, it is also important to look at those abilities in comparison with other classes. Fixing the generalist wizard so that he doesn't cause the DM too many headaches is good, but if the Diviner still causes those headaches, you haven't really solved the problem. Likewise, if he no longer breaks the game, that is good, but if he still outclasses the rogue (in the rogue's special areas), more work needs to be done.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Agree with Zustiur. I'm guessing that the most fruitful avenue to pursue to get there is to reverse engineer the specialists. That is, name the specialists; determine what spells they are supposed to have; make sure that some of their categories are backed off from where the wizard is now (over-powered). Different things will be red for each specialists. Then make the wizard a blend of those categories.

Alternately, if specialists are subclasses of wizard (or the equivalent), it might be that there really is no such thing as a purely generalists wizard. Perhaps backing all those categories off to leave room for the specialists means that there isn't effective room for the non-specialists, without making him a bit of a twerp. So all wizards are good at moderately potent generalists magic, but then the specialty he picks gives him his best power.

Or yet alternately again, perhaps the specialties are tiered, and thus a "generalist" is one that has pursued multiple specialties. Let's say for sake of illustration that the specialties are illusion, summonings, enchantment, evocation, and transmutation. All wizards get a pick ever so many levels to gain another tier in a specialty. They can spread them out or truly specialize in one or two. Certain spells require the wizard to first achieve a certain tier of mastery in the appropriate specialty.

I don't have a favorite out of those routes, or even a guess which one would work better if rigorously evaluated, designed, and play tested. But the original kludge for specialties went the wrong way, starting with the very powerful generalists and then banning the one school in return for modest increase in number of spells in the specialty.

Spell access is where the real power is, and thus where any kind of specialty needs to have real teeth. Yet, it is typically more reasonable with specialties to have their costs spread over the rest of the non-specialty options rather than ban one non-specialty option while allowing the others to go full bore. Moreover, if you aren't careful, you can make the generalist not worth having (in which case the second option above is the only reasonable one). That is, if the illusionist is a 5 in illusion then instead of 4,4,4,0 in the other categories, it would be better to make him something like 3,3,3,3 (with maybe a 2 thrown in). Then the generalist wizard can be more like a 4,4,4,4,4 (with maybe a 3 thrown in somewhere). That says to me that a generalist wizard should have an awful lot of Bs in the OPs scale.

 

[Manbearcat]

One question that comes to mind is, "What score should we be aiming at?"
If the rogue has B, A-, B and the bard has B, B+, A+, what are we aiming for the wizard to have? If the wizard is currently A, A- and A+, then should we assume that he needs to be reduced to the Bard's level, or does he need to go down further to the rogue's level?

On a related note, how do the specialist wizards fit into this?
It would be nice (and too much to expect) if the key areas you've identified fitted in with wizard schools. They don't, but let's try spotting their focuses anyway:
Abjuration - Combat, Defence
Conjuration - Exploration, Circumvent Obstacle/Trap
Divination - Social, Gather information
Enchantment - Combat, Support
Evocation - Combat, Offence
Illusion - Social, Resolve Aggression Without Conflict
Necromancy - Combat, Control
Transmutation - Exploration, Mitigate Exposure/Hazards
(Whether you think I've got those right or not, is irrelevant to the point I'm making)

Surely we can assume that a specialist wizard should be A or even A+ in his chosen field. Therefore, shouldn't the generalist wizard be A- at best in these fields?
What's the point of being a diviner if the generalist is just as good at gathering information?

One possible way of achieving this, would be to limit more spells to a given school. That is, you can only get particularly good divination spells if you are a diviner. A generalist can never learn those spells. Nor can they learn the best illusion spells, or the best evocation spells, etc.

I think we need to cut down on more than just the areas you've marked in red; but the selection of them, should be made by looking at what the specialists can do. In other words; while reducing their abilities based on how it 'breaks the game' is important, it is also important to look at those abilities in comparison with other classes. Fixing the generalist wizard so that he doesn't cause the DM too many headaches is good, but if the Diviner still causes those headaches, you haven't really solved the problem. Likewise, if he no longer breaks the game, that is good, but if he still outclasses the rogue (in the rogue's special areas), more work needs to be done.

This is quite a good post and there is so much relevant content to address that I don't feel I can snip any of it. I'm going to work my way through your points in a different chronology than you have devised in your post.

1) You are quite correct that dealing with these issues through spell mechanic manipulation will have inter-class reverberations that will affect specialists or other classes if spell lists are shared. Kaiilurker brought this point up upthread. If done, I think the best way of handling this would be (again...and clearly contentious) hard-coding some of the open-ended spells that function outside of the mechanics as "pillar conflict circumvention." These spells can actually be coded to be quite potent as there standard M.O. usage (eg decent bonuses to skill checks for Scrying or Arcana or Spellcraft or Knowledge (Planar) for binding and seeking answers from a summoned creature or creating a Teleportation Circle). The problem manifests when total pillar conflict circumvention is available through negotiation or leveraging open-ended mechanics with the DM. If the mechanics upper limits are more tightly bound then I am fine with the mean usage getting a boost, so long as a boost means "class-relevant interaction with the fiction that does not result in pillar conflict circumvention". Once these spells upper limits are bound, I think dealing with both the Generalist and the Specialist would be considerably easier.

2) Assuming 1 is done, I think your approach of evaluating the impacts of each school on the Macro Pillars and the Micro-Components of the Pillars as well should yield good results. Afterall, a wizards potency is comprised fundamentally by (i) the potency and variance of the spells at his disposal (which is inherent to the schools mechanical manifestation and the accompanying fiction), (ii) the total number of spells at his disposal, (iii) his ability to bulwark his arsenal with extra-arsenal charges, (iv) his ability to foresee the demands on the coming "work-day, (v) and his ability to "reset his spell-load". It seems an intuitive start to begin a proper evaluation with (i). That would be a very large task, to say the least, and would have to be "edition-specific", but it could be done.

3) In theory, a Specialist Wizard (outside of the Summoner...which WotC would do well in examining 5E's Summoner iteration very intensely) should have their "specialty pillar" potency receive a moderate bump while their inverse pillar receives a moderate dip.

4) I think I would be satisfied with hard-coded Divinations (even if their mean production is elevated while their upper bounds are constrained) and Teleportations/Transmutations constrained and then the final result of the Generalist Wizard fall somewhere between the Rogue/Thief and Bard GPA. The spread between their "Pillar GPA" is reasonable by my estimation.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/kaiilurker.html

 

[Manbearcat]

Spell access is where the real power is, and thus where any kind of specialty needs to have real teeth. Yet, it is typically more reasonable with specialties to have their costs spread over the rest of the non-specialty options rather than ban one non-specialty option while allowing the others to go full bore. Moreover, if you aren't careful, you can make the generalist not worth having (in which case the second option above is the only reasonable one). That is, if the illusionist is a 5 in illusion then instead of 4,4,4,0 in the other categories, it would be better to make him something like 3,3,3,3 (with maybe a 2 thrown in). Then the generalist wizard can be more like a 4,4,4,4,4 (with maybe a 3 thrown in somewhere). That says to me that a generalist wizard should have an awful lot of Bs in the OPs scale.

I agree with everything in this post but cannot XP. From the theory-craft to the design aim at the bottom is spot on. I think to know, for certain, which of the three iterations you mention would be fitting, you would absolutely have to reverse engineer the specialists (as you mention in your original post), forward engineer them with a GPA aim for each and then devise a way for the generalist to be between a B and a B+ for each pillar (as per your last sentence).

I may undertake that effort, under the framework of your joint-posts above, at some point here. The rendering would likely take awhile, however , so it may not be done before we see WotCs own iteration of the specialists!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think Vancian Magic fits the "unpredictable" concept of magic.

Vancian magic means pre-packaged, well defined magical effects in form of spells. Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Mordekainen's Faithful Watchdog.

The fascinating part of Vancian magic is it's specificity. Instead of, say, conjuring some magical force to hurt someone, you conjure an invisible dog. Instead of just creating an empty extradimensional space, you create a mansion (yeah, that's not Leomund's spell).

Vancian Magic is at best the chaos and unpredictable nature of magic tamed so it can be controlled and used reliably. It can lead to weird, awfully specific effects, but it is very predictable.

An unpredicatable magic system would do away with spells and there would be no way to guarantee what will happen, or that you get what you want in the first place. Because otherwise, it isn't unpredictable.
The next closest thing to unpredictable is magic with side effects - you may channel magical force to kill someone, but that may alert some demons to your presence, and the more often you do it, the more likely they'll come to get you. Or you teleport, but there is a good chance that you drag some astral monsters with you, or end up a different place then you intended to, or a different time.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, running through the standard fair Arcane spells, I have their respective breakdown of pillar contribution as follows:

Abjuration

- Combat; Defense, Control, Support
- Exploration; Circumvent Obstacle/Trap, Mitigate Exposure/Hazard

Conjuration/Summoning

- Combat; Offense, Defense, Control
- Exploration; Perpetuate Travel, Solve Puzzle/Obstacle, Circumvent Obstacle/Trap

Divination

- Combat; Offense, Defense
- Exploration; Solve Puzzle/Obstacle
- Social; Gather information, Solve Mystery

Enchantment

- Combat; Control
- Exploration; Circumvent Obstacle/Trap
- Social; Coerce Neutral NPC, Gather Information, Resolve Aggression Without Conflict, Solve Mystery

Evocation

- Combat; Offense, Defense, Control, Support
- Exploration; Mitigate Exposure/Hazards

Illusion

- Combat; Offense, Defense, Control, Support
- Exploration; Perpetuate Travel, Circumvent Obstacle/Trap
- Social; Gather Information, Resolve Aggression Without Conflict

Necromancy

- Combat; Offense, Defense, Control
- Exploration; Solve Puzzle/Obstacle, Circumvent Obstacle/Trap

Transmutation

- Combat; Offense, Defense, Control, Support
- Exploration; Perpetuate Travel, Circumvent Obstacle/Trap, Mitigate Exposure/Hazards
- Social; Gather Information

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'll make a suggestion to limit Wizards, following the line of thought that they should be forced to specialise (in a sense) and presuming that spell schools will in some way exist:

At 1st level you get 1 + your Intelligence bonus number of school points, and for each level you gain school points equal to the level you attain. For a Wizard with 16 Intelligence they will progress as follows:

4,6,9,13,18,24,31,39,48,58,69,81,94,108,123,139,156,174,193,213

You buy access to a spell level of a particular school at a cost of 1 school point per spell level. 1st level Evocation will cost you 1 point, 3rd level Necromancy will cost you 3 points and so on. You must have bought the previous levels in a school to buy any given level.

So our example Wizard starts with four schools. He selects two more next level. Then he can buy a school at second level and another at first. Then two more at second level. And so on (you might allow points to remain unspent for flexibility later at the cost of restrictions earlier). At highest level, he will have at most four schools at 9th level, or perhaps he prefers just 1 or 2 in exchange for others at better levels.

This way, the wizard does not get everything. He must make a choice at some point what path to follow. Generalists will not have as powerful spells in all schools (but could have at least 7th level in all). This approach obviously requires spell levels to improve in power less dramatically than previous editions (9th level in particular). It also allows for super specialisation (spend points for bonus effects in one school). The math can be played around with, naturally.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

@Chris_Nightwing , I think there is one key bit missing from your proposal, namely that if some spells are allowed to "circumvent the mechanics," then your structure doesn't really handle this. It mutes it, by putting off the breaking spells to a later level and capping them, but that is across the board. That might be enough; I don't know.

However, I tend to think that there are spells that are appropriately specified (i.e. correct level, reasonable mechanics, matching flavor) that are ok in some situations, but game breaking in others. Teleport is obviously one. It's the wizard having widespread access to the full range that is the problem, even more than exactly when he gets that access. So without barring a whole school, a solution that bars the wizards from "circumvent the mechanics" spells without the appropriate level of specialty, would be nice. (Every wizard eventually gets some personal teleport, but only the appropriate specialists might get the ability to teleport others, for example.)

Arcana Evolved's three categories of access, simple, complex, and exotic, have a lot of appeal, especially if they are used even more strictly mechanically than what AE does. (AE made some spells exotic because they were odd, rather than powerful. Thus no one would take them unless the spell really appealled. This is fine from an AD&D perspective--i.e. limiting demi-human population in the player base to simulate limited demi-human population in characters, by level caps. It's not so hot at addressing the issues in this topic.)

As crazy as it sounds, the possiblity of putting some meaningful limits on the wizards (and other casters) means running the risk of under-powering them, like the early D&D low-level wizard. Not saying that your structure would do that, but the "muting" effect is going to be rather coarse-grained, which means that it would be pretty difficult to get the numbers exactly right.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] I completely agree with you that getting the numbers exactly right is difficult. I also think that you could do a much better job by paying considerable attention to individual spells and determining exactly how they ought to be limited to prevent their ability to circumvent the mechanics.

We saw some progress towards this with rituals. Divinations should cost more and more resources if they circumvent important parts of an adventure. Perhaps you also ought to be highly specialised to be able to cast them. I want Wizards to be able to teleport, but rather than give them a random chance of ending up inside a rock and dying, I can limit this capability by adding a cost and the requirement of a prepared area and so on, with only highly specialised Wizards (perhaps by spending an entire feat) being able to teleport people to unknown areas (and still, this could be limited to prevent going straight to the BBEG).

I suppose all my suggestion does, the idea that you won't have access to all spells of all levels, is prevent a Wizard being a teleporter one day, a charmer the next and a burner in the final combat. Individual spell limitations with a hefty cost to circumvent mechanics may be a better way forward - you can't have both the teleporter and diviner themes, for instance.