What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?

[Orius]

By also not allowing splats in with freedom I stop all the spells from them just coming into my game. Don't forget clerics and druids know all their spells and there are some pretty powerful spells in the splat books. As well as some feats that I don't necessarily want in my game.

DM control over splats can reign in some degree of powergaming, but not all. The classic CoDzilla argument was that the divine casters have everything they need to be overpowered in core.

10.) Priests, Druids, and lower tier groups that gain 'all' spells on their home list get Prayer books/Training Books/etc that function as spellbooks. I worked on this at my blog before I got injured, and plan to return to the idea with vigor once I can crunch better as this post has taken me almost 45 minutes to generate and I'm worn out.

I've considered the idea of prayer books for clerics before, but I also wouldn't want them to be the cleric spellbook either. And flavor wise, its doesn't really feel right for druids either.

Not sure about this one to be honest. For one, most of the spell components (unless you also want to go through every spell and change those) are hardly rare or difficult to get. Pinch of sand for a sleep spell? Not exactly hard. Some might be a bit tricky, but, for the most part, it's not a huge deal. And the casters are already getting reamed with book keeping. I'd also point out that this only really affects wizards as the cleric and druid are mostly using their focus.

Yeah, it's like I said above, cheap spell component tracking is a lot of bookkeeping for what are trivial resources. It doesn't really solve the power issue.

 

[ImperatorK]

I've considered the idea of prayer books for clerics before, but I also wouldn't want them to be the cleric spellbook either. And flavor wise, its doesn't really feel right for druids either.

Archivist - a divine "Wizard" with a spellprayerbook.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I am sorry but I find this hard to believe. Way back when I was playing the older editions I saw munchkins break the game. Back when the internet was in its infancy there was plenty of talk on the Genie boards about how to deal with munchkins that term has been around longer than 3E. It has always been an issue. Do I think it got worse in 3E yes I do because 3E opened up so many choices. But I happen to like that it is why it is my favorite edition because of the choices available. If the trade off for that is having to deal with over the top munchkins then that is a trade off I am willing to make.

Note the specific claims I made please. oD&D was not broken. And 4e was not broken. 1e and 2e are not readily broken in core. (And I'm well aware of the difference between an optimiser and a munchkin).

Of course munchkins were a thing in 2e. This was the edition that gave us the Complete Book of Elves. They were producing material at the rate of five books a month over the life of 2e. And honestly, after the vistas of 4e martial classes I look back at what was available to 4e characters and feel cramped. No Warlords (and the closest you can get to a Bravura Warlord is Robilar's Gambit). No defenders. Almost no movement in combat or forced movement. The rogue doesn't have anything like enough skills. And it isn't Spells Trump Almost Everything.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The 10 best ideas I have seen on this and boards to remedy most of the abuse come down to these:
[...]
So? How does this sound?

Most of them sound viable.

I prefer using spontaneous divine casters (suggested in UA) over divine spellbooks (there's the archivist for that anyway).

I also prefer UA's complex locks and how that affects Knock spells.

I don't really think the flight spells need a duration cut; though I can see where they could lead to silliness.

I think this goes a long way towards fixing the issue.

Really? I mean, the list above is pretty similar to a separate lot of spells that were revised 3.0-3.5. It's some pretty incremental fixes to a small number of things. I'm all for enforcing sensible limitations on polymorphs and stuff but I don't see that it would fundamentally change anything.

 

[delericho]

2.) Polymorph-like spells requires an appropriate Knowledge check upon witnessing an example of the creature to cast equal to an appropriate DC (that number I would have to look into of course, but somewhere between 10-15 + (1/2HD/1*HD) sounds about right). This check may be made once/level if the creature is encountered again.

With polymorph-type spells, I'm inclined to think that a better fix is to let the caster polymorph into whatever he wants... but in doing so he doesn't inherit the powers of the creature from the MM. Instead, have the spells in the polymorph subschool offer a menu of powers that the caster can select, with the number of powers gained, and the effectiveness of each, depending on the level of the spell.

So, if the Wizard wants to polymorph into a Purple Dragon, that's fine. However, he then chooses: does he take the flight ability, the breath weapon attack, the claws, the resistances, or which?

10.) Priests, Druids, and lower tier groups that gain 'all' spells on their home list get Prayer books/Training Books/etc that function as spellbooks.

I don't think there's any real need to make them physical books. Just require the spellcasters to explicitly learn the spells, and put some sort of (tight) constraint on how many they can learn (either in total or of each level), and you're sorted. Basically, that's just a return to the old "Max # spells" by Intelligence from 1st and 2nd ed Magic Users.

 

[N'raac]

I don;t know if it's already stated somewhere, but I never understood why a cleric had to be able to wear any kind of armor or shields whilst also being a caster.

I would say - at the most - a cleric should start with no higher than chain (and no shield use) as possibility, and for anything more he has to use feats to get it.

I think this comes from the source material concept of a warrior-priest, a crusader (frankly, not a few icons that were later subsumed by Paladins), etc. Pathfinder dropped the Cleric down to Medium armor and retained (non-tower) shields. However, as a large shield precludes using that hand for anything else, most clerics stick to small shields to have that hand free for somatic gestures. Otherwise, drop the weapon if you want to cast.

I think what has happened over the years is that clerics have gained more versatile, and more combat-oriented, spells. That might mandate a reduction of their martial abilities. Meanwhile, the old "blunt weapons only" moved to more religion-specific exceptions (good) that generally added a much better melee weapon (more martial ability, rather than less).

Perhaps a greater focus on religion would be appropriate. Maybe some clerics that get martial weapons and heavy armor proficiencies (maybe even full BAB advancement), but get reduced spellcasting, curtailed channeling of divine energy, maybe only one domain and/or drop down on will saves - more martial advantages means less casting advantages. Meanwhile, some clerics might get only very low power weapon choices, light or no armor, no shields, 1/2 BAB progression, but are better spellcasters, perhaps get a third domain, better options w.r.t. channeling divine energy,other options enhancing casting at the expense of martial ability. In the middle might be the "standard cleric" with medium armor, perhaps shields, 2 domains, etc. - tweaked only a little from the current cleric (if the spellcaster cleric is to have more spell power, I think it should cap at the current baseline cleric, so maybe the default gets pulled back a bit, either in spells per day or spell list).

But I don't want to go back to the days when the players drew straws for who got stuck playing the cleric, so the class has to be interesting and viable. 3e changes went a long way to making the cleric interesting to play, rather than the guy who patches up the REAL heroes after the battle and acts as a medic during combat.

 

[Ahnehnois]

With polymorph-type spells, I'm inclined to think that a better fix is to let the caster polymorph into whatever he wants... but in doing so he doesn't inherit the powers of the creature from the MM. Instead, have the spells in the polymorph subschool offer a menu of powers that the caster can select, with the number of powers gained, and the effectiveness of each, depending on the level of the spell.

At that point, you're not casting a spell that lets you change into another creature, you're casting a spell that gives you a menu of special abilities, and lets you pick whichever ones you can tie to a monster. I think it's important to leave the spell open-ended, but simply raise the bar for actually using it effectively.

 

[delericho]

At that point, you're not casting a spell that lets you change into another creature, you're casting a spell that gives you a menu of special abilities, and lets you pick whichever ones you can tie to a monster. I think it's important to leave the spell open-ended, but simply raise the bar for actually using it effectively.

If the spell is left open-ended, it is effectively impossible to properly balance it. And the Monster Manual becomes basically a big shopping catalogue of creatures for the Wizard to polymorph into (and/or summon). And it becomes a quick and easy way for the Wizard to make use of low-level spells (such as planar binding) to gain early access to much higher-level abilities (such as wish) in a way that the designers simply never intended.

I suppose the alternative is for each and every monster's stat block to include sections on the minimum caster level needed to polymorph into (or summon) these creatures, and a note on specifically what powers you get, but that seems a lot more work than simply offering the menu of powers once in the PHB.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]
I think sensible limitations could be constructed using Knowledge checks as suggested elsewhere, and incorporating Knowledge DCs into creature stat bocks (not unlike what the late 3.5 books did) as well as by putting sensible modifiers in the knowledge skills themselves. Essentially a rarity system for monsters. In this respect, the ever-expanding suite of monsters is no bigger a problem with regards to polymorph/summoning than any new expansion is to the game as a whole.

Do we simply assume that every monster in the original manual lives in the same area and is common and well-known? Do we assume that when a new monster book comes out, the monsters were always there and are suddenly being encountered now? Answering those questions sensibly can help us deal with the polymotph cherry-picking, among many other things.

 

[Loonook]

Perhaps a greater focus on religion would be appropriate. Maybe some clerics that get martial weapons and heavy armor proficiencies (maybe even full BAB advancement), but get reduced spellcasting, curtailed channeling of divine energy, maybe only one domain and/or drop down on will saves - more martial advantages means less casting advantages. Meanwhile, some clerics might get only very low power weapon choices, light or no armor, no shields, 1/2 BAB progression, but are better spellcasters, perhaps get a third domain, better options w.r.t. channeling divine energy,other options enhancing casting at the expense of martial ability. In the middle might be the "standard cleric" with medium armor, perhaps shields, 2 domains, etc. - tweaked only a little from the current cleric (if the spellcaster cleric is to have more spell power, I think it should cap at the current baseline cleric, so maybe the default gets pulled back a bit, either in spells per day or spell list).

But I don't want to go back to the days when the players drew straws for who got stuck playing the cleric, so the class has to be interesting and viable. 3e changes went a long way to making the cleric interesting to play, rather than the guy who patches up the REAL heroes after the battle and acts as a medic during combat.

Well, your suggestions are a lot like Specialty Priests with more common weapon selections. Sadly, the designers of 3e found specialty priests to be too complex and wonky for standard play. I do miss the Specialist Priest's variance and would love to return to the old Sphere system myself... But I doubt it will happen :'(.