Five Suggestions to Limit Wizard Power

[ForeverSlayer]

I am currently playing Pathfinder, and I must say that many of the classic spells break the balance right at the first level.

Charm Person and Sleep are incredibly powerful. One spell and the encounter is done. Charm Person even lasts for a long time, so it affects the whole adventure. In one Pathfinder campaign, our sorcerer has "pwned" four out of eight encounters. And he recently got a feat which allows him to control undead for hours at a time, no saving throw. On another occasion, a small group of us playtested a Wuxia game based on Labyrinth Lord, and the wizard-type used Charm Person to "pwn" that encounter too.

The thing is, most of the campaigns in which I play are sandboxes, so each in-game day typically has only one or two encounters. Vancian daily spells trump many typical encounters.

The Fourth Edition weakened the spells themselves, to make them more reasonable and less "I-win" buttons.

Curious. I play Pathfinder on a regular basis and I don't find anything that is broken with those two spells. Let's take a look at them.

Sleep
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 1,
sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, M (fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area one or more living creatures within a 10-ft.-radius burst
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of
creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among
creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point
of origin are affected first. HD that are not sufficient to affect
a creature are wasted. Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping
or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does
not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the
aid another action). Sleep does not target unconscious creatures,
constructs, or undead creatures.

Let's look at Sleep first. Okay it affects a total of 4HD creatures. 4 1HD creatures, 2 2 HD creatures etc... Now they get Will saves, it requires a standard action from a comrade to wake them, and if they are hit they awaken immediately. Sure you could coup de grace but that takes a full round action. What's wrong with the Wizard sleeping enemies while the others in the group run up and finish them off? Would that be the same as controlling the battle field like 4th edition Wizards can do? Not seeing anything at all broken with this spell. I have used the spell several times and I can tell you that it doesn't always work and when it does it's not game breaking.

Charm Person
School enchantment (charm) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 1,
sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one humanoid creature
Duration 1 hour/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted
friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the
creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your
allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if
it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the
most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you
must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything
it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected
creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it
might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed
person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to
communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

What's game breaking about Charm Person? You can't control the actions of the person that is affected, if you are in the middle of combat and you use this spell they receive a +5 bonus to their save. You must make a charisma check to actually give it an order and you can't order it to hurt itself. I think the problem here is someone not really knowing just how the spell works or someone's interpretation of the spell working different than the RAW.

Please explain in a little more detail how these spells are so "game breaking".

 

[dagger]

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted
friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly).

Also he regards YOU as friend not your companions. They are still enemies.

 

[Stormonu]

1. Reduce Spell Slots: In 3.5, Wizards maxed out at 4 slots per day per level, before bonus slots for a high int modifier. By reducing the number of spell slots per day, you begin to reduce the flexibility a wizard can have on any given day.

Yeah, the bonus spells for high Int was probably a bad idea. Not sure about reducing the slots, but it does lead to..

2. No Player Created Magic Items: A first level wizard in 3.5 got Scribe Scroll. Right away, the game designers are giving Wizards a tool to break the game. This one change essentially gave wizards access to their entire spellbook at any time for the cost of a few XP. Utility or situational spells could be scribed and access at will, further expanding the versatility of the 3.5 wizard. Likewise, player created wands contribute to this problem.

Boo. Hiss. This is a game of creativity and imagination, and by taking away PCs ability to create things, I think that's just a bad idea.

I think it simply would be better to increase the opportunity cost of supplemental magic such as scrolls and wands. They were simply too cheap for their usefulness. Likewise, it might be wise to limit their use based on spell slots - for ex., if the wizard can memorize two 2nd level spells, he can't likewise keep on tap more than two 2nd level scrolls (effectively doubling his firepower/usefulness).

3. Remove Unlimited Spell Access and Learning: In 3.5, every time a wizard gained a level, they added two new spells of the player's choice to their spell book. The DM, not the player, should have the final say in what the PC Wizard has access to.

This was not a problem; I'd rather not see the DM dictating what spells the player can have.

Likewise, being able to auto-learn an infinite amount of new spells gives the wizard an absurd amount of power. Learning new spells should be limited to X number per level or require an Intelligence check.
Learning new spells should be an accomplishment as each spell enhances the wizard's power. Steps should be made to protect the game from unlimited spell access. A wizard's spell book should not be all spells from the 3.5 PHB and Spell Compendium.

This was never a problem if you kept in place the cost of scribing new spells into the wizard's spellbook - including captured spells (having the wizard have to "recipher" them for his own use).

4. Additional Cost for Class Stealing Spells: Invisibility and Knock have become iconic spells for the Wizard and should not be removed from the game. However, these spells directly conflict with key abilities of the Rogue. These spells should have some additional cost to them. Perhaps requiring two spell slots, a heavy time penalty, or the use of hit points. Regardless, spells that step into another class's niche need to have some additional cost to casting them.

No class should be sidelined by the wizard, whether fighter, rogue or whatever. However, there's nothing wrong with the wizard possessing some spells that augment abilities (such as Bull's Strength or Invisibility) or fill in for missing party members (such as the knock spell).

Spells that augment an ability should never replace that ability (such as Invisibility being superior to the Rogue'sattempt to hide in shadows), nor should they provide absolute success. There should always be some mundane way to overcome or subvert magical effects - even if it requires heroic effort on other's part.

In the latter case, it should always be easier, faster and cheaper to approach the problem from a non-magical means (the rogue being able to pick a lock quicker or the fighter breaking the locked door down faster and without an expenditure of gold for the equivalent knock spell).

5. Make Combat Casting Difficult: This was a huge change from 2nd to 3rd. The change to initiative system, the five-foot step, and the concentration skill made casting in combat almost trivial. Wizards should have to cast spells over several initiative segments. Damage should interrupt the spell. If you want to be kind, allow a check to not lose the interrupted spell.

3E did make spellcasting too reliable in combat, 4E tried to somewhat fix this by evening out the damage between magic and the mundane. I'd like to see a mixed approach in 5E - as easy to get a low-damage spell off that deals about equivalent to a mundane attack or allowing the wizard to take a risk to get off a (slightly) more powerful spell at the cost of it possibly being disrupted.

One of the things I'd like to see come back is roll-each-round initiative, and disengaging from melee should be more difficult. And if you're going to make the wizard roll for spell failure, make it dramatic - make the chance of failure significant.

 

[Dice4Hire]

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted
friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly).

Also he regards YOU as friend not your companions. They are still enemies.

Technically they are still the same as before the spell was cast, not necessarily enemies.

And even so, it is not hard to circumvent that at all.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Technically they are still the same as before the spell was cast, not necessarily enemies.

And even so, it is not hard to circumvent that at all.

Give us an example of a way to circumvent it.

Unless you are hiding the spell with meta magic and depending on the situation, casting a spell at someone can cause people to become hostile immediately.

Especially the other ones you didn't effect.

 

[Lanefan]

1. Reduce Spell Slots

I don't find this one too much of a problem provided everything else below gets fixed...

2. No Player Created Magic Items

Maybe not outright "no" PC-made items, but make it very difficult and time-consuming. You want to craft a wand? Fine, but it's gonna cost you about 3000 g.p. and you'll be too busy to adventure for the next 6-12 months...put that character on hold and roll up another one for the meantime, please.

3. Remove Unlimited Spell Access and Learning: The DM, not the player, should have the final say in what the PC Wizard has access to.

No, the dice should have the final say. This is one place where training rules *really* help - the spell you get as part of your training is randomly rolled, and reflects what your trainer is willing to give you access to.

And only getting one "free" spell per level instead of two makes a big difference too.

Likewise, being able to auto-learn an infinite amount of new spells gives the wizard an absurd amount of power. Learning new spells should be limited to X number per level or require an Intelligence check.

Have a look - a long look - at how 1e handles this. Then start house-ruling.

4. Additional Cost for Class Stealing Spells

This one's not the end of the world, I can live with it the way it is.

5. Make Combat Casting Difficult

Better yet, make it impossible. And there should be a risk of a dangerous wild magic surge if you do get interrupted.

Lanefan

 

[satori01]

Imagine you told a 1 level Fighter that they can only swing their sword once. How powerful of a swing would that have to be for that player to be satisfied for a whole gaming session?

Now apply that to the Wizard.

I will not go back to 1E days of cast MM, 1D4+1, now do nothing. Sorry that sucks.


Also, if you played a Two Handed Fighter in 3.5 with Power Attack, and could not out damage the wizard, you suck. There I said it.


Meanwhile, the Druid, the true powerhouse of 3E just killed the dragon by himself-- himself which of course means his magic tricked out animal companion and bevy of summoned monsters and his Dire Ape shapeshift and just urinated on his foe while still in Wild Shape....and he knows EVERY new spell that comes out, in any book. Automatically .


Give me a break with this false histrionics. The rogue just dual weapon sneak attacked for 28D6 Dmg, and HE IS GOING TO DO IT AGAIN NEXT ROUND, and people are pissed when a wizard can cast Fly, Knock, and Invisibility?


Why should a Rogue with a quarterstaff make Finger of Death seem like a joke?


Save vs Suck is a 4E thing. Visions of Avarice is one of the sickest "I win " powers ever. Stunlock is true save or suck.


In 3e Save or Suck, well sucked, because Dragons, Demons, Gods, Monks, little children and ships named Enterprise all had good saves, which generally meant nothing happened because a save means no to minimal effect.


How about we have threads on how you keep Wizards from being boring for most of the game, and not die from knicking themselves while shaving?

 

[The Shadow]

I would add Suggestion #6:

Wizards do not get all arcane spells. Specialists get cool spells in their specialty that others do not. If you insist on being a jack of all trades, you have to accept being master of none.

 

[Dice4Hire]

That would work for me as well.

 

[GM Dave]

Is it pick on Wizard day? Is it pick on Clerics tomorrow?

The trouble is not with the spells.

A spell is just a package of rules like a magic item or an equipment item.

It is really nothing special in rule terms (the rest is the fluff).

The trouble is how the rules award the spells with the leveling.

You could re-write the Rogue class to say that a Rogue received a superior set of lock picks at various levels representing his acquisition of better tools. In a fantasy world this might include items that are minor magic items in their own right like skeleton keys that change their shape to fit a lock. If you then set a skill bonus on Knock then the Rogue will be able to duplicate to exceed this value.

You could re-write the skill system so it is more like the spell system or feat system. When a player went up in level then they would select so many skills. The skills are packages of rules that just work instead of requiring additional rolls to work (the Fate system and particularly Starblazer Adventures does this).

IF the Rogue has Stealth then they can just 'appear' anywhere on the map when they first choose to take a combat action (I've actually been doing pretty much this in PF. If the player rolls a good Stealth roll then I just tell them to let me know where they are when they want to do something).

If the Rogue has Superior Stealth then they can replace any minor humanoid on the game map (they took them out before combat started and dressed themselves up as the downed person).

You could then either limit the number of skills or 'tricks' a person could use per adventure (they only have so much supplies in their climbing kits or they only have so much supplies).

4e tried to do something like this but they made it too technically a 1 to 1 match up the classes and did not well keep the flavour of the fluff of the original classes.

Starblazer Adventures is a good example of how this can be done and fit seemlessly to the fluff and even add to the story.

Fighter could also gain progressions of moves representing styles. The balance of a style that grants some combat advantage that can be chosen on any combat round verses a wizards one of a kind blast.