Five Suggestions to Limit Wizard Power

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

A thousand times this! Combat became a lot less fun once spell casting became so easy with 3E.

Back in the day I had a house-rule initiative system which was more or less tick-based. A caster declared his cast on his initiative. If he took a hit between declaration and when the spell went off (based on cast time) the spell was lost. If he took damage before declaration he couldn't cast but the spell was not lost. If you got an early initiative you were allowed to hold your turn and act later, frex once the wizard started casting.

This system heavily limited magic-users' power and may be the reason we never experienced high level m-u's dominating play like I've heard complained about here. More importantly, it added a lot of tension to the game and was a lot of fun.

 

[Frostmarrow]

There are several possible options:

1. Everyone is magic, even the fighter.
2. Nerf magic.
3. Negative consequences for use of magic.

4e's approach is #2 and, arguably, #1 as well. I quite like #3 though imho it hasn't been well handled in previous editions. Most spells don't have negative consequences. In the case of those that do, the drawbacks frequently could be avoided or didn't work properly as a balance mechanism. For example, fireball's backblast was more likely to engulf the front line fighter than the magic-user who cast it, and there's no backblast if it's used in the wilderness.

A better version of #3 would be to make magic less Vancian and more as it appears in the works of RE Howard, Clark Ashton Smith or Michael Moorcock. In the tales by Howard and Smith, sorcerers are feared and reviled loners, dabbling in secrets man was not meant to know. The wizard in CAS's The Double Shadow is the victim of a creature he summons but cannot control. In Moorcock, particularly the Elric stories, all magical feats are performed by summoned entities which are hard to sway and often end up doing the opposite of what the caster intends or bringing about other negative, unforeseen consequences.

#3 could be use of magic makes you weak as Raistlin, it could be magic corrupts and mutates you like in Warhammer FRP, but my favorite is use of magic is in contention with any other caster in the vicinity; not unlike 1E psionics.

I think low level spells should release residuum into the ether that all casters must battle over in order to channel and use for more powerful incantations. Trying to grab residuum is akin to sticking your neck out. Other casters can hurt you metaphysically and you must first rule the ether before you can use the magical energy against non-magical enemies.

This makes wizards less of a target at the beginning of combat for enemy fighters. Instead the orc warband will bring out their gimp shaman to combat the wizard and fight axe versus sword themselves. Whichever caster that comes out on top can unleash hell on the opposing warriors.

 

[RangerWickett]

I would prefer the default wizard (as opposed to a 'sorcerer' or 'warlock') to cast one or two spells per encounter, and for them to be momentous. My idea is this:

There are four tiers of spell -- Least, Minor, Major, and Arch. The tier is basically based on how 'world-shaking' they are. Least might set someone on fire. Minor might paralyze someone. Major might turn someone to stone. Arch might crack the earth and drop a crowd of foes into the earth.

You get access to Least spells at levels 1-5, Minor at 6-10, Major at 11-15, and Arch at 16-20. At most you get 5 spell slots per tier, for a total of 20 spells to choose per day (down from the 50+ in 3e).

In a given tier, some spells might be at-will, daily, or rechargable. You might fill one of your Major slots with "fire bolt," which you can fling for a modest amount of damage every round, or "wall of fire," which you can only use once per day.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

Stealing another class's schtick really is a problem, but this is not the solution I would like. I think they just need to be made inferior to the class ability in some way.

I think invisibility should be given a very short duration. It's extremely useful when you need it, but giving up an attack spell for just a few rounds unseen makes less sense when you have a thief that can sneak all day long.

I think knock should just give a large bonus to an open locks skill check. For a really tough spell you might need a knock and a good thief together. In a pinch a knock spell can get the job done, but it's not a guaranteed success. The spell is still useful, but it's a lot less likely to upstage the thief.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

There are several possible options:

1. Everyone is magic, even the fighter.
2. Nerf magic.
3. Negative consequences for use of magic.

4e's approach is #2 and, arguably, #1 as well. I quite like #3 though imho it hasn't been well handled in previous editions. Most spells don't have negative consequences. In the case of those that do, the drawbacks frequently could be avoided or didn't work properly as a balance mechanism. For example, fireball's backblast was more likely to engulf the front line fighter than the magic-user who cast it, and there's no backblast if it's used in the wilderness.

A better version of #3 would be to make magic less Vancian and more as it appears in the works of RE Howard, Clark Ashton Smith or Michael Moorcock. In the tales by Howard and Smith, sorcerers are feared and reviled loners, dabbling in secrets man was not meant to know. The wizard in CAS's The Double Shadow is the victim of a creature he summons but cannot control. In Moorcock, particularly the Elric stories, all magical feats are performed by summoned entities which are hard to sway and often end up doing the opposite of what the caster intends or bringing about other negative, unforeseen consequences.

I've always liked #3 and I really hate #1.

One version of #3 that I've always liked is that casting a spell does hp damage to the caster. This limits the number and power of spells that will be cast and gives the caster a trade-off. Is it worth this spell effect to make myself that much more vulnerable?

Another one I really like is where casting requires a skill check and there's a cumulative penalty to spell checks until the caster gets to rest. This has two types of tradeoffs. Is casting this spell now worth the risk of failing a cast later when I really need it? And, Should I use the big spell with the big penalty now, or will the smaller spell do?

Tradeoffs make everything in a game better.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There's always the early RuneQuest solution: Casting powerful magic uses up the stat that determines how well you resist magic. The more you cast, the more you are asking for it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One option could be simply to prevent wizards from 'nova'-ing by limiting spells cast to one per encounter. In game world terms, require a five minute rest between castings, due to the major exertion.

The 2e sourcebook, A Mighty Fortress, multiplied all casting times by ten ie segments became rounds. So Meteor Swarm, with an original casting time of 9 segments would now take 9 minutes to unleash! That's probably a bit too harsh combined with spell disruption in combat, but it achieves a similar effect.

 

[messy]

reduce damage of damage-dealing spells.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I would prefer the default wizard (as opposed to a 'sorcerer' or 'warlock') to cast one or two spells per encounter, and for them to be momentous. My idea is this:

There are four tiers of spell -- Least, Minor, Major, and Arch. The tier is basically based on how 'world-shaking' they are. Least might set someone on fire. Minor might paralyze someone. Major might turn someone to stone. Arch might crack the earth and drop a crowd of foes into the earth.

You get access to Least spells at levels 1-5, Minor at 6-10, Major at 11-15, and Arch at 16-20. At most you get 5 spell slots per tier, for a total of 20 spells to choose per day (down from the 50+ in 3e).

In a given tier, some spells might be at-will, daily, or rechargable. You might fill one of your Major slots with "fire bolt," which you can fling for a modest amount of damage every round, or "wall of fire," which you can only use once per day.

I really like your tiers of magic. Coupled with my suggestion above we could have something like this:

You cast a Least Immolate Man spell on my warrior and leaves 1 point of residuum in the air. I retaliate with a Least Slow on you warrior, leaving behind yet another point of residuum. On your turn you could pick up those two points and unleash a Major Burn Village Burn on my team, but before you do so I get to pick at your brain. If you fail to protect yourself I get to try and steal the spoils instead. You lose your turn. But if you do withstand my psychic assault there is no stopping you from cinderizing the streets.

It would make sure that "Dailies" are only cast in combats with multiple magic-users and only after the combats have been going on for awhile. This carry with it a big difference in flavor between a common skirmish and a treasure room finale.

Another feature that could be designed into a system is how magic would cut long boring combats short. In the really real world people stop fighting out of fatigue. In fantasy games fatigue isn't a big issue. Instead we could rely on a wizard getting the last word. (Perfectly alright since wizards probably under-achieve up until that point.)
The wizard reaches a power summit at the end of long fights instead of reaching the power summit at the end of a long campaign (as people don't like this - bastards!).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If wizardry is outlawed, only outlaws will be wizards!