Five Suggestions to Limit Wizard Power

[Dice4Hire]

I would have to add

Make all wizards specialists

Wizards who can cherry pick form all the schools of magic are a big problem. If all wizards had only 3-4 schools they could choose from every wizard would not have the same 30-40 spells.

And maybe at higher levels, like 7th + spells, they only get one school, their specialty.

I think this alone would solve many problems.

 

[Dice4Hire]

reduce damage of damage-dealing spells.

I really think damage is one of the minor problems with wizards. Utility spells are worse.

 

[mcintma]

If the Angel Summoner & BMX Biker crowd has its way wizards will have Commoner class specs (no change there) but their spells will be interruptible by anyone speaking loudly as a free action and capped at low damage (negated on a made low-DC save). The rules must be designed so fighters can snuff-out wizards under any scenario (long range, close, prepared, surprised, doesn't matter) or it's not fair. Wizard utility spells must be suitably useless so that they don't offend another class's niche. Wizards should get 2 spells per day and take HP damage when they cast...

Yeah, I'm exaggerating, but still. I'll be the lone voice arguing the other side of this I guess

 

[Dausuul]

How about this one: Don't give the wizard broken-ass spells.

It's really pretty simple. There's no reason why wizards need to have spells that make them deities at high levels. So don't give them such spells. Limit the efficacy of save-or-lose versus high-level foes; limit damage output; curb the wizard's ability to do things like teleport the entire party halfway across the world. (Helpful hint: Spells like teleport are far less abusable when they only work on the caster.)

Now, there may be cases where the designers conclude that Spell X is so important thematically that it needs to be available despite being overpowered. In this case, additional restrictions such as component costs or extreme casting times might be indicated. That can be handled on a per-spell basis. But in general, I think the effort to put a zillion finicky gotcha mechanics on the wizard is going the long way around to fix a problem with a much simpler solution.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Don't give the wizard broken-ass spells.

But... but... then it wouldn't be D&D!!!

 

[Tallifer]

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.

 

[Ellington]

I think 3E wizards only had two very simple, but ultimately massive, flaws. One in their design and one in their execution.

1) The power of their spells depended on their caster level and not the level of the spell slot, making their overall power progression quadratic instead of linear.

2) Some of their spells were too powerful or encompassing, making certain challenges trivial with a little bit of thinking.

And that's it. If those two problems were fixed the class would be just fine, but as we know implementing those fixes is easier said than done. From what I've heard so far about 5E wizards though, I'm very optimistic.

 

[howandwhy99]

Nice list. I really like all of it.

2. No Player Created Magic Items:

I'm thinking we'll have higher level magic item creation except for 1-use stuff again, like potions and scrolls. But a magic rich setting may likely be possible with dials and gauges.

3. Remove Unlimited Spell Access and Learning:

For me, M-Us get to learn or create 2 spells / level. That way they get to explore using them even if they didn't qualify to learn any "found treasure" spells since the previous level. If they train with a trainer, the list of possible spells available comes from him or her. Unlimited custom spells can take a little longer, but they are always an option at leveling, and frankly, only an option at leveling.

4. Additional Cost for Class Stealing Spells:

Any M-U worth his or her salt knows that Invis works better on the sneaky guys. Knock is more for magical seals that thieves can't finagle and fighters can't hack through without magic themselves. I do agree with accounting for these kinds of challenges in the system though and maintaining niche protection.

 

[Shemeska]

I've never really seen a dramatic difference in power between high level fighters and high level wizards, and I really don't recall any complaints about it in 3e till after 4e was already out and then suddenly it popped out of the woodwork online. I dunno.

Unless the DM goes out of their way to favor spellcasters, I don't see a martial/spellcaster imbalance as being present in the game to fix in the first place. The last spellcaster I played was hands down the weakest PC in the group, but damn was she fun to play (a half-faerie dragon sorcerer/wizard).

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That ends up being very DM dependent, but it is well said and certainly could be well implemented.

It' always was DM dependent when talking about 3rd edition. You were only guaranteed by RAW to get your 2 spells per level, anything else was per the DM and not the player. Player's didn't dictate whether or not there were magic shops, or fellow mages who would share their spellbooks with others, or spellbooks found in dungeons. All up to the DM.