How would you houserule (nerf) magic at high levels.

[Aberzanzorax]

Inspired by this fascinating thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...lance-problem-handled-fantasy-literature.html

How would you houserule wizards at high levels where there appears to be some imbalance with fighters?

(Some may disagree that there is this imbalance, or that the imbalance should remain, but this isn't the thread for that, please.)

Any edition where you believe this to be an issue is fine.



I'll start:

For 3e, spells take 1 action per spell level, standard and then move actions, with standard taking priority. E.g. no change for a lvl 1 spell. A level 2 spell would use up both the standard and move action for the round. A lvl 3 spell would use up a standard, move, and standard the next round. (and so on.)


Another option might be vulnerability. E.g. while a wizard is casting a spell he is considered flatfooted.



Other ideas? Spinoffs? Feedback?

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think the problem is fixable with a simple tweak. It's too deeply embedded in the system.

You could bring high-level 3E wizards down to the power level they had in AD&D by removing the spell level modifier from save DCs and making all spells into full-round actions. But honestly, AD&D wizards were pretty damn powerful at high levels too. Past a certain point, sheer utility trumps everything else.

To really address the problem, you have to get to the root of the issue, which is that the wizard is the goddamn Batman. Wizards can do anything--not just in the mechanical sense, but in the game-world sense. Fighters and rogues are constrained by "What could a human being with this kind of training reasonably* accomplish?" Clerics and wizards lack any such constraint. There's no underlying theory of magic that would put hard limits on what they can do.

I would go the warmage/beguiler/dread necromancer route. Take the wizard spell list and slice it up by theme; each slice should get enough spells to make a functional and useful class, but at the same time there should be clearly defined limits for each. If you're a necromancer, you can inflict disease and decay, drain life-force, raise and control undead, and maybe manipulate darkness and shadow. But you can't throw fireballs or teleport or open locks; your brand of magic simply doesn't cover that stuff.

[size=-2]*For certain values of "reasonably." High-level fighters and rogues are far more bad-ass than anyone in the real world. But they're still mundane human beings, just turned up to eleven. Without magical aid, a high-level fighter may be able to jump twice as far as an Olympic long jumper, but she can't jump over mountains, nor can she sprout wings and fly.[/size]

 

[SkidAce]

I would go the warmage/beguiler/dread necromancer route. Take the wizard spell list and slice it up by theme; each slice should get enough spells to make a functional and useful class, but at the same time there should be clearly defined limits for each. If you're a necromancer, you can inflict disease and decay, drain life-force, raise and control undead, and maybe manipulate darkness and shadow. But you can't throw fireballs or teleport or open locks; your brand of magic simply doesn't cover that stuff.

I agree and am unable to XP you again.

 

[Puggins]

An attempt at balancing the two already came out and met with mixed reactions: the Tome of Battle. Instead of nerfing wizards, cleric and druids, it buffed martial classes to the point where they could reasonably contribute at higher levels. They still didn't compare very well to a well-run caster, mind you, but at least they showed up to the ballpark.

The fan reaction was a mix of elation and horror- some people were delighted that melee characters were relevent again at above 8th level, while others labeled the book a gross attempt at power gaming and completely unbalanced.

I liked it quite a bit, personally.

 

[Storminator]

At high levels the problem is pretty daunting:
Wizard: "I just got access to Wish! What did you get?"
Fighter: "+1 to hit..."

In addition to restricting the spell list (which I think is a good idea), I would limit the number of new spells-per-day each level. To 1. Starting at 1st level. To compensate, I would give a wizard some sort of at-will magic attack. That way they have something to do each round, and the spells are for the big effects.

PS

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't think the problem is fixable with a simple tweak. It's too deeply embedded in the system.
[/size]

I agree. The problem is not the power of the spells. It's magic. It's supposed to be powerful. The problem is the ease of casting it. To even out the disparity, you'd need to scrap the entire initiative system. Pre 3e, spells had casting times and were easily interrupted. When a wizard can fling a meteor swarm spell instantly with no chance of being interrupted, there's a problem. In AD&D, that spell takes 2 rounds to get off. 2 rounds in which he has to simply stand there helpless. There are nine segments in which he's ac 10 minus a ring or bracers. There were no magic marts in AD&D either, so he couldn't count on having the best of these either. Even if he did, his ac will be -4, equivalent to 24 in 3e. An equal level fighter with a 9 strength or a 7 dex hits him on an 8 naked. And A well prepared wizard can hedge his bet with mirror image, blur, etc. But he can only do that so often. He also never knew in what order in the round he'd go. Even fireball and lightning bolt are hard to cast. Fireballs filled a certain volume and lightning bolts bounced. Since the wizard couldn't move to get a better angle, he had to be very careful. Other spells have drawbacks as well. Some age you or drain con. Later editions removed all the checks and balances to the wizard.

 

[Nebten]

I don't remember if this was a house rule or if it was how it was supposed to be, but in our AD&D 2nd ed games when somebody announced they were going to cast a spell the roll on their die was their starting point. You then add the level of the spell (unless it took longer then a round to cast the spell) to the die roll. Between the 2 numbers, you were "casting" the spell. If you got hit inbetween that time, the spell fizzled.

Example: Pyro wants to cast fire ball. 1d10 = 3. Fireball has a 3 modifier. So between init counts 3 and 6, if he got hit spell fizzle. Now with Weird a 9th level spell, he is casting from 3 to 12. So everybody inbetween that time could get a chance to try and stop the wizard from getting the spell off.

In the end, you are casting a higher level spell for a grander effect, but there is a greater chance to leave yourself open to be negated.

 

[billd91]

That's actually a house rule, Nebten. I've used a variation of it. If you got hit before the time you actually started casting it, you couldn't cast but you didn't lose the spell (the action was disrupted but not the spell itself). If you got hit during the casting, you lost the spell (action and spell disrupted).

In the end, I'm not sure it was worth it as a distinction.

There are a couple of elements of 2e (as I've said before, a much better balanced game than most people give it credit for) that, when brought forward to 3e, would help.

1) Limits on save DCs - 1e/2e kept all saves within a 20 point spread. Open-ended stat progression in 3e was kind of interesting and certainly useful for scaling monsters, but there's no reason PC stats can't be capped. I'd be quite comfortable with a cap at 26.
Note: I'd also cap the max DCs on monster special abilities too.

2) Longer casting times - even if you use cyclical initiative (and it does make things easy to manage at the table - purely a gamist construct - but one that makes the game smoother). Increasing a lot of spells to full action or 1 round casting times would increase disruptability (and decrease caster mobility) without ditching the cyclical initiatives. I'd consider keeping the raw damage spells relatively short on the casting time since they, while useful, aren't as powerful in a game with monsters tending to get lots of hp off Con bonuses.

3) Ditch concentration rolls to allow casting to continue after being hit. I'd still allow it for casting defensively and for casting through ongoing damage (like an acid arrow), but not for a direct hit.

4) Improving Saves relative to DCs. Instead of strong saves increasing at 1/2 level and weak at 1/3 level, put them all on 1/2 level and just add a +2 bonus to the strong save. I think the end result (at 20th level) of a strong save being +3, weak save being -3 compared to a 9th level spell was kind of a nice result, but I think a better weak save would be better all around.

5) Ditch a lot of the personal cleric combat buffs.

6) Use Pathfinder's version of the polymorph spells (character gains physical shape but not stats, gains stat bonus to what they already have instead).

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't remember if this was a house rule or if it was how it was supposed to be, but in our AD&D 2nd ed games when somebody announced they were going to cast a spell the roll on their die was their starting point. You then add the level of the spell (unless it took longer then a round to cast the spell) to the die roll. Between the 2 numbers, you were "casting" the spell. If you got hit inbetween that time, the spell fizzled.

Example: Pyro wants to cast fire ball. 1d10 = 3. Fireball has a 3 modifier. So between init counts 3 and 6, if he got hit spell fizzle. Now with Weird a 9th level spell, he is casting from 3 to 12. So everybody inbetween that time could get a chance to try and stop the wizard from getting the spell off.

In the end, you are casting a higher level spell for a grander effect, but there is a greater chance to leave yourself open to be negated.

Almost correct. Each spell has a casting time in segments, and it's generally equal to the spell level, but there are exceptions. Power word: kill, for example has a casting time of one segment, since all you do is utter one arcane word of power.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think it depends upon the scale upon which you are balancing these resources. Are we talking about Rounds? Encounters? Days? longer than that? or the entire game limited by highest level and character age?

A powerful spell effect could be included like Haste, which ages the PC a specific proportion of age (usually dependent upon race). This will limit it's uses once the player's catch on that life is a finite resource. Of course, as in an encounter or turn you have to track time and lifespan as resources, but then you have more opportunities for constructing higher level resources like spells and balancing them.

EDIT: Balancing against other classes is largely a matter of overlap. Where do the classes share common ground? This enables them to work together in a team in terms of common goals, but it also helps in the "class balance" issue. I'd only concern yourself with balance for where they do so. Areas like rest, food and water, and the like.