• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Dice4Hire

First Post
I think limiting caster to thematic spells and having the choice be semi-random is a good idea. With that, you will not end up with two optimized 5th level casters with near-identical spell lists. Learning to do with what one has is a big part of the game for me. Just endlessly cherry-picking the best of the best is not fun, and leads to system boredom too fast.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
Back in my AD&D days, I was using a 'hp and wounds' system, where hp was recovered quickly by rest, but could be lost to exertion as well as damage. There were no clerics or healing spells.

In that system casting spells cost you 1hp per spell level in hp damage; it worked nicely in low to mid level games, it was never tested out at high level though.
Was this inspired by Roger Musson's article in White Dwarf?
 

pemerton

Legend
If you have ever read David Gemmell, Druss the Legend epitomises for me the "mundane" warrior who is as powerful (or perhaps influential is the more accurate word) as most powerful wizards. His ability to survive combined with the effect he has on an army of men and on an enemy horde is literally "Legendary". As a leader of men, Druss is exactly what a high level fighter should look like.

<snip>

Now in D&D, I think a lot could be done to accomplish this (that really hasn't been so far). I think it is an important goal for any new edition
In my view, D&D has lacked the mechanical capacity to take account of this sort of thing.

Traditionally, D&D has only incorporated leadership/armies/hordes at the wargaming level. When players don't want to "graduate" to playing a wargame with their 10th level fighters as generals, however, then D&D has no other mechanical way of taking account of that generalship and those armies.

There is a contrast here with a game like HeroWars/Quest, which allows those sorts of relationships and resources to be counted as abilities just like everything else, and then to be used to solve problems, or as augments to other abilities, without suddenly having to switch from playing an RPG to playing a wargame.

D&D's wargaming roots work against the fighter, here. They're not supposed to be mythic or legendary or mystical. They're supposed to be realistic. While nothing else in the D&D world labors under that assumption.

Even 4e steers as clear as it can from the "cutting the tops off of mountains" kind of power. Epic level daily powers are still just "I HIT HARD" or "I CAN TAKE A LOT OF DAMAGE."

Wizards (and everyone else) just ALSO fall into this camp, now.

<snip>

The only problem is when you try to mix "realistic" fighters with mages who get to do anything any wizard in fiction ever did.

And it's not a problem of "power" or "balance." It's not mechanical. It's more about the effect the character can have in the world, and how. A fighter can have a big effect in the world, but they rely on the DM to give it to them (they become a leader, or a king, or whatever). A mage has a big effect in the world simply by virtue of the things they can do. Which isn't fair.
The 4e solution is a step in the right direction, but it just puts every plot-point ability in the hands of a DM and makes wizards and fighters equal in their ability to do jack-all to affect the plot.
I think 4e takes another step in the right direction. In principle, at least, a fighter's generalship and "mystical" leadership abilities - which, unlike the obviously supernatural abilities of the Celtic and Classical heroes, do form a part of the D&D tradition (eg via Conan) - can be incorporated into the design and resolution of skill challenges.

DMG2 only begins to hint at this, and more worked out guidelines and examples would help, but - roughly speaking - at the same time that a wizard's rituals start to make an important contribution to skill challenges (via the rituals themselves, as well as associated Arcana, Religion etc checks) so a fighter's heroic leadership should start to make an important contribution also (whether by granting automatic successes in certain cases, or bonuses to rolls, or via Athletics or History or Streetwise check, or whatever).
 

Elf Witch

First Post
I agree with people who say wish should not be a spell. Wish should come from the DM as a reward.

As for scry I house rule in my game that anyone can use a crystal ball. And that is what you have to have. To activate it and use it you have to have ranks in the skill scry. It is a little similar to how scry worked in 3.0.

With all this talk about magic being to powerful and wizards controlling the narrative I wonder how the other players in the game really feel about this.

It has been my experience that the other players have expectations that the wizard will have certain spells. What do you mean you don't have fireball or teleport.

I wanted to play a more utility style caster less of a blaster. I envisioned a character with a lot of book learning so I poured ranks into knowledge skills and even with the DM's help made a couple of new ones. My spell choice was more about defense and aiding the party. I used buff spells on the melee folks. I had a few offensive spells. But my wizard was not about fighting.

I got a lot of complaints from some of the other players about this choice. They felt that as party wizard I had an unspoken obligation to take the most powerful offensive spells.

I got chewed out one day by the player playing the rogue because I didn't know knock and we were trapped and he couldn't for the life of him roll well enough to pick lock/disarm trap.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
With all this talk about magic being to powerful and wizards controlling the narrative I wonder how the other players in the game really feel about this.

It has been my experience that the other players have expectations that the wizard will have certain spells. What do you mean you don't have fireball or teleport.

I wanted to play a more utility style caster less of a blaster. I envisioned a character with a lot of book learning so I poured ranks into knowledge skills and even with the DM's help made a couple of new ones. My spell choice was more about defense and aiding the party. I used buff spells on the melee folks. I had a few offensive spells. But my wizard was not about fighting.

Yep. I don't play carbon copy casters, so I have often weathered storms regarding my spell selection.

Of course, when my Geomancer whips out Earthen Grasp on an enemy Mage, they don't say so much...

The previous PC- a Diviner Spellsword- got lots of complaints. Nevermind the PCs lives he saved with or without magic. He didn't have offensive clout so most of the players didn't like him.
 
Last edited:

The Shaman

First Post
Many high levle enemies have spell resistance.

Many extraplanar entities have huge swathes of immunity to the most damaging of types like fire, lightning, acid, poison.
This was big in 1e - the only way to reliably beat magic resistance was to gain levels, and even an 18th level magic-user could only reduce magic resistance by forty percent - whereas the CCG-influenced feats of 3e still involve making a trade-off in making a wizard capable enough to bypass magic resistance, provided some broken combination of feats and prestige classes can't be cobbled together.

In 1e, one of my very few house rules for the game was to change the basic unit of combat from the round to the segment while keeping casting times for spells the same. It originally had nothing to do with casting, but that proved to be perhaps the most interesting side effect of the change - quite a few spells became harder to cast in combat because they took so long that the risk of the spell being disrupted increased substantially. It also placed a premium on wands, which weren't as easy to make or buy as they are in 3e.

In any case, in the games I run by the time the adventurers reach high level, often their opponents have access to the same magic, so much of the time buffs get canceled out by the same spells cast on their enemies, or they are actively removed by dispel magic and such.
 

'I use climb skill'
'I use spider climb'

I dont see the effective difference.

Roll a 1 when climbing, and see how you far you fall and what the damage is. Roll a 1 when casting a spell, and see what the consequences are. Except that you don't roll to cast spells in D&D, they just work, reliably. So the skill always can fail, the spell generally doesn't. There's one point of difference.
 

FireLance

Legend
Or a slight variant:

Wish is not a spell you can learn. It is treasure you are awarded. Just like a +5 vorpal sword is not a thing you can forge. It is something you are awarded.
I must say that I like the idea of rare spells as treasure although (ironically, given the thread title) I would use it more as a mechanism to re-introduce some spells that were deemed too problematic, possibly due to balance or abuse issues, to update into 4E.

As for re-balancing magic at higher levels, I was working on a magic system inspired by the Book of Nine Swords before 4E was announced and (IMO) made it unnecessary. Some of the changes that I thought of making were as follows:

Spell Slots

Spellcasters get fewer spell slots than they do presently - the working assumption is 2 + 1/2 caster level, so a 1st-level spellcaster gets 2 slots, a 2nd-level spellcaster gets 3 slots, and so on. A spell slot can hold a spell of any level, but each spell slot must be filled with a unique spell (no duplicates). Between encounters, a spellcaster can fill an empty spell slot by meditating for 2 minutes. During an encounter, a spellcaster can re-fill an expended spell slot by spending a full-round action that attracts attacks of opportunity, and succeeding at a Concentration check (DC 15 + 2 x spell level). A spell that has a duration continues to occupy its spell slot until its duration expires, or it is dismissed or dispelled. This effectively sets a limit on the number of active spells that a spellcaster can maintain at any one time.

Spells

Because spell slots can hold spells of any level, the main limitation on a spellcaster is the number of spells that he knows at each level (this is essentially the approach used in the Book of Nine Swords). The working assumption is that a spellcaster knows two spells at 1st level, and learns an additional spell at each level thereafter. Knowledge of spells is already effectively limited by caster level (you need to be a 3rd-level spellcaster to know 2nd-level spells, for example). Some spells (in particular, the more powerful ones) have additional prerequisites, such as knowledge of a minimum number of related spells, or knowledge of a specific spell.

One concept adapted from the psionics system is that a spell (even a 1st-level spell) should be useful at all levels. Hence, there will not be any spell level-based damage caps, and certain spells may have varying (but essentially similar) effects at different caster levels. In addition, saving throw DCs are based on caster level, and not spell level (the working assumption is 10 + 1/2 caster level + key ability modifier).

An attempt will be made to remove the concept of spell level entirely, since there is no need for spell level when assigning spells to spell slots and when setting saving throw DCs. For purposes of learning spells, a minimum caster level can be listed as a prerequisite.

Fundamentals

Certain spells (most likely, low-level spells without prerequisites apart from minimum caster level) also grant knowledge of fundamentals (the term is taken from a similar concept for the Shadowcaster in Tome of Magic). A fundamental is a minor magical effect that a spellcaster can use at will. For example, most basic offensive spells will have fundamentals that can be used to launch a magical attack against an opponent. A spellcaster that runs out of spell slots in the middle of an encounter can thus either attempt to re-fill an expended spell slot, or fall back on his fundamentals.

Swift Actions

In the same way that a standard action can be traded for a move action, a standard or move action can be traded for a swift action. Spells must be balanced around the idea that a spellcaster can cast up to three spells in a round.

Metamagic Feats

Metamagic feats should be usable once per encounter and should be balanced differently since the concept of spell levels may be removed. Empower Spell and Maximize Spell are tentatively balanced by the need to spend four and six swift actions respectively before they can be used on a spell (this has the added side-effect of ensuring that these feats do not come into play for a few rounds, and may also delay the spellcaster's use of his best spell till that time). Quicken tentatively reduces the caster level of a spell by six (so that a 7th-level spellcaster casting a Quickened spell casts it as a 1st-level spellcaster).

Specialization Benefits

To be frank, I've never really liked the way that the rules handle school specialization. In my view, they are at the same time too restrictive (you can't ever learn spells from your prohibited schools) and too lenient (apart from your one bonus spell per spell level, you can prepare any spell in your spell book; apart from the one spell of your school you must learn at each level, you can scribe any spell from any non-prohibited school into your spellbook). Because wizards tend to choose the best spells in their non-prohibited schools, the most distinctive thing about a specialist is what schools he gives up. Assuming they gave up the same schools, an evocation specialist and an abjuration specialist may end up with very similar spells known and prepared. It seems rather perverse to me that a specialist is better defined by what he doesn't know than by what he does.

Given that a spellcaster will know spells equal to his level +1, a specialist can be defined by (and specialization benefits can be given out on the basis of) the number of spells of a particular type that he knows. Specialization benefits can start at knowledge of 6 spells (about a third of a 20th-level spellcaster's entire repertoire), and additional benefits granted at 12 spells (about half) and 18 (almost all), and can increase based on the number of spells known of a similar type. Spellcasters that learn a variety of spells gain versatility, but lose out on or delay their specialization benefits.​
 
Last edited:

mrswing

Explorer
Maybe this is a silly idea, but why not give magic-users a MAB which they have to roll to see whether the spell actually strikes its target/works (if not cast on an opponent, the spell 'attack' roll has to beat a certain DC to work if you want magic to be somewhat uncertain in all cases, otherwise just use the MAB for combat casting and let other spells go off automatically). The MAB = BAB progression for full casters, 2/3 progression for secondary spellcasters.

Combine this with the need to overcome saving throws, and there are two elements in play which may hinder the effectiveness of magic use.

Saving Throws could also be more effective (make your save = no damage whatsoever), but that would of course invalidate a number of feats and certain class features.
 

korjik said:
'I use climb skill'
'I use spider climb'

I dont see the effective difference.

Roll a 1 when climbing, and see how you far you fall and what the damage is. Roll a 1 when casting a spell, and see what the consequences are. Except that you don't roll to cast spells in D&D, they just work, reliably. So the skill always can fail, the spell generally doesn't. There's one point of difference.
Note that 1's are not auto-fails so if you have enough ranks... However, at play as well is the economy of actions. For someone to climb, it is just a move action, where as to "spell up", you must throw a further standard action from a caster into the mix. I think the crux of the matter here is that the "magic" method works better than the mundane - which in terms of magic in general is actually OK with me. However, perhaps the real issue here that annoys people is not that magic is inherently powerful or effective, but that a player and character is in autocratic control of such things. Knowing that another player has an ace up the sleeve that completely trumps what you spent resources developing your character with is not fun!

However, there are a couple of variables here that can be played with that provides the type of "wizard nerfing" that is needed on this issue. Firstly as a spell that is castable in combat, get rid of it. Perhaps even as a longer casting time "ritual", say no. Instead, imagine that it is an effect that can only be produced by a single-use magical item - a "potion of spider climb" but a more non-generic one such as a hairy paste applied to the shoes or some such. In this way, it is something that may be acquired and controlled by any character rather than being the sole province and responsibility of the wizard.

Next is not making a player's choice of having their character specialize in climb be superceded by a spell or magical item. One way is having the item provide a static bonus to cimb checks. The only thing is that this does little benefit overall. A "spider-climbing" character is generally not going to be failing their climb. What needs to happen then is providing a further bonus to the heavily trained climber so that they get something special such as a longer duration, greater climb speed and so on.

Finally is pricing the item so that it is not so underpriced that it is an automatic selection in everyone's backpack, not so over-priced that it becomes completely uneconomical but that there's a nice balance between the skilled climber being slightly more advantaged doing it on their own rather than having to use the magical item.

I think such an approach would be helpful in nerfing this aspect of the wizard - spells that cover the group not having a particular skill or role covered but that end up stomping on the toes of such characters when they are present in a group. Spider climb, knock etc.

Just a thought.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

Remove ads

Top