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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, sessions that involve 10+ climb checks within one hour of game time are tedious on the face of it,

Depends upon how you do it. If you actually make the thing take an hour- yes, that's tedious. If, OTOH, you say, "It will take you about 2 hours to climb that cliff face, some of which is difficult: give me X rolls against a DC of N", everything is decided in a few minutes.

The wizard should be able to do something wizardly vs. any challenge in the game they encounter, no matter how long the adventuring day is.

"Should be" depends on personal taste.

Personally, I have no problem with Wizards being reduced to using a crossbow, for instance. In fact, I kind of like it when casters find themselves being forced to do things without being able to say "I magic that."

The spellcaster who responds to everything with magic, the one who rarely uses his magic and the one who rarely CAN use magic all have origins in literature, and all can be supported within D&D.

I'll take "Appeal to Authority for $100, Alex."

"What was "Immediately preceeded by strawman/slippery slope argument?"

There are many things which Gygax included which, in fullness of time, we have decided are no longer fantastic ideas.

"We" is awfully gerrymandered here, since I clearly disagree.

So apply it there, as well, and, like the 1E and 2E fighter who got stuck with consecutive 1s for his hit point rolls, the "cursed with suck" character will quickly find his or her way into a local character-destroyer, to be replaced in 2-3 minutes with a suspiciously similar character who didn't roll quite so poorly.

Maybe in your group, but its not universal.

Characters didn't have meaningful backstories; "He's Joe IX the Fighter, and he uses a longsword and wears platemail" was the extent of characterization. Therefore, there was no need to fit a character into an ongoing story.

Maybe in your group, but its not universal.

This is wiffle-wording of the lowest sort. The magic system is equally as abstracted as the combat system, or the skills system...

Except all the other systems are entirely models of RW things- you're trying to use game design to depict how you want physics and learning and a bunch of stuff to work and make sense. A magic system by definition doesn't have to model anything at all except the way you want magic to work. It doesn't have to make sense at all.

 

[CuRoi]

Failing a Concentration check will counter magic as well, and that can be done by melee or archery as well.

Or grappling. Many people skip it because the rules are awkward, but its effective against casters. Sure, there are some "escape" Verbal only spells, but barring that and or still/silent spell (since you can shut them up as part of a pin) it can help level the playing field.

 

[CuRoi]

A lot of a wizard's power is based on the DM. How much downtime does the party get. I play a wizard in an Age of Worms game I am now 5 th level. I have not scribed one scroll because I have not had a break.

Excellent point. I believe much of the "Wizard is inceredibly overpowered" argument comes from a certain type of game...or maybe the type of game pushed by the RAW. I run low treasure, low magic games which makes the casters all the more powerful in soem sense but keeps them a bit in check regarding the typical imbalances with the rules.

For my campaigns, the story pace is involved and complicated so between slightly lower than book funds, depressed economies that can't just buy magic items for thousands of gold from adventurers and ever evolving story that always makes players wonder if taking a two week break to make the "ultimate items" is a good idea...I can usually stretch my games out longer before the imbalance creeps in.

So a possible "nerf" is to simply control it from the outset. OF course you then may have to contend with player entitlement, but if you are running a good game with a good story, players can usually look past that.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oddly enough, not every spellcaster makes magic items, even if they get the feat for free.

Yes, some spellcasters don't always play to the best of their advantages.

Magic breaks all kinds of rules and overwrites them with the will of a sentient being. That Spider Climb is better than Climb because its magic, to me, not the issue- the magic of the Fly spell lets you fly better than you can by flapping your arms, after all. That it may be overpowered by dint of its level may be an issue, but not it innate magical superiority.

Then there should not be wizards, because what you described is not a PC, but an NPC.

A lot of a wizard's power is based on the DM.

This is rediculous.

If you have to actively go after one character, then there's a problem.

I've very often seen "No see wizards can be handled by a good DM!" I have never once seen the same go for fighters, or rogues, or monks, or barbarians, or rangers.

Failing a Concentration check will counter magic as well, and that can be done by melee or archery as well.

How?

The only way the fighter can disrupt the wizard is by readying an action first and then actually landing the attack. A smart wizard is almost never hit because of the vast array of defenses they have.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How?

If you're standing next to him, you smack him- hard- that's how. Or you grapple him. It DOES work- I've seen it done.

And smart archers with initiative often do ready an action, waiting for someone to start casting spells, making themselves an obvious target.

Then there should not be wizards, because what you described is not a PC, but an NPC

Uh...I described a spell, not a person.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Things that counter melee: Magic, other melee, archery, sneakiness, etc, etc.

Things that counter archery: Magic, melee, other archery, sneakiness, etc, etc.

Things that counter magic: Other magic. Nothing else.


This is the problem.

Eh? Nothing counters other magic? Stoneskin doesn't negate all damage, just reduces it. Various spells like Grease aren't impossible to overcome (balance dc 10 at half movement and nothing against people flying)...

A quick stab to the head is plenty of counter versus magic.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Fighters should not require a wizard attached to their hip to do things.

Any fighter that doesn't take advantage of the abilities a wizard/cleric/etc... can give him is a stupid fighter.

"Hey, you want stoneskin."

Weeping in the corner. "I don't need you."

Do people not get that D&D is a GROUP effort?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

How?

If you're standing next to him, you smack him- hard- that's how. Or you grapple him. It DOES work- I've seen it done.

And smart archers with initiative often do ready an action, waiting for someone to start casting spells, making themselves an obvious target.

Eh? Nothing counters other magic? Stoneskin doesn't negate all damage, just reduces it. Various spells like Grease aren't impossible to overcome (balance dc 10 at half movement and nothing against people flying)...

A quick stab to the head is plenty of counter versus magic.

So in your example of how to deal with a wizard easily, the badguys ambush the PCs, get the drop on them, the wizard has no defensive buffs, they can easily walk right up to the wizard and ready their turns, and the wizard never moves away from the baddie. Seems a bit...specific? And it relies on a whole lot of things.

Also, how is the fighter flying?

Again, I've never seen this much effort go into "stopping" the rogue or the paladin or the ranger or the fighter. It's only with wizards.

Uh...I described a spell, not a person.

Yes, but a person casts the spell.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Any fighter that doesn't take advantage of the abilities a wizard/cleric/etc... can give him is a stupid fighter.

"Hey, you want stoneskin."

Weeping in the corner. "I don't need you."

Do people not get that D&D is a GROUP effort?

No, we do. The problem is that fighters should not require a amgical buff to do awesome things.

Funny you choose Stoneskin, as that is self-only and, pre-3e, the best defense in the game.

The problem is that it isn't a group effort when "I cast a spell" is always an applicable answer. In 3e it reached the point where there were almost no effects that weren't also spells. I can't think of any myself.

 

[CuRoi]

If you have to actively go after one character, then there's a problem.

Since I chimed in support of the notion - I personally don't run low magic, low wealth campaigns simply to target Wizards. I do it for the type of story I'm trying to achieve. The flattening out of any power curve or perceived imbalance is simply a consequence.

I see LOTS of games where every player starts with loads of magic items, (custom created to fully exploit the rules naturally) stats which are incredibly high on any point scale, and Wizards with cherry picked "broken" spells. The same games probably generate a lot of "OMG Wizards need to be NERFED!" buzz I would imagine. I mean, I do agree at higher levels I'm betting on a wizard in a fight, but in many cases, its like low level - it boils down to initiative and maybe surprise if it is to be had.

I've very often seen "No see wizards can be handled by a good DM!" I have never once seen the same go for fighters, or rogues, or monks, or barbarians, or rangers.

How?

The only way the fighter can disrupt the wizard is by readying an action first and then actually landing the attack. A smart wizard is almost never hit because of the vast array of defenses they have.

I admit, a smart, fully prepared, unsurprised, I just won initiative and have some precast defensive spells Wizard is at the top of the pecking order. How much of that is due to intelligence depends on the scenario. A Wizard that is grappling a monk or fighter, is being ambushed and targetted by a sneak atack from a Rogue they aren't aware of, is being covered by a Ranger with a bow, etc. possibly has some issues.

As a DM, I've often used tactics specifically designed to contain mages. These tactics I don't consider "targetting" but very real world solutions which inhabitants of a DnD world would employ on a regular basis to shut down the enemy artillery so to speak. Sleep deprivation is one. If I have a large scale opposing force against the PCs, they will skirmish throughout the night, especially if a mage is present. Why? So nobody gets any sleep and thus certain casters don't get spells. Sure some items can cancel the need for sleep, but its never assumed they have them.

Dedicated Counterspell forces embedded in organized groups is another. Sorcerers whose job it is to shut down spellcasters (dispel spam / feats) or melee types who focus specifically on disrupting spells (through damage or grappling). You can make a mage need to change his robes when a group of robed lizard-folk monks drops out of their hiding spots in the trees, and starts tumbling through the front lines all focused on him.

Do I do the same to fighters? Absolutely. For instance, I don't think it would have escaped any intelligent spellcaster's attention in a fantasy realm that confroms to the rules as DnD lays them out that most Fighters really have difficulty with Enchantment spells (Will saves).

None of this I view as "Containing" mages, just using tactics which the inhabitants of these fantasy worlds would have all figured out "work".

So back to the topic at hand - I'd just make sure I was using smart tactics both as a mage and a melee class before I started worrying about "nerfing" anything. But the rules do, I agree, start to bend at higher levels and maybe earlier depending on the specifics of the campaign.