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

[Dice4Hire]

I would do a few things:

1: Lower the number of slots casters get at higher levels. In 3E, they just do not run out.

2: Make them specialists, with limited spell choice. IT is too easy o cherry pick the 5% of really powerful spells.

3: Cut out the 5% or so of spells that make casters just too good, and ruin the adventuring experience itself. Spells like Find the Path and the like.

4: Up fighter damage, and get rid of the full-round attack. If fighters can move and still do full damage, they will be a lot more effective. Also, dump AoO for movement, but keep spellcasting.

5: I would also not let casters do a 5 foot step while spellcasting.

But basically, 4E did it for me, overall.

 

[Stoat]

If wizards can now hold equal to fighters in damage, what do fighters have left?

Theoretically, you could have a game where wizards did more damage and fighters had more defense. I don't 3.X really works that way, though, at least not past level 10 or so.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>
4: Up fighter damage, and get rid of the full-round attack. If fighters can move and still do full damage, they will be a lot more effective. Also, dump AoO for movement, but keep spellcasting.

5: I would also not let casters do a 5 foot step while spellcasting.

I like these two a lot.


It actually made me wonder why a spellcaster only needs a standard action to cast a spell in most cases. Basically casters get a full round of doing stuff and a move, but those who use weapons don't. For casters, the move is "extra".


I wonder if a simple change of making all casting take a full round and allowing fighters to move and make a full round of attacks would suffice.




EDIT: I'll add another caster issue (not the one at hand, really, but related) that bugs me in 3e... cleric and druid spell access. Wizards and sorcerors are supposed to be the best casters, but clerics and druids get access to every spell in the book (or in EVERY book used)! I definitely like the idea of specialists, and think that clerics and druids need some similar limitation on their spells.

In my last campaign there were no clerics at all (Midnight). The players were going to become gods eventually, and then each play their own followers. I designed a "priest" class in which, across ten levels, the players got a domain each level. That's it, though. No spells at all except those on the domain. I wonder about a houserule similar to this for clerics and druids (with druids having restrictions as to which domains they could choose).

 

[Plane Sailing]

If wizards can now hold equal to fighters in damage, what do fighters have left?

OK, I see your question now.

I was making the point that, despite what I often see posted here about wizards being better than fighters at everything, they are actually not as good at actually doing damage to opponents. their ability to ablate hit points is far worse than equivalent level fighters.

i.e. fighters are currently better than wizards at a major element of combat.

Thus my point stands - if wizards are less good at finishing a combat with damage, but have more general utility, where is the problem? Presumably in the save-or-end-fight spells (which are a bit of a gamble - and is the issue the presence of the spells or the ease of cranking up save DC? What if save DCs were always 10 + half caster level and saves were always + half defenders level, and classes have one strong save with +2 on top of that - and all ability bonuses were ditched (both on DC and save)? Would a base 55% save against equal level foes be OK? or should it be a better chance of saving? Perhaps DC is just 10+ spell level with no improvements, so 1st level spells are always just DC11 to save?

Is it the plot bypassing spells? What if they were rituals that could be learned by anyone with the appropriate feat (as per 4e)?

 

[Plane Sailing]

In some respects it isn't just the high levels where magic users could be nerfed. How high level does a 3e sorcerer need to be to have flying, invisibility and some long range damage spells (or a wand of fireballs)? 6th/7th level?

D&D spell lists have some spells which cause serious balance problems in 3e land (and possibly earlier editions too, although it was a little less evident at low levels).

 

[cyderak]

There is no im-balance in our campaigns. My Fighter is just as bad-ass as the wizard in the party. As a DM, If you have a problem with dealing with wizards then you just don't know how to DM. Like I say, there is a way to handle every kind of hurdle as a DM. Just have to be creative.
As a player, if your fighter doesn't keep up with a wizard then your not choosing the right path.

Like anything in RPG's it just depends on the intelligence and game mechanic knowledge of each player.

~ Please see my note below: Plane Sailing, ENworld admin ~

 

[Plane Sailing]

An interesting idea which I think I saw proposed by Colonel Hardisson some years ago was a campaign were magic power was less available - nobody could be a single classed caster. All casters had to be multiclassed, and couldn't have more caster levels than non-caster levels.

This is quite an interesting idea for a 3e campaign where the most epic wizards at 20th level are Ftr10/Wiz10 or Ftr10/Cleric10 or Rog10/Wiz10 etc. It means that the really powerful 5th level spells (teleport, raise dead, magic jar) only enter the scene when PCs are about 18th level (9/9 multiclasses), and everything 6th level+ is just unavailable. Fireballs or Fly don't appear until 10th level at the earliest.

This could be an interesting campaign specific way of limiting the power of wizardry or clericism in a campaign.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

There is no im-balance in our campaigns. My Fighter is just as bad-ass as the wizard in the party. As a DM, If you have a problem with dealing with wizards then you just don't know how to DM. Like I say, there is a way to handle every kind of hurdle as a DM. Just have to be creative.
As a player, if your fighter doesn't keep up with a wizard then your not choosing the right path.

Like anything in RPG's it just depends on the intelligence and game mechanic knowledge of each player.

Please remember that this thread is for discussion of how you could nerf magic at high levels. For those who either (a) see no reason to and/or (b) don't have any idea about how to... it's probably not the thread for you.

Thanks

 

[Aus_Snow]

1: Lower the number of slots casters get at higher levels. In 3E, they just do not run out.

2: Make them specialists, with limited spell choice. IT is too easy o cherry pick the 5% of really powerful spells.

3: Cut out the 5% or so of spells that make casters just too good, and ruin the adventuring experience itself. Spells like Find the Path and the like.

4: Up fighter damage, and get rid of the full-round attack. If fighters can move and still do full damage, they will be a lot more effective. Also, dump AoO for movement, but keep spellcasting.

5: I would also not let casters do a 5 foot step while spellcasting.

I actually did all of these, among other things. More or less, anyway. Very nearly all.

One other measure I took was to spread out caster progression through 25 levels, rather than 17 or 18, with 9th level spells (or the equivalent - a lot of different subsystems happening here) only being accessible at 25th level. At best. Sequence: 1/4/7/10/13/16/19/22/25 (for "full casters" only). My "e7" (or thereabouts) therefore has only 3rd level spells, and/or the equivalent.

I have no issues with risk - and/or other randomness - being a factor, either. Not all classes need be as reliable or predictable as (for example) the Fighter, IMO. Not that there's anything wrong with that (in a class structure), mind you.

 

[Dausuul]

OK, I see your question now.

I was making the point that, despite what I often see posted here about wizards being better than fighters at everything, they are actually not as good at actually doing damage to opponents. their ability to ablate hit points is far worse than equivalent level fighters.

Agreed. However, high-level wizards are capable of bypassing hit points entirely using a variety of means. If the monster has a weak save, target it with save-or-lose or save-or-die. If it has strong saves but a poor touch AC, use a ranged touch spell that doesn't give a save; a few shots of Enervation will either kill it, or render it so horrendously debuffed that you can drop it with the save-or-die spell of your choice. Or blow some spell components and stuff it in a box with Forcecage. (Pro Tip: Use the "windowless cell" version and apply some biomechanics to prove to the DM that the victim will suffocate before the spell duration ends. Then ask how much XP catgirls are worth.)

Moreover, a clever wizard with a full array of utility magic to hand can often bypass the entire fight.

There's nothing wrong in principle with "wizard = utility, fighter = damage" (although the rogue might have some complaints). But a wizard at the high end has so much utility that damage becomes almost irrelevant.

What if save DCs were always 10 + half caster level and saves were always + half defenders level, and classes have one strong save with +2 on top of that - and all ability bonuses were ditched (both on DC and save)? Would a base 55% save against equal level foes be OK? or should it be a better chance of saving? Perhaps DC is just 10+ spell level with no improvements, so 1st level spells are always just DC11 to save?

Something along these lines would help considerably. Although I would be inclined to make save bonuses scale faster than save DCs as you level up. That was the dynamic in AD&D; as you went up in level, the "save or X" spells developed nastier values of X, but the likelihood that they would work on an equal-level foe declined steadily.

Is it the plot bypassing spells? What if they were rituals that could be learned by anyone with the appropriate feat (as per 4e)?

I would prefer to nix those spells altogether. More players with plot bypassing does not strike me as an improvement.