I think it Might be the Mage; Not the Fighter that's broken

[Celebrim]

But this is a highly derailed topic. I would rather talk about the full-casters and their hyperbolic power curve and ways of getting their power curve to straighten out a bit.

One thing that I think may be effective is reducing the DC of saves vs. spells by no longer increasing the DC of a saving throw vs. spells according to the spells level.

So, a 0th level spell and a 9th level spell would have the same DC saving throw. This makes generating outrageously high spell DC's much harder, and restores some of the balance found in 1st edition that as character level increased the general chance of saving throw failure decreased until, at higher levels, the high level spell caster throwing spells at another high level target would expect those spells to succeed only if the victim rolled a 1 (or maybe a 2 or 3) for it's saving throw.

(Similiarly, I don't think it is necessary to boost the DC of resisting a monster's extraordinary or supernatural abilities by 1/2 it's HD. In general, I think saving throws are harder than they need to be. Most creatures with large HD also have big ability bonuses, with a result that PC's can only succeed on their good saves at best, and have virtually no chance of resisting on their poor saves. Most commentators have focused on the fort/save/will bonus as the problem, but I've become inclined to think that the real problem is with the DC's.)

Another thing that I think is important is restoring some of the balance that was lost between 1st edition and 2nd edition. Much effort was made to nerf things that were brokenly good in 1st edition (fireball, for example) but alot of things like rope trick and polymorph other/self were significantly improved in thier 3rd edition incarnations with I think painful results on the overall game balance.

Thirdly, I think that spells are too hard to disrupt. I would like to see spells have an initiative delay between when they are announced and when they go off so that they had a decent chance of being disrupted occassionally (by whatever means) without a readied action.

 

[Sadrik]

One thing that I think may be effective is reducing the DC of saves vs. spells by no longer increasing the DC of a saving throw vs. spells according to the spells level.

In a round about way, the DCs are moving down a bit from a 1/2 level to a 1/3 level from my proposed spell charts. When casting you have a DC bonus equal to the spell level which is 1/2 level round up for your best spell. In my charts, you get a new spell level every third level level so in effect it lowers the DCs by a few points.

I can see lowering creatures with DC effects from 10 + 1/2 HD + stat to + 1/3 HD as well to match the casters progression.

Another thing that I think is important is restoring some of the balance that was lost between 1st edition and 2nd edition. Much effort was made to nerf things that were brokenly good in 1st edition (fireball, for example) but alot of things like rope trick and polymorph other/self were significantly improved in thier 3rd edition incarnations with I think painful results on the overall game balance.

This one is tricky, it is not as easy as shifting around a few numbers on a chart. You have to rewrite spells. I would rather not go there. Perhaps the Pathfinder spell changes are enough...

Thirdly, I think that spells are too hard to disrupt. I would like to see spells have an initiative delay between when they are announced and when they go off so that they had a decent chance of being disrupted occassionally (by whatever means) without a readied action.

There are very easy ways to do this in the system. You simply ready until a spell is cast or they move away. Next time you DM do it every time a PC caster tries to cast. The players will get the hint and start doing it to the DM as well. I think this is sort of a mindset thing.

 

[Runestar]

Limiting utility type stuff lowers out of combat performance but does not change in combat effectiveness (think sorcerer).

It might when all the spells you get pretty much do the same thing. This is why the sorc is superior to the warmage - it can access a wider repertoire of spells, while the warmage just gets mostly damage spells, so it is at a disadvantage, despite being able to cast any spell on his list spontaneously.

That and blasting is generally quite inefficient anyways.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

So, a 0th level spell and a 9th level spell would have the same DC saving throw. This makes generating outrageously high spell DC's much harder, and restores some of the balance found in 1st edition that as character level increased the general chance of saving throw failure decreased until, at higher levels, the high level spell caster throwing spells at another high level target would expect those spells to succeed only if the victim rolled a 1 (or maybe a 2 or 3) for it's saving throw.

(Similiarly, I don't think it is necessary to boost the DC of resisting a monster's extraordinary or supernatural abilities by 1/2 it's HD. In general, I think saving throws are harder than they need to be. Most creatures with large HD also have big ability bonuses, with a result that PC's can only succeed on their good saves at best, and have virtually no chance of resisting on their poor saves. Most commentators have focused on the fort/save/will bonus as the problem, but I've become inclined to think that the real problem is with the DC's.)

One thing I've tried, with moderate success, is making all DCs dependent on 1/2 level + Cha, whether spells, monster abilities, or whatever else. In addition to changing poor saves from Level/3 to Level/2 (making it good +12 at 20th, poor +10) and removing every DC booster, that means that against an even-level opponent you're basically rolling d20+ability+misc (possibly+2) vs. 10+Cha, which--given that Cha is either a dump stat or can't be raised too high--means you should usually come out ahead. It's not quite the 1e/2e "fighters make everything on a 2" paradigm, but it's better.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Someone (in another thread) mentioned an old rule that- while it may seem heavy-handed to people who picked up the game with 3Ed- has merit in this discussion's main digression.

Bring back the spell-rarity rules. IOW, instead of each player simply picking out which spells they want for their mages, embed the spell-selection process into the campaign.

1) Instead of picking a spell and adding it to the PC's list, it must be learned. This would probably mean a Spellcraft check. (For the moment, I leave it to others to do the math.)

2) You can only learn those spells you have access through mentors, organizations, and treasure (scrolls/spellbooks/tomes).

3) Each spell has a rarity level that dictates how easy it is to learn. Most spells in the PHB would be Common or Uncommon, with only a few Rare spells. Most spells in generic supplement books or main Campaign setting books would be Uncommon to Rare. Most spells in campaign supplement books would be Rare.

Obviously, certain ones might have a rarity other than you might expect, depending on the nature of the spell.

Overall, even with spellcasters maximizing Spellcraft, statistical odds and campaign forces would force diversity in spellbooks, derivative tactics, and overall prevent a mage (at least) from being the most optimized he can be.

HOWEVER, this would also necessitate a change in DM behavior as well- namely, you would have to ensure that any situation in an adventure or campaign either has multiple solutions, or if a particular spell is the only way, it must be made available to the PCs in an in-campaign way.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sounds a bit like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, too. In this case, such 'rare' spells are called Exotic. Below that, there are Complex, then Simple spells. You could set spells out that way, and make Exotic spells learnable I suppose, perhaps needing a feat as per AU/AE. You can certainly cut down the cheese factor somewhat, with a system like that.

Anyway, fwiw, in my basic 3e house rules all full spellcasters get the following spells per day:

[sblock]

                           ––– Spells per Day –––
Level	0	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th
1st	3	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
2nd	4	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
3rd	4	2	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
4th	4	2	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
5th	4	3	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
6th	4	3	2	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
7th	4	3	2	1	–	–	–	–	–	–
8th	4	3	3	1	–	–	–	–	–	–
9th	4	4	3	2	–	–	–	–	–	–
10th	4	4	3	2	1	–	–	–	–	–
11th	4	4	3	3	1	–	–	–	–	–
12th	4	4	4	3	2	–	–	–	–	–
13th	4	4	4	3 	2	1	–	–	–	–
14th	4	4	4	3	3	1	–	–	–	–
15th	4	4	4	4	3	2	–	–	–	–
16th	4	4	4	4	3	2	1	–	–	–
17th	4	4	4	4	3	3	1	–	–	–
18th	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	–	–	–
19th	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	1	–	–
20th	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	1	–	–
21st	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	–	–
22nd	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	1	–
23rd	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	1	–
24th	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	–
25th	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	1

[/sblock]

I've also cut out or modified various spells - not just arcane ones, just for the record - and eliminated bonus spells per day from high ability scores. Oh, and you'll need twice the usual XP to level up.

Which all serves to strip back spellcasting to where it's still amazingly useful and versatile, but a limited resource. OK, a very limited resource.

We've found that, along with 'a few' (heh) other tweaks, this works wonders. YMMV, naturally.

Note: 'epic' doesn't start at 21st, for us.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another thing you could do- in fact, something I expected 4Ed to do- is to relevel spells.

Tedious? Perhaps. But the benefits could be quite rewarding.

Somewhere out there, someone doubtlessly (Thanee at the very least) has produced a list of the top 3.X spells. In all likelihood, those spells are probably overpowered. Similarly, there are spells that get relegated to the "useless" bin time and time again.

Drop the "useless" ones a level, boost the top-tier ones a level.

It will change the game. MM or Sleep as 2nd level spells, for instance, would be a huge tweek that would definitely alter the way the magic and its users impact the game.

And doesn't Arcane Lock make more sense as a 1st level spell?

In addition to or instead of that, you could adopt a system like in AU/AE, with lesser and greater versions of spells (its the same spell, you just memorize it at a different level for slightly different effects) and/or incorporate the use of alternative spell components (which boost, weaken, or otherwise change aspects of a spell).

 

[Arkhandus]

I think Slywoyach's idea of adding back in some older-edition limitations or similar would help....Time Stop, Fireball, Polymorph, Disintegrate, Force Cage, etc. would be a bit less troublesome/menacing if enemies had move of a fair chance to interrupt them (or get out of the way before they take effect).

I also think the slower spell level advancement of one new spell level every 3 caster levels beyond 1st might help sufficiently.....I don't have any problem with 8th or 9th-level spells being delayed until low-Epic levels.

But mind you, WIZARDS aren't really that much of a problem compared to other primary casters. The wizard is all well and dandy if he can prepare for exactly what the group's gonna face that day (and the enemy doesn't have any savvy casters halfway worth their 16+ or 18+ INT or WIS scores who actually use Scrying, Divination, Foresight, False Vision, Nondetection, or similar means of avoiding a Scry-Buff-Teleport ambush), but the wizard can't really adapt to situations on the fly like a sorcerer, and doesn't have as many slots as a sorcerer, cleric, or druid (nor the fall-back fighting abilities of a cleric or druid).

Yeah, I know well enough that a Baleful Polymorph, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone (*sniff* My poor Aboleth Mage BBEG....I hardly knew ye), etc. can really ruin a DM's day (or at least ruin the challenge of an encounter), but it's also not much challenge if the Druid or Cleric beats everything down while uberbuffed and flinging around Flame Strikes/Blade Barriers, or if the Sorcerer Greater Invisibly Teleports and nukes everything repeatedly before it can do anything about him.

Wizards don't get that much extra from their 4 selectable bonus feats. Their restrictions and lesser adaptability/reactiveness are a counterbalance. Clerics and Druids are the real powerhouses, though Wizards and Sorcerers make an awesome showing in the right circumstances (those in which they have exactly the right spells for the job and just enough of them). They're still strong, but, the problem is more with certain spells, not so much the classes that cast them (but class has something to do with it as well, in some cases). Take a look at things like Divine Power and Righteous Might as compared to Enlarge Person or Tenser's Transformation; the arcane versions are far more tame (though Polymorph etc. are just plain broken).

Also, Fighters ARE just plain worse than many other classes, even in the core rules. Though as others have said, it has more to do with their limitations, weaknesses, and repetitiveness than anything else. They do alright in terms of damage output and tanking, though not quite so good as warblades or barbarians, sure. But Fighters also lack the skill points, breadth of class skills, and general ability-to-do-anything-other-than-stand-still-and-hit-things. Sure, one Fighter might be good at tripping and disarming foes, and another might be okay at hitting things on the move (thanks only to the Player's Handbook II), but for the most part they can't do anything much beyond stand still and hit things. Not even doing those in interesting and exciting ways, at least. Fighters need more skills and/or more variety/pizazz.

 

[Runestar]

Someone (in another thread) mentioned an old rule that- while it may seem heavy-handed to people who picked up the game with 3Ed- has merit in this discussion's main digression.

Bring back the spell-rarity rules. IOW, instead of each player simply picking out which spells they want for their mages, embed the spell-selection process into the campaign.

Isn't this just tantamount to saying "Let's just leave it to the DM to decide what spells the spellcasters can access"? If the DM feels that glitterdust is overpowered for instance, then the wizard is not going to be able to learn it.

 

[Sadrik]

Anyway, fwiw, in my basic 3e house rules all full spellcasters get the following spells per day:

Interesting your group came to the same conclusion I did in straightening out the power curve. You decided to reduce the number of spells per day pretty dramatically (fewer on the list and no bonuses from high stats); why?

Oh, and you'll need twice the usual XP to level up.

The XP penalty for full casters seems pretty heavy handed, but it appears you are going for a campaign feel. Where do bards paladins and rangers fit in?