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

[Aus_Snow]

You decided to reduce the number of spells per day pretty dramatically (fewer on the list and no bonuses from high stats); why?

To further equalise things. It's very subjective, when you get to the stage of mixing up the littler numbers, but I (and the group of players I've tried all these house rules - and more - with) feel that the setup I've partly detailed and partly hinted at here works perfectly in actual play. Any given group's mileage will probably vary, I know, but then that's the beauty of house rules. I would, for example, never even dream of inflicting my/our bias toward or away from certain mechanics, upon other roleplayers out there. Unless they wanted me to, I mean. . .

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?

Sorry, that was simply poorly phrased. I meant everyone pays double XP to level up, not just full casters. But this does mean that high level spells come up even later [than they would, with the increased intervals between the acquisition of spell levels] in the campaign, which I feel is a good thing.

Bard-type casters (I have a couple of those) have their own chart, which I'll post here, in case it's any use to someone. Or to sate curiosity, if there is any. Rangers and Paladins, on the other hand, don't cast spells at all. And there are no [other] Ranger/Paladin-type casters, either.

[sblock=Bard-type casters' spells per day]

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

[/sblock]

 

[Sadrik]

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 think this is a bad idea. The game does not count segments anymore. If segments were added back in it would would be needless tedium just like it was in 2e. 3e has a fair chance to disrupt through the use of a readied action already.

Adding back 10 minutes per spell level to memorize spells certainly will limit high level memorization, it might be a poor direction to go though. There was an item that reduced your memorization to 5 minutes per spell level, this will certainly be a powerful item. It will also make elves the superior high level caster as they do not have to sleep all night. I think the flat 1 hour time sink is superior.

All of your other comments I agree completely with.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Only up to a point.

Under the old rules, most DMs ran it so that you'd go through the list, picking which spells you'd like to learn and making your Learn Spell roll. After all, it was presumed that your PC was an intelligent being who could do independent research as well- that focused list reflected teaching from known sources (mentors, colleagues, magical libraries, etc.) + your own research.

You'd keep rolling until you learned a number of spells equal to the number you were eligible to learn or tried learning every spell on that list and failed at the remainder with eligible slots left over.

After going through the ones you picked, you'd go to the full list and see which you were able to learn.

If you still rolled poorly and had slots left over, you'd get a chance to re-roll once you encountered a qualified spell you failed to learn in other sources- a.k.a. treasure- that "showed you a different way of learning the spell."

So, if you failed to learn a new 4th level spell and went adventuring with that slot in your spellbook open, you'd have the opportunity to learn a new 4th level spell while adventuring- even if it was one you had previously failed to learn. IOW, the additional info found in the version of the spell found in the loot gave your PC has a "Eureka!" moment and lets him fill that slot.

Some DMs, however, would rule that if it was a spell you'd failed learning before, you couldn't take another stab at it until you'd advanced another level.

To sum up, unless the DM actually barred certain spells outright, you'd still have the opportunity to learn any given spell with a Spellcraft roll. However, if you failed on your Spellcraft roll, learning that spell might be very difficult for you to do indeed.

 

[Sadrik]

So what are the actual tools to straigten out the power curve:
Slow down spell level acquisition
Raise saves and/or lower spell DCs
Rewrite or delete broken spells
Limit versatility through known spell list or fixed list (especially cleric and druid)
Lower number of spells per day

Some or all of these can be used to straighten out the power curve. Are there some that I have missed?

 

[Voadam]

Other options to slow down casters

1 Turn all caster classes into prestige classes or something like d20 modern advanced classes. This would knock their spellcasting down a few levels in power comparisons.

2 Require multiclassing for spellcasters. An easy way to reduce caster levels I've seen is to make it so only every other level can be in a caster class.

3 Add in more costs to casting. I've seen non lethal damage, hp damage, ability damage, sometimes with automatic payment and sometimes only with a failed save, all used as an added price for casting.