Throwing down the Tyranny of the Spellcaster.

[Ratinyourwalls]

As per poll above:

There are several ways to nerf magic-users. As a wizard/sorcerer/etc. player, which of the following appeals most to you:

Limiting Options
In this option, we constrain all wizard classes to narrow thematic bands, such as "Elementalist" or "Necromancer". Fighters suddenly become a more versatile class than magic-users, in some ways, since the Fighter likely has more skill-based solutions to things.

Limiting Power
Basically, just lower the effectiveness of spells, or increase the level require to cast them. Fireball becomes a level 5 spell; Time Stop and Wish and such get pushed right off the end of what PC's can do, ever. Spells like Spider Climb last a round or two, and give you a slower speed than an Athletics climbing check could manage.

Limiting Reliability
Right now, except for the 4E essential classes most fighter tricks are unreliable - you only get the bennie if you hit, and if you don't you wasted your chance. Many wizard spells are the opposite - with a fireball, even if you miss you're doing half damage. What if it was the other way around? All fighter feats that expend 'fatigue' or whatever only trigger on a hit, so you know you can use them reliably, while spellcasting always has a chance of outright failure?

Costing Resources
Going back to the 3.5E idea of spells costing money, but they could also cost other resources - hit points, surges (if we're using that system), etc. Technically, "spells/day" is a resource, so the default assumption all the way from 1E is to use this system; so perhaps this should be named "costing MORE resources than they do now".

Casting Time
This could be pretty straightforward - you want to cast a level 2 spell? You're gonna take 2 turns to do it. Level 3 spell? three turns. Or something; numbers can be tweaked. Both Exalted and Earthdawn do something like this, and it can be very thematically appropriate.

 

[Sunseeker]

Reduced spell power. No more 1d6 per caster level max 15.
Reduced spell slots/per days.
Increased spell power. Let more spells grow with the caster.

If the caster has more options, then fewer spell-slots and fewer spells per day are fine, because they're not limited to only casting from a very narrow range of spells.

Max out most spells at 5 or 6d6. Allow for feats to bend these rules, choose a spell, it now does 8d6, or maybe it does 6d10. Maybe it can target two targets instead of one.

But overall, no more stuff like Evasculate(loses half it's health and you can use this every round my sweet patoot!), relegate the all-powerful SoD spells to a special selection that are once dailys.

and more.

 

[trancejeremy]

Unless you are doing player vs player, I have yet to see a good reason for spellcasters to be nerfed. Why can't they do everything? They're magical, and that's the whole point of magic.

I mean, D&D generally is a co-operative game. So having the best and most versatile party is a good thing...were the dwarves and hobbits jealous of Gandalf? Was Arthur of Merlin?

The real problem is that spellcasters can use all their spells (or close to it) in one encounter. Get rid of the mindset that you need to rest after every fight, and the supposed problem goes away...granted a lot of that was written into the rules of 3e at least, with monsters getting tougher and clerics getting healing spells at every level, instead of just 1st and 4-6th

 

[Boarstorm]

I know I'm in the minority, but I like spell points/mana/whatever, but with a (predictable) twist --

Using up your SP/mana would also move you along a fatigue/exhaustion track for maximum funtimes.

 

[Dirge]

I think all it would take to balance magic is making casting easily interruptible in combat (i.e., the Wizard takes damage and the spell fails) and making the more powerful spells take a full round (or multiple rounds) to cast (with no easy concentration check to negate this disadvantage).

Also, I am all for forcing specialization if you want the more powerful spells (maybe allow a specialist Wizard access to his chosen school of spells one level earlier than a generalist, or having the top tier spells of each school only available to the specialist, etc.).

I also would be fine if Wizards got out of the damage-dealing business altogether and concentrated more on the weird and wonderful effects (invisibility, teleportation, flight, transmuting things into other things, etc.). Make the Fighter the king of combat and damage and maybe he won't resent the Wizard so easily for the various magical effects that may be tossed about occasionally.

Most of all, I just want Wizards (and other magic users) to not get relegated to mere ranged, area-affect Fighters (i.e., blaster mages)...Of course, if someone wants to play a blaster mage then that can be an option (but it shouldn't be the default only mage available)...

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

What I want is that if there is a generalist wizard he should have: Less spell slots (like 2 to 8), no scaling in spell effects by caster level (so a fireball in a 3rd level slot should deal 5d6 damage even if the wizard is 10th level) and no save less "I win button" spell like force cage. This plus some at-will powers would make a cool wizard for me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

First off, the premise I don't agree with. A truly great wizard should have unmatched power. If he doesn't, magic isn't very magical. Magic is not a career choice, it is a mystical energy that produces effects beyond what mortals are capable of.

And yet I didn't vote for the non-nerfing option.

I do not think that 3.X wizards/full casters are particularly well-balanced. Their lives are just way too easy. They have an enormous repotoire of spells that never fail. I would be quite happy if magic had real costs, was not always successful, and I like the casting time idea as a specific cost.

There are also a number of larger system-based issues. For example, if a fighter could disable a moderate-level wizard with one blow, that would be a great equalizer.

However, I do not think the choice or power of magical abilities should be limited. D&D wizards are defined by their versatility and are reflections of the choices they make. Necromancers and Conjurers and Evokers are cool, but there should be a full set of options both for characters as a whole and for an individual character. Also, Wish is a sine qua non, which pretty much says all I need to say about power.

Wizards should still be able to do anything. It just shouldn't be so easy.

 

[gyor]

I like what they appear to be currently planning. Nerf sos and sod spells, boost non caster classes and expand the usefulness of fighters outside combat. I love thier plans for combat manuevers so far. I picked the beholder option as I didn't like any of the above choices.

 

[mcintma]

3e Wizards are no big deal until at least 15th level IME, they have this laundry list of weaknesses which can be easily exploited. IMO 15-min workdays* explain much of the "Angel Summoner" outcry. CoDZilla I'll grant, could be a problem.

I will say this: if Wiz spells are nerfed, I fear the class will be a laggard through ALL levels instead of just low-mid. And I'm just not a fan of giving the Wiz weak spells but then balancing it by giving him fighter HP and armor-use ... that could be balanced ... but not my cup o' tea.

*often coupled with DMs giving WAY too much time/access/money to craft wands and scrolls. I do think crafting should be harder in 5e.

 

[Tallifer]

Limiting Options
The Fourth Edition limit on the number of powers you can have at each level was frustrating for the casters, but very balancing for everyone.

Limiting Power
The Fourth Edition nerfing of many formerly game-breaking spells was wonderful.

Limiting Reliability
The Fourth Edition requirement for spellcasters to roll to hit is terrific.

Costing Resources
The Fourth Edition gold costs for rituals was a brilliant idea.

Casting Time
The Fourth Edition casting times (sometimes even an hour) for Rituals was a stroke of genius.

I would add another crucial limit on spellcaster power: limited durations. No more long term buffs.