Throwing down the Tyranny of the Spellcaster.

[howandwhy99]

Change spells into non-encounter powers. Invisibility lasts until an attack is made, Charm Person lasts until a situational save is made. Significantly increase their effectiveness.

Decrease significantly spells available before further prep. 1 at a time at 1st level, 2 at 2nd, etc.

Allow almost always reliable casting. Spells are too valuable to "miss" their effect.

Results should be experiential learning for the player/caster. Full effects are never known, but casting in different situations leads to different results and further knowledge. Spells can then be judged more or less reliable by the player before casting.

Spells cost resources. Increase/change the resources, increase/change the results.

Spells are "prepped" for fast use. Spell may not prepped (or prepped spells may be spent) for long term casting like the 1 hour casting time to a prep state commonly done. 1 hour for a long term casting is an unprepared spell casting.

Make spell effects, materia, verbal, and somatics unique to each spell caster.

Make different casting systems different.

 

[Oni]

While there are certainly tweaks and such that could be made to specific spells and abilities, I don't think an overall nerfing of spellcasters is actually the best answer. Instead of trying to make spellcasters worse I think more effort should be put toward making non-spellcasters better.

For instance one thing I have pondered in the past is collapsing the fighter and rogue class together somehow. More of a well rounded adventurer, someone who is good at a whole host of skills both combat and non-combat related, in short an action hero.

So, to that end, leave my wizard alone, bro!



P.S. - I wouldn't mind more tightly thematically focused spellcasters, but for me that's not really an issue of balance so much as an aesthetic one.

 

[Stormonu]

- Let the generalist Wizard die. It should be more difficult to master multiple schools of magic, not easier.

- Spell casting should always require some sort of skill check to succeed - whether cast against a defense or a DC to succeed. Spell success should not be automatic.

- Higher level spells should be generally more difficult to get off successfully - costing more time and resources to successfully get off. Taking a minute or more for spells not designed for combat should not be uncommon. Spell duration could be tied to casting time (perhaps a 1:10 ratio - 1 round of casting for up to 10 rounds of effect; if you want a spell to last an hour, you need to spend 6 minutes casting it).

- Spell damage needs to be greatly whittled down to be little more effective than it's mundane equivalent. If a sword strike can only deal 1d8 damage, there is no sense in a spell that deals 5d6 - unless that spell is only going to be usable once every 5/6 rounds (or perhaps double that time, since it is all at once).

- Spell disruption needs to return as a hazard, though the risk should likewise carry some reward.

 

[Elf Witch]

-



- Spell damage needs to be greatly whittled down to be little more effective than it's mundane equivalent. If a sword strike can only deal 1d8 damage, there is no sense in a spell that deals 5d6 - unless that spell is only going to be usable once every 5/6 rounds (or perhaps double that time, since it is all at once).

So you whittle down magic damage to equal what mundane weapons do. How do you then balance the fact that a caster is limited on how many spells they get a day but a fighter type can swing that sword and do damage all day long?

 

[Lanefan]

An odd assortment of votes for me:

1 - Make it less reliable
(1a - Make it riskier - an option that should have been in the poll)
2 - Make it take time to cast
3 - Don't nerf it.

Yet there's a certain logic to those votes, in that if 1, 1a and 2 are applied as they already have been* in previous editions then 3 is unnecessary.

* - or close.

1 and 1a were in many ways taken care of nicely in 1e. Powerful spells often had risks involved. Any damage to the wizard while casting blew the spell. Durations were often highly random. Some spells e.g. polymorph had useful limits built in that were removed in later editions.

1 was, it seems, also somewhat taken care of in 4e where a roll to hit was required. I'd modify this to only have it apply to some spells including all with area effect e.g. sleep, fireball, lightning bolt - you want it to cover *that* area, OK, now roll to see how accurate you are. And yes, you can fumble with a spell...

2 was also taken care of in 1e and 2e. The strict turn-based system of 3e and 4e where everything you do* both starts and resolves on your initiative wrecked this.

* - yes I know there's full-round spells in those editions but they're in the minority.

And hence 3 - neither most spells nor casters need to be nerfed as such, merely made to work like they already have. In fact, in one way I'd like to see them helped out: make them all work like 3e Sorcerers and do away with pre-memorization.

More could certainly be done if desired. Interrupted spells should have the potential to go wild, producing who-knows-what effects for good or ill or both. Various 3e-like buff spells could disappear completely and I wouldn't shed many tears. Etc.

Lan-"the Fighter's best answer to a mage is a +5 Wizardslayer. You get one spell. Make it good."-efan

 

[Bluenose]

I think spellcasters were generally close to balanced in 2e and 3e,

Right. Let's compare 2e Mages and 3e Wizards.

Wizards get:

More spells, in total.
No limit to the number they can have in their spellbooks.
Guaranteed access to spells every time they level up.
An improved ability to learn new spells.
Easy access to the ability to craft magic items.
Faster xp progression at high level compared to other classes.
An increased ability to cast spells without interruption.
Increased probability that high-level enemies will not save against their spells.
Ways to make it harder for enemies to save against their spells.
Reduced drawbacks on many of the spells they cast.
Increased ability to get through spell resistance/magic resistance.

And I'm probably forgetting a few things.

Now, if you're going to claim that 2e Mages and 3e wizards are balanced, despite those increases in the power of the Wizard relative to the Mage, then you either need to show significant advantages that the Mage has, or equally significant advantages that other classes gained in the transition from 2e to 3e. Otherwise, the 'balance' that you claim is find in both editions would seem to be absent.

 

[Bluenose]

in 1E/2E, you had segmented casting time and ANY damage during those segments spent casting would disrupt the spell and ruin it.

A slight correction; any HIT during the segments you spent casting would disrupt the spell. It didn't have to actually do damage.

 

[jbear]

I voted for limited range of spells: I would prefer a smaller spell list where all options are good ones. This means making related spells into the same spell and the caster chooses which option to implement upon casting: eg. Protection is the spell. Not protection from good or evil or cats or three legged goats wearing purple stockings over their head. The wizard chooses what it wants protection from when spell is cast. Waaaay better and zing! 6 spells become 1.

I also like the idea that specialising means a limited array of spell lists. And possibly some options that a generalist is unable to master as well. Maybe it could be possible for wizards later in their career to learn a secondary school and open up more spell options.

I also voted for Limit Power: For me I'm really only talking about those spells that are just a total headache for the game ... like Wish. Something like a Wish should be the kind of thing that the DM CHOOSES to place in a game as really really special magical item which 1 character can use ... ONCE in their entire life time!!!! Not a spell you can pull off time and time again.

If spells are limited, well they should be powerful. But they shouldn't break the game. I also like Monte's idea that certain powerful spells require certain conditions before they can be cast, meaning the wizard relies on his team mates at times to soften foes up.

I would be open to having Wizards use some kind of personal resource in order to cast spells, mana whatever ... but they won't go there. Not with the wizard.

I also would like to see wizards have options to be useful in other ways during combat that don't rely on a vancian memory system. Be that with unlimited use of cantrips or a minor at will spell they can use ad infinitum or at least many more times than their more powerful spells. No cross bow wizards thanks.

 

[Charleois]

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 spellcatser power: limited durations. No more long term buffs.

I must spread experience around before I give any more points to you. But well said in any case.

 

[hanez]

- Spell damage needs to be greatly whittled down to be little more effective than it's mundane equivalent. If a sword strike can only deal 1d8 damage, there is no sense in a spell that deals 5d6 - unless that spell is only going to be usable once every 5/6 rounds (or perhaps double that time, since it is all at once).

What if the martial character say can swing that sword 3 times a round but the wizard can only cast said spell once? Does that make it closer to equivalence to the spell?

What if the wizard can cast that spell but only once or twice a day, but the martial character can keep slamming his sword, multiple times a round, all day long?

What if the wizard had the powerful spell, but had to predict what spells he needed LONG before the encounter so that occasionally the wizard would predict wrong and have a useless fireball (say in a room where you could not cast the spell for fear of combustion), but the martial classes had to make no such predictions?

Seems to me that D&D already has the framework to solve imbalance and requires tweaks and updates, not changing it into another game.