Throwing down the Tyranny of the Spellcaster.

[Elf Witch]

I chose the limitation on spell selection, reliability, and resource cost.

Selection: choosing which spells to prepare for an adventure should be an important decision. This important part of magical balance should not be rendered meaningless through the availability of cheap,and plentiful wands and scrolls of whatever spell is desired. Choosing to prepare the knock spell or not becomes a no-brainer if you can just pick up an easy wand loaded with 50 of them.

Reliability: casting magic in combat should be somewhat risky. This important balance factor was trivialized in 3E and thus caster dominance began to grow.

Likewise, not all magical effects need to work flawlessly. Teleport should be very risky if traveling to a location that has not been visited personally.

Resource Cost: the old maxim of the easily obtainable being held in contempt applies here. Magic should always have a cost, however small.
Truly unlimited at-will magic, should be reserved for deities and other beings of such power. Anything that can be done literally all day long without cost or effort will quickly become mundane.

In my own B/X expansion material, magic users have access to lesser powers and cantrip style magic. The mage has 1 power point per point of intelligence to spend per day on these powers. The powers have a variable cost (1 to 4 or so) depending on what they do.

The magic user can thus, do magical things beyond the 1 spell per day to start but no magical power however slight, is truly unlimited.

I agree with some of this for example the issue with scrolls, wands being way to easy to make.

I always liked how 3.0 did scry not only did you have to have the spell and focus but you had to have skill ranks in it which controlled how well you did. This was a nice way to handle it being abused. If someone wants to pour ranks in then it should be easy for them to but by pouring ranks into it they are having to take them from somewhere else.

I think teleport without error should just be done away with. There should always be a chance of ending up somewhere else.

I don't want to go back to Ad&D where any damage you take means you lose a spell. Personally I have found that 3E way works fairly well. If you get hit it is not a given that you are going to be able to roll high enough to not lose the spell.

 

[jshaft37]

Maybe magic users, divine characters, druids, etc should be on a different XP system/scale than martial characters? (I will use the wizard from this point on, but a similar point can be made with the cleric, druid, artificer, etc)

As noted, Wizards become more powerful via study, so when they are undertaking these adventures, they are actually taking time away from their studies.

While a fighter would likely improve his skill with each victory in battle. They should learn faster than wizards, but have diminishing returns as their level increases.

If the wizard remains "quadratic", it should take years and years to increase just a few levels, longer than most campaign arcs.

So if I'm playing a campaign with "green characters (level 1)" that lasts 2 years of game time, the fighter would be level 10 at the end, but the wizard may be only level 2.

I say this realizing that totally sucks for the wizard character. That is why I'd probably just prefer balance across all classes, as it makes the game fun to play for everyone.

 

[hanez]

None of the above.

I think spellcasters were generally close to balanced in 2e and 3e, with some exceptions that could be fixed. I think the over reaction to caster/martial balancce as seen in 4th is a reason as to why it turned my group off, made it feel like NOT D&D, and helped make Pathfinder successful.

I think some spells and abilities for the 3e Druid, Cleric and Wizard needed to be modified and refined. But I also think there was a lot of work needed to make martial classes more powerful and items for martial classes more interesting/powerful. I like the fighters powers in 4e as an optional fighter build for those who want martial classes with options too, I also thought tome of battle and Iron heroes had great ideas to pump up martial characters.

I also think D&D needs to explicitly tell DMs (again) that the rules can't coddle them, no game of this type will ever be perfectly balanced. It is the DMs (and the players) job to work to find solutions to make sure everyone is having fun and feels that they are contributing to the game.

 

[jshaft37]

[MENTION=82160]hanez[/MENTION]

It's completely realistic, a wizard improves their power by studying new materials and seeks out novel knowledge. However, if they spend all their time in combats, dungeons, the tavern, etc, they are limiting their learning capabilities. Therefore, from that perspective, an adventuring wizard would fall behind a wizard that stays in the conclave and studies.

On the other hand, the fighter is going to get stronger and better at their craft by adventuring through dungeons and fighting creatures. Certainly, it only takes a professional athelete (which I can and will equate to a human fighter) a few years to get into peak shape, which they can typically hold between age 20-30. Therefore it makes sense that they would level much quicker than a wizard, how would be more powerful at 60 years old than 20.

Also, that's hilarious that you call a fantasy game "unrealistic". My final statement even says that the idea sucks, and therefore classes should just be balance and be done with it.

 

[hanez]

@hanez

It's completely realistic, a wizard improves their power by studying new materials and seeks out novel knowledge. However, if they spend all their time in combats, dungeons, the tavern, etc, they are limiting their learning capabilities. Therefore, from that perspective, an adventuring wizard would fall behind a wizard that stays in the conclave and studies.

On the other hand, the fighter is going to get stronger and better at their craft by adventuring through dungeons and fighting creatures. Certainly, it only takes a professional athelete (which I can and will equate to a human fighter) a few years to get into peak shape, which they can typically hold between age 20-30. Therefore it makes sense that they would level much quicker than a wizard, how would be more powerful at 60 years old than 20.

Also, that's hilarious that you call a fantasy game "unrealistic". My final statement even says that the idea sucks, and therefore classes should just be balance and be done with it.

I was commenting on your comparison of the Level 10 fighter equivalent to a level 2 wizard as if they would somehow be equal in power or that your proposed solution would be more balanced then the current situation. In prior editions, a level 2 fighter ALREADY blows a level 2 wizard out of the water while a level 10 fighter would be light years ahead of the level 2 wizard in usefulness to the group.

Whats unrealistic is the relative balance of the classes in your example. I agree that the classes should "just be balanced" on the same levels and think that that is already mostly the case and any fixes that need to happen are minor. The problem certainly isn't as big as an 8 level discrepancy

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't want to go back to Ad&D where any damage you take means you lose a spell. Personally I have found that 3E way works fairly well. If you get hit it is not a given that you are going to be able to roll high enough to not lose the spell.

The problem with the 3E system is that its far too easy to avoid the attack altogether due to the 5' step back and cast without worry on the caster's turn.

I wouldn't mind a concentration check type of mechanic but a spellcaster subject to melee opponents should need to make one whenever casting in those circumstances IMHO.

 

[Elf Witch]

The problem with the 3E system is that its far too easy to avoid the attack altogether due to the 5' step back and cast without worry on the caster's turn.

I wouldn't mind a concentration check type of mechanic but a spellcaster subject to melee opponents should need to make one whenever casting in those circumstances IMHO.

I hate that 5 foot step and if I can I house rule it away.

 

[Andor]

[MENTION=82160]hanez[/MENTION]

It's completely realistic, a wizard improves their power by studying new materials and seeks out novel knowledge. However, if they spend all their time in combats, dungeons, the tavern, etc, they are limiting their learning capabilities. Therefore, from that perspective, an adventuring wizard would fall behind a wizard that stays in the conclave and studies.

We have that game, it's called Ars Magica. WotC even published it for a while, although Atlas games has it now.

 

[NewJeffCT]

The problem with the 3E system is that its far too easy to avoid the attack altogether due to the 5' step back and cast without worry on the caster's turn.

I wouldn't mind a concentration check type of mechanic but a spellcaster subject to melee opponents should need to make one whenever casting in those circumstances IMHO.

good point - it's easy to avoid the Attack of Opportunity, unless the caster is flanked or surrounded.

However, most 3E/3.5E casters have points in Concentration and it is very difficult to disrupt a spell unless you're holding your action to try and interrupt the spell with a damaging attack. And, even then, you have to get over the caster's concentration score. If you hold your attacks to focus on the caster, you open yourself up to attacks from the others in the group (fighters, rogues, rangers, etc)

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

I think there should be something in between those two extremes.

 

[Lwaxy]

We use mana points, works like a charm and gives the casters a lot more spell option without being overpowered. I'd not do it any other way anymore.