Throwing down the Tyranny of the Spellcaster.

[Gryph]

I don't mind limiting spell selection by number of spells. I don't think a high-level character needs dozens or hundreds of options, he just needs better spells.

I don't think it's appropriate to limit spell selection thematically. I don't think a necromancer should be limited to only necromancy spells, simply because that isn't how it has worked in D&D.

I agree, how you limit spell selection should be largely a matter of player choice and dm collaboration. If a player wants to play a necromancer who only takes necromantic spells; well, more power to him for stick to a concept. On the other hand, if he wants to raise skeletons then teleport them somewhere, I'm good with that too. I simply don't believe any wizard should be able to have every known spell available to him.

 

[Iron Sky]

Maybe you can combine all of the OPs options (except limiting power). I propose the following:

Each spell is cast at a various casting level, determined at the time of casting. For example, I can choose to cast my Fireball at casting level 5 or level 10.

Each spell has a spell level. This is not the required level to learn it - though it might affect the difficulty in learning it - but the minimum casting level/amount of power required to make it manifest at all. For example, Fireball has a spell level of 5.

Casting a spell by default takes 1 action and a DC 5 "magic skill" check.

That 5 spell power may be paid with the following resources:

• Time - each round/action spent casting the spell provides 1 power. A 4e AP might provide 1 power.
• Components - each (rare) component expended provides 1 power.
• Mana - some classes might get a "mana" pool that they can expend as needed when casting, each providing 1 power. Alternately, they might get a "x free mana" when casting wizard/conjuration/fire/whatever spells.
• Charges - each charge of a staff/wand/whatever expended provides 1 power.
• Hit points/surges - each healing surge/dX hp expended provides 1 power.
• Casting difficulty - each X increase in difficulty in casting the spell provides 1 power.

For example, when casting Fireball at caster level 5, a low level character might expend a component and spend 4 actions channeling it. A high level character might just raise his casting difficulty by 6 for 2 charges, expend a charge from his staff, and burn a mana to cast it in 1 action.

 

[fuindordm]

I don't think it's appropriate to limit spell selection thematically. I don't think a necromancer should be limited to only necromancy spells, simply because that isn't how it has worked in D&D.

I agree with this, but since I mentioned limiting by theme I thought I should clarify.

A class needs to be broad enough that the character can fill more than one function. The model for a specialist arcane caster should be some general spells + strongly thematic spells, much like the 3E model for a cleric.

The pathfinder Witch is a good example of a thematic class. They have a broad spell list, and their spells can do lots of things, but they all feel very "witchy".

A necromancer who only uses necromancy school spells is a bad example (at least for PCs), since that school/theme doesn't cover enough bases to play a strong role in the party.

Moreover, I still think there's space in the game for a scholarly wizard who, given time, can add nearly any spell in the game to his list. But there should be a serious trade-off for that flexibility, such as lacking the kewl powers of more thematic classes.

 

[Elf Witch]

I agree, how you limit spell selection should be largely a matter of player choice and dm collaboration. If a player wants to play a necromancer who only takes necromantic spells; well, more power to him for stick to a concept. On the other hand, if he wants to raise skeletons then teleport them somewhere, I'm good with that too. I simply don't believe any wizard should be able to have every known spell available to him.

I disagree with this. One of the reasons to play a wizard over a sorcerer is having the ability to know a lot more spells.

I have no issue with a wizard knowing every spell he still has to choose which ones to memorize.

And you realize that this is totally in control of the DM if you don't want wizards knowing every spell don't give them access to scrolls and other wizards spellbooks that have a lot of different spells. Then the wizard is limited to what he gets when he levels.

 

[Gryph]

I disagree with this. One of the reasons to play a wizard over a sorcerer is having the ability to know a lot more spells.

I have no issue with a wizard knowing every spell he still has to choose which ones to memorize.

And you realize that this is totally in control of the DM if you don't want wizards knowing every spell don't give them access to scrolls and other wizards spellbooks that have a lot of different spells. Then the wizard is limited to what he gets when he levels.

Well, there is a seam available between knowing a small number per level like the 3.x sorceror and 30+ spells per level like the 3.x wizard.

Expanding the number of spells knowable is equally within the DMs control. When it comes to managing the table conversation with my players, I would rather be in the position of making house rules that my players will see as generous, than house rules they will see as restrictive.

So my preference is completely selfish.

I also voted for limited the power of spells and of the two I think it's the more effective option. If lower level spells do not scale up with caster level or only scale up if you use a higher level spell slot when you memorize them, than I think a big portion of the high level caster problem disappears.

I would like to note that I have always felt that sucking at low levels was a terrible way to balance high level caster power.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Well, there is a seam available between knowing a small number per level like the 3.x sorceror and 30+ spells per level like the 3.x wizard.

Well, see, that's YMMV territory again. According to the base game system for 3e, the number of spells a wizard knows per level is 4. Every time they make level, they learn two spells. Maybe three for specialists, I don't remember this second.

So if a wizard character knows thirty spells at a given level, he's paid for those spells with some of his treasure. Instead of buying a higher AC, stats, or such. That's where the balance is supposed to be.

If you've played in games where the wizard has a spellbook with a hundred high-level spells, maybe you should find out if the wizard was paying for them or just being given them free by the DM.

Restricting known spells isn't nearly as critical as restricting unbalanced or game-breaking spells.

 

[Andor]

My preference is to split magic up into a few general approaches.

Battle magic is the quick and dirty stuff you can do in combat time. It's fast, reliable, convinient, and really not that impressive. It should do a bit less damage than a fighter, not have quite the range of a long bow, and it should not stack effects. A spell that trips does not also do damage. This is javalin of fire or ice dart stuff. Grease, maybe, but only single target.

High magic is the good stuff. Polymorphs, charms, knock, tounges, summoning, necromancy, healing, communications. This takes time. At least a minute. It might be possible to pull it off on the battle field but you will need a dedicated squad to keep bad guys off the wizard.

Enchantment is making stuff. Potions, scolls, staves. Enchanted henchmen and familiars.

Imbuing is a middle ground. This is a pseudo-vancian way to put a high-magic spell into a staff or 'hang' it for easy casting like in the Amber novels. This let's you do something really impressive a limited number of times a day.

Which effects go into which pool, and who has access to which style of casting is how you divide up the various magic using classes.

 

[Gryph]

Well, see, that's YMMV territory again. According to the base game system for 3e, the number of spells a wizard knows per level is 4. Every time they make level, they learn two spells. Maybe three for specialists, I don't remember this second.

So if a wizard character knows thirty spells at a given level, he's paid for those spells with some of his treasure. Instead of buying a higher AC, stats, or such. That's where the balance is supposed to be.

If you've played in games where the wizard has a spellbook with a hundred high-level spells, maybe you should find out if the wizard was paying for them or just being given them free by the DM.

Restricting known spells isn't nearly as critical as restricting unbalanced or game-breaking spells.

An interesting point. It has been so long since I played 3.5 last that I don't remember what the expected cost was for say a 7th level spell or for that matter what the wealth per level guidlines were for a 15th level character.

What percentage of expected treasure would the acquisition of a 7th level spell be for a character who just gained access to them (assuming single class wizard)?

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, there is a seam available between knowing a small number per level like the 3.x sorceror and 30+ spells per level like the 3.x wizard.

Expanding the number of spells knowable is equally within the DMs control. When it comes to managing the table conversation with my players, I would rather be in the position of making house rules that my players will see as generous, than house rules they will see as restrictive.

So my preference is completely selfish.

I also voted for limited the power of spells and of the two I think it's the more effective option. If lower level spells do not scale up with caster level or only scale up if you use a higher level spell slot when you memorize them, than I think a big portion of the high level caster problem disappears.

I would like to note that I have always felt that sucking at low levels was a terrible way to balance high level caster power.

I never in all the years I have been playing seen a wizard with 30+ spells a level. To get that many they would have had to be finding dozens of scrolls with new spells and have access to other wizard spellbooks. Not to mention making the all the spellcraft rolls to transfer them into their spellbook. Not to mention have the gold to buy all the special ink and spellbooks to hold that many spells plus the downtime it would take to scribe that many spells into your spellbooks.


It is not a house rule at all it is managing treasure and what your players find. It is managing how much downtime you give them. If you limit how much downtime a party has you control just how many scrolls and magic items a wizard can make.

I play a wizard in the adventure path Age of Worms and we have been on the go since day 1 with only a few breaks here and there so while I have copied some spells and made one or two magic items and we are 12 level. I am not angry about it. I don't expect the bad guys to sit around for weeks and months on end to wait while I make magic items or transcribe spells into my book.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Well, I went and looked it up.

If you run the game the way Elf Witch and I clearly do, and wizards have to get their new spells from scrolls, then the cost is quadratic - (25gp x spell level x caster level) which, while small, is non-trivial at high levels. A single fifth level spell costs over 1000 gp.

The actual scribing cost is linear, though - 100 gp/spell level, and for some reason, the RAW has the cost of spell books and borrowing spell books as linear as well - 50 gp/spell level. So it's possible that some people's games make it easy for players to get their hands on other wizard's books without a sizeable expenditure.

But that's a DM control issue, again.