toning down spellcasters

[magic_gathering2001]

I find the core spellcasters are more powerful than non-spellcasters at all levels. I rarely see parties fight 4 encounters/day, 1-2 is more likely, and that favours casters.

Then play with someone else
if you dont like your GM find a new one
if you are the GM then its your fault in the first place

 

[Storyteller01]

Careful... Shadowdragon asked for opinions about the strength/weakness of spellcasters. Let's be civil about it. Telling someone to 'take your toys and go home' never ends well.

I tend to agree with S'mon, so I generally use the 'mob' mentality when creating an encounter (squash the 4 encounters into the usual 2). Unless I have reasons not to, I set up 2 to 3 on 1 odds with lower CR critters (safety in numbers and all...). Even goblins can work on basic strategy, even if it's 'dogpile on the guy with the wand!'. Saps spells just fine.

 

[Shadowdragon]

The biggest problem I have with sorcerers and wizards is the number and power of the spells they get. I prefer games with lots of role playing, puzzle solving, and mysteries. Those kind of adventures are impossible when the group has a wizard or sorcerer with divination spells, illusion spells, polymorph spells, etc? Even in combat, a wizard or sorcerer can use augmentation spells to turn into a tank just as good, if not better, than any fighter or barbarian, especially at higher levels. "Dog piling" with low CR critters is all well and good, except the wizard or sorcerer usually has spells that can incapacitate or kill a large group of low CR critters in one shot (unless they can somehow take the wizard or sorcerer by surprise).

The biggest problem I have with clerics and druids is the fact that it makes the characters lazy in combat (sorry, but lazy is the only word I can think of that fits). Why worry about strategy and tactics when you can just stand there and slug away, the cleric or druid healing your character whenever he or she gets low on hp. Even things like ability drain and level loss becomes trivial when the cleric or druid can just instantly repair it.

How about I make it so that no character can have more than 10 spellcaster levels total (including bard, paladin, and ranger levels where they gets spells, and prestige class levels that get spells). I could also ban certain spells (maybe even entire schools), and maybe reduce the number of spells major spellcasters get. The clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells has to go (maybe give clerics a bonus feat or two instead).

 

[Goolpsy]

My players got *Lazy* too.. but thats their problem, last time the Mage looked at the fearsome ancient dragon standing beside him, afterward at his + 24 concentration, and did something (without moving or protecting himself) he somehow died...

When the players do the "I take that dragon, u take that one" somehow, either the mage/rogue or something low on hp's die...

I've descussed this with my players.. and looking forward for improvement.. but who knows.

An invisible creature, can easily slay an unprepared SpellCaster...

Or an intelligent creature with a feat to make AoO on spellcasters, only has to take a movement action, and maaaybe, get a little damage, to incapitate the caster

 

[Storyteller01]

The biggest problem I have with sorcerers and wizards is the number and power of the spells they get. I prefer games with lots of role playing, puzzle solving, and mysteries. Those kind of adventures are impossible when the group has a wizard or sorcerer with divination spells, illusion spells, polymorph spells, etc? Even in combat, a wizard or sorcerer can use augmentation spells to turn into a tank just as good, if not better, than any fighter or barbarian, especially at higher levels. "Dog piling" with low CR critters is all well and good, except the wizard or sorcerer usually has spells that can incapacitate or kill a large group of low CR critters in one shot (unless they can somehow take the wizard or sorcerer by surprise).

The biggest problem I have with clerics and druids is the fact that it makes the characters lazy in combat (sorry, but lazy is the only word I can think of that fits). Why worry about strategy and tactics when you can just stand there and slug away, the cleric or druid healing your character whenever he or she gets low on hp. Even things like ability drain and level loss becomes trivial when the cleric or druid can just instantly repair it.

How about I make it so that no character can have more than 10 spellcaster levels total (including bard, paladin, and ranger levels where they gets spells, and prestige class levels that get spells). I could also ban certain spells (maybe even entire schools), and maybe reduce the number of spells major spellcasters get. The clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells has to go (maybe give clerics a bonus feat or two instead).

I actually solved this with an RP ruling. The powers that be (dragons) don't like the gods, or their followers. Clerics had to be a bit more subtle to survive.

 

[Bront]

Personaly, I've never felt spellcasters are overpowered, but then we usually tend to play in games with higher power levels. Magic items tend to be more powerful, stats tend to be higher, and it seems to balance out fairly. Not nessessarily the best solution, but it works.

Also, it depends on how much people use spells beyond their worth. I never heard of anyone using Alter Self to gain natural armor before, and personaly think it's an odd idea, that is not congruous to many characters. Are you realy going to play a character who prefers to walk around as a Troglodite? Seems strange to me.

I enjoy the clever use of spells to bypass challenges, and keep that in mind. I've seen simple L0 spells be used extremely effectively, as well as people who curse taking spells that are generaly considered to be more useful by most. It all depends on the thought you take when taking a spell, and what you intend to use it for.

 

[HellHound]

Then play with someone else
if you dont like your GM find a new one
if you are the GM then its your fault in the first place

Wow, tone it down, please.

I agree, that if you run a campaign with less encounters per day,t he spellcasters have to be toned down.

I happen to prefer such campaigns - especially urban campaigns - where combat is less frequent. And the spellcasters certainly start to steal the show in such a campaign.

 

[S'mon]

Then play with someone else
if you dont like your GM find a new one
if you are the GM then its your fault in the first place

So I'm the GM - so if my PCs fight 2 fights then camp, I am obliged to hit them with 2 more battles? Every single frigging time? That's stupid. I like a gameworld that's moderately plausible, not a monster conveyor belt.

 

[DonTadow]

I can't see the argument that spell casters are overpowered as it seems balanced to me. My major beef has always been the spell system. HOwever, the Elements of Magic system seems to fix both of our gripes. In the system magic is more flexabile but far less powerful. I"ve bene on the system for 2 months.

 

[magic_gathering2001]

sorry if i insulted you

but...

if you are GM though then you might want to have more encounters or play a low/no magic

camaign

also try ambushiing the characters while they camp or during "downtime"