toning down spellcasters

[Mallus]

Some suggestions...

1) Remove the spells that bother you. And/or change their level. Or just make the choice ones diffcult to find (and don't allow your players to automatically gain them for levelling. I've always felt the real problem is in the spell lists. In the way magic can solve every problem (or create problems only more magic can solve), and in the way any single mage can effectively render other classes uneccessary.

Look over Monte Cooks Arcana Evolved. His casters are more flexible, their players have far more options, and its better balanced. He jiggers the mechanics to provide the flexiblibilty and changes the spell lists to keep the power/challenge level in check.

2) Remember that PC's like to be good at something. Don't require punishing skill checks just to get a spell off. Or limit them to a handful of spells per day. Players need chances to act. Just limit their spells effects so that they don't automatically beat any obstacle.

3) If you get the spell lists down to a managable power level, try giving your caster more spell per level. Remember, chances to act meaningfully in a given encounter = fun.

I never though the scarcity paradigm worked to balance caster power.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Use a different system. Seriously.

Or get used to the idea of powerful spellcasters and be able to deal with it.

Read spell descriptions and abide by them--if you've never been there or seen it (which requires that you know someone inside the target area), you can't teleport there.

Require that the wizard keeps track of his material components and focii. Make sure he gets eight uninterrupted hours of sleep every night, or he doesn't regain spells that night. Try the Nightmare spell on for size if the party has a nasty Sor/Wiz enemy.

As for puzzles and mysteries, the same thing applies--read those spell descriptions and force the PCs to USE their magic to succeed instead of negating it.

In a modern game, would you punish PCs for trying to use fingerprints or DNA to catch someone? No? Well, why try and get around magic that does similar things (albeit faster and more correctly)?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Some suggestions...

1) Remove the spells that bother you. And/or change their level. Or just make the choice ones diffcult to find (and don't allow your players to automatically gain them for levelling. I've always felt the real problem is in the spell lists. In the way magic can solve every problem (or create problems only more magic can solve), and in the way any single mage can effectively render other classes uneccessary.

Look over Monte Cooks Arcana Evolved. His casters are more flexible, their players have far more options, and its better balanced. He jiggers the mechanics to provide the flexiblibilty and changes the spell lists to keep the power/challenge level in check.

2) Remember that PC's like to be good at something. Don't require punishing skill checks just to get a spell off. Or limit them to a handful of spells per day. Players need chances to act. Just limit their spells effects so that they don't automatically beat any obstacle.

3) If you get the spell lists down to a managable power level, try giving your caster more spell per level. Remember, chances to act meaningfully in a given encounter = fun.

I never though the scarcity paradigm worked to balance caster power.

Amen, brotha!

This is exactly what I see as the right approach. Don't attack the casters; attack the spell lists. I use this approach IMC: the sorcerer and wizard are gone forever to be replaced with the "mage" (the Arcana Evolved magister) and the "cleric" and "druid" are modified AE greenbonds. I do use several core D&D spells that Monte removed, but generally, the most abusive culprits are either removed entirely or replaced with their AE counterparts. I've found that under this system, the casters feel that they have more flexibility and are able to do more in a given day of game time, but have less power to instantly circumvent obstacles, end difficult encounters, and obviate the role of skills- and combat-based PCs.

Note, however, that an AE paradigm doesn't give you a lower-magic feel; magic is just as present in this universe as in the core D&D universe. For that, you need a REALLY different system like the one in Grim Tales (or the one in Midnight).

 

[Hawken]

Does anyone have any house rules for toning down the major spellcaster classes (druid, clerid, sorcerer, and wizard)?

Limit the number of prepared spells they can have. Make them choose around 8-12 spells (maybe less at lower levels). That's all they can prepare at a time. Any other spell they want to cast takes 2 rounds to do so. Do that for all caster classes, even Sorcerer, and see what kind of difference that makes. The caster will be careful with their selection of spells and the group will have to protect them when they want to cast a non-prepared spell.

This keeps you from having to pick on the casters (Nightmare spells, interrupted rest, etc.). Fighters don't have to get a straight 8 hours to fight, rogues don't have to get a straight 8 hours to pick locks, disarm traps and backstab someone. There's no reason a wizard should have to suffer that limitation either. This puts a decent limit on them without reducing their power or effectiveness. Fighters can only use a number of weapons and feats at a given time. Rogues get scads of skill points, but can only use a few at a time. Give the spellcasters a limit to the number of spells they can cast (in a single round) at a time.

Specifically targeting a character because of their class is unfair also. The DM should learn how to balance his game without crippling a class. High level casters have mucho power because they're really less likely to become high level, so they should get the rewards. In a battle, healers are the first to go because they can't heal anyone else if they are dead or dying. Wizard types are also primary targets since they are even more vulnerable and physically weaker. So if characters can survive twelve or more levels of being the one with the lowest life expectancy, they've earned the big spells!

 

[Timeron Malachi]

If you want a decent low-magic type game, just do this:

No casters except bards and warlocks.

 

[Erekose]

I don't have a problem with spellcasters in terms of balance but I do not like the way their higher level spells change the tone of the game.

I don't use bards but I do use their spell progression for arcane casters (and a version of it for divine casters).

This tones down the uber spells a spellcaster can get at higher levels (i.e. level 6 spells are the maximum).

You do have to balance the lack of spells with other abilities for the resulting classes to be balanced with the other classes.

 

[radferth]

Remember D&D is best though of as players vs. monsters (a team sport), not player vs. player to see who can cause the most damage (a tournament). I do like to keep the spellcasters from always throwing around uber-damage spells, but I do that by keeping the character levels low. I have heard of folks limiting casters to only 1/2 or 2/3 levels can be in a full spell-casting class, and they all seem pretty happy with it. As a rule of thumb, decide how you want your campaign to work, and adjust the rules or other elements accordingly.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

If divinations are a real bother then require a skill roll to figure out what they heck they are revealing to the caster or let PCs/NPCs/Monsters save against divinations. Seems to me if someone doesn't want you to know they are evil they should have some defense against this sort of magic just like folks get save against be enchanted or zapped.


if there are too many zap spells dishing out too much damage for your taste, change them.
Maybe just a die per spell level + caster level in points (so fireball does 3d6+5 for a 5th level caster and 3d6+20 for a 20th level caster) . This will cause a serious shift in balance of power but will also certainly tone down the spell casters.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

... not a monster conveyor belt.

You got to admit, the assembly line world does have a certain charm.

"No we can't rest yet, the 4th encounter will catch us in bed."

 

[Cheiromancer]

With that formula of 13.333 moderate (25% of resources) encounters providing enough experience to level up, and the recommended 4 moderate encounters between rests, the average party should rest only 3 or 4 times per level.

So impose that as a rule. Let a spellcaster prepare spells only 4 times before leveling up. Every time they prepare spells after that imposes 1 negative level, which remains until they level up.

That should make casters hoard their spells and use them wisely, which means they won't overshadow the other characters.

Are there any obvious problems with this rule? According to the way the game is designed, it is what they should be doing anyway.