The magic system is broken.

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
I could go on about the overly accessible spell list (cleric), or the fact that the casting classes are getting all the cool features (druid), or the Single ability score dependency (wizard), but really I think my biggest complaint is the fact that nothing boosts saves unless you're a pally and even then it's only replacing which ability mod you can use.

A mage adds Ability mod + spell casting power to DCs.

A target of a spell adds an ability mod to their saving throw. 

The primary casters rack up a +5 spell casting power bonus, and only have to boost 1 stat while the targets have choose 2 out of 6 stats to boost.

A warrior has to beat AC which uses a similar system vs their weapons, but AC is always determined by dex, and has multiple methods by which it can be boosted.

So yeah, this has gotta get fixed.
 
Are you suggesting characters get a scaling saving throw bonus? Or, should spells be against one particular defense? I could live with either one. Magic ain't really my cup of tea, anyway.

EDIT: Or how about spells target one of two defenses? So, a saving throw could be either Strength or Constitution. Dexterity or Intelligence. Wisdom or Charisma. Sort of a hybrid between 3e and 4e. 
I could live with them just removing the spellcasting bonus and letting int/wis/cha be the sole additive.
My two copper.
Prefer something other than the primary attribute if possible.

Spread the MAD to casters.

-Brad

What would you feel about concentration rules being more integral to spellcasting? As it right now, only the most intrusive actions can break concentration- a giant wave crashing over you, being grabbed by a giant squid (as specified in the packet). What if a caster had to make a concentration check when they cast a spell, at the start of their next turn or when they are attacked?
Switching around what stats can be used to defend against magic simply doesn't help much, because they're still five behind at higher levels and that's a 25% skew towards the mages. 

This gets even more problematic when you consider monsters have abilities based on setting a DC and while they don't get a scaling bonus they don't have capped stats either.  This is why you don't want to be running disparate systems for your attacks.

ANyway if you're going to insist on being overly complex for the sake of over complication and have 3e style saves and DCs you need 3e style save bonuses because what we have here is just flat broke.

Changing the casting stats, or the concentration rules don't matter either, the casting stat will always be the most important stat, and making spells easier to disrupt doesn't actually balance them in the core game there will always be a way to get the spell off and making getitng the blasted thing to work an even bigger gamble doesn't help it just makes everything more swingy and caster centric as it becomes all about getting off that all important disintigrate or reverse gravity.

There has to be a built in way for characters to make saving throws, besides just rolling 20s.

 
I agree with Jenks. Get rid of the magic attack bonus and the problem disappears. Why solve the problem by making the game more complicated when you can solve it by making the game simpler?
That would work. The important thing is that the spell offense needs to stop scaling faster than spell defense.
I agree with Jenks. Get rid of the magic attack bonus and the problem disappears. Why solve the problem by making the game more complicated when you can solve it by making the game simpler?



This.
Completely missing the point of "bounded accuracy." The idea is that everyone has similar defenses (ACs and saves) that don't get much higher as you level up. However, your accuracy (+attack and +spell) does slightly improve. The idea is you get better at landing your hits, no matter with what or against whom. If you land hits at a 60% rate at level 1, that will jump up to ~80% by level 20 against the same AC. As your character gets stronger, you will notice he actually gets better rather than merely keeps up with higher level enemies.
Completely missing the point of "bounded accuracy." The idea is that everyone has similar defenses (ACs and saves) that don't get much higher as you level up. However, your accuracy (+attack and +spell) does slightly improve. The idea is you get better at landing your hits, no matter with what or against whom. If you land hits at a 60% rate at level 1, that will jump up to ~80% by level 20 against the same AC. As your character gets stronger, you will notice he actually gets better rather than merely keeps up with higher level enemies.



This.

Given the design goals of 5E the aggregate of all past PHB classes should be present in the 5E PHB: Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Monk, Fighter, Warlord, Paladin, Cleric/Priest, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard/Mage/Illusionist, Bard, and Druid. Add in one or two Gish/variants and call it perfect.

Prefer something other than the primary attribute if possible. Spread the MAD to casters.



ooh you mean have these studious invalids shoot their cantrip guns with dex.
Bounded accuracy is one thing, the spell DCs are another. 

I mean Look at this, A high AC target is in the 18-22 range and an attacker will be lucky to have a a +10 on the attack roll so on average he has to roll 8-12 to hit.

A Spell caster can Rack up a 20 DC while the humanoid targets can never have more than a +5 on the save, and that's assuming he got lucky and the save is using one of his good stats.

So he has to roll 15 or better to avoid being hit, and spells as a general rule are nastier than weapon attacks right now.

So the only way this wouldn't be an issue would be if you stripped out allt eh stuff that boosts AC, armor, shields, class abilities.

OF course then the offensive skew is so huge that there's no point in playing defensively at all. 
Completely missing the point of "bounded accuracy." The idea is that everyone has similar defenses (ACs and saves) that don't get much higher as you level up. However, your accuracy (+attack and +spell) does slightly improve. The idea is you get better at landing your hits, no matter with what or against whom. If you land hits at a 60% rate at level 1, that will jump up to ~80% by level 20 against the same AC. As your character gets stronger, you will notice he actually gets better rather than merely keeps up with higher level enemies.


    Now as a technical point, this is not bounded accuracy at all.  It is bounded defense.  Attack is merely limited.  Defense is pretty much a dead stop.
     More important, it creates a "sweet spot" in the game [or, from our concern, "sour spots" as well].  The will be less fun at certain levels.  The usual claimed pattern is poor at low level, then good, followed by the game becoming broken.  Now I hardly want to say if 60% to hit or 80% will attract the players, but doing both will either lose players right away or have them drift away later.  [This is one of the few real benefits of a genuine bounded accuracy.  You can park the game right on the sweet spot.  Of course, if the developers were skilled enough to do that, they would also think it was too risky to try.]  Either way the game loses.
    Keeping defense stable while increasing attack also causes balance poblems.  The encounters will be over "too fast" and with too many PC victories of too decisive a nature.  Games get dull from too many wins as well as too few.  So we have to make the monster tougher some other way and we are back on the treadmill and the player is not really getting better.
    We also have to remember that the player feeling he is getting better is more important than his actually getting better.  That means that "Oboy, I'm +1 to hit" [while the monster is getting +1 to AC] works better than "In 2 or 3 levels, I will be +1 to hit" [even tho the monster doesn't get that +1 to AC].  The treadmill is going to be much better for the game. 
Maybe fill up some of those dead levels with saing throw defenses that vary from class to class.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I agree with Jenks. Get rid of the magic attack bonus and the problem disappears. Why solve the problem by making the game more complicated when you can solve it by making the game simpler?


I would rather they remove the ability bonus rather than the bonus based on levels.
The base bonus provides a sense of progress that adding your ability bonus doesn't. A 20th level wizard's spells should be harder to resist than a 1st level wizard. Even though they can both have 20 intelligence.

The fighter adds his ability bonus AND his level based bonus, but his target adds his dexterity AND armor AND shield
The wizard's target gets to add (or substract) one ability score, but not much else. It would seem logical than a touch target would have the upper hand against a beginner wizard, but the experienced wizard gets to even things out.

Give bonus spells per day based on the ability score instead 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Maybe fill up some of those dead levels with saing throw defenses that vary from class to class.


Classes should be allowed a (say....+2) bonus to saves in the abilities which they could boost at character creation (str, dex and con for the fighter for example)
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Most spells do damage, 1/2 if you save. Remember, you HP increases with level. A more powerful Wizard should have a better chance of success, and your character can better resist through increased HP. Some spells don't effect opponents with "more than X" HP.
Don't forget to look at both sides of an equation.

In a true bounded system (by the very concepts WotC itself has tried to define it) no numbers should automatically increase with leveling. Either you invest in something or it doesn't get raised.

The first problem is that this is by concept opposed to the idea of using classes and levels, since the usage of both already tells you your character is evolving in a certain direction.

The second is that they didn't really make a bounded accuracy system, but only recuded most of the numerical progression by level (which is OK. and for a class-based system is probably better than a true bounded system).

Now, the real problem here (with magic and saves) is that for some reason developers decided that Saves alone would be real bounded, they wouldn't evolve at all with leveling. While for everything else this isn't the case.

I've been saying all along that saves ought to have some progression with leveling, even if reduced to fit 5ed standards, like the did with Base Attack.
... How does 1/2 damage on  save make magic less broken? If anythign that's even more problematic because for weapons it's all or nothing in addition to the weapon users facing a higher defense. As for the HP thing, yes certain save or suck nonsense doesn't trigger until your HP is already low, but stuff like fireball, or meteor swarm don't care. Further more if your HP is low Power word Kill and other HP based spells don't even offer a save.

It's pretty obvious that there's no real defense against magic users, beyond having huge stats. 
I don't really care what the one true definition of bounded accuracy is - if at high levels you can only save on a 20 unless you dump very limited resources into a stat, it's broken.
I could live with them just removing the spellcasting bonus and letting int/wis/cha be the sole additive.



I agree here too.


In addition, some of the more nasty creatures like Devils, Demons, Dragons, probably need to have some sort of boost to saves or advantage vs. spells.   In our last session (10th level adventure), the wizard turned an Ice Devil into a chicken before the Ice Devil even had a chance to do anything.  Then later in the adventure, the wizard turned a Bone Devil into a sheep.   It was really funny, and it made both encounters much easier, but obviously broken.


  

A Brave Knight of WTF

... How does 1/2 damage on  save make magic less broken? If anythign that's even more problematic because for weapons it's all or nothing in addition to the weapon users facing a higher defense. As for the HP thing, yes certain save or suck nonsense doesn't trigger until your HP is already low, but stuff like fireball, or meteor swarm don't care. Further more if your HP is low Power word Kill and other HP based spells don't even offer a save.

It's pretty obvious that there's no real defense against magic users, beyond having huge stats. 



How many sword-swing slots does your warrior get per day?

Given the design goals of 5E the aggregate of all past PHB classes should be present in the 5E PHB: Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Monk, Fighter, Warlord, Paladin, Cleric/Priest, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard/Mage/Illusionist, Bard, and Druid. Add in one or two Gish/variants and call it perfect.

How many sword-swing slots does your warrior get per day?

Comparing at-wills to dailies is problematic, but so is determining how many encounters per day. A fighter has exactly one option of sword swinging (or not), while casters gets the choice of offensive, defensive, and utility.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
How many sword-swing slots does your warrior get per day?

Comparing at-wills to dailies is problematic, but so is determining how many encounters per day. A fighter has exactly one option of sword swinging (or not), while casters gets the choice of offensive, defensive, and utility.



Cloth wearing casters prepare defensive (and utility) spells at the cost of slots that could go toward their offensive capabilities further underscoring the high value of the melee classes unlimited use of their attack powers.

Melee classes also have unlimited use of their defenses (armor). It does not simply dissipate at the end of a short, fixed period of time (a number of rounds).

Utility spells (as previously noted) count against the casters offensive capacity, but do not relate, in any other way,  to the argument being advanced in this thread, that casters as written are more powerful in combat than melee.

Given the design goals of 5E the aggregate of all past PHB classes should be present in the 5E PHB: Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Monk, Fighter, Warlord, Paladin, Cleric/Priest, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard/Mage/Illusionist, Bard, and Druid. Add in one or two Gish/variants and call it perfect.

That reasoning wouldn't fly in 3e, one of the most caster centric editions in the game and even then the saves improved.

The simple fact is that making it a daily doesn't justify making it that much more uber. 
Part of what I hope is 11-20 is a new set of "feats".


between 1-10 you get 4 feats,


what if between 11-20 you got 3 or 4 more. Just for arguement lets say at 12,15, and 18 everyone got an epic feat (Needs a better name).


give these 'epic feats' ways to add numbers like old feats use to be. +1 str and Con saves...+1 Int and Dex saves... +1 wis and cha saves. all of those would be great        

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So yeah, this has gotta get fixed.
 


We been sayin' this for YEARS.  And sadly, no one has ever come up with a working solution.
so you guys do realize that the only monster swinging a dc 20 save is like asmodeous (there may be others but he is the only one I can think of off the top of my head).

even the similarly leveled pit fiend is throwing dc 18 for spell saves.  Note these are to be the hardest encounters in the book...sooo they actually get to hit you on the regular. 

other than these types of monsters most are hitting you with dc 15 at best, I'd say DC 13 on average for most monsters.  Not counting the outliers like asmodeous and pit fiends.

maybe someone could go through the beastiary and actually record all the different DCs and what level monster they are coming out of and how frequent.  I'd do it but from my even quick looking I think it is looking fine.  However if you feel there is a problem maybe you could break down actual concrete numbers on who is sending out saves how often and for how much damage.

I do feel compelled to say there is also the design space known as magic items.  I know, I know, magic items can never be assumed, however you can use them if you feel the game is sending out to many highly difficult saves (A.K.A you are sending out nothing but highly difficult saves).  This makes a bit of sense basically because if your sending out nothing but DC 20 saves you are likely in a high magic game.  Mainly because the only thing going against your players that is higher than DC 17 is spell casting, and high level spell casting to boot (likely epic or dxamn near epic), and in reality pretty much anything over DC 15 is likely magic.  I mean ring of protection and spell guard shield alone are prtty crazy in this regard.  

Even Asmodeous, the king of hell, one of the strongest guys in the beastiary, is tossing out dc 17 or lower saves for anything that isn't a spell.  and the ability with a dc 17 is dc 17 for initial resistance and then dc 16 to shake it off afterwards, and everything else is DC 16.  The Pit fiend is tossing out DC 15 for everything that isn't a spell

Also in this same vein many if not most of the more difficult enemies have advantage on saving throws against magical effects.

Basically you're taking a very complex issue with a lot of mathematical layers looking at its surface and not grasping the actual nuances of the system as it compares between those handing out the saves and those making the saves.  To note it is not important for you to grasp this nuanced system so long as they give you concrete monster building tools (if the monster is this level its saves should be this DC...with a power building system so you can dial up DCs for more specific and less outright harmful effects or lower dcs for far mor harmful effects).

Just saying your kinda taking a pretty in depth system and boiling it down to its most superficial notes.

 
Monster effect DCs aren't really an issue - they can just be altered as necessary. Nor is wizards being overpowered or underpowered at damage output the issue - they can just increase or reduce spell damage to account for changes in hit chance. The real issue is whether or not we want spells to hit 90+% of the time at high levels, or whether they should be, let us say, "bounded" at somewhere from 50-80% hit chance. I'd rather have lower hit chance and higher damage myself.
so you guys do realize that the only monster swinging a dc 20 save is like asmodeous (there may be others but he is the only one I can think of off the top of my head).

even the similarly leveled pit fiend is throwing dc 18 for spell saves.  Note these are to be the hardest encounters in the book...sooo they actually get to hit you on the regular. 

other than these types of monsters most are hitting you with dc 15 at best, I'd say DC 13 on average for most monsters.  Not counting the outliers like asmodeous and pit fiends.

maybe someone could go through the beastiary and actually record all the different DCs and what level monster they are coming out of and how frequent.  I'd do it but from my even quick looking I think it is looking fine.  However if you feel there is a problem maybe you could break down actual concrete numbers on who is sending out saves how often and for how much damage.

I do feel compelled to say there is also the design space known as magic items.  I know, I know, magic items can never be assumed, however you can use them if you feel the game is sending out to many highly difficult saves (A.K.A you are sending out nothing but highly difficult saves).  This makes a bit of sense basically because if your sending out nothing but DC 20 saves you are likely in a high magic game.  Mainly because the only thing going against your players that is higher than DC 17 is spell casting, and high level spell casting to boot (likely epic or dxamn near epic), and in reality pretty much anything over DC 15 is likely magic.  I mean ring of protection and spell guard shield alone are prtty crazy in this regard.  

Even Asmodeous, the king of hell, one of the strongest guys in the beastiary, is tossing out dc 17 or lower saves for anything that isn't a spell.  and the ability with a dc 17 is dc 17 for initial resistance and then dc 16 to shake it off afterwards, and everything else is DC 16.  The Pit fiend is tossing out DC 15 for everything that isn't a spell

Also in this same vein many if not most of the more difficult enemies have advantage on saving throws against magical effects.

Basically you're taking a very complex issue with a lot of mathematical layers looking at its surface and not grasping the actual nuances of the system as it compares between those handing out the saves and those making the saves.  To note it is not important for you to grasp this nuanced system so long as they give you concrete monster building tools (if the monster is this level its saves should be this DC...with a power building system so you can dial up DCs for more specific and less outright harmful effects or lower dcs for far mor harmful effects).

Just saying your kinda taking a pretty in depth system and boiling it down to its most superficial notes.

 

Actually what's interesting is that he is not looking at it from a monster's offensive point of view, but that of the players: A wizard (or cleric) who builds up Int (or wis) of 20 also gains +5 to spell DC, so he will have a spell DC of 20 - higher even than that of Asmodeous! His argument is that defenses against saves only scale with ability mod (if you pick the right one that is), while the caster offense increases with level and ability mod; this gets compared to melee attacks where offense increases with level and ability mod, but is versus a defense that increases with ability and level (via more expensive armors/better spells, or just that higher level monsters are more likely to have high AC). In the example, high AC monsters will be in the low 20's with the fighter having a +10 to attacks max, vs casters withDC 20 and monsters will have a +5 to save max.
I find it odd that in a duel a level 20 fighter with an 8 int will never escape a lowly hold person spell
MAgic items aren't an assumed part of the progression even if they were there are only two items that give a general boost to saves, each only grants +1 and they don't stack.

Furthermore while it's true that monsters currently don't have the huge DCs that would make it impossible to make saves, there's an aspect of that you're forgetting. Monsters set DCS based on a score, if their Dcs are low then their scores are low, just like a PC.

So A beholder, a supposedly level 12 creature, has a con (his dc setitng ability for his eye rays) of 18 and thus a +4 on con saves. 

A level 12 wizard with an int of 19 sets a DC of 17. (point buy + racial +level boosts)

So using his best score a beholder has to roll a 13. If the wizard picks a wis or dex resisted spell the Beholder has to roll a 15.

That seems a pretty hefty skew. 
It's interesting, because Bounded Accuracy was supposed to make ACs more transparent.  ("Oh, he's wearing chain.  Now we know his AC").  This was supposed to avoid the "Kobold wearing chain could have any AC, based on his dodge skill".  But, looking at saves, monster saves scale almost exactly with character levels.     Just compare fire beetle (average save -2) with Asmodeus (average save 7).    In fact, the party falls a tiny bit behind.

Really, the problem we see is that "alter ego plotlines", or "NPCs built as players", or any other PC vs PC battles will be weird.  Because monsters scale fine, and without telling anyone.   But, players don't, so someone foolish enough to play a fighter attacking a wizard would lead to sadness on the fighters part.
Really, the problem we see is that "alter ego plotlines", or "NPCs built as players", or any other PC vs PC battles will be weird.  Because monsters scale fine, and without telling anyone.   But, players don't, so someone foolish enough to play a fighter attacking a wizard would lead to sadness on the fighters part.



And that encapsulates the tone of this thread. It doesn't sound like it is about melee players feeling like they may become a drag on the party...it doesn't even sound like concern about how difficult it will be to beat monsters etc...this thread reads like a pvp min-max thread on the forum of any MMO  you care to name with people demanding another class get "nerfed" because they are too OP in the arena/battleground/whatever...it seems strangely out of place.

My previous points in this thread remain...as yet...not seriously addressed.

Casters are limited in the material presented so far, by a lack of armor, low hit points, poor weapons skills and a rigid, limited number of available slots with which to provide utility to the group, temporarily protect themselves, and  damage opponents (those are the characters not being played by your fellow players).

This, in previous editions including 3-3.5 *was* considered to be a meaningful balance for the melee characters slightly less spectacular damage, but unlimited use of attack powers, and non-temporary forms of defense.

As to the rest...am I wrong in understanding that as melee characters increase in level they experience the same increase in liklihood of landing a blow with their unlimited attacks per day?




Given the design goals of 5E the aggregate of all past PHB classes should be present in the 5E PHB: Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Monk, Fighter, Warlord, Paladin, Cleric/Priest, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard/Mage/Illusionist, Bard, and Druid. Add in one or two Gish/variants and call it perfect.

I think 3e stands as ultimate proof that your argument is in fact wrong, it was pretty much the pinnacle of Mage supremacy according to the old timers, and the power descrepancy was pretty brutal even to those of us who never played older editions.

Furthermore warriors do not face the same sort of non-scaling defense. AC is a single stat that can be boosted via dex, armor, special abilities, or having thick skin.

The Mages can target a creatures lowest score and nothing boosts saves. 
I think 3e stands as ultimate proof that your argument is in fact wrong, it was pretty much the pinnacle of Mage supremacy according to the old timers, and the power descrepancy was pretty brutal even to those of us who never played older editions.

Furthermore warriors do not face the same sort of non-scaling defense. AC is a single stat that can be boosted via dex, armor, special abilities, or having thick skin.

The Mages can target a creatures lowest score and nothing boosts saves. 



I'd ask you to be more specific about 3e, but I think you may be indicating you haven't even played it(?)...regardless...if melee characters are unhappy with where casters are at I think there is an obvious solution.

Handle caster and melee attacks in exactly the same way and SIMULTANEOUSLY restore 4e's at-will and encounter powers to casters so they don't become a drag on the group when 30 to 50% of their attacks have failed and they are out of spells and are twiddling their thumbs while the melee classes carry them through the rest of the session.



Given the design goals of 5E the aggregate of all past PHB classes should be present in the 5E PHB: Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Monk, Fighter, Warlord, Paladin, Cleric/Priest, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard/Mage/Illusionist, Bard, and Druid. Add in one or two Gish/variants and call it perfect.

3e the edition with CoDzilla, MAges are brutally overpowered because spells were allowed to be more powerful than anythign a non-caster could do in the same number of rounds because it was thought that the fighter types would make up for it by being able to do their stuff all day.

IT didn't work out because the stuff mages were allowed to do overshadowed the warriors so much that it became impossible to face down most level appropriate beasts (especially at higher levels) without a magic user that the per-day limitation stopped having any meaning because the party had to stop and rest whenever the mages ran dry.

As for introducing A, E, and D powers back to every class, that is a brilliant suggestion. We can even fiddle around with it a bit so certain classes are more developed in different parts, but no one is wholy reliant upon or completely excluded from any one of the 3.

However it doesn't address the issue, i.e. nothing boosts saves.

AC can be boosted and yet the fighters have to crack it eveery time, a mage can always go for whatever stat the monster is weakest in, and there's no equivalent to armor for saves so mages end up with a better equivalent to-hit chance.
I think that it is easier to balance magic if you first separate combat and utility magic.

Then implement a sort of "cooldown"  (god I hate using that term) system for in-combat casting.

So essentially, at certain levels a caster could pick a type of utility, which would include several effects that they have access to, but require a spell caster check to determine their effectiveness.

So maybe a wizard gets a utility "spell" and gets access to knock, stone shape, passwall, and burrow across a certain number of levels.  Later on they can get more of these spells.  But the point is that these are things they can simply do without preparation, and cost a different resource.  I would like to see something like 5-10 of these available to the wizard on any given day.

Then, for combat spells.  Lets say that a caster gets to store up "mana" or energy or spell points or whatever... and they can store a number of points equal to their level.  Then, each round they regain 1 or 2 points.  Cantrips would cost zero.  So in each encounter a wizard needs to consider their resources.

I would also attach this point system to scaling.  So lets say that a spell costs twice its level in points.  Then we can scale combat spells by 1 die for each extra point spent (caster can spend up to his max because that is all he can hold).

So, for a fireball, it would start at a cost of 6 points, for 6d6 to a max of 10d6 for 10 points at level 10 (when the wizard reaches a max pool of 10).

So... sure you can cast fly in the first round of combat... but that just cut you off from casting a high level spell next round... you are taxed and will have to wait.  This would prevent casters from "front-loading" spells in combat.  They could cast a volley of low level spells, or a high level spell follwed by cantrips.  It would create a new tactical dynamic.  Theen you could also ignore most of the daily resource issues that depends solely on the number of encounters in a day.

In practice a 20th level wizard would have 20 points... so in a 5 round encounter he could cast
Rnd 1 -9th level spell (down to 2 points)
Rnd 2 -gain 2 pts, cast a 2nd level spell (at 0 points)
Rnd 3 -gain 2 pts, cast a 1st level spell 
Rnd 4 -gain 2 pts, cast a 1st level spell
Rnd 5 -gain 2 pts, cast a 1st level spell 

Or

Rnd 1 -4th level spell (down to 12 points)
Rnd 2 -gain 2 pts, cast a 4th level spell (at 6 points)
Rnd 3 -gain 2 pts, cast a 4th level spell (at 0 points)
Rnd 4 -gain 2 pts, cast a 1st level spell (0 points)
Rnd 5 -gain 2 pts, cast a 1st level spell (0 points)

Or 

Rnd 1 -3rd level spell (down to 14 points)
Rnd 2 -gain 2 pts, cast a 3rd level spell (at 10 points)
Rnd 3 -gain 2 pts, cast a 3rd level spell (at 6 points)
Rnd 4 -gain 2 pts, cast a 3rd level spell (2 points)
Rnd 5 -gain 2 pts, cast a 2nd level spell (0 points)

And so on... there are tons of configurations, but each one has its advantages and drawbacks.  I would increase the regen to 2 points per round at level 10 by the way.  This way you can keep utility features more in check and keep combat powers fairly high without allowing wizards to be gods for X rounds per day in succession.  YOu also create the feel of spellcasting being a taxing process.  Big spells would always have a tradeoff associated.  A wizard who casts his highest spell would be left fairly defenseless.

I thinnk that you can also help to alleviate the sense of loss that will come from putting utility powers that have previously been so game breaking (divination, teleportation etc.) in check, because they would no longer cost a resource that has to be traded with combat effectiveness.  Frankly, they wouldn't need to cost a resource at all if there was a check involved.  Knock could just let a wizard pick locks with magic essentially.  Let these spells potentially fail or have other drawbacks.  Passwall could involve a check based on the wall's composition.  Burrow could expend the previously discussed points to power its duration, leaving the wizard drained at his destination and limiting his range.  Long flights could be possible, but the wizard could drain his pool here as well...meaning that a flying wizard would be a more vulnerable target once he landed.  If he casts, he just shortened he possible flight time.  Choices choices choices.  

This would also really make it easier to justify the wizard making more difficult attack rolls.  All his combat abilities would be "encounter" abilties essentially, so it would work.  Make the wizard attack the appropriate ability score so that sometimes AC would actually be worse than a magical defense. 
3e the edition with CoDzilla, MAges are brutally overpowered because spells were allowed to be more powerful than anythign a non-caster could do in the same number of rounds because it was thought that the fighter types would make up for it by being able to do their stuff all day.



Spellcasters are fine from level 1 to 10 in 3rd edition, especially if you stick to the Player's Handbook 1. You don't have as many spellslots so utility magic and combat magic are still competing at those levels and you don't have enough money to create scrolls and wands of pretty much everything you need.

I think 3rd edition high level casters are a good example of not what to do. The game designers seem to have noticed that too. And casters only have 1 spell of level 6-9 to cast.

And fighters were fun at level 1-10 in 3rd edition but they could certainly be improved with more flashy fun maneuvers (like in Tome of Battle).

I can however understand that having a fight end because of 1 spell might not be your kind of fun.


As for introducing A, E, and D powers back to every class, that is a brilliant suggestion. We can even fiddle around with it a bit so certain classes are more developed in different parts, but no one is wholy reliant upon or completely excluded from any one of the 3.



AEDU is not what made casters less powerful. Spells and melee both are damage + effect for 1 round (or save end for dailies). That's what really changed.

In my opinion, Tome of Battle did a better job by giving fighters some really cool things to do.


However it doesn't address the issue, i.e. nothing boosts saves.

AC can be boosted and yet the fighters have to crack it eveery time, a mage can always go for whatever stat the monster is weakest in, and there's no equivalent to armor for saves so mages end up with a better equivalent to-hit chance.



Nothing boosts AC either. Your balancing factor on spells is the hit point thresholds.

I kind of agree with you though. With the current system, a caster can prepare a spell that targets each saving throw and spam it with his spell slots. So even once they get hit point thresholds and damage right, you'll still be able to boost your damage by increasing your accuracy.
There are a few fixes that could fix a lot of the issues here. 

First off, a lot of you agree that something does need to change, but that as spells go higher in level that should be harder to resist, and on top of that the Wizards bonus is also needed to hit.

The main two issues presented here is that the Wizard needs only Int, and that with Int and Magical Bonus it makes the saves too high, as well as hitting AC pretty frequently.

A couple simple changes without added complexity:

Wizards use Dex to hit instead of Int, Int continues to lend itself to DCs though.
Everyone gets saves, a good save and a bad save, one for Physical stats and one for Mental. These saves will have a bit of random factor, but the low saves will be a 1d4 added to the roll, and the good saves will be 1d4+1. 

What does everyone say to these changes?