What to do with D&D mages?

[Brother Michael]

The problem with DnD spells is that they are highly mechanical with low thematics. A spell slot is a resource expended to make a stat change. I felt this very heavily when researching Pathfinder builds as it became apparent they were all working towards the same statistical goal under different names and extensive buff cycles.

Rather than restricting mages with more rules, I think magic needs to be “unbound,” prioritizing usage and consequences thematic and spontaneous over those that are well codified. Casting magic needs to be a notable moment, one where the rules are broken at a cost.

A pyromancer shouldn’t be a normal sorcerer who chose a narrow (suboptimal) range of preexisting spells like “fireball” and “burning hands.” He should be able to choose a magic school or tradition to specialize in that gives license to manipulate a force or concept with creativity. This doesn’t mean fully custom spells, which would be even worse for balance, but it should feel like more than a utility belt.

Terrible costs like blood sacrifices are also good, but aren’t applicable to every setting.

[UltraFan123]

The issue of traditional 3.5 casters being too **** OP is what inspired the third-party alternate magic system [Spheres of Power].

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant- ... -of-power/

Basically, each mage has to pick a single "sphere" that will be the core of his power, kinda like a seed that he must nourish and grow and thus if there's a power that his sphere doesn't cover then he can't aquire it.

[J1M]

c) No spell recovery outside of town. Nothing shatters my suspension of disbelief like being able to camp for a day inside a troll castle for a restful recovery. Make it so you can't rest while in the middle of an adventure.

B and C are specially important. If the classic spells per day system must be used, then limiting the number would be a good course. Perhaps also remove generalists altogether. All mages are specialists so they can only learn spells from their respective schools.

I don't see this as an actual limit but just an annoyance of the player on the same tier as pre-buffing in itself.
I went over a very similar situation on my rundown after I played Rogue Trader. It had a wounds mechanic that was largely obviated by simply going back to your ship, and therefore wounds only mattered as much as I was willing to watch my characters run back to the ship and deal with the long-*** loading times.

Pillars of Eternity attempted a similar thing with limited resting supplies before you had to resupply, and it just meant walking back to town to buy more. In the sequel, most(but not all) of your resources simply reset after each encounter. Neither are adequate solutions, the second one is closer to acceptable if you're willing to accept that Pillars games simply don't care about out-of-combat gameplay in the least.

Seems like respawning monsters solves this issue?

Either you make it through the dungeon with the resources you have, or you head back to town to rest and when you come back there are more skeletons. Depending on the type of game, one could 'farm' these for XP I guess or return at a higher level if it wasn't feasible.

[Cipher]

I don't see this as an actual limit but just an annoyance of the player on the same tier as pre-buffing in itself.
I went over a very similar situation on my rundown after I played Rogue Trader. It had a wounds mechanic that was largely obviated by simply going back to your ship, and therefore wounds only mattered as much as I was willing to watch my characters run back to the ship and deal with the long-*** loading times.

Pillars of Eternity attempted a similar thing with limited resting supplies before you had to resupply, and it just meant walking back to town to buy more. In the sequel, most(but not all) of your resources simply reset after each encounter. Neither are adequate solutions, the second one is closer to acceptable if you're willing to accept that Pillars games simply don't care about out-of-combat gameplay in the least.

That's why time sensitive quests should be the norm. You can either go back and lick your wounds, but this could lead to you no longer being able to achieve the best outcome or even failing the quest altogether or you can press on and figure out of to squeeze a win with the hand that you are dealt.

That's why those systems suck, as you say, if the only difference is wasting the player (not the character) time walking back to heal, then might as well not even have it all. However, let's say you cannot leave the dungeon or else the victim dies. The game can either tell you this explicitly, or telegraph this to the player in a tutorial mission in the beginning of the game and then the Player must assume that all of the quests will work like that. And then the Player now has to make an actual decision, to fight another day and fail this quest or to press on and prevail.

Same with healing characters or even reviving them. If that not only requires resources but time, then it becomes an actual choice. Suddenly, healing potions actually matter. Having a healer actually matters. Being methodical and strategic in combat actually matters. Is not just about winning the fight, but winning soundly and with the least amount of resources expended so you can use them when the big fight that finishes the quest comes around.

Attrition has always been a part of D&D, but it only matters if the world (and/or the DM) makes it so it matters.

Obsidian created an entire expansion around a tight, time-sensitive quest: Mask of the Betrayer.
Did players engage with the system, and carefully manage their resources?
…No.

You know what players did?
They just picked classes that don't rely on any mechanics which require resting, therefore bypassing most of the hunger system.

I would say that's still on the game design.

If the game allowed for that without any additional challenge, meaning you could eschew of casters altogether, then its a failure of the design. At least some stuff should be either way harder or just impossible without the particular skills of a class. This is first to reward the player that uses that class and second to incentivize replaying the game. "That statue in the carnival looks suspicious, I wish I had someone that could cast stone to flesh. Well, maybe next time. Oh, a new companion? And she is a Cleric of Tempus? Wow! Cool, I am glad I had someone that could de-petrify her this time around".

But, I get you. Players want it all. They want to avoid FOMO as much as they can. They want to play the game once and see absolutely everything, A lot of ******* cried when Tyranny forced them to make choices that barred them from seeing everything in a single playthrough. So, yeah essentially the problem is that most gamers want "achievements" they don't want games that are great. They want to consoom and then be entitled to have a say in the conversation surrounding the game while its still the hot topic of the week or month. And then they want to move on to the new thing and do it all over again.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't see this as an actual limit but just an annoyance of the player on the same tier as pre-buffing in itself.
I went over a very similar situation on my rundown after I played Rogue Trader. It had a wounds mechanic that was largely obviated by simply going back to your ship, and therefore wounds only mattered as much as I was willing to watch my characters run back to the ship and deal with the long-*** loading times.

Pillars of Eternity attempted a similar thing with limited resting supplies before you had to resupply, and it just meant walking back to town to buy more. In the sequel, most(but not all) of your resources simply reset after each encounter. Neither are adequate solutions, the second one is closer to acceptable if you're willing to accept that Pillars games simply don't care about out-of-combat gameplay in the least.

That's why time sensitive quests should be the norm. You can either go back and lick your wounds, but this could lead to you no longer being able to achieve the best outcome or even failing the quest altogether or you can press on and figure out of to squeeze a win with the hand that you are dealt.

That's why those systems suck, as you say, if the only difference is wasting the player (not the character) time walking back to heal, then might as well not even have it all. However, let's say you cannot leave the dungeon or else the victim dies. The game can either tell you this explicitly, or telegraph this to the player in a tutorial mission in the beginning of the game and then the Player must assume that all of the quests will work like that. And then the Player now has to make an actual decision, to fight another day and fail this quest or to press on and prevail.

Same with healing characters or even reviving them. If that not only requires resources but time, then it becomes an actual choice. Suddenly, healing potions actually matter. Having a healer actually matters. Being methodical and strategic in combat actually matters. Is not just about winning the fight, but winning soundly and with the least amount of resources expended so you can use them when the big fight that finishes the quest comes around.

Attrition has always been a part of D&D, but it only matters if the world (and/or the DM) makes it so it matters.

Obsidian created an entire expansion around a tight, time-sensitive quest: Mask of the Betrayer.
Did players engage with the system, and carefully manage their resources?
…No.

You know what players did?
They just picked classes that don't rely on any mechanics which require resting, therefore bypassing most of the hunger system.

Also wanted to add that I thought the wounds mechanic of rogue trader was cool until I realized how easy it is to bypass by spending my real life time and ehhh, I can't really think of a way to make it matter short of being able to redo sections of a game if you're unable to continue because you've mismanaged your resources(whatever they be)
Which is probably not a bad idea, really. Hub-based game that you can simply roll back to the last time you left town if you're unable to continue. I'm sure this could be expanded in other ways. Made me think of the Shadowrun games, but also very similar to DDO's structure.

[Cipher]

c) No spell recovery outside of town. Nothing shatters my suspension of disbelief like being able to camp for a day inside a troll castle for a restful recovery. Make it so you can't rest while in the middle of an adventure.

B and C are specially important. If the classic spells per day system must be used, then limiting the number would be a good course. Perhaps also remove generalists altogether. All mages are specialists so they can only learn spells from their respective schools.

I don't see this as an actual limit but just an annoyance of the player on the same tier as pre-buffing in itself.
I went over a very similar situation on my rundown after I played Rogue Trader. It had a wounds mechanic that was largely obviated by simply going back to your ship, and therefore wounds only mattered as much as I was willing to watch my characters run back to the ship and deal with the long-*** loading times.

Pillars of Eternity attempted a similar thing with limited resting supplies before you had to resupply, and it just meant walking back to town to buy more. In the sequel, most(but not all) of your resources simply reset after each encounter. Neither are adequate solutions, the second one is closer to acceptable if you're willing to accept that Pillars games simply don't care about out-of-combat gameplay in the least.

Seems like respawning monsters solves this issue?

Either you make it through the dungeon with the resources you have, or you head back to town to rest and when you come back there are more skeletons. Depending on the type of game, one could 'farm' these for XP I guess or return at a higher level if it wasn't feasible.

That's why I would advocate for the monsters getting savvy to the party's resources instead of respawning. So, now the goblins know what kind of tactics you use and what sort of powers your party members wield and account for that. Instead of you being able to get the drop on them, now they are ready to ambush you once you stroll back into the dungeon, and they have prepared countermeasures for your healer, your caster and traps for your warriors. You may still win, but its going to be harder. This would also make it so if you return at a higher level you get a better chance since you have also improved and are no longer the same party the goblins were expecting when they set up their ambush.

Either way, there should be a tradeoff. If the monsters just respawn, then you can grind them out and eventually outgrind the challenge, as you said. And yes, while this clearly would be against the spirit of the intent, its easier to not give the player that temptation altogether.

[UltraFan123]

The issue of traditional 3.5 casters being too **** OP is what inspired the third-party alternate magic system [Spheres of Power].

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant- ... -of-power/

Basically, each mage has to pick a single "sphere" that will be the core of his power, kinda like a seed that he must nourish and grow and thus if there's a power that his sphere doesn't cover then he can't aquire it.

Somewhat related to alternate systems and the fact that we're talking about modifying spellcasters, I wanted to mention an alternate system that isn't third-party but still interesting known as "Spell Points" that for all intents and purposes was 3.5's attempt to use a Mana Points System.
https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/variant/un ... oints.html
Using this mana system the wizard - as well as the cleric and druid - prepares his daily spells in a somewhat similar way to the Pathfinder 1e arcanist, while the sorcerer is somewhat balanced out by having more mana than any other class.

While on paper this system sounded interesting, at higher levels it eventually fell towards the same issue that all mana-based magic systems do, and that is that if you have enough magic points then you can just spam your most powerful spells over and over and over again, abusing high-level magic in a way that you normally wouldn't be able to with spells-per-day.

Not to mention that if the setting has mana then it always opens the possibility of "mana potions" that, again, is ripe for abuse.

I guess mana-based magic is good for power fantasy, though.

[rusty_shackleford]

The issue of traditional 3.5 casters being too **** OP is what inspired the third-party alternate magic system [Spheres of Power].

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant- ... -of-power/

Basically, each mage has to pick a single "sphere" that will be the core of his power, kinda like a seed that he must nourish and grow and thus if there's a power that his sphere doesn't cover then he can't aquire it.

Somewhat related to alternate systems and the fact that we're talking about modifying spellcasters, I wanted to mention an alternate system that isn't third-party but still interesting known as "Spell Points" that for all intents and purposes was 3.5's attempt to use a Mana Points System.
https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/variant/un ... oints.html
Using this mana system the wizard - as well as the cleric and druid - prepares his daily spells in a somewhat similar way to the Pathfinder 1e arcanist, while the sorcerer is somewhat balanced out by having more mana than any other class.

While on paper this system sounded interesting, at higher levels it eventually fell towards the same issue that all mana-based magic systems do, and that is that if you have enough magic points then you can just spam your most powerful spells over and over and over again, abusing high-level magic in a way that you normally wouldn't be able to with spells-per-day.

Not to mention that if the setting has mana then it always opens the possibility of "mana potions" that, again, is ripe for abuse.

I guess mana-based magic is good for power fantasy, though.

DDO uses this.
I think I've mentioned DDO to you more than a few times now, actually

[Cipher]

That's why time sensitive quests should be the norm. You can either go back and lick your wounds, but this could lead to you no longer being able to achieve the best outcome or even failing the quest altogether or you can press on and figure out of to squeeze a win with the hand that you are dealt.

That's why those systems suck, as you say, if the only difference is wasting the player (not the character) time walking back to heal, then might as well not even have it all. However, let's say you cannot leave the dungeon or else the victim dies. The game can either tell you this explicitly, or telegraph this to the player in a tutorial mission in the beginning of the game and then the Player must assume that all of the quests will work like that. And then the Player now has to make an actual decision, to fight another day and fail this quest or to press on and prevail.

Same with healing characters or even reviving them. If that not only requires resources but time, then it becomes an actual choice. Suddenly, healing potions actually matter. Having a healer actually matters. Being methodical and strategic in combat actually matters. Is not just about winning the fight, but winning soundly and with the least amount of resources expended so you can use them when the big fight that finishes the quest comes around.

Attrition has always been a part of D&D, but it only matters if the world (and/or the DM) makes it so it matters.

Obsidian created an entire expansion around a tight, time-sensitive quest: Mask of the Betrayer.
Did players engage with the system, and carefully manage their resources?
…No.

You know what players did?
They just picked classes that don't rely on any mechanics which require resting, therefore bypassing most of the hunger system.

Also wanted to add that I thought the wounds mechanic of rogue trader was cool until I realized how easy it is to bypass by spending my real life time and ehhh, I can't really think of a way to make it matter short of being able to redo sections of a game if you're unable to continue because you've mismanaged your resources(whatever they be)
Which is probably not a bad idea, really. Hub-based game that you can simply roll back to the last time you left town if you're unable to continue. I'm sure this could be expanded in other ways. Made me think of the Shadowrun games, but also very similar to DDO's structure.

Wounds would require actual in-game time to heal, so its not about going back to the ship but waiting it out but if we have time sensitive quests then the Player has to make a choice.

For stuff like Rogue Trader as is, we could have it that either wounds remain until you leave the planet, which I think progresses the time for quests but I may be wrong here, or just use the "Chapters" as break points that heal all your wounds. Either that or a very rare item that is only in limited supply, so if you encounter that specific superduper special medicae kit, then you can heal wounds and continue, if not you either reload like a pussy or roll with the punches and soldier on until you finish the Chapter.

Perhaps that would be a little too punishing with the death spiral, but that's why I remain in the belief that time passage needs time sensitive quests and then the game mechanics can be made to work around it. The reason for that is that, ideally, when you play tabletop the GM should account for that. Everything should be time sensitive, the world should keep on advancing and not waiting for the Players. So, you either save the priestess that was kidnapped by those cultists or you go back to town and lick your wounds, but then either the trail runs cold or the priestess has already been used in the blood ritual to summon a demon and now you have two problems in your hands. And sure, the party can run away and abandon the town to the cultists, but then a few months later they should hear about the consequences.

I understand it is orders of magnitude harder to make a reactive world within the confines of a finite engine that can only have so many things coded into it, but that's why I advocate for smaller games with more reactivity, like Tyranny, over 150+ hours of game that is static and waiting for the player to "experience" consoom.

But, I understand I am in the extreme minority here, given how much flak Obsidian got for Tyranny and even here how many folks expressed it wasn't "fun" not being able to get their desired outcome and limiting their ability to save scum.

[J1M]

I don't see this as an actual limit but just an annoyance of the player on the same tier as pre-buffing in itself.
I went over a very similar situation on my rundown after I played Rogue Trader. It had a wounds mechanic that was largely obviated by simply going back to your ship, and therefore wounds only mattered as much as I was willing to watch my characters run back to the ship and deal with the long-*** loading times.

Pillars of Eternity attempted a similar thing with limited resting supplies before you had to resupply, and it just meant walking back to town to buy more. In the sequel, most(but not all) of your resources simply reset after each encounter. Neither are adequate solutions, the second one is closer to acceptable if you're willing to accept that Pillars games simply don't care about out-of-combat gameplay in the least.

Seems like respawning monsters solves this issue?

Either you make it through the dungeon with the resources you have, or you head back to town to rest and when you come back there are more skeletons. Depending on the type of game, one could 'farm' these for XP I guess or return at a higher level if it wasn't feasible.

That's why I would advocate for the monsters getting savvy to the party's resources instead of respawning. So, now the goblins know what kind of tactics you use and what sort of powers your party members wield and account for that. Instead of you being able to get the drop on them, now they are ready to ambush you once you stroll back into the dungeon, and they have prepared countermeasures for your healer, your caster and traps for your warriors. You may still win, but its going to be harder. This would also make it so if you return at a higher level you get a better chance since you have also improved and are no longer the same party the goblins were expecting when they set up their ambush.

Either way, there should be a tradeoff. If the monsters just respawn, then you can grind them out and eventually outgrind the challenge, as you said. And yes, while this clearly would be against the spirit of the intent, its easier to not give the player that temptation altogether.

This sounds cool, but in practice you are just making it even harder for the people who are bad at your game to get good at it and the players that know what they are doing will never see this effort that they would have appreciated.

Farming XP is an easy fix. Only reward it for completing an adventure.

[UltraFan123]

DDO uses this.
I think I've mentioned DDO to you more than a few times now, actually

Yeah it's a game that uses Eberron as the setting.

But now that you told me that it implements this mana system I am now legitimately curious about it and will see if I can try it out.

[Stack of Turtles]

Seems like respawning monsters solves this issue?

Either you make it through the dungeon with the resources you have, or you head back to town to rest and when you come back there are more skeletons. Depending on the type of game, one could 'farm' these for XP I guess or return at a higher level if it wasn't feasible.

That's why I would advocate for the monsters getting savvy to the party's resources instead of respawning. So, now the goblins know what kind of tactics you use and what sort of powers your party members wield and account for that. Instead of you being able to get the drop on them, now they are ready to ambush you once you stroll back into the dungeon, and they have prepared countermeasures for your healer, your caster and traps for your warriors. You may still win, but its going to be harder. This would also make it so if you return at a higher level you get a better chance since you have also improved and are no longer the same party the goblins were expecting when they set up their ambush.

Either way, there should be a tradeoff. If the monsters just respawn, then you can grind them out and eventually outgrind the challenge, as you said. And yes, while this clearly would be against the spirit of the intent, its easier to not give the player that temptation altogether.

This sounds cool, but in practice you are just making it even harder for the people who are bad at your game to get good at it and the players that know what they are doing will never see this effort that they would have appreciated.

Farming XP is an easy fix. Only reward it for completing an adventure.

In the old days people solved this difficult challenge with an archaic and forgotten technology called "levels". You had to finish the whole level in one go to get the reward.

I believe with lots of effort we can someday hope to rediscover the ancient wisdom.

[rusty_shackleford]

In the old days people solved this difficult challenge with an archaic and forgotten technology called "levels". You had to finish the whole level in one go to get the reward.

I believe with lots of effort we can someday hope to rediscover the ancient wisdom.

This circles back to my prior post:

Also wanted to add that I thought the wounds mechanic of rogue trader was cool until I realized how easy it is to bypass by spending my real life time and ehhh, I can't really think of a way to make it matter short of being able to redo sections of a game if you're unable to continue because you've mismanaged your resources(whatever they be)
Which is probably not a bad idea, really. Hub-based game that you can simply roll back to the last time you left town if you're unable to continue. I'm sure this could be expanded in other ways. Made me think of the Shadowrun games, but also very similar to DDO's structure.

[Cipher]

Seems like respawning monsters solves this issue?

Either you make it through the dungeon with the resources you have, or you head back to town to rest and when you come back there are more skeletons. Depending on the type of game, one could 'farm' these for XP I guess or return at a higher level if it wasn't feasible.

That's why I would advocate for the monsters getting savvy to the party's resources instead of respawning. So, now the goblins know what kind of tactics you use and what sort of powers your party members wield and account for that. Instead of you being able to get the drop on them, now they are ready to ambush you once you stroll back into the dungeon, and they have prepared countermeasures for your healer, your caster and traps for your warriors. You may still win, but its going to be harder. This would also make it so if you return at a higher level you get a better chance since you have also improved and are no longer the same party the goblins were expecting when they set up their ambush.

Either way, there should be a tradeoff. If the monsters just respawn, then you can grind them out and eventually outgrind the challenge, as you said. And yes, while this clearly would be against the spirit of the intent, its easier to not give the player that temptation altogether.

This sounds cool, but in practice you are just making it even harder for the people who are bad at your game to get good at it and the players that know what they are doing will never see this effort that they would have appreciated.

Farming XP is an easy fix. Only reward it for completing an adventure.

I would argue that's a feature, not a bug. You still see people complaining that the map with the basilisks in the original BG is ********. Nevermind that you can be higher level and that the game gives you a potion to become immune to their gaze aaaaaand, without need of any prep beforehand, you get the ghoul that comes around in that map and you can use him to aggro the basilisks and then circumvent their gaze.

The game gives the players plenty of options to circumvent the map without grinding or cheating, yet still people complain. I say let them complain. If they are bad at the game they can always either not go into that dungeon, go later when they are higher level, or git gud and achieve victory.

The problem with offering grinding as a solution is that it makes it so the player doesn't have to overcome the challenge. You are teaching the bad player not to become better, but to pussy their way out of the challenge and relinquish their IRL time in exchange of outgrinding the challenge. This is why 90% of JRPGs mostly suck in terms of mechanics, because they work exactly like this. And I like JRPGs, by the way, but I admit they are visual novels with some rng fights in between to break the monotony.

If grinding is the solution, might as will give them an "I Win" button when they feel like they don't want to actually overcome this challenge and move on to the next.

[rusty_shackleford]

Mages should be powerful, making them weak or on par with other classes strength wise is a flaw in design. Magic is inherently hamstrung by spell slots because of this, just make it harder to get them back and its all balanced.

Found the quote I was looking for

Selection_022.webp

Spellcasters in D&D aren't "powerful", they're gods, bordering on the power of an omnipotent creator God at epic levels.

[A Chinese opium den]

Mages should be powerful, making them weak or on par with other classes strength wise is a flaw in design. Magic is inherently hamstrung by spell slots because of this, just make it harder to get them back and its all balanced.

Found the quote I was looking for


Spellcasters in D&D aren't "powerful", they're gods, bordering on the power of an omnipotent creator God at epic levels.

I agree, but I think that how they should be. The way I see it is that it should be hard to become one and they should be rare, which games can't really do since they have to let players be a wizard if they want, so theres nothing to be done about it really. Its not a very useful answer but if you want to get around it you have to make mages something they aren't, which ruins the idea of it and the fantasy that mage players want.

[rusty_shackleford]

Mages should be powerful, making them weak or on par with other classes strength wise is a flaw in design. Magic is inherently hamstrung by spell slots because of this, just make it harder to get them back and its all balanced.

Found the quote I was looking for


Spellcasters in D&D aren't "powerful", they're gods, bordering on the power of an omnipotent creator God at epic levels.

I agree, but I think that how they should be. The way I see it is that it should be hard to become one and they should be rare, which games can't really do since they have to let players be a wizard if they want, so theres nothing to be done about it really. Its not a very useful answer but if you want to get around it you have to make mages something they aren't, which ruins the idea of it and the fantasy that mage players want.

Perhaps everyone else should tell them to stop being the annoying kid who demands to get every power.
You can't create any sort of Heroic fantasy(Tolkien, etc.,), Sword & Sorcery(REH's Conan, …) from this. The only thing you can create is a simulator for God to kill ants, or for God and God2 to fight.

Unsurprisingly, this is what every D&D video game adaptation of note is.

[Demonic Fate]

There's two different axes of power: combat power, and out-of-combat power. We should be clear about which one we are talking about.

Balancing combat power is comparatively easy. A Fireball does a ton of total damage across a bunch different targets, but a fighter can swing the same sword at the same target a ton of times - fair enough, just keep tweaking the numbers until they feel right. Save-or-die/save-or-suck spells are harder to balance against raw damage, but really here you actually want to give similar options to other classes as well because that's what makes combat interesting - if the fighter can do nothing but hit for 2d6+4 every turn then it's the fighter that is poorly designed, not the wizard.

Out-of-combat is stuff like long-range teleportation, divination, or the famous knock which becomes thief-in-a-can. Those skills, in most games, probably shouldn't exist at all due to how they trivialize important challenges. But if you have designed a game that's sufficiently open and chill that it's still fun to break it apart via magic (Morrowind, or to a lesser degree the Divinity games) - well, at that point 'balance' has gone out of the window as a concern, you have accepted that the player can choose to become a god if he likes to. Should probably make sure that everyone has the potential to break the game (both TES and Divinity rulesets are classless, interestingly), but that's more of an aesthetic choice than a balance one because, again, you're not balancing ****.

Other notes:

- Vancian magic sucks in tabletop, sucks in video games, probably sucked in the original 1960s novels as well for all I know. Just drop it for ****'s sake

- Balancing overpowered skills by adding a small chance of backfiring never, ever works - either the players can work around it and they're OP, or they can't and they will play something else. If you want the feeling of playing with danger, do it like most Wild Magic rules: your magic isn't really stronger than a boring wizard's, but it comes with a small chance of an uncontrolled effect that can be positive as well as negative

- Hyperspecialization can work, but you need to be careful with it. If your 100% pure fire mage is OP as hell in the Ice World and utterly dead weight in the Fire World, that's not balance, or at least not any form of balance I care to play.

[WaterMage]

Mages should be powerful, making them weak or on par with other classes strength wise is a flaw in design. Magic is inherently hamstrung by spell slots because of this, just make it harder to get them back and its all balanced.

Found the quote I was looking for


Spellcasters in D&D aren't "powerful", they're gods, bordering on the power of an omnipotent creator God at epic levels.

I'm glad that you said spellcasters, not only wizards/mages.

Because lets be real. Druids, Clerics, Psions are also incredible powerful.

As I've said in other topic :

Imo 3.5e and pf1e Casters(not only wizards) and Psions are probably the strongest in all tabletop games. Not only d&d. If we compare to 2e
Mages require much more xp to lv up mainly at upper mid and high levels.
no spells on lv up. If the dm don't want you to find a scroll of knock, you will not find it
you also roll to learn spells.
max +1 con mod
enemy saves at high level are much better
mr is a serious problem. Way less ways to deal with it than 3.5e Sr.
much less spell slots
(...)

Here is a comparison with other TT RPGs

Which tabletop has stronger wizards than 3.5e?
GURPS? Only a God like Poseidon could for eg, in few seconds throw a tsunami into a city, summon Kraken in few seconds and go back to his divine pocket plane. Even a powerful archwizard would require hours to create a tsunami, if not days. Tsunami Is a spell which archwizards can cast multiple times per minute in pf1e.
MtA? Spheres limits his versatility. And Paradox is a problem.
Tremere in VtM? Again, stuff which D&D wizards can do in seconds, are complex long rituals. And disciplines can botch.
Retroclones? Most of them are like 2E and many of them limit you to low and mid levels. Hyperborea lv cap is 12. LotFP is rarely played at mid(7+) levels. Machinations of the Space princess psion are too limited compared to 3.5e arcane/divine/psions.
Ars Magicka? Maybe with a very generous DM
Exalted? Maybe, only with a very generous DM

I also should mention Warhammer Fantasy. Human Wizards are forced to specialize in a wind of magic/lore. So, a high level Imperial Wizard in Warhammer can be a powerful illusionist OR a powerful pyromancer OR a powerful stormcaller, OR a powerful druid OR a powerful Shaman. He can't be great at everything. Except if he is an elf. And most DMs would ban players from playing as an ELF.

[WaterMage]

I agree, but I think that how they should be. The way I see it is that it should be hard to become one and they should be rare, which games can't really do since they have to let players be a wizard if they want, so theres nothing to be done about it really. Its not a very useful answer but if you want to get around it you have to make mages something they aren't, which ruins the idea of it and the fantasy that mage players want.

Make the charname start as a lv 0 commoner. Pick Gothic 2 - Returning for eg.

Want to become a mage?

in order to become a necromancer, you need to ask for apprenticeship from Xardas, get 30 INT(very hard), by doing a lot of intellectual stuff, like alchemy, learning new languages, reading books, etc. Then, do a quest involving killing a "sheep of innos" in the Innos monastery. Took me dozens of hours of gameplay to be able to cast circle 1 spells.

Only at High Mages(circle 4/5) and ArchWizardry level(circle 6) you fell incredible powerful with Godlike magery.

Found the quote I was looking for


Spellcasters in D&D aren't "powerful", they're gods, bordering on the power of an omnipotent creator God at epic levels.

On Warhammer, he would have Lore of Dark Magic, Lore of Death and Lore of Fire. Being considered a legendary Godlike entity.

- Hyperspecialization can work, but you need to be careful with it. If your 100% pure fire mage is OP as hell in the Ice World and utterly dead weight in the Fire World, that's not balance, or at least not any form of balance I care to play.

I don't care about balance, if playing as a Bright Wizard at extremely disadvantage is fun, I will play as one.

[Ryzer]

In Baldur's Gate 1 and Pathfinder Kingmaker, time was a primary constraint for the quests, meaning if you don't achieve the quest in time it is failed and you lose quite a big reward.

[maidenhaver]

Decks of spell cards for encounters and narrative, or a table that scales with the number of characters involved. The player rolls for a magic event on the table, that could be modified by Luck, so that poor Luck swings wild, high Luck locks on a range of magic events, or his character's level gets him more dice. The Mage should be a cipher, who needs to be guarded. A walking door of doom. He can practically cinch an event for his party, or get them killed, all up to the sort of game they want to run. It'd be a gentleman's agreement between Whites, so I don't see it catching on, but its the only approach resembling Magic, that is good and unbalanced. Magic isn't properly considered magic, in other systems, but technology.

[DrSneed]

Nerf the magic casters into supportcels and the give the martials more options like cleaving space with their sword.
t. PF2e

[WaterMage]

t. PF2e

****.

It is 4e 2e, not pf2e.

[maidenhaver]

No, Mages need to draw a picture of their spell within so many seconds, and the GM judges it. If he knows what it is, he decides if it does what the mage draws it doing, based on aesthetics alone. That's all.

[Demonic Fate]

No, Mages need to draw a picture of their spell within so many seconds, and the GM judges it. If he knows what it is, he decides if it does what the mage draws it doing, based on aesthetics alone. That's all.

There was a computer game where you had to literally draw a sigil with your mouse to cast the corresponding spell, but I'm drawing a blank on which one.

[maidenhaver]

No, Mages need to draw a picture of their spell within so many seconds, and the GM judges it. If he knows what it is, he decides if it does what the mage draws it doing, based on aesthetics alone. That's all.

There was a computer game where you had to literally draw a sigil with your mouse to cast the corresponding spell, but I'm drawing a blank on which one.

Arx Fatalis.

[Oyster Sauce]

No, Mages need to draw a picture of their spell within so many seconds, and the GM judges it. If he knows what it is, he decides if it does what the mage draws it doing, based on aesthetics alone. That's all.

There was a computer game where you had to literally draw a sigil with your mouse to cast the corresponding spell, but I'm drawing a blank on which one.

Arx Fatalis

[JRR]

If the game actually used the D&D rules, there would be no problem. A 15th level D&D magic user has, on average, 30 hit points. He will also have a terrible AC, and may not even use his dex bonus when casting a spell. Casting speed ensure that the mu will lose initiative most of the time, and get whacked, thus losing the spell - and probably half his hit points.
Now, a properly prepared mu can get around this, but he can't always be prepared - especially in a dungeon setting. He must rest to regain his spells which requires uninterrupted rest, random encounters will stop that.
In short, what to do with D&D mages? Use the D&D rules!

[Kain]

PS: There's also no interest from the player base. They like the idea that the 'smart' or 'quick' character is better than the 'big' or 'strong' character because that's who they identify with. I've mentioned this before in the context of light armor being strictly superior to heavy armor.

A strong big dude in shining armor certainly looks great. But it won't help much if he is also slow and stupid. Being slow, the enemy can do many nasty things to him before he can react. Being stupid, he can either become useless or a danger to his party in a fight. Strong & big + smart & quick are most preferred, but if you have to pick, quick + smart is the better choice.

Also, light armor is the better choice for mass army and attackers. Heavy armor is the better choice for commanders and bodyguards.