Dealing with tier 1s and 2s

[ImperatorK]

Gentleman's Agreement - that is a good idea, but it's still too open, because what's unreasonable for one player, can be normal for another.
My suggestion would be to take it a bit further. No mechanical restrictions or nerfs. No open ended agreements. The player who wants to play the tier 1-2 class just has to state his PCs fluff preference, or rather theme, and stick to it.
Maybe the PC likes fire. Let him freely take spells with fire theme, but make an agreement that he won't take many other spells, unless he will have a VERY good reason for it (like plot).
Maybe the Wizard likes divinations. Forcing him to take the specialization won't make much of a nerf, because he still can take all the best spells there are. But if you make an agreement that he will concentrate almost only on divination themed spells, there's not even a reason to force him to take the specialty if he doesn't want it.
Maybe the Wizard has a liking in changing forms or fighting in first line. Let him polymorph into some brute monster and/or buff himself and tear faces of his enemies. He doesn't care about teleporting, or otherwise bypassing a fight, his magic will be only used to what he learned it for - Polymorphing.

What I'm saying is - tier 1-2 classes have many/all options at their fingertips. That doesn't mean they HAVE to use it all. Just like lower tiers HAVE to choose one or two options (because they have no choice), make the higher tiers HAVE to also choose one or two, and stick to that choice.

[sirpercival]

One way to enforce this (for wizards, at least) is to be careful about what spells become available to them.  For your diviner example, allow him access to lots of scrolls of divination spells, and very little else.  Sorcerers have this built in.

Clerics/Druids are much harder to limit, however.

[veekie]

^^
Pretty easy for clerics actually, each god would have a range of spells easily attributed to the god, and spells that don't fit. You just need to vet them before the game and establish an approved list.

[ImperatorK]

One way to enforce this (for wizards, at least) is to be careful about what spells become available to them.  For your diviner example, allow him access to lots of scrolls of divination spells, and very little else.  Sorcerers have this built in.

This is something I'd rather want to avoid. It would be weird that the Diviner can find only divination spells to write into his spellbook. Where are all the other spells? And he still has his 2 spells per level that can be any spell.

[caelic]

One way to enforce this (for wizards, at least) is to be careful about what spells become available to them.  For your diviner example, allow him access to lots of scrolls of divination spells, and very little else.  Sorcerers have this built in.

This is something I'd rather want to avoid. It would be weird that the Diviner can find only divination spells to write into his spellbook. Where are all the other spells? And he still has his 2 spells per level that can be any spell.

...and, of course, if there's more than one wizard in the party, it becomes a lot harder to restrict access to spells.  I like the idea of restricting wizards to a certain theme; then again, I've always thought Ars Magica did magic better than just about any other system.

[linklord231]

It seems like this unfairly nerfs blaster wizards in that they have to stick to a theme (such as fire spells), thus limiting their use against fire resistant enemies.  At the same time, it does virtually nothing to God wizards, whose theme is "buffing/debuffing" (I consider BFC to be a kind of debuff).  It also seems overly restrictive, especially to certain themes - for example, there are only 3 Wiz/Sorc shape changing spells in the SRD (Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange).  What other spells can a "shapechanging" wizard learn? 

I agree that primary casters should be brought down a notch or two in power level for most campaigns.  I think forcing a specific theme onto casters is a bit heavy handed though, at least in certain cases.  Instead, how about this:  Every primary caster - that is, everyone with access to 9th level spells on their class list - must give up access to one school of magic (not divination) without gaining anything.  If you want to make a specialist wizard, you must give up another school, and BOTH of your spells learned per level must be of your specialist school.  Or, you could do it like older editions, and say that by specializing in one school you automatically ban its "opposed school." For example, if a wizard wants to specialize in Illusion, he automatically bans Necromancy, he doesn't get a choice.  You could even combine both of these options. 

[veekie]

God wizards, whose theme is "buffing/debuffing" (I consider BFC to be a kind of debuff)

God, Blasting, etc those aren't really themes there....and the latter doesn't work, mostly because the stronger schools like conjuration and transmutation contain literally everything you need in there.

Think of it like so:
Fire - You have the literal fire spells, of course, but fire also contains light spells, and atypical damage spells, plus revelation, anger/hope, etc. This is conceptual fire.
Earth - You have Walls, 'hard' defensive spells in general, and paralysis or petrification spells.
Wood - Summonings, a variety of buffs, poisons, damage over time, acids.

[linklord231]

@ veekie:

Those seem like pretty vague themes, in that you could stretch almost any spell to fit a given theme.  A fire mage could pick Fly by saying he's "riding the thermals" or "rising like smoke."  A Wood mage could pick Fly by saying he "soars like a bird."  An Earth mage could pick Fly by saying he's "rising like a mountain peak." Or something. 

If you're going to do this, why not just say "Wizards don't exist, play a Wu Jen"?

[Endarire]

My theme would be, "Spells that I like."

[Sjappo]

^^
Pretty easy for clerics actually, each god would have a range of spells easily attributed to the god, and spells that don't fit. You just need to vet them before the game and establish an approved list.

This is why I liked 2nd edition Priest so much. Their domains had a major influence on their spelllist. And the number of domains was balanced against weapon, armor, HP, THAC0.

I need to do write-up on this. When I have time. In 25 years or so.

[LordBlades]

From my own experience, gentleman's agreement works best. Have a chat with the players and explain what you expect from the game power-wise. If they're reasonable people, they'll comply (or voice their disagreement in a civil manner and discuss it with you until you reach a consensus) and no further mechanical limitations are needed.

If they're not reasonable people, they'll try their best to circumvent any limitations you put on their power which will lead to a pretty unenjoyable gaming experience for both sides.

[RobbyPants]

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between this:

Gentleman's Agreement - that is a good idea, but it's still too open, because what's unreasonable for one player, can be normal for another.
My suggestion would be to take it a bit further. No mechanical restrictions or nerfs. No open ended agreements. The player who wants to play the tier 1-2 class just has to state his PCs fluff preference, or rather theme, and stick to it.

and this:

Maybe the PC likes fire. Let him freely take spells with fire theme, but make an agreement that he won't take many other spells, unless he will have a VERY good reason for it (like plot).

I guess the second approach is less open-ended, but it's still not really codified.

Maybe the Wizard likes divinations. Forcing him to take the specialization won't make much of a nerf, because he still can take all the best spells there are. But if you make an agreement that he will concentrate almost only on divination themed spells, there's not even a reason to force him to take the specialty if he doesn't want it.

I guess I'm not seeing why a Diviner wouldn't want to specialize (heck, even focus specialize) for the extra spells, if they're already pseudo-forbidden from using other spells.


Personally, my favorite approach is to make other classes similar to the Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage, with a defined list of niche spells. I wouldn't mind seeing those types of classes retooled slightly to make them more customizable, but I like the basic idea. It accomplishes what you want by forcing specialization, but with less chance for open-ended abuse (although Advanced Learning is a hole right there). The downside, of course, is you need a class written up for every single type of specialist, which could be a pain.

[veekie]

I'd agree with the specialized caster classes, though you could conceivably use the same basic class chassis, spell access and abilities(just make them talents sorted by theme), except the spell list depends on your choice of theme as well.

[RobbyPants]

I'd agree with the specialized caster classes, though you could conceivably use the same basic class chassis, spell access and abilities(just make them talents sorted by theme), except the spell list depends on your choice of theme as well.

True. You could have named abilities like "Novice Focus", "Advance Focus", and "Master Focus" (or whatever) spread through several levels, and then fill in the blanks for your new specialist "class".

So, if you want a fire mage, Novice Focus gives you fire resistance equal to double your class level, and Advanced Focus gives you the ability to pierce some level of fire resistance/immunity. If making a diviner, instead, Novice Focus gives you an immediate action boost to your AC/saves, and Advanced Focus lets you share that boost with any allies within 30 or 60 feet.

That'd be a fairly easy way to codify the specialization, I think.

[Unbeliever]

@ veekie:

Those seem like pretty vague themes, in that you could stretch almost any spell to fit a given theme.  A fire mage could pick Fly by saying he's "riding the thermals" or "rising like smoke."  A Wood mage could pick Fly by saying he "soars like a bird."  An Earth mage could pick Fly by saying he's "rising like a mountain peak." Or something. 

If you're going to do this, why not just say "Wizards don't exist, play a Wu Jen"?

As I've mentioned before, the thematic casters thing has had some success in my games.  And, it's something we naturally do just b/c it helps differentiate characters. 

The themes are meant to be broad.  And, it doesn't really solve the caster v. noncaster problem, but I find that to be less of an issue than most people do, perhaps due to optimization. 

What it does do, though, is stop people from cherrypicking all the best spells all the time.  And,  it constrains the Wizard from doing everything to just doing quite a lot.  A similar approach might be just to say what kind of caster are you going to be.  You're going to be a god-style battlefield control wizard with an elemental focus, check, then I know what to get myself ready for and also what niches that fills so that the other players (in this case a dread necro/anima mage) can have their own niches.

@RobbyPants
That stuff sounds good.  I was cannibalizing Pathfinder's bloodline powers for relevant abilities as well.  Really just anything that they could sell as part of their fluff.  It was for a high level game, though, so the abilities ended up being pretty irrelevant compared to what Archmage, etc. was offering. 

We also made counterspelling easier, which fit with the game world we were emulating, but also might make it easier to have a high Tier class cancel out another one in practice.