Big List Of Spellcasting Nerfs

[Becq]

Some good ideas above.  Here are some selected comments:

6. Put a hard limit on the number of allowable thaumaturgy Declarations.

I think I prefer softening this a bit.  Instead of a hard limit, just increase the difficulty of each additional declaration by 1 (or something similar).

10. Make the difficulty of thaumaturgical control rolls increase with the complexity of the associated ritual.

Definitely agree with this one, and I've given some thought as to how to do this, but I haven't come up with The Answer yet.  Try this (very simple) option out for size:

The base time for thaumaturgy control rolls is "a few moments" (one combat exchange).  However, for a given spell, each additional control roll after the first incurs a cumulative penalty of either +1 to the difficulty of the roll or +1 step on the time chart (the caster chooses the split of penalty points between difficulty and time for each roll).  For example, a wizard might choose +1 difficulty for the second roll, then +2 difficulty for the third roll, then switch to +3 steps on the time chart for the fourth roll -- perhaps because he just spend his last fate point to succeed at the previous roll.

End result: simple spells (like Harry's tracking spell) can be cast very quickly (no prep time, and as little as one combat exchange for control).  Complex spells take exponentially longer and/or carry high risk of failure.  Example: even if a caster controlled 3 shifts per roll, a 20-shift spell would take around an hour and a half (with the last roll controlling 2 shifts at a +1 difficulty).

12. Require foci to follow a pyramid structure.

A slightly softer variation on this is to restrict maximum focus strength by the highest specialization bonus the caster has, instead of by lore.  (Though Lore provides a limit for specialization strength, so it would still restrict focus strength, too.)

13. Allow only a single focus to be used for each spell.

Not unreasonable, though I favor #12 instead.

15. Do not allow people to inflict consequences to fuel Thaumaturgy unless the target is important enough to take those consequences.

I think this is actually what was meant by the rules, though having just looked it up, I agree that its not what the RAW says.  I agree with the concept, though.

18. Remove Crafting frequency bonuses from the game.

Here's an alternative idea that softens this a bit: limit the "effective strength" of each enchanted item to twice the character's Lore, where "effective strength" is actual strength, +1 for each two additional uses added.

21. Make control bonuses not apply to attack accuracy.

I tend to favor an either/or approach, allowing bonuses to be split between control and accuracy.  That, or a slightly more restrictive version that the split is defined on the character sheet, rather than at cast time.  Though in either case, it would be the combined bonus that would fit together into the pyramid.

25. Make actual rules for accidental hexing.

Having a bit more solid guidelines would be useful here.

[Sanctaphrax]

@UmbraLux:

Superciliousness? Where?

Lots of people complain that spellcasters are overpowered, this is intended to make them less so. No other purpose.

Given how many fights are decided in one round for high-end glass cannons, backlash can often be a free +3 power. Even without laddering, it's pretty useful.

I'm not sure that camouflage with non-spirit elements is possible. And the Laws are not a significant factor in the game's balance.

Like I always say, compels are not bad. So you can't make characters less powerful with them.

You could put a cap on control difficulty increases. Or you could let them be negated with sufficient preparation/FP. Or you could make them scale oddly so that the control difficulty difference between 4 shifts and 40 shifts is the same as the difference between 40 and 400.

Evo gives 2 slots, thaum gives 2 slots. You can spend those slots on whatever you please, right? So I can spend the slots I get from thaum on spirit offensive control foci.

Making people pay Refresh for spell power could work, but it sounds really harsh.

@Becq:

If you have ideas for nerfs, I'd appreciate seeing them numbered. Makes it easy to keep track of 'em.

I actually use scaling difficulties for Declarations. But that's not a house rule, so I left it out.

Dunno about that control idea. I'd have to think about it carefully. I'll get back to you.

I may take a try at accidental hexing rules sometime, but not now. It's a lot of work for a thread full of brief ideas.

[ways and means]

The fundamentally most broken part of evocation is refinement, it is both individually more powerful than most uses of refresh and stacks higher than most uses of refresh. Refinement is so broken that people think that the extra two refinement from an IoP is enough to break the game as opposed to it being used for toughness, strength, speed etc. So if you are going to nurf anything about evocation nurf refinement either make it less effective per refresh (less focus enchanted item points) or lower the cap possibly by capping total control bonuses and power bonuses to 2 x discipline, conviction respectively.   

[Tedronai]

It's late and I need sleep, so I'm not sure what sort of repercussions it would create, but it might be worth considering having power bonuses from applications of refinement apply only to 'effective' power of the spell, and not the direct application, so allowing greater ease of area attacks and blocks, and prolonged duration of maneuvers and blocks, but not stronger attacks or blocks, or more difficult to resist/remove maneuvers.
This might make more sense as a limitation to foci, though.  I don't know.

[Haru]

Compels are not bad. If you compel a capability away from someone, they still benefit from that capability.

So as a way to make characters weaker, compels don't work at all. You can't fix a balance problem with compels.

Compels are useful for precisely that reason.

We're going to have to disagree on that one, I suppose. Compels can't only make a characters life complicated, they can, as a teamworking tool, be used to push a character into the backseat.
For example: a group wants to enter a building unseen. The wizard immediately jumps up and proposes a veil to sneak in. So far so good, but a creative player can make his wizard do almost anything, and he would leave every other character in his dust. And here's where compels come in. You (or maybe another player) tell the wizard player, that his magic would interfere with revolving doors, cameras, motion detectors and what else have you. He would get in unseen, but the place would be swarming with security regardless. Here's a fate point for your trouble, let someone else take a turn. Someone else, a spy type character for example, can take the wheel now.
If you do that evenly around the table, each character will have a time to shine and a time to lay low. And he will have a handful of fate points to tap into his full potential.

That would be my personal view on balance, at least in this game. What is yours? Where would you like to see a wizards power to be? At the moment it just feels that you think they are incredibly overpowered and need to be killed with a lot of fire. If I knew where you want them to be, I might be able to follow your reasoning better.


Maybe an approach to a new building block evocation system. The idea is to make magic work almost like any other skill. I think you've done something similar with claws and breath weapons. It is a work in progress.

The Basics:
Each of the basic Spellcasting powers grants 1 Element to do your spells with. Once you have an element, you can use it on every magical action you know, so you will not have to buy all 3 powers for each element. None of the basic spellcasting powers use casting stress.

Magic Attack [-1]:
You are able to do magical attacks. Roll your discipline as a ranged attack with a weapon rating of 2.

Magical defense [-1]:
You are able to use your magic to block attacks. Roll your discipline to put up a block. The strength of the block is equal to your roll.

Magic Maneuver [-1]:
You are able to do maneuvers with magic. Roll your discipline to put up an aspect.

Upgrades:
These Powers require their basic counterparts to work.

Powerful Attack [-1]:
Your magical attacks are more powerful. Add +2 to your roll, when doing a magical attack. To use Powerful Attack, you need to take 1 shift of mental stress. (I know, usually it's +1 to add to an attack roll, but with the stress cost and the fact that it is a power, I think it is ok.)

Potent Attacks [-1]:
You can do magical attacks for an additional 2 shifts of damage. To use Potent Attacks, you need to take 1 shift of mental stress.

Massive Attacks [-1]:
You can use your spells to attack an entire zone. To use Massive Attacks, you need to take 1 shift of mental stress.

Potent Maneuver [-1]:
Your magical maneuvers are more powerful. Add +2 to your roll, when putting up a magical block. To use Potent Defense, you need to take 1 shift of mental stress.

Potent Defense [-1]:
Your magical blocks are more powerful. Add +2 to your roll, when putting up a magical block. To use Potent Defense, you need to take 1 shift of mental stress.

Lasting Defense [-1]:
Your magical blocks last 2 exchanges (for a total of 3 exchanges) longer, without freshing them up. To use Lasting Defense, you need to take 1 shift of mental stress.

Additional Element [-1]:
You can cast spells in one additional element.

Focus Item [+1]:
You can attach part of your magical powers to a focus item. If you lose that item, every roll you do for those powers will be reduced by 2, until you recover or rebuild the item. You need to attach at least 2 points of refresh to benefit from the refresh bonus.

Enchanted item [-1]:
You have 2 free uses per session for any evocation power that would normally take mental stress to use. This power may be taken multiple times.

You could even take other skills for the 3 action types. Maybe weapons for attacks (throwing fireballs) or conviction for maneuvers. Would probably be best, so wizards don't rely on only one skill. Maybe even different skills for different wizards, depending on their style, as long as it's three different ones.
If you want more powerful wizards, you can let them take multiple Upgrade powers of one kind and let their uses stack. But if you only take one each, a wizards power should be manageable and on par with other templates. Maybe even a bit weaker compared with speed, strength, etc.

Something similar could be done for thaumaturgy, but I'll need to think a while longer on that one.

[Sanctaphrax]

Where would you like to see a wizards power to be? At the moment it just feels that you think they are incredibly overpowered and need to be killed with a lot of fire. If I knew where you want them to be, I might be able to follow your reasoning better.

Like I said before:

(With a few exceptions, I think that the balance of magical effects is pretty good. I wouldn't use most of these, personally. But that's beside the point.)

That would be my personal view on balance, at least in this game. What is yours?

Are you saying that your view on balance is just equal spotlight time for everyone?

Mine is that everyone is roughly equal in ability to accomplish things. (Accomplishing things includes winning fights, doing research, creating secret societies, not dying in the wilderness, etc.) I'd like to point out that essentially everyone I've ever spoken to about balance (which is actually quite a few people) uses this definition or one very much like it, and as such I've come to regard this as the word's only definition in this context.

We're going to have to disagree on that one, I suppose. Compels can't only make a characters life complicated, they can, as a teamworking tool, be used to push a character into the backseat.
For example: a group wants to enter a building unseen. The wizard immediately jumps up and proposes a veil to sneak in. So far so good, but a creative player can make his wizard do almost anything, and he would leave every other character in his dust. And here's where compels come in. You (or maybe another player) tell the wizard player, that his magic would interfere with revolving doors, cameras, motion detectors and what else have you. He would get in unseen, but the place would be swarming with security regardless. Here's a fate point for your trouble, let someone else take a turn. Someone else, a spy type character for example, can take the wheel now.
If you do that evenly around the table, each character will have a time to shine and a time to lay low. And he will have a handful of fate points to tap into his full potential.

Two major problems with this.

1. Compels have to be appropriate to character concepts. You can't assume that you can plausibly compel wizards out of making veils.
2. This does nothing to fix the actual issue, which is that some characters are more capable of doing things than others. The wizard still comes out ahead of everyone else here because he has more FP to play with.

Compels can make a broken game work without too much trouble, but they won't actually fix the problem. Think of them as like insulin for a diabetic.

(Though honestly game balance is not necessary for play. Lots of people have fun playing games that are, by any objective measure, completely busted.)