I didn't playtest it yet, but I already got some thaughts, ideas, etc - maybe some would call it feedback.
Great! Go ahead and tell me your thoughts.
P.S. Don't worry about hurting my feelings -- TOZ already let The Gaming Den annihilate some of the v. 1.0 rules (those guys managed to provide some very good advice hidden amidst their slobbery invective, so thanks are due there).
I've been toying with the idea of another journey into the breach honestly. :)
These rules aren't ready for another go there yet, but if you mean you just want to post something unrelated and see how many people offer to murder your kittens, go for it.
Love these rules. I've already jacked a bunch of your Fighter Talents and integrated them into my "Combat Arts" homebrew system (think Arcane Discoveries for fighters).
I've also stolen Athletics and Endurance, which might be the best ideas I've ever seen in homebrew rules.
Your use of charisma and wisdom is really intriguing, and I might just integrate both of them into my next game.
I could go on with scaling feats, weapon proficiencies and other such wonderful things, but I'll leave it at this for now.
Keep up the great work.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
Today I reworked the maneuvers feats, because I was never really happy with the two-feat chains. The new feats are Improved Bull Rush (and reposition), Improved Feint (and other tricky maneuvers), Improved Grapple, Improved Overrun, Improved Trip, and Improved Weapon Maneuvers (including disarm and sunder); all of them scale with BAB. The "Greater" maneuvers feats are gone. Great Throw will be a separate scaling feat that will have Awesome Blow rolled into it.
This means that people using Improved Wrestling Maneuvers to pull double duty for grappling and tripping need to spend another feat, but then at BAB +6 they save a feat not needing the "Greater" version, so it all comes out in the wash. Disarming and sundering were left together because people hardly ever do them anyway.
Hmm... Did you specifically remove the Inquisitor class from this iteration of the rules? Or has it been folded into some other class?
It hasn't changed from v. 1.0, largely due to profound player apathy (in two home playtest groups and an online group -- something like 23 PCs so far -- not one person has expressed the slightest interest in playing one). I had toyed with specifically making an "Inquisition" cleric domain that would facilitate multiclassing with rogue and cover the bases that way (much as a varying mix of rogue, wizard, and barbarian can easily cover the Alchemist and Master Chymist), but never quite got up the motivation.
Hmm... Did you specifically remove the Inquisitor class from this iteration of the rules? Or has it been folded into some other class?It hasn't changed from v. 1.0, largely due to profound player apathy (in two home playtest groups and an online group -- something like 23 PCs so far -- not one person has expressed the slightest interest in playing one). I had toyed with specifically making an "Inquisition" cleric domain that would facilitate multiclassing with rogue and cover the bases that way (much as a varying mix of rogue, wizard, and barbarian can easily cover the Alchemist and Master Chymist), but never quite got up the motivation.
Not everything needs to be converted.
Your houserules encourage in-class customisation, so additional base class are less essential. If anything, I could see the Inquisitor as a prestige class mirroring the prestige paladin.
btw Kirth, I love what you've done with the Endurance skill. Makes me reconsider many of my own design decisions. This is a good example of how a skill can eliminate superfluous sub-systems in a more coherent design. This leaves me wondering which other sub-system could be likewise skillifyed.
'findel
|
Thanks, I just had a curious player who wants to play an Inquisitor. Version one works fine for him; if we notice anything in the course of a game, I'll mention it. I might mention the idea of a cleric-rogue multiclass option, but the player in question seems to prefer a base class method.
I'm not a huge fan of the Inquisitor anyway. That being said, I don't think it's "prestigious" enough for a prestige class.
|
I've made two modifications to the Skills rules:
1) If you have both Bluff and Perception skills, you can use Perception to Sense Motive.
2) Each level you gain additional ranks to spend on your Secondary Skills equal to your Intelligence modifier. Secondary Skills can be further improved in regular way.
1) If you have both Bluff and Perception skills, you can use Perception to Sense Motive.
2) Each level you gain additional ranks to spend on your Secondary Skills equal to your Intelligence modifier. Secondary Skills can be further improved in regular way.
I can see where you're headed with these, and to some extend I've tried to address it by instead expandfing the bonus skills list that each class gets. For example, rogues might get 1 free rank per level in Disable Device, Escape Artist, Spellcraft, Stealth, and Streetwise, and their discretionary points could be dropped to 4 or 6. What this does is elinimate the "tax" skills as much as possible, and leave all the rest as reasonable options.
With that context, before I say anything about your specific alternatives, understand that I am in no way trying to tell you how to play at home, of course -- the following are things to think about, a sort of "just my 2 cents," so take them with a grain of salt and ignore them if you like.
1. I would strongly caution you about this one -- in my opinion, if any skill does NOT need improvement, Perception is it. Seriously, even after stripping the Search functions out of it (and giving them to Disable Device and Spellcraft), Perception is still a "must-have" skill because of the avoidance of surprise value. Providing free Sense Motive as well as long as you have 1 rank in Bluff (a negligable expenditure) would, in my mind, tip the balance back from option into "skill tax." Just like the Ranger gets free ranks in Survival (because he needs it to do his job, it's pointless to pretend it's an option), if you make Perception too good, you might as well just declare that everyone gets max ranks in it automatically and be done with it. Part of the design goal was to remove "phantom options" to some extent -- both traps on the one end, and must-haves masquerading as "options" on the other. If you find that at most PCs are NOT investing heavily in Perception, you're probably OK, but I'd definitely keep an eye on that.
2. Personally, I probably wouldn't do this without taking away the free skill ranks for Intelligence for primary skills, but that's your call. Your solution is a good one for almost every class, with one exception: it rapidly heads to a game world in which all high-level wizards always have max ranks in all skills (not just the secondaries), because of the ability to double-dip their Intelligence bonus. I'd hate to single out the wizard ("everyone gets this benefit except Merlin over there!"), but you'd need some way to avoid all wizards being expert acrobats, rugby players, Olympic divers, and escape artists just because they have, at a realistic minimum, 10 skill points per level to allocate (2, +4 Int, +4 secondaries for Int). The up side is that you wouldn't need to list skills for genius-level demons, etc. in their stat blocks -- just assume they're all maxed.
Hey, I'm working on a ToB like system to improve on the original and try and get closer to balancing caster/combat classes and provide more options for characters. Would you mind if I borrowed some of your talents? Especially from the fighter and rogue classes?
Of course not! My ideas and adaptations are not licensed or copyrighted in any way; only the original source material (as referenced) is.
Continuing the consolidation of sub-systems...
I made Sixth Sense (= trap sense, more or less) a feat with prerequisite of "Perception 1 rank as a class skill." The feat grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC & saves in surprise rounds and against traps, with the bonus increasing by +1 per 4 ranks in Perception. This mirrors the totemless barbarian's progression exactly, and at least comes close to the rogue's original +1/3 levels (which I never particularly liked anyway). Rogues and totemless barbarians get it as a bonus feat at 1st level; given the prerequisite, fighters, monks, and rangers could pick it up as a feat (they could get it as a talent before), but it's still off-limits to clerics, etc.
Then I made Uncanny Dodge a [Combat] feat that scales with your Sixth Sense bonus: +2 = uncanny dodge; +3 = improved uncanny dodge; +4 = detect hostile intent (as the old fighter talent); +5 = forewarned (act in surprise round); +6 = cannot be surprised. The clumsy previous verbiage about "if you already have uncanny dodge from another class, you gain improved uncanny dodge" is accounted for by adding your ranks in Perception from both of those classes.
Special: All of the Uncanny Dodge functions can be defeated by an opponent trained in Stealth who succeeds at a check at DC = 18 + your Perception bonus (10 assuming "taking 10" as a passive check on your part, +4 for "you can still be flanked by a rogue 4 levels higher than you," +4 for the difference between the typical rogue's Dex modifier and his Wis modifier).
The result, I think, is that now I have two simple feat descriptions, which scale (as feats should), and have eliminated several pages of class feature/talent descriptions in various classes. Suggestions/thoughts?
Kirth,
I was able to go through the Skill document. Overall I have to say I really like the changes. I did catch a few things that may require some clarification.
Question on using Spellcraft to heighten a spell. In your skill document it states the DC is 25 + the spell level, while in the feats document under arcane feats, metamagic it states it is DC 20 + the spell level, which is right?
Under special in the athletics section you still have a reference to the lizard familiar giving a +3 on climb checks, should that be removed?
Under the Disable Device skill do you want to leave in the “Trap DC + 10” for the delay trap activation, +10 only in the box could lead to some ambiguity.
For the Endurance skill, what do you think about creating an Endure Elements and Altitude Affinity section for the skill?
For the Endurance skill, under the die hard description, did you decide to not go with the –Con for death and leave it at -10 hit points for dying?
Under the Handle Animal skill you refer to a ride check under “guide with knees”, did you want to remove the word ride?
Under the Spellcraft skill you still have a few references to Use Magical Device, one under Emulate alignment, one under Emulate ability score, and one under the special section.
Under the Spellcraft skill at the end of the special section you still have the specialist wizards gaining a bonus and penalty to learn spells within their school and of their opposition school, did you want to delete that section?
Finally there are still a couple references to disguise checks in the Perform (Acting) skill. They are in the Special section.
As always, time permitting, I will let you know if I see anything else.
I was able to go through the Skill document. I did catch a few things that may require some clarification.
You did indeed! I'll take care of these as soon as I'm able, and confirm in a subsequent post. Many, many thanks, as always, for your excellent reviews.
Kirth, my group is ready to tie the grappling rules to a stake and light a fire. I figured I would check out what you'd done with Grappling, but didn't see anything? Does yours just work the same way as in the CRB?
Edit: I tried my hand at re-writing the rules. While making the options make more sense, I fear all I've done is made the rules more complicated. I'm having to make a flowchart just so it makes sense to myself, and there's not a chance the group will ever be able to use grappling without consulting a chart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, my group is ready to tie the grappling rules to a stake and light a fire. I figured I would check out what you'd done with Grappling, but didn't see anything? Does yours just work the same way as in the CRB?
Honestly, I never found the 3.5 rules to be all that horrible (compared to more egregious problem areas), so the PF "improvements" were mostly lost on me. So far we've been running it on the fly something like this:
It isn't pretty, but it's worked out OK so far.
Tell you what -- if you let me know what exactly the problems are, I'll think about it and see if I can help you come up with solutions that will work for your group.
Wow, that was a ridiculously fast reply.
Primary problem that my group has: it takes too long to figure out what options either the grappler or grapplee has, what penalties they take, and what limitations they are afforded.
Secondary problem that the monk in the party has: If he grapples another monk, the other monk can flurry and he can't. Also the pinning mechanic doesn't make any sense.
I'll try to finish up the changes I was making to show you the sort of solutions I was looking for (mostly because I just want to finish what I started).
1. Primary problem that my group has: it takes too long to figure out what options either the grappler or grapplee has, what penalties they take, and what limitations they are afforded.
2. Secondary problem that the monk in the party has: If he grapples another monk, the other monk can flurry and he can't.
3. Also the pinning mechanic doesn't make any sense.
1. That's a problem with casters, too, when they don't know what their spells do. My response is usually to say, "learn what something does if you want to use it all the time. Otherwise it auto-fails." It's basic Player Etiquette 101 to know their own PC's abilities.
2. Well, given how I personally have been running it (the new Improved Grapple feat has been rewritten recently, and doesn't appear in the docs linked above):
In general, then, iterative grappling checks are good for mauling someone. Pinning a guy is good for holding him down without hurtuing him, and is also good for inflicting constions on him via Strike feats.
3. When you say "the pinning mechanic doesn't make sense," I don't have much to go on -- in what way doesn't it make sense?
Couple things on special materials:
Did you up the cost of celestial armor the magic item to reflect what it's now made of?
Celestrum is the same price as adamantine. Given relatively rarity and DC's to make it (adamantine has none), are you sure it shouldn't be closer to Oerthblood? Automatically good-aligned, +3 Dex, and extremely light is very valuable. I'd put it at a minimum of +5k over adamantine.
You make no note that adamantine armor stacks with Armor Training or DR gained from class levels from wearing armor. Unless it stacks, it's really not worth wearing. Feats and class levels will basically supercede it by the levels you can wear it...and you can wear mithral sooner (it's cheaper).
Is there any upper limit to the AC you can gain from the hides of creatures? I find it strange that the strongest metals in the world are not as effective as armor made from the hides of great dragons...which are going to be THICK and basically unwearable. A max of +10, Dex bonus +0, would seem logical, beyond which the hide is too thick to be wearable.
==Aelryinth
Going through Skills:
I see that you attached special uses to DC's, and kept them separate from Skill Ranks.
I was impressed where you used Craft check = Spellcraft Required to make a magic item. This requires powerful items to be of superb craftsmanship. However, it also makes it impossible to upgrade a standard weapon! Since most weapons start out their lives as +1 weapons and 5 ranks, you can't enchant them any higher without going to a new weapon!
So, you need a rule to overcome this.
The inherent imbalance in doing 500 gp worth of work enchanting items and doing MAYBE 2 gp a day when crafting an item is a huge discrepancy. I'm not sure how you would right it...but you should. It comes down to the old question: If you can make 500 gp/day Crafting magic items, why would you ever bother to adventure? In one year you could accumulate 180k of funds...without ever leaving the safety of your own home! Unless someone can offer you more then 500 gp a day, for, say, other spellcasting, you should tell them to get lost.
You might just have to take a couple zero's off of all your prices and WBL allowed just to weight this and make it real.
You should revise Skill Ranks to some extent to give power and exclusivity to those who invest in skill Ranks, not just those who invest in feats and magic items that grant bonuses.
For instance, under your rules, a smith could slip on a +10 COmpetence Smith Ring and be as capable as a 10th level character at making things.
Also, Ranks are not just 'bonuses'...as you Craft example relates, Ranks mean KNOWLEDGE. Thus, certain abilities of all kinds simply should not be available to those with low skill Ranks, regardless of their underlying bonuses.
For instance, Hide In Plain Sight shouldn't even be an option below 7 Skill Ranks, regardless of your check.
For another example, smithing rare metals should be just about impossible without special knowledge. Alchemical silver should require alchemy and Smithing Ranks. Cold Iron should require at least 5 Ranks, Mithral 7, and Adamantine 10. Rare things like Celestrum and Oerthblood should only be forgable by legendary characters with a minimum of 10-15 Skill Ranks...you want a legendary item, you need a legendary smith.
Too, the DC's for making something out of an unusual metal should be HIGH. If 20 is masterwork for mundane materials, alchemical silver should be 23, cold iron 25, mithral 28 and adamantine 30, with rarer metals taking similar high DC's (Celestrum should take at least a DC 35, given the other DC's involved with it!).
I didn't see any clarification on whether making something of rare materials increases the time. Does an adamantine sword take the same time as any other masterwork sword, just with an increased cost for raw materials? Because once you get cost of crafting to past the hundreds, it really breaks down. How do you carve a 20k gemstone? At 6 gp a week, you're going to be carving it for 1666 weeks, or 30 years...
Also, to prevent Fabrication/Creation from completely obliterating the importance of crafting/creation skills, you should make sure that one casting of the spell replaces ONE weekly crafting check, and the caster still is subject to all ramifications of the check (i.e. he could poison himself making poisons, or waste raw materials). In other words, it speeds up the process, but it does give you instant swords. Also, items that are Fabricated end up virtually identical, with little to no customization possible, and are automatically identifiable by those who know what to look for (1 Rank or higher in appropriate skill). Flooding a town with Fabricated armor is not going to be looked on well by local smiths.
I'd suggest speed multiples on high end items for crafting, based on skill ranks, i.e. every 5 ranks doubles the costs applied, or something, perhaps more. Someone with 20 ranks hitting a 40 on a DC 30 check could be doing 1200 sp/week, or 120 gp, x 16 for his Ranks, or 1920 gp of progress a week, on an item that cost 20k, getting it done in a phenomenal 11 weeks! A lesser master might labor at it for years, even with some magical aid.
Just some thoughts to keep things clean!
==Aelryinth
Finished reading over the feats document. I have a few questions/observations:
Should the serenity prereq be a Wis of 13 rather than a Cha of 13? It would make more sense.
For skill focus your example should be updated since you updated how the feat works.
For evocation, piercing did you want the damage you can convert to increase with level, a 10 point maximum seems really low at higher levels.
In the prereqs for the thanatopic spell your Knowledge (religion) should be changed to Knowledge (the planes).
The mounted combat and staredown feats still reference the ride skill and intimidate rather than demoralize, not a big deal but you may want to consider rewording them.
Finally is there a reason practiced bloodline gives a +5 bonus to effective sorcerer level. Most all the other practiced feats give a +4 instead.
Very good work.
I looked over the monk and ranger.
Question, it appears that you allowed rangers and monks to have zero level spells (for monks it appears under the ki powers known and for rangers it is listed under spells per day), but for the monk there is no listing stating they can used their 0 level ki powers an unlimited (or limited) time per day.
|
|
The Feats document doesn't allow you to "view" it, but it DOES allow you to download it. My guess is that it's too big of a file at a whopping 100 pages for Google Docs to handle it. You could try splitting it into multiple files ("Combat Feats.doc" "General Feats.doc") if you were really bothered.
@Kirth: Something I noticed... you have a lot of references to the sap, but no entry in the Equipment file.
Kirth/TOZ Thanks for sharing the houserules, it's very good reading.
my rules-fu is rusty (5 years since my active 3.5 days), so i need some clarifications:
-the high elf 'eternal grudge' gives a +1/level favored enemy bonus to _all_ other pc races "in this section", capped at [1+lvl/2]. Essentially as ranger favoured class option, but limited to 'civilized humanoids'. My first assumption was you select a race, but the text explicitly states all of them.
-so.. a lvl 4 elven rogue stalking goblins or orcs has (compared to a human rogue) +3 to attack/damage, perception and bluff, and can additionally detect them at will at 60'?
-That seems very powerful, especially for martials (but highly depending on the campaign). Am I reading it correctly? (it is a de-incentive to play high elf ranger, but gives a wonderful mechanics-based reason for the snotty elves to look down at everyone else)
-i assumed "PC races in this section" still would includes simple halfbreeds, but not exotics unless there is specifically a generation-old history of grudges (ie regular vampire raids or similar). For simplicity I would rule the list to to be identical to the ranger's group 'civilized humanoids' minus the elves themselves. How is this 'officially' ruled?
thanks for taking the time:-)
Couple things on special materials:
1. Celestrum is the same price as adamantine. Given relatively rarity and DC's to make it (adamantine has none), are you sure it shouldn't be closer to Oerthblood? Automatically good-aligned, +3 Dex, and extremely light is very valuable. I'd put it at a minimum of +5k over adamantine.2. You make no note that adamantine armor stacks with Armor Training or DR gained from class levels from wearing armor. Unless it stacks, it's really not worth wearing.
3. Is there any upper limit to the AC you can gain from the hides of creatures? I find it strange that the strongest metals in the world are not as effective as armor made from the hides of great dragons...which are going to be THICK and basically unwearable. A max of +10, Dex bonus +0, would seem logical, beyond which the hide is too thick to be wearable.
Thanks! In reply:
1. I'll check on that -- I'd originally priced it to match the cost of the celestial armor in the core rules, but I'm inclined to agree with you.
2. It should stack; I'll spell that out in the text. Thanks!
3. No upper limit. Instead of the hides of great wyrms simply being thicker, I imagine the scales as being ultrahard, better at deflecting blows than any known metal. What I need to do, though, is assign higher Mojo (personal item) costs for better dragonhide armors.
Excellent observations on Craft rules.
I agree with almost everything in that post. Unfortunately, I lack the time or inclination to do a complete rehaul of the Craft rules at this time, which is what is really needed.
1. For evocation, piercing did you want the damage you can convert to increase with level, a 10 point maximum seems really low at higher levels.
2. Finally is there a reason practiced bloodline gives a +5 bonus to effective sorcerer level. Most all the other practiced feats give a +4 instead.
1. I'd considered getting rid of it altogether -- the evoker's school power eclipses this feat, and is intended to do so. However, maybe converting damage equal to your caster level would be OK, allowing the feat to scale to some extent.
2. It's +5 because otherwise a 1st, 4th, 11th, and 16th level sorcerer derives absolutely no benefit from it. I'd been toying with assigning bloodline abilities at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th instead -- mirroring the wizard school progression and making +4 work better -- but I got bogged down in the whole process and eventually shelved it (especially because that made me want to merge bloodlines, domains, schools, and mysteries into a single mechanic -- an undertaking that proved beyond my patience and ability at this time).
for the monk there is no listing stating they can used their 0 level ki powers an unlimited (or limited) time per day.
I'll add that -- thanks!
@Kirth: Something I noticed... you have a lot of references to the sap, but no entry in the Equipment file.
I'll check on that, too. Thanks!
A lvl 4 elven rogue stalking goblins or orcs has (compared to a human rogue) +3 to attack/damage, perception and bluff, and can additionally detect them at will at 60'?
That's a good point. I'm not upset about the bonus, but I might reduce the race options (e.g., "pick 3 standard PC races..."). Another possibility is to reduce the detection range based on the favored enemy bonus. Thoughts?
it is a de-incentive to play high elf ranger
One thing to remember is that favored enemy is an optional ability for rangers now -- their real strength is in tracking and planar survival and movement.
-the high elf 'eternal grudge' gives a +1/level favored enemy bonus to _all_ other pc races "in this section", capped at [1+lvl/2]. Essentially as ranger favored class option, but limited to 'civilized humanoids'. My first assumption was you select a race, but the text explicitly states all of them.
To follow up:
To clarify the races affected, the text now reads "You gain a +1 favored enemy bonus (see ranger) against civilized humanoids other than high elves, or improve this existing favored enemy bonus by an additional +1, to a maximum bonus equal to half your character level +1." This pegs the ability to a standard ranger favored enemy choice, which I agree is better than the ill-defined "everybody else" it had before.Also, the range for favored enemy detection, instead of a 60-ft. cone, is now a cone of length equal to 5 ft. x your favored enemy bonus.
Also: Have attended to the other specific comments replied to just above.
yum, yum
munching through feats, fighters and rogue i have some more observations:
1: at least at lower lvls, it is easier to defend than attack
-my lvl 4 test fighter could reach AC 36. Armor training applying to shield+armor is powerful! (and thus so is unstoppable strike)
-my other lvl test fighter could "only" reach +17 hit (but ignore some armor and deflection, and extra +4 if elf with a grudge). Surprise: charisma is his main stat since challenge and daring fighter stacks. Yay for heroic heroes.
2: skill focus, synergy and supremacy stack. However my lvl 4 test rogue with +16 bluff is a combat monster.
-swift action feint (since lvl 2) at +16 is fair enough, he has to hit.
-move action baffling defense with take 10 is less trivial! Against anyone with bluff less than +6 that means AC:26 automatically.
-and if flanked, he can use combat reflexes to get high AC against the other opponents as well.
-at lvl 13 (16 ranks, +30ish bonus), we are looking at AC:40 (unless you have +20 bluff) and everyone with CMD under 40 is auto flatfooted. (and at lvl mind blank prevents some of the obvious ways to beat him).
3: for every build there is another build that can stop it. 'Rock, scissors, paper' more than 'the best build'. Love the variation, and definately seems like martials will be fun to play.
:-)
skill focus, synergy and supremacy stack.
Focus and synergy still do, although synergy no longer scales with level; it's just a convenient listing for what amounts to a set of racial traits.
"Skill supremacy" has simply been rolled into Skill Focus, so your 13th level rogue will have a +22 bonus (not including Cha), rather than +30.
yumfor every build there is another build that can stop it. 'Rock, scissors, paper' more than 'the best build'.
That was a major design goal, so I'm glad it was clear to you as well!
Our home game last night demonstrated some very important things to me. A 7th level party of PCs was under the gun by a 14th level (!) wizard. Previously he was just sending henchmen and summoned monsters against them; they were beneath his full notice until last night. If prepared and on full offense, he could kill them without sweating, but they set him up. Cadogan (Houstonderek's rogue) and Skjorn (Psychicmachinery's fighter) had a peaceful meeting with him in a public place; when he stepped outside afterwards to teleport home, they cold jacked him in the street and he went down in the surprise round, with no chance to react. Psychicmachinery remarked on how much I must hate casters, and especially wizards, but this sort of scenario is almost exactly what I was aiming for -- a well-prepared wizard, on the offensive, picks the battlefield and the terms and wins, but when it comes down to scuffling in the streets, he gets his ass handed to him on a plate.
--
Another duel was anticlimactic, as Skjorn (buffed by Andostre's wizard Agun) fought the 10th level NPC fighter who wasn't buffed (as his wizard ally had been killed the day before, as described above). Skjorn mopped the floor with the guy. So for anyone not sure what wizards are good for, there's your answer: they're synergy characters. If you have a caster, the rest of your team becomes awesome, because of buffs and battlefield control spells. But by himself, with no bodyguards, a wizard is a sitting duck.
A lot of people REALLY won't like that, and will prefer to play under standard rules in which the casters run around the battlefield dealing with bad guys all by themselves. I can understand and sympathize to some degree. However, these variant rules, including the seemingly horrific nerfs to the casters, are working out just as I'd hoped they would.
Oh, now I want to roll my dwarven eldritch knight. :)
I was actually about to recommend that for "combat wizards." The Eldritch Knight fighter talent lets you take fighter levels and still keep up your caster level, and the Spellsword talent provides some stacking for your talents and powers.
Major design goal #1 for the fighter: If you want to fight really well, take some levels in fighter.