So, as I was thinking about all of this, I asked myself: Movies, books, etc, are all filled with great warriors. It's a way more popular hero archetype than the great wizard. Why have we been unable to translate that to D&D? I think the issue is that, ultimate, whereas warriors in fiction are -incredibly- difficult to kill, warriors in D&D are trivial to kill. That persistence and stubbornness just isn't there, mechanically. I mean, they're tough to kill with swords. But so many monsters and characters can attack saves where the fighters are just weak that it's almost pointless for them to have that nice, huge fort save. So I set off to do an overhaul with the following vague ideas:
1.) Offensive spells basically break down into 3 categories - Damage, Debuff, Disable. As Crusader of Logic, Squirrelloid, and other good wizard players have pointed out, that is generally in increasing order of utility. Because there is very little advantage to choosing a damaging spell over a disabling spell (note that I include killing something instantly as "disabling"), good wizard players choose their spells almost entirely in terms of disabling spells. Once you get to a certain level (about 7), you can cast almost entirely disabling spells. For other slots, they take Debuffing spells (Ray of Enfeeblement, etc). The system I create should have incentives that make each of these types the best at some point.
2.) Save-or-die spells are cool. It is cinematically neat to have the evil arch-wizard be able to vaporize a poor guard who stands between him and the princess. They should still be in the game.
3.) Wizards have more problem-solving options that fighters. Way, way more. Most suggestions to remedy this involve giving the fighter more mechanical problem-solving options, allowing him to do super-hero stuff. This is unappealing to me - I don't want people jumping 95 feet in the air and throwing greatswords. I would, however, like to recreate the cinematic warrior-hero of classic fantasy.
---------------
Those are my design goals. I then refined them, into this set of ideas.
1.) If you want higher reward, there should be higher risk. In d20, this is quantified by having a lower DC. A simple proposal would be that, at each level, Damage spells get +3 DC, Debuffs get +0, and Disables get -3 DC.
2.) The reason it's OK for that arch-wizard to vaporize the guard is because he's -way, way higher level-. Think about a 12th level fighter vs. a 4th level fighter. Their will saves, before equipment, are +1 and +4. That means that, when you're storming the evil wizard's tower, the relative neophyte and the battle-scarred veteran of demon-slaying have a 15% difference in their chance to not get their mind blown up. That's just silly.
The solution to this is pretty simple - the level difference between caster and defender should matter. And not in a linear way. Let's try a penalty of +1, +2, +3, +5, +8, +13 for whoever is lower level.
3.) Finally - a fighter can't solve problems with magic, and can't avoid them. Therefore, he should be the least affected by them, in the mean. Rogues and clerics have some ways to get around being targetted, and ultimately wizards have the best ways to get around being targeted. Apply a flat +3 bonus to any full-BAB class and a +1 bonus to any 3/4-BAB class to saves. Finally, all saves scale at the same rate - +1 per 2 levels after level 1...the same rate that spell DCs increase at.
...so, that's some math. Let's see how it works on the data points. We'll start with an 18-intelligence wizard, and assume our defenders have 14s in their defense stats. All saves scale linearly, so we can pretty much pick any level to do this at.
At any level, our wizard has an advantage of 2 (from stat) to his DC over a fighter...but the fighter has a +3 flat bonus, as well as basically a +2 to his favored save. Let's assume that our wizard, not being an idiot, will target weak saves. Therefore, the wizard has a 60% chance to land direct damage, 45% chance to land a debuff, and a 30% chance to land a disable...assuming he targets a weak save.
Try it, then, against a rogue of equal. 70%, 55%, 40%...but rogues can be tricky sorts, and tough to fight.
Against another wizard? 75%, 60%, 45%. But wizards have a number of ways of countering spells, or being untargettable by spells entirely.
So...1 looks pretty good. Let's see how these probabilities scale when you're fighting people of higher level.
Wizard vs. a higher level fighter (4 levels higher): Not only does the fighter have an additional +2 to all saves from being 4 levels higher, he gets the level differential bonus. The result is probabilities of 10%, 5%, 5% - owch. Probably best to be helping your friends at this point...or not fight people vastly higher.
However...wizard vs. a fighter 2 levels lower? 75%, 60%, 45%. Pretty good odds to disable him in 2 shots.
And if the fighter is genuinely lower level (5?): 95%, 95%, 80%. Easy to disable.
--------------
So, what are the cons of this? Here's how I see them:
CON: More math. I'd say that the wizard has to keep track of his base DCs, and that the DM should adjust monsters' saves for level differential, as he knows the PC and monster level. My group wouldn't find this a pain, but we're fine with math.
PRO/CON?: Some classes become clearly harder to play than others. Fighters are solid, good offense, good defense, limited ways to problem solve. As you progress along the class spectrum towards wizard, things become much, much, harder to play - your defenses aren't that good, and your attacks will frequently fail...but you have tons of options and interesting ways to affect the battlespace/world.
PRO/CON?: Wizards having people auto-fail their saves is a thing of the past. Smart wizards try to use spells that don't grant saves (walls, etc.).
Anyhow - that's about all I have. Keep in mind that this is a proposal in its infancy, and I'm interested in any commentary.
Thanks!
-Cross