# Casters vs Mundanes in your experience



## MacMathan (May 14, 2012)

Related to the new L&L about Wizards I wanted to get an idea of how many here have experienced what Mearls is talking about.


----------



## Lwaxy (May 14, 2012)

If they are going to screw with the wizard that way, it makes me a lot less inclined to play 5e. To me, the magic system has always been too restrictive and restricting it even more takes the fun out of it. 

If the players are resourceful enough to pull a cool spell combo, that's fine for me. There are enough ways to make sure magic does not become too powerful, including spell chance failures in specific areas (like close to a powerful artifact, in a temple, a protected palace... heck even an enchanted wood will do. 

In my experience, the magic users become differently powerful, not more so. If the non-magic types are very ineffectively build, then yes, , the magic PCs are better. Otherwise, not so much.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 14, 2012)

Really, in the early days of the game, it seemed like the eventual dominance of casters was not only obvious, expected and inevitable, but was actually a design feature.  

'Balance,' was considered across a character's adventuring career.  If you were comically weak at 1st level, that balanced you being wildly powerful at 18th.  The same with races:  non/demi-human races had many advantages and could multi-class, but had severe level limits - they had great advantages at low level but were constrained at higher levels.  Similarly, classes and other options seemed to be balanced across all character-creation experiences.  That is, if a class was hard to get stats to qualify for, that was deemed to 'balance' it, by making it 'rare.'   No, really.

Those old balancing mechanisms only worked as intended (leaving aside whether working as intended was really balanced or not), if you played long campaigns which featured random character generation and disallowed changing characters, starting at 1st level and progressing well into higher levels.

Obviously, a lot of campaigns were short or used generous character generation variants or started above 1st level, or allowed characters to be swapped out at a given level.  

There are any number of reasons you might not see caster dominance at higher levels. Campaigns not progressing to higher levels was a big one.  Players changing characters, so at low level, casters are unusual and probably multi-classes, while at high level, everyone is a human caster of one sort or another.  Variants to beef up non-casters at high level and casters at low levels.  Wildly powerful magic items given to non-casters at higher levels.    Player restraint and/or arbitrary DM 'swatting' of casters (whether subtle through time pressure and the like, or overt, like ubiquitous anti-magic fields).


----------



## Raith5 (May 14, 2012)

Depends upon edition for me. In third edition and before (1st and 2nd): yes, in was domination of the casters by about 7th level, total domination by about 11th (whether this is bug or feature depends on whether you were a caster!). In 4th edition: not so much


----------



## Lanefan (May 14, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Really, in the early days of the game, it seemed like the eventual dominance of casters was not only obvious, expected and inevitable, but was actually a design feature.
> 
> 'Balance,' was considered across a character's adventuring career.  If you were comically weak at 1st level, that balanced you being wildly powerful at 18th. [...]
> 
> Those old balancing mechanisms only worked as intended (leaving aside whether working as intended was really balanced or not), if you played long campaigns which featured random character generation and disallowed changing characters, starting at 1st level and progressing well into higher levels.



30 years of 1e experience tells me to disagree here.

What I've seen time and again is the PC casters who become powerful in the late game are the ones who started early.  It's rare for a caster to come in later and become powerful.  Perhaps the fact that we tend to bring in characters a bit below the party level plays in to this.



> Obviously, a lot of campaigns were short or used generous character generation variants or started above 1st level, or allowed characters to be swapped out at a given level.



We use a generous character creation method - the same for all characters - and allow characters to enter and leave pretty much at the players' whim.  We've also removed just about all the race-class restrictions.

We've beefed up wizards basically to help them get through 1st level.

And even with all that, we haven't seen upper-level casters become as dominant as one might think.  Of the four basic class groups, Wizard (i.e. MU-Ill-Nec) is the least played in our crew; in part I think because players see them as too fragile.

An odd side effect of this is that there's often only one decent-level MU in the game at a given time, and if she leaves the party has no MU at all; so they try to keep her around - and so back into the field she goes to gain another level while the rest of the party swaps in and out around her... 

Lanefan


----------



## Minigiant (May 14, 2012)

My experience is that once caster get enough resources (spells, spells per day, gold, magic items, scrolls, wands, and HP) they have a choice

1) Dominate
or 
2) Willingly nerf themselves

The game shouldn't have as features of willingly self-nerfing and "I can't do jack" periods (AKA low level casters).

It's like a game of Monopoly where you start with 1/4 money but can purchase property without actually spending money.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 14, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> It's like a game of Monopoly where you start with 1/4 money but can purchase property without actually spending money.



It's not Monopoly if the boat and the shoe play the same.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 14, 2012)

My experience is generally that fighters and their ilk are more popular and more powerful at all levels, and that casters provide specialized expertise, plot device opportunities, and support the fighters.

At high levels, magic is not as effective as it reads. Anything that a character does is subject to massive scrutiny. Sure they can rain death and destruction on a few kobolds or human commoners if they want, but if they try anything stupid, someone more powerful than them is bound to notice. Almost every significant enemy has SR or some defense against magic, and at high levels, everyone has a ton of save-boostng items and rarely fails a save. Some common-sense DMing eliminates a few overpowered spells and combos, but for the post part, casters focus on something like healing or area damage, and chip in with a lot of out-of-combat divinations and the like.

Fighters, conversely, get all the powerful items, and have ridiculously powerful weapons. They can reliably ovecome any DR, and are likely to hit any enemy, and thus, where casters are often dumbfounded, fighters can deal damage reliably every turn of combat. A typical battle is decided by who supports their tank the best. Martial characters also tend to accumulate respect and political power, where casters tend to be separated from society.

I've been playing for over ten years now, with quite a few different people, several times at high levels and even in epic a few times, and I'm convinced this "god wizard" business is a myth. Well, not that it doesn't happen, but that it isn't a natural consequence of the rules. If anything, casters hit a sweet spot a little after 10th level (Heal, Disintegrate, Teleport, etc.), but fighters tend to reassert themselves later. There's room for improvement in limiting the sheer complexity of high-level casters and improving the breadth of options for fighters and rogues, but there's no need to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 14, 2012)

Well, I voted a resounding yes, and not just for combat casting as a few other posters have focused on.

In my experience, too often the high level casters can dictate the flow of adventuring though spells and their use or non-use. Thy can cast fly, or spider climb, or use powerful divinations etc etc etc, and that really puts them the ones in the saddle when it comes to deciding what to do. 

And that can be not a lot of fun for the other players.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 14, 2012)

Actually casters in ADnD were not as quadratic as you think. Saving throws got better. And anyone could resist spells better and better. So effectively, while spells were growing better and better, they became more unreliable. Also a wizard that was some level lower who had only spells two level lower were not handicapped by especially easily resisted spells.

Also in older editions than 3rd, wizards were balanced by the fact, that they could lose spells when in melee, and a vide variety of monsters, that just resisted magic.
(late 2nd edition had spells to reduce resistance though)


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (May 14, 2012)

It all depends on player skill and maturity.

I've run games for parties of beginners where the traditional blasty/healy/fighty/sneaky roles are used, and everyone is roughly on an even keel.  I've seen mid-optimization parties consisting of mostly casters and mid-optimization parties consisting of mostly noncasters, and as long as everyone knew what they were doing and had appropriate role divisions everything worked out fine.  I'm currently playing in a quite high-op campaign where I am the sole martial character who handles most of the combat stuff, hasn't been hit or failed a save in over 7 levels, can kill literally dozens of mooks each round, and can fly faster than the party casters can _dimension door_; the party casters are a diviner/abjurer arcanist who scouts out our enemies weeks in advance and wards our cities to hell and back, a druidish caster who builds entire fortresses and fleets out of thin air in days, and a necromancer who has undead hordes to crew those fortresses and fleets.

Generally speaking, "casters" outperform "noncasters" at levels above 6th, that much is not in doubt.  _Individual_ casters may or may not outperform _individual_ noncasters.  If skilled players play their characters to their full potential, then by high levels...sorry Ahnehnois, but noncasters are easily shut down without extensive caster and/or item support if enemy casters know what they're doing, and a caster's most useful contributions are divinations and fortifications out of combat and buffs and control in combat, but because casting rewards versatility and preparedness more than overspecialization, noncasters will generally be far better in their niche than comparable casters unless the casters are focusing in the same areas.

That essentially means that high-level combat turns into casters > noncasters > monsters > casters, depending on the specific builds and monsters involved.  It also, incidentally, means that much of the toes-stepping that can happen easily at lower levels fades away, as mundane skills--sufficiently boosted, of course--start to overtake magical utility again now that defenses against magic are common (Hide > _invisibility_, Escape Artist > _walls of force_, etc.) and most melee and the majority of ranged combat is best left to combat centric classes because, while CoDzilla and the Mailman are scarily effective (just ask Dandu! ), higher-level play tends to shift away from individual combat tactics towards strategy and logistics and a caster's not-directly-offensive contributions are more valuable.

All of this is in my experience, of course.  If players or the DM hold back, or if extensive nerfing/houseruling happens, or if groups decide to stick with lower-level playstyles, or similar, the above doesn't necessarily hold.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2012)

Yeah, eventually the casters do dominate.  It's virtually unavoidable as the casters can just do so bloody much.  The non-casters don't radically change throughout their career.  The fighter hits for more damage, the rogue gets a bit sneakier, but, there's very little that a high level fighter can do that a low level fighter can't do, other than at differing scales.  

For the casters, this just isn't true.  A high level caster can, literally, reshape the campaign - flying castles, gate in major outer planar beings to do their bidding, etc.  The muggle classes just don't get that level of power up.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 14, 2012)

This is so edition dependent it's not funny. I've played a lot of 3.x and until you've been spanked by a Druid or non-curing Cleric you don't know quite how irrelevant other classes can become and how quickly that power curve rises.

I disagree magic-users were designed to be more powerful than any other class later and weaker to start. They were more complex and more difficult to play because of it than any other class. However, this meant their scope of play was slightly broader than the other classes too. The default was only 5/4ths of the Fighter, so not exactly overwhelming, and the overlap was always much more than what was niche IMO. 

Was this ever an issue for Controllers in 4e though? The balancing involved there makes it hard to believe this topic held true for that edition. It really does depend on the version.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (May 14, 2012)

I'll go with 'yes' but with a big fat, 'depending on edition' tacked on. And by that, I of course mean 3.x for the most part. AD&D had enough restrictions and controls on casting classes such that they weren't completely broken at high level (assuming you played by the rules). In 3.x, all those controls, which were there _*for a reason*_, got tossed out the window, hence, problems.

4e "fixed" it in terms of balance, but also took a bit of the glamour out of being a spellcaster. I think they had the right idea, but the pendulum should perhaps swing back the other way a bit. *A bit.*


----------



## Gold Roger (May 14, 2012)

Edit: Now how the hell did I end in the wrong thread? Nevermind.

On the topic at hand here: I've experinced it plenty in 3.X. Mostly thinking back how much I showed up others with my spellcasters when I played (I've learned to reign myself in, but I used to be a spotlight grabbing git as player used to DMing).

One case where I DMed comes to mind when we decided to try out high level gameplay. We had one cleric that was plain and simple insanely powerful, despite absolute non-optimization.​


----------



## Mr. Patient (May 14, 2012)

I voted yes, but I'm mainly thinking of druids in 3.x.  Prior editions (and 4e) did not have the problem to nearly the same degree, and even in 3.x, I never saw the wizards and sorcerers really dominate like the druids did.

I bloody hate 3.x druids.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 14, 2012)

I voted yes,
 I have seen it, and I can not play a 2e or 3e game today and be a non caster. The closest thing I came was my warbalde/Duskblade/hombrew pc


----------



## Daztur (May 14, 2012)

Never saw casters dominate in TSR-D&D but that's probably because we mostly played at low level. 

Never saw casters dominate in 3.0ed D&D but that's probably because all of the players who played casters either didn't try to make their character powerful or tried to make their character powerful and really really sucked at it. Paired with a few min-maxers playing meleers things balanced out exceptionally well, but I recognize that that was due mostly to dumb luck and conscientious min-maxers doing things like "I want to make a half-orc warrior with high charisma, how they hell do I make that not suck" rather than "I want to play a really smart wizard, how do I make him badass."

So I recognize that the problem exists, I've just never seen it in actual gameplay.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2012)

Mango!

Depends on edition.

BECMI & AD&D: No. Low number of spell slots plus easily disruptable spells lead to a pretty decent balance.

3E: Yes, sort of. For us it was more a matter of system mastery. The gap between classes was less of a problem than the gap the system allowed between system masters and other players.

4E: No.


----------



## erleni (May 14, 2012)

AD&D 2e: definitely yes. In our hystorical party (went from level 1 to over level 30 with high level campaign rules) the wizard was clearly the strongest character. The only reason why my fighter/cleric could keep up was that I was a drow with an incredible SR.
3.x: more than in 2e
4e: not really

I think that the percentage of those who do not see this effect will be quite close to that of those who play spellcasters...


----------



## nnms (May 14, 2012)

3rd ed. My 8th level diviner dominated combat.  The buffs I could throw down on myself quickly made me better than anyone else.  I also had access to a lot of quickened true-strikes so I would never miss in melee.  And this was just with the PHB and no expansions.  I can only imagine what I could have done with the feats and spells from a couple more years worth of splat books.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 14, 2012)

Basic and AD&D: We saw some higher level dominance of wizards, but this tended not to bother us then because we were playing some variation of Fantasy Vietnam, and any player that lost a character had to "start over" at whatever point we agreed was the starting level of the campaign. Since characters rarely cracked 15th, and most of the time were in the 5th to 9th range, the default "balance over time" worked well enough for us then. At 11th or so, wizards were dominant, but we didn't mind, since the poor guys had to put up with so much flak the rest of the time.

3E: Only played it with my current group, who are uniformly careful and nice with social contract to not overshadow other players. Our objection to 3E on these grounds was not that we couldn't make it work for us, but that it takes too much work to avoid caster dominance at higher levels. Could solve 75% of caster issues by the simple expedient of forced multiclassing limiting caster spell progressions to no better than what the bard gets.  If that was the only objection to 3E, would quite enjoy that. 

4E: Haven't played enough high level 4E to comment. In the upper ends of the heroic tier, have not experienced the beginnings of caster dominance that we would typically see in 3E, though.


----------



## kimble (May 14, 2012)

Yes.
I remember a FR campaign where the combats with the Big Bads would always be:
a) Spellcasters flying, throwing fireballs at the Big Bad, while laughing hysterically*;
b) Non-spellcasters holding the minions and hopping that the spellcasters wouldn´t shoot them.

*Ok, not really laughing, but grinning.


----------



## eamon (May 14, 2012)

Mango!

It's a bad comparison.  I've never seen a pure caster nor a pure fighter; at least not like the premise of this question suggests.

Many of the most powerful casters tended to be semi-fighters (e.g. clerics+druids over wizards).

_All _of the fighters used magic heavily, both through items, and by being buffed. The cliche quadratic wizard/linear fighter almost always conveniently ignores that.

I'm not exactly sure who needed who more, but I feel the fighters tended to need to casters more for the buffs. However, several instances in any campaign required the kind of stamina that casters simply couldn't manage.  Also, we banned natural spell .

So, definitely mango!

Frankly I think its unwise to emphasize the question since its inherently divisive. I don't think its an inherent problem, _even_ with scaling spells; it's mostly a problem with certain spells and the general lack of flexibility in the purely martial classes. The whole idea of class balance is inane anyway: it's about player balance, not the classes, and even there balance is a dangerous notion since different players want quite different things.

After 3e I wanted more balance.  After 4e I want more creative chaos.  So this balance thing - well, it's not _wrong,_ it's just a worryingly boring detail that's getting way too much attention for my tastes.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 14, 2012)

IME, the relative balance of casters vs mundanes was very dependent on the DM and the campaign. Just to be clear, I am emphatically not  talking about leaving balance up to the DM, or a broken system that the DM had to "clean up". 3e was a little more caster-favorable in this regard, but it was still campaign-dependent.

Many things _used to_ play into it:


Magic items: which ones show up? how common are they?
3e's MI mechanics also heavily tilted to caster's favor.

Magic item creation: how hard is it?
If you rarely have PC's doing the crafting, that tilts away from casters.

Enemy spellcasters: Do they leave their spellbooks behind?
You truly hose Arcane casters, if they don't.

Monsters: Are they more than stacks of HP for the fighters to mow down?
When I DM'ed a "sandboxey" 2e campaign, I could tailor the magic dominance to suit the game the players wanted, simply by adjusting the above. 3e made it a bit harder, but at least arcane casters could be kept in check fairly easily, IME. (Sorry 3e, but you made the Divine caster just too good, IMO  Not that my clerics ever took advantage of it.)


Part of the resentment that 4e engendered, I think, was in somewhat removing that flexibility. You know, the whole  ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal’ thing that Mearls was talking about.



Anyway, as someone said above, I don't think that the LFQW thing was a fundamental problem with the rules. Just because someone can drive the car off a cliff doesn't mean that it needed a brake job.


----------



## Dausuul (May 14, 2012)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, I voted a resounding yes, and not just for combat casting as a few other posters have focused on.
> 
> In my experience, too often the high level casters can dictate the flow of adventuring though spells and their use or non-use. Thy can cast fly, or spider climb, or use powerful divinations etc etc etc, and that really puts them the ones in the saddle when it comes to deciding what to do.




Yeah, this. (I must spread some XP around.) CoDzilla may rule the battlefield, but the wizard has a thousand ways to accomplish the party's goals without ever getting in a fight, or while skewing the fight massively in favor of the PCs.

Caster dominance shows up earliest and is most severe in 3E, followed by 3.5E where they took a minor nerfing. It wasn't as bad in TSR-era D&D, partly because saving throw DCs did not scale and partly because wizards were less able to negate their signature weaknesses of low hit points and disruptable casting. Still, it was pretty bad. 4E largely did away with caster dominance, but at the cost of radically redesigning both caster and noncaster classes.


----------



## Melkor (May 14, 2012)

I started playing around 1983 or 84, and have played with a couple of guys from that original gaming group ever since. 

One of whom loves to find rules loopholes and push the limits of exploiting a system. He is the same player that always plays a Magic User/Wizard.

Even so, in my gaming groups, it has never been a problem. The combination of Wizards being weak at low levels (and having to survive to earn that 'payoff' of power at higher levels), the limit on spells per day, and a common-sense DM kept his characters from ever making the rest of us feel completely useless.

Granted, we did expect that the Wizard would be able to do amazing things if he survived to high levels, and it was a part of the game that we actually enjoyed.


----------



## dagger (May 14, 2012)

I vote NO in AD&D 1e and YES in 3.0/3.5 (but just a bit).


----------



## keterys (May 14, 2012)

4e: No
3e: YES, painfully so.
OD&D/1e/2e: Yes, but a bit group / level dependent.

I would suggest that while 1e was in much better shape than 3e, since it had some of the triggers, it's worth bringing up that I've done fights where you might run into, say, 8 9th level fighters and 2 3rd level wizards... and oh god you were scared of the wizards, not the fighters. Stinking Cloud and Color Spray and all sorts of things, oh my.

It's also a _very_ big deal how much of the spell pyramid a player or enemy caster gets access to - if the PCs can rest almost whenever, then casters get a bit ridiculous. Similarly, if a monster caster has their full pyramid, every time, then they're _also_ much scarier than they should be. It just gets too swingy if you can bring your entire load for the day to bear in a single encounter, no matter who you are.


----------



## Surmos (May 14, 2012)

Melkor said:


> I started playing around 1983 or 84, and have played with a couple of guys from that original gaming group ever since.
> 
> One of whom loves to find rules loopholes and push the limits of exploiting a system. He is the same player that always plays a Magic User/Wizard.
> 
> ...




Sorry to piggyback off your post but I had a similar experience for a long time. I noticed something similar at lower levels.  Heck I even had this same frame of thinking for a long time starting back when I played earlier editions.

As I've become a more open gamer in both tabletop and digital gaming I can't justify it anymore. I now believe that this balance can be achieved without removing the flavor and maintaining most of the creativity casters are accustomed to having. The issue seems to be one of compromise (compromise of an older perception)  and perception of what is "balanced" as far as what casters are capable of.   If I was going by the Tolkien series, then of course wizards would be some of the most power creatures to walk the planes. That's how they were.  I can't remember wizards not being that strong (as far as how that series portrayed how strong wizards could be) 

At PAX Mearls made a good point.  Gaming has changed over the past 38 years.  D&D has a history and a great deal of things that are considered "canon", but IMHO I think that older perception of a wizard being that powerful needs to change a bit.

I don't deny that may rub long-time players the wrong way, but without a balance being achieved it causes the game to potentially be less fun for other players not playing a caster.  I also accept that the concept of "unmatched power" is what makes the world more "real" and "realistic" for what some players expect as well.  

*immature rant*
The more I read these forums the more I'm blown away by fellow gamers lack of willingness to budge on issues like this.  Its almost like for some it is better to have the mechanics of the game support a perception instead of promoting a game that is balanced and have house-rules that build that perception they want to achieve  . I'm not saying its necessarily right or wrong either way, just my opinion.


----------



## Melkor (May 14, 2012)

Surmos said:


> *immature rant*
> The more I read these forums the more I'm blown away by fellow gamers lack of willingness to budge on issues like this.  Its almost like for some it is better to have the mechanics of the game support a perception instead of promoting a game that is balanced and have house-rules that build that perception they want to achieve  . I'm not saying its necessarily right or wrong either way, just my opinion.




Surmos, I think part of it is that some of us don't see the problems because of the groups we have played with and I guess that makes us very fortunate compared to others. 

I have posted a couple of topics on this today. It's not that we have a lack of willingness to budge on this stuff, it's just hard for some of us (and when I say "for some of us", I guess I mean "me," as I can't speak for anyone else) to see some of these issues people have because I haven't experienced them in my games.

If I have been playing with rules that others see as broken or needing "balance" since the early 80s, and those problems have never really come up at my gaming table, it's hard for me to see/say that they need a fix. And we have played 1E, 2E, 3E/3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E.

That said, I truly want everyone to have a fun play experience with D&D, and I hope that D&DNext allows you to play your way, and me to play mine, without those two styles affecting each other in a way that says I am wrong if I play my way, or you are wrong if you play your way.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (May 14, 2012)

Back when I did 3.x PbP, the *standard setup* was that "the Big Five" were *banned* outright, and the Book of Nine Swords, love it or hate it, was used. The Big Five included Arcanist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard.

There were/are very good reasons this was such a widely used rule in those games. A good FAQ on it can be found here.


----------



## Surmos (May 14, 2012)

Melkor said:


> Surmos, I think part of it is that some of us don't see the problems because of the groups we have played with and I guess that makes us very fortunate compared to others.
> 
> I have posted a couple of topics on this today. It's not that we have a lack of willingness to budge on this stuff, it's just hard for some of us (and when I say "for some of us", I guess I mean "me," as I can't speak for anyone else) to see some of these issues people have because I haven't experienced them in my games.
> 
> ...




VERY well stated.

Even when reading some of these comments it is clear that some people never actually experienced issues as others did in regards to balance because the groups they have played with did not notice an issue with the style of game play.  Now this could be because there was no genuine issue or even that the gameplay matched the perception of the game. (casters were stronger, but this was acceptable.)  Whichever was the case i believe that as long as the players and the DM are having fun at that table, the game is doing what it set out to do.  My hope is that with 5E ( they can please the greatest number of people.  We definitely share that feeling on the on the system of choice.

My rant is really a bit unfair because i ended up enjoying (it took a long year to see it) the 4E style of the game more than i thought i could.  I had to understand what i was seeing and i had to figure out why these changes didn't bother me as much as other people when they saw them... 
(here i go again...)..

If you were to look at the MMO market and back to an older MMO game such as..Everquest.  Everquest was made very closely to the style of D&D that i mentioned in my previous post in regards to the "Tolkien" setting (or maybe the AD&D setting?...)
Fighters had a weapon and a shield (or 2 weapons) and bascially had the ability to taunt.  This taunt had to be switched off between mobs to prevent mobs from hitting other classes that did other important things. (like the wizard, ranger, druid, or cleric)

The fighter was a basic class with a limited taunt.

Then you look at the wizard from Everquest.  
The wizard could root targets, do massive damage and basically Teleport to anywhere in the world.  It was not only powerful  with burst spells and rooting but also had the benefit of heavy amounts of convenience given its magic abilities. (teleport, levitate, fly, invisible)

Why is this relevant?  Almost there..

Flash forward to MMO's of the 2005+ Era.  Fighters DONT JUST taunt with a single button.  They have different kinds of taunts, roots, knockdowns, pushes/pulls that will keep enemies on them for whatever reason they want to (defending or damage dealing).  It wasn't until this era that we saw an explosion of people playing MMO's that never had seen this genre before.
These changes ( and also other factors) resulted in an unprecedented amount of players that were playing MMO games, where previously this genre had a much smaller niche in the gaming market.  

Now knowing this i couldn't fault what the company was trying to do for 4E.  It wasn't unwise to change the formula given that a previous franchise had done so similarly with a niche market in digital gaming.  I almost believe it would have been an unwise decision to not take that risk.  Classes that were not caster got more abilities and more options.  It almost made every class a spell class (yeah i said it.  so sue me)  But if some of these posts are any indication, I and others believe that 4E was the closest the game had come to avoiding that caster ability to "overshadow" mundane classes.

Linking this to my "immature rant" a bit...
Many people said very similar things in regards to new MMO games. " This isn't Everquest.",  "This isn't World of Warcraft", "This isn't Ultima Online" and if that is good enough for people to not play a particular MMO (and to parallel.. a particular tabletop RPG system  "This isn't AD&D/3.x/4E") then that is acceptable.  To this day people still PAY MONTHLY to play Everquest.  But it is the lack of willingness to broaden the perception of what makes these games that has me disappointed when i read these forums on occasion.  

If you were to ask if i feel like more people know about D&D because of 4E my answer is: Absolutely.
Whether more people play it or bought it is a different question.  
More people are aware of a niche of gaming that i'm interested in.  This can only be good for me one way or the other.  

Too much?...


----------



## Stormonu (May 14, 2012)

I don't ever remember spellcaster dominance being a problem in my games, though that may both be a cause of not playing high level (my games generally stopped at 10th-12th level) and not hearing about LFQW until late in 3E.  It doesn't help that I've been willing to punch troublesome rules in the face, to make them sit down and behave.

I do remember a high-level 3E druid giving me some problems, but I always chalked that up to not being familiar with the class at those levels.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (May 14, 2012)

Last time I played 3E we finally reached level 13.

At level up my paladin received 7 hps and +1 bab. The cleric received similar hps plus 3 7th level spells plus a broadening of his lower spell slots. And no, I never over-shadowed his PC at lower level. If you call that balanced let me sell you this bridge I own in NY.

Same adventure, when the Teleporting/Flying sorcerer or buff-machine cleric couldn't make the session, the adventure changed big time. We were not 1/4 diminished without the absent player we were more like a shadow of the party.

A lot of this could've been solved I guess. Plonk in availability to higher level flying mounts, divination fonts at a temple, tie teleportation to fixed circles, and seriously just rein in the buffs - we needed a spreadsheet to manage them.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

I voted no I have read all the complaints but I have never seen it and when talking to other groups in the area they don't have an issue with either. 

There are several issues that I have seen discussed on the boards that make me go huh.

Wizards can learn every spell in the game. This is only true if the DM gives them access to every spell. And there is no guarantee that you will always roll high enough to make the spellcraft check to do so. 

Wizards can't be interrupted in combat. Say what I see it happen all the time. They flub their combat casting and lose the spell they can't make the concentration check after being hit and lose the spell. 

The argument is that these get max out well if that is true that means the wizard is not putting spell points in anything else. If DMs made knowledge skills important and part of the game then players put skill points into them.

They can do things better with magic then the other players can without magic. Well yes knock is a win but if a wizard soes nothing but knock then they don't get to do anything else and eventually they will run out of spells. A rogue can open doors all day long. It is not a finite resource for him.

He can cast spiderclimb to avoid the trap. Yes he can and now he is on the other side by himself alone. Smart plan not. 

The wizard cast grease and glitterdust on the iron golem there goes the combat. BOO HOO so in this the combat the wizard got to be the hero.

How about the combats where the wizards were facing off against monks and rogues with their improved evasion and could not really do anything.

The wizard gets to decide things like when to teleport which gives him more story control. So it would be better that no one can teleport because then everyone can stay and die in the encounter. If you want to talk story control about those pesky clerics getting to decide who lives and dies in the party talk about control. 

I will say that some of 3E needs to be reigned in. For example metamagic can really overpower the spells. Magic items should cost more to create. The DM can curb this by keeping the action movement going so the wizard does not have unlimited time to make these items. I personally will not allow any feat that allows you to cast more than one spell a round. 

But I have yet to play in a game where the rest of the party are no more than glorified henchmen.


----------



## the Jester (May 15, 2012)

Sometimes.


----------



## Raith5 (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Wizards can't be interrupted in combat. Say what I see it happen all the time. They flub their combat casting and lose the spell they can't make the concentration check after being hit and lose the spell.




I found concentration checks in 3rd ed to be fairly trivial - all casters maxed out concentration every level. Once you have mirror image or stoneskin up (or both!) the risk was pretty low!

Also the idea that spells can be interrupted actually reinforces the idea that mundanes are there to protect the squishes and reinforces the idea that party should 'turtle' forward in formation.


----------



## Minigiant (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I voted no I have read all the complaints but I have never seen it and when talking to other groups in the area they don't have an issue with either.
> 
> There are several issues that I have seen discussed on the boards that make me go huh.
> 
> ...




That's all fine 'n' dandy at lower levels.

But almost every higher level experience I've had (especially in 3E) has been the DM trying to drain the casters' spell slots and trying to keep the casters from having any downtime to make items.

Surprise! Random Encounter! Orcs with axes and healing potions for you to steal!

Poor Application of renouncement management was a big issue. 4E fixed it... in ways that many people didn't like... Uniformity.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (May 15, 2012)

I have found that the casters do overshadow the muggle classes at the highest levels. Since I mostly play casters, this has never struck me as a problem.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

We never had any problems in our games with spellcasters of any type.

A few reasons why.

1: Wizards- Spell shops weren't around every corner and random spellbooks were few and far between. You were mostly stuck with your 2 spells per level.

2: Druids- We didn't have any problems with druids because of this. * The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with. For example, a druid who has never been outside a temperate forest could not become a polar bear.* Our DM actually enforced this so there was no flipping through the Monster Manuals to find the most powerful creature to Wild Shape in to. 

3: Cleric- Nightsticks had to be approved of by the DM and if they were then you were only allowed to use 1. Also, if you burned all of your Turn Undead to power yourself up we were usually hit with tons of undead followed by a caster who specialized in Dispel Magic. We also found that even after those buffs the cleric couldn't out do the fighter because of the sheer number of bonus feats that the fighter got. 

Anything outside of core had to be approved by the DM.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

I tend to find that a lot of people forget that the rogue has access to Use Magic Device which allows him to do something that not other spellcasting class can do, use "any" magic item that exists.

A rogue plus Magic Device Attunement equals ready to rock and roll.

A Wizard would have to be an idiot to waste spell slots trying to impersonate the rogue and still wouldn't be able to cover everything.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

Just wanted to say that a well built fighter plus Robillard's Gambit was great!


----------



## Hussar (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> We never had any problems in our games with spellcasters of any type.
> 
> A few reasons why.
> 
> ...






ForeverSlayer said:


> I tend to find that a lot of people forget that the rogue has access to Use Magic Device which allows him to do something that not other spellcasting class can do, use "any" magic item that exists.
> 
> A rogue plus Magic Device Attunement equals ready to rock and roll.
> 
> A Wizard would have to be an idiot to waste spell slots trying to impersonate the rogue and still wouldn't be able to cover everything.




Hrm, interesting.  The rogue can rock because he can access all these magic items that apparently the wizard never gets to access.  I mean, why would you bother handing the wand you just found to the rogue and not the wizard or cleric who can automatically use it?

So, yes, if you completely ignore the 3e guidelines on campaign creation (buying guidelines for towns in particular) and for some bizarre reason dump all the magic goodies on the rogue, then yes, you can achieve parity.

Not that there's anything wrong with the baseline rules  .  After all, if there was nothing wrong, then why would you completely ignore them?


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

Raith5 said:


> I found concentration checks in 3rd ed to be fairly trivial - all casters maxed out concentration every level. Once you have mirror image or stoneskin up (or both!) the risk was pretty low!
> 
> Also the idea that spells can be interrupted actually reinforces the idea that mundanes are there to protect the squishes and reinforces the idea that party should 'turtle' forward in formation.




Here again this is not a magical problem but a problem that skills can be max out to easily. That is a huge complaint I have with skills in 3E and not just with wizards but with all classes. I have seen rogues get to the point that never fail an open lock or disable trap roll. 

Make it harder to max out skills and certain problems cease to exist.

WE have a house rule that has helped with this a 1 on a skill check is a -10 a 20 is a +10. 

I don't have an issue with spells being interrupted I do if they wizard does not get a save. I hated the I get hit with a pebble in 2E and take 1 point of damage and there goes my spell. That sucked big time. 

If you make the wizard totally dependent on the party to protect them otherwise they are next to useless it can really hamper the player playing the wizard if he plays with a party that does its own thing. I have seen parties that play this way. 

So I think a balance should be struck between making the wizard completely squishy and allowing the wizard a little protection when it comes to casting in combat.

Getting rid of the annoying 5 foot step would help too.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 15, 2012)

Hussar said:


> After all, if there was nothing wrong, then why would you completely ignore them?



While I think there is something wrong with the baseline rules, I completely ignored them for entirely different reasons than balance issues. I like my campaign worlds homebrew and done my way, and the 3.X DMG isn't going to decide that for me. Thus the fate of all magic items, mundane items, high levels found in populations, etc. all go out the window. I actually think it's probably a fault to design the game with those things in mind, if for no other reason than for homebrew settings (of which there seems to be many). As always, play what you like


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Hrm, interesting.  The rogue can rock because he can access all these magic items that apparently the wizard never gets to access.  I mean, why would you bother handing the wand you just found to the rogue and not the wizard or cleric who can automatically use it?
> 
> So, yes, if you completely ignore the 3e guidelines on campaign creation (buying guidelines for towns in particular) and for some bizarre reason dump all the magic goodies on the rogue, then yes, you can achieve parity.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with the baseline rules  .  After all, if there was nothing wrong, then why would you completely ignore them?




Nope, the rogue rocked anyway on top of being able to use any magic item in the game. Rocks X 2

Remember, guidelines were there to help DM's who didn't want to bother creating their own towns and how they wanted them to run. Guidelines are guidelines and not rules. Can't use that to support your argument I'm afraid. The DMG also says that it's fine for DM's to use their own methods. 

Nothing has been ignored in what I said. You are trying so hard to sit there and prove some of us wrong when we said we didn't have any problems.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> While I think there is something wrong with the baseline rules, I completely ignored them for entirely different reasons than balance issues. I like my campaign worlds homebrew and done my way, and the 3.X DMG isn't going to decide that for me. Thus the fate of all magic items, mundane items, high levels found in populations, etc. all go out the window. I actually think it's probably a fault to design the game with those things in mind, if for no other reason than for homebrew settings (of which there seems to be many). As always, play what you like




What baseline rules is he even talking about? What magic item shops and spellbooks being all over the place is a baseline rule? Sure it says that spellcasters can share spellbooks with each other no problem, remember that word "can" which isn't the same as "do".


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> That's all fine 'n' dandy at lower levels.
> 
> But almost every higher level experience I've had (especially in 3E) has been the DM trying to drain the casters' spell slots and trying to keep the casters from having any downtime to make items.
> 
> ...




Again I have played high level DnD and with the right DM it balances out. DMs should control the pace of the game and while I think if a player has designed his wizard to create items he should get the ability to do so some of the time but not to extent that they are going crazy making them.

Also every member of the party should be equipped with magic items that allow them to do things like fly, see invisibility, dimension door. I think people forget that DnD is about magic always has been. It is not really suited to be played as a low magic game not at high levels. 

I also think magic items are to cheap and should cost more to make. 

Part of managing a high level game is getting the entire party to use resources. Also as DM you know what the party can do plan around that. They are going up against high powered BBEG who have the resources to learn about some of the parties abilities and plan according.  

Every high big encounter I played with a good DM required the entire party working together to not only defeat the bad guys but not die.


----------



## Minigiant (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> We never had any problems in our games with spellcasters of any type.
> 
> A few reasons why.
> 
> 1: Wizards- Spell shops weren't around every corner and random spellbooks were few and far between. You were mostly stuck with your 2 spells per level.




2 spells a level plus the occasional found scroll is usually enough. The problem is not access to spells. It is getting high enough that you can cast them without draining a large percentage of your resources.

The second the DM gives a wizard a week of downtime and enough gold... it's all over, man.


> 2: Druids- We didn't have any problems with druids because of this. * The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with. For example, a druid who has never been outside a temperate forest could not become a polar bear.* Our DM actually enforced this so there was no flipping through the Monster Manuals to find the most powerful creature to Wild Shape in to.




Dire animals and regular brown bears are cool. Wild shape is just bad. Bad bad. Tolerable when you fist get it but after a few levels... house rules are required.



> 3: Cleric- Nightsticks had to be approved of by the DM and if they were then you were only allowed to use 1. Also, if you burned all of your Turn Undead to power yourself up we were usually hit with tons of undead followed by a caster who specialized in Dispel Magic. We also found that even after those buffs the cleric couldn't out do the fighter because of the sheer number of bonus feats that the fighter got.
> 
> Anything outside of core had to be approved by the DM.




Clerics actually aren't that bad. Most of the cheesy cleric stuff requires 15 minute days, high levels, or non-core stuff.  Core clerics are fine until you hit the teens.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Hrm, interesting.  The rogue can rock because he can access all these magic items that apparently the wizard never gets to access.  I mean, why would you bother handing the wand you just found to the rogue and not the wizard or cleric who can automatically use it?
> 
> So, yes, if you completely ignore the 3e guidelines on campaign creation (buying guidelines for towns in particular) and for some bizarre reason dump all the magic goodies on the rogue, then yes, you can achieve parity.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with the baseline rules  .  After all, if there was nothing wrong, then why would you completely ignore them?




Rogues often get things they want because they usually are the ones finding the items first. 

In all the games I play in  once the rogue gets a decent use magic device we give him some wands the reason for this is it does not make sense for one character to horde items. It just makes sense to give them a wand of healing in case it is the cleric who goes down or to just the double the amount of people who can heal. A rogue who usually has a better dex and can't be flanked may have a better chance getting to a fallen comrade who is in the thick of melee.

I keep saying this a party is supposed to be a team and work together which is why I don't get the concept of a wizard using buffing spells on himself so he can go out fight the fighter. That seems an incredibly selfish way to play. In the games I play buff spells are usually cast on the person who can use them the best.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> What baseline rules is he even talking about? What magic item shops and spellbooks being all over the place is a baseline rule? Sure it says that spellcasters can share spellbooks with each other no problem, remember that word "can" which isn't the same as "do".



Page 137 of the 3.5 DMG, upper right side under the title "Community Wealth and Population":


			
				3.5 DMG said:
			
		

> Every community has a gold piece limit based on its size and population. The gold piece limit (see Table 5-2) is an indicator of the price of the most expensive item available in that community. Nothing that costs more than a community's gp limit is available for purchase in that community. Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are all temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.



It goes on from there, but the general idea is that if a town has 2,001 or more people (gold piece limit of 3,000 gp), you should be able to buy anything that costs up to 3,000 gp or less from that town, unless something is messing that up (which should be the exception). Once most towns don't abide by this logic, the exception has become the rule, and you've discarded the guidelines in the DMG (as Hussar was rightfully pointing out).

And, just to give an example, there are only eight level 8 spells (on scrolls) that don't qualify for that 3,000 gp limit. That means you can usually purchase any of the other twenty-seven level 8 spells (on scrolls) in any city that has 2,001 or more people in it. Any city with 5,001 or more people has a gp limit of 15,000 gp, which is enough to buy any scroll except for Wish (which can be purchased in any town with 12,001 or more people, which has a gp limit of 40,000 gp!).

Once you get into the highest end listed (25,001 or more people), you can reliably find any single item worth up to 100,000 gp or less, ready to be purchased. It's there, it's available, and you can buy it, by the guidelines presented in the 3.5 DMG. Should it be that way? In my mind, there shouldn't be a default in the DMG (I can see campaign setting books). But, there it is. Hussar isn't wrong to reference it. As always, play what you like


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Page 137 of the 3.5 DMG, upper right side under the title "Community Wealth and Population":
> 
> It goes on from there, but the general idea is that if a town has 2,001 or more people (gold piece limit of 3,000 gp), you should be able to buy anything that costs up to 3,000 gp or less from that town, unless something is messing that up (which should be the exception). Once most towns don't abide by this logic, the exception has become the rule, and you've discarded the guidelines in the DMG (as Hussar was rightfully pointing out).
> 
> ...




I know how it works but like I said earlier, those are guidelines. Those are to help DM's who don't want to build their own towns. Not using the DMG's guidelines is by no means breaking RAW or doing anything wrong. There is also nothing that says how many towns and what their sizes will be in your campaign. Going in and assuming you are going to find X amount of spells and magic items in a town is wrong on the player's part. There is a reason why that information is located in the DMG.

I know exactly what Hussar is going. He is trying to find a way from him to be able to say that the only way we are able to play the game with no problem is by playing the game wrong. If we were removing RAW then I could understand but not following the guideline advice in the DMG is not the same thing.


----------



## Hussar (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I know how it works but like I said earlier, those are guidelines. Those are to help DM's who don't want to build their own towns. Not using the DMG's guidelines is by no means breaking RAW or doing anything wrong. There is also nothing that says how many towns and what their sizes will be in your campaign. Going in and assuming you are going to find X amount of spells and magic items in a town is wrong on the player's part. There is a reason why that information is located in the DMG.




No, there is nothing wrong with changing the guidelines.  But, you're missing the point.  You're saying that the problem doesn't exist in the mechanics.  But, the entire game is BASED on those presumptions and so the problem does exist in the mechanics.  

Claiming that the problem is entirely the fault of the DM who is simply following the guidelines that are presented in concise detail is a bit disingenuous.  Sure, you can fix the problem by hosing the wizard and changing baseline presumptions in the game.  But, that simply proves the point - the problem exists.

If the problem didn't exist, then we wouldn't have to eject the baseline presumptions of the game would we?


----------



## Minigiant (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Again I have played high level DnD and with the right DM it balances out. DMs should control the pace of the game and while I think if a player has designed his wizard to create items he should get the ability to do so some of the time but not to extent that they are going crazy making them.
> 
> Also every member of the party should be equipped with magic items that allow them to do things like fly, see invisibility, dimension door. I think people forget that DnD is about magic always has been. It is not really suited to be played as a low magic game not at high levels.
> 
> ...





Not saying it can't be done.
It is just WAY TOO MUCH WORK on the part of the DM. Constantly having to plan around the casters take time away from figuring out what Lord Black is doing and how many kobolds did Flamor add to his army.

Next thing you know every patch of grass is claimed by a dragon. Two steps in any direction is a horde of demons, undead, or savage humaniods.  Epic armors and swords that have all sorts of houserule magic on them handed out like candy to the mundane. Dimensional Anchor mage police. The whole royal family is charm proof. Traps in the restroom. The farmer's dog is a lycantrope. Every other wizard is a paranoid tower hermit. 20 combats a day. etc...

DMing a game with casters shouldn't be a chore. Nor should I hope my players nerf themselves just to be balanced with each other. I want to DM high level but I don;t thing I can without treating one person like the "DM's girlfriend" and the other like the "DM's annoying brother".


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 15, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> 30 years of 1e experience tells me to disagree here.



This is a thread about experiences.  In your experience, casters didn't dominate "as much as one might expect."  In mine, they did.  The longest campaign I ever ran went 10 years and levels 1-14.  By the end of it, everyone was playing a caster, with good reason.

I don't hold that against AD&D as much as I might, because it was by design.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> supposed to be a team and work together which is why I don't get the concept of a wizard using buffing spells on himself so he can go out fight the fighter. That seems an incredibly selfish way to play. In the games I play buff spells are usually cast on the person who can use them the best.



While the wizard could buff himself to be about as good as a fighter at 'fighting,' that's just a theoretical exercise to illustrate strict superiority (and it doesn't quite pan out, even in 3.x - the fighter retains a bare edge against self-buffing casters, thanks to all his combat feats).  What's really the most efficient for a 3.5 wizard is to buff himself to be an even better wizard - cast another spell every round, maximize his save DCs, etc.

In 3.0, the teamwork thing held up a little better.  You couldn't buff caster stats, and your buffs to non-caster stats (STR, DEX, CON) lasted so long it was very efficient to use those spell systematically, effectively transferring 'excess caster power' to the non-casters.  It was still balance by magnanimity - the 'rich' caster giving charity to the poor non-caster - and it didn't last long, but it was a little something.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 15, 2012)

I do believe casters overshadow non-casters eventually....and not just in terms of combat effectivness.

More and more, the game revolves around magic to do anything.

Get to the evil guys lair? Well we need to plane shift to X, then teleport to Y.

How do we know where it is? - We need divinations.

How do we bypass the walls of force? - Teleportation or Disintegrate.

How do we might the crazy powerful monsters? - An army of magic buff spells.



More and more the gametime focuses on the spellcasters just to get to the combat let alone fight it.


----------



## outsider (May 15, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> This is a thread about experiences.  In your experience, casters didn't dominate "as much as one might expect."  In mine, they did.  The longest campaign I ever ran went 10 years and levels 1-14.  By the end of it, everyone was playing a caster, with good reason.




Similar experience.  In my 2e group, we had 3 powergamers.  Two of them played Fighter/Mages.  One played a Fighter/Mage/Thief.  These characters were roleplayed as fighters that could cast magic(or thieves that could cast magic, as the case may be), not as mages that could fight/steal.  They had no interest in actually playing out magic thematically, they just couldn't turn away from the obvious power.  As the campaign rolled on, mundanes that died were replaced with casters/multiclass casters.  By the end of the campaign, all of the characters were casters of some sort.  Mostly F/Ms, a straight druid, a straight cleric, and a straight mage(which, incidentally, didn't feel at all weak in comparison to the f/ms by the end of the game).


----------



## Lwaxy (May 15, 2012)

[MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION]


Why do you make it sound like people not knowing what they are talking about? Yes, I do GM high level campaigns a lot (as in lvl 15 and over). 

The only caster problems I got is that players were reluctant to play casters, which has changed now that we've house ruled magic to work differently. Oh and come to thik of it we had one wildshape crazy druid once, who got out of hand at such high levels but that might have been a play style incompatibility. 

Wizards or priests though - nope. 

I might give it a test and ask the more experienced players to create some optimized wizards and fighters and then run a one short high level hack and slash. Maybe it does make a difference for minmaxers, but we do not allow minmaxing normally.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 15, 2012)

Casters can get a bit hectic in 3rd Ed, in part due to changing the saving throw system (in 1st/2nd Ed, fighters had sick saves at high levels), even though as a DM I do not agree to the mythic proportions some espouse on these boards.

Well built non-casters can lay some serious smack-down (shocking damage).

Though _Murderous Mist_ has to be one of the most annoying spells ever.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> We never had any problems in our games with spellcasters of any type.





ForeverSlayer said:


> Also, if you burned all of your Turn Undead to power yourself up we were usually hit with tons of undead followed by a caster who specialized in Dispel Magic.



To me, that's the definition of a problem. As a GM, I don't want to have to plan a series of encounters around one character's powers in order to keep the game balanced.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (May 15, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> @Nemesis Destiny
> 
> 
> Why do you make it sound like people not knowing what they are talking about? Yes, I do GM high level campaigns a lot (as in lvl 15 and over).



Sorry if that's what you get out of it, but some of the posts in this thread (not naming anyone) demonstrate a clear ignorance of the issue.

There are two sides to this particular coin; sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la, the problem isn't real" doesn't actually work though. Just because YOU don't have the issue, doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. And it's one that has been beaten to death. For those of us who HAVE experienced these issues, we're glad to see that it's on the designers' radar.



> The only caster problems I got is that players were reluctant to play casters, which has changed now that we've house ruled magic to work differently. Oh and come to thik of it we had one wildshape crazy druid once, who got out of hand at such high levels but that might have been a play style incompatibility.



So, in your experience, nobody played casters (until you made a bunch of *houserules*), so you didn't notice the problem? Coincidence? I think not.



> Wizards or priests though - nope.



Lucky you then, I guess.



> I might give it a test and ask the more experienced players to create some optimized wizards and fighters and then run a one short high level hack and slash. Maybe it does make a difference for minmaxers, but we do not allow minmaxing normally.



Great. Knock yourself out. I don't care, honestly. I'm so very done with that edition (and never going back), and if 5e brings back too much of the things I didn't like about it, I'll continue with what I'm doing now, or find something else.

And again, min-maxing is perfectly legally allowed by the rules, and in a lot of the games out there. If you are fortunate enough to play in a group that can restrict such things, great. Lots of folks aren't in such a position; lots of groups HAVE to use RAW.


----------



## Lwaxy (May 15, 2012)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> So, in your experience, nobody played casters (until you made a bunch of *houserules*), so you didn't notice the problem? Coincidence? I think not.




By all the talks about* restricting* magic, one would expect I'd see more of a problem when liberating the magic rules. If casters were so overpowered to begin with, it should have popped up as an issue.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> @Nemesis Destiny
> 
> 
> Why do you make it sound like people not knowing what they are talking about? Yes, I do GM high level campaigns a lot (as in lvl 15 and over).
> ...




To be quite honest, it's a waste of time that proves nothing. Tons of factors come into play during a game session such as the dice rolls, campaign setup, monster setup, magic item setup etc... 

Some people on these boards think that because they had a problem then so should everyone else. 

Scenarios pop up but they only benefit the side you are trying to argue for and it happens on both sides. 

The "supposed" problems with the fighter class are subjective and will be argued until the end of time. Some people have problems and some don't. Personal problems do not make the class bad, it just makes the class a bad experience for you. 

This goes with any class to be honest. In all my years and sessions of 3.5, I have seen low, mid and high level wizards get taken out in one hit, or fail that really important save, or most commonly, didn't have the right spell or spells prepared.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> To me, that's the definition of a problem. As a GM, I don't want to have to plan a series of encounters around one character's powers in order to keep the game balanced.




Only an example, this was never always the case. 

The same principle still applies, "careful when putting all your eggs in one basket."


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 15, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> By all the talks about* restricting* magic, one would expect I'd see more of a problem when liberating the magic rules. If casters were so overpowered to begin with, it should have popped up as an issue.




Like a lot of issues in game systems, it *can* get obscured by the vast range of skill, interest, sensibility, etc. that players bring to the game. 

Give every 100th person in the USA a .22 rifle and ask them to go out and shoot a round into the air, in a random direction, once a week. Most of the bullets won't hurt anyone, or even do any appreciable property damage. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, devoid of negative consequences. Flaws in game rules are often like that.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Not saying it can't be done.
> It is just WAY TOO MUCH WORK on the part of the DM. Constantly having to plan around the casters take time away from figuring out what Lord Black is doing and how many kobolds did Flamor add to his army.
> 
> Next thing you know every patch of grass is claimed by a dragon. Two steps in any direction is a horde of demons, undead, or savage humaniods.  Epic armors and swords that have all sorts of houserule magic on them handed out like candy to the mundane. Dimensional Anchor mage police. The whole royal family is charm proof. Traps in the restroom. The farmer's dog is a lycantrope. Every other wizard is a paranoid tower hermit. 20 combats a day. etc...
> ...




First of all to answer one of the people who commented in wondering how many of us who don't have an issue have actually run high levels campaigns, Well I don't have an issue, several of my DMs don't have an issue and we have all run epic level campaigns.  


High level games have always been labor intensive in all the editions I have ever played in or run. And it is not just because of the casters. Fighters and all their extra attacks. Monks who and rogues who can't be grappled the sheer amount of high level magic items in play at higher levels all can give DMs a headache.

Part of a DMs job is to tailor the game to his players and part of that is taking into account the different abilities each class has. 

This is true at low levels as well as high levels. 

Part of your job as DM is to play the bbeg any smart bbeg with resources is going to find out all he can about the people opposing him. And it only makes sense that he puts some plans into thwart them and some of their abilities.  

Nice hyperbole my the way. I am creative enough not to have to resort to the farmer's dog being a werewolf to challenge my high level parties. 

As for mundane characters having magic items well at high level games it has always been assumed that the mundane PCs have high level magic items. If you don't want to play that then you do have an issue because that is how DnD has been designed. And low magic games don't tend to work if you don't do something to modify all the casters. 

It seems almost impossible to have a discussion on this topic with people just exaggerating like you just did. 

Their seems to be an assumption that since you have an issue then it is because of the way the system is written but people who don't have an issue it is because we don't play to our full strengths or we don't DM high level games. 

I want a system that allows me as DM to tailor my game I can balance things, I can say no to certain game breaking combos. Other DMs may want something that is easier in their eyes to run they want all the balance be hard written in the system.  Which is fine. 

I just wish people would stop with all the exaggerated hyperbole.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 15, 2012)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Sorry if that's what you get out of it, but some of the posts in this thread (not naming anyone) demonstrate a clear ignorance of the issue.
> 
> There are two sides to this particular coin; sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la, the problem isn't real" doesn't actually work though. Just because YOU don't have the issue, doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. And it's one that has been beaten to death. For those of us who HAVE experienced these issues, we're glad to see that it's on the designers' radar.
> 
> ...




Well I can guess I am one of the people you are talking about. Since I am one being one of the most vocal about it.

There are two sides of the coin. And assuming that those of  us who don't have an issue with it is because we just don't play the game right or we don't play high level or we Nerf our characters is one side I see brought up all the time.  

Here is something to consider you say you are glad that the designers listened to your complaints and changed things and if they change them to far back then you won't buy 5E as far as I am concerned they listened to much to people like you and ruined the game I play so I had to either switch to Pathfinder or play an non supported edition. As far as I am concerned if they go to far towards what they did in 4E I won't be buying 5E.

So tell me which of us is in the right and which is in the wrong? I feel that neither of us is and it comes down to taste and what we want from a game.


----------



## Dausuul (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Personal problems do not make the class bad, it just makes the class a bad experience for you.




The poll on this thread is hardly a scientific one, but it's the closest thing we've got to real data. When 64% of poll respondents said "Yes, casters eventually overshadow mundanes"--it's not just a personal problem. Something that affects a majority of players is a system problem. Even if the poll overstates the issue by a factor of 2 or 3, I'd say 20% is still a system problem.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> So tell me which of us is in the right and which is in the wrong? I feel that neither of us is and it comes down to taste and what we want from a game.




I agree, neither is right. I hope the designers can achieve their goal of addressing the power gap issue while not "getting in the way" of those who did not experience the problem or who found solutions to it that were satisfactory for them.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> The poll on this thread is hardly a scientific one, but it's the closest thing we've got to real data. When 64% of poll respondents said "Yes, casters eventually overshadow mundanes"--it's not just a personal problem. Something that affects a majority of players is a system problem. Even if the poll overstates the issue by a factor of 2 or 3, I'd say 20% is still a system problem.




Here is the real issue.

Do you have the data that shows just how much of the gaming population comes to Enworld?


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> The poll on this thread is hardly a scientific one, but it's the closest thing we've got to real data. When 64% of poll respondents said "Yes, casters eventually overshadow mundanes"--it's not just a personal problem. Something that affects a majority of players is a system problem. Even if the poll overstates the issue by a factor of 2 or 3, I'd say 20% is still a system problem.




Real quick:

Let's say there are 100 people out there. Now only 25 of those 100 people come to Enworld. That right there is 1/4ths of the gaming population. Now lets say 18 out of 25 say they have a problem with the fighter. 

That's just dealing with 25% of the total gaming population, you have no clue what the other 75% feel.

You know where this is going.


----------



## keterys (May 15, 2012)

Casters being a problem in 3e is... extraordinarily well documented. There's a certain amount of table variation, of course, but it's indisputable that it's one of the most complained about issues with the edition.

Mind you, PCs with triply enhanced crit range vorpal bladed gauntlets so they could great cleave behead enemies on 2s was _also_ a problem in 3e. Or haste harm / whatever auto-slay folks. Or... at a certain point, whether someone saw a problem with thermonuclear war or not may depend on what treaties or MAD they observed, possibly without even realizing it. 

It's much more arguable if you're talking about earlier editions. Spell disruption, weaker hit points, more difficult to acquire spells, etc were all serious factors. Especially if you didn't get to rest often, casters were something to multiclass into for additional versatility, rather than power houses on their own. If you could rest whenever you want, you enter a much murkier area, where casters had a number of trump cards like fly and stoneskin, but the DM had a lot more curveballs to throw at them, like planar effects that stopped them from using half of their spells and creatures like golems that ignored any sort of magic.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> The poll on this thread is hardly a scientific one, but it's the closest thing we've got to real data. When 64% of poll respondents said "Yes, casters eventually overshadow mundanes"--it's not just a personal problem. Something that affects a majority of players is a system problem. Even if the poll overstates the issue by a factor of 2 or 3, I'd say 20% is still a system problem.




Even better!

Out of 126,720 people only 164 have actually bothered to take part in the poll.

I'm sure you can do the math.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

keterys said:


> Casters being a problem in 3e is... extraordinarily well documented. There's a certain amount of table variation, of course, but it's indisputable that it's one of the most complained about issues with the edition.




You have posted links to the Wizard's site which uses the same thing that I have mentioned about here at Enworld. Nobody knows the percentage of the gaming population that goes to the Wizards site so it's pointless to use these as facts.


----------



## Lwaxy (May 15, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Give every 100th person in the USA a .22 rifle and ask them to go out and shoot a round into the air, in a random direction, once a week. Most of the bullets won't hurt anyone, or even do any appreciable property damage. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, devoid of negative consequences. Flaws in game rules are often like that.




Nice example  Although I'd say the "random direction" is the flaw and if people would know about gun safety it would not be an issue anymore.


----------



## keterys (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> You have posted links to the Wizard's site which uses the same thing that I have mentioned about here at Enworld. Nobody knows the percentage of the gaming population that goes to the Wizards site so it's pointless to use these as facts.



I posted links to designers of the game discussing how the cleric could be more effective at melee than melee characters, while also being an effective caster, as well as one of many discussions comparing power levels of most classes.

Though, yes, there is a poll on one of the links that roughly mirrors the poll in this one I suppose. 

I was only googling for a few seconds, though. There's plenty more exhaustive evidence, deconstruction, and math behind it, and the problems have informed numerous game products since, including 3.5's many nerfs to spellcasting, tome of battle and 4e's improvement of non-spellcasters, etc.

In general, 3e stripped away many of the limitations on casters by vastly increasing their access to spells, scaling saving throw DCs, easier casting in combat, loss of casting time, removal of most spell penalties (aging, system shock, etc). Even in simple areas like hit points, a caster used to get less benefit from constitution than a fighter, but now gets as much... and got better ability to improve their constitution, with powers like polymorph and bear's endurance.

There's a reason a ton of that stuff got nerfed in 3.5. It was a bit wild.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> To be quite honest, it's a waste of time that proves nothing. Tons of factors come into play during a game session such as the dice rolls, campaign setup, monster setup, magic item setup etc...
> 
> Some people on these boards think that because they had a problem then so should everyone else.



Look, I'm not trying to say anyone who isn't having a problem should be having one(and I don't see a lot of other posters saying that either) - those are words you're putting in others' mouths. What I AM saying, and what I see others on "this side" of the argument saying, is that for *some people* which includes me, it HAS BEEN a problem. That you and others do not have the problem is irrelevant. That a huge chunk of the community has is the issue and what makes it worth addressing.

If they can't find a way to address the concerns of both sides, then 5e flat out fails.

That said, it's easier, more practical, and sensible to the concerns of organized play to restrict, and give advice on how to remove the restrictions than it is to just say, "go nuts," and deal with the fallout of that decision for those who *can't* houserule.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

keterys said:


> I posted links to designers of the game discussing how the cleric could be more effective at melee than melee characters, while also being an effective caster, as well as one of many discussions comparing power levels of most classes.
> 
> Though, yes, there is a poll on one of the links that roughly mirrors the poll in this one I suppose.
> 
> ...




To be quite frank, unless the designers are answering a RAW question, their view on certain things falls into the realm of opinion just like everyone else's. 

Sure their word may hold more weight because of their title but that doesn't automatically make them right. Sure they might have created the game but I can promise you that is was more the player base who found things that you could do with the rules that the designers never intended or even though of. 

The math is only a fraction of all the other factors that come into play. It's not simple as having a 1 + 1 = 3 error. 

Just because you work for Wizards doesn't make you the person that has the know all end all to knowledge about the game. 

If they can make the mistakes they made with the rules then they sure as hell can with their advice and reasoning.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 15, 2012)

I play few games with optimizers, but generally speaking an optimized caster far outclasses an optimized melee...after about level 8 or so.

When people are just building to build something effective but not superbly optimized, it becomes really subjective, but I generally find that casters are easier to make powerful than melee/mundane.


----------



## Dausuul (May 15, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Even better!
> 
> Out of 126,720 people only 164 have actually bothered to take part in the poll.
> 
> I'm sure you can do the math.




I certainly can. Of the 169 who have participated as of this writing, only 42 have said that casters _do not_ overshadow mundane types. 42 out of 126,720 is roughly 0.03%. Clearly, this is a problem for 99.97% of the ENWorld community and even worse for the gaming population at large. *eyeroll*

You do realize that when one does a survey, one does not ask literally every human being on the planet, yes? The concept of "representative sample" mean anything to you? Obviously we do not know how representative this sample is, since there is self-selection at work on multiple levels (ENWorld members who choose to participate in this thread). But like I said, in this duel of anecdotes it's the closest thing we've got to data. And the closest thing we've got to data says this is a widespread problem. If you have better data, by all means produce it.


----------



## Minigiant (May 15, 2012)

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]

I understood my job as a DM running a high level game. My issue is that 90% of the massive amount of work went to nerving the caster's spells or telling their player's "No.". 

 If 90% of my focus was on the casters then the casters were overshadowing the noncasters on that side of the DM board. 

Now some group had no problems and I once played a high level game with no issue and DMed one too. But not all groups and players are the same. Some people don't see "Waiting between full moons" as "Trying to convince the DM my wizard crafted 10 scrolls". I shouldn't have to say "No, because I said so" or "the store that sells paper burned down."


----------



## Lwaxy (May 15, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> The concept of "representative sample" mean anything to you? Obviously we do not know how representative this sample is, since there is self-selection at work on multiple levels




Could also be that a lot of people who do not run into magic user problems don't even look at the thread. It's often that if I am not invested much or have no trouble with something that I don't check out the threads.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 15, 2012)

Yes, casters in 3rd Ed and earlier editions do tend to dominate and overshadow non-casting/magic item using classes.  I routinely played casters in 3rd edition for that reason.  As a limited example of caster versatility: Clerics could cast Divine Power, a simple 4th level spell that essentially turned them into a fighter of the same level, then there was Freedom of Movement, another 4th level spell that made them immune to grapples, and also Death Ward, yet another a 4th level spell that made them immune vs. many undead effects, etc.

I would agree with the earlier comment regarding system mastery in relation to character dominance for 3.5, though mostly in regards to casters.  We had a charging frenzied berzerker that could jump 50' and inflict 300 HP damage per round; Deathless Frenzy allowed the character to continue to fight at negative HP for essentially the entire combat (he went down to something like -500 HP and had to have the cleric cast 5 Heals on him).

You can read the character optimization boards in many forums to find people exploiting infinity loops and other rules flaws, even in 4th Ed.  Though I must say that while I understand the need some have to make casters "special", in no way do I ever want to see casters be as dominant as they were in some older editions.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 15, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> Yes, casters in 3rd Ed and earlier editions do tend to dominate and overshadow non-casting/magic item using classes.  I routinely played casters in 3rd edition for that reason.  As a limited example of caster versatility: Clerics could cast Divine Power, a simple 4th level spell that essentially turned them into a fighter of the same level, then there was Freedom of Movement, another 4th level spell that made them immune to grapples, and also Death Ward, yet another a 4th level spell that made them immune vs. many undead effects, etc.
> 
> I would agree with the earlier comment regarding system mastery in relation to character dominance for 3.5, though mostly in regards to casters.  We had a charging frenzied berzerker that could jump 50' and inflict 300 HP damage per round; Deathless Frenzy allowed the character to continue to fight at negative HP for essentially the entire combat (he went down to something like -500 HP and had to have the cleric cast 5 Heals on him).
> 
> You can read the character optimization boards in many forums to find people exploiting infinity loops and other rules flaws, even in 4th Ed.  Though I must say that while I understand the need some have to make casters "special", in no way do I ever want to see casters be as dominant as they were in some older editions.




Divine Power
Evocation
Level: Clr 4, War 4
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level
Calling upon the divine power of your
patron, you imbue yourself with strength
and skill in combat. Your base attack bonus
becomes equal to your character level
(which may give you additional attacks),
you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to
Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit
point per caster level.

It's nice but it's a far cry from making you anything remotely similar to the fighter. It doesn't give you tons of bonus feats nor does it give you the proficiency in weapons that a fighter has. 

I can tell you right now that you wasted Freedom of Movement and Death Ward by casting them on yourself and not the fighter. 

You thing about your frenzied berzerker, they can't voluntarily come out of their frenzied state, nor can they tell friend from foe. So while you are trying to touch him to use heal he would have been attacking you. 

People have a tendency to forget that fighters have a crap ton of feats that the cleric can't even come to close to matching. Clerics are good at fighting but they aren't as good as the fighter.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 16, 2012)

I wouldn't cast Freedom on a fighter since I would use my cleric as The fighter.  I stated it was a limited example; Divine Power stacks with Righteous Might and that's just the tip of the Army of Buffs iceberg.  If you're in melee with a huge grappler, as a caster you'd cast Freedom of Movement on yourself first so that when you go in to heal another melee'er, the monster wouldn't grab you instead and mutter "I will hug him 'n pet him 'n call him George" whilst stroking the skin off your now helpless character...

The berzerker was a difficult character to deal with, I'm not using it as an example of the perfect situation, but as one of system mastery, not just for spell casters, but as a means of overshadowing any other damage dealing character.  BTW, the beserker had a 95% chance of making a Will save to end his Frenzy.

Fighter bonus feats are nice and all, but other classes get access to them as well, even if they don't gain as many.   Given the sheer number of Prestige classes, a fighter-type character could net so many features at later levels, that they gained a much greater advantage over any granted by bonus feats.  Cleric casters, as an example, could exploit Reserve feats and Domain feats that eclipsed any fighter bonus feats.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 16, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> The poll on this thread is hardly a scientific one, but it's the closest thing we've got to real data. When 64% of poll respondents said "Yes, casters eventually overshadow mundanes"--it's not just a personal problem. Something that affects a majority of players is a system problem. Even if the poll overstates the issue by a factor of 2 or 3, I'd say 20% is still a system problem.




No what this poll shows is that on EnWorld this is seen as an issue. I doubt you would get the same results if you posted it on say the Pathfinder Forums.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (May 16, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Divine Power
> ...
> It's nice but it's a far cry from making you anything remotely similar to the fighter. It doesn't give you tons of bonus feats nor does it give you the proficiency in weapons that a fighter has.



Add divine favour, righteous might, bears endurance, shield of faith, the power attack/cleave feats and martial weapon proficiency - greatsword.

That beats your fighter with a ton of feats hands down. In effect each of those spells are worth 1-3 feats in themselves.

And before you answer with the usual "it takes time to cast", we wait for our cleric ally to buff, it's to our characters advantage to do so. Add divination/teleport and the sameness lameness is hitting 11.

And then the DM finally fights fire with fire and we're scorched.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 16, 2012)

Let's face it, the cleric, with a handful of buff spells may not overwhelm the function of a straight-up fighter, but they can also use Domains (such as Travel) to gain handy spells like: Overland Flight (lasting for hours at high levels), Dimension Door, and as FreeTheSlaves said, Teleport.  All this in addition to packing a wallop in melee, with an AC that matched any fighter, in addition to boosted saves and DR.

The cleric tank above is relatively weak compared to a Druid using Wild Shape to summons greater elementals, unicorns, and what-have-you, while in Ancient Dragon form with a Celestial Dire Bear animal companion (read some of the related threads for more succinct examples).

Greater Weapon Mastery and Greater Weapon Specialization are nice too, I suppose...


----------



## Hussar (May 16, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> No what this poll shows is that on EnWorld this is seen as an issue. I doubt you would get the same results if you posted it on say the Pathfinder Forums.




I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.

Pathfinder forums complain about caster issues just as much as anyone else.

Look, it's not like this is something that has sprung up new.  Looking back at old high level AD&D modules you see it.  In Queen of the Demonweb Pits, non-casters suffer a -2 penalty to all their magic weapons.  That is the sum total of the effects going to the Abyss has on these characters.

Clerics?  Cannot regain any spells higher than second level until very near the end of the module (and possibly not even then).  Magic Users have a nerf list as long as your arm for spells and effects that don't work.

If there was parity between the classes, why would high level casters rate several pages of nerfs while the non-caster classes get a sentence?

Sure, I totally get that you are not having this issue.  But, it's awfully dismissive to say that the issue is limited to a small number of people when it's something that has been brought up again and again and again throughout the entire history of the game.

You didn't have the issue.  FANTASTIC.  How did you do it?  What can I do to replicate your results?  I DON'T WANT to have this issue.  You apparently fixed it.  How?  Can you give me any concrete solutions beyond "be nice to your other players"?


----------



## Elf Witch (May 16, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.
> 
> Pathfinder forums complain about caster issues just as much as anyone else.
> 
> ...




I read the Pathfinder boards and yes the issue crops up but not to the extent that it crops up here. 

Anyway polls on EnWorld are hardly scientific and do not represent the gaming community as a whole they represent the people who post on EnWorld. 

Here are some of the concrete things I have done. I limit how many items the magic users can create. I also limit how many items I put into the game that give magic users the ability to cast more spells than their slots.   

I have a mechanic for skill use that helps get rid of the even if I roll a one I can't fail. Magic users lose spells in combat a lot. I don't have the five foot step in my game. 

I make sure the mundane characters have items that improve their ability to deal with invisible and flying creatures. 

I plan encounters so that everyone can participate. 

I make wizards do the bookkeeping required to make sure they actually have room in their spellbooks for all their spells. I enforce the spellcraft rules for adding new spells to spellbooks. And I have seen them fail this so they have to wait until they add another point into spellcraft to try again.

I make knowledge skills an important part of the game so wizards need to really consider how they use their skill points. 

And it does help that my players are willing to share the spot light. Which means I have seen the magic users cast buff spells more on other party members than themselves. 

I also have players who get involved with the world and game and role playing so things like that matter as much as how much damage did you do in combat. 


My game worlds have areas where magic is null or acts chaotic. I don't always let my players rest and get all their spells back. I make use of creatures with spell resistance. 

I balance it so sometimes it is the casters who are the reason the victory was won and sometimes it is the mundanes.

I let very few prestige classes in my game and I am a stickler for multiclassing if I feel the only reason someone wants to do it for the power boost and it does not fit their concept I say no.   

I have never said that 3E magic does not need fixing it does. I just don't like the way 4E tried to fix it. 

And I don't buy that the game is anything like Angel Summoner and BMX bandit. If that is what is going on then I have to say that it is plain that the mundanes have not bothered to build an actual character equipped to adventure but rather a lame duck that is a drain on party resources.


----------



## Hussar (May 16, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I read the Pathfinder boards and yes the issue crops up but not to the extent that it crops up here.
> 
> Anyway polls on EnWorld are hardly scientific and do not represent the gaming community as a whole they represent the people who post on EnWorld.




So, it's not widespread... except when it is.  And then we should just ignore it because it's not... what?  

Taking your fixes in order:



> Here are some of the concrete things I have done. I limit how many items the magic users can create. I also limit how many items I put into the game that give magic users the ability to cast more spells than their slots.




Not a bad way to go.



> I have a mechanic for skill use that helps get rid of the even if I roll a one I can't fail. Magic users lose spells in combat a lot. I don't have the five foot step in my game.




Now, that's a VERY large change to the game.  You've just removed tactical movement from combat to a large extent.  Once you're in base to base combat, pretty much all movement will cease.  Yeah, I can see how that would severely punish the casters.



> I make sure the mundane characters have items that improve their ability to deal with invisible and flying creatures.




So, very high magic campaigns.  How do you avoid the gp inflation of encounters?



> I plan encounters so that everyone can participate.
> 
> I make wizards do the bookkeeping required to make sure they actually have room in their spellbooks for all their spells. I enforce the spellcraft rules for adding new spells to spellbooks. And I have seen them fail this so they have to wait until they add another point into spellcraft to try again.




So do I.  This is one I've never seen have much effect.  The DC is 15+1/spell level.  Wizard maxes out his Spellcraft giving him a +8 at 1st level (presuming 18 Int - not an unfair presumption for a wizard) and there are some fairly easy ways to boost that (5 ranks in Kn Arcana gives +2 Synergy forex).  That's pretty much a gimme most of the time.



> I make knowledge skills an important part of the game so wizards need to really consider how they use their skill points.




Fair enough.  Then again, a wizard generally has a surplus of skill points anyway, so, I've never really felt the pinch as a wizard.  Cleric?  Sure.  I'd buy that.  Wizard not so much.



> And it does help that my players are willing to share the spot light. Which means I have seen the magic users cast buff spells more on other party members than themselves.




Of course you have.  Wizards self buffing is a waste of time generally.  Self-buffing is more the cleric's schtick.  



> I also have players who get involved with the world and game and role playing so things like that matter as much as how much damage did you do in combat.




Please.  Let's not get into the passive aggressive thing about how my or your players are better "roleplayers".  Trust me when I say that my group will roleplay every bit as well as yours.



> My game worlds have areas where magic is null or acts chaotic. I don't always let my players rest and get all their spells back. I make use of creatures with spell resistance.




How often do magic null areas come up in play?  Spell resistance is a joke as far as wizards are concerned.  If the wizard is casting stuff where spell resistance is an issue, that wizard is not trying very hard.



> I balance it so sometimes it is the casters who are the reason the victory was won and sometimes it is the mundanes.
> 
> I let very few prestige classes in my game and I am a stickler for multiclassing if I feel the only reason someone wants to do it for the power boost and it does not fit their concept I say no.




Well, considering that multiclassing for casters is generally a bad idea and most prestige classes actually limit caster powers, not enhance, I'd say this one is a wash.



> I have never said that 3E magic does not need fixing it does. I just don't like the way 4E tried to fix it.
> 
> And I don't buy that the game is anything like Angel Summoner and BMX bandit. If that is what is going on then I have to say that it is plain that the mundanes have not bothered to build an actual character equipped to adventure but rather a lame duck that is a drain on party resources.




Fair enough.  You accept that there is an issue, which is certianly a leg up on a lot of these discussions where many people will simply lay it on the players and not the system at all.

And, with the changes that you've made, I can see why you wouldn't run into Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.  Try running high level, by the book RAW only 3.5 D&D game some time using, say, a Paizo Adventure Path module and watch what happens.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 16, 2012)

Kudos to DMs that take on the challenge of wrangling in unwieldy spell casters and building in house rules to limit power gaming.

Null magic zones I always felt were a limited solution; first off, these render spells casters essentially useless, rather than simply outclassed, and secondly, all magic items cease to function, nerfing the entire party.

4E I feel, did alright, and even at higher levels, I don't see the same disparity between classes the more classic versions have.  But in 4E, all characters are essentially spell casters, or at least not "mundane"; I suppose that homogeneity is not welcome to many, and so D&DNext...


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (May 16, 2012)

You know, if I was play 3E-Pathfinder again, I'd take the approach of a gentle(wo)mens agreement to play nice. There is a lot of flavour I wouldn't want to whack from the spells with the nerf bat.

I'd also put in spell casting options for the non-spellcasters, fonts, teleport sites, flying mounts etc...

And I'd just houserule judiciously as players point out power disparities - generally by raising the mundanes up.

Where the nerf bat is raised I'd do it in-game, e.g. excessive stone-skins affect your looks, with warning enough to the players.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 16, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, it's not widespread... except when it is.  And then we should just ignore it because it's not... what?
> 
> Taking your fixes in order:
> 
> ...




We stopped using the five foot step way back in 3.0. There is still movement you may have to use a round just disengaging to get out of melee. Combat Casting is used a lot more 


In our games if you a roll a 1 on a skill check it is -10 a natural 20 is +10 that has really helped balance out I have max this out and I can't fail a roll.

So even if you have maxed spellcraft out roll a 1 and it more likely to be a failure. My wizard  tried to add unseen servant to their spellbok I flubbed the roll twice it was not until the third time that I finally made it. 

I should mention that we roll for our stats so there is no guarantee you are starting the game with an 18. 

At high levels I tend to use a lot of lower level monsters mixed with higher level. I make use of monks and rogues and casters who specialize in dispelling. I try and plan things so that one spell from the wizard does not end the encounter. 

If I can I try and have several lower encounters to use up resources before the major one. 

I will say this higher level combat takes forever and not just because of the casters. Fighters are getting to swing more often and are doing some sick damage If you are not careful a fighter with greater cleave will cleave through half your mooks before stopping.

That is kind of funny most of my players who play wizards complain about not having enough skill points. 

That was not meant to be a passive aggressive snark . I have seen people here complain that my character couldn't do much damage so as far as I am concerned then I was doing nothing kind of statement.  I was simply saying that my players are very much into role playing and because of that if they had a great role playing opportunities that is of equal importance so if they didn't shine in combat this time but got to advance their character story or the story in general then they feel they had a good day at the game. 

I am not saying that people who don't like the magic system are bad role players. 

It comes into play every three or four sessions in this campaign because the land has been damaged by magic. It is far more likely for magic to be chaotic then completely null. 

There are monsters that have both SR and DR use them wisely and the casters can't effect them easily it is up to the other PCs to deal with them while the casters deal with the things they can.

I also play my NPCs smart, not all I go on their wisdom and intelligence, so if they have good tactics they are not all bunched together waiting for the wizard's area spell to knock them all out.

The multiclassing rules are to stop certain combos that just rule the game. 

My roommate runs Age of Worms by the RAW and we have hit 12 level I play a wizard and I am still waiting to outshine anyone else. Of course the one playing the rogue/shadow dancer/who knows what is a huge power gamer and he just runs all over the rest of us in combat and of course in dungeons while he scouts and we twiddle our thumbs. 

I played a high level fighter in a KOK campaign all the way to epic levels it was 3.0 and had very few house rules. There were times I felt the paladin out shone me but I never felt that way about the wizard. 

Again to be clear I am not saying that just because I have not experienced these issues others have not. 

I like magic to be on the powerful side I hated what 4E did to it. 

BTW I watched one episode of the cartoon it was all I could stomach and let me tell you if that if that what is going on in the game of some people no wonder they have issues. But I also think it is kind of an exaggeration fighter in 3.5 are not that weak and helpless.


----------



## Hussar (May 16, 2012)

Which cartoon are you talking about Elf Witch?


----------



## Elf Witch (May 16, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Which cartoon are you talking about Elf Witch?




Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit. I don't know why I called it a cartoon it is live action on you tube. I guess my brain is getting fried. 

I am taking an official stance that having to find a place and move with less then six weeks to do it all really sucks.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 16, 2012)

Surmos said:


> As I've become a more open gamer in both tabletop and digital gaming I can't justify it anymore. I now believe that this balance can be achieved without removing the flavor and maintaining most of the creativity casters are accustomed to having. The issue seems to be one of compromise (compromise of an older perception) and perception of what is "balanced" as far as what casters are capable of. If I was going by the Tolkien series, then of course wizards would be some of the most power creatures to walk the planes. That's how they were. I can't remember wizards not being that strong (as far as how that series portrayed how strong wizards could be)




Oh, indeed.  I grew up with powerful wizards like Gandalf.  Who casts what?  Six spells in the whole of Lord of the Rings?  A _1E_ 5th leven wizard can manage that in _one day_.  And Gandalf was, IIRC, statted as a 4th level druid in AD&D.   Gandalf is strong, we both agree that.  But he can't touch the raw magical power of a classic D&D wizard.



Elf Witch said:


> Here are some of the concrete things I have done. I limit how many items the magic users can create. I also limit how many items I put into the game that give magic users the ability to cast more spells than their slots.
> 
> I have a mechanic for skill use that helps get rid of the even if I roll a one I can't fail. Magic users lose spells in combat a lot. I don't have the five foot step in my game.
> 
> I make sure the mundane characters have items that improve their ability to deal with invisible and flying creatures.




All good things.  Using DM time and houseruling to get past the problems with 3.X



> I plan encounters so that everyone can participate.




Which means you're spending even more DM time forcing the game past the weaknesses of the spellcasters.  I'm on the other hand regularly used to throwing away my notes as if I offer my PCs a labyrinth they are as likely to climb up and walk on top of the walls, looking down at the obstacles, as turn left or right.  And this is where wizards really shine - not so much defeating the encounters as making them _irrelevant_.



> I balance it so sometimes it is the casters who are the reason the victory was won and sometimes it is the mundanes.




And that worries me.  I read a statement like that and understand that the DM decides in advance how the victory is going to be won.  To me as a DM that's anathema.  The players decide how they are going to win.



> I have never said that 3E magic does not need fixing it does. I just don't like the way 4E tried to fix it.




This is fair enough.  I'd recommend you give the Tome of Awesome a look.  It seems to be geared to the game you want to play and is excellent reading in its own right.



Elf Witch said:


> At high levels I tend to use a lot of lower level monsters mixed with higher level. I make use of monks and rogues and casters who specialize in dispelling. I try and plan things so that one spell from the wizard does not end the encounter.




Monks I get.  But why _rogues?_  Reflex saves are generally the ones that wizards don't want to attack.  And a spell that will end an encounter is _Teleport_.



> There are monsters that have both SR and DR use them wisely and the casters can't effect them easily it is up to the other PCs to deal with them while the casters deal with the things they can.




SR is simply a pest for casters.  Most of the conjuration school ignores it.  And some of the spells (glitterdust, evard's black tentacles, and cloudkill spring to mind) are pretty debilitating.



> BTW I watched one episode of the cartoon it was all I could stomach and let me tell you if that if that what is going on in the game of some people no wonder they have issues. But I also think it is kind of an exaggeration fighter in 3.5 are not that weak and helpless.




Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is an exaggeration for comic effect.  What's much more common is you get situations like:

"Frodo.  You must take this ring to the Mountain of Doom and throw it in though you know not the way." 
"No.  But I know where it _is_.  I'll study it on maps tonight before dinner.  Between pre-breakfast and breakfast I'll prepare three Teleport spells.  We leave after breakfast.  And should be back in time for brunch."

"Drave.  The drow are coming boiling up from that cave complex in three days."
"Earthquake, Earthquake, and Earthquake.  Any of it left?"

"Felf.  You can not help.  These are dedicated mage slayers and _immune to magic_."
"A dozen of them?  _Evard's Black Tentacles _to hold them in place, then _Cloudkill_."  Spell resistance or immunity just prevent direct effects.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 16, 2012)

Ah but Mount Doom has an antimagic zone at its core, it's magma dismantles artifacts after all.  The drow have Teleport too.  And, the mage slayers all have belts of Freedom of Movement.

This is an example of the system mastery and the potency of magic and counter-magic; the -for-tat method of play that could either negate an encounter, or make it nigh impossible if unprepared.

Prepared casters always had their aforementioned set of magic bullet spells for just about every occasion; when potent spell casters were pit against each other, the caster that won initiative threw out their Time Stop combo and essentially won the encounter.  Once you got 8th level spells, many of which had save-or-die effects and ignored SR, you could dictate the tide of combat.  I don't care how groovy your super-smitey paladin or trip-monkey fighter was, they just could not make parity.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 16, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Gandalf is strong, we both agree that.  But he can't touch the raw magical power of a classic D&D wizard.




He can, what with being the angel/demigod servant of Manwe from Valinor, but the Istari (Maiar) do not manifest such vulgar displays of power while in their Middle-Earth ("mortal") forms.

Of course, trying to quantify LotR in D&D terms is basically futile.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (May 16, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> He can, what with being the angel/demigod servant of Manwe from Valinor, but the Istari (Maiar) do not manifest such vulgar displays of power while in their Middle-Earth ("mortal") forms.



So what you're saying is that basically, he works like how some folks in this thread suggest to deal with the Big Five to avoid problems: he's holding himself back.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 16, 2012)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> So what you're saying is that basically, he works like how some folks in this thread suggest to deal with the Big Five to avoid problems: he's holding himself back.




I don't really pay that much attention to all that malarkey, I was just commenting on Gandalf's true power (origin) levels.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 16, 2012)

Gandalf held himself back because that is the nature of an Istari, magic without the sanction of the Valar, like the Ring itself, corrupts when overused.  So Tolkien built in a "code of honor" that if violated would cause a wizard to fall into Shadow, much like Saruman did.

Conan's villainous sorcerers too were corrupt, they made bargains with eldritch beings who made them insane.  The male channelers in the Wheel of Time would slowly go mad whenever they touched The Source (at least until Rand cleansed the male half...).

These are all built-in limitations set by the authors of each series, otherwise there would be no need for any other character other than a powerful wizard and there would be no plot or tension, since the endgame would be a foregone conclusion.  Spell casting interruption, a very limited number or spell slots (or longer casting times), potential of spell failure, even a corruption mechanic similar to that in the d20 Starwars games, are crucial to balancing the power of wizards and their ilk.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 16, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, indeed.  I grew up with powerful wizards like Gandalf.  Who casts what?  Six spells in the whole of Lord of the Rings?  A _1E_ 5th leven wizard can manage that in _one day_.  And Gandalf was, IIRC, statted as a 4th level druid in AD&D.   Gandalf is strong, we both agree that.  But he can't touch the raw magical power of a classic D&D wizard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I can see how you could think that I was predetermining who and how they win but that is not what I am doing. I just plan the encounter to play to say mundane strengths and to exploit the weakness of the casters. And other times it is done the other way. Now players being players they will sometimes take me by surprise and in an encounter meant for the mundanes to shine the casters will be the ones to shine and vice versa. 

Since rogues get evasion they can shrug off area spells they have a decent AC and hit points and they can move around that battlefield and get into a position to back stab the poor squishy casters not only that they have good use magic device and I use that so that they usually have a better dex so usually go before the casters so they can ready an action to trigger on the caster and use a wand to hit the caster with a spell to either counterspell or do enough damage to disrupt the spell. Also mist high level rogues have magic items that let them be invisible or spiderclimb. I have found many uses for them to ruin a casters day. 

Lets hope Frodo has teleport without error or oops you just landed smack in the middle of Orcs or as others have said the area is magically protected from being able to teleport. 

Now some people will say unfair and that is a cop out but it is both fair and not a cop out in a world with magic high level mages will have protections in place to stop other mages from using magic to get to their goodies. 

And those mage killers who deal in killing mages because that is what they do know about evard black tentacles and have magic items that give them freedom of movement. 

Again that is not cheating that is common sense. Or they can all be high level monks who have taken feats so they can't be grappled. 

All of those examples can be disrupted with the right items, feats and spells.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 16, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> Gandalf held himself back because that is the nature of an Istari, magic without the sanction of the Valar, like the Ring itself, corrupts when overused.  So Tolkien built in a "code of honor" that if violated would cause a wizard to fall into Shadow, much like Saruman did.
> 
> Conan's villainous sorcerers too were corrupt, they made bargains with eldritch beings who made them insane.  The male channelers in the Wheel of Time would slowly go mad whenever they touched The Source (at least until Rand cleansed the male half...).
> 
> These are all built-in limitations set by the authors of each series, otherwise there would be no need for any other character other than a powerful wizard and there would be no plot or tension, since the endgame would be a foregone conclusion.  Spell casting interruption, a very limited number or spell slots (or longer casting times), potential of spell failure, even a corruption mechanic similar to that in the d20 Starwars games, are crucial to balancing the power of wizards and their ilk.



These are all fair points, but there are two major alternatives that you don't mention that let you balance the game without those kinds of restrictions.

First, one possibility for balancing magic to magic is to simply scale back the idea of what magic can do. If, for example, a wizard's most powerful fire-based attack spell is no more powerful than the swing of a fighter's sword, you don't need to restrict it at all. This kind of balancing is actually very common in my experience with videogames and the like, and is basically what 4E did to an extent (though it did a few other things too).

The other possibility is to simply improve the power of non-magical options to the point that they match the full breadth of magic's power. If fighters can jump so high they can grab a flying foe (regardless of altitude, even) and drag them to the ground in a punishing suplex, then giving wizards the ability to fly isn't exactly an unbalancing or game-distorting effect.

Of course, those two states are basically the same thing: balancing them by matching their options and potency, rather than making one more powerful than the other but giving it severe drawbacks to compensate. You really need one of those two approaches in order to make a traditional fantasy game or work of fiction function properly, and I've seen both.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 16, 2012)

If you scale back magic and/or allow fighters to do extraordinary things, you essentially (no pun intended) have something similar to what exists in 4th Ed.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 16, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> If you scale back magic and/or allow fighters to do extraordinary things, you essentially (no pun intended) have something similar to what exists in 4th Ed.



Well... yeah. I think I just said as much. That's one of the things I like about 4E, or the 3E Tome of Battle, as another example.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 16, 2012)

You did, and I think if Tome of Battle was elevated just a bit more, or casters pulled back just a bit...  Well you have something that still provides enough flavor to differentiate the classes whilst maintaining a fair amount of parity.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 16, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> Ah but Mount Doom has an antimagic zone at its core, it's magma dismantles artifacts after all.  The drow have Teleport too.  And, the mage slayers all have belts of Freedom of Movement.
> 
> This is an example of the system mastery and the potency of magic and counter-magic; the -for-tat method of play that could either negate an encounter, or make it nigh impossible if unprepared.




And it continues with teleporting half a mile above Mount Doom (flying) with the Ring attached to a loaded distance arbalest.  And then casting True Strike as you dive down to make sure you shoot the ring into the volcano.



Steely_Dan said:


> He can, what with being the angel/demigod servant of Manwe from Valinor, but the Istari (Maiar) do not manifest such vulgar displays of power while in their Middle-Earth ("mortal") forms.




That and two quid will buy you a coffee.  Now if D&D were to actually have negative consequences for casting spells (either CoC style sanity loss or WFRP style blowback) then there would be something in it.  But for all practical purposes a fifth level wizard is more powerful than Gandalf _because they have almost no limits_.



FreeTheSlaves said:


> You know, if I was play 3E-Pathfinder again, I'd take the approach of a gentle(wo)mens agreement to play nice. There is a lot of flavour I wouldn't want to whack from the spells with the nerf bat.




And this confuses me from a RP perspective.  If my PC genuinely considers they are being threatened by an overwhelming force intent on something nasty and potentially apocalyptic, they aren't going to want to play nice.



Elf Witch said:


> Since rogues get evasion they can shrug off area spells




No they can't.  They can shrug off _anti-reflex_ spells like Fireball or Grease.  Reflex spells are normally the least important ones.  Sure they're protected from Fireball.  But not even slightly protected from debilitating AoEs that attack Will like Glitterdust, ones that attack Fort like Stinking Cloud, or oddballs like Evard's Black Tentacles.  All of which are AoE conjurations that ignore spell resitance and completely ruin the victim's day.

Trying to match defences against a high level wizard is like trying to play paper-scissors-stone.  And not being allowed to change your choice for the second turn when your opponent can - plus having more tells than Rossini.  (You've also eliminated the way of getting seriously high saves - excessive multiclassing).



> Lets hope Frodo has teleport without error or oops you just landed smack in the middle of Orcs or as others have said the area is magically protected from being able to teleport.




OK.  Let's test that idea.  From books, Frodo can reach at least the Seen Casually level.  That gives him an 88% chance of making the teleport accurately.  However Frodo didn't prepare two teleports (one in, one out) but (as I explicitely mentioned) _three_.  The orcs have a grand total of six seconds before Frodo simply teleports again.  Can they kill Frodo in one round when they really weren't expecting him to be there?  Unlikely.  Frodo's chance of missing with both teleports (that includes mishaps that actually end in the right place) is 1.44%  With any sort of scrying mirror so he can see where he's going, Frodo has a >94% chance of teleporting accurately.  I don't think Frodo really needs Greater Teleport.  Do you?



> And those mage killers who deal in killing mages because that is what they do know about evard black tentacles and have magic items that give them freedom of movement.




How much loot do they carry?  Because the problem facing the wizard is that Evard's Black Tentacles is not the only spell.  Freedom of Movement does no more than Spell Resistance to stop Glitterdust or Stinking Cloud.

A Ring of Freedom of Movement (the sure defence against Evard's Black Tentacles - or Solid Fog which I can use to replace Evard's Tentacles to neutralise your monks for a few turns, whatever their saving throws) costs 40,000 GP.  And it's not going to do a thing about the other three spells in my AoE arsenal.

You need a full spectrum of counters - I have more than one spell prepared.


----------



## Starbuck_II (May 17, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> Conan's villainous sorcerers too were corrupt, they made bargains with eldritch beings who made them insane. The male channelers in the Wheel of Time would slowly go mad whenever they touched The Source (at least until Rand cleansed the male half...).




Not true of all casters in Conan's world. He relys on friendly Wizards/Druids all the time.
It is only the Clerics he has issues with (those who worship Set mostly).


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (May 17, 2012)

True, not all of them, but the antagonists were, the one's that were a threat.  The allied magic users would bow in and out of the story as cameo roles; the villains tended to linger.


----------



## Minigiant (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And it continues with teleporting half a mile above Mount Doom (flying) with the Ring attached to a loaded distance arbalest.  And then casting True Strike as you dive down to make sure you shoot the ring into the volcano.





I've did that once. Punishment to the DM for copying a quest arc straight from the book. 

So he sicced a dragon on my wizard. I then casted some spell or two and it fell in the volcano.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> 1) That and two quid will buy you a coffee.
> 
> 2) Now if D&D were to actually have negative consequences for casting spells (either CoC style sanity loss or WFRP style blowback) then there would be something in it.  But for all practical purposes a fifth level wizard is more powerful than Gandalf _because they have almost no limits_.




1) That didn't quite work, and in London that would be one crap cup of coffee.

2) There is no point comparing a D&D wizard to Gandalf (so Jr High), or any class to any LotR character (JRR was not writing the story thinking of how the Fellowship would equate to D&D power levels), that's like comparing any D&D class next to a unique outsider/extra-planar being/plot device.


----------



## LostSoul (May 17, 2012)

In my experience...

1st 3E campaign.  We moved over from 2E.  It was a low-magic world, so there weren't many NPC magic-users.  The Wizard pretty much had only the 2 spells per level.  Once the Wizard (who took a level of Fighter at level 5) got Fly and Improved Invisibility, I had to change the game world to keep up.

In the 2nd longest campaign we played, I remember all the fights being very difficult.  My ranger/fighter died at level 8, so I brought in a 7th-level Wizard (since we didn't have one).  After that, all the fights were too easy.  The only time that PC came close to dying was when he spent his Dimension Door, didn't cast Arcane Sight, and got trapped in Evard's Black Tentacles from an invisible wizard.

A few other short-lived low-level campaigns never saw the casters dominate.

In my current 3.5 game I am playing a fighter/magic-user (Fighter 2/Wizard 5/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Eldritch Knight 4).  I can't say that he dominates since it's a two-PC game, but there's no way he'd have been able to accomplish as much if he were just a fighter.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And it continues with teleporting half a mile above Mount Doom (flying) with the Ring attached to a loaded distance arbalest.  And then casting True Strike as you dive down to make sure you shoot the ring into the volcano.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Here is the problem where these discussions go off the rail  You are assuming the wizard has all these spells memorized or has them on scrolls. You are assuming that the dice favors the caster and the intended targets don't make their saves. You are assuming a lot. What else is going on while the wizard is casting these spells is his party in range to get trapped by the spell. Are all the other guys nice and neatly lumped together so that you catch them all.

Is there a wizard on the other side using great dispel magic. Maybe the other side got the initiative and cast time stop and set up a nice little nasty surprise for the party caster. There is a random element to the game that can completely change the outcome. 

I started playing in 1978 that was 34 years ago and one thing I can say with absolute confidence is that no plans works in action like it did on paper. 

I have in real life gaming with some pretty clever players thwarted the casters many a time and sometimes they have completely wiped the floor with my NPCs. But there has never been a combat that was a guaranteed win or one where only the casters mattered. Not in 34 years of playing this game. 

As for Frodo okay he has flying beast I have an ancient red dragon who lives in the volcano there is always a way for the DM to win if he wants. Oh and Frodo can scry but Sauron has put up anti scrying magic.

I have said this in a lot of threads if a DM feels that a spell is impossible to work with take it out of your game or modify it.

In my games I tend to make teleport dangerous and unpredictable all the time. I still use the 3.0 scry rules where if you want to be able to scry you need to have ranks in it to make it work plus an item. Sure they can max out scry but then what are they giving up to max that out. 

My big issue with how magic works in 3E is how metamagic and cheap creation of magic items can really make the casters have to many resources. I don't allow quickened spells I don't allow anything that might allow more than one spell a round. And I keep an eye on the items that allow a caster more spells or slots. And I strictly enforce the the use up higher spell slots where metamagic is concerned.  


I don't allow the feat that allows a druid in wild shape to cast spells unless they are in a form that has vocal chords and has hands like say a primate to do the gestures. I also enforce the rule that they have to have knowledge of an animal to be able to wild shape ,knowledge that comes from actually seeing how the animal moves.


These fixes have made my games run a whole lot smoother without completely changing the game the way 4E did.

The thing about playing nice is this I never expect my players to play nice with the bad guys but with each other. And that means don't play your character in a way that totally sucks the fun out of the game for another player. 

This is not real life so while in real life maybe it makes more tactical sense for the wizard to carry wands of knock but we are playing a game and if there is a player who is a rogue who has made him to be the one to open doors then I don't want to see a player playing the wizard stepping all over him with knock. Having a scroll of knock for an emergency is one thing. Taking over the rogue job is another. 

Knock belongs in the game for parties who don't have any way to open locks other then bashing doors down.


----------



## slobster (May 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> A lot of stuff.




It sounds like your game is a lot of fun, that's great. You've managed to find solutions to the sorts of problems we are talking about that work for your group. But I for one would prefer a system that works like this from the beginning, as opposed to requiring a lot of houseruling and a lot of experience so that everyone can have fun. 

An unbalanced system isn't a dealbreaker for me, I've had years of fun with 3.5 and it has serious flaws in that area. But a lot of that fun was despite its problems, not because of them. I would like to see these class balance problems fixed if I'm going to switch to a new edition.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 17, 2012)

slobster said:


> It sounds like your game is a lot of fun, that's great. You've managed to find solutions to the sorts of problems we are talking about that work for your group. But I for one would prefer a system that works like this from the beginning, as opposed to requiring a lot of houseruling and a lot of experience so that everyone can have fun.
> 
> An unbalanced system isn't a rulebreaker for me, I've had years of fun with 3.5 and it has serious flaws in that area. But a lot of that fun was despite its problems, not because of them. I would like to see these class balance problems fixed if I'm going to switch to a new edition.




So would I which is why I am hoping 5E can deliver the game flavor I like without me having to do all the house ruling. 

I like a lot of things about 3E there are a few things I like about 4E. I would really love to have what I like about 3E but have some of the issue fixed.


----------



## MacMathan (May 17, 2012)

Looks like about 2.5 to 1 in terms of people having experienced the issue so far. 

I always like to see what other people experience at their tables as it varies so widely.


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I read a statement like that and understand that the DM decides in advance how the victory is going to be won.  To me as a DM that's anathema.  The players decide how they are going to win.



Agreed.

I'm strongly of the view that the class disparity issue is a bigger one for those groups who thing that player protagonism is important, and who therefore don't like ad hoc GM nerfs/vetos. I read "no minmaxers in my game", for example, and wonder how that can work: how is the GM controlling the players' building of their PCs?


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> this confuses me from a RP perspective.  If my PC genuinely considers they are being threatened by an overwhelming force intent on something nasty and potentially apocalyptic, they aren't going to want to play nice.



I'm not sure that your confusion is entirely warranted.

At least as they operate at my table, these "gentlemen's agreements" are between the _players_, not the PCs - they operate at the metagame level.

A simple example from my 4e game: the player of the polearm fighter and I have an understanding that of two somewhat broken feats - one that lets him immobilise any marked target whom he hits with a basic attack using a two-handed weapon, and one other one that gives him forced move on OAs (which with his Rushing Cleats and Polearm Momentum would mean his OAs knock foes prone) - he will only take one.

At the PC build level, this sort of thing is fairly straightforward, I think. It's sort of an abbreviated or ad hoc form of houseruling by consensus.

But it can even work at the action resolution level.

In Rolemaster, for example, there is a type of scrying guard that creates a false image when the target is scried upon. One of the players in my RM game worked out that the PCs could use this to send messages to one another - set up false images of holding a sign with the relevant message, and then use a scrying spell to get the image. I can't remember excatly what the scrying spell to be used was, but it was something lower level (and therefore easier/cheaper to cast) than long range telepathy.

We thought about looking for ways to change the wording of the scrying guard to rule out this use of it, but nothing straightforward suggested itself. So everyone at the table just reached an agreement that they wouldn't do this sort of thing, and that scrying guards would continue to be used simply to guard against scrying.

Where gentlemen's agreements _can't_ work, in my view, is when they would have to go to the very core of a PC's abilities and functions. Because at that point they would require the player to hold back when playing his/her PC, not just to avoid some marginal exploit, but just at that point where the PC should be firing on all cylinders.


----------



## Minigiant (May 17, 2012)

slobster said:


> It sounds like your game is a lot of fun, that's great. You've managed to find solutions to the sorts of problems we are talking about that work for your group. But I for one would prefer a system that works like this from the beginning, as opposed to requiring a lot of houseruling and a lot of experience so that everyone can have fun.
> 
> An unbalanced system isn't a dealbreaker for me, I've had years of fun with 3.5 and it has serious flaws in that area. But a lot of that fun was despite its problems, not because of them. I would like to see these class balance problems fixed if I'm going to switch to a new edition.





I agree completely. 3.5 is my favorite after some tweaking. I just hope 5E/DDN reduces all the banning, house ruling, "gentlemen contracts", and player self nerfing at the start that other editions. I KNOW there will be some but I prefer 5E/DDN to be the least.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Here is the problem where these discussions go off the rail  You are assuming the wizard has all these spells memorized or has them on scrolls.




I am assuming you are actualy playing by the rules as written.  The rules that say that the wizard gets two free spells he can cast at each level - of the choice of the wizard.  I am further assuming that the wizard can choose which spells to prepare.  If assuming that you are not further house-ruling the game to nerf the wizards is where things go wrong, then possibly they are.

Are you playing 3.5 by the rules?  Does the wizard have any reason to expect combat that day?  If the answer to both is yes, then I am assuming absolutely nothing except that the wizard is not stupid.  (And in the teleport example I specifically stated that the wizard was spending the night - the wizard, not the DM, gets to choose which spells the wizard memorises).



> You are assuming that the dice favors the caster and the intended targets don't make their saves.




No.  I'm assuming that the dice aren't extreme.  This is what the paper-scissors-stone I'm talking about is about.  Looking at a set of level 1 pregens, the halfling rogue starts off with Reflex +8 and Fort and Will +2.  The dwarf fighter, meanwhile, starts off at fort +5, ref + 2, will +0.  The swings for picking the right save to attack are _massive_ and only get greater at higher levels as the rogue focusses on dex and gains +1 to ref every two levels while he gains +1 to his other saves every three.



> You are assuming a lot. What else is going on while the wizard is casting these spells is his party in range to get trapped by the spell.




Either he's taking the risk - assuming that the fighter's fort or the cleric's will will stand it to get an extra couple of bad guys (not a bad guess - the cleric's will is one of the few things that scales faster than the caster's DCs) or he's not taking quite the entire team of specialist mageslayers down.  Merely turning several of them into chumps.



> Are all the other guys nice and neatly lumped together so that you catch them all.




You don't need to catch them all.  You just need to be able to turn this into a defeat in detail.  A mopping up excercise for the rest of the party who get to fight the mageslayers more or less one at a time.



> Is there a wizard on the other side using great dispel magic.




Oh, I do hope there is!  I like having someone to laugh at.

Seriously, Greater Dispel Magic is a bad choice to use in combat except against buffers.  The reason is that it only has a 50% chance of countering the spell it's used against (caster level check).  A wizard just as strong as I am spent just as much effort as I did in order to only half-counter me.  At a tactical level, this is an _excellent_ trade.  And depending on the initiative order I very possibly ruined the turns of the people I cast at as well.

So basically your counter to the wizard here is to add an equally powerful wizard on the other side - who then only uses inferior tactics to neutralise the wizard.  And this backing a team of specialist mage-slayers designed to counter spells?  And my wizard is _still_ pulling his weight against them?  This isn't exactly helping the case that casters aren't overpowered, you realise?



> Maybe the other side got the initiative and cast time stop and set up a nice little nasty surprise for the party caster.




Maybe they did.   happens.  Here's a hint: If it's going to screw anyone rather than just the wizard it's not outlining the wizard's weaknesses.  It does however outline a wizard's strengths - if the wizard survives the first round he can bail with Teleport or even Time Stop right back at the other caster.  No one else can (except possibly the cleric).



> There is a random element to the game that can completely change the outcome.




Of course there is.  The difference is that a well played spellcaster brings a d8 (at least) to a d6 game, and gets a few reroll tokens.



> As for Frodo okay he has flying beast I have an ancient red dragon who lives in the volcano there is always a way for the DM to win if he wants. Oh and Frodo can scry but Sauron has put up anti scrying magic.




And now we're in an arms race.  Your ancient red dragon either needs to cover the volcano and be at home at the time or to be able to catch Frodo in the eighteen seconds between him popping invisibly to over Mount Doom, true striking and firing the arbalest, and teleporting away.

And the thing is that the DM is the one that looks ridiculous here.  He's just created an ancient red dragon out of thin air to foil what is a reasonable use of resources on the character sheet.  An ancient red dragon who could probably munch the whole party.  (And no, Anticipate Teleport won't work.  I'm a long way away).  I'm playing rough with the bad guys - and the DM has just created an ancient dragon out of nowhere to deal with a 9th level party - and that will almost certainly fail.  The fighter isn't even in the same game.

I have said this in a lot of threads if a DM feels that a spell is impossible to work with take it out of your game or modify it.



> My big issue with how magic works in 3E is how metamagic and cheap creation of magic items can really make the casters have to many resources. I don't allow quickened spells I don't allow anything that might allow more than one spell a round.




Time Stop?  Summon Monster?


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 17, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure that your confusion is entirely warranted.
> 
> At least as they operate at my table, these "gentlemen's agreements" are between the _players_, not the PCs - they operate at the metagame level.
> 
> ...




I have no problem with this.



> One of the players in my RM game worked out that the PCs could use this to send messages to one another - set up false images of holding a sign with the relevant message, and then use a scrying spell to get the image. I can't remember excatly what the scrying spell to be used was, but it was something lower level (and therefore easier/cheaper to cast) than long range telepathy.




This I'd simply allow tbh.  It's two spells vs one - and signalling vs telepathy.  But again, I can see this working either way.



> Where gentlemen's agreements _can't_ work, in my view, is when they would have to go to the very core of a PC's abilities and functions. Because at that point they would require the player to hold back when playing his/her PC, not just to avoid some marginal exploit, but just at that point where the PC should be firing on all cylinders.




And in D&D, one of the wizard's abilities and functions is to be able to pick up spells within the game world and choose which spells to prepare.  You can ban things at a metagame level.  But the way a wizard should work involves exploiting his spells and being prepared for either a range of bad guys or taking the initiative and preparing exactly the right combination of spells to do something really impressive and unpleasant to the bad guy's plans.


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> in D&D, one of the wizard's abilities and functions is to be able to pick up spells within the game world and choose which spells to prepare.  You can ban things at a metagame level.  But the way a wizard should work involves exploiting his spells and being prepared for either a range of bad guys or taking the initiative and preparing exactly the right combination of spells to do something really impressive and unpleasant to the bad guy's plans.



Once you set up gentlemen's agreements that the wizard will have only a modest spellbook, and will take only one of each spell, and . . . etc, the game starts to look familiar to me!


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 17, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm strongly of the view that the class disparity issue is a bigger one for those groups who thing that player protagonism is important, and who therefore don't like ad hoc GM nerfs/vetos. I read "no minmaxers in my game", for example, and wonder how that can work: how is the GM controlling the players' building of their PCs?




I control for excessive powergaming in my game using pretty much the techniques you outlined in your post following the quoted one. 

I think "minmax" is as much about attitude as the results for a lot of people. I know it is for me. My simple prescription of, "any mechanic that the players push hard, I get to have the NPCs push back with," enforced carefully, is what allows the players to enforce a reasonable degree of power amongst themselves.

Plus, that has the added advantage of letting the players dictate the lines. I find this far more democratic. The players dictate the lines. As DM, it is my job to enforce those lines, not set them. As "moderator" it is my job to express those lines, to make sure that everyone is one the same page. As the guy at the table who is most interested in mechanical interactions, it is my job to think about this stuff. I see those as three separate hats. In our group, I wear the last one nearly all the time, the "moderator" hat when no one else grabs it, and the DM hat when I'm the DM (albelit, most of the time).

And I certainly agree with your later point that enforcement on character build versus group rules up front versus in play decisions are all different. We like some careful enforcement on the first two so that we don't need it on the last one.  Trying to run any game as Elf Witch has outlined drives me bonkers.  I don't want to ride herd during play.  I'd rather spend energy beforehand house ruling such issues out of the game, so that my energy during play is directed at things I value more.  Perhaps part of this is because as our group has gotten older, play time is precious while prep time is as much as I care to devote?


----------



## Stalker0 (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And the thing is that the DM is the one that looks ridiculous here.  He's just created an ancient red dragon out of thin air to foil what is a reasonable use of resources on the character sheet.




This is one of the issues that I have seen. Not that the DM necessarily has to create a "ridiculous" counter, but the DM ALWAYS has to have a counter.

The problem I have seen in the past, especially with specialized casters, is their trick is so good that it forces the DM to play the game a certain way.


An example, we once had your classic enchanter in the group. Charms, Dominates, the works.

Every encounter, either the enchanter would acquire a new group of allies for the next encounter....or the DM would counter him to the point where he could nothing in the fight.

Again, the key here is we aren't talking about winning a single fight. What made the enchanter so deadly was that he could exponentially increase the parties power. Every enemy became an ally unless the DM hard countered him.

And sure, while countering a party member is a great tactic once in a while, if you are forced to do it continuously, then its a problem.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 17, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Plus, that has the added advantage of letting the players dictate the lines. I find this far more democratic. The players dictate the lines.




The Democracy breaks however when its one player dictating the line. If you have one player who is "minmaxed" in a party where the rest are not, where is the line then?

Too shallow and the game goes to easy mode. Too hard and the rest of the party can't keep up.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I am assuming you are actualy playing by the rules as written.  The rules that say that the wizard gets two free spells he can cast at each level - of the choice of the wizard.  I am further assuming that the wizard can choose which spells to prepare.  If assuming that you are not further house-ruling the game to nerf the wizards is where things go wrong, then possibly they are.
> 
> Are you playing 3.5 by the rules?  Does the wizard have any reason to expect combat that day?  If the answer to both is yes, then I am assuming absolutely nothing except that the wizard is not stupid.  (And in the teleport example I specifically stated that the wizard was spending the night - the wizard, not the DM, gets to choose which spells the wizard memorises).
> 
> ...




You missed the point and that is how do you know that wizard always has the rights spells memorized for every given circumstances. That is where all this I cast this and I win arguments fail. If the wizard didn't memorize evard black tentacles that  or glitterdust and memorized something else instead then your examples fail. 

Even if the wizard is expecting combat it does not mean he has the rights spells memorized so he gets an automatic win. 

The way you are talking I don't know why we are still playing this game or why everyone in the party does not play a wizard because according to you there is no way to challenge them and why bother playing anything else because you can't contribute. Why bother DMing just say oh hello wizard I can't beat you here is your XP for your automatic win. 

But high level DnD is an arm race the only way to avoid that is stop every character from gaining levels as long as DnD is a level based game it will always be an arm race.

I really get sick of the Frodo example first of all it is not a game it is a novel and the story was the journey more than the destination. 

If you want to create a Frodo type story then you have to look at the resources of your party maybe that type a game is not going to be as satisfying if played at higher levels. 

High level DnD is about a party of four defeating entire armies and tackling gods where fighters rival Conan and mages throw around powerful magics. If you don't want this kind of play you need to reconsider it as a level based game or have a way to modify the power levels at those levels. 

So greater dispel is not a I win and mathematically it works out to 50% but here again random factors play into it. I have seen the person casting it just wipe the floor and wipe out almost all the effects and I have also seem it completely and utterly fail. So again you don't know until you are at the table actually throwing the dice. 



What about summon monster you don't cast it and another spell in a round. You cast it and it shows up on your next turn it is now in play and you can cast another spell but that is not casting two spells in one round. The spells does not require the caster to maintain concentration on it. Time stop also does not let you cast more than one spell a round.


----------



## bloodtide (May 17, 2012)

I never really got the whole 'mundane vs magic' thing, as it does not happen in my games.  I guess it's just one of them things for the 'pew pew number crunching' types that just live to say ''I didz 120deesz damage--I rock!''

I've never seen a good 'all powerful wizard' that 'makes the game no fun for mundanes'.  The people that make the claim never seem to want to stat out said awesome wizard.  They just throw the 'wizards are too powerful bomb' and then run away.  They just don't have the time to show the character sheet, so we are just left with all the vagueness.  So many examples are along the lines of 'well if the wizard has spell X or feat Y then they can do X', and that does not even count the examples of where people 'read a word the way they want to' or 'read between the lines' or just outright cheat.

Though I do run an ultra high level magic game, so maybe that balances it out.  So when a wizard goes all ''pew pew I knock open every door in the castle'' I can just say ''Sorry all the doors are made from anti-knockism''.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> My roommate runs Age of Worms by the RAW and we have hit 12 level I play a wizard and I am still waiting to outshine anyone else. Of course the one playing the rogue/shadow dancer/who knows what is a huge power gamer and he just runs all over the rest of us in combat and of course in dungeons while he scouts and we twiddle our thumbs.




This is more of the issue my group has had. It's not caster vs. mundane. It's two 'power gamers' vs. two 'casual players.' In Age of Worms if I upped the difficulty to challenge the first two the second two died. If I left the challege level as is every encounter became a cake walk. The most disappointing of which was Dragotha. That was a legendary name in my Greyhawk campaign for about 15 years before he was reduced to a pathetic 2 round combat.

4E changed the challenge levels for us. Same players, but I could challenge all of them while they still remained power gamers and casuals. We did lose other aspects of D&D that I enjoy, so I hope 5E can bring those lost things back while closing the power gap that 3E created for our group.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 17, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I control for excessive powergaming in my game using pretty much the techniques you outlined in your post following the quoted one.
> 
> I think "minmax" is as much about attitude as the results for a lot of people. I know it is for me. My simple prescription of, "any mechanic that the players push hard, I get to have the NPCs push back with," enforced carefully, is what allows the players to enforce a reasonable degree of power amongst themselves.
> 
> ...




I am not sure what you are saying I don't run herd during the play I plan for things in my prep and I house rules things before hand.  My energy at the game is focused on what i value working with my players to tell a great story and have a lot of laughs. 

Every DM needs to in their prep work do some tailoring of encounters for their players abilities and lack there of. Even if you run written adventures. I am running a module that fits really nicely in my campaign but I had to tweak it. My party is 4 level and they don't have a rogue and wands are not easily available so I am not having as many locked doors and traps as the module calls for. I changed some of the traps to things they could handle I got rid of the poison ones and used acid and fire instead. I have pit traps but took out the spikes. 

It also has undead in it my party has two who can deal with undead so I upped the numbers to make it more of a challenge.

So I don't see any difference between prepping encounters this way and prepping high level encounters to deal with magic at that level. It is the same theory which is tailoring the encounter to your party.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 17, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This is more of the issue my group has had. It's not caster vs. mundane. It's two 'power gamers' vs. two 'casual players.' In Age of Worms if I upped the difficulty to challenge the first two the second two died. If I left the challege level as is every encounter became a cake walk. The most disappointing of which was Dragotha. That was a legendary name in my Greyhawk campaign for about 15 years before he was reduced to a pathetic 2 round combat.
> 
> 4E changed the challenge levels for us. Same players, but I could challenge all of them while they still remained power gamers and casuals. We did lose other aspects of D&D that I enjoy, so I hope 5E can bring those lost things back while closing the power gap that 3E created for our group.




It is hard to manage a game when you have powergamers and non powergamers at the same table. I am not a casual gamer but I am not a powergamer either. I don't go looking for the best combo to be undefeatable I look at ways to make my concept work.

Like you said raise the CR to handle the powergamers and you kill the rest of the party don't and it is a cake walk. 


I have a feeling the DM in Age of Worms does a little picking on the powergsmer by having the most deadly and dangerous go after them while leaving the rest for us.


Certainly having a system that could help stop some of this would be great.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> You missed the point and that is how do you know that wizard always has the rights spells memorized for every given circumstances. That is where all this I cast this and I win arguments fail. If the wizard didn't memorize evard black tentacles that  or glitterdust and memorized something else instead then your examples fail.
> 
> Even if the wizard is expecting combat it does not mean he has the rights spells memorized so he gets an automatic win.




The problem here is that I'm mentioning mainline combat spells.  Stinking Cloud, Glitterdust, and Evard's Black Tentacles are not niche spells.  They are spells that happen to be my favourite mainline combat spells at levels 2, 3 and 4.  And all of them are pretty flexible.  All of them ignore spell resistance (and by extension spell immunity).  Each of them has a very different counter (in some games I'd take Solid Fog rather than Evard's) so the enemy needs to prepare against them all.  All of them can either with good positioning take out single targets, or can take out groups of enemies (glitterdust also counters invisibility for extra flexibility).  All three spells therefore make it into my spellbook as general combat spells.  At level 2 my rival to Glitterdust is Web (I need to hit Reflex with something debilitating, and it doesn't allow SR eitherm or even pay any attention to evasion).  At level 3, my rival to Stinking Cloud is Slow - which is a multi-target anti-will spell to absolutely cripple melee enemies.  And at level 4 my combat spells are Evard's Black Tentacles (AoE anti small person spell), Confusion (or Fear if I banned enchantment) for an anti-will spell for upseting fighters, and Solid Fog.

As a wizard, _my job is to be prepared for a range of problems_ on any given day.  And becuase of the power and flexibility of the spells, memorising multiple copies of powerful and versatile combat spells is a good way to do this.

A default loadout expecting some trouble (but not actively dungeoncrawling) at level 7 would probably include two Evard's, two Stinking Clouds, and two Glitterdusts.  This would leave me with room for Greater Invisibility at level 4, Fly and Haste at level 3, and Invisibility, Detect Thoughts, and Rope Trick at level 2.  Plus my level 1 spells (probably Change Self, Alarm, Enlarge Person, Silent Image, and either Unseen Servant or Mage Armour depending whether I'm wearing a Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt or not).

Telling me I wouldn't have my wizard prepare mainline combat spells?  _Why not?_  Why is the day such an odd one that I either don't have room for my favourite combat spells or don't know them despite having gained them automatically when I levelled?



> The way you are talking I don't know why we are still playing this game or why everyone in the party does not play a wizard because according to you there is no way to challenge them and why bother playing anything else because you can't contribute. Why bother DMing just say oh hello wizard I can't beat you here is your XP for your automatic win.




There are plenty of ways to beat a wizard.  The "Get a bigger hammer" method will do it.  So will nickling and diming.  At least until 9th level when the wizard gets teleport.  So will a sudden ganking - a surprise Stinking Cloud will do just as much to the wizard as it would to the bad guys (CoDzilla naturally having good fortitude defences).  Actually it's much harder to beat clerics or druids than wizards.



> But high level DnD is an arm race the only way to avoid that is stop every character from gaining levels as long as DnD is a level based game it will always be an arm race.




Then you miss the arms race.  When a fighter or barbarian gains a level, there are two obvious ways to challenge them.  Bigger Monsters or Moar Monsters.  The same fundamental approach works with a rogue, ranger, paladin, or any other martial class, and by a predictable amount.  The wizard?  What the wizard gains is more options.  Which means more ways of subverting the problem.  The wizard in 3.X gets to open completely different lines of attack with each spell level.  At second level it's _Invisibility_.  At third it's _Flight_.  At fourth it's _Walls_ and _Animate Dead_, sealing people off.  At fifth it's _Teleport_, _Polymorph,_ and _Permanency_.  Which means at fifth level a wizard can come from any point in any direction, looking like anything they want to and with an array of defences.



> So greater dispel is not a I win and mathematically it works out to 50% but here again random factors play into it. I have seen the person casting it just wipe the floor and wipe out almost all the effects and I have also seem it completely and utterly fail. So again you don't know until you are at the table actually throwing the dice.




If greater dispel has a complete 100% success, what have you done?  Traded a standard action for a standard action of an equally powerful wizard.  The _best_ case scenario is that you've cancelled them out.  Even if it succeeds you aren't making progress.

Note: This doesn't apply to throwing dispels at buff-monkeys.  If the Cleric has Divine Favour, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Haste, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, and the kitchen sink on them



> What about summon monster you don't cast it and another spell in a round.




No.  You cast it in one round.  Then d4+1 Bralani show up and each of them casts Lightning Bolt both the round they turn up and the following round.  That's d4+1 (small) lightning bolts in a round plus your other spells...



bloodtide said:


> I've never seen a good 'all powerful wizard' that 'makes the game no fun for mundanes'.  The people that make the claim never seem to want to stat out said awesome wizard.  They just throw the 'wizards are too powerful bomb' and then run away.




In a previous thread I challenged people whether they thought there was a level 15 fighter who's as much use as d3+1 augmented Celestial Dire Tigers, d4+2 augmented Celestial Anklyosauri, or d4+2 Bralani Azata - each able to lightning bolt.  Because that's what Summon Monster 7 will get you.  Or a single standard action from a Summoner two levels lower who's lost his most important class feature (the Eidolon).  And it's known that Summoners are good in PF - but not as good as Wizards or Clerics - there are enough duels to prove that. 

And there have been enough arena duels involving fighters.  It used to be quite the sport on the WoTC boards.  The fighters lost there too above above about 6th level unless they won initiative and were able to one-shot the wizards.  And the wizards weren't pre-buffed to be hard to get at.

Your challenge has been asked and answered.  Many, many times. 

As for no fun, that's the problem.  Some of us _want_ to play wizards.  And we're disappointed we can't.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem here is that I'm mentioning mainline combat spells.  Stinking Cloud, Glitterdust, and Evard's Black Tentacles are not niche spells.  They are spells that happen to be my favourite mainline combat spells at levels 2, 3 and 4.  And all of them are pretty flexible.  All of them ignore spell resistance (and by extension spell immunity).  Each of them has a very different counter (in some games I'd take Solid Fog rather than Evard's) so the enemy needs to prepare against them all.




Just a quick perspective question - is this just one wizard PC you're talking about?  I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like you're saying that you play a lot of wizard characters, and they all tend to have these spells prepared.

I think that a lot of players that don't have the problem you describe could be because they don't think that having a constant selection of the most powerful spells is fun to play.  Certainly not from character to character.  Don't you get bored?

I had one player recently switch characters simply because his character was so powerful and efficient it was boring.  (Choose target, favored enemy, multishot.)  If I had a character who cast Evard's every fight, I'd get bored very quickly.

Maybe that's affecting the numbers.


----------



## slobster (May 17, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Just a quick perspective question - is this just one wizard PC you're talking about?  I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like you're saying that you play a lot of wizard characters, and they all tend to have these spells prepared.
> 
> Maybe that's affecting the numbers.




It is possible to make choices such that your spellslinger will be less effective, and some people play their wizards this way. That doesn't excuse the fact that a player who tries to be combat optimized will pretty easily outshine the rest of the party. That is the experience of many players and GMs, myself included.

To put it another way, if there was a feat that gave fighters +6 to attacks and doubled their weapon damage, it would be overpowered. Maybe some players would choose not to take it, maybe some groups would devise clever houserules to deal with it or ban it. But the feat would still be overpowered, and I would want the next edition to bring it in line with competing character options. That doesn't mean it needs to be the same as other feats, it just needs to be toned down so that people who choose other feats don't feel that their choices are overshadowed by the fighter who did take it.

That's how I feel about spellcasters in D&D (4E excluded).


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Just a quick perspective question - is this just one wizard PC you're talking about?  I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like you're saying that you play a lot of wizard characters, and they all tend to have these spells prepared.[/
> 
> I think that a lot of players that don't have the problem you describe could be because they don't think that having a constant selection of the most powerful spells is fun to play.  Certainly not from character to character.  Don't you get bored?




Only a couple.  I got bored - it made things too easy.  I much prefer to play a bard than a wizard in 3.X.  And am not a fan of 3.X combat - I like my combat to be either tactical and detailed (see: 4e), descriptive and evocative (see Wushu), or fast (see Tunnels and Trolls or even low level AD&D/3.x).

But I think there's a fundamental disconnect in what a wizard's spell list is.  Whether it's primarily something that reflects the character of the wizard or whether it's ultimately an equipment list.  I take the view that it's something the wizard has complete control over in game and so should be treated from an RP perspective like any other equipment list.  At which point what you are suggesting is that as an _in character_ choice my character should deliberately go with less effective spells with which to protect his life and those he cares about.  And to do that I need to be playing a wizard who is fundamentally not taking the opposition seriously - with an Int of 18 (or whatever - primary stat anyway), and standard skills of Spellcraft and Arcana I take the view they know spells as well as I do at the very least.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 18, 2012)

Not really; I'm suggesting, for example, that maybe your next wizard, intent on protecting his friends though he may be, isn't gifted in conjurations and makes do with, say, Illusions or something.  Maybe he never got the knack for them in wizard school.

Just because one can role-play "I pick only the most powerful spells" doesn't mean one can't also role-play "I make do with the strengths I've been given, regardless" just as effectively.  One isn't less intelligent than the other.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Just a quick perspective question - is this just one wizard PC you're talking about?  I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like you're saying that you play a lot of wizard characters, and they all tend to have these spells prepared.
> 
> I think that a lot of players that don't have the problem you describe could be because they don't think that having a constant selection of the most powerful spells is fun to play.  Certainly not from character to character.  Don't you get bored?
> 
> ...




My question is, why would you not?  No other character thinks this way.  You don't see fighter players saying, "Hey, I'm really bored of this magical sword, I'll start using a dagger today".  The spells he lists are pretty much as standard as magic missile or fireball were in AD&D. If you had a wizard, and you had the option, you always took sleep.  It was the most effective low level combat spell available.

And, this is the whole point about game balance.  No single option should be the most effective.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Not really; I'm suggesting, for example, that maybe your next wizard, intent on protecting his friends though he may be, isn't gifted in conjurations and makes do with, say, Illusions or something.  Maybe he never got the knack for them in wizard school.
> 
> Just because one can role-play "I pick only the most powerful spells" doesn't mean one can't also role-play "I make do with the strengths I've been given, regardless" just as effectively.  One isn't less intelligent than the other.




Well, depending on your goals, it might be less intelligent than another.

And, illusions are a funny beast.  In some games, they're absolutely devastating.  In others, they're completely useless.  The vagueness of the illusion spell mechanics makes that a really hard job to do.  Too many variables.  It most certainly can work, but, it also can go very badly, very quickly.

And, again, no one tells the fighter player he should always use daggers and leather armor.  Why not?  If I play a fighter with daggers and leather armor can I then complain that fighters are not powerful enough?  How about a paladin in hide armor using a club?  

The mechanics of the game should never tell me that I should deliberately handicap my character so that I don't step on other people's toes.  Options which are "more" and "less" powerful should not be the same resource cost.  If glitterdust is too powerful, either jack up the level or remove it from the game.  Don't leave it in and then tell people not to take it because it's not really "roleplaying".


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 18, 2012)

Nobody is saying that, Hussar.

I'm just saying that only ever picking the "good" spell isn't the only role-playing option either.  Plenty of people have played fighters with daggers and leather armor, because that's what they wanted to play.  And in a good system, they can do that.

It sounds to me, though, like you feel that a wizard is somehow "forced" to pick only the most optimal combinations available, just to be effective.  When one could choose to limit yourself to other options to, if nothing else, stretch oneself creatively.

But asking the game designers to make sure that every single option is perfectly balanced against every other option is a foolish dream.  Better game balance is good, a worthy goal - perfect game balance is an unrealizable pipe dream.


----------



## bloodtide (May 18, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And there have been enough arena duels involving fighters.  It used to be quite the sport on the WoTC boards.  The fighters lost there too above above about 6th level unless they won initiative and were able to one-shot the wizards.  And the wizards weren't pre-buffed to be hard to get at.
> 
> Your challenge has been asked and answered.  Many, many times.




I'm just saying I've never seen such a challenge where:  A)The wizard did not get crazy prepared as if they could spend 24/7 ready for any attack. B)The wizard did not use an self beneficial 'interpretation' of a word/rule or C)The wizard just simply cheated.  I'd like to see one, if you know of a link.

And arena duels are a bit silly anyway, as they are artificial.  The wizards big weakness, compared to a fighter, is that as the day goes on the wizard gets weaker as spells get used up.  But a fighter never uses up his fighting ability.  And the only reason this is such a problem in some games is where they do the 15 minute day and the wizard can have full spells very half hour.  It simply does not work for a wizard that must be awake, active and spellcasting for 16 hours a day.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Nobody is saying that, Hussar.
> 
> I'm just saying that only ever picking the "good" spell isn't the only role-playing option either.  Plenty of people have played fighters with daggers and leather armor, because that's what they wanted to play.  And in a good system, they can do that.
> 
> ...




No, I'm coming at this from the opposite end.  Why would I choose a less optimal option?  How is deliberately handicapping myself a good thing?  Again, you could take a dagger wielding, leather armor fighter, if you spent a butt load of feats and whatnot to make your dagger wielding fighter effective.  It can be done.

But, if I don't do that, and I spend feats on other stuff and don't spend the character resources, my fighter will be very poor at his job which, at the end of the day, is generally to lay the beats down on something.  In a non-combat game, who cares?  It 's not going to come up.  But, presuming a solid mix of gaming, which includes combat, why would a rational player deliberately choose to handicap his fighter?

The same thing applies to the wizard. Or any other character for that matter.  Why would a rational player deliberately choose a handicap?  

And, more to the point, should it also not be perfectly viable to play without a handicap?  If I want the handicap, fair enough.  That's my choice.  And I'm making that choice in the full knowledge of what I'm doing.  But, I shouldn't have to take a handicap just so that I can make Bob's character important again.

I should not be penalized for creating effective characters.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2012)

bloodtide said:


> I'm just saying I've never seen such a challenge where:  A)The wizard did not get crazy prepared as if they could spend 24/7 ready for any attack. B)The wizard did not use an self beneficial 'interpretation' of a word/rule or C)The wizard just simply cheated.  I'd like to see one, if you know of a link.
> 
> And arena duels are a bit silly anyway, as they are artificial.  The wizards big weakness, compared to a fighter, is that as the day goes on the wizard gets weaker as spells get used up.  But a fighter never uses up his fighting ability.  And the only reason this is such a problem in some games is where they do the 15 minute day and the wizard can have full spells very half hour.  It simply does not work for a wizard that must be awake, active and spellcasting for 16 hours a day.




That's not entirely true though.  The fighter gets used up much faster than the wizard does.  His hit points are his resource and he has no way to self generate them.  A fighter loses 80% of his hit points is out for a few days.  A wizard who blows 100% of his resources gets them back in 8 hours.

And a fighter who uses 100% of his resources dies.  A wizard doesn't.

Additionally, in 3e anyway, a wizard, at 1st level, can increase his resources for very minor expenditures.  By 6th level, a 10% xp cost grants him slightly over 100 scrolls.  More than enough to use a scroll every round of every combat for the entire level, where, at 7th level, he can again spend 10% of his xp to replace all of them.

And all of this is in addition to has base casting per day.

Getting around a wizard's limitations are entirely within the abilities inherent in the wizard himself.  The non-caster's limitations are hard wired into the class and cannot be gotten around without another character's aid (typically some sort of healer).


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 18, 2012)

And that's what I'm saying no one is telling you to do.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2012)

I spent the day with my son and a friend of his and we discussed a lot of this. They talked about a lot of builds that have nothing to do with wizards that win every encounter. 

I wish I could remember them but  my brain is to tired. I will ask and post them later.

I love magic users they are my idea of fantasy characters. I play them not for the power but because I love the idea of magic. 

I don't understand why with all the options the game has to offer you would only pick certain spells for every caster you play. That to be is boring and I have to be honest I have come to hate the words sub optimal and system mastery with a passion. 

There is more to the game then just be uber powerful in combat.

I have played powerful blaster style casters but I have also played more support style casters. My favorite character ever was my elf sorceresses in my first 3.0 game. Her major damage spell was magic missile. The rest of her spells were more support style for the party buffs, slow a bunch of divination type spells like clairaudience/clairvoyance,  things to make life easier for the party like phantom steed. invisibility. 

In the game I was the main person who solved the mysteries and I was the face of the party. I had a blast I never felt that just because I could not do the damage others could that I was not contributing. 

My current wizard is not a combat monster either. I chose to max out her knowledge skills, diplomacy and sense motive. I have far more utility spells than combat spells. When we started we had a sorcerer who waned to be the blaster so I designed my wizard differently much more the wise sage than the I level armies. Since the sorcerer is gone I have added some more combat spells. I did this character because I liked the idea of being the walking google. 

I have playing so long that the idea of playing a class with the same build every single times is just unappealing to me.


----------



## Campbell (May 18, 2012)

Look, no one is saying that the inherent imbalance between caster types and 'mundane' types is an issue in every game. It is an issue for a not statistically insignificant number of games. Some of us also take issue with the historical means of addressing this imbalance. Historically spell casters have been limited by mechanics like spell resistance which cut off a magic user's nose to spite their face as well as supernatural counters like mind blank, protection from evil, etc. Another historical means has been for magic items to bring the mundanes up to the level of spell casters. 

Personally what that says to me on a thematic level is that magic is the only means to bring the awesome. After a certain level, from my experience playing warrior types it feels like you're an observer in a great magical shell game. I don't find that particularly satisfying.

With that being said, despite being a fan of 4e in general I'm not looking for 4e part two. I already have 4e and can play it anytime I want to. I'm looking to travel down a different road - one I've never been down. I'm all for adventure based balance I just want it done right. I want meaningful limits on spell casters at all levels so that using magic to overcome a weakness or bypass an obstacle never becomes an afterthought and I want the notion that a high level (10+) fighter or rogue is still a mere mortal to be shed. 

Think about it on a thematic level. A high level rogue or fighter routinely faces supernatural forces that would send even the bravest most elite soldiers screaming in the other direction. A high level fighter encounters the likes of vampires, werewolves, and demons and doesn't even break a sweat. They see something that goes bump in the night and thinks the best course of action is to stab it until its dead. That's pretty much the opposite of mundane. I just want the rules of the game to match up with the thematic reality of what occurs in the fiction of the game.


----------



## slobster (May 18, 2012)

It seems that some people are saying that yes, there are broken wizard options. But since you can choose not to employ them, it isn't a problem.

My opinion is that broken options are broken even if you aren't currently taking advantage of them. We should be able to have a system with a minimum of broken options (none being the goal) so that we can stop having this conversation, and instead talk about all the cool but not overpowered character concepts we are able to play.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 18, 2012)

slobster said:


> It seems that some people are saying that yes, there are broken wizard options. But since you can choose not to employ them, it isn't a problem.
> 
> My opinion is that broken options are broken even if you aren't currently taking advantage of them. We should be able to have a system with a minimum of broken options (none being the goal) so that we can stop having this conversation, and instead talk about all the cool but not overpowered character concepts we are able to play.




What are these options that you are referring to because they sure as hell aren't rules? No one has said anything about needing to change a "rule" in order for the game to work.

I see what exactly what you and a few others are trying to do here. Because some of us don't use the "guidelines" in the DMG then we are essentially playing the game wrong. There is no difference in that than if someone decided that "Holy Avengers" didn't exist in their world and you told them that they weren't playing the game as intended because Holy Avengers are in the DMG. 

People on these boards really need to understand the difference between a rule and a guideline. Rules are meant to be used to play the game, guidelines are not. They are there to help you if you need them.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 18, 2012)

The thing I always liked about previous editions was the whole caster and mundane thing. If I want a PC with magical powers then I would choose a spellcaster, if I want a non magical PC who is good a mundane things and relies on magical gear then I will play a class such as a fighter. 

I don't want 4th editions idea of martial magic. Sometimes they try and fluff it as just pure mundane skill but it doesn't come off that way nor do I want anime style fighting. 

The way I look at it is if there was a such a problem then everyone would play a spellcaster but I can tell you from experience that this wasn't the case.


----------



## Sadras (May 18, 2012)

Casters generally do overtake mundane types and there is nothing wrong with that. At high levels, do we expect a Wizard to be equal to a Fighter/Rogue in a fair fight? Sure there are external conditions in a duel that could be beneficial to either party (distance, shadow, uneven terrain, violent wind...etc) but generally speaking we imagine that a Wizard would clock the Fighter more times out of 10 - and I'm not talking DnD specific, Im speaking from our own imaginations. Do we really think a mundane fighter generally stands on equal footing to casters. Of course not.
Superman trumps Batman in a fair fight. (supernatural beats mundane) 
Dr Strange/Zatana trumps Superman in a fair fight (magic beats supernatural) 

So yeah, youre playing a game that isnt necessarily balanced. But this isnt like other games where everyone is equal. Its not chess damnit. It's fantasy with a DM. At higher levels the Casters are going to have access to spells that are rediculously powerful because we all expect that of magic. 

You want to play a more balanced campaign insert options or settings rules that
- weaken magic, reduce the duration of magic, make magic difficult to cast, have dangers associated with casting magic/or casting it too often, or have magic work only in the evenings (because of the affect of the moon) and during the day only weaker spells can function, have magic drain life force or fatigue you, or bring in magic resistance, or have magic mix in to martial (powers)...whatever.

But yeah I generally expect casters to kick mundanes asses, so when we see Ullyses takes on Circe we root for the underdog, when Conan takes on the Evil Mage we root for the underdog, when Willow takes on Bavdmorda we root for the underdog, when Lord Soth takes on Strahd we root for Lord Soth. 

So, lets hope 5E has enough balancing options for all of us or at least guidelines/advice within the DMG to temper magic for those that have issues with its power, but lets not bastardise magic to the degree where we cant tell the difference between a martial manuever and a fireball.


----------



## Bluenose (May 18, 2012)

Sadras said:


> Casters generally do overtake mundane types and there is nothing wrong with that. At high levels, do we expect a Wizard to be equal to a Fighter/Rogue in a fair fight? Sure there are external conditions in a duel that could be beneficial to either party (distance, shadow, uneven terrain, violent wind...etc) but generally speaking we imagine that a Wizard would clock the Fighter more times out of 10 - and I'm not talking DnD specific, Im speaking from our own imaginations. Do we really think a mundane fighter generally stands on equal footing to casters. Of course not.
> Superman trumps Batman in a fair fight. (supernatural beats mundane)
> Dr Strange/Zatana trumps Superman in a fair fight (magic beats supernatural)
> 
> ...




I find it fascinating that after telling us how magic is supposed to be better than mundane, you then give us a paragraph of examples where mundane characters defeat magical ones. And I'd point out anyway that we're talking about a game with *levels*. You know, those things which say how powerful someone is? Low level characters would presumably be underdogs against high-level ones, or at least that would seem logical.


----------



## Minigiant (May 18, 2012)

I think the whole discussion is this:

If no player plays Super Caster, there is no problem.

If the DM can handle Super Caster and is able to do so, there is no problem.

But if some player plays Super Caster and the DM can't, is unwilling, or is unable to deal with Super Caster; there is a good chance of having an overshadowing problem.


----------



## Sadras (May 18, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> I find it fascinating that after telling us how magic is supposed to be better than mundane, you then give us a paragraph of examples where mundane characters defeat magical ones. And I'd point out anyway that we're talking about a game with *levels*. You know, those things which say how powerful someone is? Low level characters would presumably be underdogs against high-level ones, or at least that would seem logical.




Im glad you find it fascinating. The reason I provided that paragraph because its obvious that generally mundane characters are weaker than casters but that its the imbalance in the stories, myths or legends between mundanes and casters that makes it exciting. And since we are unsure of Ullyses's mundane level and Circe's caster level you cannot assume they were of an unequal level. In fact the only real difference is that one of them knew magic and the other did not, which by most logical story standards would mean the caster has the edge despite any level influence. Essentially, magic generally imbalances by default.


----------



## Bluenose (May 18, 2012)

Sadras said:


> Im glad you find it fascinating. The reason I provided that paragraph because its obvious that generally mundane characters are weaker than casters but that its the imbalance in the stories, myths or legends between mundanes and casters that makes it exciting. And since we are unsure of Ullyses's mundane level and Circe's caster level you cannot assume they were of an unequal level. In fact the only real difference is that one of them knew magic and the other did not, which by most logical story standards would mean the caster has the edge despite any level influence. Essentially, magic generally imbalances by default.




Prove that mundane characters are weaker than casters. Because at the moment, you're arguing that the people who lose are more powerful because we're supposed to support the underdog. And the logic of magic users having an edge ignores virtually every tradition of magic as difficult, dangerous, limited, and/or slow.


----------



## Sadras (May 18, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> Prove that mundane characters are weaker than casters. Because at the moment, you're arguing that the people who lose are more powerful because we're supposed to support the underdog. And the logic of magic users having an edge ignores virtually every tradition of magic as difficult, dangerous, limited, and/or slow.




Difficult, Dangerous, Limited and/or Slow I dont have a problem with, but generally speaking the spell-casters of story, myth or legend have an edge in a fair fight, hence we (the viewer/reader) generally support the underdog, which most of the time is a mundane. Please dont drag me into straw man diatribe.
A lot of movies involve the mundane having to trick the spell caster who was too busy explaining his motives or toying with the mundane instead of finishing him/her off or the mundane using the environment/terrain to defeat the spell caster. 
Refer Stardust or Willow...etc

Lastly, why is the villain in most fantasies a spell caster? Its because they DO have an edge. Queen Bavmorda in Willow polymorphed an ENTIRE ARMY into pigs, everyone! Including the best swordsman in the land, MadMartigan (Val Kilmer).


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Not really; I'm suggesting, for example, that maybe your next wizard, intent on protecting his friends though he may be, isn't gifted in conjurations and makes do with, say, Illusions or something.  Maybe he never got the knack for them in wizard school.
> 
> Just because one can role-play "I pick only the most powerful spells" doesn't mean one can't also role-play "I make do with the strengths I've been given, regardless" just as effectively.  One isn't less intelligent than the other.




As a wizard the strength you have been given _is_ the ability to pick the most powerful spells.  Yes, you can ban conjuration quite happily - there are powerful non-conjuration spells - conjuration is simply the most obvious.  But "I don't pick the most powerful spells" is absolutely equivalent to saying "I _deliberately ignore_ the strengths I've been given."

And this is why I think the variant mages (sorceror, bard, beguiler, summoner, etc.) are thematically vastly superior to the wizard.  You actually can say "because" to the question of why you don't have Slow.  Or Glitterdust.  Or Invisibility.  Or Charm Person.  Or any other powerful spell you care to name.



bloodtide said:


> I'm just saying I've never seen such a challenge where:  A)The wizard did not get crazy prepared as if they could spend 24/7 ready for any attack. B)The wizard did not use an self beneficial 'interpretation' of a word/rule or C)The wizard just simply cheated.  I'd like to see one, if you know of a link.
> 
> And arena duels are a bit silly anyway, as they are artificial.  The wizards big weakness, compared to a fighter, is that as the day goes on the wizard gets weaker as spells get used up.  But a fighter never uses up his fighting ability.  And the only reason this is such a problem in some games is where they do the 15 minute day and the wizard can have full spells very half hour.  It simply does not work for a wizard that must be awake, active and spellcasting for 16 hours a day.




Arena duels are a bit silly anyway, as they are artificial.  The wizard's big strengths, compared to the fighter, are area control and the ability to pick when and where to fight.  With a high level wizard, getting a fighter into the same arena is a win for the fighter.

As for arena duels, not sure.  I don't keep logs of them.  But Giant In The Playground were speculating on level 20 fighter vs level 13 wizard.  And the fighter's chances seem to be based round Leadership or his superior wealth (using wealth by level) to fake being a wizard.

And I'm not sure why you think a fighter never loses fighting ability.  At least not unless they've cross-classed to take UMD and Wands of Cure Light Wounds - or are chugging back potions throughout the day.  Either way they are burning their money to stay relevant.  For wizards on the other hand the length of the day becomes more and more theoretical as a limit.  A specialist wizard gains an average of three spells per level between level 5 and level 17, making the limit more and more like your sixteen hour day of fighting - how many attack rolls do you need to make?



Savage Wombat said:


> And that's what I'm saying no one is telling you to do.




Except the monsters trying to kill you.  And the PCs and NPCs who depend on you.



Elf Witch said:


> I love magic users they are my idea of fantasy characters. I play them not for the power but because I love the idea of magic.




I like magic users too.  The problem isn't the idea of magic users.  It's the 2e and 3e _Wizard_.  And Druid.  And Cleric.  (Arguably also the Artificer).  The ones who have pretty much free reign on which spells from the huge spell list they prepare.  It is not a coincidence that these are all tier 1 classes.



> I don't understand why with all the options the game has to offer you would only pick certain spells for every caster you play. That to be is boring and I have to be honest I have come to hate the words sub optimal and system mastery with a passion.




I don't understand why going into Vietnam you'd arm every GI with a gun.  That has to be boring.  Why don't you arm some of them with bows?

And I don't pick certain spells for every _caster_.  I prefer bards or beguilers to wizards.  Because if a bard is preparing for a fight they don't get to rifle through a list of overpowered spells. 



> There is more to the game then just be uber powerful in combat.




And this has what to do with the price of oil in Nantucket market?  You noticed that on my default spell load out above there were only six direct combat spells?  Six spells out of seventeen non-cantrips, or approximately a third.  The attitude isn't about being uber powerful in combat - that would involve all spells being combat spells.  It's about being good at combat if you need to fight at all.  It's enough to go two fights with your mageslayers and pull their weight in two more fights with relatively miserly spell use.  The fighters can do the actual killing.



> I have played powerful blaster style casters




Objection: Oxymoron.  This is part of the problem.  Blaster style casters took a serious nerf between 2e and 3e - hit points and weapon damage inflated.  Blast damage did not.  So blasters took a de facto serious nerf.



> but I have also played more support style casters. My favorite character ever was my elf sorceresses in my first 3.0 game. Her major damage spell was magic missile. The rest of her spells were more support style for the party buffs, slow a bunch of divination type spells like clairaudience/clairvoyance,  things to make life easier for the party like phantom steed. invisibility.




This is sounding close to the caster I outlined.
A default loadout expecting some trouble (but not actively  dungeoncrawling) at level 7 would probably include two Evard's, two  Stinking Clouds, and two Glitterdusts.  This would leave me with room  for Greater Invisibility at level 4, Fly and Haste at level 3, and  Invisibility, Detect Thoughts, and Rope Trick at level 2.  Plus my level  1 spells (probably Change Self, Alarm, Enlarge Person, Silent Image,  and either Unseen Servant or Mage Armour depending whether I'm wearing a  Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt or not).​


> In the game I was the main person who solved the mysteries and I was the face of the party. I had a blast I never felt that just because I could not do the damage others could that I was not contributing.




That's just it.  You as a wizard pretty much _can_ end the fights _and_ do everything else.  If you do not have decent combat spells as a wizard then that is a personal in character choice.  It is explicitely saying "I'm going to be risking my life but am purposely not going to prepare for that."



Sadras said:


> Im glad you find it fascinating. The reason I provided that paragraph because its obvious that generally mundane characters are weaker than casters but that its the imbalance in the stories, myths or legends between mundanes and casters that makes it exciting. And since we are unsure of Ullyses's mundane level and Circe's caster level you cannot assume they were of an unequal level. In fact the only real difference is that one of them knew magic and the other did not, which by most logical story standards would mean the caster has the edge despite any level influence. Essentially, magic generally imbalances by default.




I read things very differently from you there.  What I read isn't that mundane characters are weaker than casters in myths and legends, but that protagonists always _look_ weaker than the BBEG - whether or not the protagonists or the casters were mages.

If Odysseus was weaker than Circe then we absolutely can assume that Odysseus was of a lower level than Circe.  Because _that is what level measures_.  Power of a character.

The NPCs on the other hand have to look more powerful than the protagonists because that is needed to create tension.  Whether they do it through being stronger, through magic, or through political power and/or arnies doesn't matter.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> And that's what I'm saying no one is telling you to do.




But, yes they are.  I'm being told, that I shouldn't pick certain options.  That I should pick options based on different criteria.  That it's a bad thing to always pick the most powerful option.

My point is, there should never BE a "most powerful option".


----------



## Sadras (May 18, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I read things very differently from you there. What I read isn't that mundane characters are weaker than casters in myths and legends, but that protagonists always _look_ weaker than the BBEG - whether or not the protagonists or the casters were mages.




Yes, that is probably the case maybe more often than not. Although when the hero is not a young trainee of any craft (martial or magic) it is difficult to quantify who is weaker in terms of level.



> If Odysseus was weaker than Circe then we absolutely can assume that Odysseus was of a lower level than Circe. Because _that is what level measures_. Power of a character.




Unfortunately, we cannot determine the level of each of the characters in the Odysseus/Circe story, but Magic or being a spell caster usually is synonymous with power, an esoteric power that few can obtain/understand/utilise, but once you are one of those few you are thought to wield immense power. I feel that is how it has been portrayed for the most part in fiction.

In Willow, Madmartigan was considered the best swordsman in all the land, but one spell from Badmorda left him useless. No levels there, but we can assume they were both skilled in what they did.
Likewise Septimus in Stardust was no fool with a sword but was easily and amusingly dispatched by Michelle Pheiffers character in Stardust.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> I think that a lot of players that don't have the problem you describe could be because they don't think that having a constant selection of the most powerful spells is fun to play.  Certainly not from character to character.  Don't you get bored?




I would. But in Magic I'm a Johnny. In wargames I like to build warbands that are 'cool.'

One of my players would never be bored, as long as he 'wins.' In Magic he's a spike. In wargames he builds the 'best' army. He likes to win more than he likes variety and flavorful choices.

To each our own, but a good system should allow us to play reasonably well together. The power gap between his PCs and other PCs has always been tight enough for me to challenge everyone in every system we ever played (including non-D&D games), except the last two years we played 3E.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, yes they are.  I'm being told, that I shouldn't pick certain options.  That I should pick options based on different criteria.  That it's a bad thing to always pick the most powerful option.
> 
> My point is, there should never BE a "most powerful option".




No, you're not.  You are deciding that your job in the party is to be the most powerful character you can concoct.  No one is requiring you to do that.  If you want to pick the most powerful option every single time, that's your decision, not a requirement of the game or a demand of other players.

I just think that playing the guy that stun-locks every opponent every fight of every game sounds about as boring as playing the same character in Mortal Kombat every game.  That's the ONLY point I was bringing up.

No game forces you to play a certain way.  Even if some ways are more effective than others.  And if you have friends who gripe at you when your character is sub-par, I'm sorry.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> No game forces you to play a certain way.  Even if some ways are more effective than others.  And if you have friends who gripe at you when your character is sub-par, I'm sorry.



No game forces you to play a certain way.  Though I can name many, many games that when you play in a way other than the optimal way you lose.

There ARE other ways to play those games, but those ways will not help you win.  And many of them are team games where the people on your team will get very mad at you if your unoptimal play causes the whole team to lose.

Take, for example, the MOBA online games(Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends, Defense of the Ancients).  These games are often really hard to learn for new people because there are so many ways to play but most of them cause your team to lose.  It can be very frustrating in all of them because the games are balanced around the high end players who have honed their item selection/skill selection/strategy to a high degree.  This means that if even one player on their team plays less than optimal that gives a benefit to the opposing team.

The same thing tends to happen in D&D games.  At least, that's been my experience.  One player optimizes their character a lot...then the other players feel like they aren't contributing AND the DM gets frustrated because the PCs stomp over enemies the DM expected to be especially hard or even had intended the PCs to run from.

So, the DM says "That's fine, they want to powergame, I'll make the monsters harder so that there's some challenge in this game.  It's more fun for me if I don't have to run constant one sided combats."

Then the other players become more and more frustrated that their characters are contributing less and less to combat because of the harder monsters.  They hit less often, they require more hits to kill monsters, they get hit more often.  They spend more time unconscious and waiting to be healed and less time up and fighting.

So, the inevitable happens and someone dies due to the power ramp.  They roll up a new character who is better at combat and optimized since they don't want it to happen again.  Now there are TWO optimized characters in the group...so combats become 1 sided again and the DM gets frustrated and increases their power.

Rinse and repeat until the entire group is pretty much as optimized as they can get.  Anyone who walks into one of these groups with any character not played optimally will get criticized and downright yelled at for playing poorly because it results in the death of the entire party when things go wrong.

You aren't "forced" to play optimally, but you can expect to die if you don't.  And you can expect that the rest of the group may die with you.  Why shouldn't they get annoyed at you if you contribute to their death?


----------



## dagger (May 18, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I think the whole discussion is this:
> 
> If no player plays Super Caster, there is no problem.
> 
> ...





You can also define this further by listing the edition of the game you are playing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> No, you're not.  You are deciding that your job in the party is to be  the most powerful character you can concoct.  No one is requiring you to  do that.  If you want to pick the most powerful option every single  time, that's your decision, not a requirement of the game or a demand of  other players.
> 
> I just think that playing the guy that stun-locks every opponent every  fight of every game sounds about as boring as playing the same character  in Mortal Kombat every game.  That's the ONLY point I was bringing up.
> 
> No game forces you to play a certain way.  Even if some ways are more  effective than others.  And if you have friends who gripe at you when  your character is sub-par, I'm sorry.




You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension.  Your misapprehension is that _my wizard_ is playing a game.  _I_ am playing a game.  My Wizard is not.  He is fighting for survival in a world with the darkest power.  If my wizard was playing even The Most Dangerous Game then there would be an excuse for him to be risking his life and the lives of his friends, and even his world by not trying to win.  And one of the ways a wizard tries to win is _by picking the best spells_.

If you want me to treat D&D as a roleplaying game (as I do), kindly explain to me the psychology of someone who believes himself, those he cares about, and often the very existance of his world to be threatened - and then does not do his best to win.  Because in order to follow your advice and then play a wizard, that is what I must do.  Stunlocking may be boring - but isn't as boring as _literally being dead_.  Which is what you are asking my wizard to risk.  I suppose the end of the world might be exciting if you like that sort of thing.

(And before you say that my wizard doesn't have the knowledge I do, I disagree.  The 3.5 rules have been out for not even ten years.  Wizards have been around in the gameworld for thousands, normally.  Wizards are also generally very smart and very knowledgeable.)

And for Spike to overwhelm Johnny, as Vyvian Bastard implies, is a simple matter of bad game design.  If Johnny can not keep within touching distance of Spike then the game is pushing you towards playing Spike at the expense of Johnny.  Because the in character alternatives are Spiking and seriously risking dying.  And spell selection is an _in character_ choice.


----------



## bloodtide (May 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> That's not entirely true though.  The fighter gets used up much faster than the wizard does.  His hit points are his resource and he has no way to self generate them.  A fighter loses 80% of his hit points is out for a few days.  A wizard who blows 100% of his resources gets them back in 8 hours.
> 
> And a fighter who uses 100% of his resources dies.  A wizard doesn't.




Funny I'd think that a wizard with no spells(or scrolls) would be just as 100% dead.

Any character that loses hit points is in trouble, and fighters and wizards can't get hps back by themselves.  But each could have a cleric buddy or just potions.

And can a wizard really be a walking library of scrolls?  Do they have the time and money and xp to do that like twice a week?  Or are they going to Scroll Mart and getting the scrolls BOGO free?

Again this comes back to another side of the '15 minute day' problem, where the wizard can scribe 'a dozen or more scrolls' in a day that gets condensed in to one hour.(''He guys I need to make some scrolls, lets just say we hang out in town for two weeks, ok?'')

And I won't bother with the 'target the scrolls', as I know most DMs ''don't think that is fair'' and it's like targeting the spellbook or component pouch.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 18, 2012)

No, I'm sorry, that's just role-playing justification for power-gaming.  Which is fine if that's _what you want to do._  But if you're playing the same character over and over, and you're bored with it, stop blaming the game system for _forcing_ you to.

There is never going to be a game system where every option is perfectly balanced against every other.  When a game has been over-analyzed to death the way 3x has, people are going to find optimal strategies.  But D&D is not chess.  You can play whatever strategy you like.

And as an additional note - there is no form of role-playing that transcends your ability as the human player to make a choice.  I've seen many players justify anything from productive-but-rigid behavior, like your spell preferences, to destructive-and-hostile behavior, like party-killing, because "that's what my character would do."  Sorry, but you chose to play that character that way.

If a game isn't fun for you because you've "solved" it, like the guys who solved Connect 4, then you don't have to play.  But that's not the game's fault.


----------



## slobster (May 18, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> What are these options that you are referring to because they sure as hell aren't rules? No one has said anything about needing to change a "rule" in order for the game to work.
> 
> I see what exactly what you and a few others are trying to do here. Because some of us don't use the "guidelines" in the DMG then we are essentially playing the game wrong.




Question Mark?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The broken wizard options I was talking about could be as simple as the right spell and item selection such that encounters which should be engaged by the whole party are dealt with by a single character (as an aside, I agree with the conceit that bypassing one encounter per session is fine, as long as other encounters give other PCs the chance to shine; wizards potentially godmode the whole campaign). These options exist in core, and are expanded upon ruthlessly as you add more and more splatbooks to the mix.

For the record, I would never tell someone that their style of D&D was the wrong one. I don't see where anyone here said that either. What we are saying is that an unbalanced set of rules can lead to broken character builds, trivialized party members, hurt feelings, and in some cases excessive house-ruling and/or nausea and upset stomach.


----------



## slobster (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> There is never going to be a game system where every option is perfectly balanced against every other.




Truth. There isn't much we can say with certainty about DDN, but one thing is that every possible character build will not be totally balanced against every other.

You want it that way, of course. There will be synergies between certain feats, classes, equipment choices and so on, and as a player you feel that little glow of satisfaction when you discover one (or is that just me?). Smart character building should be rewarded, to some extent, so by definition some choices have to be better than others.

But it isn't a given that such a system must be as ridiculously asymmetrical as 3.X was. Prune away the character options that are so overpowered that they trivialize the rest of the party. Set as your goal the idea that everyone should have the ability to shine, and every character should have some arena where their mastery exceeds anyone else's.

When, during playtesting, you discover some character build dominating the game entirely, _fix it_! We don't want to have to discover the issue ourselves over and over in thousands of disparate campaigns, then separately come up with gentlemen's agreements or houserules that work around the issue. 

Make the core rules as balanced as possible, as free from both choice traps and overpowering builds as you can. That frees me, the GM, to focus on crafting a campaign instead of patching a rules system when I get ready to play.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> No, you're not.  You are deciding that your job in the party is to be the most powerful character you can concoct.  No one is requiring you to do that.  If you want to pick the most powerful option every single time, that's your decision, not a requirement of the game or a demand of other players.
> 
> I just think that playing the guy that stun-locks every opponent every fight of every game sounds about as boring as playing the same character in Mortal Kombat every game.  That's the ONLY point I was bringing up.
> 
> No game forces you to play a certain way.  Even if some ways are more effective than others.  And if you have friends who gripe at you when your character is sub-par, I'm sorry.



I always played shang tsung... always the same character...


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 18, 2012)

Sometimes the problem is rather obvious. I bet the people with the caster problems have DM's who don't actually flex their DM muscles and stop the 15 minute work day and the hundreds of magic shops r us. 

Now if the whole group wants to stop for the 15 minute work day then you just have hit them with monsters or adjust what goes on around them. Now from what I have seen through the years is the fact that the group usually doesn't want to stop and wait on the spellcasters to regain their spells.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> No, I'm sorry, that's just role-playing justification for power-gaming.  Which is fine if that's _what you want to do._  But if you're playing the same character over and over, and you're bored with it, stop blaming the game system for _forcing_ you to.




The game system is no more forcing me to do that than it's forcing my rogue not to bounce around on a pogo stick or wear plate armour that my rogue is not proficient in.  It is, however, strongly encouraging my rogues and wizards to play in certain ways because those ways are just more efficient.



> There is never going to be a game system where every option is perfectly balanced against every other.  When a game has been over-analyzed to death the way 3x has, people are going to find optimal strategies.  But D&D is not chess.  You can play whatever strategy you like.




Of course there isn't going to be a game system where every option is perfectly balanced against every other.   This doesn't mean that it isn't a goal to aim for.

And as I have said, you can play any strategy you like _as long as you don't care in character whether you live or die._  If you do care then looking for good strategies is simply playing smart.  And wizards are smart.



> And as an additional note - there is no form of role-playing that transcends your ability as the human player to make a choice.  I've seen many players justify anything from productive-but-rigid behavior, like your spell preferences, to destructive-and-hostile behavior, like party-killing, because "that's what my character would do."  Sorry, but you chose to play that character that way.




I have set you a challenge.  Give me a set of character justifications taht would lead to caring little enough about living or dying that I won't be looking for powerful spells.  It's not a case of "That's what my character would do" so much as "That's the best way to survive.  And people who don't care about survival are ... unusual."  (I've had a paladin who'se life's ambition was to go to Valhalla fighting an overwhelming foe.  He succeeded.)

But there is a vast difference between the excuse "That's my character" and "Unless I have specific abnormal motivations, this is the sensible thing to do".

The three that spring to mind are "deathwish" like my paladin, "arrogant jackass" who is so overconfident that he's giving the monsters a chance, and "fanatic" who cares more about how the dark lord is stopped than whether the dark lord is stopped.

Now I can play all those.  But restricting me to such a narrow range of character options is ... weird.  Are wizards meant to have the same level of RP restrictions as Paladins?  If they are then why isn't this written in the rulebook.  And if they aren't then isn't it a shame that in practice they do.



> If a game isn't fun for you because you've "solved" it, like the guys who solved Connect 4, then you don't have to play.  But that's not the game's fault.




No.  It's the designers fault for coming up with an unbalanced system and then failing to patch it when it became screamingly obvious that the system was unbalanced.  Also those same designers who have made it almost impossible for Spike to play happily alongside Johnny and Timmy.  And a good Melvin (as I believe I am) will veer between Timmy, Johnny and Spike.  The wizard is set up for Spike-play so a Melvin will normally play a wizard as a Spike even if they are quite happy playing a beguiler or bard in a much more Johnny style.  Or a sorceror or barbarian as a Timmy would.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

bloodtide said:


> Funny I'd think that a wizard with no spells(or scrolls) would be just as 100% dead.
> 
> Any character that loses hit points is in trouble, and fighters and wizards can't get hps back by themselves.  But each could have a cleric buddy or just potions.
> 
> ...




What?  A scroll, like any other magic item, takes a minimum of one day to create.  And is created at half the GP cost of one to buy.  But to put things into perspective, scrolls are dirt cheap.

A level 1 scroll costs 25GP and level 2 150GP.  A +1 sword costs 2300GP and +2 8300.  You can buy half a library of level 1 and 2 scrolls for the cost of a low level magic weapon.  Literally 50 L1 scrolls and a further 7 L2 for a single +1 weapon.

And as for wands, a level 1 wand costs 750gp and level 2 4500 gp - which means you can make it for half that and a work week.  You're telling me that the PCs literally get attacked every day - all the time you need for a L1 wand?

As for scroll mart, if you use the worldbuilding advice in the DMG then _yes_.  Scrolls are under the cost-cap for most places because they are so cheap.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2012)

slobster said:


> It seems that some people are saying that yes, there are broken wizard options. But since you can choose not to employ them, it isn't a problem.
> 
> My opinion is that broken options are broken even if you aren't currently taking advantage of them. We should be able to have a system with a minimum of broken options (none being the goal) so that we can stop having this conversation, and instead talk about all the cool but not overpowered character concepts we are able to play.




There are also broken options for other classes as well take a look at Planar Shepard. There is a build based on small character using a dagger that has exploding die. There is one with a fighter that lets you start critting on an 9 and lets you every time you hit you get to add two more hits add this to the extra attacks a fighter gets and you are looking at some really high levels of damage. 

I agree broken options are broken and I would like to see less broken options in the new game.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 18, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I have set you a challenge.  Give me a set of character justifications taht would lead to caring little enough about living or dying that I won't be looking for powerful spells.  It's not a case of "That's what my character would do" so much as "That's the best way to survive.  And people who don't care about survival are ... unusual."




Easy.  "I apprenticed with the only wizard in my home town, and as a result my barred school is Conjuration."  What you're saying is more analagous to saying that AD&D forced you to play rangers and paladins because they were more powerful classes than fighters.  

One more time, I will repeat my original point - I think playing a single, narrow set of options because they are the most powerful option available is BORING.  Not wrong, not a design issue - BORING.  

I don't know what your habits are, but your choices remind me of the people who spend all their time on the char-ops boards looking for the most powerful builds.  Which, to my tastes, has been to the detriment of the hobby.

Since you keep referring to MTG articles - what you are describing is the mentality of the player who _has to_ play, say, only blue/white control decks in every single game, even outside of tournaments, because that's "the strongest option".  And then you blame the game designers when the game is boring and repetitive.

Maybe, just maybe, some people don't think wizards and clerics are broken because they and their players didn't set out to break them.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I like magic users too.  The problem isn't the idea of magic users.  It's the 2e and 3e _Wizard_.  And Druid.  And Cleric.  (Arguably also the Artificer).  The ones who have pretty much free reign on which spells from the huge spell list they prepare.  It is not a coincidence that these are all tier 1 classes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So instead of pulling them down a tier how about raising the the others up. That is another thing I would like to burn in a fire along with sup optimal and system mastery is the tier things that has made so many people go see see the casters are tier 1 which means they walk all over and make all the classes unnecessary to the game. 

Which they don't because as I have said over and over again if this was true no one would play anything else but a caster. Unless you are claiming that everyone who plays mundanes just accept being nothing more than a henchman.

Because Vietnam is real life not a game I am not really going to die or be serious disabled in if my character is not totally optimized for winning in combat. 

Make up your mind either now you are saying blaster mages are not powerful because they got nerfed and yet wizards have over powered spells. Blaster mages are very good at dealing out damage to numbers in combat. I have heard so many complaints about this too. That the wizard cast fireball and there is nothing left for the rest of the party to do.  

It is obvious you don't like magic being powerful you prefer a system where magic is on the level of bardic type which is fine for you.

But just because you don't like the other end of this where wizards do become powerful that does not mean that wizards do everything and don't need anyone else nor does it mean that the other classes can't contribute and be of equal importance to the party.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, yes they are.  I'm being told, that I shouldn't pick certain options.  That I should pick options based on different criteria.  That it's a bad thing to always pick the most powerful option.
> 
> My point is, there should never BE a "most powerful option".




No one is saying that. What I see being said that picking the most powerful combat option is not the only way to build an effective caster or any character for that matter.

There will always be a more powerful option. I don't play 4E but I have been told that there are more powerful options even if that more closely balanced system.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> There are also broken options for other classes as well take a look at Planar Shepard.




Or core RAW druid.  Planar Shepard is notable for being the only Druid prestige class to be stronger than straight druid.



> There is a build based on small character using a dagger that has exploding die.




Exploding dn average:
Damage = 1/n(1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n-1 + (n + Damage))
Damage = 1/n (Sum(1...n)) + 1/n(Damage)
((n-1)/n)Damage = 1/n(Sum(1...n))
Damage = (1/(n-1)) * Sum(1...n)
Damage = (1/(n-1)))* 0.5 * n * (n+1)
Damage = n/2 *(n+1)/(n-1)

Which unless you're upgrading from d2 to d3 means that a higher dice is always better (or unless you're rolling d1).

Solving average damages:
D2: 3
D3: 3
d4:  3 1/3
d6: 4 1/5
d8: 5 1/7
d10: 6 1/9
d12: 7 1/11

Yes, it's fairly flat for small characters.  But big ones still do more damage.



> There is one with a fighter that lets you start critting on an 9 and lets you every time you hit you get to add two more hits add this to the extra attacks a fighter gets and you are looking at some really high levels of damage.
> 
> I agree broken options are broken and I would like to see less broken options in the new game.




The problem is the "broken" options I'm complaining about aren't combos and they aren't splatbooks.  They are core options used in the obvious ways.  I'm not talking about Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Ur-priest 4/Nar Demonbinder 1/Mystic Theurge 10 with a caster level way over 50.  I'm talking about a wizard picking spells from the PHB.  Is that broken or baseline?


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension.  Your misapprehension is that _my wizard_ is playing a game.  _I_ am playing a game.  My Wizard is not.  He is fighting for survival in a world with the darkest power.  If my wizard was playing even The Most Dangerous Game then there would be an excuse for him to be risking his life and the lives of his friends, and even his world by not trying to win.  And one of the ways a wizard tries to win is _by picking the best spells_.
> 
> If you want me to treat D&D as a roleplaying game (as I do), kindly explain to me the psychology of someone who believes himself, those he cares about, and often the very existance of his world to be threatened - and then does not do his best to win.  Because in order to follow your advice and then play a wizard, that is what I must do.  Stunlocking may be boring - but isn't as boring as _literally being dead_.  Which is what you are asking my wizard to risk.  I suppose the end of the world might be exciting if you like that sort of thing.
> 
> ...




I guess if all you ever do is have combat intense games where that is all that matters then yeah you need the most powerful combat spells.

But a lot of us don't play the game that way. There are so many other aspects of the game political intrigue, mysteries, puzzles, exploration. So you need a variety of skill sets to deal with that. 

A well equipped party with good tactics can do well in combat and beat the bad guys without having to have the most powerful spells. 

My support sorcerer did not have powerful combat spells but her ability to magical scout and know where ambushes were being laid or just where the monsters were made a huge difference to the outcome of the encounter. Sometimes we were able to circumvent combat completely by sneaking around or coming from a different direction. Especially if the goal was not to kill monsters but retrieve an item. 

Again if you feel that the only way to play is that everyone have the most combat powerful options fine but not everyone plays this way.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Or core RAW druid.  Planar Shepard is notable for being the only Druid prestige class to be stronger than straight druid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am not going to continue debating this with you because at this point it has become futile. In your _opinion_ certain classes are broken. So we get it you don't like how magic is done in 3E.

I hope that 5E gives you something more to your liking.

I don't happen to agree with you. As it seems others don't either at least 50 people here don't agree. I would rather deal with 1,2,3 E magic then what 4E did to it and the game. 

My hope is that 5E does not totally listen to the supposed majority or the squeaky wheels and make magic mundane and weak.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Easy.  "I apprenticed with the only wizard in my home town, and as a result my barred school is Conjuration."




That's attacking the symptoms, not the cause.  What you need to provide is an RP reason to not take the most powerful spells you can get.  Changing the spells you can get doesn't change the fundamental RP issue.  Instead you just get a different set of spells that are the powerful ones - I already banned _Transmutation_ for being the cheesiest school.



> Since you keep referring to MTG articles - what you are describing is the mentality of the player who _has to_ play, say, only blue/white control decks in every single game, even outside of tournaments, because that's "the strongest option".  And then you blame the game designers when the game is boring and repetitive.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, some people don't think wizards and clerics are broken because they and their players didn't set out to break them.




And for the umpteenth time, the Wizard _himself_ should be setting out to break the class.  Wizards and clerics are both wise and _going to be risking their lives_.  Do you want to risk your life with third rate equipment, knowing that first rate equipment is no cheaper? 

Because risking their life on third rate equipment is _literally_ what you are asking non-spontaneous casters to do by eschewing powerful spells.

Getting the best tools for the job as a wizard is quite literally a matter of _life and death_.  To a knowledgeable and high intelligence person who therefore has far more incentive to get it right than any MtG player ever has.  If they know that getting things right is a matter of life then why are you telling them not to treat it as one?

What I want is for Johnny, Spike, Timmy, Melvin, Vorthos, and the rest to all be able to sit round the same table happily.  I want as big a tent as possible.  Vorthos dislikes 4e with good reason if he's just read the PHB.  Spike meanwhile tramples all over 3.X and Melvin cringes because he can see exactly the fault lines.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> My support sorcerer did not have powerful combat spells but her ability to magical scout and know where ambushes were being laid or just where the monsters were made a huge difference to the outcome of the encounter. *Sometimes we were able to circumvent combat completely by sneaking around or coming from a different direction. Especially if the goal was not to kill monsters but retrieve an item. *
> 
> Again if you feel that the only way to play is that everyone have the most combat powerful options fine but not everyone plays this way.




This right here says it all. I think some people expect, certainty in 4th editions case, that combat is the end all to the D&D game. Avoiding combat is just as much a part of the game as combat. I think people have a hard time looking past the numbers and looking at the game as a whole.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> So instead of pulling them down a tier how about raising the the others up. That is another thing I would like to burn in a fire along with sup optimal and system mastery is the tier things that has made so many people go see see the casters are tier 1 which means they walk all over and make all the classes unnecessary to the game.




I've already recommended the Tome of Awesome to you once.  Even ToA non-casters struggle a lot with highly effective play.  As for burning system mastery, you can't.  If people like something they will examine it.  (Now traps for system mastery are another issue and even Monte Cook has acknowledged they were a mistake).

D&D has always had a sword-and-sorcery core.  With gritty fighters.  And you'd make most of the OSR unhappy to have charambara or celtic myth fighters.  You wouldn't make me unhappy in the slightest there.



> Which they don't because as I have said over and over again if this was true no one would play anything else but a caster. Unless you are claiming that everyone who plays mundanes just accept being nothing more than a henchman.




And I have said over and over the problem is Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard.  At low levels the fighters can compete - and the gap might even be in the favour of certain non-casters.  If you're playing E6 the problem hasn't had time to get serious.



> Because Vietnam is real life not a game I am not really going to die or be serious disabled in if my character is not totally optimized for winning in combat.




Which means that your character is being forced not to treat things seriously.  Right.  This isn't how I play.  I'll happily play a bard with a completely random spell selection.  But the _in character choices_ are going to be taken seriously.  And unlike sorcerors or bards, wizard spell selection is an _in character_ choice.  If the premise of the game is Fantasy ing Vietnam then my wizard is going to treat it as Fantasy ing Vietnam even if I don't.



> Make up your mind either now you are saying blaster mages are not powerful because they got nerfed and yet wizards have over powered spells. Blaster mages are very good at dealing out damage to numbers in combat. I have heard so many complaints about this too. That the wizard cast fireball and there is nothing left for the rest of the party to do.




Wizards have overpowered spells.  Direct damage spells are seldom overpowered.  Sure they are useful but wizard spells should be useful.



> It is obvious you don't like magic being powerful you prefer a system where magic is on the level of bardic type which is fine for you.




No.  I don't mind magic being powerful.  I just object to the pairing of powerful magic, gritty fighter.  If you want to play Exalted, I'll happily play that.  It's just a world away from D&D's legacy



Elf Witch said:


> No one is saying that. What I see being said that picking the most powerful combat option is not the only way to build an effective caster or any character for that matter.




Neither am I.  I'm saying that in character wizards _should_ pick the most powerful combat options because they want to save their lives.



> There will always be a more powerful option. I don't play 4E but I have been told that there are more powerful options even if that more closely balanced system.




Of course there are.  But there's a difference between the range of them.



Elf Witch said:


> I guess if all you ever do is have combat intense games where that is all that matters then yeah you need the most powerful combat spells.




No I don't normally have combat intense games.  However this doesn't change the premise that _any spell slot used for combat should be picking the best choice available_.  



> But a lot of us don't play the game that way. There are so many other aspects of the game political intrigue, mysteries, puzzles, exploration. So you need a variety of skill sets to deal with that.




Of course.  None of which fighters have much to help with   When you need a combat spell you need it. 



> Again if you feel that the only way to play is that everyone have the most combat powerful options fine but not everyone plays this way.




And once again, this is a strawman.  What I am saying is that a smart wizard picks the most effective combat spells they have access to with all the resources they think are worth spending on combat.



> I am not going to continue debating this with you because at this point it has become futile. In your _opinion_ certain classes are broken. So we get it you don't like how magic is done in 3E.
> 
> I hope that 5E gives you something more to your liking.
> 
> ...




As it happens you're outnumbered 3:1 here.  And they can either make magic weak or make fighters able to do their jobs.  We've had the anti-fighter edition of 3.X.  The one where you take crippling penalties for wearing heavy armour.  And all limits on casters are weakened and most can be subverted.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 18, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And for the umpteenth time, the Wizard _himself_ should be setting out to break the class.  Wizards and clerics are both wise and _going to be risking their lives_.  Do you want to risk your life with third rate equipment, knowing that first rate equipment is no cheaper?
> 
> Because risking their life on third rate equipment is _literally_ what you are asking non-spontaneous casters to do by eschewing powerful spells.




I continue to reject your umpteenth effort to justify this as purely a role-playing decision.  Your character does not exist in a world where he is aware of the combat mechanics, such as saving throws or defenses, or the necessary statistics to number-crunch the effectiveness of tactics.  He does not know that he will only ever encounter foes appropriate for his power level.  Etc.

What you describe is no different than a fighter who decides to specialize in trip attacks because, in that particular campaign at the level they play, it's the most powerful option.  He can try to role-justify it all he wants, but it's still chosen because it exploits the rules.

If all of your wizards choose the same spells every time, it's because you are a Spike, who wants to win more than he wants to experience the other aspects of play.  

I can't help but wonder what games are like where the PCs are all optimized with combos of this nature.  Do your GMs respond by using every broken combo back at you every single fight?  Or are they playing by a code of conduct you don't feel bound by?

I just don't see why you fight so hard to defend this style of play.  You don't seem to like it, since you keep advocating for its removal.  Just don't work so hard to red-line the system in the first place.  It's not like the game designers will ever be able to analyze a system the way a dedicated player base with years of free time will.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 18, 2012)

Why isn't anyone mentioning spell preparation? I have seen many many games where the Wizard barely had any spells that would effect combat in a positive way. They don't always pick the right spells nor do they rarely have time to take a quick 15 minute break to fill those unused slots.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> I continue to reject your umpteenth effort to justify this as purely a role-playing decision.  Your character does not exist in a world where he is aware of the combat mechanics, such as saving throws or defenses, or the necessary statistics to number-crunch the effectiveness of tactics.  He does not know that he will only ever encounter foes appropriate for his power level.  Etc.




Really?  He doesn't y'know _live in that world_.  He doesn't study the mechanics of magic and have Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana trained.  I take the viewpoint that a smart character with a professional skill knows it better than I do.



> What you describe is no different than a fighter who decides to specialize in trip attacks because, in that particular campaign at the level they play, it's the most powerful option.  He can try to role-justify it all he wants, but it's still chosen because it exploits the rules.




Once again, I repeat _spells are equipment_.  Taking the biggest baddest spells you are proficient with is no different from taking the biggest sword you have easy access to.  And trying to get a goood spell for a wizard is no different than trying to get a good sword for a wizard.  Except that many more wizards have tried out spells than specific swords.



> If all of your wizards choose the same spells every time, it's because you are a Spike, who wants to win more than he wants to experience the other aspects of play.




Take your ad-hominem attacks elsewhere please.  I'm a Melvin and have already stated that it's my wizards that make these choices, not all my casters.  I, as I've stated earlier _prefer_ to play _Bards_ because they don't back me into this RP corner.  Now if you're calling someone who likes playing Bards Spike, that's a new one on me.



> I can't help but wonder what games are like where the PCs are all optimized with combos of this nature.  Do your GMs respond by using every broken combo back at you every single fight?  Or are they playing by a code of conduct you don't feel bound by?




And once more out come the ad-hominem attacks based on your preconceptions.  I'm not talking about _combos_.  I'm talking about using _PHB_ spells for their intended purpose.  Single PHB spells.  I know _how_ to make broken characters.  But Wizard 20 should not be one.  Neither should Druid 20.

And what my games are like is normally 4e.  So I can play the character I want to play and won't have to worry much about intended choices overshadowing everyone else.



> I just don't see why you fight so hard to defend this style of play.  You don't seem to like it, since you keep advocating for its removal.  Just don't work so hard to red-line the system in the first place.  It's not like the game designers will ever be able to analyze a system the way a dedicated player base with years of free time will.




I'm not working to redline the system.  If I were talking about builds like an Ur Priest/Nar Demonbinder/Mystic Theurge you would have a point.  But I'm talking about straight wizard built out of the PHB (and PHB Druid's worse).  Using simple spells for the purpose for which they were intended.  If I were mixing Polymorph and Venomfire again you might have a point.  I _can_ redline the system.  But all I'm talking about here is using core spells for their intended purpose.  Apparently I'm not even allowed to do that.

Now, as you seem to want to be personally insulting while not reading my posts I'm not going to read yours any further.  If I were to do so I'd lose my temper at you, not at the incompetents who deserve it IRL.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 18, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> This right here says it all. I think some people expect, certainty in 4th editions case, that combat is the end all to the D&D game. Avoiding combat is just as much a part of the game as combat. I think people have a hard time looking past the numbers and looking at the game as a whole.




Wrong. Just wrong on many levels, even if I ignore the attempt at edition warring.

Just because we talk about balance as it pertains to one aspect of the game (combat in this case) does not mean that we do not include other aspects of the game. Your assumption that anyone debating balance believes 'combat is the end all to the D&D game' is baseless.

All it means is that the balance issues we've encountered mainly come up in combat. But even that isn't entirely true and I think you've glossed over other complaints along the way. Spellcasters can overshadow characters specialized in social interactions with low level spells like _friends_ and _charm person_. They can overshadow characters specialized in exploration with low-level spells like _knock_, _find traps_, _silence_, _invisibility_, and _fly_. These complaints are not uncommon, but if you wish to label those with differing opinions as focusing solely on combat to make yourself feel superior have at it.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 18, 2012)

I just find it interesting that you take my attempts to describe the playstyle you are defending as "ad-hominem attacks."  Again, if you don't like to play that way, don't.

Anyway, bye.


----------



## slobster (May 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I would rather deal with 1,2,3 E magic then what 4E did to it and the game.




False choice. I don't want the game to be broken, but I don't want every class to be AEDU either. I also don't want every class to be Vancian, or every class to be mana-based or power-point based, or any other single mechanic.

DDN can have casters be interesting and different without making them overpowered. You seemed to agree earlier that there are overpowered options that you'd rather see excised in certain editions of D&D. I agree with that. And in any case, according to what the designers are saying, this is exactly what they are trying to do.

I hope they succeed, but it isn't the end of the world if they don't because I can always play the games I already enjoy.


----------



## Sadras (May 18, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Once again, I repeat _spells are equipment_. Taking the biggest baddest spells you are proficient with is no different from taking the biggest sword you have easy access to. And trying to get a goood spell for a wizard is no different than trying to get a good sword for a wizard. Except that many more wizards have tried out spells than specific swords.




Just looking at this differently. Spells as equipment makes complete sense, however when I play a fighters, i usually try mix up the weapon/armour complement between my different fighter characters. 
I mean I might play studded leather with a glaive or halberd, perhaps sword and shield style, perhaps two handed light weapons with no armour or I might choose the weapon with the highest damage output or the fastest speed factor, or the highest crit range, or I might play a full knight in heavies with bastardsword or might even go range and even then I can choose between a variety. So between styles, weapons, armour, on horseback - I use different equipment every time I play a new fighter character. 
So I believe what Elf Witch is trying to say is that she (assuming female sry) mixes and matches her spells everytime she plays a spell caster - its not so much as she is choosing worse off spells for her caster. 
I mean do you build your bard the same way everytime? Surely you've recognised a great way to optimise your bard for combat, but I'm guessing you dont design the same combat-great bard for every campaign?


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2012)

But, the thing is Sadras, presuming you're talking about 3e D&D, if you play a fighter in leather with a glaive, you're going to build that character so that he is as effective as he can be with that combination.  

Earlier editions lacked those options, so, fighters were almost always wearing the heaviest armor they could, because that was the best way not to die.

What's the difference with the wizard then?  If the fighter player is choosing options to make his choices the most effective they can be, why should the wizard be any different?  If I choose Conjuration and Transmutation as opposed schools for my specialist, well, then I'll take feats and options that make my Charm school spells that much more effective.

Far too much time is being spent trying to blame the players and the DM's for being too stupid to play the game right.  If only we were just skilled enough to not have these problems, then the game would be perfect.  Unfortunately, I'm not that good of a player apparently. I have seen these problems since 1980 when I first started playing.

Apparently I run nothing but endless hack fests, starting at A for Aaracokra and ending at Zombie.

Then again, 2/3rd of the respondents in the poll are apparently just as bad as I am.  

Nope, could never, ever be the system that is the problem.  It's 100% my fault.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 20, 2012)

Well, that's the point then.  It is perfectly possible to choose to play a character that is as effective as you can make it, _without_ playing the single most effective combo you know over and over again.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 20, 2012)

slobster said:


> False choice. I don't want the game to be broken, but I don't want every class to be AEDU either. I also don't want every class to be Vancian, or every class to be mana-based or power-point based, or any other single mechanic.




Well that was a nice thing about 3rd Ed (especially the latter days), a plethora of different class mechanics (Vancian, power points, essentia/incarnum, truename, pact, warlocks, shadow magic, ToB classes, auras etc).

I like the idea of balance, but not when it equals homogenisation of all classes.


----------



## keterys (May 20, 2012)

The latter days of 4e have a lot of that diversity, too, when you get down to it (Essentials, psionics, monks, vampires, etc). Rough start, though.

That is to say, it's very easy to avoid "everybody has the same AEDU powers" in 4e if that's what you're looking to do. Though, yes, there are no "You're all dailies all the time" Vancian - because that's inherently imbalanced  The Essentials Mage, though, has a spellbook, you get to pick all your stuff, it's actually a very nice approach to Vancian - and it has the slayer and thief so folks can compare against and feel like the mage really is the more magical one, if that's one of your restrictions.

I can only imagine what 4e might have looked like given another 5 years like 3e had to find the latter day tome of battles, arcanum, truenames, etc. Heck, I just wanted an Unearthed Arcana (3e-style, big book of cool house rules)


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 20, 2012)

Sadras said:


> So I believe what Elf Witch is trying to say is that she (assuming female sry) mixes and matches her spells everytime she plays a spell caster - its not so much as she is choosing worse off spells for her caster.
> I mean do you build your bard the same way everytime? Surely you've recognised a great way to optimise your bard for combat, but I'm guessing you dont design the same combat-great bard for every campaign?




I pretty much wrote the book back in the day on ways to play the bard.  And they almost all end up with a highly-overlapping equipment list even if they don't share a single spell.  A no-brainer is that every character who can use a wand of Cure Light Wounds probably should.  But deeper is that bards always end up in a Chain Shirt, normally a Mithral one* - and a Mithral buckler or small shield (this isn't quite as silly as the fact that a smart wizard with decent cashflow will almost inevitably buy a +1 Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt if they can - and possibly also a Mithral Buckler)

The reason not to pick a strong solid loadout of combat spells is if I want a specialist combatant when that's what I'll spend the time tweaking.  Or if I'm going to be antisocial and do nothing useful in combat.

* Possibly a Mithral Breastplate at mid-high levels for the most tightly combat focussed builds.



Steely_Dan said:


> I like the idea of balance, but not when it equals homogenisation of all classes.




I like the idea of lack of homogenisation of classes but not when it breaks balance.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I like the idea of lack of homogenisation of classes but not when it breaks balance.




This is not a competition; though part of me wants to tell you, and will, D&D is not Crazy-Ball.


----------



## Surmos (May 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I like the idea of lack of homogenisation of classes but not when it breaks balance.




^ I would +1 this if my phone wasn't freaking out.


----------



## Hussar (May 20, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Well, that's the point then.  It is perfectly possible to choose to play a character that is as effective as you can make it, _without_ playing the single most effective combo you know over and over again.




Like you say, that's the point.

But, with the wizard, just about EVERY choice you make puts you head and shoulders above the muggle classes.

I mean, even if I take no direct combat spells whatsoever.  Focus solely on divination the the absolute exclusion of every other school, I'm still breaking the game.  If there's any sort of mystery in the game, I'm resolving it. 

But, that's a wizard that no one would want to play.  The whole point of a wizard is versatility isn't it?  But, the trick is, the versatility comes at virtually no cost.  I can be the All Knowing Answer Man one day, and Crush the City, the next.  

I mean, it's not too hard to point out.  Which would your 15th level party rather face, a 17th level fighter or a 17th level wizard?  Would you say that they are even remotely on par as opponents?

So, why would they be on par as PC's?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 20, 2012)

Let's say that you are bound and determined to play 3E at around 15th level, have a wizard, druid, and cleric in a large party, and none of those characters are going to notably overshadow anyone else, at least most of the time.  We'll allow room for occasional slip ups, on the grounds that the players are not so mechancially savvy that they won't accidently pick an overpowering option.  

After you muck around a bit, one of the first things this group is going to do is have those three casters start picking buff spells that they can use on the fighter, rogue, barbarian, paladin, etc.  Then they will use them heavily.  Given avoidance of some of the more overpowering spells, along with these buffs, in course of play, the other characters will be effective.  A _hasted, flying_ fighter can be impressive, especially once the cleric has gotten in his enhancements too.  A rogue with _improved invisibility_ and all the other things those casters can lay on him is certainly fun.  

So the most obvious way to circumvent the issue, by average gamers of good will, is to go max on the "buffs that need a spreadsheet to keep straight" route?  That's just pitiful.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 20, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> This is not a competition; though part of me wants to tell you, and will, D&D is not Crazy-Ball.




No it's not a competition.  Which i sprecisely why forcing people into the shade _accidently_ is such a bad thing.



Crazy Jerome said:


> So the most obvious way to circumvent the issue, by average gamers of good will, is to go max on the "buffs that need a spreadsheet to keep straight" route?  That's just pitiful.




And that's before someone throws a Greater Dispel Magic.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Which i sprecisely why forcing people into the shade _accidently_ is such a bad thing.




That sounds a bit sinister (though, interesting), what do you mean?


----------



## Surmos (May 20, 2012)

So for those that don't feel casters overshadow other classes as much:

Are you saying that the balance of the game should be more a part of the agreement of fellow players and the DM?
Not that this is bad, but I'm trying to wrap my head around your point of views.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 20, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> That sounds a bit sinister (though, interesting), what do you mean?




I mean that the problem isn't really the wizard.  A smart wizard is stronger than most classes - but you need to either reflexively think the right way or be trying to make them sing.

The problem can be much more clearly expressed by three classes.


The Fighter
The Druid
The Monk
Fighters only have one area of expertise.  Fighting.  Outside fighting (and being dropped from great heights or being used as a food taster I suppose) they are almost indistinguishable from a commoner - almost no skill points and a terrible class list.  They have very few skills and no other powers.  _Any_ spellcaster (even a highly evocation-centric blast mage who just makes stuff go boom) is going to have a range of options outside combat that the fighter can't match.  Because a fighter is so weak out of combat based on abilities _he must be the best there is at what he does_ or he's going to be overshadowed everywhere.


Druids are fighters' worst nightmares.  A Druid is not one PC but two in combat.  Which means that Druids have more hit points than fighters in total and can inflict more damage.  A druid just needs to pick obvious animal companions and/or wildshapes (wolves and bears will do) and they will be able to go toe to toe with any fighter built by a novice.  And because druids are casters they have options out of combat a fighter literally can't touch.  Which means that even in the hands of someone not trying it is entirely likely that the druid will steal the show in combat and then make the fighter feel useless outside combat.


A druid played by a novice can therefore easily force a fighter played by a novice into the shade.  Which will leave the fighter feeling bad because he can't do what he's supposed to and very possibly the druid feeling bad as well.  This can be a complete accident and spoils the game for the fighter - and for any perceptive druid player as he tries to hold back to let the fighter in.






And then we get to the dear old 3.X monk.  Who, I suppose, is _slightly_ better than his 1e version (that had d4s as hit dice).  The monk is so multi-attribute dependent it's silly.  He needs strength for damage, wis and dex for ac, and con for hit points.  In combat even with a decent wis you've the AC of a rogue, and the hit points of a rogue (con being a priority for everyone - and lower for you than most).  You have deflect arrows - the rogue gets uncanny dodge.  You have stunning fist and flurry (don't grapple - you become meat on the ground as your AC drops to 10) - the rogue gets sneak attack.  Your "unarmed damage" looks good but is about that of a shortsword.  Your only strength is good saving throws - other than that you can be outfought by the party rogue.  Out of combat you've only 4+Int skills/level and many stats to prioritise - you're no skill monkey.  (You're behind druid and barbarian due to your MAD).  You gain some out of combat abilities sure - the ability to fall down pits and off buildings safely.  And immunity to disease at fifth level for what that's worth.


So in combat you're no rogue, let alone a barbarian (who, let's not forget gains speed of his own).  Out of combat you're no barbarian, let alone a rogue unless you mean to take up base jumping.  Choosing a monk in either 1e or 3e is simply a negative play experience if you care what you are doing for the group - you will get overshadowed by people who aren't really trying to do things.  (I'm delighted to say from experience that choosing a monk in 4e is emphatically not - you're a wire-fu martial artist who can run over buildings or up walls and perform breathtaking leaps without always having a chance of failure).






One core issue to me is that flexibility is power.  Classes with spells are always going to be more flexible than those without, so they need to allow the mundane ones to be significantly better than those who can cast spells at anything the mundanes choose to focus on.  (Which to be fair has been the case with the classic wizard with his d4 hit dice and pathetic BAB/THAC0 - but not the cleric so much).


----------



## bloodtide (May 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Fighters only have one area of expertise.  Fighting.  Outside fighting (and being dropped from great heights or being used as a food taster I suppose) they are almost indistinguishable from a commoner - almost no skill points and a terrible class list.  They have very few skills and no other powers.  _Any_ spellcaster (even a highly evocation-centric blast mage who just makes stuff go boom) is going to have a range of options outside combat that the fighter can't match.  Because a fighter is so weak out of combat based on abilities _he must be the best there is at what he does_ or he's going to be overshadowed everywhere.
> .




I just don't get this, and guess I never will.  So a high centric blaster mage has more options outside of combat then a fighter?  How?!  If all the mage can do is blow stuff up, and all of the characters feats, spells, abilities and such are focused on that, how can they have 'so many options'?  If that mage wanted to sneak into a place, what would he do? All he can do is blast.

Or is it because the mage can go home and spend lots of time and money and redo his spellbook?  Assuming, of course, he goes to a magic mart and/or has infinite time to craft whatever he needs(and plenty of money too).  That seems like an odd thing to me.

And I don't get the 'even divination' makes a caster so powerful.  What divination spells?  In general, divinations only help out in bland one track railroad adventures.  Where you can ask the DM ''what is in room 12B'' and the DM looks at his notes and tells you.  But in a more open game, it's pointless to ask ''what will I encounter today?'' as you 'might' encounter anyone of a hundred foes.  And it is great if you know ahead of time that 'monster number three is vulnerable to cold', but does that really help out all that much...knowing the weakness of one monster?  And can you really just 'get' cold spells out of thin air?

I guess some people won't be happy unless fighters can cast spells, or at least have 'powers' that are exactly like spells, but with another name.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 20, 2012)

slobster said:


> False choice. I don't want the game to be broken, but I don't want every class to be AEDU either. I also don't want every class to be Vancian, or every class to be mana-based or power-point based, or any other single mechanic.
> 
> DDN can have casters be interesting and different without making them overpowered. You seemed to agree earlier that there are overpowered options that you'd rather see excised in certain editions of D&D. I agree with that. And in any case, according to what the designers are saying, this is exactly what they are trying to do.
> 
> I hope they succeed, but it isn't the end of the world if they don't because I can always play the games I already enjoy.




It is not a false choice. I do not enjoy 4E I didn't enjoy how combat worked I hated what they did with wizards. So for me right now I have a choice if I want to play DnD either play one of the older editions or don't play DnD.

My hope is the 5E will allow me to to play in the style I like that is there stated design goal to allow all of us a game system that works. 

But if it goes to far like it did with 4E then I would rather just play the editions I enjoy.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, the thing is Sadras, presuming you're talking about 3e D&D, if you play a fighter in leather with a glaive, you're going to build that character so that he is as effective as he can be with that combination.
> 
> Earlier editions lacked those options, so, fighters were almost always wearing the heaviest armor they could, because that was the best way not to die.
> 
> ...




The flip side of this is that those of us who don't have these issues are being told it is because we handicap our casters or we don't know how to make powerful combos. Or I get the impression we are just to stupid to realize that there is an issue.

We game play the game wrong because our characters don't really take the idea that we could be killed seriously otherwise we would only pick the most powerful combo of spells.

The system is 100% broken and we are to naive to see that.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 20, 2012)

Surmos said:


> So for those that don't feel casters overshadow other classes as much:
> 
> Are you saying that the balance of the game should be more a part of the agreement of fellow players and the DM?
> Not that this is bad, but I'm trying to wrap my head around your point of views.




Yes and no. The best way is if the system is as balanced as possible. But I believe that it is impossible to balance a system perfectly unless you make every character exactly the same. 

So I do believe that an agreement needs to be reached between the DM and players.


----------



## Roland55 (May 20, 2012)

Had to vote yes ... but, perhaps oddly, that issue never really bothered me or the people I have gamed with over the years.

We just expected "magic" to be the dominant force in D&D.  And, after all, anyone could be a wizard who wanted to be.  It was just a few dice rolls away.


----------



## Lwaxy (May 20, 2012)

Surmos said:


> So for those that don't feel casters overshadow other classes as much:
> 
> Are you saying that the balance of the game should be more a part of the agreement of fellow players and the DM?
> Not that this is bad, but I'm trying to wrap my head around your point of views.




I am now thinking it is merely a play style thing that just develops. If everyone at the table wants fun and plays their characters like, to stay with the example, the folks of the Fellowship of the Ring, and plays out fatigues and stress and mental failures on their own because it is part of having the game being realistic, then it is just no issue. 

So it is not an agreement for us, at least not a conscious one. My shadow plane tainted PC's player would, for example, notice that his abilities so gained are a bit much right now if used in each encounter (although he knows the others will catch up) so he added his own fatigue restrictions for flavor and realism.  

One group didn't do this at first but now caught up to how the others play. Maybe more freedom gives some more sense of responsibility - or maybe it is that with few exceptions they all started play with our groups and would not know how and why to play the game in a broken way.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 20, 2012)

bloodtide said:


> I just don't get this, and guess I never will.  So a high centric blaster mage has more options outside of combat then a fighter?  How?!  If all the mage can do is blow stuff up, and all of the characters feats, spells, abilities and such are focused on that, how can they have 'so many options'?




He doesn't have _many_ more options than the fighter.  But he can still override the laws of physics even if every single way he does is destructive.

Focussed specialist evokers, or blast-sorcerors are much better at creating distractions than fighters.  Sword and shield vs fireball.  They are much better at causing mayhem - setting the ground on fire.  They are sneaker - the fighter has this problem with any sort of weapons check.  They can provide excellent SFx.

Blowing stuff up is not something that is exclusively restricted to combat.  Neither is stabbing someone - but it's more restricted than blowing things up is.  And anyone in the party can stab people _including the sorceror_.



> And I don't get the 'even divination' makes a caster so powerful.  What divination spells?



Other than the Locate City Bomb?  (Which is an exploit rather than a use).

Detect Thoughts - if you're not holding a combat-fest this is wonderful.
Locate Object has its place.
Scrying - trying to find someone who's gone missing? Scry them.

And that's without the heavy hitters like Commune.  That said, a focussed specialist diviner wouldn't be a good adventuring PC.  Specialist diviners _are_ - they have almost the versatility of a universalist wizard, and free divination spells - not so useful in combat but incredibly useful outside.



> But in a more open game, it's pointless to ask ''what will I encounter today?'' as you 'might' encounter anyone of a hundred foes.



In a more open game it's _extremely pointful_ to ask "Who lives there and what will defend it if we try to take that keep?"  Or "What time are the guard patrols?"



> And it is great if you know ahead of time that 'monster number three is vulnerable to cold', but does that really help out all that much...knowing the weakness of one monster?  And can you really just 'get' cold spells out of thin air?




Actually that's not as useful as 'monster number three resists fire - use a different spell on it.  Oh, and by the way?  Those Shambling Mounds?  I know they are lined up and lightning bolt looks cool.  But it'll only encourage them.  And don't shocking grasp them either.'



> I guess some people won't be happy unless fighters can cast spells, or at least have 'powers' that are exactly like spells, but with another name.



I'm not sure who those people are.  Exalted players, possibly.  4e fighters don't have spells.  They have a dozen different ways to thump someone with a sword.


----------



## 2e Player (May 20, 2012)

If you simply play by the rules as written and assume that all characters have an equal amount of XP and treasure to work with, then yes, a high level 3rd edition caster is going to be more powerful than his mundane counterparts.   There were many mitigating factors that kept mundane characters useful in 1st and 2nd edition, and many of these factors were removed in the core 3e rules.

That said, I've always found that in any game with sensible house rules, a fighter or thief can be a very valuable party member.  Just some thoughts, but things I like to do in 3rd edition include:  

- Make spell acquisition hideously expensive. 
- Don't give wizards _or_ clerics their free spells known at each level. 
- Give mundane characters more and better feats. 
 - Tweak spells such as Save or Dies and Polymorph to be strong, but not completely overpowering. 
- Adjust XP tables, making it much more expensive to level up a full caster.
- Give martial characters better Prestige Class options with powerful class features. 
- Limit the number of spells per day (simply removing bonus spells is a huge improvement).
- Don't allow broken crap like Divine Metamagic and night sticks.  This should be a no brainer.


To be honest, I always find this debate bizarre simply because _it is so easy_ to address these issues with just a few simple house rules.  I don't game with anyone who feels compelled to only play the rules as written, and I really don't even understand that mindset.  If certain elements of the rules are problematic and you find them poor for your style of play, why not simply adjust them to address the problem?

So no, in my experience casters do not overshadow mundanes.  But my experience has never been the 'rules as written' experience.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 20, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I would. But in Magic I'm a Johnny. In wargames I like to build warbands that are 'cool.'
> 
> One of my players would never be bored, as long as he 'wins.' In Magic he's a spike. In wargames he builds the 'best' army. He likes to win more than he likes variety and flavorful choices.
> 
> To each our own, but a good system should allow us to play reasonably well together. The power gap between his PCs and other PCs has always been tight enough for me to challenge everyone in every system we ever played (including non-D&D games), except the last two years we played 3E.




I'm not sure I'm down with Timmy, Johnny, and Spike analysis for D&D. I get what you're saying, though. What I'm not sure of, is whether its possible for Spike to get his "I'm better than anyone else here" fix while having the rules keep Timmy/Johnny in the game despite their comparative ineptitude. At least, without creating a system of profound inter-class dependence or mandated mediocrity. (I want better names...these names will invoke too much inadvertent allusion to MtG, I fear.)

Really, though, the more these discussions go on, the more I wonder if they aren't solely creations of the internet as a medium. I played and ran the game for years with parties of characters that were obviously of unequal relative power, yet it never seemed to utterly destroy my games as many on here seem to feel LFQW inevitably does. Thinking on it now, it seems to me that among the various groups I've played with since 3e came out there is a distinct positive correlation between the time they spend online discussing D&D and their awareness/experience of the commonly cited problems for older editions. Whether that's an effect of CharOp, discussion, predisposition, or something else...I dunno.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (May 20, 2012)

Roland55 said:


> Had to vote yes ... but, perhaps oddly, that issue never really bothered me or the people I have gamed with over the years.
> 
> We just expected "magic" to be the dominant force in D&D.  And, after all, anyone could be a wizard who wanted to be.  It was just a few dice rolls away.




I have to wonder what percentage of the super majority voting that casters are too powerful either...

1. don't care
2. accept the situation and tolerate it or
3. feel the casters SHOULD be more powerful at high levels (my  answer)


----------



## Sadras (May 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What's the difference with the wizard then? If the fighter player is choosing options to make his choices the most effective they can be, why should the wizard be any different? If I choose Conjuration and Transmutation as opposed schools for my specialist, well, then I'll take feats and options that make my Charm school spells that much more effective.




Okay, i think you have missed my point completely and created a straw man argument. I was interpreting Elf Witches post in a different light for Neonchameleon. For instance, if i play a wizard over and over, I wont necessarily wish to select the exact same Evocation spells every time. I have NO issue with optimization within a particular set of choices, but as I understood Elf Witch as saying that when she plays she designs different wizards. Not always having Fireballs or Stoneskin for example. She would design them different, exploring new options/design builds, but STILL optimizing. 




> Far too much time is being spent trying to blame the players and the DM's for being too stupid to play the game right. If only we were just skilled enough to not have these problems, then the game would be perfect. Unfortunately, I'm not that good of a player apparently. I have seen these problems since 1980 when I first started playing.
> 
> Apparently I run nothing but endless hack fests, starting at A for Aaracokra and ending at Zombie.




Actually, I feel the opposite, I think there are MANY terrible DMs out there, and some on here, based on comments I've seen here on Enworld. I dont feel enough people read the DMGs these days for sound advice, unless when it comes to statistics which directly affect game play. I also feel not enough players provide constructive critique to their DMs about their DMing style which is necessary for DM growth. The latter I have myself been guilty on many occassion with numerous DMs. 



> Then again, 2/3rd of the respondents in the poll are apparently just as bad as I am.




You might be surprised, that I too voted that casters overshadow mundanes in power, but I have no issue with that. I actually expect that, its magic after all people. I would not expect Green Lantern to lose to Bruce Lee either, but to me that is obvious.
For me its more of a problem if the DM does not provide a balanced adventure and thats where good DM skills are required. Thats why the quality of the DMG is SO important.



> Nope, could never, ever be the system that is the problem. It's 100% my fault.



And I know the systems of older editions are not perfectly balanced, I never disagreed with that. Again straw man.


----------



## Sadras (May 21, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I pretty much wrote the book back in the day on ways to play the bard. And they almost all end up with a highly-overlapping equipment list even if they don't share a single spell. A no-brainer is that every character who can use a wand of Cure Light Wounds probably should. But deeper is that bards always end up in a Chain Shirt, normally a Mithral one* - and a Mithral buckler or small shield (this isn't quite as silly as the fact that a smart wizard with decent cashflow will almost inevitably buy a +1 Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt if they can - and possibly also a Mithral Buckler)
> 
> The reason not to pick a strong solid loadout of combat spells is if I want a specialist combatant when that's what I'll spend the time tweaking. Or if I'm going to be antisocial and do nothing useful in combat.




I think i can chalk it down then to different playstyles and DMs. Personally I wouldn't want to have a Cure Light Wounds wand with every Bard I played, then they might as well write the wand in as a class feature. Its a problem which I feel the DM should have fixed, because the system was broken. But thats my requirement for immersion, not necessarily everybodies, I accept that. Which again points to difference in playstyle and DMs. Ditto with the armour, just make it part of advancement similar to 4E.
As for the combat spells, there were enough to change how you optimised yourself in combat. If you're a combat caster, there are many types of designs you could take that would not have the same spells within each design.
I could choose party buff spells, I could choose range blasters, I could choose disablers, I could choose escapes & healers, I could choose solo buffs...You optimise with feats and equipment no problem, but you dont necessarily have the same combat spells, sure some overlap, but they are not all the same. That is essentially what I believe Elf Witch was saying - playing them differently for explorative purposes, roleplaying or otherwise, not necessarily handicapped.

I mean I might want to play a wizard who had a serious fear of fire, due to an accident when he was young and is now partly scarred, perhaps have a burnt arm or he could look like the Hound in Game of Thrones. Roleplaying depth enhanced. I then do not select any fire-related spells for my wizard (the infamous Fireball included)
Why would I do that you might ask? Well maybe I'm bored of the generic wizard. Maybe I want to force myself as a player to think out the box and choose spells I dont necessarily choose. Maybe I've played VtM and I think they have an awesome merit/flaw system which I think WotC should adopt to encourage roleplaying. Maybe I roleplay differently to you. Maybe all the above. Maybe none of the above....etc
I dont consider this Wizard to be handicapped, I actually see the potential for him to be fun to roleplay.


----------



## slobster (May 21, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> It is not a false choice. I do not enjoy 4E I didn't enjoy how combat worked I hated what they did with wizards. So for me right now I have a choice if I want to play DnD either play one of the older editions or don't play DnD.




No, the false choice is asserting that either

A) DDN will have AEDU mechanics for all classes, and will be balanced or

B) DDN will use unbalanced mechanics where casters are more powerful, more versatile, and use different core mechanics than other classes.

I say that is a false choice, because I choose 

C) DDN will use different mechanics for different classes, so that there are Vancian and mana users and yes, AEDU, but they are carefully designed and playtested to be balanced choices overall, so that no single class dominates all the others.


----------



## Hussar (May 21, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> The flip side of this is that those of us who don't have these issues are being told it is because we handicap our casters or we don't know how to make powerful combos. Or I get the impression we are just to stupid to realize that there is an issue.
> 
> We game play the game wrong because our characters don't really take the idea that we could be killed seriously otherwise we would only pick the most powerful combo of spells.
> 
> The system is 100% broken and we are to naive to see that.




But... you just SAID that you handicap your casters.  I'd have to surf back into the thread a bit, for where you listed the ways that you don't have this issue, and you specifically outlined about half a dozen ways you limit your casters so that you don't have this issue.

How can you complain that we're saying you handicap your casters when you flat out admit that there are problems with caster balance and you handicap your casters because of it?


----------



## Hussar (May 21, 2012)

2e Player said:


> If you simply play by the rules as written and assume that all characters have an equal amount of XP and treasure to work with, then yes, a high level 3rd edition caster is going to be more powerful than his mundane counterparts.   There were many mitigating factors that kept mundane characters useful in 1st and 2nd edition, and many of these factors were removed in the core 3e rules.
> 
> That said, I've always found that in any game with sensible house rules, a fighter or thief can be a very valuable party member.  Just some thoughts, but things I like to do in 3rd edition include:
> 
> ...




And [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION], here is exhibit A.  I don't even need to surf back into the thread.


----------



## Hussar (May 21, 2012)

Sadras said:
			
		

> And I know the systems of older editions are not perfectly balanced, I never disagreed with that. Again straw man.




Then why is everyone arguing?  You accept that there is a balance issue.  Correct?  So, problems arising from that are, at least in part, a mechanical issue.  While it could be resolved by social contract agreements, we're also seeing lots of people instituting house rules (see my quote of 2e player), which is a mechanical fix.

So, what's the arguement about then?  Isn't this conversation done?  Everyone agrees that there is a balance issue?

Now, I can see the disagreement on how to resolve the balance issue, fair enough.  There are a few ways to do it.  But, dozens of pages into this thread, we're still seeing people deny that this is a mechanical issue at all.


----------



## bloodtide (May 21, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Focussed specialist evokers, or blast-sorcerors are much better at creating distractions than fighters.  Sword and shield vs fireball.  They are much better at causing mayhem - setting the ground on fire.  They are sneaker - the fighter has this problem with any sort of weapons check.




It would seem to me that a blaster mage and a fighter would both be a fish out of water in non-combat.



Neonchameleon said:


> Detect Thoughts - if you're not holding a combat-fest this is wonderful.
> Locate Object has its place.
> Scrying - trying to find someone who's gone missing? Scry them.




Please check out my Divination question thread over in Legacy.

But it sure seems like divination only work for the one track railroad type game.  If the DM knows that Orc Bob will attack you at 5pm he can tell you about it.  But if there are 1,000 creatures on the plane that at anyone time want to kill your character, then the divinations are useless.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 21, 2012)

slobster said:


> No, the false choice is asserting that either
> 
> A) DDN will have AEDU mechanics for all classes, and will be balanced or



Perfectly reasonable, since that's how 4e worked.  We know that a structure like AEDU can be used to design balanced classes.



> B) DDN will use unbalanced mechanics where casters are more powerful, more versatile, and use different core mechanics than other classes.



Also a perfectly reasonable possibility, since that was the pre-4e status quo, so is certainly achievable.



> I say that is a false choice, because I choose
> 
> C) DDN will use different mechanics for different classes, so that there are Vancian and mana users and yes, AEDU, but they are carefully designed and playtested to be balanced choices overall, so that no single class dominates all the others.



Every prior edition has used different sub-systems for casters vs non-casters, and 3.x experimented with several different caster sub-systems (vancian, spontaneous, warmages, warlocks, psionics, etc).  Every prior edition was imbalanced.

Empirically, the 4e approach is the only one that has delivered class balance.  Trying again with an approach that's failed for 35+ years is not guaranteed to fail again.  Not absolutely guaranteed...


----------



## slobster (May 21, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Every prior edition has used different sub-systems for casters vs non-casters, and 3.x experimented with several different caster sub-systems (vancian, spontaneous, warmages, warlocks, psionics, etc).  Every prior edition was imbalanced.
> 
> Empirically, the 4e approach is the only one that has delivered class balance.  Trying again with an approach that's failed for 35+ years is not guaranteed to fail again.  Not absolutely guaranteed...




But when you tell me my two choices are to accept that it will be bland (assuming 4E is bland, I'm not going to even get into that) or accept that it will be balanced, I'm telling you "no". I will accept neither option, because I believe that there is a third which incorporates the best of those two and leaves out the rest.

Of course it's not guaranteed to work. That's not what I'm saying. I'm telling you my personal preferences for the design goals of DDN. Goals are words and lofty promises until they deliver a product, sure. But at least if you set good goals you have a chance for a good product.

[EDIT] To clarify, if you set good goals and succeed, you have a good product. If you set bad goals and succeed, you still have a bad product. I'm interested in helping set good goals (and helping fulfill those goals, but one thing at a time).


----------



## Daztur (May 21, 2012)

> Every prior edition was imbalanced.



Rules Cyclopedia D&D with the Weapon Mastery rules balances pretty damn well. Not perfectly and things get wonky at high levels but then 4ed doesn't balance perfectly and things get wonky at high levels there as well.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 21, 2012)

slobster said:


> But when you tell me my two choices are to accept that it will be bland (assuming 4E is bland, I'm not going to even get into that) or accept that it will be balanced, I'm telling you "no". I will accept neither option, because I believe that there is a third which incorporates the best of those two and leaves out the rest.



That's a very hopeful and positive belief to embrace.  There's just nothing in the history of the game to convince me that it's likely, or even possible.  

Of course, when 3.5 was the latest edition, you could not have convinced me that it was possible to create a balanced game that was still recognizably D&D.  4e convinced me.

So, yes, if 5e can achieve something that's never been done before, by using the same things that have always failed to achieve that goal in the past, I will be pleasantly surprised, and sing its praises.


----------



## slobster (May 21, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, yes, if 5e can achieve something that's never been done before, by using the same things that have always failed to achieve that goal in the past, I will be pleasantly surprised, and sing its praises.




Me too! I finally came to an agreement with somebody on the internet. That's one checkmark on my bucket list!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 21, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> I'm not sure I'm down with Timmy, Johnny, and Spike analysis for D&D.




I wasn't directly associating Magic analysis for D&D. I was merely relating my tastes and my fellow player's tastes across different games.



Ratskinner said:


> I get what you're saying, though. What I'm not sure of, is whether its possible for Spike to get his "I'm better than anyone else here" fix while having the rules keep Timmy/Johnny in the game despite their comparative ineptitude. At least, without creating a system of profound inter-class dependence or mandated mediocrity.




Well, four out of five editions of D&D plus numerous other non-D&D systems that we have actually played together allow this. So I know hrough actual play experience that it is possible.



Ratskinner said:


> Really, though, the more these discussions go on, the more I wonder if they aren't solely creations of the internet as a medium. I played and ran the game for years with parties of characters that were obviously of unequal relative power, yet it never seemed to utterly destroy my games as many on here seem to feel LFQW inevitably does.




To be clear, our group's problem never was LFQW problems. It was too wide of a power gap between those with high system mastery and those with low system mastery.

Our problem was not solely a creation of the internet. I _actually_ did not want to run 3E anymore because of the problem. None of my four players at the time wanted to run 3E either. We were on the verge of quitting. This was just before 4E was announced. The announcement was made during the week before I intended to tell the group I was done. I decided upon the announcement to keep my 3E game going so as not to lose momentum for our weekly gathering in hopes that 4E would solve the problem.

It did,  but I admit we did lose some aspects of D&D that I hope 5E brings back.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 21, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Perfectly reasonable, since that's how 4e worked.  We know that a structure like AEDU can be used to design balanced classes.
> 
> Also a perfectly reasonable possibility, since that was the pre-4e status quo, so is certainly achievable.
> 
> ...




See, Tony, when you post stuff like this, I feel like you _want_ to start another edition war thread.  I don't feel I can comment on your post without getting into those issues again.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 21, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I wasn't directly associating Magic analysis for D&D. I was merely relating my tastes and my fellow player's tastes across different games.




Not a problem, no indictment intended, either. There was thread or two a while back that _did_ head in that direction. I was just stating my hestitation to jump on that train.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> To be clear, our group's problem never was LFQW problems. It was too wide of a power gap between those with high system mastery and those with low system mastery.




_Some _of my 3.x groups experienced similar things. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Our problem was not solely a creation of the internet. I _actually_ did not want to run 3E anymore because of the problem. None of my four players at the time wanted to run 3E either. We were on the verge of quitting.




I experienced quite a bit of fatigue with 3.5 as well. For me, it was just a matter of the workload as a DM. Notice how both of our actual problems receive very little attention and raise very little ire compared to the LFQW thing? That's all I'm talking about. I've met several gamers and groups that don't "D&D" on the internet, and are confused by the LFQW suggestion.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I decided upon the announcement to keep my 3E game going so as not to  lose momentum for our weekly gathering in hopes that 4E would solve the  problem.
> 
> It did,  but I admit we did lose some aspects of D&D that I hope 5E brings back.




Me too. I had a group that split up after 4e came out.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2012)

bloodtide said:


> It would seem to me that a blaster mage and a fighter would both be a fish out of water in non-combat.




There's degrees and degrees.  An absolutely pure blaster-mage is still less of a fish out of water than an average fighter.  And it takes very little effort to give the mage _one_ non-combat spell per level, which allows them to leave fighters in the dust.



> Please check out my Divination question thread over in Legacy.




It seems to say divination allows you to know everything.  [Citation needed]



> But it sure seems like divination only work for the one track railroad type game.  If the DM knows that Orc Bob will attack you at 5pm he can tell you about it.  But if there are 1,000 creatures on the plane that at anyone time want to kill your character, then the divinations are useless.




Then you really don't get how to use divination.  I'll try again.

Assume there is any sort of mystery.  Detect thoughts or zone of truth can almost short-circuit it.

But as for the "one track railroad", that is utter nonsense.  Divination magic works better in a sandbox than on a railroad.  You don't scry for people who want to attack you (normally).  You scry for people who _you want to attack_.  It's an offensive tool not a defensive one.  Scry, buff, teleport in, beat them down in a couple of rounds, then teleport away.  (Known as "Scry and fry")  And you absolutely have people you want to attack when you aren't on a railroad.


----------



## Hussar (May 21, 2012)

I'd also point out with the Flash Bang Wizard and the Fighter, the FB Wizard is going to have about three to four times more skills than the Fighter simply because of his Int score.  It's not unreasonable that the wizzie is going to have a higher Int than the Fighter.

Never mind that the wizzie's class skill list is about three times longer as well.  

And, additionally, even if the FB Wizzie memorizes nothing but direct damage spells, there's umpteen magic items that are going to make him effective in non-combat.  Crystal Ball pretty much trumps any information gathering you could do through skill use.  While it's true that the fighter could be carrying around the crystal ball, he's going to have to forego a great deal of his combat effectiveness to do so since magic weapons and armor are not cheap.

The wizard gives up virtually nothing on his combat effectiveness to carry a crystal ball.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 21, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But... you just SAID that you handicap your casters.  I'd have to surf back into the thread a bit, for where you listed the ways that you don't have this issue, and you specifically outlined about half a dozen ways you limit your casters so that you don't have this issue.
> 
> How can you complain that we're saying you handicap your casters when you flat out admit that there are problems with caster balance and you handicap your casters because of it?




I have house rules that I feel reign in the issue with 3E magic those issues to me are the easy and cheap way to make magic items to extend the amount of spells the casters get to cast and fixing it so that skills never become I can't fail for any class. 

That is very different than saying my wizards nerf themselves or choose sub optimal spells.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 21, 2012)

slobster said:


> No, the false choice is asserting that either
> 
> A) DDN will have AEDU mechanics for all classes, and will be balanced or
> 
> ...




Then you are misunderstanding me. I said that I would rather deal with 1,2,3, E magic then deal with 4E fixes. 

I am not saying the 5E is going to do that just that is my preference with dealing with how things are now.


----------



## dagger (May 21, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Of course, when 3.5 was the latest edition, you could not have convinced me that it was possible to create a balanced game that was still recognizably D&D.  4e convinced me.




Not my group. 4e is not D&D to us and I don't have any balance issues.


----------



## Hussar (May 21, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have house rules that I feel reign in the issue with 3E magic those issues to me are the easy and cheap way to make magic items to extend the amount of spells the casters get to cast and fixing it so that skills never become I can't fail for any class.
> 
> That is very different than saying my wizards nerf themselves or choose sub optimal spells.




Of course they don't.  You limit the spell choices that they can have.  Or am I confusing you with another poster?  I dug back a bit and found:



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> In my games I tend to make teleport dangerous and unpredictable all the time. I still use the 3.0 scry rules where if you want to be able to scry you need to have ranks in it to make it work plus an item. Sure they can max out scry but then what are they giving up to max that out.
> 
> My big issue with how magic works in 3E is how metamagic and cheap creation of magic items can really make the casters have to many resources. I don't allow quickened spells I don't allow anything that might allow more than one spell a round. And I keep an eye on the items that allow a caster more spells or slots. And I strictly enforce the the use up higher spell slots where metamagic is concerned.
> 
> ...




So, of course you don't have some of the problems outlined here.  YOU'VE FIXED THEM.  Now, why did you fix them?  Did you fix them because you saw a problem?  If you did, then we agree, the problem is SYSTEMIC and not simply play style.  

If it's simply a matter of play style, then why do you have a grocery list of nerfs for caster characters?

Your wizards don't choose sub-optimal options because they don't want to overshadow anyone, your casters choose sub-optimal options because the optimal choices have been taken off the table.

So, why are you arguing with us again?  You apparently agree that it's a systemic issue, or you wouldn't have changed the system.  Which is all anyone here is trying to pin down - is this a systemic issue.  How to fix that issue is a whole 'nother beast.  There's a number of methods, and they all have pro's and con's.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 21, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> See, Tony, when you post stuff like this, I feel like you _want_ to start another edition war thread.



I certainly don't want to get into "edition warring," but, neither do I want to ignore the past.


----------



## Sadras (May 21, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Then why is everyone arguing? You accept that there is a balance issue. Correct?




Okay, I cant comment for everyone, I was not arguing - I just elaborated on one of Elf Witches points about playing the same class differently but not necessarily "handicapped" but still optimized, which I thought Neonchameleon might have missed. 
I'm actually good. We're good.


----------



## Sadras (May 21, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> I experienced quite a bit of fatigue with 3.5 as well. For me, it was just a matter of the workload as a DM.




100%. I have to admit I loved 3.x for all its details and intricacies, but I just didnt have the time to devote as a DM to maximise it to its fullest potential, its the reason why I woudlnt switch to Pathfinder if I'm DM. Didn't solve my DM problem.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> if you don't like to play that way, don't.



I don't see the situation quite as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] does, maybe because I'm more willing to tweak the ingame fiction and allow that perhaps, even though the rules say so, my particular wizard isn't capable of learning _all_ those spells.

On the other hand, I haven't GMed a system without systematic spell list limits (Rolemaster, 4e D&D) for many many years. And when I last played a cleric in D&D (2nd ed AD&D) it was pretty broken, even though I had a less than optimal sphere set.

And anyway, I strongy sympathise with Neonchameleon at least to this extent: if the game breaks when a player pushes it even moderately hard, something has gone wrong. If choosing Web, Glitterdust, Evard's and Polymorph breaks the game, then they shoudn't be in the game in the first place - at least as a permitted combo, if not invidivudally.



Sadras said:


> Spells as equipment makes complete sense, however when I play a fighters, i usually try mix up the weapon/armour complement between my different fighter characters.



For me, the difference is this: Optimising across fighting styles is mathematically challenging, and highly dependent on the sorts of foes faced. Some builds are obviously weak, I think (1st level fighter, leather armour, low DEX, dagger). But others are potentially competitive (eg a low level fighter trading a bit of AC for improved manoeuvrability doesn't strike me as obviously irrational - there are no full attacks to be lost by moving, for example).

Whereas working out that Evard's is broken is a no-brainer.



ForeverSlayer said:


> I bet the people with the caster problems have DM's who don't actually flex their DM muscles and stop the 15 minute work day and the hundreds of magic shops r us.



It's not MUs who need magic shops. They can get buy with their spell load-out plus a few darts. (And, in 3E, with the items that they make themselves.) It's fighters who need magic shops, or some other way for acquiring the magic weapons, armour etc that are essential for their high level viability (as has been discussed in this and other recent threads).



ForeverSlayer said:


> I think some people expect, certainty in 4th editions case, that combat is the end all to the D&D game.



This is a complete red herring. In AD&D MUs are also broken in social engagements (Charm, Suggestion, ESP) and at exploration (Knock, Detect . . ., Fly, Inivis, etc).



bloodtide said:


> I don't get the 'even divination' makes a caster so powerful.  What divination spells?  In general, divinations only help out in bland one track railroad adventures.



This is not remotely true. In any sort of rich campaign world, being able to learn stuff - who loves or hates whom, who is working for whom, who did what, who was where when - is hugely valuable.

My first long-running Rolemaster camaign broke down in part under the weight of a well-played diviner.



Neonchameleon said:


> Divination magic works better in a sandbox than on a railroad.  You don't scry for people who want to attack you (normally).  You scry for people who _you want to attack_.



In that same campaign, but at lower levels before it broke down, the PCs used to do this using magic detection! (They were somewhat mercenary, and big fans of the magic item resale market.)



Ratskinner said:


> the more these discussions go on, the more I wonder if they aren't solely creations of the internet as a medium.



In my own case, I experienced MU overshadowing of others in the first AD&D game I GMed (in 1984-85). And that was even in a game involving two-handed swords against the giants, with a 10th level ranger!

It was also a big factor in the above-mentioned RM campaign. In my second long-running RM campaign we nerfed a few things, and made various agreements in PC building, to prevent it being such a big issue.

To date, in 4e it's not been a problem. (And the campaign is currently at 15th level.)


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2012)

2e Player said:


> If you simply play by the rules as written and assume that all characters have an equal amount of XP and treasure to work with, then yes, a high level 3rd edition caster is going to be more powerful than his mundane counterparts.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I personally didn't find your list of rules that simple. Changing feats and XP tables, for example, are making pretty big changes to the basics of the PC build rules.

I would prefer a game that works out of the box. That's what I pay the designers for.



Sadras said:


> Casters generally do overtake mundane types and there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Does fireball, as an element of fantasy fiction, exist outside D&D? I've never encountered it, but then I don't read a lot of contemporary fantasy.

Anyway, I do think that there is something wrong with casters overtaking non-casters. And it's not something that I expect. And in the fiction you yourself cited - as others pointed out - it is the non-caster who wins. One way to achieve this in RPG design is to give the non-casters more metagame resources. Which 4e does, via martial encounter and daily powers.



Campbell said:


> I just want the rules of the game to match up with the thematic reality of what occurs in the fiction of the game.



Yes. This is what I want from a game: a game in which, if I play by the rules, the player experience will be that which the story elements of the game appeared to promise.

The first version of D&D I played that ever really came close to this was (AD&D) Oriental Adventures. 4e is the next version that has given me this.

From Tom Moldvay's Foreword to the Basic Rulebook (page B2, and dated 3 December 1980):

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.​
Those are classic fantasy tropes - the warrior as protagonist, the priest as mentor/guide, the dragon sorcerer as antagonist. This is what D&D promised to me in 1982, when I first got the Basic Set. Unbalanced wizards don't deliver on this promise.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't see the situation quite as @Neonchameleon does, maybe because I'm more willing to tweak the ingame fiction and allow that perhaps, even though the rules say so, my particular wizard isn't capable of learning _all_ those spells.




I'm not _quite_ as hard line as I'm making out on this thread.  I do, however, object to going through a game I've actually paid money for and spell by spell working out what is merely sensible and what is too cheesy to use.  And it makes me feel hamstrung every time I want to cast one of the spells I've arbitrarily restricted myself from (which includes most of the polymorph chain except Baleful Polymorph).  Let alone spells that are powerful rather than downright destructively broken.



> It's not MUs who need magic shops. They can get buy with their spell load-out plus a few darts. (And, in 3E, with the items that they make themselves.) It's fighters who need magic shops, or some other way for acquiring the magic weapons, armour etc that are essential for their high level viability (as has been discussed in this and other recent threads).




And it's not just the weapons and armour - without magic weapons and armour the fighter is weakened.  It's the ability to fly, or any one of a hundred other things that the casters can still do.



> This is a complete red herring. In AD&D MUs are also broken in social engagements (Charm, Suggestion, ESP) and at exploration (Knock, Detect . . ., Fly, Inivis, etc).




Indeed.  MUs are _least _broken in combat.



> Does fireball, as an element of fantasy fiction, exist outside D&D? I've never encountered it, but then I don't read a lot of contemporary fantasy.




It certainly exists in the Warhammer universe.  But then Warhammer, like D&D, started off with a tabletop wargame.



> Those are classic fantasy tropes - the warrior as protagonist, the priest as mentor/guide, the dragon sorcerer as antagonist. This is what D&D promised to me in 1982, when I first got the Basic Set. Unbalanced wizards don't deliver on this promise.




I can't currently XP you...


----------



## Sadras (May 21, 2012)

pemerton said:


> For me, the difference is this: Optimising across fighting styles is mathematically challenging, and highly dependent on the sorts of foes faced. Some builds are obviously weak, I think (1st level fighter, leather armour, low DEX, dagger). But others are potentially competitive (eg a low level fighter trading a bit of AC for improved manoeuvrability doesn't strike me as obviously irrational - there are no full attacks to be lost by moving, for example).
> 
> Whereas working out that Evard's is broken is a no-brainer.




Agreed, but lets compare apples and apples, not apples and my mothers chicken soup (metaphor). You initial examples provide a 1st Level Fighter and then you jump to a 4th Level Spell. That hardly seems fair, kind of like my comparison of my mother's chicken soup with apples. Clearly my mother's chicken soup is vasly superior.
If you gonna equate a Wizard that has the ability to cast Evards then at least level up the Fighter within the example, no matter what the design build. To be clear - I do not dispute Wizards become more extraordinary as they progress (something in fact I promote).
However if I play a wizard and use Evards to my hearts content - next campaign I play a Wizard I would probably not take it if I abused it with my previous character. But I admit that's me. I would want to try something different.

As for mathematically challenging to design/optimise fighters - I dont believe its any more challening than designing a decent PC build in 4E with all those powers (multi/hybrid). The only difference is DDI makes it easier.


----------



## Sadras (May 21, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Does fireball, as an element of fantasy fiction, exist outside D&D? I've never encountered it, but then I don't read a lot of contemporary fantasy.



Hmm, I dont know. The idea must have derived from somewhere I imagine.




> Anyway, I do think that there is something wrong with casters overtaking non-casters. And it's not something that I expect. And in the fiction you yourself cited - as others pointed out - it is the non-caster who wins. One way to achieve this in RPG design is to give the non-casters more metagame resources. Which 4e does, via martial encounter and daily powers.



Where to start. If we/you were looking to balance the Caster/Martial classes, I agree the 4E system is one way of doing it but not necessarily everyones cup of tea. 
Regarding non-casters winning in fiction, if you read my posts the wizard usually was defeated only because of misdistraction, toying with the mundane too long and thereby giving him an opportunity, or was tricked, turned his back...etc not because the fighter performed his encounter power, spent an action point and followed up with a daily. So essentially the way I see it, magic is more powerful in fiction too, just because the good guy (mundane) won doesnt make him better in combat.
Unfortunately the "caster's ego" we see in media, which acts as a flaw and allows the mundane to win, has not yet been translated as a stat for d&d mechanics.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 21, 2012)

Sadras said:


> As for mathematically challenging to design/optimise fighters - I dont believe its any more challening than designing a decent PC build in 4E with all those powers (multi/hybrid). The only difference is DDI makes it easier.




This actually isn't so IMO.  It comes down to option bombardment.

Stats are about equally easy to sort out.  And weapons - I'm assuming in both cases you build to a concept.

In 4e you have the power structure, and feats supporting those powers.  What this means is that at first level you have a lot of choices - what type of fighter (Sword + Board/2 handed/Two weapon/Battlerager/Exotic weapons/Sword + fist).  Then you pick two at wills, one encounter, and a daily out of about a dozen options each.  One out of a dozen isn't that hard a choice.  Levelling up it's also about one out of a dozen.  So far so good.  Skills - it's pick three out of about six options and you're done.

Then you have the hard part.  Feats.  4e has too many feats, making feat choice harder than the entire rest of the character build combined.  But fortunately there's a prioritisation system.  Your mathematically best feat will always be Expertise in your chosen weapon(s).  Multiclass feats are always strong.  By Paragon you need either Improved Defences or the alternative Superior set.  But feats are normally useful rather than character defining (Polearms I'm looking at you).  And if you get it wrong there's no pressure - you can train it out next level.  Feats are still a pain and far the hardest thing to choose for a non-expert.

In 3.X you just have feats.  About as many as you have in 4e - in both cases it's in four figures.  But your feats _are_ your abilities.  Picking feats in 3.X therefore starts off as as hard as the hardest part of 4e character creation (and remember you need to pick two L1 feats).  And picking feats in 3e is significantly harder than in 4e - you get feat chains.  Dodge may be a pretty pathetic feat but you need it if you want Whirlwind Attack.  In 4e you can get by on picking whatever feat looks coolest at the time for feats - and retraining if it doesn't work (this being impossible in 3.X).  So 3e fighter creation is like a harder version of the hard part of 4e fighter creation.

A closer comparison in terms of difficulty would be 3e _Barbarian_ character creation vs 4e fighter creation. 

Of course if restricting yourself to just the PHB, things are a whole lot easier for the 3e fighter.  And in all fairness quite a lot easier for the 4e fighter.  Powers are choices out of four so they don't take much.  And hybrids don't exist.


----------



## 2e Player (May 21, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I would prefer a game that works out of the box. That's what I pay the designers for.




The beauty of pen and paper gaming is that those who are playing the game can sit down and make changes that suit them.  There's never going to be a game that suits everyone, but the best games lend themselves to adjustment.  E6 is a great example of how you can get an entirely different -- and relatively well 'balanced' -- play experience out of the 3.5e core rules with some house tweaking.  I realize that some people just can't wrap their heads around saying "You know what, that rule stinks, let's change it," but that's not an indictment of the system.  That's an indictment of the literal minded gaming group.

Some people think that because it's in the rulebook, that's the way it should be done.  I'm not one of those people.  If one of my players tried to pull that Locate City Bomb nonsense, I would just say "No, you can't do that.  Quit being an idiot," and be done with it.

The rules are there to facilitate a fun game, and when they can't accomplish that, they should be changed or ignored as the group sees fit.


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2012)

Sadras said:


> Unfortunately the "caster's ego" we see in media, which acts as a flaw and allows the mundane to win, has not yet been translated as a stat for d&d mechanics.



In 4e this can be factored into a skill challenge, as part of the prelude to combat.

I don't think it can easily be incorporated into combat mechanics itself (although it can easily be made part of the colour of combat narration).


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2012)

2e Player said:


> I realize that some people just can't wrap their heads around saying "You know what, that rule stinks, let's change it," but that's not an indictment of the system.  That's an indictment of the literal minded gaming group.[/group]I can tweak systems. I've GMed a lot of Rolemaster, which practically requires building up a system out of the tools provided.
> 
> But that's not an excuse for poor design. In Rolemaster, for instance, some classes have low-level spells that inflict a -20 penalty on a failed save; others have spells at the same levels that inflict -50 or -70 penalties. Even allowing for some classes being better at inflicting penalties than others, that's just unbalanced.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 21, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Sometimes the problem is rather obvious. I bet the people with the caster problems have DM's who don't actually flex their DM muscles and stop the 15 minute work day and the hundreds of magic shops r us.
> 
> Now if the whole group wants to stop for the 15 minute work day then you just have hit them with monsters or adjust what goes on around them. Now from what I have seen through the years is the fact that the group usually doesn't want to stop and wait on the spellcasters to regain their spells.




I answered Yes to the poll, but I have not ever seen ridiculously overpowered wizards for reasons related to what you are talking about here.

As an astute poster said in another thread observed, the Rest The Night Action is the most powerful action in the game, and because of the nature of spellcasters the DM often has to artificially manage use of this tactic.  I consider that a Bad Thing.  It is a peculiar factor baked into 1e-3e, but without explicit tools for managing this, other than "well, sometimes you have to hurry, I guess".

I have not ever seen this be a Terrible Thing because most spellcasters in our games quickly realize the most reliable and efficient use of resources is to assist the other PCs, even if the occasional encounter gets solved by a single spell.  My wizard's motto is: "A buffed meatshield is a happy meatshield.  A happy meatshield is a brave meatshield.  Brave meatshields run forward and attract attention (while I stay safely in the back)."

Older versions of D&D encouraged the DM to throw low reward vs. risk random encounters until the players took the hint.  There are times where those tactics are appropriate, but it is an unsatisfying band-aid IMO.


----------



## Minigiant (May 21, 2012)

It really feels like there are two groups on this topic.

Those who want a mostly finished and fixed product. They just what to adjust and tweak the game and doing no more than a little work to get the game going and working.

Those who the parts and don't mind fixing the bits and pieces. They don't heavily interconnected pieces and have no problem with requiring "gentleman's agreements" or many unwritten rules.

A pre-made sandwich vs a loaf of bread and a stack of sliced ingredients.

Not saying which is better but there are some in one group, some in the other, and some in both (like myself).


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 22, 2012)

2e Player said:


> I  realize that some people just can't wrap their heads around saying "You  know what, that rule stinks, let's change it," but that's not an  indictment of the system.  That's an indictment of the literal minded  gaming group.




I absolutely can get my head round saying  "You  know what, that rule stinks, let's change it,".  But that a rule in the system stinks is _absolutely_ an indictment of the system unless it really is the player trying something on (as with the Locate City Bomb).  And is completely different to houseruling, tweaking a system to do something else.  I can write all my houserules for 4e on one index card for each of my games (different houserules for each game) - and all are designed to fit the thematic feel rather than fix the mechanics.

House rules:

1: Use Inherent Bonusses.  Always.
2: An extended rest is extended, not overnight.  It takes at least a long weekend in a safe location.  An overnight rest regains 1 healing surge.
3: For games without an Underdark, replace the Dungeoneering skill with Engineering.  Caveat: I see no need to have the Shadowfell and the Underdark and prefer the Shadowfell.
4: Allowed classes: Battlemind, Ardent, Psion, and Hybrids are always banned.  For low magic so are most non-martial classes.
5: XP rules: Varies anywhere from level up when the DM says to RAW to XP for GP.
6: Economics: World-specific in what can be bought or made and how easily.  Also may tie into XP rules.

Using just 2, 4, 5, and 6 I have a vast amount of control over the tone of the game.  (1, 2, and 3 are all simple fixes to what are IMO problems with 4e and just leave combat length as an issue).



pemerton said:


> But to my mind, if a PC has Locate Object on his/her spell list, and wants to locate an object, and therefore casts the spell, I've got no basis as GM for saying "No, you can't do that". Anymore than, if the the fighter player says "I draw my sword" or "I don my armour", I can say "You can't do that". Player resources are for the players to use in playing their PCs.




A touch of context here might help.  The Locate City Bomb is an exploit that relies on stacking half a dozen metamagic feats onto an inoffensive divination spell, interacting in a way they weren't intended to, to create a weapon of mass destruction.  There is a world of difference between that and using _Evard's Black Tentacles_ for precisely what it was designed to do.



Minigiant said:


> It really feels like there are two groups on this topic.
> 
> Those who want a mostly finished and fixed product. They just what to adjust and tweak the game and doing no more than a little work to get the game going and working.
> 
> ...




The thing is I have a perfectly good stack of sliced ingredients in my freezer (or rather on my bookshelf).  I don't need another set.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> IA touch of context here might help.  The Locate City Bomb is an exploit that relies on stacking half a dozen metamagic feats onto an inoffensive divination spell, interacting in a way they weren't intended to, to create a weapon of mass destruction.  There is a world of difference between that and using _Evard's Black Tentacles_ for precisely what it was designed to do.



Thanks for the heads up. But I don't even see how that sort of thing is relevant to this context - although it does show a problem with divination spells that comes up in RM too, namely, how to specify their geographical scope: is it a range to a target, and area of effect, or what?

But that's an artefact simply of the standardised pattern for writing spell descriptions.

Whereas, as you say, Glitterdust, Evard's etc are just overpowered in their core effects.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 22, 2012)

No, you're missing it.  It's literally a WMD - it kills everything (well, low-level everything) in the multiple-mile radius of the spell.  It starts as a Divination, but the metamagics turn it into a nuclear explosion.

It's because the Locate City spell was mis-written to have an area-of-effect, which it really shouldn't.  House ruling that is the easiest fix.


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> No, you're missing it.  It's literally a WMD - it kills everything (well, low-level everything) in the multiple-mile radius of the spell.  It starts as a Divination, but the metamagics turn it into a nuclear explosion.
> 
> It's because the Locate City spell was mis-written to have an area-of-effect, which it really shouldn't.  House ruling that is the easiest fix.




I disagree.  The easiest fix is to make sure that this doesn't happen in the first place.  It problem is with the area of effect.  The designers should have caught that before publication and/or errata'd it soon after.  To me, THIS is the best fix.  

Simply telling each group that plays to reinvent the wheel whenever a known problem occurs is not the best fix.  Although, to be honest, from the designers point of view, dumping it off on the players is certainly the easist fix.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 22, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I disagree.  The easiest fix is to make sure that this doesn't happen in the first place.  It problem is with the area of effect.  The designers should have caught that before publication and/or errata'd it soon after.  To me, THIS is the best fix.
> 
> Simply telling each group that plays to reinvent the wheel whenever a known problem occurs is not the best fix.  Although, to be honest, from the designers point of view, dumping it off on the players is certainly the easist fix.




EASIEST fix, dude.  Acknowledging that it's a mistake is easier than trying to ban a combo or fix several feats.  Your way requires either (a) time travel or (b) a second printing of the book.

You don't need to get up on a soapbox about every little thing, dude.


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> EASIEST fix, dude.  Acknowledging that it's a mistake is easier than trying to ban a combo or fix several feats.  Your way requires either (a) time travel or (b) a second printing of the book.
> 
> You don't need to get up on a soapbox about every little thing, dude.




But, that's the whole point here.  Your "easiest fix" means that every single player has to be aware of game design elements.  IOW, you are saying that it's okay for crappy rules to exist, because the players will just fix them.  

For one, it's no longer 1985, we DO have the technology to reach as many gamers as possible with a couple of button clicks, so, no, it doesn't require time travel.  All it requires is errata and a website address on the front page of every D&D book.

But, my biggest issue here is that the "easiest fix" means that group after group after group will hit this issue, have bad experiences with it, and then have to fix the problem.  

I guess to me, easiest=laziest.  I'd much rather have the best fix, or, even better, not need the fix in the first place.  After all, isn't that what play-testing is for?


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 22, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the whole point here.  Your "easiest fix" means that every single player has to be aware of game design elements.  IOW, you are saying that it's okay for crappy rules to exist, because the players will just fix them.
> 
> For one, it's no longer 1985, we DO have the technology to reach as many gamers as possible with a couple of button clicks, so, no, it doesn't require time travel.  All it requires is errata and a website address on the front page of every D&D book.
> 
> ...




No, the WHOLE POINT is that I was clarifying a comment on a particular bad spell, and you decided to diverge into a rant about errata.

We have other threads for that topic.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> No, you're missing it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's because the Locate City spell was mis-written to have an area-of-effect, which it really shouldn't.  House ruling that is the easiest fix.





pemerton said:


> it does show a problem with divination spells that comes up in RM too, namely, how to specify their geographical scope: is it a range to a target, and area of effect, or what?



What am I missing? - as per the self-quote, I made your comment about the problem being an area of effect issue in the post above yours.

I also made the broader point, which I stand by, that this issue of range vs area of effect is a general problem for writing divination spells that have a geographical scope. And it is an artefact of our tradition of statting up spells, which was first invented to handle combat spells - with a clear range to target, and a clear area of effect about that target - and doesn't adapt well to other sorts of spells, like divination spells limited by geographical scope.

The Locate City Bomb might be a limit case of the problems to which this can give rise, but it comes up in other ways as well: for example, is the correct metamagic for enhancing these sorts of divination spells one which adds to range, or one which increases area of effect? This is a question that comes up not only in D&D, but in Rolemaster, in HARP, and I imagine in Runequest used with the Intensify and related sorcery skills.

But anyway, the problems that arise in rules interactions that are themselves artefacts of spell effect formatting templates are orthogonal to this thread. The problems with Glitterdust and Evard's aren't caused by those sorts of high-level meta-issues. They're core to the effects of the spells.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 22, 2012)

Maybe I didn't quite get your point.  But my understanding was that you were considering it in the contact of a divination, which is really not relevant to the exploit.  And I haven't exactly researched this point, but for most of 3.5 it was a "general problem" that had been solved, by creating a standardized writeup for divinations that the writer of Locate City ignored.

So, that's why I commented - so that you weren't thinking of the exploit as being divination-related.  And yes, it's an orthagonal point.

Moving on.


----------



## Sadras (May 22, 2012)

pemerton said:


> In 4e this can be factored into a skill challenge, as part of the prelude to combat.




Very true, forgot about that feature of 4E. Cairn of the Winter King, a D&D adventure that came with the Essentials MM and Monster Tokens had such a Skill Challenge in place for the final boss. That was a great adventure module.


----------



## Sadras (May 22, 2012)

@Neonchameleon 
Not taking anything away from what you said:
Once 3.x bloated the feat trees, it became quite an effort to create a high level fighter and I would have thought the same with 4E if it had the same lifespan as 3.x and if DDI had not existed.
In 3.x you design to a concept just like 4E, and then select all the feat taxes initially, before choosing combat style feats. I didn't find it hard other than i never had software to assist me in this regard - and had to flip backwards and forwards through books and pdfs. Software makes a huge change that cannot be underestimated. The lifespan of 4E compared to 3.x should also not be ignored.
Furthermore, 4E has an additional complication of feats affecting certain powers - so once you have selected your powers and are going through the list of feats you need to keep that in mind. Given a few more years this could have gotten out of hand with more power-affecting feats. Level by level is fine, but creating a high level character - well that does take some effort in both editions.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

Sadras said:


> Very true, forgot about that feature of 4E. Cairn of the Winter King, a D&D adventure that came with the Essentials MM and Monster Tokens had such a Skill Challenge in place for the final boss. That was a great adventure module.



I have it, but haven't used it yet. (I have some ideas about advancing it to upper Paragon to mix in with my own conversion of Against the Frost Giants on the Feywild.)

The first sort of skill challenge I saw like that was in the Dungeon module called Heathen, and when I ran that recently my players did talk down the bad guy - a fallen paladin - rather than kill him. And then sent him home to safety on a flying Phantom Steed while they beat up on his armies.

It wasn't quite the "caster's ego is a weakness" you were referring to, but it did link emotions to conflict resolution.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

Sadras said:


> Once 3.x bloated the feat trees, it became quite an effort to create a high level fighter and I would have thought the same with 4E if it had the same lifespan as 3.x and if DDI had not existed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4E has an additional complication of feats affecting certain powers - so once you have selected your powers and are going through the list of feats you need to keep that in mind.



It's the worst feature of 4e in my opinion. Luckily it's my players' problem, not my problem!


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 22, 2012)

Sadras said:


> @Neonchameleon
> Not taking anything away from what you said:
> Once 3.x bloated the feat trees, it became quite an effort to create a high level fighter and I would have thought the same with 4E if it had the same lifespan as 3.x and if DDI had not existed.
> In 3.x you design to a concept just like 4E, and then select all the feat taxes initially, before choosing combat style feats. I didn't find it hard other than i never had software to assist me in this regard - and had to flip backwards and forwards through books and pdfs. Software makes a huge change that cannot be underestimated. The lifespan of 4E compared to 3.x should also not be ignored.
> Furthermore, 4E has an additional complication of feats affecting certain powers - so once you have selected your powers and are going through the list of feats you need to keep that in mind. Given a few more years this could have gotten out of hand with more power-affecting feats. Level by level is fine, but creating a high level character - well that does take some effort in both editions.




The thing is that 4e is pretty much done as a game. There are precisely two books I want to see for 4e that aren't setting books (and I like the 4e setting books the way they are - 2 books and done). Those are the Unearthed Arcana equivalent, including, including Mass Combat, wilderness survival, assassination rules, and politics and running guilds. Also an epic-focussed monster manual. (You can probably get two books out of the UA).

4e already has as many feats as 3.X. It has an incredible spectrum of classes* (about the only thing missing is a Vancian Mage just for the hell of it), most of which work well. And there just isn't the driver for spell or prestige class bloat. I'm happy considering it a mature game.

Plus with the exception of the Martial Power 2 styles, all the feats that affect powers directly that I can think of are for affecting at will powers. Easy enough to find and low-ish interactions with the build. (Doesn't count feats that e.g. give a bonus to illusions).

* There were 25 _before_ Essentials (and each class has between two and six subclasses plus powers customisation), of which I positively like 20 (I'm not happy with the psychic 3, the Runepriest is too fiddly, and the oAssassin is just weak). Since then we have a massively improved wizard**, the simple fighter(s), the absolute gem that is the Thief class, the simple ranger(s), the eAssassin, the simple elementalist Sorceror, the other two classes that make up the 3e Druid***, the Blackguard (and Cavalier****), the Vampire*****, and the Berserker. Oh, and the Binder (DIAF), the Skald (arguably enough of a bard variant).

** Orb wizards, staff wizards, and wand wizards are just boring compared to Illusionists, Evokers, Pyromancers, Nethermancers, et al.

*** Shapeshifter, pet-class healer, and controller caster.

**** Defining Paladins as the embodiment of a virtue and Blackguards as a vice is IMO a stroke of genius. Makes sense of the old LG Paladins while allowing other sorts. Much better fluff than the Paladin has ever had and separates it from the armoured hitty cleric.

***** Yes, the Vampire is a class in 4e. And this is a good way to handle Vampires whose main focus is being a vampire. (As it happens the Cleric class in OD&D was a direct response to the Vampire class). You can also handle vampires as a race (Vyrokola), a multiclass feat, and IIRC a theme.

Edit: I agree with pmerton (surprise!) on both points.  First that 4e's feat bloat (it actually surpassed 3e IIRC) is a bad thing.  And second that this is strictly a player-problem.  DMs don't have to worry about what feats monsters have.  Or what spells to prepare.  PC creation time might be comparable without tools, but 4e NPC creation is a snap.


----------



## Sadras (May 22, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I have it, but haven't used it yet. (I have some ideas about advancing it to upper Paragon to mix in with my own conversion of Against the Frost Giants on the Feywild.)




My PCs were heroic, but I threw in a Frost Giant as a wandering encounter monster outside the Cairn that took on both the PCs and some of the Winter King's undead minions they were fighting at the time. Fortunately they retreated into the safety of the Cairn and let the giant take care of the undead (as I had intended), he was only meant for fluff and to showcase the hostile environment around them. This entire encounter all took place over a frozen lake which was already starting to show cracks due to the weight and violent movements of the Frost Giant.
But good call on mixing those two modules.



> The first sort of skill challenge I saw like that was in the Dungeon module called Heathen, and when I ran that recently my players did talk down the bad guy - a fallen paladin - rather than kill him. And then sent him home to safety on a flying Phantom Steed while they beat up on his armies.



Thanks, will check this out.



> It wasn't quite the "caster's ego is a weakness" you were referring to, but it did link emotions to conflict resolution.



It's still great and after our discussion I believe I could work the Skill Challenge to be used to make a powerful caster "trip over himself." 
It does require some skill by the DM to not overtly give the impression to the PCs that the foe can be defeated through a Skill Challenge, but rather let it happen naturally through roleplay - with secret dice on the side by letting the DM make all the skill check rolls/saving throws..etc


----------



## Sadras (May 22, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that 4e is pretty much done as a game. There are precisely two books I want to see for 4e that aren't setting books (and I like the 4e setting books the way they are - 2 books and done). Those are the Unearthed Arcana equivalent, including, including Mass Combat, wilderness survival, assassination rules, and politics and running guilds. Also an epic-focussed monster manual. (You can probably get two books out of the UA)......I'm happy considering it a mature game.



I agree, it has reached maturity. The books you ask for are reasonable, and the Vancian Wizard would be a nice addition. It would certainly make me happy .
These days I prefer purchasing 4E tokens and maps, as I feel I could utilise those in any edition, plus they look really smart and are fun visually.
Although in my adventures I like to alternate, run encounters per 4E grids and then othertimes like OS without grids solely on the fuel of imagination. 



> Defining Paladins as the embodiment of a virtue and Blackguards as a vice is IMO a stroke of genius. Makes sense of the old LG Paladins while allowing other sorts.



Have to admit this feature of virtues should definitely follow into 5E, its a great compromising option.


----------

