Why are Casters so powerful? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Coidzor

2011-10-24, 03:58 AM

I don't think OP is asking how casters can be so powerful, but he's asking why they are.

"Because they were given options," then.

And they consolidated their favorite options from previous versions, improved them or at least took away the awkward limitations that supposedly balanced them in the days of yore in order to make core and then expanded it further with every new book.

Whereas non-casters were stuck in the, "There's a feat for that" or worse, "there's a feat chain for that" paradigm while only getting 7 feats by level 20, if they played that long (which they'd found most people didn't do in the earlier editions IIRC) if they weren't a fighter. And Fighters were stuck in the "Eh, Fighters have loads of feats, so it's perfectly reasonable to bury this ability under 3 bad feats so that they don't get it at too low of a level," paradigm in addition to the aforementioned "there's a feat for that" paradigm. And woe to the non-Fighter who ends up wanting a feat buried under a feat chain they made with Fighters in mind.

They even made multiclass XP penalties to punish people for getting a variety of abilities, which only really impacted non-casters, because casters have no reason to multiclass. Thankfully more often than not, players and DMs have discarded such penalties as pointless and cumbersome.

As for playtesting, well, generally they seem to have done it by not actually reading the rule books and having the kind of people who seem like they'd think Senor Vorpal Kickasso from Goblins is a reasonable character build or an overpowered monstrosity. In one of the revelations they released about the playtesting, the druid's player didn't even look at Natural Spell or ever wild shape in play, even for scouting. I doubt she even skimmed the rules on the subject.

Killer Angel

2011-10-24, 03:59 AM

Alternatively: because casters cast spells, and spells were made so powerful.

faceroll

2011-10-24, 04:13 AM

"Why are casters so powerful?"
"Because they have more options than anybody else."

Am I missing something? :smallconfused:

"Because they were given options," then.

Alternatively: because casters cast spells, and spells were made so powerful.

Again, those are answer of how.

Why were casters given options while fighters weren't?

If you guys read the OP, beyond the title, you'll see that "moar options" are already addressed and the OP goes straight for incorrect assumptions on the part of the designers.

Personally, I think Monte Cook &co was ok with casters being more powerful than non-casters because shouldn't a guy with real ultimate power be better than a dude with a sharp stick?

Knaight

2011-10-24, 04:29 AM

Monte Cook even wrote that article ("From the Ivory Tower" I think it might have been called) on a blog talking about how the game seems designed to reward players for system mastery or something along those lines.

That looks suspiciously like him trying to cover up a failure with a quick excuse to me. I'm guessing that it had more to do with limited playtesting, particularly outside the assumed archetypes.

Coidzor

2011-10-24, 04:36 AM

Why were casters given options while fighters weren't?

Combination of favorite options grandfathered in from earlier editions and then improved combined with the contrast between the feat-paradigm and the paradigm of magic making it OK to produce a whole lot of spells because "magic, why the heck shouldn't there be more than a few spells? They're more fun to write than feats," especially since spells are a lot more streamlined in terms of categorization, as dodge is theoretically as valuable to a level 18 character as a level 1 character... which is patently false, but there you go, and polymorph doesn't even have to pay lip service to the idea that gentle repose is of the same worth.

Probably viewed the non-blasty spells as either odd-ball fun stuff for every now and then/villains or utility stuff that someone had to do, and it sure as heck can't be rationalized as originating from the smelly guy who stabs things with a pointed stick.

As to why they liked 'em, well, that's a tricky question to answer without going back to the source of what individuals pushed for what spells to make the transition and so forth.

If you guys read the OP, beyond the title, you'll see that "moar options" are already addressed and the OP goes straight for incorrect assumptions on the part of the designers.

More power to you if you're a mind reader, but there's really not much to go on in the actual substance of the OP with which to divine his full intent after re-reading it 5 times.

Darth_Versity

2011-10-24, 04:40 AM

Personally, I think Monte Cook &co was ok with casters being more powerful than non-casters because shouldn't a guy with real ultimate power be better than a dude with a sharp stick?

Personally I think Monte Cook is jast a lazy idiot who came up with a great concept and failed to turn it into a great idea. The core idea behind 3.5 is great, but the execution of that idea is awful.

Star wars saga edition shows what you can do to the core concept a fast paced and (reasonably) balanced game.

I also blame WotC for a large part. If they wern't so desperate to restrict the material till they got paid then they could have released community test versions and WE would have found the balance problems. Similar to the way Green Ronin have with their dragon age game.

Basically, casters are so powerful because the designers completely overvalued BAB, HP, Armor and Feats, and undervalued Class Features and Spells. By the time everyone realised this it was to late so they hid behind the 'System mastery' lie and hoped no one would notice.

Yora

2011-10-24, 04:43 AM

That looks suspiciously like him trying to cover up a failure with a quick excuse to me. I'm guessing that it had more to do with limited playtesting, particularly outside the assumed archetypes.

Yes.

Short answer: The designers didn't realize what they were doing.

Which is fair, I guess. Thousands of people searching for exploits over 10 years just have much better chances of finding any weak points than a few dozens playtesters. And I guess for most groups, this isn't really that big a problem. There are enough stories of druids and wizards feeling left behind by fighters and monks. It becomes relevant at a certain degree of optimization, which I assume isn't actually that common.
They could have handled it much better, but I don't think it's that bad. Much worse is the huge number of additional spells released in later books, while there wasn't nearly that much for other characters.

erikun

2011-10-24, 04:47 AM

Why? I think you answered yourself in the opening post.

On the mundane side, a lot of the options that the Fighter had were handed out to everyone, significantly reducing what the Fighter could do. The Fighter lost the ability to make multiple attacks at "full BAB" like they did in previous editions, significantly reducing their damage output. Later attacks in the attack routine were significantly less likely to hit, making very little difference between a full BAB Fighter and a class like the Cleric. Heck, the Fighter only received a single extra attack compared to the Cleric, making the base damage comparison between the two very similar (except in early levels).

The Fighter could use methods to allow give later attacks a high chance of connecting (e.g. touch attacks), but other characters could use the same methods to land all their attacks as well.

The system had a bad case of stat bloat. AC was no longer capped at 1-20, as with in AD&D, which produced a wide variance in both attack and defense bonuses. It was entirely possible for the Fighter to gain a high enough to-hit to overcome basically any AC around his level, which also meant that spellcasters could do the same. The easy of acquiring AC and CON meant that even d4 Wizards had enough HP and defenses to stand in the middle of melee with little care.

A lot of the drawbacks to spellcasting were either minimized or removed. It is entirely possible for a Wizard to stand right next to a Fighter can cast spell without worry of disruption; there is even a (very easy) roll that they can make to ensure that the Fighter doesn't get a chance to disrupt the spell! And it really is easy; a 20 CON Dwarven/Gnome Wizard with the Combat Casting feat will auto-succeed on defensive casting at level 2, and every level thereafter.

The grid-based gameplay that 3.5e insists on using virtually killed what utility the Fighter possessed in previous editions. Even as late as 3.0e, the Fighter could still say "I step in the way to prevent them from reaching the Wizard" and it would be assumed that they could do so. With a rigid control of character placement and out-of-turn options in 3.5e, though, the Fighter could no long "block" an opponent without some in-game ability to do so - and there were none. It was far more important for every character at the table to be individually powerful rather than individually specialized.

Knaight

2011-10-24, 05:03 AM

Personally I think Monte Cook is jast a lazy idiot who came up with a great concept and failed to turn it into a great idea. The core idea behind 3.5 is great, but the execution of that idea is awful.

Star wars saga edition shows what you can do to the core concept a fast paced and (reasonably) balanced game.

Monte Cook was one of several designers, on a schedule compliments of WotC. They dropped the ball a bit on 3.5, as the problems from 3.0 really should have been more visible than most and fixed better, but all things considered they did a fairly good job with 3.0, given limited testing and such. Granted SAGA is put together much better, and, were I to use a fantasy d20 system I would probably gravitate to it and not D&D, but SAGA was designed with an understanding of D&D's flaws, and without having to cart a bunch of legacy stuff around with it.

The Boz

2011-10-24, 05:05 AM

The core of it is, they get a bunch of free stuff unrelated to any ability score, or related to their one single all-powerful ability score. They have a way to make each and every single one of their non-primary ability score literally meaningless.

candycorn

2011-10-24, 05:09 AM

It's not the result of one bad decision.

As stated before, complaints about wizards in previous editions was how complicated they were. Spell limitations, spell restrictions, yeah they were ok, but it was too in depth.

So they removed those limits. After all, how much did "haste ages you a year" really matter?

Then, they tried to use feat prerequisites to keep some feats from being taken early, rather than BAB or skill rank requirements. After all, the fighter gets a lot of feats, so a couple doesn't hurt, right?

Ultimately, I don't think there was some evil game designer, sitting in his office, rubbing his hands together, in glee, and cackling. I think it was a result of multiple decisions by different people, none of whom envisioned the cumulative effect.

Darth_Versity

2011-10-24, 05:13 AM

Monte Cook was one of several designers, on a schedule compliments of WotC. They dropped the ball a bit on 3.5, as the problems from 3.0 really should have been more visible than most and fixed better, but all things considered they did a fairly good job with 3.0, given limited testing and such. Granted SAGA is put together much better, and, were I to use a fantasy d20 system I would probably gravitate to it and not D&D, but SAGA was designed with an understanding of D&D's flaws, and without having to cart a bunch of legacy stuff around with it.

But you've hit the nail on the head with your own statement. Most of 3.5's flaws were visible (and made clear by players) with 3.0. All the power and balance issues exist in both and nothing was really done to alter that. While I accept that 3.0 had flaws due to time contraints and limited playtesting the same cannot be said for 3.5 as the problems were now clear. Monte Cook was the lead designer and as such he must take responsibility for the problems.

I've even seen a simple limit for full casters and it works quite well.

One of the easiest ways to make magic less powerful would have been to introduce another stat requirement (or even two). Something simple like "A wizard cannot have more ongoing spells in effect than his Wisdom modifier (minimum 1 ongoing spell)"

Replace Wizard and Wisdom depending on casting class.

Knaight

2011-10-24, 05:35 AM

faceroll

2011-10-24, 05:44 AM

Dalek-K

2011-10-24, 05:58 AM

I'll be interested to see what 5th edition ends up being like, seeing that Cook's back on board. I'm of the opinion that the guy's a hack who designed a system without fully understanding it. But then there was also a lot of legacy stuff that ended up getting carried over which doesn't quite work out in the current internet paradigm- for instance, MAD classes like ranger, paladin, monk were all classes that required high ability scores to even take a level of in AD&D. 25pb monk, or even 30pb monk, is at a major disadvantage to the lucky quy with 18 16 16 14 10 8 as his stat array.

Well in 2e if you had a paladin you was one of the best classes in the game with some pretty awesome abilities that they didn't turn over to 3.X :(

A good caster fix is bring back the *if you use focus then the spell ends* and make spells take at least 1 full round to cast. That makes meatsheild more valuable :)

Yora

2011-10-24, 06:01 AM

Dr.Epic

2011-10-24, 06:05 AM

plus they over estimated the value of a full Base Attack Bonus, Feats and Heavy Armor.

BAB doesn't affect damage so while you're sure to hit more, you're still only doing like one die+str.

As for feats, they're also not that helpful. They add only a few points of damage or add a few points to AC.

Really? Heavy armor? By a certain level, monsters are so strong that just about everything they dish out will hit so 1 few point don't matter that much. Also, as good as heavy armor is, it's not that useful against powerful spells that require will and reflex saves, and these spells are what makes caster so great.

Let's not also forget just about every good caster PrC let's you progress in spell levels as well. So you're getting awesome abilities and are able to progress in spell power.

Eldan

2011-10-24, 06:14 AM

More vulnerable caster would certainly be an improvement. Which still doesn't solve the problem that enemies could just walk around a fighter to get at the wizard. A single AoO just isn't dangerous enough to allow the wizard to live.

Apparently, from what I've heard, some of the earlier editions had, basically, reactive movement.

As in, the fighter wouldn't move in his turn. Instead, he'd say that he would defend the wizard, and then automatically move to intercept, if necessary.

Edit: actually, that's correct on the BAB and armour. I'm fairly certain I've seen articles praising the importance of high BAB and the great power of heavy armour.

Altair_the_Vexed

2011-10-24, 06:16 AM

Old editions - that's why.

It used to be that casters were more powerful than mundanes because the powers of magic were just plain meant to be more powerful than man-with-pointed-stick.

This used to be balanced out by the utter suckiness of low level casters - 1 spell known, 1 spell per day - and (less often mentioned) their high XP requirement. A wizard who made it out of the feeble low levels to gain third level spells deserved to be better than the same level fighter - he'd had to get involved in fights without using armour or decent weapons once his spells ran out (or he'd not have been awarded any XP by the RAW).

So when WotC boosted the lower levels of the caster classes, and made all XP requirements equal, they made the difference in power between the mundane and the magic really horribly unbalanced, whereas before, we didn't begrudge the wizards.

Yora

2011-10-24, 06:19 AM

Apparently, from what I've heard, some of the earlier editions had, basically, reactive movement.

As in, the fighter wouldn't move in his turn. Instead, he'd say that he would defend the wizard, and then automatically move to intercept, if necessary.
The wonderful world of RPGs without a grid. :smallbiggrin:
Too bad that goes against Wizards business model.

hamishspence

2011-10-24, 06:24 AM

"Delay" or "Ready an action" seems like the closest thing to that in this day and age.

4E's is usually "Immediate Interrupt".

Saph

2011-10-24, 06:30 AM

There are slightly different reasons for arcane and divine casters.

In the case of 3.5 arcane casters, while they have the potential to be probably the most powerful classes in the game, the huge amount of options available to them means they actually require quite a lot of skill to use effectively. This is why their full potential power wasn't realised earlier in the development cycle.

Compare something like a Barbarian to a Sorcerer. A really well-played Sorcerer will blow a Barbarian out of the water no matter how good the Barbarian's player is. However, a muppet playing a Sorcerer will probably be less effective than the same muppet playing a Barbarian, because it's a lot harder to mess up a class whose entire role is "high strength, rage, hit things".

It's common now on these boards for everyone to insist that casters are obviously more powerful than meleers, and everyone knows that, and you have to be stupid not to agree, etc etc. But back in the days of 3.0 I used to hang out on the Monte Cook boards, and the most common class power argument on their forums was "Barbarian vs. Fighter". Once someone started a "20th level Barbarian vs 20th level Bard" thread. It was meant as a joke. I was one of exactly two posters who thought the Bard had a good chance, and got laughed at for it. :smalltongue: Common knowledge changes.

In the case of 3.5 divine casters, it's quite different. In this case the problem was a holdover from earlier editions - no-one wanted to play the healer! It was an old joke in 2nd ed and onwards that the healbot job usually got forced on the last guy to pick their class. So what the 3.0 designers did was keep on buffing them and buffing them and buffing them until players DID want to play them. That's why clerics had that "Spontaneous Casting" ability. It was so players could fill their spell slots with fun spells and only convert them into cures when needed.

This is why divine casters are so obviously powerful in 3.0/3.5 - they were MEANT to be obviously powerful to encourage AD&D players to get over their "don't want to play the healer" attitude.

And now you know!

Yora

2011-10-24, 06:40 AM

Which does not excuse why the druid got even better in 3.5e. "I have class features that are more powerful than your entire class!" How could anyone have missed that?

Eldan

2011-10-24, 06:54 AM

The wonderful world of RPGs without a grid. :smallbiggrin:
Too bad that goes against Wizards business model.

Yeah. Thinking about it, I could include that as a house rule, since I'm not playing with a grid anyway. Ready an action to intercept (move and block).

Zombimode

2011-10-24, 07:34 AM

This is why divine casters are so obviously powerful in 3.0/3.5 - they were MEANT to be obviously powerful to encourage AD&D players to get over their "don't want to play the healer" attitude.

The funny thing is: divine casters already WERE extremely powerful in 2e, but appearently, not many players/DMs realized that.

hewhosaysfish

2011-10-24, 07:48 AM

"Delay" or "Ready an action" seems like the closest thing to that in this day and age.

4E's is usually "Immediate Interrupt".

And the fighter could do that: ready/delay actions so that when the enemy comes too close close he runs up and thwacks it... and after he's thwacked the enemy it steps around him and continues towards the squishies.

It used to be that casters were more powerful than mundanes because the powers of magic were just plain meant to be more powerful than man-with-pointed-stick.

This used to be balanced out by the utter suckiness of low level casters - 1 spell known, 1 spell per day - and (less often mentioned) their high XP requirement. A wizard who made it out of the feeble low levels to gain third level spells deserved to be better than the same level fighter - he'd had to get involved in fights without using armour or decent weapons once his spells ran out (or he'd not have been awarded any XP by the RAW).

This is a line of argument that has always bugged me. Saying that a level 10 wizard should be more powerful than a level 10 fighter "because wizards are more powerful than fighters" strikes me as being like arguing that a 5'4" human should be taller than a 5'4" elf "because humans are taller than elves".

So when WotC boosted the lower levels of the caster classes, and made all XP requirements equal, they made the difference in power between the mundane and the magic really horribly unbalanced, whereas before, we didn't begrudge the wizards.

The problems with the suck-now-awesome-later model are threefold:
1) If the campaign never gets to the the higher levels (which can often happen) then the guy who chose the class with the long-term payoffs gets shafted.
2) If people want to start the campaign at higher levels (which can often happen) then they have to either throw away entire classes (and the associated fantasy archtypes: brave knight, savage barbarian, etc) or accept that they will be playing as just a particularly vocal henchman to the party wizard (which also throws out the aforesaid fantasy archetypes but at least lets you keep using the classes).
3) Even when the campaign starts from low levels and progresses right the way through to the high levels then everyone will spent half the campaign (give or take a small "Sweet Spot" in the middle) stuck being the deadweight that the other half of the party has to carry.

EDIT
What I forgot to say was: the problem is not necessarily that they lifted up the low level Wizards but that they didn't do the other half of the job; either lower the top-end Wizards or raise the high-end Fighters.

I approve of the idea of the consoldidated XP tables; it matches up to my instinct that a level X Fighter and a level X Wizard should be equally capable (i.e. operating at the same level). The failure was that they kept the same power dynamic from the days when Wizards and Fighters were still on separate XP tables.

Dazed&Confused

2011-10-24, 07:51 AM

I agree that casters are much stronger than any fighter-like classes in high levels when it comes to fighting each other. But I should say, though the thread isn't about this, that the point of D&D isn't two PC's in a duel(which is the source of the complaints in most cases), it's both of them in a group fighting monsters - and in that case, both of them have quite essential roles. What would a pre-shapechange wizard do without the barbarian/fighter to take and deal physical damage? What would he do when fighting a golem, or any monster immune/resistant to magic? Even in the case of a cleric, he may have early buffs that help him go fight, but a single dispel magic could be the death of him, forced to go fight with his much lower strength(due to the need of bumping wis/cha), medium BAB and lower HP.

What I mean to say is that, at least before the casters are able to buff and go fight, and even then, IF they've found a way of not getting dispelled, a fighter-like class will have a role that's just as important as the caster's. And that should be the whole point of D&D, filling your role in a party - I don't think the difference in 1v1 power should matter at all. I know no one said otherwise explicitly, but I see a bit of an implication in that way.

Amphetryon

2011-10-24, 08:00 AM

Knaight

2011-10-24, 08:07 AM

But I should say, though the thread isn't about this, that the point of D&D isn't two PC's in a duel(which is the source of the complaints in most cases), it's both of them in a group fighting monsters - and in that case, both of them have quite essential roles. What would a pre-shapechange wizard do without the barbarian/fighter to take and deal physical damage? What would he do when fighting a golem, or any monster immune/resistant to magic? Even in the case of a cleric, he may have early buffs that help him go fight, but a single dispel magic could be the death of him, forced to go fight with his much lower strength(due to the need of bumping wis/cha), medium BAB and lower HP.
This is wrong on any number of levels. So, list time:

The point of D&D isn't a bunch of PCs fighting monsters. Exploration, traps, and other things are encouraged, and roleplaying is obliquely referenced occasionally.
The source of "the complaints" is not primarily duels. What Casters can do outside of combat is a significant part of the problem. As is fighting monsters.
If the non caster is replaced by a second caster, a blown summoning spell from the latter probably represents fewer resources lost than using an actual combatant. Again, the actual combatants are behind.
Your golem example? One "wall of stone" later, the golem basically can't reach you. Plus, summoning spells might well be able to tear the golem apart.
Dispel magic can suppress items, and that hurts Fighters and such far more than actual casters. Plus, a cleric without buffs can still take the direct "kill them with spells" route. Or, more likely the "cripple them until they are utterly ineffective with spells" route, which basically does the same thing.

Person_Man

2011-10-24, 08:14 AM

Prior to 4E, game balance was not much of a concern for game designers. People just wrote what they thought was interesting, and/or tried to create rules that mimicked characters from various novels. The clearest example is the 2nd/3rd edition Ranger, which is basically Drizzt_Do'Urden. Casters are vastly powerful because literary casters are so powerful, and a big aspect of D&D was supposedly about being able to live out your fantasies as those characters.

Eldan

2011-10-24, 08:23 AM

What I mean to say is that, at least before the casters are able to buff and go fight, and even then, IF they've found a way of not getting dispelled, a fighter-like class will have a role that's just as important as the caster's. And that should be the whole point of D&D, filling your role in a party - I don't think the difference in 1v1 power should matter at all. I know no one said otherwise explicitly, but I see a bit of an implication in that way.

Combat has been mentioned by previous posters, but a lot of the problems of casters originate out of combat.

Casters can generate money.
Casters have all the travel options, i.e. flight, teleportation, planeshifting. A party without a caster can't easily get to many places in the game world in feasible time frames, while casters also make many kinds of plots (cross the desert alive, as an example) superfluous by higher levels.
Casters have options to go around encounters. They can dig, fly, teleport, go invisible.
Casters can foretell what an encounter will be. Either short term with e.g. arcane eyes, scrying, clairvoyance, or long before in vaguer terms via divination.
Casters can remove afflictions and status effects. If a member of the all-mundane party is turned to stone, the two options are to either build a new character, or go ask a caster, e.g. the famous Ye Olde Temple Healing Shoppe.

Dazed&Confused

2011-10-24, 08:47 AM

This is wrong on any number of levels. So, list time:

The point of D&D isn't a bunch of PCs fighting monsters. Exploration, traps, and other things are encouraged, and roleplaying is obliquely referenced occasionally.
The source of "the complaints" is not primarily duels. What Casters can do outside of combat is a significant part of the problem. As is fighting monsters.
If the non caster is replaced by a second caster, a blown summoning spell from the latter probably represents fewer resources lost than using an actual combatant. Again, the actual combatants are behind.
Your golem example? One "wall of stone" later, the golem basically can't reach you. Plus, summoning spells might well be able to tear the golem apart.
Dispel magic can suppress items, and that hurts Fighters and such far more than actual casters. Plus, a cleric without buffs can still take the direct "kill them with spells" route. Or, more likely the "cripple them until they are utterly ineffective with spells" route, which basically does the same thing.

On the first point, I meant only when it comes to combats, of course there are other things besides fighting. And yea, casters are very superior outside combat indeed. I agree with you there, and also when it comes to fighting single golems/resistant-to-magic monsters, you can always find a way around those.

But summoning spells, they might replace the weak fighters(heck not would they replace a Frenzied Berserker!), but they can also get dispelled so easily. Really, it only comes to dispel magic in these times - of course items can be dispelled, but what intelligent monster/antagonist would rather dispel the barbarian's item instead of the wizard's/cleric's spells?

Although of course you can always have a "secondary" caster counterspelling dispel magics and the like, would be enough to make a "caster group" better than a classic one. So... you might be right in that aswell, at least in mid levels of xp :smalltongue:

ThatLovin'Elan

2011-10-24, 09:14 AM

Casters are vastly powerful because literary casters are so powerful, and a big aspect of D&D was supposedly about being able to live out your fantasies as those characters.

Exactly.

It's hard to say "A Wizard did it" when Wizards can't do it in your game.

Axier

2011-10-24, 09:20 AM

Casters are powerful because DMs tend to not think of ways to suppress their almighty powers. Here are a few ideas.

Magic is Common:

If magic is common, then the protection against magic is as well. No world would function if they couldn't do anything against magic. You can also make rules and laws, structure to the chaos. If magi, including your PCs break said laws, then you bring said protection against magic against them.

Magic is also obvious, especialy when everyone is used to it. If magic is obvious, killing people isn't going to be as easy when you are leaving a magical fingerprint. I also like to take pointers from shadowrun, using magic, because it is some of your natural power, leaves a sort of fingerprint. Records of what you do can get you killed.

Power requires great responsibility.

When magic is uncommon:

When magic is uncommon, people fear it, and are willing to go to great lengths to abolish it. Also, things that improve magical abilities, like enchanted items, and the like, are harder to find. Masterwork weapons and armor don't really help spellcasters.

Also when magic is uncommon, existing, powerful spellcasters tend to be selfish, and want to hinder other spellcasters in order to keep their power.

Valameer

2011-10-24, 09:23 AM

Personally I think Monte Cook is jast a lazy idiot who came up with a great concept and failed to turn it into a great idea. The core idea behind 3.5 is great, but the execution of that idea is awful.

Monte Cook was one of several designers, on a schedule compliments of WotC. They dropped the ball a bit on 3.5, as the problems from 3.0 really should have been more visible than most and fixed better, but all things considered they did a fairly good job with 3.0, given limited testing and such.

But you've hit the nail on the head with your own statement. Most of 3.5's flaws were visible (and made clear by players) with 3.0. All the power and balance issues exist in both and nothing was really done to alter that. While I accept that 3.0 had flaws due to time contraints and limited playtesting the same cannot be said for 3.5 as the problems were now clear. Monte Cook was the lead designer and as such he must take responsibility for the problems.

However, Cook was limited by the choice to make 3.5 and 3.0 largely compatible to begin with, which probably wasn't his choice. He was tied to 3.0's flaws, and while he probably could have done more than he did, and not done some of what he did (dropping the hit die of the ranger was completely unnecessary for instance), 3.5 was doomed to inherit most of 3.0's problems.

I'll be interested to see what 5th edition ends up being like, seeing that Cook's back on board. I'm of the opinion that the guy's a hack who designed a system without fully understanding it.

To be fair to Monte Cook, he was a lead designer of 3.0, and had very little to do with the 3.5 revision, as he left the company in 2001. Keep in mind when you attribute goofs to him that you have to look at 3.0 alone. I don't think he was very happy with 3.5 anyway, as he ended up coming up with his own revisions on classes, and Arcana Evolved.

I see him getting a lot of undue flak for things in 3.5. If anything, 3.0 was a brilliantly fresh game system built out of 2nd edition AD&D. Sure, it had some transitional problems, but it was still a wonderful idea.

3.5 by comparison missed a ton of opportunity, 'fixing' some of the only things that made fighters decent (like whirlwind+great cleave on a keen imp-crit falchion) while doing nothing to fix casters. But Cook wasn't actually involved in the revision.

Knaight

2011-10-24, 09:39 AM

Exactly.

It's hard to say "A Wizard did it" when Wizards can't do it in your game.

They also tend to be limited. D&D draws heavily on sword and sorcery, where actual combat magic is rare, long rituals are the norm, and there are surprisingly few spells being thrown around. A big powerful sorcerer might have a whole five spells, if magic even takes that form. D&D casters are significantly more powerful than most literary casters, outside of actual gods and such.

ThiefInTheNight

2011-10-24, 09:45 AM

and I beleive never really play tested past 7th level. i mean seriously play tested past 7th level.
Wait, you think Wizards play tested? Bwahahaha.

No, I don't think they did. They played a game or two, complete with houserules, and since they had fun, they called it good. Nothing of what they did (what they've described doing in interviews) could be called testing, much less serious testing.

Psyren

2011-10-24, 10:03 AM

Is it so bad that magic trumps melee though? Monsters certainly take that message to heart - everything and their mother at high levels is either made of magic, was created by/infused with magic, got into this world through magic, and/or even knows magic. And that's in addition to their lethal claw/claw/bite/tail routines.

I mean, it's right there in the name - Dungeons & Dragons. Dragons are the most iconic gish in fantasy literature - even if all they have is their breath weapon, you need magic to explain how a creature can walk (or fly) around with a furnace in their gullet.

So ignoring magic - or a series of lethal extranormal techniques designed to counter magic - should be done at any high-level adventurer's peril. Either that, or they impress the right people and get a divine rank so they can get some magic that way. Or they befriend some magic users and get some pimp magic gear.

ThiefInTheNight

2011-10-24, 10:06 AM

Is it so bad that magic trumps melee though?
Yes, because the game presents both options as equally valid, and gives no indication that choosing a non-magical class level at any of your 20 levels will make you strictly inferior to someone who does not, and doing so for anything approaching half your levels will make you useless well before you hit 20. That makes them traps with absolutely no warning, and that is always bad.

Psyren

2011-10-24, 10:11 AM

JaronK

2011-10-24, 10:28 AM

Basic reasons:

1) The blaster Wizard/healbot Cleric/Druid who doesn't use the Animal Companion or Wild Shape in combat issue. The playtesters used had a very specific idea of how the game should be played based on both 3.0 and AD&D. As such, they'd just play as a healbot Cleric, then complain that Clerics were boring. Thus, many new abilities were tacked onto the Cleric to make them more interesting... but these weren't tested, because the playtesters were still thinking that a Cleric had no choice but to spam cures in combat. Plus, there was an idea among the playtesters that any spell which could do nothing on a successful save sucked (because it might do nothing at all) so all those spells were basically untouched and untested.

2) Specific playstyle. The playtest group was very small and thus the campaign style was quite specific (and was the same style as what the designers considered to be "correct"). They kicked down doors and charged head long into enemies, and the DM would fudge things where needed. They never thought about things like "what if we just hang around town for a week... what can we do with these spells?" Thus you get all those endless money tricks (like Fabricate +, well, a lot of things) that just weren't considered.

3) Lower level play. The playtest group mostly played 1-5, and did a bit in the 6-10 area. They virtually didn't touch the high levels, and thus didn't really see the issues there.

4) Designing for NPCs. A lot of abilities and classes were designed with NPCs in mind... someone would want a specific spell to be used for a villain (like Animate Dread Warrior, or Planar Binding various evil things), and they'd write that in as a spell so it could be used... without considering what happens when a PC specifically tries to do something handy with it. Chaos ensues. Heck the Dust of Sneezing and Choking is a great example... they only thought of it as a trick to use against the PCs, and never considered what might happen if you just threw the stupid thing!

5) "Only munchkins would do that." Instead of removing silly and broken stuff from the game (Planar Binding Efreetis, for example), they'd decide that no DM would allow such behavior and no true D&D player would do it, so it's fine to leave it in. Of course, it turns out nobody else was quite sure exactly what was supposed to be okay and what wasn't... sure, the Efreeti thing is obvious, but what about using Alter Self to get a super high Natural AC?

JaronK

Curious

2011-10-24, 10:32 AM

I agree that the specific way they created the imbalance was bad (as well as the degree - T5 and below should not exist), but not so much the imbalance itself. I'm fine with replacing the Fighter, Monk and magicless Paladin (Cavalier) with the ToB classes, then buffing what few melees are left to be T3 as well. But the highest tiers should still belong to full casters. I'm willing to sacrifice some homogeneity and balance for a more interesting game.

I think your idea of interesting is different than mine. I don't mind if there is a bit of imbalance in a game, as long as it's fun for everyone, but I don't see what makes casters inherently more interesting and deserving of power than martial characters. Actually, I tend to see it in an opposite manner; I always find it much funner to play (or watch, in the case of animation and such) a character succeed at astounding feats of prowess through sheer strength of will and badassery, rather than by waving his fingers around and spitting some esoteric words. YMMV though.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-24, 10:51 AM

Just want to see what do.

My thouhgts is, WoTC was thinking peopel woudl still play their new 3rd ed wizards, clerics and druids like the did in 2nd ed.

you know blaster, healbot, and semi healbot able to to change into an animal sometimes but not that awesome of an animal for scouting.

plus they over estimated the value of a full Base Attack Bonus, Feats and Heavy Armor.

and I beleive never really play tested past 7th level. i mean seriously play tested past 7th level.

'cause spells are powerful.

And a LOT of spells have been printed.

Andorax

2011-10-24, 10:53 AM

I think another aspect that's often missed (well, it's part of playstyle, but it's a specific enough issue to be worth bringing up) is the "three rooms and a campout" approach.

The playtesters likely approached an 'adventure module' as a single ongoing adventure, with *maybe* a single well-fortified attempt at camping midway through. Wandering monsters discouraged camping, and not everyone spent every night of their lives past 3rd level in a rope trick.

In contrast, one of the main sources of power for the casters is their ability to pour a LOT of power into a limited number of encounters. Force them to measure that power out in small doses over a LONG adventuring day, and the playing field levels out, at least somewhat.

Not a total answer, I know, but still a valid issue. If a DM were to take his normal adventuring party (ie, not telling them in advance of this so they can specifically plan and adjust for it ahead of time) and tell them that they will have to defend the ground they stand on from an attack an hour, every hour, for the next 24 hours...it might just change how the casters play out.

tyckspoon

2011-10-24, 11:00 AM

I think another aspect that's often missed (well, it's part of playstyle, but it's a specific enough issue to be worth bringing up) is the "three rooms and a campout" approach.

The playtesters likely approached an 'adventure module' as a single ongoing adventure, with *maybe* a single well-fortified attempt at camping midway through. Wandering monsters discouraged camping, and not everyone spent every night of their lives past 3rd level in a rope trick.

They might have, but keep in mind your 'average' adventuring day is only supposed to consist of 4 encounters (of EL to party level. You might get more if you have less dangerous fights, but you also have less need to expend spells on those.) A Specialist Wizard should be expected to have at least 4 spell slots of his highest level. That's 1 high-level resource per expected fight and not even touching his lower-level spells. If you're playing efficiently, that will be more than enough; the only spellcaster paradigms that actually do risk running out of useful spells are.. well, the ones they apparently playtested: unoptimized blasters and in-combat healbots.

Psyren

2011-10-24, 11:08 AM

I don't see what makes casters inherently more interesting and deserving of power than martial characters.

The laws of the universe are there for anyone to learn, or manipulate by proxy if their belief is strong enough. They can also be understood and therefore utilized on an instinctive level through rigorous training (ToB.) for those without the mental capability, instinct or discipline to do so, there remain pacts with various otherworldly creatures.

For those unwilling or unable to pursue any of these avenues - tough.

Actually, I tend to see it in an opposite manner; I always find it much funner to play (or watch, in the case of animation and such) a character succeed at astounding feats of prowess through sheer strength of will and badassery, rather than by waving his fingers around and spitting some esoteric words. YMMV though.

Whereas I always find such encounters to be extremely contrived. Such examples are almost universally dependent on the magic-user catching the Idiot Ball or otherwise not actually using their power to its potential.

Here's what I do enjoy - the mundane and his less powerful caster ally combining their brains and brawn to take down the much more powerful BBEG. Example: The Mummy, when Evy dispels Imhotep's god mode so that Brendon Frasier can run him through.

Lord of Sporks

2011-10-24, 11:39 AM

Tyndmyr

2011-10-24, 11:42 AM

erikun

2011-10-24, 11:52 AM

The funny thing is: divine casters already WERE extremely powerful in 2e, but appearently, not many players/DMs realized that.
This is true, as well. A multiclass Fighter/Cleric leveled up at about the same rate as a basic Wizard, while still getting percentile strength, multiple attacks, bonus HP for high CON, spellcasting, and the ability to craft magical equipment. Just a straight Cleric could end up as one of the fastest leveling characters, especially if you had the downtime to create magic potions or equipment. (AD&D magic items not only provided XP for being made, but also were guaranteed to work if the Cleric devoted enough time to it. Wizards always had a chance to fail and ruin the work; Clerics failing had the option to pray longer and try again for no additional cost.)

That brings up another point that I forgot to mention: The ease of magical equipment in 3rd edition. With AD&D, the earliest you can make magical anything is around 9th level, and then it is only limited to potions. Making your own armor and such happens around 12th level, or higher. In 3.5e, you can get started on wands as early as 3rd level, and equipment in general at 5th. I never heard about an AD&D Wizard wandering around with their own set of personally-crafted wands, but the 3.5e Wizard can regularly do so (or buy them from the frequently assumed MagiMart) even at low levels. Magic items are both cheaper and easier to get, which means the classes that can use the most magical items - casters, since wands are generally cheaper than wonderous items - get the most benefit from this.

unless you count the artificer, but he's more like half of a caster.
Artificers are one of the best classes, and generally considered equal to (if not greater than) full casters.

Lord of Sporks

2011-10-24, 12:13 PM

I'm always facinated when I read threads like this, because its so unlike my own gaming experience. None of my players are optimizers or power gamers. They just play to have fun, and they don't really care whose the most powerful. They consider the Bard to be "fun but a little weak" and this campaign we don't have a singe arcane or divine caster (unless you count the artificer, but he's more like half of a caster.). We do have a psion, but thats it. This isn't to knock anyone, but I just wanted to share it. My players tend to care more about roleplaying, a good story, and a good fight. Plus we always start from level 1, and we never do point buy. It just seems like a very different experience than what the average player on this site has.

If just one optimizer found his way into the group though, I think it would destroy my little players lives.

These seem slightly at odds with each other.

Ha, I should have spoken more carefully. What I meant was that nobody cares who is more powerful, but thats mostly because nobody is significantly more powerful than anyone else. If an optimizer joined, then I think that my players would start caring after the wizard with two prestige classes manages to wipe out an entire encounter in a single round. As it is, my players don't worry about it.

And erikun, about my artificer comment, I bow to your superior wisdom. Its a good illustration though: we don't even know enough to know that the artificer is awesome. All my players see is the guy with some usefull spells, is a mediocre fighter, and who can, supposedly, make magic items. I say supposedly because our artificer has terrible luck with his use magic device rolls. He didn't succesfully craft anything until he was level three, mostly due to a series of critfails.

Again I'm not poking at anyone for careing about optimization. I just wanted to share what my own play experience is like, and maybe give you guys something to laugh at.

Eldan

2011-10-24, 12:15 PM

I'm always facinated when I read threads like this, because its so unlike my own gaming experience. None of my players are optimizers or power gamers. They just play to have fun, and they don't really care whose the most powerful. They consider the Bard to be "fun but a little weak" and this campaign we don't have a singe arcane or divine caster (unless you count the artificer, but he's more like half of a caster.). We do have a psion, but thats it. This isn't to knock anyone, but I just wanted to share it. My players tend to care more about roleplaying, a good story, and a good fight. Plus we always start from level 1, and we never do point buy. It just seems like a very different experience than what the average player on this site has.

If just one optimizer found his way into the group though, I think it would destroy my little players lives.

I've had a group like that for years, really, and it removes some of hte problem. No one destroys the game on purpose.

There is, however, still what I call "accidental powergaming".

Level one. Your party has a druid and a fighter. The druid chooses a wolf, because wolves are cool. He now has an animal that is basically just as good as the fighter, no optimization required. And that's the problem, really: without trying, you can be vastly more powerful than someone else.

In the same group, I played a wizard in our very first game. The other players were a monk and a fighter. They would totally own combat, because, really, I didn't know what I was doing. But whenever we encountered a problem that couldn't be solved by hitting it or talking with it? Everyone's head would instantly turn to me. Chasm? Ask the wizard. Some kind of barrier? Ask the wizard. Hidden clue? Ask the wizard.
The problem was that, basically, in many situations the caster was the only one able to do anything.

Dictum Mortuum

2011-10-24, 12:39 PM

My group consists of people that think that fireball is a 3rd level staple, that level adjustment (without considering buyoff) is mandatory and that a wizard 3/cleric 3/true necromancer 10/mystic theurge 4 is awesome.

What I usually do is play a wizard or druid or bard and play passively: I get some utility spells, usually I don't get blasting spells, some crowd control, etc. I get the occasional odd eye when they hear that "I banned evocation" (reaction: OMG YOU BANNED EVOCATION NOW YOU DONT HAVE METEOR SWARM - yeah :smallconfused:). I buff them while getting enough defenses that ensure that I won't die no matter what. They dish out huge damage (obviously, since I've optimized their attack bonus) and they are happy about it. No harm done, but they have yet to consider that all that damage belongs to my character, since they wouldn't be able to hit anything with their little +5 to hit :P

They're still in the cleric, druid = healers mentality. And it's perfectly fine by me.

Now, why casters are so powerful? Probably because, the playtesters had the same gaming mentality as my teammates. Cleric = healbot, wizard = fireballs. And if you play a character that way, they quickly stay behind on power.

Andorax

2011-10-24, 01:10 PM

They might have, but keep in mind your 'average' adventuring day is only supposed to consist of 4 encounters (of EL to party level. You might get more if you have less dangerous fights, but you also have less need to expend spells on those.) A Specialist Wizard should be expected to have at least 4 spell slots of his highest level. That's 1 high-level resource per expected fight and not even touching his lower-level spells. If you're playing efficiently, that will be more than enough; the only spellcaster paradigms that actually do risk running out of useful spells are.. well, the ones they apparently playtested: unoptimized blasters and in-combat healbots.

Just out of curiosity, where is that officially said (that an adventuring day is 4 encounters long)? I've heard it repeated many times, but never seen it in print that I can recall.

The closest I've ever come to it is that a typical short-evening gaming SESSION will often be only 4 encounters long.

If it's in PHB/DMG 3.0, then it's likely my theory is completely dead. If it's 3.5, then it may well be that the die was already cast and the playstyle has adjusted accordingly. If it 's even later advice (like DMGII later), then likely it was never considered by the playtesters of 3.0.

I've played in groups that have suffered multiple nighttime attacks. It's considerably less fun to be a spellcaster the second time your sleep is disturbed after a long day that's nearly burned your list to the ground already.

Basket Burner

2011-10-24, 01:16 PM

Just out of curiosity, where is that officially said (that an adventuring day is 4 encounters long)? I've heard it repeated many times, but never seen it in print that I can recall.

It plays off the 20% resources thing. The reasoning being fight 5 consumes 100% of resources, as in everyone dies. Of course 20% resources doesn't work anything like that at any level of play.

I've played in groups that have suffered multiple nighttime attacks. It's considerably less fun to be a spellcaster the second time your sleep is disturbed after a long day that's nearly burned your list to the ground already.

Spellcasters are the ones least concerned about nighttime attacks, for the entire four levels that they are subject to them before rendering the entire party immune.

Jeraa

2011-10-24, 01:35 PM

Page 101 of the 3.0 DMG says an appropriate challenge (that is, a challenge with a CR equal to the party level) should take 20% of the parties resources, meaning on average a typical party should be able to handle 4 encounters of an appropriate CR a day. A fifth would probably wipe them out. So it goes back to the beginning of 3rd edition at the earliest.

Te same text appears on page 49 of the 3.5 DMG as well, under "What's Challenging?" Neither says that the adventuring day is limited to only 4 encounters, but that 4 encounters of an appropriate challenge rating should take most of the parties resources to overcome.

Person_Man

2011-10-24, 01:35 PM

They also tend to be limited. D&D draws heavily on sword and sorcery, where actual combat magic is rare, long rituals are the norm, and there are surprisingly few spells being thrown around. A big powerful sorcerer might have a whole five spells, if magic even takes that form. D&D casters are significantly more powerful than most literary casters, outside of actual gods and such.

That's a highly debatable point. Take a look at the suggested reading list from the 1st edition rules (Appendix N (http://ulmo.mux.net/fantasy/gygax.html)) written by Gary Gygax:

Inspirational Reading:

Anderson, Poul. THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS; THE HIGH CRUSADE; THE BROKEN SWORD
Bellairs, John. THE FACE IN THE FROST
Brackett, Leigh.
Brown, Fredric.
Burroughs, Edgar Rice, "Pellucidar" Series; Mars Series; Venus Series
Carter, Lin. "World's End" Series
de Camp, L. Sprague. LEST DARKNESS FALL; FALLIBLE FIEND; et al.
de Camp & Pratt. "Harold Shea" Series; CARNELIAN CUBE
Derleth, August.
Dunsany, Lord.
Farmer, P. J. "The World of the Tiers" Series; et al.
Fox, Gardner. "Kothar" Series; "Kyrik" Series; et al.
Howard, R. E. "Conan" Series
Lanier, Sterling. HIERO'S JOURNEY
Leiber, Fritz. "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" Series; et al.
Lovecraft, H. P.
Merritt, A. CREEP, SHADOW, CREEP; MOON POOL; DWELLERS IN THE MIRAGE; et al.
Moorcock, Michael. STORMBRINGER; STEALER OF SOULS; "Hawkmoon" Series (esp. the first three books)
Norton, Andre.
Offutt, Andrew J., editor SWORDS AGAINST DARKNESS III.
Pratt, Fletcher, BLUE STAR; et al.
St. Clair, Margaret. THE SHADOW PEOPLE; SIGN OF THE LABRYS
Tolkien, J. R. R. THE HOBBIT; "Ring Trilogy"
Vance, Jack. THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD; THE DYING EARTH; et al.
Weinbaum, Stanley.
Wellman, Manly Wade.
Williamson, Jack.
Zelazny, Roger. JACK OF SHADOWS; "Amber" Series; et al.

If a caster can do something in the books above, they can probably do it in 1st - 3.5 edition D&D. And that includes plenty of quickly activated "combat magic" and "new powers as the plot demands" magic, especially in the case of Jack Vance and Tolkien, which early editions of D&D draw most heavily on.

The_Jackal

2011-10-24, 01:58 PM

Because it's Dungeons and Dragons, which is patterned heavily from Tolkien, and the original designers wanted to be Gandalf (who is actually a demigod, if you read the appendices in 'Return of the King'), Every subsequent generation of D&D has remained more or less true to the original vision of the party being support apparatus for the arcane spell-caster.

It's not really as bad as all that. The best arcanists leverage their spells to make their party invincible, rather than directly confronting and defeating the enemy, so the other party members get to have their share of the glory.

Knaight

2011-10-24, 07:53 PM

If a caster can do something in the books above, they can probably do it in 1st - 3.5 edition D&D. And that includes plenty of quickly activated "combat magic" and "new powers as the plot demands" magic, especially in the case of Jack Vance and Tolkien, which early editions of D&D draw most heavily on.

However, the mages in Vance's work and Tolkien's work weren't nearly as powerful as the 1e magic users, let alone the 3.x ones. Moreover, Tolkenien combat magic wasn't really all that common, we saw some in the Hobbit, but for the most part magic was big, slow, and relatively subtle.

Kenneth

2011-10-24, 08:06 PM

I whole heartedly agree with Knaights statement.

the reason why wizards were given big flashy spells like fireball, meteroswarm, and Acid fog was if it was teh subtle and 'slow' magic from Tolkein, not many people would be interested in it.

imagine fi you will, never moving past 2nd level spells.. a E4 of sorts.. that fits the world of Middle earth more closely (I feel at least). the heros get beat up and bruised from basica weapons and from peon orcs and uruk-hai.

that of course is just my opinion.

Amphetryon

2011-10-24, 08:19 PM

I have seen it argued, more than once, that the magic of Middle Earth was not so much subtle, as subtly described. In other words, Tolkien used understatement in describing the effects of magic in the world, with grand effects described subtly.

That point of view is probably grounds for another debate, of course.

Eldan

2011-10-25, 02:20 AM

If you read the Silmarilion, there's plenty of high level stuff being thrown around. Mountains are flattened and continents sunk. There are werewolves, dragons and vampires. Hammers big enough to leave craters in the ground. Magical songs and awakened animals.

Coidzor

2011-10-25, 05:43 AM

That brings up another point that I forgot to mention: The ease of magical equipment in 3rd edition. With AD&D, the earliest you can make magical anything is around 9th level, and then it is only limited to potions. Making your own armor and such happens around 12th level, or higher. In 3.5e, you can get started on wands as early as 3rd level, and equipment in general at 5th. I never heard about an AD&D Wizard wandering around with their own set of personally-crafted wands, but the 3.5e Wizard can regularly do so (or buy them from the frequently assumed MagiMart) even at low levels. Magic items are both cheaper and easier to get, which means the classes that can use the most magical items - casters, since wands are generally cheaper than wonderous items - get the most benefit from this.

I dunno, that seems like a drop in the bucket, especially since most magic items that are going to be crafted are going to be for the party as a whole if they're really getting crafting time.

Crafting is powerful, sure, but I wouldn't put it as one of the principle reasons why casters are more powerful than non-casters. it's more like a combination of kicking the dog while it's down and throwing it a bone that they can make the equipment that their pets need to contribute earlier and more simply.

Edit: Now, the bit where theyre the only ones who can do X Y and Z and crafting as one of those things, yeah, though not so much the level reduction between editions...

Yora

2011-10-25, 06:18 AM

Eldan

2011-10-25, 06:28 AM

Oh, absolutely. But it's far from subtle, is what I mean. Plus, there's all the elves hopping around killing balrog armies.

Knaight

2011-10-25, 06:33 AM

Oh, absolutely. But it's far from subtle, is what I mean. Plus, there's all the elves hopping around killing balrog armies.

True (though "all the elves" roughly translates to "Feanor" in this case). However, it was Lord of the Rings cited as a source, not The Silimarillion, and The Lord of the Rings is far more subtle magically. And, for that matter, in general.

Eldan

2011-10-25, 06:36 AM

Right. For some reason I thought I'd seen the Silmarilion in Gygax' list up there.

hamishspence

2011-10-25, 06:44 AM

There's Gandalf's exploding pine cones in The Hobbit, and Beorn the shapeshifter.

Fishman

2011-10-25, 06:57 AM

Casters are powerful because, quite simply, they can warp the fabric of reality by act of will, and non-casters CAN'T. Even nerfed as they are to be largely incapable of anything else, the ability to do MAGIC is what makes them that powerful. Fighters are just burly guys with weapons. Just about anyone can do that. Maybe not WELL, but that's just a matter of degree. 1 level 20 fighter, I could substitute with, say, 500 commoners with crossbows, which will strike for some 25d6 per round, and absorb up to 500 attacks. That's a pretty acceptable on-paper substitute for a fighter. No number of commoners can replace a caster of even moderate level.

Even rogues have it better off: At least they have a skillset that requires a caster or a fair number of high-level experts to replace, and rogues don't run out of ammo like casters do.

So, frankly, by the mid-levels, the only non-magical party member that is indispensable on a technical level is the rogue, and even the rogue cannot be considered to be truly nonmagical, with UMD. The only real reason to keep a pure fighter-type around is for dealing with antimagic zones in narrow corridors.

caden_varn

2011-10-25, 10:04 AM

Casters are powerful because, quite simply, they can warp the fabric of reality by act of will, and non-casters CAN'T.

Personally, I've never liked the 'warp reality' argument for magic as it appears in D&D. Yes, you can do a whole load of things that are impossible in our reality, but it isn't in our reality. You are in a world where magic exists, which adds another level onto reality.

If you could actually warp reality at will, you would be able to do fairly much anything you could imagine, but in fact you have to learn a bunch of spells which by and large have fairly consistent and limited effects - fireball always produces a ball of fire - you can't decide to change it to frost, or a cylinder or cube, for example (yes, I accept that there are exceptions to this).
If you want to do something new, you need find or research a spell that does what you want.
This sounds much more like someone learning and exploiting the deeper magical nature of reality than warping it. It only looks like reality is warped to you or me or a fighter because we do not understand the true nature of the rules of the universe as well as a Wizard does.
When you consider it this way, there is no reason for magic to be so powerful.

If you prefer the 'warping reality' scenario, that is fine, but it's not something I think follows naturally from the way magic works in D&D.

Yora

2011-10-25, 10:29 AM

There's Gandalf's exploding pine cones in The Hobbit, and Beorn the shapeshifter.

Which in the context of D&D, is very subtle. :smallbiggrin:

Gnaeus

2011-10-25, 11:09 AM

Not a total answer, I know, but still a valid issue. If a DM were to take his normal adventuring party (ie, not telling them in advance of this so they can specifically plan and adjust for it ahead of time) and tell them that they will have to defend the ground they stand on from an attack an hour, every hour, for the next 24 hours...it might just change how the casters play out.

Or it might not. It depends A LOT on the levels and types of casters. A Druid or Persist cleric will still rock the fighter's world. An upper-mid level wizard with Overland Flight and some wands or staves will likely be kicking bottom long after the fighter is bleeding out on the ground. Or he can Teleport to the mage guild in some major metropolis, buy some key wands or scrolls, and Teleport back.

And if you are talking about really high level play, you need DM intervention to stop simple tricks like traveling to a fast-time plane and returning 15 minutes later with all your spells back. Heck, with 24 encounters, even a low level wizard with a ring of sustenance and rope trick can just sit out 3 fights and return with guns blazing to dominate the end of the day.

Doug Lampert

2011-10-25, 11:36 AM

But you've hit the nail on the head with your own statement. Most of 3.5's flaws were visible (and made clear by players) with 3.0. All the power and balance issues exist in both and nothing was really done to alter that. While I accept that 3.0 had flaws due to time contraints and limited playtesting the same cannot be said for 3.5 as the problems were now clear. Monte Cook was the lead designer and as such he must take responsibility for the problems.

Note that 3.0 did not have Natural Spell! In significant respects 3.5 made it WORSE.

However, Cook was limited by the choice to make 3.5 and 3.0 largely compatible to begin with, which probably wasn't his choice. He was tied to 3.0's flaws, and while he probably could have done more than he did, and not done some of what he did (dropping the hit die of the ranger was completely unnecessary for instance), 3.5 was doomed to inherit most of 3.0's problems. SAGA wasn't and because they knew what they were doing by then (more or less), SAGA is a highly functional, fairly elegant game system.

They nerfed Haste, Harm, and Heal, and while all three of those needed it (badly, very very badly), and they banned (two different ways) the multiply empowered ability buffs, the fact of the matter is that they they completely missed half a dozen things that my single, not very optimized 3.0 group had caught and then they did MORE!

They made XP a river so casters could craft without any meaningful cost, crafting was already the most powerful option in 3.0 so let's buff it further!

They added natural spell to the game and buffed the combat ability of the Animal Companion while REMOVING most of its ability to be used in flavorful non-combat ways.

And they nerfed archers and then nerfed them some more, and then crapped on the remains. Wouldn't want a mundane to be able to be better artillery than a caster. They changed DR in ways which hurt fighters, but don't matter to casters, and I'm pretty sure that resistances which did matter to casters were lowered to stay in line with the new "lower" DR values.

They did add a few higher level fighter feats, stuff like Greater Weapon Specialization! But after years of play experience adding THAT as a high level fighter feat was just adding insult to injury.

DougL

gkathellar

2011-10-25, 12:59 PM

Why were casters given options while fighters weren't?

Answer 1: Because if fighters had options they would be casters.

Answer 2: Tradition. Spellcasters had ultimate cosmic power in 2E, it's just that they were weaker at early levels and magic resistance could absolutely wreck them if they weren't prepared for it.

That looks suspiciously like him trying to cover up a failure with a quick excuse to me.

Oh, he's not patting himself on the back for it. Monte talks about how they were taking a cue from MtG by putting system mastery in, and how this was ultimately poor design for a tabletop RPG. Whether you buy that or not is a different question, but IIRC the article's tone was pretty apologetic.

Of course, Monte's other work shows he doesn't understand balance and power above and beyond this, but he did intend for optimization to play the role it does today from the beginning.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-25, 01:12 PM

Note that 3.0 did not have Natural Spell! In significant respects 3.5 made it WORSE.

They nerfed Haste, Harm, and Heal, and while all three of those needed it (badly, very very badly), and they banned (two different ways) the multiply empowered ability buffs, the fact of the matter is that they they completely missed half a dozen things that my single, not very optimized 3.0 group had caught and then they did MORE!

They made XP a river so casters could craft without any meaningful cost, crafting was already the most powerful option in 3.0 so let's buff it further!

They added natural spell to the game and buffed the combat ability of the Animal Companion while REMOVING most of its ability to be used in flavorful non-combat ways.

And they nerfed archers and then nerfed them some more, and then crapped on the remains. Wouldn't want a mundane to be able to be better artillery than a caster. They changed DR in ways which hurt fighters, but don't matter to casters, and I'm pretty sure that resistances which did matter to casters were lowered to stay in line with the new "lower" DR values.

They did add a few higher level fighter feats, stuff like Greater Weapon Specialization! But after years of play experience adding THAT as a high level fighter feat was just adding insult to injury.

DougL

And then, many years later, Pathfinder did exactly the same thing.

Psyren

2011-10-25, 02:25 PM

If you could actually warp reality at will, you would be able to do fairly much anything you could imagine, but in fact you have to learn a bunch of spells which by and large have fairly consistent and limited effects - fireball always produces a ball of fire - you can't decide to change it to frost, or a cylinder or cube, for example (yes, I accept that there are exceptions to this).

I'm not at all sure what you're getting at. Yes, a spell is by definition a very specific method of warping reality, which can be made somewhat less specific with the right metamagic feats or class abilities. That's the point of spells - discrete ways to affect reality that can be learned by and taught to others.

The fact that you can only warp reality in discrete, specific ways doesn't make you less powerful. It means you have to employ strategy in order to use your powers rather than simply handwaving all of your problems away.

Curious

2011-10-25, 02:27 PM

Answer 1: Because if fighters had options they would be casters.

No they would not. This is in fact, the attitude that has led to most martial characters in 3.5 and PF being the closest thing to worthless you can get without actually being an NPC.

Provengreil

2011-10-25, 03:04 PM

Gnaeus

2011-10-25, 03:14 PM

If a caster can do something in the books above, they can probably do it in 1st - 3.5 edition D&D. And that includes plenty of quickly activated "combat magic" and "new powers as the plot demands" magic, especially in the case of Jack Vance and Tolkien, which early editions of D&D draw most heavily on.

And actually, I think that is a good design philosophy. If a caster can do something in iconic fantasy, it should be doable in D&D.

Where they failed is in putting limits on the range of what an individual caster can do. If a single wizard can either see the future or turn into a dragon or summon demons or be invisible or make magic swords, any of those could have a useful party role along with a mundane PCs. As it is in 3.5, a single wizard can do all of those things, and more, on the same day.

ThatLovin'Elan

2011-10-25, 03:22 PM

maybe another rule saying successful AoO's stop movement?

It's called "Stand Still (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/stand-still-combat---final)." There's builds based around it :D

Sucrose

2011-10-25, 03:27 PM

I'm not at all sure what you're getting at. Yes, a spell is by definition a very specific method of warping reality, which can be made somewhat less specific with the right metamagic feats or class abilities. That's the point of spells - discrete ways to affect reality that can be learned by and taught to others.

The fact that you can only warp reality in discrete, specific ways doesn't make you less powerful. It means you have to employ strategy in order to use your powers rather than simply handwaving all of your problems away.

The fact that you can only 'warp reality' in discrete, specific ways suggests very strongly that you do not have the ability to warp reality at all, but only the ability to abuse a deeper understanding of reality to produce discrete, specific effects. Ultimately, when you make certain gestures, within a certain frame of mind, and observe that it creates a fireball, you aren't doing something that is qualitatively different from a swordsman swinging a sword, and observing that it cuts through his opponent's innards. Both are still within the laws of the magical universe you are playing in.

When this is taken into consideration, there's no reason to suppose that high levels of martial skill couldn't similarly tap into the fundamental magical reality of the setting with a high enough degree of focus. Thus, it's not a valid reason to assume that spellcasters should always have access to more powerful effects than noncasters.

Curious

2011-10-25, 03:43 PM

-Snip-

Thank you. This is basically how I see the argument, only stated much more eloquently. :smallsmile:

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-10-25, 03:54 PM

*snip*Seems to me like the Psychic Warrior and the Duskblade are the martial fellows who can tap into magic. On a greater scale, it seems like you're saying "why not make everyone magic?" Well, sometimes people don't like playing people who can use magic. They like playing badass normals. And if you have someone who can't bend reality do crazy stuff with magic because that's not how the player sees the character, well, balancing that guy with a wizard is going to entail limiting what the wizard can do relative to 3.5 rules.

Then again one can work around 3.5 imbalance and make a nice game out of it, so take that as you will.

Kenneth

2011-10-25, 04:03 PM

I 100% do not think Sucrose was saying 'give everybody magic' But that in D&D reality is not our reality but a magical reality where you can walk to a aplce where islands float in the sky and gaint insects and aracnids exits contrary to our 'establish' set rules of reality.

what He is getting I think is that just becuase spell casters can do amazing powerful things does not mean that mundanes cannot.

Look at what all Conan was capabe of, or any of the Knights of the round table. then you have all teh greek heroes and lets not forget Beowulf..

What he (Sucrose) is saying I feel is that Mundanes should have abilities that are on par with the magic casters get, and to an extent ToB rectified that mistake but by and large all of those 'effect's are about hitting somebody with your stick.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-10-25, 04:08 PM

Well, maybe I misinterpreted, but it's worth noting that Warblades are T3 to the Wizards' T1. That's because while something like IHS might seem a bit magical, overall it's not. They're not tapping into the same source of crazy wonky shenanigans that the full casters are tapping into.

Psyren

2011-10-25, 04:48 PM

The fact that you can only 'warp reality' in discrete, specific ways suggests very strongly that you do not have the ability to warp reality at all, but only the ability to abuse a deeper understanding of reality to produce discrete, specific effects. Ultimately, when you make certain gestures, within a certain frame of mind, and observe that it creates a fireball, you aren't doing something that is qualitatively different from a swordsman swinging a sword, and observing that it cuts through his opponent's innards. Both are still within the laws of the magical universe you are playing in.

When this is taken into consideration, there's no reason to suppose that high levels of martial skill couldn't similarly tap into the fundamental magical reality of the setting with a high enough degree of focus. Thus, it's not a valid reason to assume that spellcasters should always have access to more powerful effects than noncasters.

Ah, but casters can quite explicitly warp reality, it just comes later on - Wish, Miracle etc. Doing so can have severe consequences, which effectively means they are breaking laws rather than being forced to stay within them as you suggest.

Melee cannot do this. They can tap into fundamentals of reality as you say, and ToB's maneuvers represent this quite well, but they also represent the limits of what martial skill can enable you to do. Physical fighting, no matter how good you get at it, can only ever teach you how the the world works on a rudimentary, instinctive level.

"But Psyren," I can hear you say, "Sorcerers acquire power instinctively too!" Yes, but sorcerer power also comes from highly magical or cosmic sources somewhere in their bloodline; dragons, elementals, celestial bodies, extranormal entities etc. In their case, just as it is with Warlocks and Wilders, pure instinct is not enough.

NNescio

2011-10-25, 05:01 PM

Which in the context of D&D, is very subtle. :smallbiggrin:

It's a sixth-level spell though. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireSeeds.htm) :smallbiggrin:

JaronK

2011-10-25, 05:04 PM

Well, Crusaders already channel divine power into their sword strikes. I see nothing wrong the idea of melees doing things like internalizing magical prowess into making their abilities better as opposed to simply casting spells... sort of like Shadowrun Adepts. If we're going to have levels where Wizards can build castles in their spare time, I have no problem with a warrior cutting a castle wall in half with a single sword stroke. If Wizards can reshape reality, I want warriors to resist that effect with nothing but their force of will.

JaronK

Coidzor

2011-10-25, 05:05 PM

Kenneth

2011-10-25, 05:14 PM

in reghards to JaronK's post above me. as my groups tend to be more into story telling as opposed to rules and mechanics I allow such things in my game. a warrior thorugh sheer combat prowess and bad-assery-ness Hits a wall with his mace and it crumbles to the ground.

while Warriors ( i use the term to repsernt combat via mano e mano with weapons focused classes) are never going to be able to summon archons or have wish shenanigans, they should be and in my games are able to do amazing things standard D&D never has allowed them to do, its nice to see one fo the big respected 3rd ed guys to have a view point very similar to mine.

its very refreshing and one of those things that allows one to keep playing a game he feels ' they did wrong'
and by did wrong I mean they never really embraced the iconic archetype of fantasy warriors, such as conan, gilgamesh, robin hood, and other's feats the performed a number of times. but they tossed in every archetype the world had to offer for all things caster related.

Sucrose

2011-10-25, 05:16 PM

Ah, but casters can quite explicitly warp reality, it just comes later on - Wish, Miracle etc. Doing so can have severe consequences, which effectively means they are breaking laws rather than being forced to stay within them as you suggest.

Melee cannot do this. They can tap into fundamentals of reality as you say, and ToB's maneuvers represent this quite well, but they also represent the limits of what martial skill can enable you to do. Physical fighting, no matter how good you get at it, can only ever teach you how the the world works on a rudimentary, instinctive level.

"But Psyren," I can hear you say, "Sorcerers acquire power instinctively too!" Yes, but sorcerer power also comes from highly magical or cosmic sources somewhere in their bloodline; dragons, elementals, celestial bodies, extranormal entities etc. In their case, just as it is with Warlocks and Wilders, pure instinct is not enough.

I'd have to disagree; Tome of Battle maneuvers don't represent the sensible limits of martial skill in a world that has easily-manipulable fundamental forces that permit the complete warping of planets. They are just part of its elements.

A high-level martial character can already cheerily take a bath in lava, and, if built properly, tear apart gods and beasts hundreds of times their size. What needs to happen is for this level of extrapolation of abilities to be applied in more ways. A high-level warrior's skill with a blade should be such that he can perceive the minute flaws in a Wall of Force, and cut through it, just as a level 3 Warblade can batter through stone almost as readily as an equivalent amount of tissue paper. A strong warrior should be able to move through Solid Fog more easily than a weak warrior. A high-level warrior should be able to act almost as though under the protection of Freedom of Movement. A level 5 Warblade can jump like someone with a twenty-foot lead up, from a standing start. A level 11 Warblade should be able to drop-kick a dragon.

Axinian

2011-10-25, 05:27 PM

A level 11 Warblade should be able to drop-kick a dragon.

Can I sig this for truth?

Psyren

2011-10-25, 05:31 PM

Here's the thing, we actually agree on these examples. I agree that sufficient strength/training should be able to break through force effects, or let you force your way through thick fog... or drop-kick dragons. (Though I think the Swordsage would be more likely to do that.)

What I don't agree with are the less... direct applications, or less physical I suppose. I saw strange examples like "I swing my sword so hard it rearranges the fabric of reality, duplicating a wish spell." Or, "I grab his deceased spirit and piledrive it back into his body, duplicating raise dead." Amusing certainly, but not at all consistent with any D&D world I've read, and letting fighters do that kind of stuff means why have separate casters at all? (Maybe Exalted...)

Even the Desert Wind stuff is pushing it for me, though creating fire from a combination of extreme kinetic energy and mental discipline is at least within reason.

Kenneth

2011-10-25, 06:12 PM

I grab his deceased spirit and piledrive it back into his body, duplicating raise dead.

Sorryt o derail the thread here.. but THAT IS TOTALLY AWESOME..

now to make a barbian version of a cleric much like the one guys made barabian version of the wizard only his somatic component of casting raise dead IS piledrivign, etc etc

that seems very anime-ish to me bt the way. so actually i would never do it.

but barring extremem ( and i think far fecthed and really grasping at straws) examples such as hitting soemthing with a dagger and making a wish etc A warrior of sufficeintly high enough level should ignore silly rules that get in his way of bieng a arse kicker, such as fog cloud and wall of force. sunder those walls and just plain preten teh fog isn't even there.

Jeraa

2011-10-25, 06:37 PM

One of the (few) changes I like about Pathfinder is that walls of force and similiar can be broken. It just isn't easy.

A wall of force creates an invisible wall of pure force. The wall cannot move and is not easily destroyed. A wall of force is immune to dispel magic, although a mage's disjunction can still dispel it. A wall of force can be damaged by spells as normal, except for disintegrate, which automatically destroys it. It can be damaged by weapons and supernatural abilities, but a wall of force has hardness 30 and a number of hit points equal to 20 per caster level. Contact with a sphere of annihilation or rod of cancellation instantly destroys a wall of force.

Hardness 30 and 180 hit points minimum isn't easy, but its doable.

And note that it is possible to destroy a wall of force in 3.X. Its just a class feature of an epic class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/prestigeClasses/legendaryDreadnought.htm) instead of something anyone can do. Even then, it can only be done limited times per day.

Sucrose

2011-10-25, 07:01 PM

Feel free, Axinien.

Here's the thing, we actually agree on these examples. I agree that sufficient strength/training should be able to break through force effects, or let you force your way through thick fog... or drop-kick dragons. (Though I think the Swordsage would be more likely to do that.)

What I don't agree with are the less... direct applications, or less physical I suppose. I saw strange examples like "I swing my sword so hard it rearranges the fabric of reality, duplicating a wish spell." Or, "I grab his deceased spirit and piledrive it back into his body, duplicating raise dead." Amusing certainly, but not at all consistent with any D&D world I've read, and letting fighters do that kind of stuff means why have separate casters at all? (Maybe Exalted...)

I agree that there should be things that casters can generally do that fighters cannot, just as there are some things (take a punch from a storm giant) that a warrior can do that an equivalent-level caster generally should not. However, the things that casters can do that warriors cannot are not such a broad category that it should result in the broad power differences in the classes that we see in my favorite edition.

The main problems of 3.5 mundane warriors (mobility, counters to battlefield control, action economy abuse, weakness to status effects, inability to use skills effectively (though that's mostly a problem for the Fighter and its ilk)) are not problems that could not be solved via the extrapolation of abilities that we apparently agree on.

Raise Dead should be available to warriors, however. Just have to be strong enough to beat down the grim reaper, and force him to return the character's soul. Since it was doable by Heracles, it should be available to D&D-style warriors.:smalltongue:

(Slightly less tongue-in-cheek, epic medicine skills to return the 'dead' to functionality should be available, but neither they nor clerics should be able to push things too much until the extremely high levels, IMO (probably with the clerics getting it a bit sooner).)

Endarire

2011-10-25, 08:01 PM

Because 3.x is made by Wizards of the Coast, not Fighters of the Coast.

Nevermind the Druid lovers who snuck into 3.5.

Maybe WotC realized the imbalance but went with it anyway since magic is cooler than nonmagic.

And, really, before Tome of Battle, non-casters were assumed to do their less interesting thing more often.

Venger

2011-11-11, 05:31 PM

like all fictional things, the explanation for this lies in meta reasons, that is, things primarily outside of universe.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards

in general, the sorts of people who enjoy playing D&D, myself included, are more of the studious, scholarly bent that is more akin to the wizard than it is to the fighter, who shares more in common with those who we didn't get along with in high school, especially back before it was in vogue to be geeky/nerdy thanks to things like "the big bang theory" and the works of joss whedon.

it's a way of us looking down on those who choose to strengthen their bodies over their minds, which, again, generally, for us players, is how we feel.

vitkiraven

2011-11-11, 11:50 PM

in general, the sorts of people who enjoy playing D&D, myself included, are more of the studious, scholarly bent that is more akin to the wizard than it is to the fighter, who shares more in common with those who we didn't get along with in high school, especially back before it was in vogue to be geeky/nerdy thanks to things like "the big bang theory" and the works of joss whedon.

it's a way of us looking down on those who choose to strengthen their bodies over their minds, which, again, generally, for us players, is how we feel.

Except for those of us that were studious by nature, and came from hard working families where strength was also of value? :smallbiggrin: While I do feel that your words are very likely to have a lot of truth to them in the situation, utilizing a game as a way to vicariously experience the thrills of something you normally couldn't is an equally valid choice. This should lead to benefits to both, rather than a more than lopsided ratio of power and "coolness" to the sycophantic spellwielders, than the brave and noble savage barbarians.:smallbiggrin:

Venger

2011-11-12, 02:01 AM

Except for those of us that were studious by nature, and came from hard working families where strength was also of value? :smallbiggrin: While I do feel that your words are very likely to have a lot of truth to them in the situation, utilizing a game as a way to vicariously experience the thrills of something you normally couldn't is an equally valid choice. This should lead to benefits to both, rather than a more than lopsided ratio of power and "coolness" to the sycophantic spellwielders, than the brave and noble savage barbarians.:smallbiggrin:

oh, I couldn't agree with you more, my parents always taught me the importance of a strong mind and a strong body. I understand what you mean, which was why I said I was speaking generally, of course not everyone views the classes the same way. I agree it's just as likely you'd want to play as a brave barbarian than as a wizard, they've both got special powers you don't.

vitkiraven

2011-11-12, 08:47 AM

oh, I couldn't agree with you more, my parents always taught me the importance of a strong mind and a strong body. I understand what you mean, which was why I said I was speaking generally, of course not everyone views the classes the same way. I agree it's just as likely you'd want to play as a brave barbarian than as a wizard, they've both got special powers you don't.
Exactly, except when you get to the brave warrior saving his kingdom from a nefarious necromancer, or the wild eyed barbarian who hunts those who kneel to the foul extraplanar powers, there is no way to really do it honestly, at least without a prestige class that was in 3.0, that I guess was just too strong to be brought forward, or leaning heavily on third party stuff.
I've played Bards, and wrecked the campaign at level 2. I prefer the savage barbarian or the intellectual Warblade, but the major **** *** thing that the retched conjurers of the edge sands decided, was to drop the trope of wizard killer, and service the fanboiz of spellcasters like "a back alley copper piece harlot".:smallbiggrin:
Of course, some people are quite okay to focus on the inadequacy that the feel and "show you are better than those jocks". I've gotten to the point that as a DM, I am so sick of the overpowering spellcaster types that I am heavily considering wielding the +5 Nerfing Banning Minotaur Greathammer upside the collective spellcasters head for my next campaign, like a true barbarian. It's already gotten to the point that I hate the thought of a spellcaster at all, but then most of the distaste I probably have is because of the character ops that focus on those sycophantic seekers of ill gotten power.
I can't understand why people cring at the thought of a warrior type killing something in one hit, but think nothing of a wizard that has a nebulous grasp of the powers that he is (barely) unleashing upon foes.:smallyuk:

Slipperychicken

2011-11-12, 09:28 AM

Raise Dead should be available to warriors, however. Just have to be strong enough to beat down the grim reaper, and force him to return the character's soul.

That sounds like an awesome mechanical idea. Including the allegory that your character is literally fighting off death. Death's power level should probably scale in porportion to level, age category, and number of times you defeated him before. Probably include something about being able to choose to fight or not, and if you do, if you lose you can't be rezzed or something.

vitkiraven

2011-11-12, 09:58 AM

That sounds like an awesome mechanical idea. Including the allegory that your character is literally fighting off death. Death's power level should probably scale in porportion to level, age category, and number of times you defeated him before. Probably include something about being able to choose to fight or not, and if you do, if you lose you can't be rezzed or something.

A sullen warrior stands on a dusty field, the battle done, and his wounds bandaged. His weak-bodied wizard travelling companion has fallen, victim to a house-cat (I thought that only happened to commoners, the blade-wielder thinks). With a mournful tone to his voice, he focuses his mind, assumes battle stance, and speaks.
"Death, I have danced with you many times, and in many forms. Ever have I been one step away from your chilling embrace. This time, I must fight you in person. This time, I must fight for the soul of my friend. I fight for Overpwerus, the Magus. He who's body lies before me. Felled by a feline most evil, he was taken before his time. Come and fight with me for his soul!"
A shadowy figure in torn robes appears in front of the fighter, with a scythe in one hand. He gestures to the fighter, and then to the body. As the fighter nods, a chilling voice emanates from under the hood.
"You know the cost of what you are trying to do? You know what will happen if you fail? Do you still seek to attempt this foolish endeavor?"
"Yes, of course, for my ally, for my friend.", the fighter replies, determined to bring back the one he could not save.
"The let it commence.", Death says as he brings the scythe to bear against the fighter in a clash over the mage's soul.

Hmm... sounds fantasy enough, how about using the stats for Death from the Deck of Many Things. Each time the attempt is made, advance the HD by 1, including all bonus feats and BAB. If the Fighter fails, Death takes his soul too. How does that sound?

Ziegander

2011-11-12, 10:11 AM

For that sort of thing, I would probably just have "Death" take the form of whatever killed the PC. Maybe with some undead/ghost template(s), maybe not. Sometimes this will not be a creature at all (PC died from falling damage, or from a poison pit trap, or whatever). In those cases "Death" takes the form of a challenge, presenting a circumstance identical to that in which the PC died and requiring that the character attempting the resurrection overcome the challenge in some satisfactory manner (and without dying themselves, of course).

vitkiraven

2011-11-12, 10:19 AM

Could easily work too, except that fighters are really only good (if you can call it that) at one thing, fighting, and I just thought since they had already did the work of stating Death, it would be an easy port in... Maybe I'll use it for an E-6 capstone feat (fighter only).

RedWarrior0

2011-11-12, 12:15 PM

Of course, if you beat him just before he is fended off, he nails you with a 1-level energy drain and a bill for a couple thousand dollars in diamond?

Sucrose

2011-11-12, 12:19 PM

Of course, if you beat him just before he is fended off, he nails you with a 1-level energy drain and a bill for a couple thousand dollars in diamond?

Who says that such a methodology would have to be mechanically identical, if you succeed, to a Raise Dead spell? I'd say that if you manage to beat Death, then you don't have to deal with any further problems, really.

Edit: Well, actually, one would want death to mean something, even if you are a basically unmatchable fighting demigod. Perhaps the person comes back with a negative level per time you have fought off Death, which they need to save against keeping permanently, as Death leaves more and more of a mark on their souls, which it does not bother to remove after being beaten into returning them, rather than asked nicely (the Raise Dead line).

MukkTB

2011-11-12, 12:33 PM

I'd be happier segregating magic powers into different classes than making all fighters magical.

Raising an undead army, summoning demons, turning into a dragon, throwing fireballs, teleporting, turning lead into gold, and enchanting the local princess while polymorphing her lover into a toad are all fine. A character that can do all those things is not.

I'd rather see the wizard cleric and druid (+the other tier 1 and 2s) broken down into tier 3 or 4 components. Things like the Dread Necromancer and the Healer. There are many magical archetypes to fill from different stories. It shouldn't be the job of one class to try to fill so many.

Venger

2011-11-12, 12:47 PM

Exactly, except when you get to the brave warrior saving his kingdom from a nefarious necromancer, or the wild eyed barbarian who hunts those who kneel to the foul extraplanar powers, there is no way to really do it honestly, at least without a prestige class that was in 3.0, that I guess was just too strong to be brought forward, or leaning heavily on third party stuff.
I've played Bards, and wrecked the campaign at level 2. I prefer the savage barbarian or the intellectual Warblade, but the major **** *** thing that the retched conjurers of the edge sands decided, was to drop the trope of wizard killer, and service the fanboiz of spellcasters like "a back alley copper piece harlot".:smallbiggrin:
Of course, some people are quite okay to focus on the inadequacy that the feel and "show you are better than those jocks". I've gotten to the point that as a DM, I am so sick of the overpowering spellcaster types that I am heavily considering wielding the +5 Nerfing Banning Minotaur Greathammer upside the collective spellcasters head for my next campaign, like a true barbarian. It's already gotten to the point that I hate the thought of a spellcaster at all, but then most of the distaste I probably have is because of the character ops that focus on those sycophantic seekers of ill gotten power.
I can't understand why people cring at the thought of a warrior type killing something in one hit, but think nothing of a wizard that has a nebulous grasp of the powers that he is (barely) unleashing upon foes.:smallyuk:

are you by any chance referring to Masters of the Wild's Forsaker PrC?

because if you are, you are awesome.

I love your writeup of these things, they sound hilarious, I'd love to play with you sometime, I could run a meattank guy I've wanted to for a while, a half-orc barbarian x/somethingx called Totag, a sort of warrior poet who flies into a berserker rage in the traditional way, by tasting blood. he's the kind who would fight death repeatedly and not see anything wrong with it

vitkiraven

2011-11-12, 12:53 PM

are you by any chance referring to Masters of the Wild's Forsaker PrC?

because if you are, you are awesome.

I love your writeup of these things, they sound hilarious, I'd love to play with you sometime, I could run a meattank guy I've wanted to for a while, a half-orc barbarian x/somethingx called Totag, a sort of warrior poet who flies into a berserker rage in the traditional way, by tasting blood. he's the kind who would fight death repeatedly and not see anything wrong with it

Yeah, I was obliquely referring to the Forsaker PRC. I don't know if they thought the occult slayer was an update, but it's no where near in line for what the job description says it is. If I ever end up getting the campaign I am writing together, it'd be an E-6 Campaign. Maybe I'll do it for Online, who knows? I had a Half Ogre Barb that was played a little too dim for his Intelligence (After Racial, had a 12, and played him like an 8 or a 6). I think the Melee are more fun for me, just because I don't have to worry about breaking the campaign world, but that's my mileage.

EDIT: But I have been known as a killer DM, one where if you don't catch the minutiae, it can get the party tpk. I also use C.O.C. for spell casters, so not a lot of fun for that type.

Psyren

2011-11-12, 01:14 PM

I'd rather see the wizard cleric and druid (+the other tier 1 and 2s) broken down into tier 3 or 4 components. Things like the Dread Necromancer and the Healer. There are many magical archetypes to fill from different stories. It shouldn't be the job of one class to try to fill so many.

I like this idea too, and there's plenty of homebrew on this site to capture such a concept.

I agree that there should be things that casters can generally do that fighters cannot, just as there are some things (take a punch from a storm giant) that a warrior can do that an equivalent-level caster generally should not. However, the things that casters can do that warriors cannot are not such a broad category that it should result in the broad power differences in the classes that we see in my favorite edition.

Actually, I do think that a wizard should be able to take a punch from a storm giant - if he prepares for it. Say, with an Iron Body or Transformation spell. But he should have to give up most of his other utility to do it. None of this Shapechange nonsense that transplants your mind into the body of a Steel Dragon/Solar and you keep all your native casting ability; If you want to turn into something that can take a blow like that you can, but then you become an overgrown muggle too. Thus wizards will still have the option of mimicking the fighter, but they actually have to decide between doing his job and theirs rather than doing both at once.

Sucrose

2011-11-12, 01:47 PM

I like this idea too, and there's plenty of homebrew on this site to capture such a concept.

Actually, I do think that a wizard should be able to take a punch from a storm giant - if he prepares for it. Say, with an Iron Body or Transformation spell. But he should have to give up most of his other utility to do it. None of this Shapechange nonsense that transplants your mind into the body of a Steel Dragon/Solar and you keep all your native casting ability; If you want to turn into something that can take a blow like that you can, but then you become an overgrown muggle too. Thus wizards will still have the option of mimicking the fighter, but they actually have to decide between doing his job and theirs rather than doing both at once.

I suppose I can see that (personal enhancement spells and shapeshifting are somewhat iconic), but I'd want for the mimicking to be substantially inferior to an equal-levelled warrior, unless the caster basically pours all of his major resources into it. Otherwise, you end up with the same problem as we have right now with Clerics, in that they can do everything the Fighter can, and then cast spells later. It grants the casters too much flexibility.

Venger

2011-11-12, 01:55 PM

Yeah, I was obliquely referring to the Forsaker PRC. I don't know if they thought the occult slayer was an update, but it's no where near in line for what the job description says it is. If I ever end up getting the campaign I am writing together, it'd be an E-6 Campaign. Maybe I'll do it for Online, who knows? I had a Half Ogre Barb that was played a little too dim for his Intelligence (After Racial, had a 12, and played him like an 8 or a 6). I think the Melee are more fun for me, just because I don't have to worry about breaking the campaign world, but that's my mileage.

EDIT: But I have been known as a killer DM, one where if you don't catch the minutiae, it can get the party tpk. I also use C.O.C. for spell casters, so not a lot of fun for that type.

Awesome. I love that class. would you allow it? assuming a half-orc, I could qualify at the last lvl with iron will, lightning reflexes, and great fortitude mixed and matched as needed at level 1, 3, and 6, and then with the final level being forsaker, an appropriate enough capstone for E6. its nonreliance on magic stuffs will also be useful in an E6 game where it's not as important to have it. SR 11 will also be pretty great where base CLs are capped at 6 to help resist magical guys

sure! I feel much the same way. playing a melee guy with a group of noobs is also a good way to make sure that they don't feel overshadowed

never played in a game like that, it might be fun to have a change of pace, and I haven't played E6 before either. shoot me a PM if you get an online game running, it sounds like a good time

vitkiraven

2011-11-12, 02:04 PM

Awesome. I love that class. would you allow it? assuming a half-orc, I could qualify at the last lvl with iron will, lightning reflexes, and great fortitude mixed and matched as needed at level 1, 3, and 6, and then with the final level being forsaker, an appropriate enough capstone for E6. its nonreliance on magic stuffs will also be useful in an E6 game where it's not as important to have it. SR 11 will also be pretty great where base CLs are capped at 6 to help resist magical guys

With a bit of Cheese, you can actually start out as a Forsaker, technically, if I decide to allow flaws, lol.

As for the setting, I'll let you know this, about 200 years ago the Wizard-Wars happened, a great continent wide battle that devastated the area, humanoids abound, lots of prejudice against spellcasters in the campaign setting.

Vizzerdrix

2011-11-12, 02:05 PM

I'll be interested to see what 5th edition ends up being like, seeing that Cook's back on board.

I don't mean to derail, but you're not the first person I've seen mention this. What gives?:smallconfused:

Emperor Tippy

2011-11-12, 02:10 PM

I suppose I can see that (personal enhancement spells and shapeshifting are somewhat iconic), but I'd want for the mimicking to be substantially inferior to an equal-levelled warrior, unless the caster basically pours all of his major resources into it. Otherwise, you end up with the same problem as we have right now with Clerics, in that they can do everything the Fighter can, and then cast spells later. It grants the casters too much flexibility.
Stop playing the caster down to the level of the fighter, rebuild the fighter types so that they are much more useful instead. Give them class features that actually matter in fights and can't be replicated by shapechange or the like.

Coidzor

2011-11-12, 02:17 PM

Stop playing the caster down to the level of the fighter, rebuild the fighter types so that they are much more useful instead. Give them class features that actually matter in fights and can't be replicated by shapechange or the like.

Indeed, the problem with most warrior types is that they don't really get anything unique to them for use in battle, which is what allows the cleric to so effectively supplant them just by getting full BAB from a spell. Though the cleric's spells to become a melee badass are all pretty comparable to the buffs a gish would place on itself, and by technicality, both cleric and druid come out of the box as gish-types...

BAB is just not enough, as even WOTC at the end there learned.

Psyren

2011-11-12, 02:19 PM

I don't mean to derail, but you're not the first person I've seen mention this. What gives?:smallconfused:

http://www.examiner.com/rpg-in-national/is-monte-cook-working-on-5th-edition

Emperor Tippy

2011-11-12, 02:24 PM

Indeed, the problem with most warrior types is that they don't really get anything unique to them for use in battle, which is what allows the cleric to so effectively supplant them just by getting full BAB from a spell. Though the cleric's spells to become a melee badass are all pretty comparable to the buffs a gish would place on itself, and by technicality, both cleric and druid come out of the box as gish-types...

BAB is just not enough, as even WOTC at the end there learned.

Yeah, a homebrew class of mine gains the ability to make an attack roll (at full AB) against the save DC of any spell that targets them or passes through a square that they threaten (if the character uses this option it replaces there save) and on any SR:Yes spell against them they roll an attack roll (again at full AB) opposed to the casters SR roll (this is in addition to any SR that they character has, casters only get to roll SR once and it applies to both).

Sure, it was the classes main feature (they could absorb spells that they effectively defend against and use that power to do other things) but it makes the fighter types down right nasty while also making them viable meat shields and fitting thematically.

Hmm, I might actually post that entire class in the homebrew forums.

Vizzerdrix

2011-11-12, 02:25 PM

Ah, thanks Psyren :)

Venger

2011-11-12, 02:28 PM

With a bit of Cheese, you can actually start out as a Forsaker, technically, if I decide to allow flaws, lol.

As for the setting, I'll let you know this, about 200 years ago the Wizard-Wars happened, a great continent wide battle that devastated the area, humanoids abound, lots of prejudice against spellcasters in the campaign setting.

oh, I'm aware of that, I just always build my guys assuming no flaws are allowed and being pleasantly surprised if they are. awesome! forsaker6 will doubtless be an action packed thrill ride, if that's the case.

great! thanks for the info. :smallsmile:

Coidzor

2011-11-12, 05:17 PM

Hmm, I might actually post that entire class in the homebrew forums.

I'd read it. :smallbiggrin:

Sucrose

2011-11-12, 05:22 PM

Stop playing the caster down to the level of the fighter, rebuild the fighter types so that they are much more useful instead. Give them class features that actually matter in fights and can't be replicated by shapechange or the like.

Please read things within the context in which they are written. It was not about how design works now, but about what the general capacities of casters and martial types should be in order to have an entertaining game. Consequently, it is completely irrelevant whether Tier 5 warrior classes are replicable by a single Polymorph transforming one's self into an equal-HD creature of some sort.

Psyren proposed that casters, with sufficient preparation, should be able to do the same sorts of things as the martial types. If the spells that Psyren proposed were available, it would not matter which class you used as your martial baseline: the magic-types would still be superior, because they could replicate all of your abilities (including that spell deflection idea you had), or, if they prefer, they could cast spells. They would thereby have the versatility to do all that the fighter-types could do, and more.

To reiterate, my discussion is about what the Fighter should be able to do. It is not about the Fighter as presently written. I prefer for martial types to be in the Tier 3 range (I am inordinately fond of Warblades). I also prefer that casters wind up around there. So I will play down the caster, just as I play up the fighter. If I wanted to play as an unlimited god, I would play freeform.

That said, I would just like to mention:

I greatly enjoyed your writeup of the evolution of the Tippyverse. Sounds like a fun setting, if one has the stats for Shadesteel Golems, and it does make total sense for the present state of magic in D&D. Which is rather why I would like to develop system rules that would allow for less-magic-dominated settings to possibly exist (by RAW rather than gentlemen's agreement), if I feel like adventuring in them today.

share and enjoy

2011-11-12, 11:43 PM

I think something else that makes the power difference is how much harder it is to counter magic options as opposed to mundane options.

If you look at something like a trip build really all you need to do is start throwing things that can't be tripped at them stuff that's much larger or that are immune; same for something like disarm where you can just throw something with natural weapons.

Spell casting however is next to impossible to properly counter they have ways of getting around most ways of resisting magic spells that ignore SR and the like or just shape-changing and completely altering their approach all their options are much easier to do well.

It may very well be that they had the impression that magic users were all but useless outside of magic and taking that away would leave them with nothing to do but they assumed that even if a tripper couldn't trip he could still beat a mook up.

I always get the impression looking over magic and non-magic options that they wrote the non-magic then wrote a bunch of ways to counter them but with magic they made things that could be used to against magic then wrote magical counters to those.

this is all probably terribly written and hard to understand but what I'm trying to get at there are a lot more ways to counter non-caster options but casters have a lot of options to get around caster-counters.

Kenneth

2011-11-13, 12:02 AM

I know for me that a lot of things that I feel soudl come innately in teh martial classes, are instead put in prestige classes. case in point teh epci prestige class legendary drednaught and teh Tactical soldier form minitatures handbook should be class abilities rolle dino teh fighter from teh get go IMO..

I know that with 3rd ed they (WoTC) tried to codify everything so teh things that fighters go in 1st/2nd via roleplaying a battle was left out of teh 'core' of the class.

if you take the abilities of those prestige classes and put them into the base of th fighter.. i bett eh fighter see sa BIG push in a more powerful and versatile role.