[3.5] Help Me Reconcile Something

[Thurbane]

Please help me understand something:

Many people bemoan how overpowered full casters are (especially tier 1 and 2), and how they can make the game un-fun with their ability to overcome nearly any challenge while barely breaking a sweat.

Yet there is also a holy-mantra among nearly everyone when giving character building advice "never give up caster levels"...

How do these two opinions co-exist? Surely if full caster's are breaking the game, then them losing a few caster levels wouldn't be such a bad thing? I think it would still be entirely possible for a Wizard to dominate, even if he could only throw around 7th or 8th level spells, no? Am I missing something important? Do these two opinions belong to different camps of players?

Cheers - T

[Bovine Colonel]

One's in the interest of the DM trying to balance the game, the other's in the interest of the player trying to make a strong character.

EDIT: Also, I'm sure most people here who support the tier list recognize that a game can still be fun if everyone's playing Tier 1, including the DM.

[Bakkan]

To be precise, the first rule of Optimizing (for power) is "Thou shalt not lose caster levels". Generally speaking, when a person comes on the boards asking for advice, we assume he is looking to make their character powerful unless he states otherwise.

[fluke1993]

These opinions can co-exist because:

1: Because the DM is capable of adjusting the game based on the party, a suitable DM can theoretically create a challenge for any party. The problem comes in when one group (typically T1 casters but depending on the group the party monk could even be the offender) outperforms the another (usually the fighter or the rouge) to the point where they can make far less or no meaningful contribution to the party. As such the first opinion is only true in such a party.

2: Because they apply to two different goals, in party balance and optimization respectively.

3: Because those goals are not mutually exclusive as long as everyone in the group maintains roughly the same power level. How this is done is irrelevant; for example the newb might end up playing a cleric, while the veteran plays an optimized monk. Another example would be when the an entire playgroup (DM included) decides to play with a party full of high-op T1 casters. In both examples party balance is maintained and, as long as the DM is capable, the game should go off without a hitch.

TL;DR: Opinion 1 is only true if T1 casters are creating imbalance within the party. The so long as the party balance is maintained, these opinions are not a odds.

Sidenote: When optimizing your T1 caster, caster level isn't whats important, your effective level for determining what level spells you can cast is.

[TuggyNE]

Please help me understand something:

Many people bemoan how overpowered full casters are (especially tier 1 and 2), and how they can make the game un-fun with their ability to overcome nearly any challenge while barely breaking a sweat.

Yet there is also a holy-mantra among nearly everyone when giving character building advice "never give up caster levels"...

How do these two opinions co-exist? Surely if full caster's are breaking the game, then them losing a few caster levels wouldn't be such a bad thing?

To the optimizing mindset, any (almost) strictly-inferior option is anathema: it is, in itself, unpleasant, inelegant, and distressing. So building a caster that does a bad job of being a caster is un-fun, while building a mundane or partial caster up to code can be much more enjoyable without messing up game balance.

In short, while these people do sincerely wish to maintain a good game, they don't want to do it in a way that grates on their nerves.

[geekintheground]

i see no contradiction. casters CAN break the game and make it un-fun, but if youre gonna do it, the least you can do is do it right.

[OldTrees1]

Casters can overwhelm non-casters or lower level casters. So a 17th level Wizard (9th level spells) is an overwhelming opponent to a party relying on a 15 ECL Wizard that lost 2 caster levels (7th level spells).

If full casters are breaking a game then it is wise for both magicuser PCs and the DM's magicuser NPCs to lose spell levels in order to rebalance the playing field.

[Redshirt Army]

You're right - a caster who missed several caster levels, due to PrCs or multiclassing, would likely still have an advantage over an equivalent level lower tier character (with the magnitude of the advantage depending on the number of caster levels dropped).

However, because spell-casting is so powerful, almost no class features are ever worth exchanging for caster levels, purely from a character optimization viewpoint. If I wanted to play a weaker character, for balance reasons or so that the DM could run a particular plot he had in mind, I would have picked a lower tier character from the start - it's just more elegant that way. (Basically what TuggyNE said.)

[Gwendol]

From a character-building perspective, losing caster levels isn't a big deal. From an optimization perspective it sure is a deal. So, the apparant conflict depends on the desired goal: building a character to an imagined set of abilities, or optimizing a character to highest acheivable power? Note that these two need not be mutually exclusive.

[Captnq]

Simple:

Just because something is broken, doesn't mean I cannot twist it to my advantage. There's what's good for the game, and what's good for ME.

[Drachasor]

One's about what sort of behavior the game encourages in players.

The other is about the outcome of that behavior.

[Thurbane]

So basically, if the group is happy for players to break the game, make sure you break it as efficiently as you can?

[ryu]

So basically, if the group is happy for players to break the game, make sure you break it as efficiently as you can?

If the group is playing tier one or higher in power don't make obviously suboptimal moves? For example a fighter in a group of tier ones is just as out of place and rude of a choice as a wizard in a group of tier fives.

[Psyren]

Many people bemoan how overpowered full casters are (especially tier 1 and 2), and how they can make the game un-fun with their ability to overcome nearly any challenge while barely breaking a sweat.

"They can" does not mean "they will."

[Tvtyrant]

Why do scientists talk about making the world a better place while inventing mustard gas? Because the system is independent of its morals.

[johnbragg]

It's two sides of the same coin. High level spells are the most powerful thing in the game, for good or ill.

That means that a mid- to high-level Tier 1 caster is likely to overshadow Tier 3 and 4 party members, all things being equal. Because high-level spells are that powerful.

It also means that a player trying to build the most effective caster possible would be a fool to sacrifice caster level and give up some of those powerful high-level spells. For a full caster, the answer to "what is the most productive use of my next character level" is "another caster level." Always.

Heck, my first 3.X character was a fighter, and he took Wizard 1 for his third character level because being able to cast "Shield" was a much bigger boost to his melee abilities than the +1 to BAB and a few hit points he gave up taking a Wizard level instead of a Fighter level.

[Elderand]

Why do scientists talk about making the world a better place while inventing mustard gas? Because the system is independent of its morals.

Correction, scientist talk about understanding the world better.
You can blame the engineers for misusing that knowledge. :P

[Tvtyrant]

Correction, scientist talk about understanding the world better.
You can blame the engineers for misusing that knowledge. :P

This is very fair.

[Sith_Happens]

One's in the interest of the DM trying to balance the game, the other's in the interest of the player trying to make a strong character.

This. Though note that the two are not mutually exclusive.