Casters = Tier 1, OP, "Instant Win Button," etc.

[Valtu]

As I've mentioned here in a few other posts, I'm new to the board and new to D&D in general. I've seen countless references to how most spellcasting classes (particularly the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Druid) are all of the above things.

I can definitely see how at higher levels this would certainly be true, and I suppose once you get a 4th level spell you can probably do some incredible things with Polymorph (which I am currently researching. Found a very good thread here the other day).

But still, is it that broken? I'm sure I haven't optimized at all by anyone from this board's standards, but it seems like Fighters have it pretty nice sometimes, especially at earlier levels. Once I've learned how to really use Polymorph, I'm sure I'll be able to be much more versatile, but at several times, it seems that if an enemy were to be able to get close to me (by sneaking, for instance), that I would be totally screwed.

That brings me to another point, what is so bad about Fighters? I see a lot of complaints about that class and how badly it supposedly sucks. It seems pretty versatile for a mundane class. I suppose that's mostly from all the extra feats, but still, some of the coolest-sounding things you can do as a melee character seem like they're pretty dependent on a character having some feats to spare.

Ok, I'm kind of skipping around a bit, I suppose. It's nearly Monday, give me a break :smalltongue: If caster's are so broken, at what point do they cross that threshold? Any particular level?

[Hurnn]

4th level spells is where the break starts to happen it only gets worse from there.

Fighter is simply irrelevent by about lvl 9 or 10, and before then the ToB classes are better at what fighter is suposed to do. They can be fun and powerfull with certain builds but its litteraly the only thing you can do.

[BowStreetRunner]

You really need to read THIS (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards).

[Invader]

I'd say generally when 3rd lvl spells come online things are shifted in the casters favor.

The curve for mundanes curves drastically down after a few levels and at the curve for casters turns drastically up. Part of the reason mundanes are so much better at lower levels is lower level creatures are more susceptible to being stabbed with pointy stuff.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://youtu.be/zFuMpYTyRjw)

It's really about how often a given character is useful or is capable of contributing to overcoming an obstacle vs how often a given character finds himself wishing whatever is happening was better suited to his niche while the rest of the party solves the problem. Combat is often the majority of many games, but quite often characters find themselves in situation that cannot be solved by swinging a sword. Spellcasters are almost never without a solution to a given problem, including combat, whereas nonspellcasters are seldom good at anything but combat.

[Kraken]

I'd say for an unprepared DM, even level 3 casters can cause headaches for encounter design. All on their own web, minor image, and glitterdust are just too powerful.

[ryu]

I'd say generally when 3rd lvl spells come online things are shifted in the casters favor.

The curve for mundanes curves drastically down after a few levels and at the curve for casters turns drastically up. Part of the reason mundanes are so much better at lower levels is lower level creatures are more susceptible to being stabbed with pointy stuff.

It's not so much that mundanes are good at low levels. It's just that most casters haven't come into anything near their real power at that point. A fighter is a fighter is a fighter 1-20 more or less. Most casters on the other hand grow exponentially more powerful as levels increase. I can also showcase a number of caster builds that sacrifice some long term power to be ahead from the start on a hilariously objective level. Well that and druids which just get a free mini-fighter as a class feature at level one in addition to pretty serviceable chassis, spellcasting, and later wildshaping.

[eggynack]

I'd say generally when 3rd lvl spells come online things are shifted in the casters favor.

The break does occur around that place, 3rd level spells or so, for wizards, though it's notable that it occurs at level one for a druid. Just consider a first level fighter, optimized to the extent you desire, and compare that to a riding dog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dogRiding.htm), outfitted with leather barding for +2 AC. Now, consider the fact that the riding dog is backed up always by a friendly druid companion who can toss around entangles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/entangle.htm) and shoot bullets from a sling as he pleases. There's just not much in the way of comparison there, especially when you consider all the other spell based resources the druid can bring to bear. Even core has stuff like detect magic or goodberry, and out of core has other stuff that's even more interesting.

[Invader]

It's not so much that mundanes are good example w levels. It's just tamong most casters haven't come into anything near their real power at that point. A fighter is a fighter is a fighter 1-20 more or less. Most casters on the other hand grow exponentially more powerful as levels increase. I can also showcase a number of caster builds that sacrifice some long term power to be ahead from the start on a hilariously objective level. Well that and druids which just get a free mini-fighter as a class feature at level one in addition to pretty serviceable chassis, spellcasting, and later wildshaping.

Which is exactly what I said in my post? :smallconfused:

And mundanes are most definitely better at lower levels for exactly the reason I stated (among others).

[TheIronGolem]

It's generally around level 7 or 8 that Caster Supremacy starts to rear its head, depending on the players involved.

As for Fighters, it's not that they're bad, as such. It's that they're only good at one thing, whereas the casters are not only good at ALL things that the Fighter can't do well, but they're also better than the Fighter at that one thing too. The other martial classes also have this problem to varying extents, but it's usually in the Fighter's case where the issue is most visible, since they have lousy skills and sod-all for non-combat utility.

Compounding the Fighter's problem is that he has no real class features to speak of. Bonus feats are all well and good, but very few feats compare in power or utility to real class features. The feats system is also riddled with "feat taxes"; feats like Point-Blank Shot that are practically required just to meet a minimum level of competence with a chosen fighting style (this for a class that is supposed to be the versatile man-at-arms who's mastered all forms of combat).

Basically, the Fighter comes off like a half-finished class. The best thing that can be said about it is that it's easy for new players to jump into. But that's no excuse for making them inferior to all the caster classes (and even some of the other martials) at what is supposed to be their own area of expertise.

[Nirhael]

Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://youtu.be/zFuMpYTyRjw)

As always, that video sums things up pretty well when it comes to casters vs mundanes.

[eggynack]

The feats system is also riddled with "feat taxes"; feats like Point-Blank Shot that are practically required just to meet a minimum level of competence with a chosen fighting style (this for a class that is supposed to be the versatile man-at-arms who's mastered all forms of combat).
One odd factor, likely caused by the fighter's existence, is that casters often lack something as onerous as a feat tax. There is no feat prerequisite for natural spell, nor for greenbound summoning, nor for dragon wild shape. Arcane thesis is similarly lacking in any sort of feat tax, and so is extend spell. There are counter-examples, of course, but they are more often than not the exception, while in the case of melee they are more often than not the rule.

[Qwertystop]

One odd factor, likely caused by the fighter's existence, is that casters often lack something as onerous as a feat tax. There is no feat prerequisite for natural spell, nor for greenbound summoning, nor for dragon wild shape. Arcane thesis is similarly lacking in any sort of feat tax, and so is extend spell. There are counter-examples, of course, but they are more often than not the exception, while in the case of melee they are more often than not the rule.

Yeah - it almost seems like they balanced nonmagic feats around the Fighter (who has lots of feats), but magic ones around the Sorcerer or Cleric (who don't).

[BrokenChord]

Yeah - it almost seems like they balanced nonmagic feats around the Fighter (who has lots of feats), but magic ones around the Sorcerer or Cleric (who don't).

Making Barbarians hilariously bad at trying to do anything unique.

[Valtu]

You really need to read THIS (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards).

That was a very cool article! Thanks!


Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://youtu.be/zFuMpYTyRjw)

It's really about how often a given character is useful or is capable of contributing to overcoming an obstacle vs how often a given character finds himself wishing whatever is happening was better suited to his niche while the rest of the party solves the problem. Combat is often the majority of many games, but quite often characters find themselves in situation that cannot be solved by swinging a sword. Spellcasters are almost never without a solution to a given problem, including combat, whereas nonspellcasters are seldom good at anything but combat.

Definitely agree with you there. I've really enjoyed playing a caster for the miscellaneous utility over the combat prowess. I think using a spell creatively is much more satisfying than hitting someone with a sword several times in a row. It's still too early to tell (entire party was slaughtered and we had to create new characters, rivals of our original ones, to play as) how things will turn out. We've got 4 melee characters, a dedicated Wizard, and me, a Gish, who is a Monk 1, Sorcerer 6, Enlightened Fist 3.

I think I definitely fit the whole "sacrificing long-term power for superficial early benefit" thing that someone else mentioned earlier, but I kind of have to, in order to avoid getting one-shot-killed :P

[Rhaegar14]

People keep saying that the balance issues start around 3rd or 4th level spells, but I really have to disagree with this. The VERSATILITY issues really start to show there.

But a Wizard with Sleep or Color Spray has an "I win the encounter" button at level one, assuming he's not up against a creature type immune to those effects. And people have already mentioned that a well-built Druid has a pet that's better than the Fighter from 1st level.

[ryu]

Which is exactly what I said in my post? :smallconfused:

And mundanes are most definitely better at lower levels for exactly the reason I stated (among others).

The difference here being that I'm saying the fighter doesn't curve down ever. On the power by level graph it is a perfectly horizontal line at about lets say.... five percent up the graph. Encounters scale with level to some degree. Casters are an exponential power curve from level one that change wasn't some sudden change around 3rd level spells. It was a constant upswing throughout that caster's career. And the caster can also sacrifice a small portion of his level 20 potential to start like ten to fifteen percent up the graph. Oh or is a druid or cleric in which case no sacrifice is necessary.

[TypoNinja]

Like most things its a matter of Optimization. If you play a caster the same way the game designers expected you to (Lots of evocation) you won't hugely eclipse the melee.

Its when you start busting out all the strange spells that don't do damage dice to control the battle that it really takes off. Grease, Color Spray, Everads Tentacles, Resurgence, Wings of Cover. You have dozens of options at your fingertips that melee can't touch, and a lot of them shut down melee.

Grease for example is an AoE that targets reflex, and can either cause prone or a weapon fumble. Take a look at your MM, most of the big scary bruiser monsters have absolutely terrible reflex saves.

I've got a 15th level caster. I still open most fights with a humble Grease. Its a first level spell, but holy crap its probably the most effective crowd control there is.

[Rubik]

I've got a 15th level caster. I still open most fights with a humble Grease. Its a first level spell, but holy crap its probably the most effective crowd control there is.Grease is useful even into epic. Look at epic golems. They're pretty much screwed if they're caught in a Grease pit.

[Invader]

The difference here being that I'm saying the fighter doesn't curve thewn ever. On the power by level graph it is a perfectly horizontal line at about lets say.... five percent up the graph. Encounters scale with level to some degree. Casters are an exponential power curve from level one that change wasn't some sudden change around 3rd level spells. It was a constant upswing throughout that caster's career. And the caster can also sacrifice a small portion of his level 20 potential to start like ten to fifteen percent up the graph. Oh or is a druid or cleric in which case no sacrifice is necessary.

Ahh I see what yiure saying although I'd still argue classes like fighter turn down the higher the level.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Like most things its a matter of Optimization. If you play a caster the same way the game designers expected you to (Lots of evocation) you won't hugely eclipse the melee.

Its when you start busting out all the strange spells that don't do damage dice to control the battle that it really takes off. Grease, Color Spray, Everads Tentacles, Resurgence, Wings of Cover. You have dozens of options at your fingertips that melee can't touch, and a lot of them shut down melee.

Grease for example is an AoE that targets reflex, and can either cause prone or a weapon fumble. Take a look at your MM, most of the big scary bruiser monsters have absolutely terrible reflex saves.

I've got a 15th level caster. I still open most fights with a humble Grease. Its a first level spell, but holy crap its probably the most effective crowd control there is.

You don't even need to play it Evocation-y. A lot of the cheese happens when you're rifling through twenty some-odd books for options with synergy and *only* using the spells that do BFC like Grease and such. I mean, the WotC playtesters did include some summoners, and some diviners, and so on through a lot of the more general specializations that casters can have. They just didn't expect an overfocus on only the mechanically powerful options... As has been mentioned numerous times on these boards, 3.5 rewards specialization and focus, and this was pretty much the biggest thing that the designers never got around to realizing.

[TypoNinja]

Grease is useful even into epic. Look at epic golems. They're pretty much screwed if they're caught in a Grease pit.

That game includes a Bow using Rogue. Grease is free Sneak Attack from range too, its great.

Plus, even if you make the save its still moving half speed through it, and you can't charge through a grease patch.

Starting from 1st level, its a suck, or suck more spell.

[eggynack]

You don't even need to play it Evocation-y. A lot of the cheese happens when you're rifling through twenty some-odd books for options with synergy and *only* using the spells that do BFC like Grease and such. I mean, the WotC playtesters did include some summoners, and some diviners, and so on through a lot of the more general specializations that casters can have. They just didn't expect an overfocus on only the mechanically powerful options... As has been mentioned numerous times on these boards, 3.5 rewards specialization and focus, and this was pretty much the biggest thing that the designers never got around to realizing.
I don't think this is what specialization and focus mean. If you're "specializing" in everything by cherry picking the best parts of every type of magic, that's kinda the opposite of specializing. And that's pretty much how wizards operate best. It's not that there's necessarily one type of spell that conquers every other, and the designers just missed it. It's that there's a whole massive pile of wonderful spells of every flavor in existence, from buffs to debuffs to summons to BFC, and even to blasting, and casters can use them all at once. Casters don't have to minmax. They just max.

[Rhaegar14]

You don't even need to play it Evocation-y. A lot of the cheese happens when you're rifling through twenty some-odd books for options with synergy and *only* using the spells that do BFC like Grease and such.

This is just flatly not true (emphasis mine). Summon Monster, Glitterdust, Suggestion, Polymorph, Contingency, and a dozen other spells that are generally considered optimized Wizard staples are all found in the PHB.

[eggynack]

This is just flatly not true (emphasis mine). Summon Monster, Glitterdust, Suggestion, Polymorph, Contingency, and a dozen other spells that are generally considered optimized Wizard staples are all found in the PHB.
Indeed. I've never really checked the specifics of it, but I suspect that banning core spells would be more problematic for wizards than banning non-core spells. Core spells are just ridiculously good like that.

[TypoNinja]

Indeed. I've never really checked the specifics of it, but I suspect that banning core spells would be more problematic for wizards than banning non-core spells. Core spells are just ridiculously good like that.

Well the mother of all Wizard tricks is Chain Gating, and that's Core, singling out source books isn't the answer though, like most things in life the issue is not as clear cut as "book X bad, book Y good".

[Invader]

This is just flatly not true (emphasis mine). Summon Gitterdust, Suggestion, Polymorph, Contingency, and a dozen other spells that are generally considered optimized Wizard staples are all found in the PHB.

Agreed, more caster cheese from splat books comes from things like Incanatrix, metamagic, etc than from additional spells, not to say they're aren't some exceptionally cheesy spells outside core.

[eggynack]

Well the mother of all Wizard tricks is Chain Gating, and that's Core, singling out source books isn't the answer though, like most things in life the issue is not as clear cut as "book X bad, book Y good".
I think it's an issue on occasion, and also not an issue on most occasions. It's mostly an issue at times like these, when it is suggested that non-core spells are the cause of fighter woes. It might actually be worth some looking into, whether a core wizard or a not-core wizard does better, at least in list terms. Not-core wizard would almost certainly win with builds in the mix.

[Red Fel]

But a Wizard with Sleep or Color Spray has an "I win the encounter" button at level one, assuming he's not up against a creature type immune to those effects.

This, I think, is the key for me. What the OP refers to as the "instant win button."

Even ignoring the fact that, at higher levels, a caster can do anything a non-caster can do, but better. Even ignoring the linear/quadratic progression. Even ignoring the game-breaking powers of Wish, Miracle, and the ability to summon minions.

There's the fact that a prepared caster can win any encounter with the right spells. Any encounter. Got to kill something? They deal more damage. Build something? There are spells for that. Talk to someone? Spells. Stop a siege? Spells. Conduct a siege? Spells. Find something? Spells. Hide something? Spells. Open a door? Spells. Close a door? Spells. Break a door? Spells. Open a door to another world? Spells.

There is literally no scenario that a spell can't solve, short of a dead magic field - and there are ways around that, too. A spell can even solve the problem of too many spells - go take a peek at Antimagic Field.

Non-casters don't have an instant win button. Most melee types have an "I deal more damage" button, which may or may not help. Some non-casters have other options, such as crafting items or stealthing or getting a bonus to social checks. But they aren't instant win buttons, they're simply improvements.

Casters get "I win the encounter" buttons at low levels, and then simply get more of them as they progress. That, in my mind, is what makes people consider them "OP."

[TypoNinja]

I think it's an issue on occasion, and also not an issue on most occasions. It's mostly an issue at times like these, when it is suggested that non-core spells are the cause of fighter woes. It might actually be worth some looking into, whether a core wizard or a not-core wizard does better, at least in list terms. Not-core wizard would almost certainly win with builds in the mix.

That's a comparison that doesn't work either though, cause core only fighters are atrociously terrible. Most of the core feats for melee combat are a joke.

If splat books make a caster better, they make melee useable at all.

[Phelix-Mu]

Here's my recent take:

Casters: Spells. Well, that is their main feature, so it's probably there that the problem lies. Many spells, the best ones, are "problem-solvers." Not tools, not weapons, not buffs. Problem-solvers. You oppose the goblins. The goblins are suck, but they are many, and they chase you down a corridor. Well, among others, as early as grease and web, the goblins are now rendered an amusement, not a threat. The wizard doesn't kill, the wizard solves.

Mundanes: There are ways to solve problems among mundanes. But they are generally more in-line with "tools" than one-spell end-encounter. Trapfinding, if done reliably, can serve a similar function, but without fairly complicated traps, the trap encounter, while classic, is not terribly dynamic for the whole party (unless they can't disarm it and need to get creative, but this situation makes the rogue look impotent).

Also, most mundanes are limited to rolls that rely on some degree of luck (modified or obsoleted by optimization). Wizards force others to rely on luck, and generally a DM can't optimize every opponent as hard as the wizard optimizes their DCs (to say nothing of no save, just suck).

[ryu]

Or of course the old favorite of make save die anyway.

[Phelix-Mu]

Or of course the old favorite of make save die anyway.

Lol, yeah, frostfell. Love that spell to death. Used to great effect on some flying enemies in a favorite campaign of mine. Ah, so long ago now.... Sweet memories.:smallredface:

[Kraken]

The wizard doesn't kill, the wizard solves.

Pretty much this. One of the reasons I listed minor image, for example, is that for 3 rounds (more if you concentrate for additional rounds, though it's probably not worth it), you can take several enemies out of the fight simply by creating imaginary barriers to waste their actions, which they don't even get a save to recognize as unreal unless they interact with them. With enemy forces divided, the rest of the party can act as the clean up crew, now that their opposing force has been separated into two distinct factions that can be fought separately via battlefield control.

[Zanos]

Casters get "I win the encounter" buttons at low levels, and then simply get more of them as they progress. That, in my mind, is what makes people consider them "OP."
This bears restating, with a small clarification. Spells that are "win" buttons may not be immediately apparent. Entire counters can be decided with single casts of some spells that aren't just "die" or "is now stunned until death". Spells like Web and Solid Fog can turn many battles where there was more than one enemy into a series of 4(+)v1s. Fights against single enemies are ruined by stuff like Burning Blood.

I have literally cast a single fog spell in CR+4 and upwards encounters and sat on my hands for the rest of the fight and waited for the mop up.

[HammeredWharf]

I think casters being squishy and not having enough spells at low levels is a pretty big misconception. Yes, they aren't godlike, but a wizard with Abrupt Jaunt is probably more durable than a barbarian, simply because he can avoid the hits that would instagib him. Additionally, the wizard can solve most encounters with a single spell, so it's not like many spells per day are needed. A specialist wizard with decent int has three first level spells per day, which should be enough. So, even a lvl 1 wizard is a useful party member and arguably just as useful as his barbarian friend.

Druids rock no matter which level we're talking about. With access to Dragon Magazine, they can get Wildshape at lvl 1 and Natural Spell at lvl 2. That's really nice. Clerics are basically Fighters, with heavy armor access, domain powers and most likely decent Strength, so they're not squishy to begin with. Some gish classes like Ardent can easily get >30 AC by lvl 3 and still have decent casting afterwards. In that light, the typical minmaxed Whirling Frenzy barbarian isn't overwhelmingly tough anymore.

[Aharon]

The point when casters become better is fluent and heavily dependent on optimization. Unfortunately, TO examples are often brought up so it is doubted that the power difference makes any difference in real play.

It's still there, however. One of the best examples in my opinion was the gauntlet thread, found here (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1146486). It had 4/19 caster wins and 1/8 noncaster wins (it was pretty hard, obviously). The casters used Alter Self, DMM and Exploding Runes as win buttons, I don't remember how the fighter won. The main virtue of this thread is that it's PvE, while most noncaster/caster comparisons tend to be PvP, where the casters have even more of an edge.

[Valtu]

This, I think, is the key for me. What the OP refers to as the "instant win button."

Even ignoring the fact that, at higher levels, a caster can do anything a non-caster can do, but better. Even ignoring the linear/quadratic progression. Even ignoring the game-breaking powers of Wish, Miracle, and the ability to summon minions.

There's the fact that a prepared caster can win any encounter with the right spells. Any encounter. Got to kill something? They deal more damage. Build something? There are spells for that. Talk to someone? Spells. Stop a siege? Spells. Conduct a siege? Spells. Find something? Spells. Hide something? Spells. Open a door? Spells. Close a door? Spells. Break a door? Spells. Open a door to another world? Spells.

There is literally no scenario that a spell can't solve, short of a dead magic field - and there are ways around that, too. A spell can even solve the problem of too many spells - go take a peek at Antimagic Field.

Non-casters don't have an instant win button. Most melee types have an "I deal more damage" button, which may or may not help. Some non-casters have other options, such as crafting items or stealthing or getting a bonus to social checks. But they aren't instant win buttons, they're simply improvements.

Casters get "I win the encounter" buttons at low levels, and then simply get more of them as they progress. That, in my mind, is what makes people consider them "OP."

I guess I see your point :P Well I'm glad I'm a caster, then. Either way I'd have kept playing one. I like the the fluff/flavor of the classes, and the overall creativity. Glad that even though they have the potential to break dungeons/encounters, it does seem like it can be curbed a lot by the DM. I just didn't want that feeling of playing something too ridiculously easy or overpowered and feeling like I'm "cheating" my way through things.

I don't really think that's going to happen. Our DM usually sets up a lot of magical defenses for all the dungeons and awards creativity. I think he's also used to dealing with some fairly OP characters, so even if mine does border on that eventually, I think it'll stay somewhat balanced.

Oh, by the way, "instant-win button" is something I've seen used around here on the forums. I hadn't personally felt that way about my caster characters so far, but I can definitely see how by using them the right way, this can be true. Still, I think I'm too fond of spreading myself a bit thin on spell selection to ever really optimize to that point haha.

[Red Fel]

I guess I see your point :P Well I'm glad I'm a caster, then. Either way I'd have kept playing one. I like the the fluff/flavor of the classes, and the overall creativity. Glad that even though they have the potential to break dungeons/encounters, it does seem like it can be curbed a lot by the DM. I just didn't want that feeling of playing something too ridiculously easy or overpowered and feeling like I'm "cheating" my way through things.

I don't really think that's going to happen. Our DM usually sets up a lot of magical defenses for all the dungeons and awards creativity. I think he's also used to dealing with some fairly OP characters, so even if mine does border on that eventually, I think it'll stay somewhat balanced.

Oh, by the way, "instant-win button" is something I've seen used around here on the forums. I hadn't personally felt that way about my caster characters so far, but I can definitely see how by using them the right way, this can be true. Still, I think I'm too fond of spreading myself a bit thin on spell selection to ever really optimize to that point haha.

And frankly, I think that if you enjoy playing a caster, you absolutely should play a caster. There is a place for casters in the world, without question. And not all caster classes are game-breaking or Tier 1. And not all caster-players, frankly, overdo it on the game-breaking stuff.

At the end of the day, despite the complaints about relative power and versatility, the game is about fun. If you can play your caster, and I can play my face-puncher, and we can both have fun, then the game is good and the people are good and we should all feel good and everything is good, forever.

OP? Instant win? Tiers? They only really matter, in my mind, if fun is jeopardized. If everyone can play in such a way that everyone enjoys, (and "everyone" includes "the DM" here) then these terms are meaningless.

That's just one non-caster's opinion.

[TrueJordan]

entangles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/entangle.htm) and shoot bullets from a sling as he pleases. There's just not much in the way of comparison there, especially when you consider all the other spell based resources the druid can bring to bear. Even core has stuff like detect magic or goodberry, and out of core has other stuff that's even more interesting.

*snigger* Sorry, moving along...

[Komatik]

It's generally around level 7 or 8 that Caster Supremacy starts to rear its head, depending on the players involved.

As for Fighters, it's not that they're bad, as such. It's that they're only good at one thing, whereas the casters are not only good at ALL things that the Fighter can't do well, but they're also better than the Fighter at that one thing too. The other martial classes also have this problem to varying extents, but it's usually in the Fighter's case where the issue is most visible, since they have lousy skills and sod-all for non-combat utility.

Compounding the Fighter's problem is that he has no real class features to speak of. Bonus feats are all well and good, but very few feats compare in power or utility to real class features. The feats system is also riddled with "feat taxes"; feats like Point-Blank Shot that are practically required just to meet a minimum level of competence with a chosen fighting style (this for a class that is supposed to be the versatile man-at-arms who's mastered all forms of combat).

Basically, the Fighter comes off like a half-finished class. The best thing that can be said about it is that it's easy for new players to jump into. But that's no excuse for making them inferior to all the caster classes (and even some of the other martials) at what is supposed to be their own area of expertise.

One thing to add to this: The Fighter has no non-combat utility, but even its combat utility tends to be monotonic - it has one schtick which it can do amazingly well, and that's it. Even if the task is hitting something with a stick, it can be that the fighter's way of hitting things with a stick is inappropriate. Contrast the Warblade, which still doesn't have that much out-of-combat utility (though he actually has some), but is much more versatile in a combat encounter. He has an actual selection of approaches, and is just generally more mobile.


Druids rock no matter which level we're talking about. With access to Dragon Magazine, they can get Wildshape at lvl 1 and Natural Spell at lvl 2.

Waitwhat? Explanation. Now.

[HammeredWharf]

Waitwhat? Explanation. Now.

Totem Druid ACF, Dragon #335, p. 87. Granted, it's weaker than normal Wildshape in the long run, but it's awesome during the first ten or so levels.

[Sam K]

The point when casters become better is fluent and heavily dependent on optimization. Unfortunately, TO examples are often brought up so it is doubted that the power difference makes any difference in real play.

This bit is quite untrue.

At equal level of optimization, casters still win. A fighter who picks a smattering of feats that benefit a fighter but do not work towards a specific build (some damage, some tanking, some utility) becomes fairly useless for anything except fighting pitty-monsters (the ones that the DM decides arbitrarily attacks the guy with the stick that does no damage, instead of the guy in the dress raining death on them). A wizard who picks feats that benefit a wizard but do not work towards a specific build (some meta magic, some counter spelling stuff, some utility) will STILL have a lot of useful tools. With no feat investment or specialization, you still have access to the possibly game breaking divinations. Honestly, you get to LOOKING INTO THE FREAKING FUTURE WITHOUT TRYING! Compare that to how the fighters archery skills are without feat investment.

Then, unless you ban the wrong school, you still get polymorph and shapechange shenanigans. And wish. Teleportation. Superior mobility.

Not to mention clerics who get a chassis that rivals fighters (less BAB and HP, but better will saves is huge), AND a decent (though arguably the weakest T1) spell list.

Then there's the whole improvement factor. If you start as a noob and play a wizard, you can easily improve your gameplay. Magic missile at lvl 1 was a bad choice? Memorize something else the next day. Finding that specializing in evocation wasn't the best idea. Hey, you still have some good utility spells from other schools that doesn't require saves. The fighter, once he realized weapon specialization in longsword wasn't the best choice, has to beg the DM for the right to re-train. That doesn't exactly encourage experimentation.

And the worst thing with this whole argument is, I DONT EVEN LIKE CASTERS! I can stand gishes and clerics (the fighting kind), but I dont want to put on the robe and wizard hat. I have an unhealthy love for swords and martial arts IRL. I love brawling, but the core D&D mundanes just dont deliver. Playing one is like boxing with both hands behind your back.

And your legs cut off.

And you're on fire.

And there you're fighting bears. Dire ones. With PC levels and rabies, that read Tippys guide to the ultimate rabid dire bear build.

Thankfully ToB solved alot of that. Swords, not words!