PDA

View Full Version : Wizards Are So Overpowered!



Eclipse
2008-12-16, 02:25 PM
Sweet, now I have your attention.

I've found a lot of people always talk about how casters are overpowered when compared to the other classes in D&D. I also think that full casters are the most powerful classes in the game.

However, I've found that while in theory a wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid/uberwarmachineofdeath can be built to handle any circumstances that arise, in practice, it never seems to work out this way. In practice, the casters usually provide powerful support to the party and are incredibly helpful, but don't end up overshadowing the melee classes. Even monks turn out to make meaningful contributions to combat, though in general fighters do it better.

I've only ever played in one campaign where a caster overshadowed everyone else, and that wasn't even because of his build. It was because he was the one who got a powerful artifact the GM put in the game that only one person could use at a time, that basically gave the wielder unlimited magic, but the magic could misfire if the wielder failed a spellcraft check.

With that one exception in mind, I've never seen the casters overshadow the physical combatants. Now, I certainly see the theory behind casters dominating the game, and a properly optimized caster likely would dominate in this fashion... it just never happens because the players can't actually account for every eventuality. Sometimes they memorize/learn the wrong spells, or forget to pick up a particular wand or pack of scrolls, or any number of things.

I think part of this comes from having so much to manage when playing casters. As a wizard or sorcerer, you have to choose your spells known carefully, as a wizard, cleric, or druid you have to choose which spells to memorize carefully, and so on. With a rogue or barbarian, the book basically says here are your class features, pick some feats and have fun. A fighter seems to be a bit of an in-between case, as they get a ton of feats and as such have a lot of customization, but even a cookie cutter fighter build will be effective, if not optimized.

It seems that having more to manage is what generally keeps casters in line, and while security by obscurity isn't the best design, it has seemed to work in practice in any of the D&D games I've played.

So what have your actual gameplay experiences with casters been? I don't care about RAW or theory in this case, I'm looking for how things have turned out when you played the game. Has your experience been like mine, where casters are powerful but not overshadowing, or have you actually played in a game in which a caster overshadowed everyone simply through his or her build?

valadil
2008-12-16, 02:35 PM
I think part of this comes from having so much to manage when playing casters. As a wizard or sorcerer, you have to choose your spells known carefully, as a wizard, cleric, or druid you have to choose which spells to memorize carefully, and so on.

I've seen this affect prepared casters more so than spontaneous ones. Even though I think wizards are more powerful than sorcerers, I play my sorcerers more effectively because I haven't spent hours agonizing on my list for the current situation.

In most games, the simpler classes do the dirty work and the casters save the day on a grander scale. I rarely see the theoretically optimal casters outshine other classes at their own jobs. I'm not sure if that's just how we play or if our casters just suck.

Eldariel
2008-12-16, 02:37 PM
Didn't we have this thread like...few months back? Anyways, first 3.5 game I ever played, once we were past level 10, our entire Fighter-body (we had 3 dedicated frontliners in Fighter, Fighter, Barbarian) was mostly unnecessary as casters threw Destruction here, Hold Monster there and so on, dealing with any targets that could pose a head, while they had maybe 10% of the party wealth.

Sure, the imbalances don't usually make the game unplayable unless opponents are optimized too, but it's hard to challenge the casters while not being overpowering to the non-casters. Also, one principal factor in the problem is that casters plain have more options - you can do more with casters which helps not getting bored when playing 1-20; standard melee combatants can be interesting for few sessions, but session 25 with you once again going to hit the bad guy gets a tad repetitive. Casters have something like 100 pages from the PHB for their options while melee combatants have...2? And even most of those are trash.

So yea, I feel the problem isn't as much in the casters (when not breaking the game) as in the core non-casters. Just horrible, horrible class design overall.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-16, 02:38 PM
You're overstating the case you're arguing against - that is, strawmanning.

A caster doesn't need to be more powerful than an infinite amount of enemies/characters, or even just more powerful than the entire rest of the party. (Although they certianly can be.) They're overpowered because they're more powerful than any single other character.

Personally, I've found that whenever one of my players plays a druid (his favorite class), he eclipses the entire rest of the party, and definitely eclipses any single other PC. This has been true since the very first D&D 3.0 campaign we ever played, which started right after 3rd edition came out. He doesn't even try very hard - he just takes Natural Spell, a bear for an animal companion, and uses his spells intelligently.

Similarly, the blaster sorcerer in our dungeon-crawl campaign was the only member of the party who could hold a candle to the party druid and his bear in combat, managing to single-handedly end encounters almost as often.

My players don't tend to play casters, other than the druid player, so the issue doesn't come up that much - none of them really have the patience for picking spells to memorize. Lucky me.

Telonius
2008-12-16, 02:42 PM
Actual gameplay experience ... Radiant Servant of Pelor should not come within 500 yards of an undead-heavy campaign. Even a normal Cleric would have been powerful, but when we ran Shackled City some of the encounters were just embarrassing (i.e. singlehandedly killing 90% of a room full of lower-lieutenant-level bad guys, obliterating a vampire that was basically taking a bath in negative energy, etc).

EDIT: Oh, and as a little bonus: We'd just gotten Book of Exalted Deeds, and I'd decided to test out a Vow of Poverty Monk... :smallfrown: Never felt so ineffective in any D&D campaign before or since. The two things he was good at doing were diving into disgusting substances to extricate the Rogue, and disarming people then running away with the weapon. (Which actually did come in handy against the BBEG, but still!)

Saph
2008-12-16, 02:54 PM
I think part of this comes from having so much to manage when playing casters. As a wizard or sorcerer, you have to choose your spells known carefully, as a wizard, cleric, or druid you have to choose which spells to memorize carefully, and so on. With a rogue or barbarian, the book basically says here are your class features, pick some feats and have fun. A fighter seems to be a bit of an in-between case, as they get a ton of feats and as such have a lot of customization, but even a cookie cutter fighter build will be effective, if not optimized.

It seems that having more to manage is what generally keeps casters in line, and while security by obscurity isn't the best design, it has seemed to work in practice in any of the D&D games I've played.

Have to agree with this.

Playing a Vancian caster to full potential is just so much work. I've done it a couple of times, and each time I end up with a character sheet that's about six A4 pages long . . . single-spaced. Most people either don't have that kind of spare time, or simply can't be bothered. (I tend to avoid prepared casters these days just because I don't want to have do all the paperwork anymore.)


So what have your actual gameplay experiences with casters been? I don't care about RAW or theory in this case, I'm looking for how things have turned out when you played the game. Has your experience been like mine, where casters are powerful but not overshadowing, or have you actually played in a game in which a caster overshadowed everyone simply through his or her build?

I find it depends hugely on level. Here's a formula I've come up with in the past (and which I've found pretty accurate, over and over again):

• Levels 1-4: Fighters dominate over casters.
• Levels 5-10: Fighters and casters are roughly balanced.
• Levels 11-14: Casters dominate over fighters.
• Levels 15-20: Casters dominate over everything.
• Level 21+: Divide by Cucumber Error. Please reinstall universe and reboot.

You get exceptions, of course: I've seen effective 2nd-level wizards, and I've seen high-level melee builds that pull their weight, too. But that's the tendency.

- Saph

Tacoma
2008-12-16, 03:05 PM
I once played an Aquamancer who completely kicked butt. 2E.

I researched spells, I acquired stuff from the Wizard Spell Compendium (like an encyclopedia of all the magic-user spells in the game from all official sources), I made magic items.

I was set up by level 18 so I couldn't be killed by HP damage. I had miniature ward daggers strapped to a friendship bracelet on my ankle that each prevented a common spell from taking effect on me or my personal equipment (including AMF, Dispel Magic, Mord's Disjunction, Limited Wish, Wish, the reversed form of the Lifeproof spell I used to escape HP damage, and many others). Each one had a very reasonable sticker price but I made them all.

I had a pair of Spell Holding rings. One held a powered-up single-target version of Haste and the other held some other crazy thing. When I threw shuriken it was 15 per round. Each one held a Charge spell for 36 electric damage, save half, and the base damage of the shuriken was something like d4+10 each because of various long-duration buffs and that they were made of some funky metal.

I had an army of simulacra copies of all the bosses we fought. It was like the Boss Fight Greatest Hits except I had dozens of each (about half effective level for each one, though it hardly mattered at that point).

I even had a bangle with multiple little metal rings hanging on it that were enchanted simply to turn bright green if they were magical. Each one carried this spell that would counter a Dispel Magic by doing horrible things to the caster. When someone cast Dispel, my DM ruled, they could target an area, a creature, or an item. If the area were targeted, only area spells could be removed. If the creature, all its personal effects but not worn item effects could be removed. If a single item, that item and its effects could be deactivated for a time. So nobody ever targeted an item because they wanted to take down my buffs. When my bangle got short on green rings I cast the Anti-Dispel spell on them again.

---

In one campaign I was playing a Psionicist (2E). It was called the Greed Campaign, we were each members of different noble houses that were global powers behind the scenes. The goal was to enrich our own houses. None of our characters knew each other or knew the others were in a noble house.

One house rule was that we didn't ever "cap out" for XP, so if you accumulated enough XP to gain one or two or three levels before you got a chance to train that was okay. Otherwise it would stop at just shy of gaining two levels at once, and you'd be "working for free". Well that rule was out on this campaign.

Another house rule was that you would get 1 XP per GP you donated to your noble house. If you donated a magic item, you gained 1 XP per GP value of the magc item.

I don't know why, but my DM decided that this one dragon's cave had a door leading to it, just bolted to the mountainside. I used Identify and Legend Lore from spell storing ioun stones (they were already cast, and I'm using an item, so no CON hit from ID and I don't have to put the item on). Well turns out this door is actually a Door of Holding and it holds the entire dragon's cave. So it can move in a hurry I guess.

Well I keep this to myself. We go inside, and as usual get overpowered and leave before grabbing the MacGuffin. The party camps in a Rope Trick. I sneak away and use the command word I discovered with Legend Lore and Identify to grab the door off the mountain. I teleport home with said door and ... give it to them.

I figured out based on internal volume and the cheapest extradimensional space item out there, extrapolating a value for the door. Then the DM had to total up everything that was in the cave (including the MacGuffin artifact). I should have ascended to level 2,400 Psionicist or so (from 15th) but the DM said that was crazy and I offered to take just 1/12th the amount. So now I was level 215th.

Oh man. I had every useful Devotion and Science out of the Psi Handbook, and piled on enough extra success roll points by taking the powers again that I almost never failed on them. And such a high level breaks all the level-dependent things in the game.

For example, I bought a Horn of Baubles. It's like a Horn of Bubbles, except it spews out a pile of junk jewelry and toys and stuff. But the amount was based on your level. It was supposed to be a funky item with no good use.

At my level it could clog a 30' wide by 30' tall hallway in one blow. I used it to smother unsuccessful pickpockets and purchase small things from merchants.

"Here, this scroll tube costs 3 GP? Would you trade 26,000 cubic feet of junk for it?"

His eyes narrow. Then I blow the horn and he screams and cartwheels backward as the useless toys and jetsam billows out in great clouds of multicolored fury.

One time the party was fighting this hydra thing with multiple holes to fight out from without exposing its body. The holes were int he ground. I just blew the horn and dropped a 60' across blob of junk down one hole. The creature didn't have room to move around in there and eventually we worked our way around and killed its helpless butt with fire.

EDIT:

Anyway, my point is in my experience, people underestimate the value of 1rd/lv duration spells because once you're level 10 that's the whole fight. But people also underestimate what you can get away with using long-duration or permanent spells.

Epinephrine
2008-12-16, 03:10 PM
I agree that it doesn't take much work to outshine melee as a caster.

Tsotha-lanti mentions not even trying as a druid, and I agree - my current druid doesn't even have an animal companion OR wildshape (took the hunter variant, ditched AC), has gimped spellcasting (only 2 non-PHB spells per level), and I suspect is still well ahead of the rest of the party in power. And we're not even into the levels at which he really gets good.

When the situation favours the prepared caster's spell selection, he'll mop everything up. So make sure that you prepare spells to handle what your party can't handle (or to simplify your party's job) and you're golden.

Nobody seems to care if the druid is having a huge effect on the combat, as long as their PCs are dealing damage and dropping badguys. Nobody minds the power imbalance as long as it is making the game more fun for them.

Stormageddon
2008-12-16, 03:20 PM
I see all these threads on how over powered casters compared to non-casters. This makes me wonder if any one out there has ever played in a group starting at level 1 with all casters in the group? Is it even possible?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-16, 03:25 PM
I see all these threads on how over powered casters compared to non-casters. This makes me wonder if any one out there has ever played in a group starting at level 1 with all casters in the group? Is it even possible?Druid, Cleric, Focused Specialist Wizard, Beguiler. Viable 1-20 with only slight changes to the builds.

Keld Denar
2008-12-16, 03:26 PM
Really? I love playing a batman style wizard. It really isn't too much work, and I tend to use a lot of the same or similar spells. Lots of castings of Benign Transposition to move my melee friends into full attack range, or pull them out of full attack range if needed. Lots of Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Exhaustion to shut down big hitters. Lots of Nerve Skitter so my team goes first (chain it!). Lots of Fogs, Freezing or Solid, to divide and conquer the 2-3 big guy encounters, and knock the occasional dragon out of the sky so my party can melee it. Lots of Haste, at mid levels, because the only thing my melee friends love to do more than hit stuff is hit it again. Some disables like Glitterdust, because giving all your friends 50% miss chance is fun. You get the picture.

I don't use the really brokens stuff, like Polymorph, Celerity, Shivering Touch, or Ray of Stupidlybroken. But I do select solid spells, and honestly, its not that hard once you've broken down what the more solid spells are in any given situation. Its like playing chess. Initially, its kind of hard to figure out which pieces move which ways (chargers like room to run, melee like to full attack, archers like medium distances, no one likes to be surrounded, etc) but once you figure that out, its all about tactical and strategic application of the best piece at the best time. Everyone else has fun because I make their job easier.

Trick to playing a wizard better, is make a sheet of your most commonly used spells. You'll find that there are about 3-4 each level. Write those one one sheet, put it in a plastic protector and write on it with wet erase markers. Put Xs next to each to designate how many of each you memorize, and erase the Xs as you cast. Keep a 2nd sheet with all of the other spells you know, that are circumstantial or you learned for crafting or trade bait or whatever. If you need one, write it near the other spells of the appropriate level, erase it when you cast it. Also, your typical daily buffs, once you get to a certain level, you can pretty much just mark off the spell slot and keep it up all day. Things like Mage Armor or Greater Magic Weapon (for your fighters), no point in always keeping track of em, just mark em off and be done with it.

Same with clerics and druids...while you CAN make a sheet with every spell from every book ever printed on it, you KNOW what spells are most commonly useful, that you cast every day or every combat. So, keep those ones near and dear, and the rest go on the "hmmmm, I might need this some day" list.

Immutep
2008-12-16, 03:29 PM
I have seen first hand, a wizard that overshadows all. One campaign i was involved with, i took my favourate well-rounded barbarian build. We play for quite some time (having started at lvl1 we had reached lvl 13) then all of a sudden, i may as well have not bothered turning up! I was technically the only tank in the group, but we did have a monk who'd worked on his Dex to the point he could get an AC of 37 and therefore not get hit (my barbarian was the only thing the monk had encountered that didn't need a natural 20!) and combine this with the bonus speed the monk gets and he was pretty much always the first one to the melee.

Anyway, we were doing a dungeon slog, and it went as follows:

1)We detect monsters up ahead
2)Monk runs in and holds them up
3)My barbarin runs to his aid since he isn't as good at causing damage as avoiding damage
4)The sorceror casts spells
5)The monsters die
6)The cleric heals my barbarian of any damage caused by magical backlash from our own sorceror
7)Repeat steps1-7

I can tell you as a player who'd spent many hours on my appithiny toilet working out the best composition of skill point deployment, feat choices, ect. in order to make a versitile and always useful member of the party to be at the front line and still taking a back seat, it was really annoying!

Neithan
2008-12-16, 03:33 PM
I think overpowered classes are almost always the fault of the gm. There are many ways to design an adventure and when for axample the arcane spellcaster always shines, it's because the adventure is made for arcane spellcasters to shine.

Immutep
2008-12-16, 03:36 PM
yeah, i don't think it helped that he had taken ranks in Dragon disciple. and that he'd got a cloak of the archmagi and a +something vorpal short sword either, it meant if we got attacked in the rear he could usually kill them in combat unassisted as well.

Tormsskull
2008-12-16, 03:38 PM
So what have your actual gameplay experiences with casters been?

My RL experience is similiar to yours. However, I feel this is due to a few factors:


My group roleplays, and we are kind of strict about it.
We tend to play in low-magic campaigns where throwing magic about will get you in trouble.
There are not nearly as many magic items as WBL would suggest, and there are absolutely no Magi-Marts.
We play core only.
There is always someone or something out there that is more powerful than the PCs. Yes, even then.

Morty
2008-12-16, 03:45 PM
I don't know what I'm more tired of- people who write long-winded rants about how casters rule supreme and you shouldn't even bother playing a non-caster or those who claim that all balance problems can be handwaved away by GM.

kalt
2008-12-16, 03:59 PM
So far I have found Psions to be the rather nasty due to their decent amount of utility and the ability to nova things rather easily.

Immutep
2008-12-16, 04:04 PM
I don't know what I'm more tired of- people who write long-winded rants about how casters rule supreme and you shouldn't even bother playing a non-caster or those who claim that all balance problems can be handwaved away by GM.

But, the OP wanted us to rant! I like ranting! :smallfrown:

Tacoma
2008-12-16, 04:04 PM
I don't know what I'm more tired of- people who write long-winded rants about how casters rule supreme and you shouldn't even bother playing a non-caster or those who claim that all balance problems can be handwaved away by GM.

[quote=Tacoma]
I'm tired of people who meta-post and also those who quote themselves. And you know what I absolutely cannot stand? People with FAILED CODE!
[quote]

Epinephrine
2008-12-16, 04:31 PM
I don't know what I'm more tired of- people who write long-winded rants about how casters rule supreme and you shouldn't even bother playing a non-caster or those who claim that all balance problems can be handwaved away by GM.

I don't mind either of those too much, but the people who respond to a post titled "Help me pick feat for my rogue," and politely tell the OP to play a wizard instead drive me crazy.

That and people who insist on role-playing makeup. It's ROGUE, not ROUGE!

Kurald Galain
2008-12-16, 05:10 PM
That and people who insist on role-playing makeup. It's ROGUE, not ROUGE!

(off topic)

Wikipedia has an entire class of users called "rouge admins", who get that title by, apparently, pissing somebody off who doesn't know how to spell. Their page on the topic gets perennial attempts at being renamed or removed by people who Don't Get It.

(/off topic)

:smallbiggrin:

Neek
2008-12-16, 05:30 PM
I haven't ever seen a caster outshine my gaming groups. In one campaign, we have a Cleric... who's geared for healbot. I'm playing a Focused Conjurer 3/Master Specialist 3. She's a powerful creature, her most favorite spell combination (Swift) Fly + Baleful Transposition.

Both her and the Cleric are overpowered by the Duskblade and the Half-Dragon (going down the racial levels).

In another campaign, we had a Warlock overpower everyone (though the DM did give us a Broom of Flying..., even without that, 3d6 damage on touch attacks was a bit too much. Now he's playing a Dragon Shaman, which is a powerful buff, but when he works, we all do our jobs better. We also have a Psion, and he's sickenly overpowered.

There are ways of controlling a Wizard: Limiting what spells they get every level, controlling scroll treasures and looted spell books, as well as providing them with interesting challenges to focus on. Of course it takes DM fiat to make it possible, or that a player runs his Wizard like his Wizard, not a powergamer.

RebelRogue
2008-12-16, 06:00 PM
That and people who insist on role-playing makeup. It's ROGUE, not ROUGE!
Actually, the deity misspelled as diety irks me more!

Greg
2008-12-16, 06:05 PM
Yeah, but it's just the familiar and the ability to specialise that makes them overpowered. Without them, you need full BAB, monk saves, Perfect TWF and d20 HD to balance them. Oh, and the ability to cast in heavy armour.

On a more serious note, surely the DM has to decide what is balanced. You'd be hard pressed to find a DM that would allow the Tippyverse.

woodenbandman
2008-12-16, 06:23 PM
I'll pile onto the story pile my experience:

I was playing a druid. He was like a whatever character, the campaign started as a single session and it took off. He ended up at level 12, with an AC of 46, 8 attacks (though I only ever used 5) each dealing about 2d6 + 7, and great fort and will saves. He used only one feat and one spell ever ever. Bite of the X and Natural Spell. He had 2 magic items. I did not try at all to optimize this character, but I nearly tore the campaign to its foundations because nothing could hit me ever. Hell, my touch AC was even 16, and I was a shambling mound most of the time! Oh by the way I was 2 levels below everyone most of the time, and my greatest victories include destroying 2 characters 2 levels higher than me in 2 rounds of actual hitting things, as well as killing 4 level 10 characters with little more help than a fireball that did about 20 damage to one of them.

Then I switched over to a different character and made the group promise to not let me play casters again.

I switched because I wanted to make a character that would play the same game as the rest of the party, rather than playing rocket tag off in a corner with myself. My DM actually suggested if I wanted to do this that I not Min/Max my character so much, but I don't remember much after that because I passed out from shock and had to be hospitalized.

Point is that I like optimizing, and that casters are overpowered, and when you combine these two things you get bad bad bad results.

Starscream
2008-12-16, 06:41 PM
I'd never noticed this trend really until the first time I played a blaster myself a few years back. I wasn't even optimized, and around level nine the party's policy suddenly became to dive behind the scenery whenever I started gesturing.

And that was accidental. A mere sorcerer with a bunch of poorly chosen evocations. Now that I know what a conjurer or transmutation wizard can get away with, I don't doubt for a second that casters are overpowered.

Tacoma
2008-12-16, 06:49 PM
Back in 1E/2E, your save started out really poor but it got better as you raised in level, and magic items helped it. But short of a few examples there wasn't a way for the caster to reduce your save.

The problems with Forcecage and other no-save spells still existed. They were mitigated by the incredible costs of the spell components but it seems like we assume Wizards don't worry about that kind of thing.

It's kind of like how Fireball has been d6 since OD&D but back then Fighters got d6 for HP and a CON modifier of +1 was highly unusual. Blasters were far more powerful. Over the years we've seen power creep in every other sector (including Cleric healing) but not in Wizard blasting.

Anyway, it was entirely possible for a Magic-User back in 2E to reliably end the fight with Sleep or Color Spray up until about level 3. Then Web and Stinking Cloud were fight-enders, but after that most people pretty much stuck with blasting with direct damage spells. At least in my group. And at level 1 a Charm Person had a 16 in 20 chance of working against the level 1 fighter ...

Gorbash
2008-12-16, 06:54 PM
I'm playing a Batman Wizard in Shackled City now (lvl 10), but not stupidly broken with tons of metamagic and while I do overshadow the fighters usually, some problems I encountered so far:

I rarely get to use large area spells. Seriously, I can't really remember when was the last time I cast Solid Fog. Somehow, I'm always in the middle of initiative order (Yes, I have Nerveskitter), or we're ambushed, and even if I do get to play first and have the room to cast one of the big ones, it turns out that I can get them all in the area and thus make the whole party obsolete once I start the chain reaction by using solid fog, tentacles, stinking cloud, cloudkill etc. I've yet to see an encounter where I can tactically split the enemy troops with a well placed area spell.

It's tough to determine creature's weak saves and sometimes when I cast save-or-x, it basically becomes a wasted action, since I have no idea which save I should target. Sure, it's easy enough to say target casters with fort saves, fighters with reflex, rogues with will, but what if it's a... Bebilith? Or any other creature type which I'm (and my character) is unfamiliar with.

kme
2008-12-16, 07:13 PM
It's tough to determine creature's weak saves and sometimes when I cast save-or-x, it basically becomes a wasted action, since I have no idea which save I should target. Sure, it's easy enough to say target casters with fort saves, fighters with reflex, rogues with will, but what if it's a... Bebilith? Or any other creature type which I'm (and my character) is unfamiliar with.

Well, in those situations you say that you have to go to the bathroom. Then you secretly check your specially reprinted pocket version of monster manual (be sure to get the name of the monster first). When you return you just say "Ahem, now what did you say, monster was some kind of huge blue spider?"

Tacoma
2008-12-16, 07:16 PM
Also, if the huge blue spider is casting spells, use Fort saves.

If the blue spider is using Whirlwind Attack, use Reflex saves.

If you don't see the blue spider, use Will saves on where the bodies are dropping.

1of3
2008-12-16, 07:17 PM
Knowing nothing about D&D 3.5, I was invited to play. I made a Barbarian/Bard and played for three evenings. Then I made a psion and played her ever since. I saw a new player comment after one session, that the character was waay powerful.

I've seen another newb make a Rogue. He played her for a few sessions. Then he made a wizard and played him ever since.

I've also seen the long time player trade his dwarven fighter for a Sorcerer. He switched back a few sessions later, but only because he felt, he couldn't portray the Sorcerer's character.

I've also seen a new player switch a kick-ass swashbuckling guy for a Druid. But that doesn't count because she just liked the idea of doing the nature thing and having a pet.

Immutep
2008-12-16, 07:22 PM
Well, in those situations you say that you have to go to the bathroom. Then you secretly check your specially reprinted pocket version of monster manual (be sure to get the name of the monster first). When you return you just say "Ahem, now what did you say, monster was some kind of huge blue spider?"

C'mon! This thread isn't titled, HOW TO GET ROUND THE FEW PROBLEMS A CASTER HAS. Plus if someone does this while i'm DM'ing now, i WILL know.

Tacoma
2008-12-16, 07:25 PM
okay DM roll a sense motive check!

While you're doing that, I have my character sit down at a table with some blank paper and pencils, and starts whittling some dice. He explains to the other PCs, "let us sit for a while chaps, and play a game of the imagination!"

While the infinite recursion is going on, we can all whisper to each other over the Cheetos and Mt Dew about who knows what about this monster.

Yukitsu
2008-12-16, 07:33 PM
I do a monster appearance turing test.

Bigger, increase fort by a checkmark per size category.
Big weapons used in odd ways, checkmarks in fort and will
Skinny, checkmark in reflex
Predominant description of head without elaborating on teeth, check will
Sloped brow, check fort, X will.
Staff, check will
Unarmed, none animal, check all
Outsider, check will and fort
Carries several bizarre weapons, check reflex.
Is undead, X fort
Is a dragon, X reflex, check fort and will.

Tacoma
2008-12-16, 07:35 PM
This is really useful. But I'm tired and I'll be looking for it again tomorrow.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-16, 07:39 PM
I do a monster appearance turing test.

Bigger, increase fort by a checkmark per size category.
Big weapons used in odd ways, checkmarks in fort and will
Skinny, checkmark in reflex
Predominant description of head without elaborating on teeth, check will
Sloped brow, check fort, X will.
Staff, check will
Unarmed, none animal, check all
Outsider, check will and fort
Carries several bizarre weapons, check reflex.
Is undead, X fort
Is a dragon, X reflex, check fort and will.Also, the Monster's type is what matters. Memorize those(24+ Int, it's justified) and you can usually figure it out.

Gorbash
2008-12-16, 07:41 PM
Is a dragon, X reflex, check fort and will.

Dragons have absurdly high saves and there's no point targeting any of them. Best way to deal with a dragon is Ray of Dizziness.

If it's flying, due to it's poor manouverability that's all it can do.
If it's in melee, it will have one attack.

Problem solved. I learned that the hard way, though. Since then, I always have a Ray of Dizziness prepared, no matter what.

monty
2008-12-16, 07:42 PM
Dragons have absurdly high saves and there's no point targeting any of them. Best way to deal with a dragon is Ray of Dizziness.

Or shivering touch, if your DM allows it.

Tacoma
2008-12-16, 07:45 PM
Since then, I always keep my Shark Repellant on me at all times. Just in case.

"But you're in the middle of Mumbai"

Yes. Sharks take many forms.

Gorbash
2008-12-16, 08:02 PM
Or shivering touch, if your DM allows it.

Nah, my DM is paranoid. He lets me lower its DEX to 1. Good thing I'm DMing in a campaign where HE plays a Wizard. Not the Batman, though.

Oslecamo
2008-12-16, 08:09 PM
Nah, my DM is paranoid. He lets me lower its DEX to 1. Good thing I'm DMing in a campaign where HE plays a Wizard. Not the Batman, though.

Allow me to save this post for posterity as proof that not every wizard player out there choose super optimized builds.

As for the OP, well, there's simply few topics wich really have enough material to discuss for more than one page.

ericgrau
2008-12-16, 08:26 PM
To original point: Ditto, this has been true in every single game I'ved played, witnessed and read about from comments other people made. Makes me wonder if the dominating caster really exists at all, but I suppose it must be happening somewhere. I mean, some DM somewhere must be letting the super-munchkins play, right??

Edit: And I've played a super-optimized nigh-zero direct damage controller before, before I ever saw the strat online. I did very well and amazed the group with strats they never saw before, but all of the above still held true. All I did was magnify the party's best members - 1 martial, 1 caster. They were still the best members, and on par with eachother to boot. OTOH this was a relatively low munchkin game.

PaladinBoy
2008-12-16, 08:29 PM
Well, on one hand, my last party's Druid never really did too well. It eventually got to the point where he just let a different player pick his spells, because none of the stuff he picked was very useful. With a little help, he did better, but he was never brokenly overpowered.

Then we have the warmage/wizard/ultimate magus. With Sudden Empower, Sudden Maximize, and a DM which was very nice in terms of encounters per day, he was absolutely devastating to just about anything. Ever.

My character, meanwhile, was either piloting the ship or uselessly trying to hinder the enemy with wind spells. I had fun anyway, though.

Tehnar
2008-12-16, 09:02 PM
What I have experienced is the power level of a caster depends on the monster he faces. If the DM sends giants, humaniods, magical beasts or animals at them they are going to laugh and wipe the floor with them.

On the other hand outsiders, aberations, dragons, constructs, and sometimes undead tend to be particulary troublesome to the caster.

Anyway the DM should plan his encounters right. Its silly to assume a group of ogres will be much challenge to a caster. However a group of ogres with some kobold casters for backup (packing dispel) to deal with the pesky caster makes it a much tougher encounter.

Its amazing what a couple of monsters with the at will spell like: dispel or greater dispel can do to a caster. If magic is common in your world its only logical to assume that everyone will have some way of neutralizing magic.

Gorbash
2008-12-16, 09:12 PM
Allow me to save this post for posterity as proof that not every wizard player out there choose super optimized builds.

Of course they don't. Not everyone can be enlightened as we are, can they? I had high hopes for this guy, though. He figured it out on his own that he doesn't want to play an Evoker, and then decided that he will be Master Specialist in Conjuration and winds up casting only direct damage spells. I really see no difference between him and an Evoker. Oh yeah, he summons monsters sometimes.

In my two groups, out of 8 people (some people are in both groups), me and another guy are actually optimizers (thanks to this and gleemax boards).


Anyway the DM should plan his encounters right. Its silly to assume a group of ogres will be much challenge to a caster. However a group of ogres with some kobold casters for backup (packing dispel) to deal with the pesky caster makes it a much tougher encounter.

My DM, thankfully, doesn't. I mean, I really can't remember when I actually *walked* somewhere, I'm either on a Phantom Steed or Overland Flying. And he doesn't do a thing. No dispels, no nothing. And I actually buff every day, casting False Life and Hearth of Earth (bringing my HPs into 100s :smallbiggrin:). He's happy decimating my very NOT optimized, land-bound, team-mates (Barbarian/Fighter, Ranger/Beastmaster, Bard/Rogue/Invisible Blade, Barbarian/Cleric/Stormlord).


And I've played a super-optimized nigh-zero direct damage controller before, before I ever saw the strat online.

I figured it long ago too, that the wizard shouldn't just fly around casting fireballs, but didn't really bother with going through every single additional splatbook (pre-Spell Compendium era). Then I run into LogicNinja's guide and my world was changed. :smallbiggrin:

ericgrau
2008-12-16, 09:42 PM
For clarification I only read every PHB spell. I added a little from spell compendium shortly before the session, which I borrowed from a fellow player. Again, it was a low munchkin group. I forget what it was but something about LogicNinja's guide seemed highly wrong to me when I saw it, even though I already liked controller strats (and still do). Maybe it was the dumping evocation bit but I think it was more than just that. IMO just add controlling spells to your repertoire and that's all you really need to know.

Gorbash
2008-12-16, 09:50 PM
Oh no, LogicNinja's guide is quite ok, compared to some. He specifically states which spells are broken and should not be used, and which are just powerful.

Aquillion
2008-12-16, 10:29 PM
So far I have found Psions to be the rather nasty due to their decent amount of utility and the ability to nova things rather easily.The maximum amount of power points you can spend on a power is limited to your manifester level. This applies to points spent augmenting your powers, too. If you think psions are good at going nova, it is almost certainly because you forgot or overlooked this rule.

(Now, Psiwars are good at going nova, particularly when it comes to mobility, because they get things like Hustle, Personal Dimension Door and Psionic Lion's Charge -- stuff that can be used as a swift/move action, as part of another action, or to get more actions, and because they don't have so many power points anyway. But that's something else entirely.)

Bosh
2008-12-17, 12:11 AM
I think one main reason wizards are often balanced in actual play is that their most powerful tactics are (generally) save vs. die/suck spells and a lot of GMs fudge to keep their big critter from getting taken out with one spell without even getting scratched.

The follow up reasons is bad tactics, in most CRPGs wizards are mobile artillery and clerics are healbots and if you play them like that in D&D you won't be that powerful.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-17, 01:36 AM
I saw a cou ple games where the full casters truly d id dominate. And the player was clearly not trying either. However, it helps to be a Radiant Serva nt of Pelor in a game where undead are remotely near a certainty, I suppose.

Whiplord
2008-12-17, 02:20 AM
Have to agree with this.

Playing a Vancian caster to full potential is just so much work. I've done it a couple of times, and each time I end up with a character sheet that's about six A4 pages long . . . single-spaced. Most people either don't have that kind of spare time, or simply can't be bothered. (I tend to avoid prepared casters these days just because I don't want to have do all the paperwork anymore.)




Exactly what kind of notes were you taking?

Gorbash
2008-12-17, 05:32 AM
I think one main reason wizards are often balanced in actual play is that their most powerful tactics are (generally) save vs. die/suck spells and a lot of GMs fudge to keep their big critter from getting taken out with one spell without even getting scratched.

This is true, sadly. I stopped casting anything but no save spells on BBEG long time ago...

Saph
2008-12-17, 07:35 AM
Exactly what kind of notes were you taking?

My current character sheet for my 18th-level druid comes to:

• One page of abilities, skills, feats, languages, class features, and saves.
• One page of background, appearance, and personality.
• One page with the full stats for my animal companion, all my equipment, and stats for my Wild Shape forms.
• One page with the stats for all my Shapechange forms (and it could have been three times that long).
• One page with all of my memorised spells, in pencil so that I can check them off and rub them out/rewrite them.
• One page with my spell list (limited to my favourites) and also my altered stats when I'm in Wild Shape or Shapechange and have cast bite of the werebear.
• One page of stats for the creatures I can summon (higher-level ones only, I've stopped bringing the weaker ones to save space).
• One page with the text of the main noncore spells I use (so that I can reference the complex ones and in case someone else ends up playing the character).

All the stats are written out ahead of time so that when I shift forms or summon something, I can look at the right sheet and know straightaway what the stats are are, instead of taking a few minutes to work it out. Despite the length of the character sheet, I can do my turns as fast or faster than the fighter and the rogue.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. The payoff I get for all this is a character who's unbelievably flexible and who can do just about anything without slowing the game down at all. And the campaign has been running for two years, so most of this stuff has been accumulated bit by bit, not written out in one go. But you can see why I'd rather play something a bit simpler next time. :)

- Saph

Gorbash
2008-12-17, 07:52 AM
Heh, I wish all of the people I play with are organized as you, Saph... I go nuts when it's somebodys turn and they're like, let me check what this spell does...

I also use the similar method as Saph, although I have just a few papers with summary of spells at my disposal, one paper with memorized spells, one with statistics of my familiar and my character sheet.

Yukitsu
2008-12-17, 07:58 AM
Dragons have absurdly high saves and there's no point targeting any of them. Best way to deal with a dragon is Ray of Dizziness.


Dragons universally have low dexterity. +0 across the board. It doesn't matter if they have high class AC, they get an AC of like, 16 max.

Edit: Bah, I mean reflex saves.

Gorbash
2008-12-17, 08:09 AM
What exactly are you talking about?

MorhgorRB
2008-12-17, 08:28 AM
Dragons universally have low dexterity. +0 across the board. It doesn't matter if they have high class AC, they get an AC of like, 16 max.

...Your kidding, right?

From Very Young on up, on every sort of dragon it's 16+ AC. (Or if you want to jump to the Great Wyrm 42ish AC, depending on type.) Listed right in the Monster Manual.

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-17, 08:33 AM
In my experience (DM in 3.5, level 1st-40th Epic campaign with eleven players, and 1st-9th six player Gestalt campaign), when a player always overshadows the others (because i refuse the concept of the same usefulness of everybody in every situation. B O R I N G), It's DM's fault.

It's DM fault for two main causes:

1) It's not imaginative in challenging players

2) Didn't take the liability to say "no" to a game-breaking mechanic.

There are spells (and other mechanics) that, maybe for lazyness of the designer, maybe for splatbook epidmic spreading, can be game breaking.

Some of them, if DM and players are newcomers. Others, because don't fit in the campaing. Others, because are bad designer (or maybe I think that are bad designed 'cuz I'm a n00b. Possible, why not?).

I played and play the above campaign with 90% 3.5. Problems? A lot. But there is alway a solution. I fixed shivering touch in the same way gorbash's DM did. And I FAR, FAR prefer to make a little fix time to time (even if I play 99.999% RAW) than don't have the possibility to use tools to customize PC and campaign. And my players want to play a character, are not jerks trying to find the bigger number.

Sometimes I wonder if many people play every encounter this way:

Monsters: "see, adventurers"

Adventurers: "see, monsters"

M: "good morning"

A: "'morning. let's roll initiative?"

M: "ok."

Because if you play this way, yes, casters could have the /win button.

In actual, varied situations, the readyness of noncasters will always be useful. And remember that sometimes will happen that the best way to defeat an enemy would be the rogue, but he will let the sorcerer to battle with him for an old grudge between them. RPG, you know...

Further, I think that is a matter of rules knowledge, too. Since magic is more fantastic, needs more effort to avoid the "pun! dead" "no I'm not" "yes you are" problem.

Action of noncasters are almost in the generic combat rules. Smart and imaginative players can use noncasters in awesome ways. This to answer partially to Eldariel (he noticed that in the PH space for spells is a big part of the book).

Oslecamo
2008-12-17, 08:53 AM
Sometimes I wonder if many people play every encounter this way:

Monsters: "see, adventurers"

Adventurers: "see, monsters"

M: "good morning"

A: "'morning. let's roll initiative?"

M: "ok."

Because if you play this way, yes, casters could have the /win button.

In actual, varied situations, the readyness of noncasters will always be useful. And remember that sometimes will happen that the best way to defeat an enemy would be the rogue, but he will let the sorcerer to battle with him for an old grudge between them. RPG, you know...



No, no, you're geting it wrong. The monster will send a letter with several days of advance to the caster(and only the caster), detaling every weak point it has and where he will be, so the caster can have all the time in the world to prepare.

The monster will also NEVER EVER have one of the following:
1-Good mobility.
2-Good saves.
3-Any mental score above 1.
4-Ranged attacks whatsoever.
5-Immunities to status effect.
6-Friends to help it during battle.
7-Special powers of it's own.
8-Any tactic more sophisticated than MONSTER SMASH!

They're all slugish stupid behemoths designed just to kill noncasters while being cannon fodder for casters.

Well, at least that's the kind of examples pro-casters show. Monsters always attack alone whitout using their special powers or even skills. They also dont think or act by themselves and exist just to wait for the casters to appear and kill them.

Zen Master
2008-12-17, 10:03 AM
I mean, some DM somewhere must be letting the super-munchkins play, right??

A guy joined our group once, about a year ago, and played two sessions. From the outset he was disappointed we didn't play at level 20, that we used the rules for ECL, and that he wasn't allowed a 6d breath weapon at level 1.

Like I said - two sessions. I believe he's been looking for a more interesting group ever since. So - he is out there. But a city the size of Copenhagen (1,5 mil.) apparently doesn't support a full group.

Eclipse
2008-12-17, 01:11 PM
Thanks for all of your responses so far, it's been interesting to see everyone else's experiences.

I have to say, I'm a little surprised at the number of people who've had problems with casters in actual play given my own experience, but hey, the point of asking was to see if my own experience was normal or not. :smallwink:


Dragons universally have low dexterity. +0 across the board. It doesn't matter if they have high class AC, they get an AC of like, 16 max.

Perhaps he meant touch AC, so they could be targeted with ray spells?

Then again, I haven't seen any dragons of any age with touch AC that high that I can think of, but I could have missed one somewhere.

Eldariel
2008-12-17, 01:44 PM
Meh. Scintillating Scales & magic items. AC = Touch AC.

Yukitsu
2008-12-17, 01:45 PM
6:00 AM posting is bad posting. XD

I meant to say reflex saves. They generally stay low simply because they have no dex.

DM Raven
2008-12-17, 05:17 PM
This has been discussed to death. Wizards, clerics, and druids are the most OP classes when it comes to high level. With one spell, a cleric can become more badass than a fighter.

There are a few spells that cause this to happen, and the shapechange rule mechanics make those who use them OP. At lower level, the classes are more balanced...though I would still give casters the edge unless you're using stuff from the Tome of Battle...but even then the utility of a wizard is unmatched.

Eldritch_Ent
2008-12-17, 05:19 PM
1-Good mobility. (Wizard has better. Phantom Mount caps at 240/round, and if the wizard bothers with a high dex mod, a few ride ranks, or just buying a saddle, he can guide it with his knees with a... 5 dc ride check?)
2-Good saves. (Spells that ignore saves, drop saves, or force multiple saves.)
3-Any mental score above 1. (Irellevant, except when it comes to saves. That Damn Crab has a low intelligence, but brutal tactics nontheless, for example.)
4-Ranged attacks whatsoever. (Wind Wall, Spell Turning, Concealment...)
5-Immunities to status effect. (Undead, Ooze, Plant, Elemental, Construct all have these... At least, immunity to the "standard" effects. Wizards tend to use spells that few if any have resistances to, such as Assay Spell Resistance.)
6-Friends to help it during battle. (Any Wall of X spell, Solid Fog, Grease, Stinking Cloud, Web...)
7-Special powers of it's own. (Simply not true. Spellcasting is a great one to have. Throw up Protection from Good on anyone who you don't want dominated. Plenty of monsters have spells of their own, or at least Spell-likes and supernaturals.)
8-Any tactic more sophisticated than MONSTER SMASH! (Lies! Plus, aren't this, 7, and 3 really the same complaint in the end? Still though, the trick is getting any tactic to work against a caster that isn't also a caster tactic somehow...)
(9- Spell Resistance (Lots of Spells ignore SR outright, and a few drop it. There's also things like Orange Ioun Stones and Spell Penetration.)
10- Element of Surprise (Foresight is the standard high-level wizard cure. Also try Nerveskitter and Celerity.))


First, I don't appreciate how much hatred and such is in your post. Cut the vitriol down before it grows into flaming, please?

Second, the thing with wizards (or most any full caster really, but especially wizards) is that they have spells to counteract all of those, and more. I have appended your quote with standard wizard counters. The stuff in ()'s is the added information.

Yes, this includes item 9 and 10, two points you forgot to include. =P

Oslecamo
2008-12-17, 05:53 PM
First, I don't appreciate how much truth and such is in your post. Cut the arguments I don't like down before it grows into an epic speech, please?

Second, the thing with wizards (or most any full caster really, but especially wizards) is that they have spells to counteract all of those, and more. I have appended your quote with standard wizard counters. The stuff in ()'s is the added information.

First, in case you didn't notice, I was being ironic.

And the monsters have abilities to counter the counters of the wizard. Illusions? At high levels the monsters have all see invisibility or true sight. Enchantments? Half the monsters are simply immune to it. Wind wall? It doesn't stop boulders. Spell turning? Sorry, doesn't work with with SLAs. Spells that evade both saves and spell resitance? There are very few, and none easily usable. Ect, ect.

Not to mention monster wich can dispel magic and monster wich can teleport at will.

Of course, you can spend countless hours researching the monster books, doing statistics and searching spells, to get out the most optimal build, but few people bother doing so.

And then the DM simply reflavors the monster's aspect so you don't know what you're fighting, gives it a couple class levels and catches the wizard with it's pants down. That looks like a gnoll? Ups, sorry, it was actually a construct who can fly and hits much harder than a gnoll. If you had spot ranks you could have noticed the disguise. Anti contruct spell? Sorry, it has anti anti construct spell piece of equipment. No, sorry, too late, you already took your action, now it's the monster's turn. What, you thought your wizard is the only being who optimizes in this world?



Yes, this includes item 9 and 10, two points you forgot to include. =P

No problem at all, I also had the liberty of puting your post as you intended it. :smallwink:

Aquillion
2008-12-17, 05:55 PM
The fact is, the 'smart' monsters with lots of good abilities and advantages make spellcasters look even better. A spellcaster has a very wide variety of tricks, and spells with many applications (for instance, a golem is immune a wide variety of spells, but you can just aim that Disintegrate on the ground beneath it.)

A typical non-ToB fighter-type, meanwhile, generally has just one or two tricks (unless you're, like, wossnamed the masked or a really special build like that.) Focus on tripping and fight something that can't be tripped? You're screwed. Fighting a swarm? You're screwed. Fighting something that dishes out melee-range damage faster than you, grapples better than you, or whatever (which is almost every big monster in the game?) You are screwed. My spellcaster has a much easier time against any of the dangers listed (or even all of them) than a typical rogue does against something they can't SA, a typical trip/grapple-fighter has against something that can't be effectively tripped/grapped, or a close-range combatant has against anything sufficiently big and nasty at all.

Spellcasting is adaptable. Most of the other options available to PCs simply aren't, not to anywhere near the same degree. That is the real reason it's unbalanced; all the other individual tricks and so forth that players list are just special instances of the larger versatility issue.


And then the DM simply reflavors the monster's aspect so you don't know what you're fighting, gives it a couple class levels and catches the wizard with it's pants down. That looks like a gnoll? Ups, sorry, it was actually a construct who can fly and hits much harder than a gnoll. If you had spot ranks you could have noticed the disguise. Anti contruct spell? Sorry, it has anti anti construct spell piece of equipment. No, sorry, too late, you already took your action, now it's the monster's turn. What, you thought your wizard is the only being who optimizes in this world?The fact that you're seriously suggesting that DMs have to go out of their way to limit wizards means that you are, in fact, admitting that they're overpowered. Would you suggest that they do the same thing for other classes -- say "Whoops, that kobold was actually a dragon in disguise!" when the barbarian tries to grapple it? "Whoops, that monster is actually a construct immune to sneak attacks" when the rogue stabs it?

And the next round, who do you think is going to be able to correct their strategy more effectively? The wizard, with fifty different spells up their sleeve for every situation? Or the Barbarian, whose options come down to (essentially) 'stab it' and 'stab it some more?'

Also...

Spells that evade both saves and spell resitance? There are very few, and none easily usable. Ect, ect.Very few? How about every single buff, nearly every single terrain-alteration spell, every transportation or personal range spell, or every summon/calling spell, just to name a few? How about nearly every instantaneous Conjuration spell -- the best and most popular school of magic in the game?

Eclipse
2008-12-17, 06:42 PM
The fact that you're seriously suggesting that DMs have to go out of their way to limit wizards means that you are, in fact, admitting that they're overpowered. Would you suggest that they do the same thing for other classes -- say "Whoops, that kobold was actually a dragon in disguise!" when the barbarian tries to grapple it? "Whoops, that monster is actually a construct immune to sneak attacks" when the rogue stabs it?


To be fair, some GMs do this in practice, and that does tend to let everyone participate more. Which would be one more reason casters don't dominate in practice, which is what I asked in my original post.

I already acknowledged that casters win in theory.

Proven_Paradox
2008-12-17, 08:08 PM
So what have your actual gameplay experiences with casters been? I don't care about RAW or theory in this case, I'm looking for how things have turned out when you played the game. Has your experience been like mine, where casters are powerful but not overshadowing, or have you actually played in a game in which a caster overshadowed everyone simply through his or her build?

I've played in mid-high level games as a relatively optimized melee character alongside completely unoptimized casters. In such cases, my character typically dominates. If an optimized spellcaster were to show up however, I'm willing to bet that would change.

I've played in low-level games both as and alongside optimized spellcasters--and I find that at low levels, casters STILL dominate, but in a much more subtle way; usually with a well placed grease or color spray or two, they can negate an encounter, leaving the meleer to mop up enemies that have been rendered completely ineffective. More often than not, that's what the melee guy does; mop up enemies that were basically defeated by the caster. This gets to be worse and worse as levels get higher.

I find that the best point of balance is games where the DM heards people to teir 2-4 classes--cut the wizard/cleric/druid/artificer/archivists out of the loop for being too strong, cut the monks/samurais out for being too weak, and encourage people to play sorcerers, favored souls, ToB classes, totemists, psionic classes, factotums, beguilers and the other school-focused casters, and well-built rogues, bards, fighters, and so on. Everyone won't be EQUAL, but cases of utter domination should be mostly gone.

I don't play in epic level games because by then the spellcaster has either created his own demi-plane full of people forced to worship him and ascended into deity-hood, or the party is probably unable to keep up with epic challenges and gets crushed.

I've found that the best way to play a wizard is to stick mostly to Core spells--the most broken spells can usually be found there. I limit my non-Core material primarily to the Spell Compendium, and for those I just pick out a few goodies. Saves on bookkeeping by a lot.

ericgrau
2008-12-17, 09:10 PM
Aquillon:

Swarms
A rare CR 1-4 encounter that can be defeated with a couple flasks of alchemists fire or some improvised source of fire? :smallconfused: Well, with the exception of a single CR 8 version.


Fighting something that dishes out melee-range damage faster than you, grapples better than you, or whatever (which is almost every big monster in the game?)
Nope, not a one. Any halfway decent fighter can go toe to toe and pwn here. I've run mock fights before, no tricks at all. Very rarely is a creature not vulnerable or at least partly vulnerable to sharp pointy objects. Demons/devils, dragons, etc. OTOH are a problem for casters. Plus there are a wide variety of tactics that disrupt casting altogether, and the caster is usually a vulnerable target.

Grease: I've seen this too, during a short-lived and so-so campaign. Eventually I told the DM: "Uh, shouldn't that monster finally leave the area of my grease spell? Or just take the -4 and fight prone? It's been like 5 rounds." I think the DM just gave up and didn't even try to strategize here; it is likely that both DM's got their tips online. Other spells also tend to have their limitations.

I'm certainly not saying wizards are horrible, either. See previous post.

Morandir Nailo
2008-12-17, 11:02 PM
My experience is similar to that of the OP; I've never seen a caster dominate, unless the player (in this case, me) did a lot of homework beforehand, and in that case it was horrendous; the game was high-powered anyway, but the other player (who wielded double shortswords in each of his four arms, attacking twice with each end each round, so 16 attacks total) ended up taking caster classes in epic levels so he could keep up.

Generally though, I've played in low-level (under 10) games, and in those situations it's always been the melee guys on top. Casters were typically blasters, because no one wanted to spend time poring through the books looking for optimized spells; they just picked things they thought looked cool, and ran with it. And we always, always had to cajole someone into playing the Cleric, because no one wanted to be the band-aid; until I started hanging around the WotC CharOp board, I had no idea they could be so powerful. I was just never that interested in reading each spell in detail and considering the mechanical ramifications. (Until that high-powered game, where I did my homework so I wouldn't die, because the GM is a hardcore powergamer, and runs powergamed monsters and NPCs. Still, it was a blast.) True story: in an Eberron game that I ran, I had a player ditch their Artificer character because the class was "too weak."

So, my take on things is that the average player (based on those I know) is more interested in playing than in "builds." Most people I know looked at character creation as a chore; they just picked things with that looked interesting so they could get back to the game, and everything always worked out. Again, I had to look around on the internet to discover that there was a problem with casters. YMMV and all that, of course.

Mor

Gorbash
2008-12-17, 11:18 PM
(who wielded double shortswords in each of his four arms, attacking twice with each end each round, so 16 attacks total)

But how?:smallconfused: Not even Monkey Grip, in all its stupidity, doesn't let you do that.

FatR
2008-12-18, 05:23 AM
Nope, not a one. Any halfway decent fighter can go toe to toe and pwn here. I've run mock fights before, no tricks at all.
Post these mock fights. Unless by "halfway decent" you mean "ubercharger" and "no tricks" you mean "just hit them for over nine thousands damage", I call bull****. Let's look at, I don't know, hill giant, which is actually weak as hell for CR 7 creature. His supposed equal, 7th level core fighter, cannot yet allow a belt of giant strength or a weapon, better than +2. So, even if he is half-orc, he, at best, can pull about even in attack bonus and damage. Numbers are about this: +2 greatsword +15/+11, Dmg 2d6 + 11 (Str 21+spec.)/19-20X2 vs. greatclub +16/+11 melee (2d8+10) . As about defence, half-orc's can, at best, have +2 mythral breasplate or +2 fullplate (which totally destroys his mobility). As this is supposed to be a head-on slugging match, let's assume fullplate and total +11 to AC (+1 from Dex) for AC 21 against giant's 20. Let's also assume that the half orc rolled well at chargen and has Con 16, and that he spend the rest of his money on amulet of health +2. That gives him 75 HP on average vs. giant's 102. In simple exchange of blows the fighter statistically loses: 5% greater chance to crit does not compensate for 25% difference in HP (their chance to hit and standard damage are even). The only way to furher improve his stats with feats is to take Dodge, which can make a small difference, that is still not enough to overcome the HP gap. If the fighter attempts to buff his AC by using sword and board or Combat Expertise, his damage or chance to hit goes down the drain, so the giant still can outlast him. Also, the hill giant has better reach, thus having an opportunity to AoO fighter, is hard to trip (if "no tricks" does not exclude trip), due to size and bigger Str, and is better in grapple. You need to burn consumables to have your supposed 50% chance of victory, and if the giant has any useable treasure, or better feats than his standard garbage, you need to burn consumables bigtime. And I repeat that giants actually are weak for their CR. Dire bear or eigth-headed hydra (also CR 7), will totally obliterate a 7-th level core fighter in melee by outattacking, outdamaging and outgrappling him, and let us not even start on hellcats and other monsters that aren't pure melee brutes. And the gap grows only worse with more levels.


Very rarely is a creature not vulnerable or at least partly vulnerable to sharp pointy objects. Demons/devils, dragons, etc. OTOH are a problem for casters.
And sure death for fighters. Because, you know, you need to get in melee range to do anything with your sharp, pointy objects.


Grease: I've seen this too, during a short-lived and so-so campaign. Eventually I told the DM: "Uh, shouldn't that monster finally leave the area of my grease spell? Or just take the -4 and fight prone? It's been like 5 rounds." I think the DM just gave up and didn't even try to strategize here; it is likely that both DM's got their tips online.
I can't even imagine how incredibly anti-optimized your party was to leave an enemy alive for 5 entire rounds. In my current game it goes like this: if you try to stand in the area of Grease that our bard casts, you get smacked for massive damage by the reach weapon fighter, if you try to attack from prone, you get a massive (for levels 2-4) penalty even if you can reach said fighter at all. If you try to crawl away, then Grease stripped you of 2-3 rounds of actions, so you're pretty much screwed. It is far from impossible to counter, but it is a very good use of your spell slot in most low-level situations.

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-18, 06:59 AM
Mojotech: yours are all good counter example, but in an extent, you confirm what Olsecalmo says. Most spell are situational. Trust me, if the player are kept enough under pressure, the casting time of phantom steed would not be enough. Even something broken like Evasculate does not work on a Treant. The crab is dumb, but other monsters aren’t. Buffs can be dispelled, and a Devil can see you even if you conceal yourself in darkness.

If you use spell like Assay SR, you do your job well, but it’s another spell slot and you don’t have infinite ones. Exist tactics not based on magic. Some tactics are based on stealth, politics, and so on. And if the world is high magic, even non spellcasters can grab some useful magic item. And magic does not work, or work properly, always. Again, foresight is a good choice, but spellslots (and magic items) are not infinite. Yes, a newcomer DM can have a difficult to recognize these things in the beginning, but even his players have to learn to play .. Nothing bad in this thing.

And obviously, I don’t say that mages are useless (lulz). Or that some spells and features could be better with a rework on them. I only say that the “ZOMG levels 15-20 are unplayable lolz Fighter suxx” thing is a little bit overrated.

Aquillon: yours are good points. I disagree with the point that only ToB classes can do interesting thing, but it would need a thread about the old issue “what can I do with a full attack action”. In a full attack, I’ve seen a fighter disarm an enemy, trip another one, sundering enemy’s weapon with the following attack, sundering cleave, throw the weapon to an approaching enemy slowing him, quickdraw a whip and trip two enemies thank to a feat, quickdraw some knives to ranged disarm and pin two enemies. And this is one of the combination he was able to do.
A meleers could have even more options, and the chance to do these things even more efficiently? Of course. But this is valid if they have to do italone, because spellcaster buffs are awesome on someone that already has 18 combat feats. Unless for the games in wich people play to see the biggest number or to be jerks, but don’t think D&D is supposed to work for these things anyway.

Yes, magic is OP but must be planned. Meleers have more little options “on the fly”. And BTW, I don’t trust so much in one trick ponies. Sometime is better to not have always success in tripping, and be able to do other things. A friend of mine bringed a FIGHTER for 40 fighter levels from 1 to epic. Almost vanilla, something from Complete Warrior and PHII. Simply, spellcasters supported him as he supported them. Great character, all of them (11 PCs) were lost without him. (N.M., in memory of the greatest fighter I’ve ever seen. Go to skill, Lord Robilar).

BTW, I think that you caught one of the reals problems in DMing that lead to the “casters OP” issue. If the DM want railroad: spellcaster do strange things, so have more chance to avoid railroading: DM surrenders, because tricks used to screw the party screwed only meleers: spellcasters OP.



I already acknowledged that casters win in theory.
This is the point of the whole thing IMHO


I find that the best point of balance is games where the DM heards people to teir 2-4 classes--cut the wizard/cleric/druid/artificer/archivists out of the loop for being too strong, cut the monks/samurais out for being too weak, and encourage people to play sorcerers, favored souls, ToB classes, totemists, psionic classes, factotums, beguilers and the other school-focused casters, and well-built rogues, bards, fighters, and so on. Everyone won't be EQUAL, but cases of utter domination should be mostly gone.
The beautiful thing of the 3.5, IMHO, is that you can manage it the way you want. If you have troubles with those classes being too powerful or too weak, you have a sea of possibilities, and each time you'll restart the game, you will have a new subsystem to experiment.

I don't play in epic level games because by then the spellcaster has either created his own demi-plane full of people forced to worship him and ascended into deity-hood, or the party is probably unable to keep up with epic challenges and gets crushed.
Epic games are hard to manage. Great need of an revised Epic Handbook , for new classes and a better defined epic spellcasting, as well as more earthshattering powers for meleers (something like Thunderclap in SS? Just an idea..). Wotc had different ideas from mine , maybe


I can't even imagine how incredibly anti-optimized your party was to leave an enemy alive for 5 entire rounds. In my current game it goes like this: if you try to stand in the area of Grease that our bard casts, you get smacked for massive damage by the reach weapon fighter, if you try to attack from prone, you get a massive (for levels 2-4) penalty even if you can reach said fighter at all. If you try to crawl away, then Grease stripped you of 2-3 rounds of actions, so you're pretty much screwed. It is far from impossible to counter, but it is a very good use of your spell slot in most low-level situations.
So… grease always work, even on sand, or in a swamp? It’s a good thing you synergize party this way, but surprises me that this always work. Yes, if the PCs get an edge, even a Time Dragon goes down in a round, but as Olsecalmo said, monsters sometimes decide that don’t want to be killed. Hit and run, teleport, and so on. At that point, it’s good have a Batman Wizard, because a dimensional anchor and an orb, and the subsequent leap attack charge, avoidin a big monster teleporting, returning after surprising you, and TPK.
Sometimes I think that 3.5 has not imbalance (or at least, has less imbalances that the ones generally noticed) but is just very difficult to DM.