How many of you truly believe that only spell casters are worth playing?

[Elderand]

Assuming 1% of the population of a typical dnd world become clerics
Assuming 2/3 of those clerics are of good or neutral alignement
Assuming there twice as many cleric of a given level as there are of of the next level.
Assuming all cleric of good and neutral alignement do nothing with their spell slot but cast create food and water (not counting domain spells)
Assuming all cleric begins with the elite array
Assuming all cleric buy the best periat of wisdom they can as soon as their WBL allows

Clerics of any given world can feed around 3% of the total population.

So I think it's safe to assume that even if every cleric used every trick possible to get their CL as high as possible, they wouldn't be able to multiply that number enough to feed everyone.

Now what if we use spellclocks instead.

A spellclock can feed 1008 people every day. (cast create food and water 1 per hour, every hour, CL14)
Assuming a world population of 500 milion (estimated world population in 1500AD) you would need 496 032 spell clocks to feed everyone.
That would cost, assuming the clock is made purely at crafting cost 32 billions 242 millions and 80 thousands gold.

If we assume 10% of the population enters PC classes and again, twice as many of any level as there are of the next level, 2/3 of which would be interested in spending the entirety of their WBL on spell clocks.

You end up with total amount of wealth of 123 billion 260 million 904 thousand and 948 gold.

So you only need every single good or neutral character with class level to spend roughly 1/4 of their wealth on spell clocks to feed everyone.
Human nature being what it is, you can expect to get between 3 and 5 % of wealth given for charity. 10% if we go by medieval tithe rule.
Which is less than half what's needed to feed everyone.

Realisticly DnD only become post scarity for food and water only once you reach about 30% of the population getting into PC classes. And that's if the entire proceding of tithing goes toward getting spellclocks.

[logic_error]

Assuming 1% of the population of a typical dnd world become clerics
Assuming 2/3 of those clerics are of good or neutral alignement
Assuming there twice as many cleric of a given level as there are of of the next level.
Assuming all cleric of good and neutral alignement do nothing with their spell slot but cast create food and water (not counting domain spells)
Assuming all cleric begins with the elite array
Assuming all cleric buy the best periat of wisdom they can as soon as their WBL allows

Clerics of any given world can feed around 3% of the total population.

So I think it's safe to assume that even if every cleric used every trick possible to get their CL as high as possible, they wouldn't be able to multiply that number enough to feed everyone.

Now what if we use spellclocks instead.

A spellclock can feed 1008 people every day. (cast create food and water 1 per hour, every hour, CL14)
Assuming a world population of 500 milion (estimated world population in 1500AD) you would need 496 032 spell clocks to feed everyone.
That would cost, assuming the clock is made purely at crafting cost 32 billions 242 millions and 80 thousands gold.

If we assume 10% of the population enters PC classes and again, twice as many of any level as there are of the next level, 2/3 of which would be interested in spending the entirety of their WBL on spell clocks.

You end up with total amount of wealth of 123 billion 260 million 904 thousand and 948 gold.

So you only need every single good or neutral character with class level to spend roughly 1/4 of their wealth on spell clocks to feed everyone.
Human nature being what it is, you can expect to get between 3 and 5 % of wealth given for charity. 10% if we go by medieval tithe rule.
Which is less than half what's needed to feed everyone.

Realisticly DnD only become post scarity for food and water only once you reach about 30% of the population getting into PC classes. And that's if the entire proceding of tithing goes toward getting spellclocks.

True creation can create Gold. A LOT OF IT. You dont even need those many classed people to provide tithe. You need ONE charitable Cleric/Wizard.

[Elderand]

True creation can create Gold. A LOT OF IT. You dont even need those many classed people to provide tithe. You need ONE charitable Cleric/Wizard.

Actually no, it's not that simple.

True creation has an xp cost of 1xp per gold value of the item created.

That means a level 20 character can at best create 19 999 gold worth of wealth per casting of true creation.

The means to really start making money with true creation you need someone who is both high level enough (which is only about 900 people in an average world) of good or at least neutral alignement (600) altruistic enough to do it (about 60) and who has the means of negating the XP cost in some way before you have a realistic chance of true creation becoming a factor.

I'mnot sure you can get a spell clock of true creation, I don't know if spellclock can cast spells with an XP cost.

[logic_error]

Actually no, it's not that simple.

True creation has an xp cost of 1xp per gold value of the item created.

That means a level 20 character can at best create 19 999 gold worth of wealth per casting of true creation.

The means to really start making money with true creation you need someone who is both high level enough (which is only about 900 people in an average world) of good or at least neutral alignement (600) altruistic enough to do it (about 60) and who has the means of negating the XP cost in some way before you have a realistic chance of true creation becoming a factor.

I'mnot sure you can get a spell clock of true creation, I don't know if spellclock can cast spells with an XP cost.

Welcome to Dweomerkeeper. A class that can cast all that stuff without any loss of XP. Enjoy. yes, its broken.

[Elderand]

Welcome to Dweomerkeeper. A class that can cast all that stuff without any loss of XP. Enjoy. yes, its broken.

Except that doesn't work, dweomerkeeper can only cast a spell as an SLA if it has a casting time of 1 standard action or less.

It takes 10 minutes to cast true creation.

[logic_error]

Except that doesn't work, dweomerkeeper can only cast a spell as an SLA if it has a casting time of 1 standard action or less.

It takes 10 minutes to cast true creation.

Whoops right. Let them cast wish and ask for it then. Sorry.

[Elderand]

Whoops right. Let them cast wish and ask for it then. Sorry.

At that point you have about....14 people in any given world who could do it. And that's not counting the odds of any of them being dweomerkeepers.
So can that make a world in dnd post scarcity? Yeah, but it's like... 1 world in a dozen or more.

And that work only for one edition of the game, not for DnD in general.

So yeah, you can end up with something post scarcity, it's just not very likely.

[logic_error]

Actually, it's much more like due to stuff like polymorph abuse or summoning outsiders. I am simply not expert in these matters to conclude them satisfactorily. But to not overstress the point, the idea is that D&D is pretty much an inconsistent world and breaks itself easily of you take what it says in the book legally.

[Dagroth]

Why would you believe that? We have the means to end world hunger, and people still starve. We don't even have demons of starvation or gods of evil with an agenda that is explicitly pro people starving.

Citation Needed.

Why the heck not. They literally worship GOOD deities. In fact, for some of them, it might WRONG to refuse this obviously charitable duty. You can, of course, bring in balance issues about portfolios, but the character conviction has nothing to do with this.

1. Because not all Good (& most Neutral) deities believe that people should just be given stuff for free?
2. Because a deity of agriculture would be understandably pissed off if people stopped farming?
3. Because some deities would see that as interfering with their domains (see: agriculture deity just mentioned, not to mention death deities who are not always evil)?
4. Because if a 5th level Cleric made too many of these, he'd have to stop for awhile and adventure (and possibly get killed) so he could get enough xp to make more?
5. Because many Clerics might have other things they need to do besides create spoons (like appeasing the deities who give them the power to make said spoons)?

Now you are slowly starting to see things my way. D&D is a messed up system. A world where people *KNOW* what awaits them after death and what dangers exist around them is not like ours.

So Devils, Demons, Evil Deities, etc. don't lie to people to convince them that they'll be rewarded for being evil?

------
Let's look at another aspect of fantasy medieval life... Peasant Joe & his wife have 3 kids... two boys and a girl. Unless he's living in a very well protected area, at least one of those kids is going to die young. There just aren't enough Clerics to keep every disease at bay, and barbarians/orcs/goblins/dragons/whatever do raid civilization almost as often as PCs raid dungeons.

The girl (assuming she survived) can't take over the farming... unless we assume that the egalitarianism of PCs applies across all levels of society. At any rate, it's going to require 2 people to take over for Peasant Joe & his wife. Running a farm takes all one's free time during working days. Assume there are days of worship when working is not permitted. Assume there are days when Peasant Joe has to go to market to sell his goods... but wait! He doesn't go to market to sell his goods because the goods are not his. He's a Peasant and doesn't own anything, the local Lord does!

Now, let's assume that Jeffy, Peasant Joe's son, shows the right amount of piety and faith to become a Cleric. If he's lucky, then the local Cleric (or more likely, a traveling Cleric) discovers this and takes Jeffy away to become a Cleric. Now, the local Lord most likely isn't going to stop the Church from kidnapping his property (because the local Lord doesn't just own the land, he owns the Peasants too), but he's not going to want the land producing less crops just because one kid left for Church. So, for the next 7 (average) years, Peasant Joe, his wife & one remaining child have to work harder to keep up with the requirements of the local Lord. Now maybe Jeffy comes back for a very brief visit... but more likely he's gone for good and Peasant Joe's other kid better find someone to marry to help around the land soon.

Now, Willy, the son of Peasant Steve, see's the situation over in the Joe household and has to decide... does he stay and care for his family, or does he run off with the old coot who says he could become a Wizard? If he leaves with the Wizard, he probably won't come back any more than Jeffy came back and it will be his family that suffers because of it.

Peasants don't become Wizards & Clerics because life is hard and getting away from the life of a Peasant is even harder.

[logic_error]

So was this case in our world. My grand-dad was a farmer in a third world country. And now I have a PhD in Physics. Things change. People change them. If anything, we can use this aspect of MUNDANE reality to convince ourselves that in a magical world change might be "easier".

[Beheld]

So was this case in our world. My grand-dad was a farmer in a third world country. And now I have a PhD in Physics. Things change. People change them. If anything, we can use this aspect of MUNDANE reality to convince ourselves that in a magical world change might be "easier".

One poor person got rich. This is proof that all poor people can be rich if they just try.

[logic_error]

One poor person got rich. This is proof that all poor people can be rich if they just try.

No. Poor people can change in mundane world, hence it should be easier in magical world.

[Dagroth]

So was this case in our world. My grand-dad was a farmer in a third world country. And now I have a PhD in Physics. Things change. People change them. If anything, we can use this aspect of MUNDANE reality to convince ourselves that in a magical world change might be "easier".

Society changed, not people. When "the powers that be" have the ability to literally change peoples minds, not to mention strong institutionalization of deific powers (when a King says his right to rule comes from god in a D&D world, he's got proof!), such changes come much more slowly.

When the upper classes control all avenues to power (Churches, Wizard Schools, Martial Training), Peasants either don't gain power or they become co-opted by the system.

When the God of Agriculture says "25% of the people must be farmers", that's what happens.

When St. Cuthbert says "the Role of the Church is to Fight Evil", that's what they do... not "make magic spoons".

No. Poor people can change in mundane world, hence it should be easier in magical world.

The reason you could get a PhD in Physics is because the technology changed and it no longer required as much manpower to maintain farmland.

In a world with Magic and "Real" deities, there are much more powerful beings out there maintaining the status quo and preventing such things from happening.

[logic_error]

Society changed, not people. When "the powers that be" have the ability to literally change peoples minds, not to mention strong institutionalization of deific powers (when a King says his right to rule comes from god in a D&D world, he's got proof!), such changes come much more slowly.

When the upper classes control all avenues to power (Churches, Wizard Schools, Martial Training), Peasants either don't gain power or they become co-opted by the system.

When the God of Agriculture says "25% of the people must be farmers", that's what happens.

When St. Cuthbert says "the Role of the Church is to Fight Evil", that's what they do... not "make magic spoons".

The reason you could get a PhD in Physics is because the technology changed and it no longer required as much manpower to maintain farmland.

In a world with Magic and "Real" deities, there are much more powerful beings out there maintaining the status quo and preventing such things from happening.

Actually that is false. Eberron is an example of how at least semi-realistic take on magic meets tech would look. And guess what, for the reasons of game mechanics its still a functioning world like ours.

[Dagroth]

Actually that is false. Eberron is an example of how at least semi-realistic take on magic meets tech would look. And guess what, for the reasons of game mechanics its still a functioning world like ours.

Eberron relies on a number of very specific conceits that don't exist in other fantasy worlds. Dragonmarks, for one.

Oh, and Eberron has Peasants that are never anything but Peasants too! It has ruling classes that are interested in doing nothing but keeping the Status Quo too!

[sleepyphoenixx]

Eberron relies on a number of very specific conceits that don't exist in other fantasy worlds. Dragonmarks, for one.

Oh, and Eberron has Peasants that are never anything but Peasants too! It has ruling classes that are interested in doing nothing but keeping the Status Quo too!

It also has scary badass epic dragons that will scry & die your ass if you try to defy your fate, because the Draconic Prophecy is a thing there.
So if anything it's even less likely to have significant chance.

The same is true for FR. The gods explicitly prevent the kind of progress they don't want.
If they don't want you to do something then that something will just suddenly not work, no matter what "science" or "common sense" say.
There's also always the "curbstomped by outsiders/fanatics/Thayans/Zhentarim/Yuan-Ti/etc" option. Because there's lots of factions who either like the status quo as it is or want to change the status quo their way, not yours.

[Elderand]

It also has scary badass epic dragons that will scry & die your ass if you try to defy your fate, because the Draconic Prophecy is a thing there.
So if anything it's even less likely to have significant chance.

The same is true for FR. The gods explicitly prevent the kind of progress they don't want.
If they don't want you to do something then that something will just suddenly not work, no matter what "science" or "common sense" say.
There's also always the "curbstomped by outsiders/fanatics/Thayans/Zhentarim/Yuan-Ti/etc" option. Because there's lots of factions who either like the status quo as it is or want to change the status quo their way, not yours.

And then, in Faerun at least, relying a magic for stuff you can do with mundane means is a stupidly bad idea given that ever few centuries something bad happens to magic and all magic goes to the crapbasket, it keeps happening, you'd have to be an idiot to do anything long term with magic in Faerun.

So you found a way to feed everyone in your kingdom with magic, well next time magic fails everyone starves, or your magic floating mountain come crashing down.

[Dagroth]

Most fantasy worlds are really crap-sack worlds that just seem wonderful because the players are already part of the elite. Or, at the very least, outside of most of the normal power structures.

[logic_error]

Most fantasy worlds are really crap-sack worlds that just seem wonderful because the players are already part of the elite. Or, at the very least, outside of most of the normal power structures.

or Rather the game is designed so that you can be free of mundane problems and enjoy adventuring.

[Deeds]

or Rather the game is designed so that you can be free of mundane problems and enjoy adventuring.

Indeed. Perhaps D&D is just a game that's intended purpose was to be played. I doubt it's purpose was to devolve into a 9 page forum post about a fictional wizard's impact on a fictional economy. The real travesty here is that the Kensai prestige class requires Ride 5 as a class skill. :(

[Psyren]

Indeed. Perhaps D&D is just a game that's intended purpose was to be played. I doubt it's purpose was to devolve into a 9 page forum post about a fictional wizard's impact on a fictional economy.

Welcome to the Playground :/

Getting back on topic...

...actually, has the OP posted in this thread even once since making it?

[Dagroth]

Indeed. Perhaps D&D is just a game that's intended purpose was to be played. I doubt it's purpose was to devolve into a 9 page forum post about a fictional wizard's impact on a fictional economy. The real travesty here is that the Kensai prestige class requires Ride 5 as a class skill. :(

Agreed...

If you want the Kensai to be connected to "nobility" & Samurai/Knighthood, they could have added Knowledge: Nobility & Royalty.

I think it's dumb they require the Combat Expertise Feat.

[lylsyly]

has the OP posted in this thread even once since making it?

Personally, I am going to sit back and watch.

...... I would really like to hear your opinions.

Note how fast it was to get a response that said "yes, casters are the only thing worth playing." ??

Although ... I was glad to see that some people don't believe it.

And I AM reading every word.

[Psyren]

Note how fast it was to get a response that said "yes, casters are the only thing worth playing." ??

Although ... I was glad to see that some people don't believe it.

And I AM reading every word.

Glad you're still here, hope you got your answer. There isn't consensus around this (and not ever likely to be.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

The problem is that you're thinking about "high level problems" as "low level problems but bigger". That's wrong. High level characters have new tools, and face different problems. Where "cross the desert" is a whole adventure for a 1st level party, it's a single action for a 9th level one. That means your adventure has to view "cross the desert" as a primitive -- in the same way that "fight a goblin" is at 1st level -- rather than try to make progressively more dangerous deserts for people to attempt to cross.

We're talking past each other, apparently. I'm not talking about campaign level design. I'm talking about -encounter- level design. A fighter can buy a helmet of teleportation and the wayfarer's guild is a thing. The paradigm shifting spells aren't hard to come by just because you can't cast them directly from your own memory. They're not relevant to what I'm trying to get accross because, in most cases, you can take a little time and/or money to acquire the desired effect unless the DM is actively blocking it. If a DM is blocking it, being able to cast it directly won't help.

Part of progression is being able to surpass things that previously challenged you. If you want to continue solving problems with the tools you had at level one (skill checks, thumbs), why progress past level one?

What an absurd thing to suggest. Many skills evolve in their use as level increases either by simply bringing the DC's for more impressive feats into reach or by being directly modified by the acquisition of relevant class features or skill tricks. Same goes for improving and modifying other basic mechanics as levels progress.

Examples: dc 40 tumble lets you take 10ft steps instead of 5ft and ranged pin lets you "grapple" a foe from the range of your bow/ x-bow. You can't do either of these at level 1. Evolution of basic mechanics is still progression.

That's because you're not scaling challenges to player's abilities. Sure, you might be able to accomplish the "cross the desert" adventure with teleport, but that's not fundamentally different from being able to solve the "kill the goblin" challenge with sword.

You missed it again. You cannot possibly be unaware of what tools you will have available when you bring all your usable tools with you.

The abilities of a Fighter are things you can do in Skyrim. If you want to do only things that you can do in Skyrim, go play Skyrim.

The forum's strict policy against flaming prevents me from addressing this appropriately. Imagine something vitriolic in response to this blatant condecension over differing opinion.


Apropos of nothing in particular, I can't help but wonder if you have any idea how to properly work a non-caster or if you've always been a caster-supremacist.

[icefractal]

You missed it again. You cannot possibly be unaware of what tools you will have available when you bring all your usable tools with you.

If this is regarding "use the environment, not your character sheet", I have to say that I find that concept to be a bit overrated in theory, compared to how it comes up in practice.

For several reasons:
1) The use of the environment is not always necessary or helpful, even for pure non-casters.
2) The use of the environment is sometimes really obvious, to the extent you can't really call it a use of creativity or cleverness. "Cut the obvious rope to drop the unusually heavy chandelier on the monster that's conveniently standing underneath it" is not really any more creative than "Cast a spell on said monster".
3) A number of things people will point to as "smart thinking" / "using the environment" require a hefty dose of GM generosity.
4) Many spells benefit just as much or more from using the environment as do skills. Illusions. Telekinesis. Most of the Enchantment school. Various Transmutations like Stone Shape / Wood Shape / Stone to Mud / etc. Animate Dead, in many cases. Short range teleportation. There are a lot of spells where outside factors matter considerably.
5) GMs have off days. Or they get fixated on a particular course of events and subconsciously block alternatives. Even a GM who's good in general can do these, which is an issue when GM-adjudicated methods are the only methods of action you have.

Now that said, it's not like it's a worthless concept. Interaction with the world around the character should be encouraged. Abilities that enable and benefit from creative use are better than ones which don't. Certain spells are too overwhelming and binary in their usage. All agreed. But "less tools = more creative" as a universal? That I don't agree with.

[eggynack]

Note how fast it was to get a response that said "yes, casters are the only thing worth playing." ??

Although ... I was glad to see that some people don't believe it.

And I AM reading every word.

Who are you referring to? It seems like most people are speaking in terms of pure opinion, like, "I vastly prefer playing wizards." That has nothing to do with your question of contribution level and objective utility. In point of fact, going purely off of thread title, "This class is not worth playing in general," is fundamentally distinct from, "This class is not worth playing for me in the specific." And I see no problem whatsoever in the former. I don't even know why you'd be glad that some people aren't expressing the latter. It strikes me as such an innocuous position.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If this is regarding "use the environment, not your character sheet", I have to say that I find that concept to be a bit overrated in theory, compared to how it comes up in practice.

For several reasons:
1) The use of the environment is not always necessary or helpful, even for pure non-casters.
2) The use of the environment is sometimes really obvious, to the extent you can't really call it a use of creativity or cleverness. "Cut the obvious rope to drop the unusually heavy chandelier on the monster that's conveniently standing underneath it" is not really any more creative than "Cast a spell on said monster".
3) A number of things people will point to as "smart thinking" / "using the environment" require a hefty dose of GM generosity.
4) Many spells benefit just as much or more from using the environment as do skills. Illusions. Telekinesis. Most of the Enchantment school. Various Transmutations like Stone Shape / Wood Shape / Stone to Mud / etc. Animate Dead, in many cases. Short range teleportation. There are a lot of spells where outside factors matter considerably.
5) GMs have off days. Or they get fixated on a particular course of events and subconsciously block alternatives. Even a GM who's good in general can do these, which is an issue when GM-adjudicated methods are the only methods of action you have.

Now that said, it's not like it's a worthless concept. Interaction with the world around the character should be encouraged. Abilities that enable and benefit from creative use are better than ones which don't. Certain spells are too overwhelming and binary in their usage. All agreed. But "less tools = more creative" as a universal? That I don't agree with.

I never said it was a universal. This is not an all or nothing matter. There -is- a correlation though, in that it -does- often require more critical thinking to make do with greater limitations. There are certainly interesting things that can be done with some of the more verasatile spells, like the ones you mentioned, but they're -still- things you brought with you. You know going into a situation that these are things you can do.

The image line are fundamentally the same, no matter what you do with them. They are images, nothing more. Picking a good image can be very effective but it's fundamentally no different from simply bluffing the opponent. It's simple deception.

Telekinesis is just doing a subset of basic actions at a distance. It's notable for allowing you to make dramatically more attack rolls than you otherwise might but that's about it.

BFC is bfc, no matter which spells you're using. If stone shape won't work because you're in a wooden structure, wall of stone will. Opening a hole in a wall can be done with HP damage and either adamantine or certain maneuvers, often nearly as quickly. You have to go out of your way to include the environment with such spells rather than simply selecting ones that work in most circumstances.

You're reaching on enchantment. That's using the enemies in the environment rather than the environment itself and can be more than a little dodgy short of domination effects. At least the enemy getting a save makes it -less- likely to be a foregone conclusion, I suppose.

_________________

I don't deny the potential problems you've cited but those complications are, in fact, part of the draw of this mode of play.

[Eleriel]

Except that doesn't work, dweomerkeeper can only cast a spell as an SLA if it has a casting time of 1 standard action or less.

It takes 10 minutes to cast true creation.

I dont wanna bring another endless discussion here, but it is at least arguable that Uncanny Forethought can decrease it to a standard action...


Anyway... trying to answer to the OP.

Restricting spellcasting, for me, is like when you are the owner of the ball of any sport - and you suck at this particular sport - then, you try to make up rules that doesn't exist to compensate.

I dont wanna sound rude, but the game itself tries to make it balanced at spells per day and other constraints.
If you must rule anything, try to talk to the players to keep them at the same power level and come to an agreement that leave the overpowering behind, like the dweomerkeeper + uncanny forethought...

It is a game highly based on fantasy and spells, you must have fun but you also have to think that players wanna have fun their way too.
If you are going to impose things as you DM, you will probably going to make everyone miserable at the game and sooner or later they will stop playing.

[icefractal]

The image line are fundamentally the same, no matter what you do with them. They are images, nothing more. Picking a good image can be very effective but it's fundamentally no different from simply bluffing the opponent. It's simple deception.

So - illusions are bad, because they're just bluffing, but Bluff is good? You can't say that skills are good and creative, and then say that spells which do similar things to those skills are boring and uncreative.

You're reaching on enchantment. That's using the enemies in the environment rather than the environment itself and can be more than a little dodgy short of domination effects.

And this I don't get at all. If the situation is that you're trying to accomplish something in a social environment like a city or a court, then people are the most important part of the environment. And wouldn't skills be doing the same thing? You use Diplomacy on people, you don't use it on furniture.

If you're talking about just combat specifically, then points #1-3 apply really strongly. I seldom see non-contrived uses of the environment in combat that are an improvement on attacking normally. It does come up occasionally, but not even as much as "off brand" spell usage does.

BFC is bfc, no matter which spells you're using.

And it seems from this you are talking about combat specifically. With how fast-paced (in game time, not real time) 3.x combat is, I don't find it to be the best place for experimenting on the fly. I think you would need to change how the system works on a basic level for that to really work well. Like 4E maybe, if you beefed up the 'page 42' effects.

Personally, I find there's a lot more room to be inventive outside of combat, and that spells (some of them, at least) are as versatile and creativity-inspiring as skills for that purpose.