What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?

Elf Witch · Jan 20, 2013

Neonchameleon said:
I'm trying to reply to this one, but you've messed up your coding again.

Roughly the way I do it. "We said in 4e Roll the Dice or Say Yes. But it turned out saying Yessssss was more fun." - 13th Age (paraphrased).

The caps are still there; fireball still caps at 10d6, and the race limits were a balancing factor that 3E did absolutely the right thing for - eliminated them by making humans a viable choice.

4e is Exception Based Design. This is expected. It doesn't bother with the trappings of 3e that indicate the other way.

There's two problems with saying that. The first is you can justify anything with fluff. The second is to at least paraphrase LogicNinja, "A druid shouldn't take any PRCs that don't start with the letter 'P'. And end with 'lanar Shepherd'". Wizard 20, Cleric 20, Druid 20, Artificer 20. These will break your game if played well. Any prestige class on top of the wizard or cleric is just gravy. And as a rule Druids and Artificers shouldn't take prestige classes.

Shrink Item. As normal in 3.X the answer to the limitations of magic is ... more magic.

That's why you don't do it to the casters but their faceless mooks and henchmen.

I've said how absurdly many spells a mid-high level wizard gets. Novaing at level 9 doesn't burn out all your spells. As for "Being in enemy territory", you memorise a handful of locations then teleport back home and come back the next morning. When you've run out of your literally dozens of spells.

The caster being blinded at the cost of the only bad guy being blinded is not a problem. A 50% miss chance imposed on the bad guy means he's half as dangerous as he was. And easier to kill because his defences have been nerfed. Likewise Slow; the Kraken slowed means it can no longer take full round attacks, cutting back from +28/+28, +23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23 and a bite at +23 to one single attack at +28. You've just cut at least two thirds of the threat off the kraken. The fact that the wizard now can either move or cast a spell is, at this point, almost irrelevant. The wizard's done his job and then some - finishing the kraken can be left to the characters that specialise in doing damage.

You mean that a fighter can have a wand used on him, a wizard can use a wand?

Neither does the wizard. As mentioned he carries two scrolls of knock (costing a trivial amount) and the fighter carries a crow bar.

Your DMs aren't dumb. They are smart. The spellcasters actually casting the AoE damage spells are dumb - this is a difference. Playing a spellcaster NPC as smart would make them a very strong enemy.

Of course you don't. If you are getting hit by a weapon, your problem is you got into reach. And weapons don't bypass the hit point mechanism.

This is why, despite alowing spell resistance, Slow is the fourth of the big low-ish level AoE debuffs. It can be fired into melee selectively. It's not a burst attack, it's a "Target: 1 creature per level" and it's a save not a to hit. Firing into melee means you might accidently hit the wrong person, but with no to hit roll this isn't an issue.

He was on full hit points and out shopping. Spells memorised but none up. He also had a Solar Simulacrum to carry his shopping for him.

First, this isn't a serious problem in older editions.The wizard gets fewer spells. Debuffs are harder to get through than direct damage. Spell preparation took longer. There was a soft cap in the game at level 9. With weapon specialisation the fighter was genuinely mighty - and could shrug off spells at high level. Weapons did more damage as a matter of course at higher levels - that was one of the purposes behind large creatures taking extra damage.

As for 3.5, there are things to recommend it - and 4e made a lot of good design decisions but never explained them. If you don't have a tactical mind it can work well enough for everyone at the table. And if you're an out and out munchkin (I'm not saying all 3.X players are merely that some are and they tend to hate 4e because it is fairly well balanced), 3.X is as much a playground as Exalted.

Because winning a duel is the thing fighters are supposed to be good at. The only thing. They have literally no strategic resources as a class, unlike any of the casters. Their skills generally suck unlike the rogue. They can't take out whole armies - they don't have much area of effect and can't heal themselves. What they should be able to do is take on the biggest and meanest enemies and kill them. It should be the fighter going toe to toe with the dragon or wrestling with the Tarrasque. On the other hand, the wizard even more than the rogue is the party squishy. They are all about the strategic resources and trickery - they should be terrible at dueling because they are strong everywhere else (including on the army destruction front).

The cost of a single +1 sword: 2300GP. The cost of a single +2 sword: 8300 GP.

The cost of one hundred level one scrolls: 2500GP. The cost of twenty level 3 scrolls: 7500 GP. (Remember that unlike the fighter the wizard can make scrolls for half this). The fighter needs to spend their money on magic weapons and armour which is expensive - and ultimately will be upgraded so they are effectively consumable. The wizard doesn't need a sword. (And before you say Bracers of Defence, I'm going to say +1 Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt. ASF: 0%. ACP: 0. Total cost: 5250GP).

And the only reason the level 20 fighter was in the duel at all was three quarters of a million GP on equipment.

OK. You've made up your mind that picking locks with a skill failure beats picking locks without. But how do you get by without the wizard. You don't need a healer if you have neough potions. You don't need the fighter - the Cleric or Druid can tank. But who can replace the wizard? This is the other problem.

The difference between 4e and Pathfinder in terms of rigidity is minimal. I can do loads in 4e I can't do in PF.

In short you stopped when the Cleric ran out of spells.

Open locks is occasionally useful. Useful enough for the wizard to have a scroll of knock or two in the back of a spellbook (150GP each) for the rare things the crowbar can't deal with. If the Rogue doesn't have Open Lock he can't do it - but the wizard can spend minimal resources to be able to do it often enough.

Flight, Greater Mirror Image, a pet Solar Simulacrum, I can't remember the rest of it. There are several ways.

The problem is

You need to block line of effect. At that point it becomes an argument about what sort of materials block line of effect. And then keep that to hand. If you're arguing it has to be metal, line the hat with steel/wear a helmet - or play games with Shrink Object and throwing the object onto the crossbow bolt. (Alternatively picking up the crossbow bolt and firing it back).

Silence is an obvious and well known spell. There are answers within the fiction.

Objection! The Warrior's permanents are effectively consumables. A warrior isn't normally still using the +1 sword he found at level 1 by the time he reaches level 16.

This.

We've Gygax's own words on these boards that it was for balance purposes (and the Cavalier and Barbarian were intended to be balanced with the casters).

Bring them up to par at low levels. Linear fighter quadratic wizard always existed. It's just that they crossed at level 7 or so in a game soft-capped at level 10. In 3.X the question is whether they cross at level 1 or level 3.

This. (And everything else you just wrote).

Mine is that those rules are worse than useless. They actively make the game worse.

I noticed that and I am giving up especially now since I am reduced to trying to read all this on my phone and post from it. Teeny tiny little buttons are hard when you have fingernails and bad eyesight.

You misunderstood me I am glad that there are caps unlike in AD&D when spells just kept going up in power. Personally I think there should be caps on spells period and they should not gain in power as they mage levels.

I only played 4E for a short time before I we gave up because not one of us liked much about it. But having read this and other forums I have noticed a huge change on the way the DM is viewed by a lot of players. In the days of the 80s and early 90s the game was viewed as the DMs he made the world he made the houserules he had the final say on how a thing was going to be done. The joke used to be the DM is god. Now that seems to upset a lot of players who feel that the DM should have to follow the same rules as the players and DM fiat is a bad word. There is a lack of trust in the DM and feel that the only way to control the DM is by more rules governing every possible action that can happen in a game. I have never understood why any would play with a DM they didn't trust.

Recently in my game we had a new player for awhile a young man in his early 20s. There were a lot of times he drove me crazy over the rules. For example in my game a lot of holy places from the old times have shields around them. Their headquarters the abandon temple of Bahmut has one, only the absolutely faithful can enter and they have to have the ring of Bahmut that each of my original players has to pass. They can brings others through but only they can walk through safely.

This player would not accept that dispel magic would not work on this shield. I finally got fed up arguing with him and explained that the shield was powered by the power of a god and it would take a caster of epic levels to break it. That or a very special spell that I invented for this game to deal with the shields and that spell was a divine not arcane spell. The player sent me a long email accusing me of cheating and how DMs were not supposed to break the rules that we were only referees so we should not be able to do things outside the rules without players approval. and that I was rail roading his character because he didn't have a ring yet.

I talked to my other players and they were just blown away by the whole thing. The reason he did not have a ring yet was his choice. To receive the ring of Bahmut you must pledge your life to his cause. The player who knew head of time what this game was about didn't want to do that he thought he would have more fun being a free agent. All fine and good but I did explain that he would not be able to enter the temple on his own that one of the others would have to escort him in. Now we have been playing this game for months before he came in and he was the first player who didn't take the pledge. Yet I was the one rail roading his character. My mistake was allowing this in the first place. When we started the game I told my players to make characters that would answer the call to Bahmut, that was one restriction along with no evil or chaotic neutral PCs, to have a character who has a reason to answer this call.

He also had an issue with the fact that there are places in the world where magic does not work deadzones where some of the worst magical fighting took place as well the limitations that the wizard guilds put on sorcerers and the dangers an active warlock or psionist face if caught using their magic.

To me all of this was in my perview of being the DM. He didn't see it that way.

You don't need a wizard to get through a stone magical locked door how about a cleric to stone shape the wall to have an opening or how about a bard or a rogue with use magic device or a fighter dwarf using their knowledge of stone cutting to find any flaws to break the door down. As other have said there are ways. If I am DMing without a rogue and I know that there will be a lot of locked doors because that just makes more sense then I usually throw in a wand of knock if I don't want to spend time on this aspect of the game.

You can harp on this point as much as you like but we have played in many a game without a cleric and made do with potions and natural slow healing. I am guessing you play 4E and you like the healing surges but I don't play 4E and I dislike the entire concept of healing surges. The point is we rarely have a 15 minute day because we don't play that way because it does not make any kind of tactical sense to allow the enemy to dig in and fortified their potion. The reason why we will retreat and find a place to rest and heal early is a simple one because if we don't we are all going to die because the melee types are low on hit points. You are changing the goal posts on the 15 workday it always been about wizards going nova and using up all their spells now you are including clerics in that as well. I would think any party that is low on hit points without access to any kind of healing including healing surges would retreat to lick their wounds.

You are right you can shrink the mirror and use a spell everyday to carry it with you. If this is an important tactic to the party they will find away. But unless their enemies don't have the same access to the same resources then as a tactic it shouldn't work every single time and if it does like I said this is not the fault of the spell but of a DM who does not know how or does not counter the party abilities because he has bought into the myth that some how that is unfair.

Scry can be a fun spell and scry and fry should be allowed sometimes because it is a fun tactic but like anything their should be certain consequences for spying on your enemy or anyone else. A rogue invisible sneaking around spying is in danger of getting caught and punished so then should a wizard or druid using scry to spy. I hate this entire idea that because a spell can be misused and there are DMs out there not willing to step in and stop the misuse then lets just stop having the ability to it at all.

stevelabny · Jan 20, 2013

Spellcraft is a DC 20+ spell level to understand the writing. At 9th/10th level, that's a 25 for a 5th level spell. An 18 INT wizard who puts max spellcraft ranks while leveling has +17 so they can take 10 and make it automatically but that wasn't the case until 8th level. And this is assuming the character started with a 16 INT, added both of his ability gains to INT (or 17 AND 1), and maxed out his spellcraft. I would try to say that not all of these things are givens, but who am I kidding, all of your wizards look the same.

But of course, this STILL hasn't shown me a 10th level wizard. Even if you wont play by "my rules" and want to assume every magic item you could afford and therefore every spell... I still want to see this wizard with his spells memorized, and a list of his wands/scrolls/items so I can see what the problem is.

And for those who keep saying "but what about clerics/druids". Well, in my experiences, wizards are occasionally played by power-gamers. Clerics and druids? Not so much. Clerics OFTEN get relegated by the party and by choice to healing duty which limits their optimal options. And druids are most often played by um... tree-hugging hippy pacifist chicks. Basically, the munchkins won't play any divine caster because they might be looked at by the party as having a responsibility to heal them/buff them.

And re: items in cities being "likely available". The DM says there is a 95% chance the item is available and rolls in the open. success! the item is available in waterdeep or sharn. SOMEWHERE. better start burning all those extra utility scrolls to locate it. Just how many days are you spending exploring every shop in this city anyway?

Neonchameleon · Jan 20, 2013

stevelabny said:
No. Not at all. 95% of randomly generated settlements..everything except a large city and a metropolis, has a 15,000 gp limit. The DMG goes on to say that nothing over that limit is available (no headbands of intellect +4, no high-level spells in wands) and anything under the limit is "likely available" (likely, not definitely). Tell me where I'm missing the requirement for large cities or metropolises?

For the record, a level 1 scroll costs 25 GP. Is 25 GP less than 15,000 GP? Yes. So under the Rules as Written, level 1 scrolls should always be available. A level 5 scroll costs 1125 GP.

In short you are putting in place massive house rules to explicitely nerf the wizard that are against the letter and the spirit of the rules. The fighter, of course, can't get a +3 equivalent sword.

Why is "don't take a crafting feat" strange? I know the D&D economy is busted. I want to see if wizards are busted without crafting feats.

It's strange because you are again putting in place massive house rules to explicitely nerf the wizard.

If the entirety of wizards being over-powered is due to crafting feats, its a SUPER-SIMPLE fix then isnt it? Which again is what this thread was trying to get at.

One part of wizards being overpowered is due to crafting. One part of wizards being overpowered is due to the magic item economy and casting items being severely undercosted. One part of wizards being overpowered is due to the flexibility of spells.

To show your challenge is fair, put a fighter, and a rogue into the same scenarios as the wizard. Show me how the fighter handles the detective scenario with his 2+Int skill points per level to find the princess.

The thread isn't "is d&d 3.x a broken rule set?" we already know the answer is yes. As it is for ANY system with that many variables and that many add-ons. The thread is about "what do you do about over-powered casters". And my answer is... don't give PCs every item they ask for, as much as that might crush some modern player's ideas of "always say yes" and whatnot. The DMG says all over the magic item section that its really easy to over-power things with a poorly placed magic item.

So, I still want to see a wizard without hand-picked magic items.[/QUOTE]

stevelabny said:
And a side note about expected wealth, and fighter items being consumable. In magic shop land, a wizard who stocks up on scrolls bought/found and casts from scroll...those were consumed. A fighter who buys/finds a +1 sword and then a +2 sword, still gets to sell his +1sword. And a mid-high level wizard being made with tons of scrolls? If he had been built up as a 1st level character who was that dependent on scrolls, he probably wouldnt have his full expected wealth by higher levels.

If the fighter sells that +1 sword, he makes a loss of 1150GP. He only gets to sell it at half price. For the amount that fighter lost on his sword, the wizard can have burnt through 46 first level scrolls. This is why the "consumables cost money" argument is ridiculous.

Under the conditions you've set, I don't think I enter a wizard. I enter a druid. Mostly because your two nerfs are laser-focussed on the wizard and completely ignore the other two Tier 1 PHB classes. No scrolls? Restricts the wizard list. Doesn't do a single thing to the divine casters.

For the record even with your house rules, at each level it's one offensive spell, one defensive, one utility, and one other. And I can leave half my spell slots open in the morning until I know what I'm going to be doing.

Offence if I'm soloing is pretty much pure conjuration after first level. L1: Grease, Colour Spray or Sleep (not prepared because it's absolutely useless by this level - probably colour spray as enchantment's normally the second dump school) L2: Glitterdust (or possibly Web). L3: Stinking Cloud. L4: Black tentacles.

Utility: L1: Silent Image (going to fill up a lot of L1 slots). L2: Invisibility. L3: Fly. L4: Scrying. L5: Teleport.

Defence: L1: Mage Armour. L2: Alter Self. L3: Dispel Magic. L4: Polymorph

Other: L1: Alarm. L2: Knock. (Stiff competition here). L3: Slow (Allowing Web rather than Glitterdust at L2). L4: Solid Fog. L5: Prying Eyes.

It's not a perfect selection (and is silent image heavy at L1). Also not a selection to match the tier 1 casters you haven't biothered to nerf. If we're on any sort of realistic option I'm a specialist conjurer for an extra spell per level.

Now, for your missions:

"you're woken up after a night's rest to find the princess has been kidnapped and a note left saying she will be killed at midnight."

Scry (the Princess should voluntarily fail her save anyway, and you can Message with any luck) and Prying Eyes. Turn invisible once you've found her, and fly. Knock your way through any locked doors and distract guards with Ghost Sound and Silent Image (or just take them out). Touch her. Teleport the pair of you back to your sanctum.

in addition to "you know today's mission is fighting a dragon"

Teleport away and tell them to find someone else. Dragons are significantly under their CR. Either that or scry and invisibility to find the thing when it's asleep. Tackling dragons head on is the job of clerics, druids, and fighters. Either that or Prying Eyes to find the thing when I know it's asleep. Silent image to keep us hidden, then try to gank the unconscious dragon from massed minion firepower while keeping it trapped under a Solid Fog.

"you're infiltrating an enemy base led by an enemy sorcerer and his deadly rogue and barbarian brothers"

Prying Eyes, Invis and fly or alter self. I have spells that should deal withany two of the three BBEGs in that base. And teleport as an exit strategy.

Is this all perfect strategy and unbeatable? No. But meanwhile our fighter is blundering around having been unable to find the princess. He's got to take the fire breathing flying spellcaster on head on (if he can even reach it). And he has nothing to help with the infiltration. Our rogue at least has gather information skills and can probably get to the princess. But then struggles solo - the rogue has to wipe out all the guards If the alpha strike doesn't kill the sleeping dragon the rogue is dead. And he has a lower chance of finding our sleeping dragon. And ... I'll give him the base as long as he only has to fight the sorceror (he can't catch the other two flat footed for sneak attack).

On the other hand our druid Scrys and plays Dr Doolittle then Aggressively Hegmonizing Ursine Swarm (I'm a bear with a bear companion who summons bears) to deal with the kidnappers. He too finds the dragon asleep and then burns his high level spells to have a private army to simultaneously charge the sleeping dragon. And he scries and turns into a stray dog to infiltrate. The druid is winning here and winning hard. Because the druid, like the wizard, is a tier 1 caster - and all your nerfs haven't done much to slow him down; the Druid probably has more raw power than the wizard, but the wizard's major strength is flexibility which is what all your nerfs target. (And remember druids get to cast Summon Nature's Ally spontaneously).

Because even if he had teleport, he doesn't have scrying magic to have "seen" Waterdeep or Sharn because he dumped Divination and Necromancy to get extra specialist spells?

Um... you can't dump divination. If you're going to make ridiculous houserules to debuff the wizard, with a laser focus on the wizard (leaving the druid and cleric almost untouched), at least get the rules right.

Obryn · Jan 20, 2013

stevelabny said:
Spellcraft is a DC 20+ spell level to understand the writing. At 9th/10th level, that's a 25 for a 5th level spell. An 18 INT wizard who puts max spellcraft ranks while leveling has +17 so they can take 10 and make it automatically but that wasn't the case until 8th level. And this is assuming the character started with a 16 INT, added both of his ability gains to INT (or 17 AND 1), and maxed out his spellcraft. I would try to say that not all of these things are givens, but who am I kidding, all of your wizards look the same.

Wizards get Read Magic for free. And it's DC 15+spell level to learn a spell. She will never, ever have to roll dice to learn a spell.

But of course, this STILL hasn't shown me a 10th level wizard. Even if you wont play by "my rules" and want to assume every magic item you could afford and therefore every spell... I still want to see this wizard with his spells memorized, and a list of his wands/scrolls/items so I can see what the problem is.

I'm not going to dance for you, here. You've shown a pretty good willingness to shift the goalposts before such a contest even starts. As a case in point, "And re: items in cities being "likely available". The DM says there is a 95% chance the item is available and rolls in the open. success! the item is available in waterdeep or sharn. SOMEWHERE. better start burning all those extra utility scrolls to locate it. Just how many days are you spending exploring every shop in this city anyway?"

There is no way for me to prove to you that, in my Arcana Evolved game - where in theory spellcasting was nerfed - the Magister and Greenbond curb-stomped both in-combat and out-of-combat challenges starting at 8th or 9th level, and I burned out completely on trying to deal with it by 12th.

And for those who keep saying "but what about clerics/druids". Well, in my experiences, wizards are occasionally played by power-gamers. Clerics and druids? Not so much. Clerics OFTEN get relegated by the party and by choice to healing duty which limits their optimal options. And druids are most often played by um... tree-hugging hippy pacifist chicks. Basically, the munchkins won't play any divine caster because they might be looked at by the party as having a responsibility to heal them/buff them.

Okaaay... Casual sexism. Good job.

There's a reason CoDzilla is a thing. Just because your limited experience has never had a cleric/druid optimizer does not mean that these things do not exist. I ran 3.x (or variants) for 8 years, and the zen archery cleric in my Demonweb game was insane. (And the necromancer in that one animated powerful giant skeletons. And the Paladin ... didn't do much.)

-O

stevelabny · Jan 20, 2013

Neonchameleon said:
Under the conditions you've set, I don't think I enter a wizard. I enter a druid.

Which pretty much sums up this conversation. You're choosing your characters and making all of his character choices in order to "win". You are specifically trying to munchkin the game to the limit. Congratulations, you won! I'm not sure who would play with you, but good job!

Yes the system is broken if you try to break and then accuse the DM of house-rule nerfing everything every time he sets a campaign law or uses a counter-strategy.

So to the OP, I've changed my answer... "What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?" The answer is... the players. Period. No further explanation necessary.

Neonchameleon · Jan 20, 2013

Elf Witch said:
But having read this and other forums I have noticed a huge change on the way the DM is viewed by a lot of players. In the days of the 80s and early 90s the game was viewed as the DMs he made the world he made the houserules he had the final say on how a thing was going to be done. The joke used to be the DM is god. Now that seems to upset a lot of players who feel that the DM should have to follow the same rules as the players and DM fiat is a bad word. There is a lack of trust in the DM and feel that the only way to control the DM is by more rules governing every possible action that can happen in a game. I have never understood why any would play with a DM they didn't trust.

This is honestly a change in emphasis I lay almost entirely at the feet of D&D 3.X. In most RPGs including every edition of D&D that isn't part of the 3.X branch, PCs use PC rules and NPCs use NPC rules. And the statblocks are significantly different. If an NPC can do something a PC can't or vise-versa this is to be expected. In D&D 3.X NPCs are (officially) built using the same rules as PCs. This means that the expectation is that if an NPC can do something so can a PC. And one of the criticisms I've seen of 4e is quite literally "If there's magic a wizard can't do then how is he magic?" (For the record, on the dispel issue, I'd have said "Fine. Caster level 50. Give it your best shot). 3.X according to the rules as written binds the NPCs to the same rules as PCs - and if the NPCs are all bound, so is the DM. People who didn't learn to play with 3.X don't even notice this as an issue. But if you learned by figuring out things from the 3.X books it's what you've learned to expect because it's what the game says the DM should do. (Even GURPS 3e gave the advice that the DM shouldn't bother with this and that NPCs cost as much as they cost).

There's a second change in emphasis as well. "All your class abilities don't work. Because I say so." Is considered bad DMing (and that's what magic dead zones mean - the wizard who signed up to be a wizard is an effective commoner which is not what he signed up for). On the other hand if the wizard war areas had been areas of wild magic where magic had unpredictable and generally weaker effects this doesn't change the wizard into a commoner in there. It allows the wizard to keep their agency while having unpredictable effects and the social effects envisaged by the dead magic zones. The spotlight now isn't entirely off the wizard if you want to venture in there. In fact the wizard probably gets more of the spotlight than previously even as he's nerfed.

You can harp on this point as much as you like but we have played in many a game without a cleric and made do with potions and natural slow healing. I am guessing you play 4E and you like the healing surges but I don't play 4E and I dislike the entire concept of healing surges.

Out of curiosity, is it that people recover their breath between rounds you don't like - and that a boxer at the start of the 9th round is harder to knock out and swinging harder than he was at the end of the 8th because he's had a drink and a breather? Or is it that they impose a limit to healing? Or is it the stupid decision to make an extended rest into an overnight rest rather than discuss possible options for an extended rest? (I favour at least a weekend in a secure environment, if not a week or a narrative stopping point (such as Rivendell or Lorien in Lord of the Rings)).

You are changing the goal posts on the 15 workday it always been about wizards going nova and using up all their spells now you are including clerics in that as well. I would think any party that is low on hit points without access to any kind of healing including healing surges would retreat to lick their wounds.

No. The 15 minute workday has always been about spellcasters using up all their spells. Wizards are just the most likely to be stupid enough to do this largely because they have magic and not much else. The cleric wears heavy armour and can swing a weapon decently, and there's an expectation on the cleric to save spells for healing. Of course healing in 3.X is effectively almost unlimited due to craft wand...

Manbearcat · Jan 20, 2013

stevelabny said:
Which pretty much sums up this conversation. You're choosing your characters and making all of his character choices in order to "win". You are specifically trying to munchkin the game to the limit. Congratulations, you won! I'm not sure who would play with you, but good job!

I don't think that's fair. At all. I would play with Neonchameleon. My entire history in D&D (26 years) has been as a DM - utterly. I've never been a PC. And I 100 % want, and expect, my players to push back against me as hard as they possibly can. I expect them to behave as if they are a real, sentient creature with your standard assemblage of self-preservation instincts but mitigated in important (defining moments) by the courage of a true hero (a fitting protagonist). Real, sentient creatures don't willfully help along Natural Selection. Their entire existence (conscious and unconscious processes) is predicated upon risk assessment and strategy development that circumvents it. Yes, people make irrational decisions...sometimes inexplicably...but they don't "willfully" do it. Its done due to thoughtlessness, lack of awareness, poor foresight, critical analysis skills and the accompanying risk assessment and strategy development.

Obryn · Jan 20, 2013

stevelabny said:
Which pretty much sums up this conversation. You're choosing your characters and making all of his character choices in order to "win". You are specifically trying to munchkin the game to the limit.

(I thought only "hippie tree-hugger chicks" picked druids, and therefore they weren't a problem? But it's a problem when NC wants to use one?)

Are you arguing that you'd have to be a bad player to use the actual rules of the game to make a competent character, or are you arguing that making a competent character using the actual rules of the game makes you a bad player?

Either way, I have a hard time calling "finding scrolls in treasure," "buying scrolls or paying wizards to let you copy spells," and "using the item creation feats from the PHB exactly as they were intended to be used" munchkinism. And it implies, again, a hell of a double-standard when you look how item-dependent non-casters are, comparably.

So to the OP, I've changed my answer... "What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?" The answer is... the players. Period. No further explanation necessary.

This is just all kinds of :uhoh:

EDIT: And like I suspected would happen, even though NC fulfilled your challenge under your original rules and gave you a 10th-level wizard's spell lists, you've completely skipped right by it and gone straight to "players are the problem."

-O

stevelabny · Jan 20, 2013

Manbearcat said:
I don't think that's fair. At all. I would play with Neonchameleon. My entire history in D&D (26 years) has been as a DM - utterly. I've never been a PC. And I 100 % want, and expect, my players to push back against me as hard as they possibly can. I expect them to behave as if they are a real, sentient creature with your standard assemblage of self-preservation instincts but mitigated in important (defining moments) by the courage of a true hero (a fitting protagonist). Real, sentient creatures don't willfully help along Natural Selection. Their entire existence (conscious and unconscious processes) is predicated upon risk assessment and strategy development that circumvents it. Yes, people make irrational decisions...sometimes inexplicably...but they don't "willfully" do it. Its done due to thoughtlessness, lack of awareness, poor foresight, critical analysis skills and the accompanying risk assessment and strategy development.

Which is great for the character once the character is formed. But if you go into a game as a player saying "Usually I always play X class/race combo because it is the most powerful, but I suspect this DMs playstyle will nerf that combo so I will use my fallback class/race combo, and if every time you play that class you make the SAME stat choices and feat choices and skill choices and spell choices because they are "optimal", then something is wrong.

For multiple reasons. First, if EVERYONE played that way... everyone would be playing identical characters and that would be no fun at all. Second, the world doesn't even work that way in reality. People make bad decisions every day on purpose. Every time I reply to this thread I am willfully making a bad decision. My life has probably been a series of bad decisions. However, I'm pretty self aware and reasonably intelligent. Every time I eat too much, every day I don't go to work, every time I insult someone, every time I don't clean something... these are all bad decisions I'm conscious of.

And not just bad decisions. There's also risky decisions. Every time Indiana Jones trusts someone, or heads into a dark cave alone, or gets in a fight with someone bigger/faster/stronger... he might not be willfully making a wrong decision, but he is making a risky sub-optmal decision. Why does Indy go on adventures to find obscure relics to give them away? Why not just fund expeditions or fly to Waterdeep and buy relics? Because he does it FOR the adventure.

The game part of D&D isn't figuring out the best character build and destroying everything the DM puts in front of you because he is using CR as a hard and fast rule and nothing stands a chance. Even if it was, it would be a one time game.

The game is defeating the challenges the DM sets in front of you with DIFFERENT types of characters with real personalities and strengths and weaknesses.

when failure is not a very real possibility, something has gone horribly wrong.

Neonchameleon · Jan 20, 2013

stevelabny said:
And for those who keep saying "but what about clerics/druids". Well, in my experiences, wizards are occasionally played by power-gamers.

If power-gamers are a problem then this proves only one thing. Either the game designers or the game developers have done a bad job. Power gamers (as opposed to munchkins) are people who want to use and work with the system to get as awesome results as possible. And to quote from a Smallville illustration I've been citing recently "Eponine is a mother

ing powergamer. But nobody gives a damn because in Smallville, powergaming = drama."

A game that makes powergamers into a problem is a game that takes the best gamers and gives them all the wrong incentives. The problem can therefore be squarely laid at the feet of the game itself. (Munchkins, who cheat, intentionally misread rules, and try to pass off characters like Pun-Pun who violate the spirit of the game are a whole different story).

Clerics and druids? Not so much. Clerics OFTEN get relegated by the party and by choice to healing duty which limits their optimal options. And druids are most often played by um... tree-hugging hippy pacifist chicks.

Yay, sexism. After this comment I won't be replying further to you.

stevelabny said:
Which pretty much sums up this conversation. You're choosing your characters and making all of his character choices in order to "win". You are specifically trying to munchkin the game to the limit. Congratulations, you won! I'm not sure who would play with you, but good job!

There's a reason I don't play 3.X. It has to do with me wanting to actually roleplay my in character choices - which means that when I care about the stakes my character tries as hard as possible to work things in their favour. This involves a powergamed spell selection because that is what gives my character the best chance of survival they think they can have. I want to know what people who don't do this when they are playing a wizard think they are roleplaying as. A very smart person who won't try their hardest because they don't care about the stakes? Someone with blind spots that are required because of the metagame?

When I play 3.X hard but fairly without in any way violating the spirit of the game it collapses like a house of cards. This is a distinguishing feature of 3.X. oD&D was tested on Wargamers - poster children for playing hardball. When I play 1e (even with Unearthed Arcana, the game wobbles slightly but doesn't fall over. When I play hardball 4e with one single exception (consumable spam, including Paragon overuse of Heroic Tier rituals) the game gets more awesome as the monsters go flying and end up in, on, over, or under any interesting terrain, I provoke opportunity attacks left right and centre, and stunt like a madman. When I push 4e to its limits the game only gets more awesome.

Awesome play in Fate Core is explicitely defined as setting yourself up to get more plot points. In Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, in Smallville, in Monsterhearts, in Dogs in the Vineyard the more I push the more awesome the game gets. This is because these are all well designed games, intended to reward people's effort and understanding with a more positive play experience.

In 3.X to play it I have to work out "What's pushing and making sure my character is trying without actually pushing the system past some nebulous limits that can be passed through some simple in character choices?" This is a level of metagaming I find ridiculous.

As for your complaints that I mentioned that you hadn't done anything about the single biggest problem class. Mr. "I have special abilities that are more powerful than your entire class." I also gave a flexible and effective spell loadout (which, ultimately, is what the wizard is about) that could handle your entire range of options even with the ridiculous limits you placed. And I'm unsurprised having had your challenge destroyed you are talking about how I mentioned the druid.

Yes the system is broken if you try to break

But I'm not. Trying to break the system is something like Ur Priest/Nar Demonbinder/Mystic Theurge ridiculousness. Or Pun-Pun. You are accusing me directly of a bad faith approach which is entirely absent. I am using core elements of the system in the way the game indicates you should use them and rewards you for and the system still collapses.

So to the OP, I've changed my answer... "What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?" The answer is... the players. Period. No further explanation necessary.

Indeed. If players don't invest in their characters or care whether they live or die, and don't engage with the system on its own terms, there isn't a problem. I'd be bored stiff DMing or playing at such a table. And am glad that I have games designed for players rather than to exist without them. When I DM, one of the reasons I like having players is because they throw creative monkey wrenches and utterly misuse and subvert things, which adds layers to the story and to the roleplaying. To say that this is a problem is, to me, anathema.

What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?

Elf Witch

First Post

stevelabny

Explorer

Neonchameleon

Legend

Obryn

Hero

stevelabny

Explorer

Neonchameleon

Legend

Manbearcat

Legend

Obryn

Hero

stevelabny

Explorer

Neonchameleon

Legend

Similar Threads