Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Melkor]

*immature rant*
The more I read these forums the more I'm blown away by fellow gamers lack of willingness to budge on issues like this. Its almost like for some it is better to have the mechanics of the game support a perception instead of promoting a game that is balanced and have house-rules that build that perception they want to achieve . I'm not saying its necessarily right or wrong either way, just my opinion.

Surmos, I think part of it is that some of us don't see the problems because of the groups we have played with and I guess that makes us very fortunate compared to others.

I have posted a couple of topics on this today. It's not that we have a lack of willingness to budge on this stuff, it's just hard for some of us (and when I say "for some of us", I guess I mean "me," as I can't speak for anyone else) to see some of these issues people have because I haven't experienced them in my games.

If I have been playing with rules that others see as broken or needing "balance" since the early 80s, and those problems have never really come up at my gaming table, it's hard for me to see/say that they need a fix. And we have played 1E, 2E, 3E/3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E.

That said, I truly want everyone to have a fun play experience with D&D, and I hope that D&DNext allows you to play your way, and me to play mine, without those two styles affecting each other in a way that says I am wrong if I play my way, or you are wrong if you play your way.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Back when I did 3.x PbP, the standard setup was that "the Big Five" were banned outright, and the Book of Nine Swords, love it or hate it, was used. The Big Five included Arcanist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard.

There were/are very good reasons this was such a widely used rule in those games. A good FAQ on it can be found here.

 

[Surmos]

Surmos, I think part of it is that some of us don't see the problems because of the groups we have played with and I guess that makes us very fortunate compared to others.

I have posted a couple of topics on this today. It's not that we have a lack of willingness to budge on this stuff, it's just hard for some of us (and when I say "for some of us", I guess I mean "me," as I can't speak for anyone else) to see some of these issues people have because I haven't experienced them in my games.

If I have been playing with rules that others see as broken or needing "balance" since the early 80s, and those problems have never really come up at my gaming table, it's hard for me to see/say that they need a fix. And we have played 1E, 2E, 3E/3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E.

That said, I truly want everyone to have a fun play experience with D&D, and I hope that D&DNext allows you to play your way, and me to play mine, without those two styles affecting each other in a way that says I am wrong if I play my way, or you are wrong if you play your way.

VERY well stated.

Even when reading some of these comments it is clear that some people never actually experienced issues as others did in regards to balance because the groups they have played with did not notice an issue with the style of game play. Now this could be because there was no genuine issue or even that the gameplay matched the perception of the game. (casters were stronger, but this was acceptable.) Whichever was the case i believe that as long as the players and the DM are having fun at that table, the game is doing what it set out to do. My hope is that with 5E ( they can please the greatest number of people. We definitely share that feeling on the on the system of choice.

My rant is really a bit unfair because i ended up enjoying (it took a long year to see it) the 4E style of the game more than i thought i could. I had to understand what i was seeing and i had to figure out why these changes didn't bother me as much as other people when they saw them...
(here i go again...)..

If you were to look at the MMO market and back to an older MMO game such as..Everquest. Everquest was made very closely to the style of D&D that i mentioned in my previous post in regards to the "Tolkien" setting (or maybe the AD&D setting?...)
Fighters had a weapon and a shield (or 2 weapons) and bascially had the ability to taunt. This taunt had to be switched off between mobs to prevent mobs from hitting other classes that did other important things. (like the wizard, ranger, druid, or cleric)

The fighter was a basic class with a limited taunt.

Then you look at the wizard from Everquest.
The wizard could root targets, do massive damage and basically Teleport to anywhere in the world. It was not only powerful with burst spells and rooting but also had the benefit of heavy amounts of convenience given its magic abilities. (teleport, levitate, fly, invisible)

Why is this relevant? Almost there..

Flash forward to MMO's of the 2005+ Era. Fighters DONT JUST taunt with a single button. They have different kinds of taunts, roots, knockdowns, pushes/pulls that will keep enemies on them for whatever reason they want to (defending or damage dealing). It wasn't until this era that we saw an explosion of people playing MMO's that never had seen this genre before.
These changes ( and also other factors) resulted in an unprecedented amount of players that were playing MMO games, where previously this genre had a much smaller niche in the gaming market.

Now knowing this i couldn't fault what the company was trying to do for 4E. It wasn't unwise to change the formula given that a previous franchise had done so similarly with a niche market in digital gaming. I almost believe it would have been an unwise decision to not take that risk. Classes that were not caster got more abilities and more options. It almost made every class a spell class (yeah i said it. so sue me) But if some of these posts are any indication, I and others believe that 4E was the closest the game had come to avoiding that caster ability to "overshadow" mundane classes.

Linking this to my "immature rant" a bit...
Many people said very similar things in regards to new MMO games. " This isn't Everquest.", "This isn't World of Warcraft", "This isn't Ultima Online" and if that is good enough for people to not play a particular MMO (and to parallel.. a particular tabletop RPG system "This isn't AD&D/3.x/4E") then that is acceptable. To this day people still PAY MONTHLY to play Everquest. But it is the lack of willingness to broaden the perception of what makes these games that has me disappointed when i read these forums on occasion.

If you were to ask if i feel like more people know about D&D because of 4E my answer is: Absolutely.
Whether more people play it or bought it is a different question.
More people are aware of a niche of gaming that i'm interested in. This can only be good for me one way or the other.

Too much?...

 

[Stormonu]

I don't ever remember spellcaster dominance being a problem in my games, though that may both be a cause of not playing high level (my games generally stopped at 10th-12th level) and not hearing about LFQW until late in 3E. It doesn't help that I've been willing to punch troublesome rules in the face, to make them sit down and behave.

I do remember a high-level 3E druid giving me some problems, but I always chalked that up to not being familiar with the class at those levels.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Last time I played 3E we finally reached level 13.

At level up my paladin received 7 hps and +1 bab. The cleric received similar hps plus 3 7th level spells plus a broadening of his lower spell slots. And no, I never over-shadowed his PC at lower level. If you call that balanced let me sell you this bridge I own in NY.

Same adventure, when the Teleporting/Flying sorcerer or buff-machine cleric couldn't make the session, the adventure changed big time. We were not 1/4 diminished without the absent player we were more like a shadow of the party.

A lot of this could've been solved I guess. Plonk in availability to higher level flying mounts, divination fonts at a temple, tie teleportation to fixed circles, and seriously just rein in the buffs - we needed a spreadsheet to manage them.

 

[Elf Witch]

I voted no I have read all the complaints but I have never seen it and when talking to other groups in the area they don't have an issue with either.

There are several issues that I have seen discussed on the boards that make me go huh.

Wizards can learn every spell in the game. This is only true if the DM gives them access to every spell. And there is no guarantee that you will always roll high enough to make the spellcraft check to do so.

Wizards can't be interrupted in combat. Say what I see it happen all the time. They flub their combat casting and lose the spell they can't make the concentration check after being hit and lose the spell.

The argument is that these get max out well if that is true that means the wizard is not putting spell points in anything else. If DMs made knowledge skills important and part of the game then players put skill points into them.

They can do things better with magic then the other players can without magic. Well yes knock is a win but if a wizard soes nothing but knock then they don't get to do anything else and eventually they will run out of spells. A rogue can open doors all day long. It is not a finite resource for him.

He can cast spiderclimb to avoid the trap. Yes he can and now he is on the other side by himself alone. Smart plan not.

The wizard cast grease and glitterdust on the iron golem there goes the combat. BOO HOO so in this the combat the wizard got to be the hero.

How about the combats where the wizards were facing off against monks and rogues with their improved evasion and could not really do anything.

The wizard gets to decide things like when to teleport which gives him more story control. So it would be better that no one can teleport because then everyone can stay and die in the encounter. If you want to talk story control about those pesky clerics getting to decide who lives and dies in the party talk about control.

I will say that some of 3E needs to be reigned in. For example metamagic can really overpower the spells. Magic items should cost more to create. The DM can curb this by keeping the action movement going so the wizard does not have unlimited time to make these items. I personally will not allow any feat that allows you to cast more than one spell a round.

But I have yet to play in a game where the rest of the party are no more than glorified henchmen.

 

[the Jester]

Sometimes.

 

[Raith5]

Wizards can't be interrupted in combat. Say what I see it happen all the time. They flub their combat casting and lose the spell they can't make the concentration check after being hit and lose the spell.

I found concentration checks in 3rd ed to be fairly trivial - all casters maxed out concentration every level. Once you have mirror image or stoneskin up (or both!) the risk was pretty low!

Also the idea that spells can be interrupted actually reinforces the idea that mundanes are there to protect the squishes and reinforces the idea that party should 'turtle' forward in formation.

 

[Minigiant]

I voted no I have read all the complaints but I have never seen it and when talking to other groups in the area they don't have an issue with either.

There are several issues that I have seen discussed on the boards that make me go huh.

Wizards can learn every spell in the game. This is only true if the DM gives them access to every spell. And there is no guarantee that you will always roll high enough to make the spellcraft check to do so.

Wizards can't be interrupted in combat. Say what I see it happen all the time. They flub their combat casting and lose the spell they can't make the concentration check after being hit and lose the spell.

The argument is that these get max out well if that is true that means the wizard is not putting spell points in anything else. If DMs made knowledge skills important and part of the game then players put skill points into them.

They can do things better with magic then the other players can without magic. Well yes knock is a win but if a wizard soes nothing but knock then they don't get to do anything else and eventually they will run out of spells. A rogue can open doors all day long. It is not a finite resource for him.

He can cast spiderclimb to avoid the trap. Yes he can and now he is on the other side by himself alone. Smart plan not.

The wizard cast grease and glitterdust on the iron golem there goes the combat. BOO HOO so in this the combat the wizard got to be the hero.

How about the combats where the wizards were facing off against monks and rogues with their improved evasion and could not really do anything.

The wizard gets to decide things like when to teleport which gives him more story control. So it would be better that no one can teleport because then everyone can stay and die in the encounter. If you want to talk story control about those pesky clerics getting to decide who lives and dies in the party talk about control.

I will say that some of 3E needs to be reigned in. For example metamagic can really overpower the spells. Magic items should cost more to create. The DM can curb this by keeping the action movement going so the wizard does not have unlimited time to make these items. I personally will not allow any feat that allows you to cast more than one spell a round.

But I have yet to play in a game where the rest of the party are no more than glorified henchmen.

That's all fine 'n' dandy at lower levels.

But almost every higher level experience I've had (especially in 3E) has been the DM trying to drain the casters' spell slots and trying to keep the casters from having any downtime to make items.

Surprise! Random Encounter! Orcs with axes and healing potions for you to steal!

Poor Application of renouncement management was a big issue. 4E fixed it... in ways that many people didn't like... Uniformity.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I have found that the casters do overshadow the muggle classes at the highest levels. Since I mostly play casters, this has never struck me as a problem.