Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Sadras]

Does fireball, as an element of fantasy fiction, exist outside D&D? I've never encountered it, but then I don't read a lot of contemporary fantasy.

Hmm, I dont know. The idea must have derived from somewhere I imagine.

Anyway, I do think that there is something wrong with casters overtaking non-casters. And it's not something that I expect. And in the fiction you yourself cited - as others pointed out - it is the non-caster who wins. One way to achieve this in RPG design is to give the non-casters more metagame resources. Which 4e does, via martial encounter and daily powers.

Where to start. If we/you were looking to balance the Caster/Martial classes, I agree the 4E system is one way of doing it but not necessarily everyones cup of tea.
Regarding non-casters winning in fiction, if you read my posts the wizard usually was defeated only because of misdistraction, toying with the mundane too long and thereby giving him an opportunity, or was tricked, turned his back...etc not because the fighter performed his encounter power, spent an action point and followed up with a daily. So essentially the way I see it, magic is more powerful in fiction too, just because the good guy (mundane) won doesnt make him better in combat.
Unfortunately the "caster's ego" we see in media, which acts as a flaw and allows the mundane to win, has not yet been translated as a stat for d&d mechanics.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As for mathematically challenging to design/optimise fighters - I dont believe its any more challening than designing a decent PC build in 4E with all those powers (multi/hybrid). The only difference is DDI makes it easier.

This actually isn't so IMO. It comes down to option bombardment.

Stats are about equally easy to sort out. And weapons - I'm assuming in both cases you build to a concept.

In 4e you have the power structure, and feats supporting those powers. What this means is that at first level you have a lot of choices - what type of fighter (Sword + Board/2 handed/Two weapon/Battlerager/Exotic weapons/Sword + fist). Then you pick two at wills, one encounter, and a daily out of about a dozen options each. One out of a dozen isn't that hard a choice. Levelling up it's also about one out of a dozen. So far so good. Skills - it's pick three out of about six options and you're done.

Then you have the hard part. Feats. 4e has too many feats, making feat choice harder than the entire rest of the character build combined. But fortunately there's a prioritisation system. Your mathematically best feat will always be Expertise in your chosen weapon(s). Multiclass feats are always strong. By Paragon you need either Improved Defences or the alternative Superior set. But feats are normally useful rather than character defining (Polearms I'm looking at you). And if you get it wrong there's no pressure - you can train it out next level. Feats are still a pain and far the hardest thing to choose for a non-expert.

In 3.X you just have feats. About as many as you have in 4e - in both cases it's in four figures. But your feats are your abilities. Picking feats in 3.X therefore starts off as as hard as the hardest part of 4e character creation (and remember you need to pick two L1 feats). And picking feats in 3e is significantly harder than in 4e - you get feat chains. Dodge may be a pretty pathetic feat but you need it if you want Whirlwind Attack. In 4e you can get by on picking whatever feat looks coolest at the time for feats - and retraining if it doesn't work (this being impossible in 3.X). So 3e fighter creation is like a harder version of the hard part of 4e fighter creation.

A closer comparison in terms of difficulty would be 3e Barbarian character creation vs 4e fighter creation.

Of course if restricting yourself to just the PHB, things are a whole lot easier for the 3e fighter. And in all fairness quite a lot easier for the 4e fighter. Powers are choices out of four so they don't take much. And hybrids don't exist.

 

[2e Player]

I would prefer a game that works out of the box. That's what I pay the designers for.

The beauty of pen and paper gaming is that those who are playing the game can sit down and make changes that suit them. There's never going to be a game that suits everyone, but the best games lend themselves to adjustment. E6 is a great example of how you can get an entirely different -- and relatively well 'balanced' -- play experience out of the 3.5e core rules with some house tweaking. I realize that some people just can't wrap their heads around saying "You know what, that rule stinks, let's change it," but that's not an indictment of the system. That's an indictment of the literal minded gaming group.

Some people think that because it's in the rulebook, that's the way it should be done. I'm not one of those people. If one of my players tried to pull that Locate City Bomb nonsense, I would just say "No, you can't do that. Quit being an idiot," and be done with it.

The rules are there to facilitate a fun game, and when they can't accomplish that, they should be changed or ignored as the group sees fit.

 

[pemerton]

Unfortunately the "caster's ego" we see in media, which acts as a flaw and allows the mundane to win, has not yet been translated as a stat for d&d mechanics.

In 4e this can be factored into a skill challenge, as part of the prelude to combat.

I don't think it can easily be incorporated into combat mechanics itself (although it can easily be made part of the colour of combat narration).

 

[pemerton]

I realize that some people just can't wrap their heads around saying "You know what, that rule stinks, let's change it," but that's not an indictment of the system. That's an indictment of the literal minded gaming group.[/group]I can tweak systems. I've GMed a lot of Rolemaster, which practically requires building up a system out of the tools provided.

But that's not an excuse for poor design. In Rolemaster, for instance, some classes have low-level spells that inflict a -20 penalty on a failed save; others have spells at the same levels that inflict -50 or -70 penalties. Even allowing for some classes being better at inflicting penalties than others, that's just unbalanced.

There are similar issues with divination spells in the system too.

And by all accounts, Evard's in 3E is similarly objectionable. Likewsie Glitterdust.

Some people think that because it's in the rulebook, that's the way it should be done. I'm not one of those people. If one of my players tried to pull that Locate City Bomb nonsense, I would just say "No, you can't do that. Quit being an idiot," and be done with it.

Maybe you've got more in mind than what you've just said.

But to my mind, if a PC has Locate Object on his/her spell list, and wants to locate an object, and therefore casts the spell, I've got no basis as GM for saying "No, you can't do that". Anymore than, if the the fighter player says "I draw my sword" or "I don my armour", I can say "You can't do that". Player resources are for the players to use in playing their PCs.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Sometimes the problem is rather obvious. I bet the people with the caster problems have DM's who don't actually flex their DM muscles and stop the 15 minute work day and the hundreds of magic shops r us.

Now if the whole group wants to stop for the 15 minute work day then you just have hit them with monsters or adjust what goes on around them. Now from what I have seen through the years is the fact that the group usually doesn't want to stop and wait on the spellcasters to regain their spells.

I answered Yes to the poll, but I have not ever seen ridiculously overpowered wizards for reasons related to what you are talking about here.

As an astute poster said in another thread observed, the Rest The Night Action is the most powerful action in the game, and because of the nature of spellcasters the DM often has to artificially manage use of this tactic. I consider that a Bad Thing. It is a peculiar factor baked into 1e-3e, but without explicit tools for managing this, other than "well, sometimes you have to hurry, I guess".

I have not ever seen this be a Terrible Thing because most spellcasters in our games quickly realize the most reliable and efficient use of resources is to assist the other PCs, even if the occasional encounter gets solved by a single spell. My wizard's motto is: "A buffed meatshield is a happy meatshield. A happy meatshield is a brave meatshield. Brave meatshields run forward and attract attention (while I stay safely in the back)."

Older versions of D&D encouraged the DM to throw low reward vs. risk random encounters until the players took the hint. There are times where those tactics are appropriate, but it is an unsatisfying band-aid IMO.

 

[Minigiant]

It really feels like there are two groups on this topic.

Those who want a mostly finished and fixed product. They just what to adjust and tweak the game and doing no more than a little work to get the game going and working.

Those who the parts and don't mind fixing the bits and pieces. They don't heavily interconnected pieces and have no problem with requiring "gentleman's agreements" or many unwritten rules.

A pre-made sandwich vs a loaf of bread and a stack of sliced ingredients.

Not saying which is better but there are some in one group, some in the other, and some in both (like myself).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I realize that some people just can't wrap their heads around saying "You know what, that rule stinks, let's change it," but that's not an indictment of the system. That's an indictment of the literal minded gaming group.

I absolutely can get my head round saying "You know what, that rule stinks, let's change it,". But that a rule in the system stinks is absolutely an indictment of the system unless it really is the player trying something on (as with the Locate City Bomb). And is completely different to houseruling, tweaking a system to do something else. I can write all my houserules for 4e on one index card for each of my games (different houserules for each game) - and all are designed to fit the thematic feel rather than fix the mechanics.

House rules:

1: Use Inherent Bonusses. Always.
2: An extended rest is extended, not overnight. It takes at least a long weekend in a safe location. An overnight rest regains 1 healing surge.
3: For games without an Underdark, replace the Dungeoneering skill with Engineering. Caveat: I see no need to have the Shadowfell and the Underdark and prefer the Shadowfell.
4: Allowed classes: Battlemind, Ardent, Psion, and Hybrids are always banned. For low magic so are most non-martial classes.
5: XP rules: Varies anywhere from level up when the DM says to RAW to XP for GP.
6: Economics: World-specific in what can be bought or made and how easily. Also may tie into XP rules.

Using just 2, 4, 5, and 6 I have a vast amount of control over the tone of the game. (1, 2, and 3 are all simple fixes to what are IMO problems with 4e and just leave combat length as an issue).

But to my mind, if a PC has Locate Object on his/her spell list, and wants to locate an object, and therefore casts the spell, I've got no basis as GM for saying "No, you can't do that". Anymore than, if the the fighter player says "I draw my sword" or "I don my armour", I can say "You can't do that". Player resources are for the players to use in playing their PCs.

A touch of context here might help. The Locate City Bomb is an exploit that relies on stacking half a dozen metamagic feats onto an inoffensive divination spell, interacting in a way they weren't intended to, to create a weapon of mass destruction. There is a world of difference between that and using Evard's Black Tentacles for precisely what it was designed to do.

It really feels like there are two groups on this topic.

Those who want a mostly finished and fixed product. They just what to adjust and tweak the game and doing no more than a little work to get the game going and working.

Those who the parts and don't mind fixing the bits and pieces. They don't heavily interconnected pieces and have no problem with requiring "gentleman's agreements" or many unwritten rules.

A pre-made sandwich vs a loaf of bread and a stack of sliced ingredients.

Not saying which is better but there are some in one group, some in the other, and some in both (like myself).

The thing is I have a perfectly good stack of sliced ingredients in my freezer (or rather on my bookshelf). I don't need another set.

 

[pemerton]

IA touch of context here might help. The Locate City Bomb is an exploit that relies on stacking half a dozen metamagic feats onto an inoffensive divination spell, interacting in a way they weren't intended to, to create a weapon of mass destruction. There is a world of difference between that and using Evard's Black Tentacles for precisely what it was designed to do.

Thanks for the heads up. But I don't even see how that sort of thing is relevant to this context - although it does show a problem with divination spells that comes up in RM too, namely, how to specify their geographical scope: is it a range to a target, and area of effect, or what?

But that's an artefact simply of the standardised pattern for writing spell descriptions.

Whereas, as you say, Glitterdust, Evard's etc are just overpowered in their core effects.

 

[Savage Wombat]

No, you're missing it. It's literally a WMD - it kills everything (well, low-level everything) in the multiple-mile radius of the spell. It starts as a Divination, but the metamagics turn it into a nuclear explosion.

It's because the Locate City spell was mis-written to have an area-of-effect, which it really shouldn't. House ruling that is the easiest fix.