Concerning 3rd editions Wizard's being over powered.

[Neonchameleon]

1- Are you absolutely sure it is the best for everyone that a Cleric (who starts off as an inferior melee warrior that the fighter classes) buffs himself and become the best melee warrior of the party? Or does this mean you end up with the Cleric stepping on the Fighter's melee role, and having 2 good melee instead of having one decent (non-buffed Cleric) and one excellent (buffed Fighter)? Couldn't it be instead better to buff the best guy (Fighter) to excellent damage output and AC so that he can really be the 1st line of defense, and the Cleric is free to do more things?

That depends. The problem with this case is that the cleric not only steps on the fighter's melee role, he also covers his own. Which leaves the fighter wondering why he wasn't playing a cleric. And it's not a bad option for the rest of the party (other than the fighter - and even then the cleric's taking hits for the fighter). If the cleric wants to behave like a knight in shining armour this is a strong and slightly selfish choice, but not really overwhelming. (Druids are another story - getting two people for the price of one).

2- Are you absolute sure it is the best for everyone that the Wizard becomes nearly-untouchable after self-buffing with protections from everything, when anyway she's still going to stay as far as possible from melee, when everybody else is dying on the front line due to low defenses?

If the wizard was just untouchable, no one would care. The wizard tradeoff is that the wizard has the best offence in the game but is a glass cannon that other people have to protect. Being nearly untouchable frees up the rest of the party. But it's not the untouchability of the wizard that's the problem. It's making the enemy irrelevant. It's the debuffs that are the problem. An untouchable wizard plinking away with a crossbow wouldn't worry anyone. (And don't suggest SR to stop debuffs - there are plenty such as glitterdust, solid fog, or black tentacles that ignore SR or even magic immunity). But even with the debuffs the wizard would have weaknesses - being squishy. So would be a drag on as well as a boon to the party. That's what the buffs prevent.

Wouldn't it spoil the game if the Cleric would only heal himself?

I'm going to say no - you can be a perfectly effective cleric in 3.X and not actually heal anyone except through a wand of CLW. Just make sure everyone knows you aren't playing a healer. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play a Manifestation of Divine Wrath. (In 4e it's called the Invoker - but the 3e Cleric has it covered). It would spoil the game if the Cleric signed up to be a healer and then didn't. But that's a different story.

So why should it be different for buffing?

It isn't. As long as people are helping the party I don't care how. And a buffing tank is helping the party by being a tank. I don't honestly care if they have "fighter", "paladin", or even "cleric" or "druid" written on their character sheet if they can do what they signed up to. (And given that across the day clerics and druids have the most hp to play with, and that clerics get all the armour proficiencies then the only thing they lack for tanking is the weapon mastery - they can provide their own teeth when they want to).

 

[Doug McCrae]

To me this attitude appears to be common only among D&D players trying to justify bad decisions in their chosen game.

...

In fact the only two games that spring to mind where magic is inherently anything like as unbalanced as in classic D&D are D&D and Ars Magica. And if it's Magic Uber Alles, such an assumption should be explicit in the rules

I don't agree with this, I think magic has been OP in almost every rpg I've played with the exception of 4e.

In points-based superhero games such as Champions and Mutants & Masterminds, the Dr Strange/Green Lantern types are just better than the Iron Fist guys, partly because a lack of range and movement when facing opponents with either or both are far worse than the system thinks they are, and partly because it's too easy (both in terms of point cost and justification) to add exotic game-breaking powers such as teleport, mind control and clairvoyance to a multipower (or the M&M equivalent).

I noticed it very much in Amber too - characters who rely on powers (Amber's equivalent of casters), are much better than characters who rely on stats (Amber's non-caster equivalent), mostly because powers are open-ended, unrestricted by the laws of physics, and much more amenable to 'clever' new uses. We know what muscles and metal can do - not much. We don't know what magic can do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

On one hand, I totally agree that any reasonable player optimizes his character to a significant extent. What I'm referring to is things like the high-level polymorph and summoning spells that can clearly break the game if you play by the rules and exploit them to the max. A good player does not take shapechange and comb through every monster manual looking for the best abilities he can find. Taking wizard spells that are good but not ridiculously broken creates a good experience for all.

See LogicNinja's guide. Spells like Glitterdust and Black Tentacles can make the rest of the party the cleanup crew.

I would think it would be the default assumption of any fantasy rpg that magic is inherently overpowered. It is in fantasy fiction. You don't here Aragorn complaining that he can't compete with Gandalf, or Lancelot expecting to do anything that Merlin can do

No. But both Merlin and Gandalf are NPCs. Gandalf is quite literally middle earth's equivalent to an angel. And yet he is considered about the equivalent caster of an AD&D 4th level druid. That is how overpowered D&D magic is. Merlin is more like Mr. Miyage than a protagonist - and certainly isn't a D&D caster in most of the myths.

(or did I miss the line in the Harry Potter books where he said that "muggles" should be perfectly balanced with wizards?).

You didn't. All the Harry Potter protagonists are wizards. Muggles are NPCs. You don't need balance between PCs and NPCs in an RPG. What you need is balance between PCs.

Now try looking at the sword and sorcery that is D&D's root. Conan eats spellcasters. The Grey Mouser might be a caster but he behaves more like a rogue. Even Jack Vance's wizards are ridiculously less powerful than D&D ones - they could hold at most half a dozen spells at a time. And needed a lot of training - i.e. were high level.

I don't understand where is idea comes from that a roleplaying game should have perfect competitive balance, or that magic should be balanced with everything else. Where is that assumption in the rules?

I'll dig up my Gygax quotes later. But he considered balance to be essential to good game design.

As for the assumption in the rules, what else does "level" mean other than a measure of power? And if all characters have a level measuring their power then this is at the very least implied to be a standard across PCs - otherwise it's almost meaningless. (This is doubly true in games with differing XP tables as an obvious measure of balance).

If you want to balance across the party while allowing wizards to be stronger in the world, just cap the power level of non-casters at level 6 or level 10 or whatever and give the casters unlimited advancement.

Still, you're selling the fighters short. In high-level D&D, when casters are often countermanded by opposing casters or magic-resistant foes, fighters are still quite important. This was more true when magic resistance was a percentage, but still holds true in 3e.

Magic resistant foes aren't much of a problem in 3.X. Just pick your spells with care. And "the only answer to magic is magic" is not a good way to make the fighters relevant.

 

[billd91]

I don't agree with this, I think magic has been OP in almost every rpg I've played with the exception of 4e.

In points-based superhero games such as Champions and Mutants & Masterminds, the Dr Strange/Green Lantern types are just better than the Iron Fist guys, partly because a lack of range and movement when facing opponents with either or both are far worse than the system thinks they are, and partly because it's too easy (both in terms of point cost and justification) to add exotic game-breaking powers such as teleport, mind control and clairvoyance to a multipower (or the M&M equivalent).

I would very much dispute that they are "better" since that's a value judgment that not everyone will agree on. Green Lantern and Doctor Strange are definitely powerful, but a lot of people will find Iron Fist more fun to play. And that's an important point in all RPGs. Power isn't necessarily what draws players to the class/hero archetype.

I think your use of superhero comparisons here is valuable in the sense that running superhero games is a good way to build skills at working with very different types of characters - including differences in power that can be brought to bear on elements like combat. I sometimes wonder if my experience running and playing them feeds into the lack of problems I have with powerful casters in 3e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't agree with this, I think magic has been OP in almost every rpg I've played with the exception of 4e.

In points-based superhero games such as Champions and Mutants & Masterminds, the Dr Strange/Green Lantern types are just better than the Iron Fist guys, partly because a lack of range and movement when facing opponents with either or both are far worse than the system thinks they are, and partly because it's too easy (both in terms of point cost and justification) to add exotic game-breaking powers such as teleport, mind control and clairvoyance to a multipower (or the M&M equivalent).

I noticed it very much in Amber too - characters who rely on powers (Amber's equivalent of casters), are much better than characters who rely on stats (Amber's non-caster equivalent), mostly because powers are open-ended, unrestricted by the laws of physics, and much more amenable to 'clever' new uses. We know what muscles and metal can do - not much. We don't know what magic can do.

Oh, it happens. Much more in simulationist games than narrativist ones. I can think of numerous other examples.

What I can't think of is people defending this as a good thing outside D&D (or Ars Magica where it's explicit and intentional). If you have points or levels you have an attempt at balance. And that people undercost flexibility means that they are making a mistake.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I think it really depends on the group and the social contract of that group. One of the common agreed upon things in my group is that tactics are a two way street. If you continually scry and die then expect the same to happen to you. While you're on the toilet. Without your gear. Likewise, when I GM you don't need to have an AC of 80 and I won't put you in scenarios where you need one to survive.

I don't think I've ever been in a group were it was as bad as the message boards make it out to be. Yes, the cleric in my group is summoning a ton of monsters in combat. And the archer made a comment how my barbarian is a bit redundant, but given how the group consistently faces groups of monsters the cleric has only made my life easier. Those big ball of hit points soak up damage for me and help clear the field faster.

The few times I've been with people that try to make their character into some unstoppable juggernaut, they usually leave the group because their definition of fun doesn't match what the rest of the group's. And usually its the person trying to be the unstoppable juggernaut that gets frustrated because the rest of the group doesn't want to play the same way.

 

[billd91]

If you have points or levels you have an attempt at balance

I think this is a misconception. Yes, technically, all characters are balanced at the starting point. But the freedom in how you spend those points can lead to imbalances that would make a wizard with a 20 intelligence compared to a halfling village idiot blush. The most important balancing factor in just about any point-based game is the involvement of the gamemaster and the guidelines he requires the players to follow as well as the way he structures the games he runs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think this is a misconception. Yes, technically, all characters are balanced at the starting point. But the freedom in how you spend those points can lead to imbalances that would make a wizard with a 20 intelligence compared to a halfling village idiot blush. The most important balancing factor in just about any point-based game is the involvement of the gamemaster and the guidelines he requires the players to follow as well as the way he structures the games he runs.

I said an attempt. I didn't say it would always be successful - it isn't ever quite successful. And it's a lot easier for a DM to not have to fight the system to balance the game.

 

[The Red King]

I hear a lot of talk about how a wizard at high levels can pretty much demolish anything. While in theory , sure they can, but how many of you have actually DM'ed or played with someone like that? Me personally ? I have never had a problem with wizards breaking the game, I dont know if it's just my players that dont know how to munchkin or min max or whatever, I just have never experience this problem.

That being said as a DM if you experienced this and it happened, did you keep letting it happen? If so why ? Personally, I would find the ability that has broken the game and either remove it for future games, or make it extremely hard to come by and or cast.

But the main point is when reading about the wizards on the internet they seem like some unholy statistical and mathematical abomination that wipes out everything, but does theory transfer directly in practice? In my case, no it has not. I am well aware that that one anecdote hardly counts for evidence, so im not going to extrapolate data from one test... which is why this post exists.

Havent had it yet, but I'm sure I will. My evil campaign is progressing nicely. They are almost level 9, and with an evil necromancer and Cleric in the group, it should start to get really interesting....

If it gets to be too much, I'm sure I can put together a group of good characters that will ultimately have to bring the group down.

Or possibly...... Have the characters roll up new 1st level good characters that have the ultimate goal of taking down the evil that their old PCs have become.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

3E did away with so many of the limitations and balance for spell users that caster superiority was pretty much a guarantee.


Trash the magic item creation system. Allowing the creation of some items is fine but cheap easy access to spells in a stick kind of makes the spells per day limitation meaningless.

Use an initiative system that actually puts casters at risk of spell disruption if they cast in combat.

Use common sense and put limitations on spells. For example teleporting someplace the caster has not actually been before could result in painful mishaps.

Fixed.

No. This post is so incredibly utterly wrong in every possible way.

2E casting was not better balanced, the spells were even MORE powerful or vaguely defined. They just had some stupid random insane negatives that could hit you. Whatever. Till it hits, nothing's happened. After it does; roll a new character. You'll still be rolling new characters less often than the big stupid fighter who's job is to act as a speed bump to the monsters. Disruption was more common, but I've seen plenty of spell disruption in 3E if the other side is willing to use the ready system - which was designed partly FOR this purpose...

Magic Items help the noncasters more than the casters, since casters actually have their spells to fall back on. Let's put this in simple terms: What is a more significant shift in power? A country going from 0 nuclear weapons to 25 nuclear weapons, or a country going from 25 nuclear weapons to 50? Magic items give noncasters access to stuff they simply DID NOT HAVE before, and they get the same wealth to spend on them as the casters do, and Use Magic Device does exist. The only problem with magic item creation is only casters can do it. I'd like to see feats to let mundanes craft magic items, at least arms and armor. Limiting or doing away with magic items is the single surest way to make the noncasters go from underpowered to completely unplayable.

Such an initiative system would have its own drawbacks. Don't think anyone wants to see the mage/preist trying to heal an ally that desperately needs it get disrupted. Binary is not a balance solution. It just means the spell's either overpowered (binary = 1; casting went off) or completely worthless (binary = 0; it got disrupted, or if an all-or-nothing effect, was saved against). That's pretty damn unfun. I'd rather the spells just be toned down a bit/bunch instead.

I agree with common sense and limits...but your example is the worst possible example of how to do that imaginable. First off; a wizard doesn't teleport somewhere hostile/unknown alone. The whole party's going with. "The party teleports into the side of a mountain. You're all dead."

Awesome balance there, d00d!

Like I said above, this sort of "balance" is bs, and striking it from the game was a great decision 3E made. Especially since it is a game and thus death is meaningless (raise or make a new character), balancing spells with unlikely but horrifically catastrophic repurcussions is dumb.

Fixed.