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

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I agree about the issues with summoning. Caster summoning creatures that are also casters, thereby augmenting their flexibility, is an issue in Rolemaster also. And it came up in the second session of 3E I ever ran, when a wizard PC summoned (I think) a Triton, which in turn was able to summon a Thoqqua (which was also an option on the wizard's list - but why summon 1 creature when you can get 2 for the same price?).

The idea that magic is like science is an excellent one and it is how I look at magic and that is it should be able to do more and do it better than mundane things simply because it is magic.

I don't quite follow this. If science is like magic than why is it better than the mundane? Science is, after all, mundane.

 

[N'raac]

I think it would be great for summon monster to allow things other than bashing your opponent. Healing? Yes! Neutralize poison? Yes! Repairing stuff? Yes! Teleport an army of your buddies? Well, that's probably a bit too much. But this had been really interesting magic right there, the kind of magic in literature and legend - useful and not characterized by simple violence - because it wasn't reduced to just combat applications.

I think the tradeoff is that a more versatile spell should have less punch in any one area than a less versatile spell. Summoned Monsters with an array of special abilities should not include a monster capable of easily inflicting more damage than a same level spell that does nothing but inflict damage.

I have a house rule in all my games no splat core only without my approval this goes for new spells, classes and feats. I also have to approve any prestige class. I am not saying that I don't allow anything but it helps control the crazy stuff that can happen when allowing things in splat wise. I am also strict on multiclassing which is again no without my approval. I am not against multiclassing as a way to build your concept but I have found that this stops a lot of the power gaming.

Hence the term "optional rule". Multiclassing is pretty core, but when a given combination becomes universal, I find that grating.

Hussar I don't rationalize this at all. Those DM in game solutions are just one way to solve issues there are others and don't forget not everyone views these things as issues. . I have skimmed the 4E threads and I have often seen advice given to DMs when they are having issues to use in game DM solutions and no one seems to think that any way means a broken system.

Taking a huge step back, how does one rationalize PC's always encountering level-appropriate threats? The L1 PC's are hired by a desperate village - you're their only hope to stave off the goblin raids. But they won't be approached to fight mere goblins when they're 7th level (why not? clearly they've proven they are more than capable!). Meanwhile, where were those Troll tribes when they were third level? We accept that level-appropriate challenges are what the PC's face because it's no fun walking all over pushovers, or being flash fried by a much more powerful opponent. We don't pull back the curtain.

The entire idea of rule 0 is a way to customize the game to your play style. But in the end there needs to be a little honesty here and that is DnD does not support every game style equally and every edition seems to cater to a different style. I know this because to do my favorite style which is a more gritty game without a lot of high magic available I have to tweak and make house rules.

Anyone want to suggest an edition which would be best suited for a game of Royal Court intrigue, where combat is at best frowned upon, and interaction with the nobility allows the PC's to climb the social ladder, gain the ear of those more powerful and, perhaps, ultimately become rulers in their own right - but not at swordpoint? I don't think D&D targets that style of game at all.

 

[billd91]

And it came up in the second session of 3E I ever ran, when a wizard PC summoned (I think) a Triton, which in turn was able to summon a Thoqqua (which was also an option on the wizard's list - but why summon 1 creature when you can get 2 for the same price?).

Because it's against the rules. In 3.0 (and 3.5), any creatures summoned can't use their own inherent summoning powers.

 

[Blammoh]

I don;t know if it's already stated somewhere, but I never understood why a cleric had to be able to wear any kind of armor or shields whilst also being a caster.

I would say - at the most - a cleric should start with no higher than chain (and no shield use) as possibility, and for anything more he has to use feats to get it.

 

[pemerton]

Because it's against the rules. In 3.0 (and 3.5), any creatures summoned can't use their own inherent summoning powers.

I remember now that I've had this conversation before.

In the 3.0 PHB (p 157) the rule is "A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells or use any spell-like abilities that would cost it XP."

I'm pretty sure that at the time we missed this rule. But even had we found it, it could hardly be written less clearly if they tried - what the hell is an "innate summoning ability", in the context of a rule that then goes on to refer to "spells" and "spell-like abilities" in a way that implies all three phrases are distinct terms of art.

 

[Bluenose]

Anyone want to suggest an edition which would be best suited for a game of Royal Court intrigue, where combat is at best frowned upon, and interaction with the nobility allows the PC's to climb the social ladder, gain the ear of those more powerful and, perhaps, ultimately become rulers in their own right - but not at swordpoint? I don't think D&D targets that style of game at all.

Games of Court from L5R is quite like what you're describing. There was a D20 version of that, I'm sure. Though whether it worked is something I don't know. D20 Game of Thrones also seems to have had the option to play politically active nobles.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But though I think 3.5's slide toward 4e was characterized by a disastrous shift toward combat focus, that doesn't mean there should be carte blanche for all spell-like abilities. Of course, with the lantern archon, it's pretty hard to scry and fry when the archon is limited to teleporting just himself and 50 pounds of objects.

4e non-casters have a far, far greater non-combat focus than their 3.5 equivalents. Seriously, look at the Utility powers. And I can make a level 1 4e fighter who's almost as skilled at breaking and entering as a min-maxed 3e human rogue. (Five ranks in something like a dozen 3e skills). Trying to do that off a class with 2+Int skill points and climb, jump, and swim being separate skills is almost impossible.

The only things 4e drifted away from out of combat were magic being almost universally versatile, and profession and craft skills for professional adventurers. In reply it has more flexible and versatile characters, non-combat scene framing, pacing, and characters having serious focusses on their skills. Characterising this as a lurch to combat focus (rather than simply having a shiny combat engine and a powerful if quiet non-combat engine) is not the way I see things at all.

 

[Elf Witch]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I agree about the issues with summoning. Caster summoning creatures that are also casters, thereby augmenting their flexibility, is an issue in Rolemaster also. And it came up in the second session of 3E I ever ran, when a wizard PC summoned (I think) a Triton, which in turn was able to summon a Thoqqua (which was also an option on the wizard's list - but why summon 1 creature when you can get 2 for the same price?).

I don't quite follow this. If science is like magic than why is it better than the mundane? Science is, after all, mundane.

I was agreeing with the poster who pointed out that science makes our lives easier and over comes a lot of mundane problems so he viewed magic that way. That is what I meant as well.

 

[Elf Witch]

double post

 

[TwoSix]

The only things 4e drifted away from out of combat were magic being almost universally versatile, and profession and craft skills for professional adventurers.

To be fair, I've seen many 3.X games where the entire session could be described as "strategic spell play." Scrying on enemies, teleporting to scout locations, use of charm to find out information, creation of new magic items to implement plans, the buff up game ("no, I'm giving the morale bonus!") are all things that were lost in the transition from 3.X to 4e. YMMV as to whether this is something to regret.