How did initiative rules make casters stronger in 3E?

[ExploderWizard]

It could work as a good way to balance spellcaster, or at least to show why fighters are always important, but it does break down.

In one AD&D campaign, through the luck of random treasure and goodies in published modules I had a magic user character with a 16 Dexterity, ring of protection +2, and (here's the key) bracers of AC 0.

AC 0? Was it a custom item? IIRC bracers didn't get better than AC 2 (plate and shield equivalent)

With my mighty AC -4 at level 9, I no longer feared losing spells. The campaign lost steam at about that time, as it became clear the other PCs were along for the ride on Kelgore the Mystic's adventures. It was frustrating for everyone, so the PCs retired after trashing Zhentil Keep and we fired up a new campaign.

Any campaign becoming all about 1 person at the expense of the rest of the group is doomed.

What it points to are what I think of as band aid mechanics. I don't like it when a class comes with a weakness (like a low AC) but the system provides plenty of ways around it.

It's a fine line. A wizard opting for better armor doesn't bug me as much as spells like mage armor. The former at least points to some interesting combinations and makes for some interesting character concepts, like a warrior-mage. The later just feels like an excuse to plug holes, especially at higher levels when you can afford to sacrifice a spell slot or a (theoretical) lower level utility spell.

I much prefer class-based abilities that let you mask a weakness for a moment. I really like the 4e version of shield because it lets you deflect one attack per encounter. You can handle the orc berserker for one round, but after that you need help.

I kind of agree about mage armor type spells. It was one of the many things from UA that just wasn't thought about enough. As for magic items, no system is immune from rampant Monty Haul syndrome, it's something the participants have to manage themselves to thier own taste.

I think the 4E shield is a bit weak for an encounter power. Something between the all time coverage of mage armor and the one round shield would be a good medium. Perhaps if the shield lasted 1 round every 2 levels it would be more useful, yet wouldn't be up all the time until higher levels.

 

[Storm Raven]

In 3.0 you could get off three spells per round (one from haste, one regular, and a quickened spell). If you were damage-dealing sorcerer/wizard, had an 18 Dex, and Improved Init, your base init is +8. Chances are, you'll go first, and just start nuking the field.

I had a wizard that I created to do just that. Awesome. Pure Awesome.

That's not really a problem related to the initiative system though. That's a problem with 3.0 Haste. I always think the Quicken Spell criticisms are overblown - to use it you use a spell slot four levels higher than normal. To whip out a quickened magic missile you have to use a 5th level spell slot, which seems like a pretty significant investment to be able to deal an additional 17.5 average points of damage.

 

[Bullgrit]

made casters into unstoppable beasts

And yet they were stopped, regularly. Hyperbole in complaints make it difficult for me to take the complaint as seriously considered.

Bullgrit

 

[AllisterH]

And yet they were stopped, regularly. Hyperbole in complaints make it difficult for me to take the complaint as seriously considered.

Bullgrit

Well, casters DON"t just mean wizards and sorcerors.

There is a reason for the term Codzilla and half of that WAS due to their spells.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I've had no problem "stopping" casters, divine or arcane, in my games.

Right now it's a gestalt game, so everyone has some casting ability. But some decided to do dual casting gestalts. We're currently in the underdark, and for the last month, they've faced an endless stream of drow, mind flayers, beholders, ropers, etc... And had to contend with insanely high SR, heavy resistances and immunities, high saves, and even fighting inside an antimagic cone. Not surprisingly, it's been the ones that went full caster that have been suffering the most from this selection of foes, and even starting to complain that they feel too weak. My character is a martial adept / cleric gestalt, and both currently and over the campaign as a whole, I can tell you...he's gotten a LOT more use out of his martial side than his casting one. And I've geared moe feats towards his casting than martial abilities. And I pride myself on being a powergamer. And we're currently at level 9, where casters are supposed to start completely outpacing everyone else in 3E. Anectodal, sure. But your supposition about CoDzilla isn't universally true.

 

[Barastrondo]

A recent thread on fantasy fiction, computer games and D&D provided an interesting landscape of what influenced player's expectations and I think perhaps illuminates the thinking that goes into casters and their place in the game. For those of us who got into D&D through fantasy fiction, of course wizards were powerful - and when they reached this power, who could stand against them? The pay off to play this style is obviously that they started weak and developed in power whereas other classes had a more linear development. However, for those who have gotten into D&D through computer games moreso than fantasy fiction, the lack of "balance" is obvious (be it being weaker at lower levels or more powerful at higher levels).

Thus, I wonder if our perceptions of wizards (be they 1E-3E or 4E) is coloured by how we got into D&D and what we expect our games to represent (a piece of fantasy fiction or perhaps a game)?

My perceptions of wizards were probably colored by my path into D&D, but they don't accord with your theory. My mother gave me Middle-Earth, Narnia and Prydain to read before I got into D&D, and I knew a few things about Merlin and mythological sorcerers like Circe and Medea. All of these wizards were strong, but limited: there just weren't all that many examples of how wizarding "wins," particularly as the wizards weren't protagonists as such. They're either mentors who aren't going to (or can't) do all the important things for the protagonists, or antagonists who need to be stopped.

The "start weak, wind up really powerful" approach wasn't one I saw until later; all the powerful wizards I was familiar with from fiction didn't have to undergo a "start weak" phase. And when I did start seeing it in fiction, the "start weak" phase had a lot of plot protection built in (prophecies and Special Heritage and bands of mighty people treating you as Terribly Important and all that). The actual process of low-level wizards being killed off more frequently than their compatriots, hoping one will survive to nigh-omnipotence, still strikes me as very much the creation of a game mentality rather than a literary model. It's sort of like hardcore Diablo.

But I'm sure it all depends on what fantasy fiction you start with. Someone who begins with Wheel of Time is going to have a very different perspective than someone who starts with Prydain.

 

[Ariosto]

Rather than quibble over details of how initiative worked (which, in the case of 1E AD&D, is a theoretical debate of nearly Talmudic depth), I will observe that it was clear early that spell-casters were the fantasy equivalent of Wild West gunslingers, the literally quick often making the other side dead in a flash.

"When in doubt, screw the MU" became, from what I have seen, a pretty basic rule of thumb.

With 3E (relative more to 1E than to 2E, with which I have little experience), the MU's life got easier on a number of fronts. Simply giving casters an "even break" might be but a little part of that, but every little bit counts.

 

[Doug McCrae]

With 3E (relative more to 1E than to 2E, with which I have little experience), the MU's life got easier on a number of fronts.

Defensive casting was a bit too easy imo. I like AoOs for casting and how hard it was to cast in a grapple though.

There was a bizarre incident in one of our games where I accidentally magic jarred into the mind of a PC who was being grappled by a very powerful giant crab monster. I made the rolls and dimension doored out of the claw's grip (no material components required), which was probably the only thing that would've saved the grappled PC's life.

 

[Bluenose]

A recent thread on fantasy fiction, computer games and D&D provided an interesting landscape of what influenced player's expectations and I think perhaps illuminates the thinking that goes into casters and their place in the game. For those of us who got into D&D through fantasy fiction, of course wizards were powerful - and when they reached this power, who could stand against them? The pay off to play this style is obviously that they started weak and developed in power whereas other classes had a more linear development. However, for those who have gotten into D&D through computer games moreso than fantasy fiction, the lack of "balance" is obvious (be it being weaker at lower levels or more powerful at higher levels).

Thus, I wonder if our perceptions of wizards (be they 1E-3E or 4E) is coloured by how we got into D&D and what we expect our games to represent (a piece of fantasy fiction or perhaps a game)?

Just some thoughts.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I'm pretty sure my perceptions aren't. I read some fantasy fiction even before I was introduced to D&D, and while I can accept that wizards were often powerful in the fiction I read that didn't make it the case that "when they reached this power, who could stand against them?". Plenty of characters could and did do so, and the idea that this was in some way wrong because wizards were supposed to be awesomely powerful was one assumption I never made. And since this was back in the 1970s, long before I'd ever played a computer game, I don't think my assumption that people can find a way to defeat powerful wizards comes from them. I don't ask for easy, but I want possible.

 

[Ariosto]

As one who from his start in OD&D has favored the magic-user (although clerics rock in their own way, especially in 1E), I have little patience for claims that they are "too weak" in old D&D -- except by comparison with elves in Moldvay/Mentzer Basic (which are simply too strong).

The "sleep" spell pretty regularly does with but the wave of a hand what a low-level fighter could probably not accomplish with the best of luck and ample time. Ogre problem? Poof! -- problem solved. Ditto 9 or so hobgoblins. It is to my mind no less awesome for being doable but once a day (versus never on any day in living memory).

"Charm person" is also obviously spectacular ... but every spell has its chance to take the spotlight.

Pardon my importunity, but I think that people who don't "have the chops" are just better off not playing novice m-us in old D&D -- and the game (that particular game) is usually worse off for making concessions to their complaints.

The Law of Unintended Consequences shall come back to bite!