Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My roommate runs Age of Worms by the RAW and we have hit 12 level I play a wizard and I am still waiting to outshine anyone else. Of course the one playing the rogue/shadow dancer/who knows what is a huge power gamer and he just runs all over the rest of us in combat and of course in dungeons while he scouts and we twiddle our thumbs.

This is more of the issue my group has had. It's not caster vs. mundane. It's two 'power gamers' vs. two 'casual players.' In Age of Worms if I upped the difficulty to challenge the first two the second two died. If I left the challege level as is every encounter became a cake walk. The most disappointing of which was Dragotha. That was a legendary name in my Greyhawk campaign for about 15 years before he was reduced to a pathetic 2 round combat.

4E changed the challenge levels for us. Same players, but I could challenge all of them while they still remained power gamers and casuals. We did lose other aspects of D&D that I enjoy, so I hope 5E can bring those lost things back while closing the power gap that 3E created for our group.

 

[Elf Witch]

I control for excessive powergaming in my game using pretty much the techniques you outlined in your post following the quoted one.

I think "minmax" is as much about attitude as the results for a lot of people. I know it is for me. My simple prescription of, "any mechanic that the players push hard, I get to have the NPCs push back with," enforced carefully, is what allows the players to enforce a reasonable degree of power amongst themselves.

Plus, that has the added advantage of letting the players dictate the lines. I find this far more democratic. The players dictate the lines. As DM, it is my job to enforce those lines, not set them. As "moderator" it is my job to express those lines, to make sure that everyone is one the same page. As the guy at the table who is most interested in mechanical interactions, it is my job to think about this stuff. I see those as three separate hats. In our group, I wear the last one nearly all the time, the "moderator" hat when no one else grabs it, and the DM hat when I'm the DM (albelit, most of the time).

And I certainly agree with your later point that enforcement on character build versus group rules up front versus in play decisions are all different. We like some careful enforcement on the first two so that we don't need it on the last one. Trying to run any game as Elf Witch has outlined drives me bonkers. I don't want to ride herd during play. I'd rather spend energy beforehand house ruling such issues out of the game, so that my energy during play is directed at things I value more. Perhaps part of this is because as our group has gotten older, play time is precious while prep time is as much as I care to devote?

I am not sure what you are saying I don't run herd during the play I plan for things in my prep and I house rules things before hand. My energy at the game is focused on what i value working with my players to tell a great story and have a lot of laughs.

Every DM needs to in their prep work do some tailoring of encounters for their players abilities and lack there of. Even if you run written adventures. I am running a module that fits really nicely in my campaign but I had to tweak it. My party is 4 level and they don't have a rogue and wands are not easily available so I am not having as many locked doors and traps as the module calls for. I changed some of the traps to things they could handle I got rid of the poison ones and used acid and fire instead. I have pit traps but took out the spikes.

It also has undead in it my party has two who can deal with undead so I upped the numbers to make it more of a challenge.

So I don't see any difference between prepping encounters this way and prepping high level encounters to deal with magic at that level. It is the same theory which is tailoring the encounter to your party.

 

[Elf Witch]

This is more of the issue my group has had. It's not caster vs. mundane. It's two 'power gamers' vs. two 'casual players.' In Age of Worms if I upped the difficulty to challenge the first two the second two died. If I left the challege level as is every encounter became a cake walk. The most disappointing of which was Dragotha. That was a legendary name in my Greyhawk campaign for about 15 years before he was reduced to a pathetic 2 round combat.

4E changed the challenge levels for us. Same players, but I could challenge all of them while they still remained power gamers and casuals. We did lose other aspects of D&D that I enjoy, so I hope 5E can bring those lost things back while closing the power gap that 3E created for our group.

It is hard to manage a game when you have powergamers and non powergamers at the same table. I am not a casual gamer but I am not a powergamer either. I don't go looking for the best combo to be undefeatable I look at ways to make my concept work.

Like you said raise the CR to handle the powergamers and you kill the rest of the party don't and it is a cake walk.


I have a feeling the DM in Age of Worms does a little picking on the powergsmer by having the most deadly and dangerous go after them while leaving the rest for us.


Certainly having a system that could help stop some of this would be great.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You missed the point and that is how do you know that wizard always has the rights spells memorized for every given circumstances. That is where all this I cast this and I win arguments fail. If the wizard didn't memorize evard black tentacles that or glitterdust and memorized something else instead then your examples fail.

Even if the wizard is expecting combat it does not mean he has the rights spells memorized so he gets an automatic win.

The problem here is that I'm mentioning mainline combat spells. Stinking Cloud, Glitterdust, and Evard's Black Tentacles are not niche spells. They are spells that happen to be my favourite mainline combat spells at levels 2, 3 and 4. And all of them are pretty flexible. All of them ignore spell resistance (and by extension spell immunity). Each of them has a very different counter (in some games I'd take Solid Fog rather than Evard's) so the enemy needs to prepare against them all. All of them can either with good positioning take out single targets, or can take out groups of enemies (glitterdust also counters invisibility for extra flexibility). All three spells therefore make it into my spellbook as general combat spells. At level 2 my rival to Glitterdust is Web (I need to hit Reflex with something debilitating, and it doesn't allow SR eitherm or even pay any attention to evasion). At level 3, my rival to Stinking Cloud is Slow - which is a multi-target anti-will spell to absolutely cripple melee enemies. And at level 4 my combat spells are Evard's Black Tentacles (AoE anti small person spell), Confusion (or Fear if I banned enchantment) for an anti-will spell for upseting fighters, and Solid Fog.

As a wizard, my job is to be prepared for a range of problems on any given day. And becuase of the power and flexibility of the spells, memorising multiple copies of powerful and versatile combat spells is a good way to do this.

A default loadout expecting some trouble (but not actively dungeoncrawling) at level 7 would probably include two Evard's, two Stinking Clouds, and two Glitterdusts. This would leave me with room for Greater Invisibility at level 4, Fly and Haste at level 3, and Invisibility, Detect Thoughts, and Rope Trick at level 2. Plus my level 1 spells (probably Change Self, Alarm, Enlarge Person, Silent Image, and either Unseen Servant or Mage Armour depending whether I'm wearing a Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt or not).

Telling me I wouldn't have my wizard prepare mainline combat spells? Why not? Why is the day such an odd one that I either don't have room for my favourite combat spells or don't know them despite having gained them automatically when I levelled?

The way you are talking I don't know why we are still playing this game or why everyone in the party does not play a wizard because according to you there is no way to challenge them and why bother playing anything else because you can't contribute. Why bother DMing just say oh hello wizard I can't beat you here is your XP for your automatic win.

There are plenty of ways to beat a wizard. The "Get a bigger hammer" method will do it. So will nickling and diming. At least until 9th level when the wizard gets teleport. So will a sudden ganking - a surprise Stinking Cloud will do just as much to the wizard as it would to the bad guys (CoDzilla naturally having good fortitude defences). Actually it's much harder to beat clerics or druids than wizards.

But high level DnD is an arm race the only way to avoid that is stop every character from gaining levels as long as DnD is a level based game it will always be an arm race.

Then you miss the arms race. When a fighter or barbarian gains a level, there are two obvious ways to challenge them. Bigger Monsters or Moar Monsters. The same fundamental approach works with a rogue, ranger, paladin, or any other martial class, and by a predictable amount. The wizard? What the wizard gains is more options. Which means more ways of subverting the problem. The wizard in 3.X gets to open completely different lines of attack with each spell level. At second level it's Invisibility. At third it's Flight. At fourth it's Walls and Animate Dead, sealing people off. At fifth it's Teleport, Polymorph, and Permanency. Which means at fifth level a wizard can come from any point in any direction, looking like anything they want to and with an array of defences.

So greater dispel is not a I win and mathematically it works out to 50% but here again random factors play into it. I have seen the person casting it just wipe the floor and wipe out almost all the effects and I have also seem it completely and utterly fail. So again you don't know until you are at the table actually throwing the dice.

If greater dispel has a complete 100% success, what have you done? Traded a standard action for a standard action of an equally powerful wizard. The best case scenario is that you've cancelled them out. Even if it succeeds you aren't making progress.

Note: This doesn't apply to throwing dispels at buff-monkeys. If the Cleric has Divine Favour, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Haste, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, and the kitchen sink on them

What about summon monster you don't cast it and another spell in a round.

No. You cast it in one round. Then d4+1 Bralani show up and each of them casts Lightning Bolt both the round they turn up and the following round. That's d4+1 (small) lightning bolts in a round plus your other spells...

I've never seen a good 'all powerful wizard' that 'makes the game no fun for mundanes'. The people that make the claim never seem to want to stat out said awesome wizard. They just throw the 'wizards are too powerful bomb' and then run away.

In a previous thread I challenged people whether they thought there was a level 15 fighter who's as much use as d3+1 augmented Celestial Dire Tigers, d4+2 augmented Celestial Anklyosauri, or d4+2 Bralani Azata - each able to lightning bolt. Because that's what Summon Monster 7 will get you. Or a single standard action from a Summoner two levels lower who's lost his most important class feature (the Eidolon). And it's known that Summoners are good in PF - but not as good as Wizards or Clerics - there are enough duels to prove that.

And there have been enough arena duels involving fighters. It used to be quite the sport on the WoTC boards. The fighters lost there too above above about 6th level unless they won initiative and were able to one-shot the wizards. And the wizards weren't pre-buffed to be hard to get at.

Your challenge has been asked and answered. Many, many times.

As for no fun, that's the problem. Some of us want to play wizards. And we're disappointed we can't.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The problem here is that I'm mentioning mainline combat spells. Stinking Cloud, Glitterdust, and Evard's Black Tentacles are not niche spells. They are spells that happen to be my favourite mainline combat spells at levels 2, 3 and 4. And all of them are pretty flexible. All of them ignore spell resistance (and by extension spell immunity). Each of them has a very different counter (in some games I'd take Solid Fog rather than Evard's) so the enemy needs to prepare against them all.

Just a quick perspective question - is this just one wizard PC you're talking about? I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like you're saying that you play a lot of wizard characters, and they all tend to have these spells prepared.

I think that a lot of players that don't have the problem you describe could be because they don't think that having a constant selection of the most powerful spells is fun to play. Certainly not from character to character. Don't you get bored?

I had one player recently switch characters simply because his character was so powerful and efficient it was boring. (Choose target, favored enemy, multishot.) If I had a character who cast Evard's every fight, I'd get bored very quickly.

Maybe that's affecting the numbers.

 

[slobster]

Just a quick perspective question - is this just one wizard PC you're talking about? I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like you're saying that you play a lot of wizard characters, and they all tend to have these spells prepared.

Maybe that's affecting the numbers.

It is possible to make choices such that your spellslinger will be less effective, and some people play their wizards this way. That doesn't excuse the fact that a player who tries to be combat optimized will pretty easily outshine the rest of the party. That is the experience of many players and GMs, myself included.

To put it another way, if there was a feat that gave fighters +6 to attacks and doubled their weapon damage, it would be overpowered. Maybe some players would choose not to take it, maybe some groups would devise clever houserules to deal with it or ban it. But the feat would still be overpowered, and I would want the next edition to bring it in line with competing character options. That doesn't mean it needs to be the same as other feats, it just needs to be toned down so that people who choose other feats don't feel that their choices are overshadowed by the fighter who did take it.

That's how I feel about spellcasters in D&D (4E excluded).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Just a quick perspective question - is this just one wizard PC you're talking about? I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like you're saying that you play a lot of wizard characters, and they all tend to have these spells prepared.[/

I think that a lot of players that don't have the problem you describe could be because they don't think that having a constant selection of the most powerful spells is fun to play. Certainly not from character to character. Don't you get bored?

Only a couple. I got bored - it made things too easy. I much prefer to play a bard than a wizard in 3.X. And am not a fan of 3.X combat - I like my combat to be either tactical and detailed (see: 4e), descriptive and evocative (see Wushu), or fast (see Tunnels and Trolls or even low level AD&D/3.x).

But I think there's a fundamental disconnect in what a wizard's spell list is. Whether it's primarily something that reflects the character of the wizard or whether it's ultimately an equipment list. I take the view that it's something the wizard has complete control over in game and so should be treated from an RP perspective like any other equipment list. At which point what you are suggesting is that as an in character choice my character should deliberately go with less effective spells with which to protect his life and those he cares about. And to do that I need to be playing a wizard who is fundamentally not taking the opposition seriously - with an Int of 18 (or whatever - primary stat anyway), and standard skills of Spellcraft and Arcana I take the view they know spells as well as I do at the very least.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Not really; I'm suggesting, for example, that maybe your next wizard, intent on protecting his friends though he may be, isn't gifted in conjurations and makes do with, say, Illusions or something. Maybe he never got the knack for them in wizard school.

Just because one can role-play "I pick only the most powerful spells" doesn't mean one can't also role-play "I make do with the strengths I've been given, regardless" just as effectively. One isn't less intelligent than the other.

 

[Hussar]

Just a quick perspective question - is this just one wizard PC you're talking about? I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds like you're saying that you play a lot of wizard characters, and they all tend to have these spells prepared.

I think that a lot of players that don't have the problem you describe could be because they don't think that having a constant selection of the most powerful spells is fun to play. Certainly not from character to character. Don't you get bored?

I had one player recently switch characters simply because his character was so powerful and efficient it was boring. (Choose target, favored enemy, multishot.) If I had a character who cast Evard's every fight, I'd get bored very quickly.

Maybe that's affecting the numbers.

My question is, why would you not? No other character thinks this way. You don't see fighter players saying, "Hey, I'm really bored of this magical sword, I'll start using a dagger today". The spells he lists are pretty much as standard as magic missile or fireball were in AD&D. If you had a wizard, and you had the option, you always took sleep. It was the most effective low level combat spell available.

And, this is the whole point about game balance. No single option should be the most effective.

 

[Hussar]

Not really; I'm suggesting, for example, that maybe your next wizard, intent on protecting his friends though he may be, isn't gifted in conjurations and makes do with, say, Illusions or something. Maybe he never got the knack for them in wizard school.

Just because one can role-play "I pick only the most powerful spells" doesn't mean one can't also role-play "I make do with the strengths I've been given, regardless" just as effectively. One isn't less intelligent than the other.

Well, depending on your goals, it might be less intelligent than another.

And, illusions are a funny beast. In some games, they're absolutely devastating. In others, they're completely useless. The vagueness of the illusion spell mechanics makes that a really hard job to do. Too many variables. It most certainly can work, but, it also can go very badly, very quickly.

And, again, no one tells the fighter player he should always use daggers and leather armor. Why not? If I play a fighter with daggers and leather armor can I then complain that fighters are not powerful enough? How about a paladin in hide armor using a club?

The mechanics of the game should never tell me that I should deliberately handicap my character so that I don't step on other people's toes. Options which are "more" and "less" powerful should not be the same resource cost. If glitterdust is too powerful, either jack up the level or remove it from the game. Don't leave it in and then tell people not to take it because it's not really "roleplaying".