Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Savage Wombat]

Nobody is saying that, Hussar.

I'm just saying that only ever picking the "good" spell isn't the only role-playing option either. Plenty of people have played fighters with daggers and leather armor, because that's what they wanted to play. And in a good system, they can do that.

It sounds to me, though, like you feel that a wizard is somehow "forced" to pick only the most optimal combinations available, just to be effective. When one could choose to limit yourself to other options to, if nothing else, stretch oneself creatively.

But asking the game designers to make sure that every single option is perfectly balanced against every other option is a foolish dream. Better game balance is good, a worthy goal - perfect game balance is an unrealizable pipe dream.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

I'm just saying I've never seen such a challenge where: A)The wizard did not get crazy prepared as if they could spend 24/7 ready for any attack. B)The wizard did not use an self beneficial 'interpretation' of a word/rule or C)The wizard just simply cheated. I'd like to see one, if you know of a link.

And arena duels are a bit silly anyway, as they are artificial. The wizards big weakness, compared to a fighter, is that as the day goes on the wizard gets weaker as spells get used up. But a fighter never uses up his fighting ability. And the only reason this is such a problem in some games is where they do the 15 minute day and the wizard can have full spells very half hour. It simply does not work for a wizard that must be awake, active and spellcasting for 16 hours a day.

 

[Hussar]

Nobody is saying that, Hussar.

I'm just saying that only ever picking the "good" spell isn't the only role-playing option either. Plenty of people have played fighters with daggers and leather armor, because that's what they wanted to play. And in a good system, they can do that.

It sounds to me, though, like you feel that a wizard is somehow "forced" to pick only the most optimal combinations available, just to be effective. When one could choose to limit yourself to other options to, if nothing else, stretch oneself creatively.

But asking the game designers to make sure that every single option is perfectly balanced against every other option is a foolish dream. Better game balance is good, a worthy goal - perfect game balance is an unrealizable pipe dream.

No, I'm coming at this from the opposite end. Why would I choose a less optimal option? How is deliberately handicapping myself a good thing? Again, you could take a dagger wielding, leather armor fighter, if you spent a butt load of feats and whatnot to make your dagger wielding fighter effective. It can be done.

But, if I don't do that, and I spend feats on other stuff and don't spend the character resources, my fighter will be very poor at his job which, at the end of the day, is generally to lay the beats down on something. In a non-combat game, who cares? It 's not going to come up. But, presuming a solid mix of gaming, which includes combat, why would a rational player deliberately choose to handicap his fighter?

The same thing applies to the wizard. Or any other character for that matter. Why would a rational player deliberately choose a handicap?

And, more to the point, should it also not be perfectly viable to play without a handicap? If I want the handicap, fair enough. That's my choice. And I'm making that choice in the full knowledge of what I'm doing. But, I shouldn't have to take a handicap just so that I can make Bob's character important again.

I should not be penalized for creating effective characters.

 

[Hussar]

I'm just saying I've never seen such a challenge where: A)The wizard did not get crazy prepared as if they could spend 24/7 ready for any attack. B)The wizard did not use an self beneficial 'interpretation' of a word/rule or C)The wizard just simply cheated. I'd like to see one, if you know of a link.

And arena duels are a bit silly anyway, as they are artificial. The wizards big weakness, compared to a fighter, is that as the day goes on the wizard gets weaker as spells get used up. But a fighter never uses up his fighting ability. And the only reason this is such a problem in some games is where they do the 15 minute day and the wizard can have full spells very half hour. It simply does not work for a wizard that must be awake, active and spellcasting for 16 hours a day.

That's not entirely true though. The fighter gets used up much faster than the wizard does. His hit points are his resource and he has no way to self generate them. A fighter loses 80% of his hit points is out for a few days. A wizard who blows 100% of his resources gets them back in 8 hours.

And a fighter who uses 100% of his resources dies. A wizard doesn't.

Additionally, in 3e anyway, a wizard, at 1st level, can increase his resources for very minor expenditures. By 6th level, a 10% xp cost grants him slightly over 100 scrolls. More than enough to use a scroll every round of every combat for the entire level, where, at 7th level, he can again spend 10% of his xp to replace all of them.

And all of this is in addition to has base casting per day.

Getting around a wizard's limitations are entirely within the abilities inherent in the wizard himself. The non-caster's limitations are hard wired into the class and cannot be gotten around without another character's aid (typically some sort of healer).

 

[Savage Wombat]

And that's what I'm saying no one is telling you to do.

 

[Elf Witch]

I spent the day with my son and a friend of his and we discussed a lot of this. They talked about a lot of builds that have nothing to do with wizards that win every encounter.

I wish I could remember them but my brain is to tired. I will ask and post them later.

I love magic users they are my idea of fantasy characters. I play them not for the power but because I love the idea of magic.

I don't understand why with all the options the game has to offer you would only pick certain spells for every caster you play. That to be is boring and I have to be honest I have come to hate the words sub optimal and system mastery with a passion.

There is more to the game then just be uber powerful in combat.

I have played powerful blaster style casters but I have also played more support style casters. My favorite character ever was my elf sorceresses in my first 3.0 game. Her major damage spell was magic missile. The rest of her spells were more support style for the party buffs, slow a bunch of divination type spells like clairaudience/clairvoyance, things to make life easier for the party like phantom steed. invisibility.

In the game I was the main person who solved the mysteries and I was the face of the party. I had a blast I never felt that just because I could not do the damage others could that I was not contributing.

My current wizard is not a combat monster either. I chose to max out her knowledge skills, diplomacy and sense motive. I have far more utility spells than combat spells. When we started we had a sorcerer who waned to be the blaster so I designed my wizard differently much more the wise sage than the I level armies. Since the sorcerer is gone I have added some more combat spells. I did this character because I liked the idea of being the walking google.

I have playing so long that the idea of playing a class with the same build every single times is just unappealing to me.

 

[Campbell]

Look, no one is saying that the inherent imbalance between caster types and 'mundane' types is an issue in every game. It is an issue for a not statistically insignificant number of games. Some of us also take issue with the historical means of addressing this imbalance. Historically spell casters have been limited by mechanics like spell resistance which cut off a magic user's nose to spite their face as well as supernatural counters like mind blank, protection from evil, etc. Another historical means has been for magic items to bring the mundanes up to the level of spell casters.

Personally what that says to me on a thematic level is that magic is the only means to bring the awesome. After a certain level, from my experience playing warrior types it feels like you're an observer in a great magical shell game. I don't find that particularly satisfying.

With that being said, despite being a fan of 4e in general I'm not looking for 4e part two. I already have 4e and can play it anytime I want to. I'm looking to travel down a different road - one I've never been down. I'm all for adventure based balance I just want it done right. I want meaningful limits on spell casters at all levels so that using magic to overcome a weakness or bypass an obstacle never becomes an afterthought and I want the notion that a high level (10+) fighter or rogue is still a mere mortal to be shed.

Think about it on a thematic level. A high level rogue or fighter routinely faces supernatural forces that would send even the bravest most elite soldiers screaming in the other direction. A high level fighter encounters the likes of vampires, werewolves, and demons and doesn't even break a sweat. They see something that goes bump in the night and thinks the best course of action is to stab it until its dead. That's pretty much the opposite of mundane. I just want the rules of the game to match up with the thematic reality of what occurs in the fiction of the game.

 

[slobster]

It seems that some people are saying that yes, there are broken wizard options. But since you can choose not to employ them, it isn't a problem.

My opinion is that broken options are broken even if you aren't currently taking advantage of them. We should be able to have a system with a minimum of broken options (none being the goal) so that we can stop having this conversation, and instead talk about all the cool but not overpowered character concepts we are able to play.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

It seems that some people are saying that yes, there are broken wizard options. But since you can choose not to employ them, it isn't a problem.

My opinion is that broken options are broken even if you aren't currently taking advantage of them. We should be able to have a system with a minimum of broken options (none being the goal) so that we can stop having this conversation, and instead talk about all the cool but not overpowered character concepts we are able to play.

What are these options that you are referring to because they sure as hell aren't rules? No one has said anything about needing to change a "rule" in order for the game to work.

I see what exactly what you and a few others are trying to do here. Because some of us don't use the "guidelines" in the DMG then we are essentially playing the game wrong. There is no difference in that than if someone decided that "Holy Avengers" didn't exist in their world and you told them that they weren't playing the game as intended because Holy Avengers are in the DMG.

People on these boards really need to understand the difference between a rule and a guideline. Rules are meant to be used to play the game, guidelines are not. They are there to help you if you need them.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The thing I always liked about previous editions was the whole caster and mundane thing. If I want a PC with magical powers then I would choose a spellcaster, if I want a non magical PC who is good a mundane things and relies on magical gear then I will play a class such as a fighter.

I don't want 4th editions idea of martial magic. Sometimes they try and fluff it as just pure mundane skill but it doesn't come off that way nor do I want anime style fighting.

The way I look at it is if there was a such a problem then everyone would play a spellcaster but I can tell you from experience that this wasn't the case.