Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Sadras]

Casters generally do overtake mundane types and there is nothing wrong with that. At high levels, do we expect a Wizard to be equal to a Fighter/Rogue in a fair fight? Sure there are external conditions in a duel that could be beneficial to either party (distance, shadow, uneven terrain, violent wind...etc) but generally speaking we imagine that a Wizard would clock the Fighter more times out of 10 - and I'm not talking DnD specific, Im speaking from our own imaginations. Do we really think a mundane fighter generally stands on equal footing to casters. Of course not.
Superman trumps Batman in a fair fight. (supernatural beats mundane)
Dr Strange/Zatana trumps Superman in a fair fight (magic beats supernatural)

So yeah, youre playing a game that isnt necessarily balanced. But this isnt like other games where everyone is equal. Its not chess damnit. It's fantasy with a DM. At higher levels the Casters are going to have access to spells that are rediculously powerful because we all expect that of magic.

You want to play a more balanced campaign insert options or settings rules that
- weaken magic, reduce the duration of magic, make magic difficult to cast, have dangers associated with casting magic/or casting it too often, or have magic work only in the evenings (because of the affect of the moon) and during the day only weaker spells can function, have magic drain life force or fatigue you, or bring in magic resistance, or have magic mix in to martial (powers)...whatever.

But yeah I generally expect casters to kick mundanes asses, so when we see Ullyses takes on Circe we root for the underdog, when Conan takes on the Evil Mage we root for the underdog, when Willow takes on Bavdmorda we root for the underdog, when Lord Soth takes on Strahd we root for Lord Soth.

So, lets hope 5E has enough balancing options for all of us or at least guidelines/advice within the DMG to temper magic for those that have issues with its power, but lets not bastardise magic to the degree where we cant tell the difference between a martial manuever and a fireball.

 

[Bluenose]

Casters generally do overtake mundane types and there is nothing wrong with that. At high levels, do we expect a Wizard to be equal to a Fighter/Rogue in a fair fight? Sure there are external conditions in a duel that could be beneficial to either party (distance, shadow, uneven terrain, violent wind...etc) but generally speaking we imagine that a Wizard would clock the Fighter more times out of 10 - and I'm not talking DnD specific, Im speaking from our own imaginations. Do we really think a mundane fighter generally stands on equal footing to casters. Of course not.
Superman trumps Batman in a fair fight. (supernatural beats mundane)
Dr Strange/Zatana trumps Superman in a fair fight (magic beats supernatural)

So yeah, youre playing a game that isnt necessarily balanced. But this isnt like other games where everyone is equal. Its not chess damnit. It's fantasy with a DM. At higher levels the Casters are going to have access to spells that are rediculously powerful because we all expect that of magic.

You want to play a more balanced campaign insert options or settings rules that
- weaken magic, reduce the duration of magic, make magic difficult to cast, have dangers associated with casting magic/or casting it too often, or have magic work only in the evenings (because of the affect of the moon) and during the day only weaker spells can function, have magic drain life force or fatigue you, or bring in magic resistance, or have magic mix in to martial (powers)...whatever.

But yeah I generally expect casters to kick mundanes asses, so when we see Ullyses takes on Circe we root for the underdog, when Conan takes on the Evil Mage we root for the underdog, when Willow takes on Badmorda we root for the underdog, when Lord Soth takes on Strahd we root for Lord Soth.

I find it fascinating that after telling us how magic is supposed to be better than mundane, you then give us a paragraph of examples where mundane characters defeat magical ones. And I'd point out anyway that we're talking about a game with levels. You know, those things which say how powerful someone is? Low level characters would presumably be underdogs against high-level ones, or at least that would seem logical.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the whole discussion is this:

If no player plays Super Caster, there is no problem.

If the DM can handle Super Caster and is able to do so, there is no problem.

But if some player plays Super Caster and the DM can't, is unwilling, or is unable to deal with Super Caster; there is a good chance of having an overshadowing problem.

 

[Sadras]

I find it fascinating that after telling us how magic is supposed to be better than mundane, you then give us a paragraph of examples where mundane characters defeat magical ones. And I'd point out anyway that we're talking about a game with levels. You know, those things which say how powerful someone is? Low level characters would presumably be underdogs against high-level ones, or at least that would seem logical.

Im glad you find it fascinating. The reason I provided that paragraph because its obvious that generally mundane characters are weaker than casters but that its the imbalance in the stories, myths or legends between mundanes and casters that makes it exciting. And since we are unsure of Ullyses's mundane level and Circe's caster level you cannot assume they were of an unequal level. In fact the only real difference is that one of them knew magic and the other did not, which by most logical story standards would mean the caster has the edge despite any level influence. Essentially, magic generally imbalances by default.

 

[Bluenose]

Im glad you find it fascinating. The reason I provided that paragraph because its obvious that generally mundane characters are weaker than casters but that its the imbalance in the stories, myths or legends between mundanes and casters that makes it exciting. And since we are unsure of Ullyses's mundane level and Circe's caster level you cannot assume they were of an unequal level. In fact the only real difference is that one of them knew magic and the other did not, which by most logical story standards would mean the caster has the edge despite any level influence. Essentially, magic generally imbalances by default.

Prove that mundane characters are weaker than casters. Because at the moment, you're arguing that the people who lose are more powerful because we're supposed to support the underdog. And the logic of magic users having an edge ignores virtually every tradition of magic as difficult, dangerous, limited, and/or slow.

 

[Sadras]

Prove that mundane characters are weaker than casters. Because at the moment, you're arguing that the people who lose are more powerful because we're supposed to support the underdog. And the logic of magic users having an edge ignores virtually every tradition of magic as difficult, dangerous, limited, and/or slow.

Difficult, Dangerous, Limited and/or Slow I dont have a problem with, but generally speaking the spell-casters of story, myth or legend have an edge in a fair fight, hence we (the viewer/reader) generally support the underdog, which most of the time is a mundane. Please dont drag me into straw man diatribe.
A lot of movies involve the mundane having to trick the spell caster who was too busy explaining his motives or toying with the mundane instead of finishing him/her off or the mundane using the environment/terrain to defeat the spell caster.
Refer Stardust or Willow...etc

Lastly, why is the villain in most fantasies a spell caster? Its because they DO have an edge. Queen Bavmorda in Willow polymorphed an ENTIRE ARMY into pigs, everyone! Including the best swordsman in the land, MadMartigan (Val Kilmer).

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

As a wizard the strength you have been given is the ability to pick the most powerful spells. Yes, you can ban conjuration quite happily - there are powerful non-conjuration spells - conjuration is simply the most obvious. But "I don't pick the most powerful spells" is absolutely equivalent to saying "I deliberately ignore the strengths I've been given."

And this is why I think the variant mages (sorceror, bard, beguiler, summoner, etc.) are thematically vastly superior to the wizard. You actually can say "because" to the question of why you don't have Slow. Or Glitterdust. Or Invisibility. Or Charm Person. Or any other powerful spell you care to name.

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.

Arena duels are a bit silly anyway, as they are artificial. The wizard's big strengths, compared to the fighter, are area control and the ability to pick when and where to fight. With a high level wizard, getting a fighter into the same arena is a win for the fighter.

As for arena duels, not sure. I don't keep logs of them. But Giant In The Playground were speculating on level 20 fighter vs level 13 wizard. And the fighter's chances seem to be based round Leadership or his superior wealth (using wealth by level) to fake being a wizard.

And I'm not sure why you think a fighter never loses fighting ability. At least not unless they've cross-classed to take UMD and Wands of Cure Light Wounds - or are chugging back potions throughout the day. Either way they are burning their money to stay relevant. For wizards on the other hand the length of the day becomes more and more theoretical as a limit. A specialist wizard gains an average of three spells per level between level 5 and level 17, making the limit more and more like your sixteen hour day of fighting - how many attack rolls do you need to make?

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

Except the monsters trying to kill you. And the PCs and NPCs who depend on you.

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 like magic users too. The problem isn't the idea of magic users. It's the 2e and 3e Wizard. And Druid. And Cleric. (Arguably also the Artificer). The ones who have pretty much free reign on which spells from the huge spell list they prepare. It is not a coincidence that these are all tier 1 classes.

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.

I don't understand why going into Vietnam you'd arm every GI with a gun. That has to be boring. Why don't you arm some of them with bows?

And I don't pick certain spells for every caster. I prefer bards or beguilers to wizards. Because if a bard is preparing for a fight they don't get to rifle through a list of overpowered spells.

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

And this has what to do with the price of oil in Nantucket market? You noticed that on my default spell load out above there were only six direct combat spells? Six spells out of seventeen non-cantrips, or approximately a third. The attitude isn't about being uber powerful in combat - that would involve all spells being combat spells. It's about being good at combat if you need to fight at all. It's enough to go two fights with your mageslayers and pull their weight in two more fights with relatively miserly spell use. The fighters can do the actual killing.

I have played powerful blaster style casters

Objection: Oxymoron. This is part of the problem. Blaster style casters took a serious nerf between 2e and 3e - hit points and weapon damage inflated. Blast damage did not. So blasters took a de facto serious nerf.

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.

This is sounding close to the caster I outlined.

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).
​

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.

That's just it. You as a wizard pretty much can end the fights and do everything else. If you do not have decent combat spells as a wizard then that is a personal in character choice. It is explicitely saying "I'm going to be risking my life but am purposely not going to prepare for that."

Im glad you find it fascinating. The reason I provided that paragraph because its obvious that generally mundane characters are weaker than casters but that its the imbalance in the stories, myths or legends between mundanes and casters that makes it exciting. And since we are unsure of Ullyses's mundane level and Circe's caster level you cannot assume they were of an unequal level. In fact the only real difference is that one of them knew magic and the other did not, which by most logical story standards would mean the caster has the edge despite any level influence. Essentially, magic generally imbalances by default.

I read things very differently from you there. What I read isn't that mundane characters are weaker than casters in myths and legends, but that protagonists always look weaker than the BBEG - whether or not the protagonists or the casters were mages.

If Odysseus was weaker than Circe then we absolutely can assume that Odysseus was of a lower level than Circe. Because that is what level measures. Power of a character.

The NPCs on the other hand have to look more powerful than the protagonists because that is needed to create tension. Whether they do it through being stronger, through magic, or through political power and/or arnies doesn't matter.

 

[Hussar]

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

But, yes they are. I'm being told, that I shouldn't pick certain options. That I should pick options based on different criteria. That it's a bad thing to always pick the most powerful option.

My point is, there should never BE a "most powerful option".

 

[Sadras]

I read things very differently from you there. What I read isn't that mundane characters are weaker than casters in myths and legends, but that protagonists always look weaker than the BBEG - whether or not the protagonists or the casters were mages.

Yes, that is probably the case maybe more often than not. Although when the hero is not a young trainee of any craft (martial or magic) it is difficult to quantify who is weaker in terms of level.

If Odysseus was weaker than Circe then we absolutely can assume that Odysseus was of a lower level than Circe. Because that is what level measures. Power of a character.

Unfortunately, we cannot determine the level of each of the characters in the Odysseus/Circe story, but Magic or being a spell caster usually is synonymous with power, an esoteric power that few can obtain/understand/utilise, but once you are one of those few you are thought to wield immense power. I feel that is how it has been portrayed for the most part in fiction.

In Willow, Madmartigan was considered the best swordsman in all the land, but one spell from Badmorda left him useless. No levels there, but we can assume they were both skilled in what they did.
Likewise Septimus in Stardust was no fool with a sword but was easily and amusingly dispatched by Michelle Pheiffers character in Stardust.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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 would. But in Magic I'm a Johnny. In wargames I like to build warbands that are 'cool.'

One of my players would never be bored, as long as he 'wins.' In Magic he's a spike. In wargames he builds the 'best' army. He likes to win more than he likes variety and flavorful choices.

To each our own, but a good system should allow us to play reasonably well together. The power gap between his PCs and other PCs has always been tight enough for me to challenge everyone in every system we ever played (including non-D&D games), except the last two years we played 3E.