Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[ForeverSlayer]

My support sorcerer did not have powerful combat spells but her ability to magical scout and know where ambushes were being laid or just where the monsters were made a huge difference to the outcome of the encounter. Sometimes we were able to circumvent combat completely by sneaking around or coming from a different direction. Especially if the goal was not to kill monsters but retrieve an item.

Again if you feel that the only way to play is that everyone have the most combat powerful options fine but not everyone plays this way.

This right here says it all. I think some people expect, certainty in 4th editions case, that combat is the end all to the D&D game. Avoiding combat is just as much a part of the game as combat. I think people have a hard time looking past the numbers and looking at the game as a whole.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So instead of pulling them down a tier how about raising the the others up. That is another thing I would like to burn in a fire along with sup optimal and system mastery is the tier things that has made so many people go see see the casters are tier 1 which means they walk all over and make all the classes unnecessary to the game.

I've already recommended the Tome of Awesome to you once. Even ToA non-casters struggle a lot with highly effective play. As for burning system mastery, you can't. If people like something they will examine it. (Now traps for system mastery are another issue and even Monte Cook has acknowledged they were a mistake).

D&D has always had a sword-and-sorcery core. With gritty fighters. And you'd make most of the OSR unhappy to have charambara or celtic myth fighters. You wouldn't make me unhappy in the slightest there.

Which they don't because as I have said over and over again if this was true no one would play anything else but a caster. Unless you are claiming that everyone who plays mundanes just accept being nothing more than a henchman.

And I have said over and over the problem is Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard. At low levels the fighters can compete - and the gap might even be in the favour of certain non-casters. If you're playing E6 the problem hasn't had time to get serious.

Because Vietnam is real life not a game I am not really going to die or be serious disabled in if my character is not totally optimized for winning in combat.

Which means that your character is being forced not to treat things seriously. Right. This isn't how I play. I'll happily play a bard with a completely random spell selection. But the in character choices are going to be taken seriously. And unlike sorcerors or bards, wizard spell selection is an in character choice. If the premise of the game is Fantasy ing Vietnam then my wizard is going to treat it as Fantasy ing Vietnam even if I don't.

Make up your mind either now you are saying blaster mages are not powerful because they got nerfed and yet wizards have over powered spells. Blaster mages are very good at dealing out damage to numbers in combat. I have heard so many complaints about this too. That the wizard cast fireball and there is nothing left for the rest of the party to do.

Wizards have overpowered spells. Direct damage spells are seldom overpowered. Sure they are useful but wizard spells should be useful.

It is obvious you don't like magic being powerful you prefer a system where magic is on the level of bardic type which is fine for you.

No. I don't mind magic being powerful. I just object to the pairing of powerful magic, gritty fighter. If you want to play Exalted, I'll happily play that. It's just a world away from D&D's legacy

No one is saying that. What I see being said that picking the most powerful combat option is not the only way to build an effective caster or any character for that matter.

Neither am I. I'm saying that in character wizards should pick the most powerful combat options because they want to save their lives.

There will always be a more powerful option. I don't play 4E but I have been told that there are more powerful options even if that more closely balanced system.

Of course there are. But there's a difference between the range of them.

I guess if all you ever do is have combat intense games where that is all that matters then yeah you need the most powerful combat spells.

No I don't normally have combat intense games. However this doesn't change the premise that any spell slot used for combat should be picking the best choice available.

But a lot of us don't play the game that way. There are so many other aspects of the game political intrigue, mysteries, puzzles, exploration. So you need a variety of skill sets to deal with that.

Of course. None of which fighters have much to help with When you need a combat spell you need it.

Again if you feel that the only way to play is that everyone have the most combat powerful options fine but not everyone plays this way.

And once again, this is a strawman. What I am saying is that a smart wizard picks the most effective combat spells they have access to with all the resources they think are worth spending on combat.

I am not going to continue debating this with you because at this point it has become futile. In your opinion certain classes are broken. So we get it you don't like how magic is done in 3E.

I hope that 5E gives you something more to your liking.

I don't happen to agree with you. As it seems others don't either at least 50 people here don't agree. I would rather deal with 1,2,3 E magic then what 4E did to it and the game.

My hope is that 5E does not totally listen to the supposed majority or the squeaky wheels and make magic mundane and weak.

As it happens you're outnumbered 3:1 here. And they can either make magic weak or make fighters able to do their jobs. We've had the anti-fighter edition of 3.X. The one where you take crippling penalties for wearing heavy armour. And all limits on casters are weakened and most can be subverted.

 

[Savage Wombat]

And for the umpteenth time, the Wizard himself should be setting out to break the class. Wizards and clerics are both wise and going to be risking their lives. Do you want to risk your life with third rate equipment, knowing that first rate equipment is no cheaper?

Because risking their life on third rate equipment is literally what you are asking non-spontaneous casters to do by eschewing powerful spells.

I continue to reject your umpteenth effort to justify this as purely a role-playing decision. Your character does not exist in a world where he is aware of the combat mechanics, such as saving throws or defenses, or the necessary statistics to number-crunch the effectiveness of tactics. He does not know that he will only ever encounter foes appropriate for his power level. Etc.

What you describe is no different than a fighter who decides to specialize in trip attacks because, in that particular campaign at the level they play, it's the most powerful option. He can try to role-justify it all he wants, but it's still chosen because it exploits the rules.

If all of your wizards choose the same spells every time, it's because you are a Spike, who wants to win more than he wants to experience the other aspects of play.

I can't help but wonder what games are like where the PCs are all optimized with combos of this nature. Do your GMs respond by using every broken combo back at you every single fight? Or are they playing by a code of conduct you don't feel bound by?

I just don't see why you fight so hard to defend this style of play. You don't seem to like it, since you keep advocating for its removal. Just don't work so hard to red-line the system in the first place. It's not like the game designers will ever be able to analyze a system the way a dedicated player base with years of free time will.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Why isn't anyone mentioning spell preparation? I have seen many many games where the Wizard barely had any spells that would effect combat in a positive way. They don't always pick the right spells nor do they rarely have time to take a quick 15 minute break to fill those unused slots.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I continue to reject your umpteenth effort to justify this as purely a role-playing decision. Your character does not exist in a world where he is aware of the combat mechanics, such as saving throws or defenses, or the necessary statistics to number-crunch the effectiveness of tactics. He does not know that he will only ever encounter foes appropriate for his power level. Etc.

Really? He doesn't y'know live in that world. He doesn't study the mechanics of magic and have Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana trained. I take the viewpoint that a smart character with a professional skill knows it better than I do.

What you describe is no different than a fighter who decides to specialize in trip attacks because, in that particular campaign at the level they play, it's the most powerful option. He can try to role-justify it all he wants, but it's still chosen because it exploits the rules.

Once again, I repeat spells are equipment. Taking the biggest baddest spells you are proficient with is no different from taking the biggest sword you have easy access to. And trying to get a goood spell for a wizard is no different than trying to get a good sword for a wizard. Except that many more wizards have tried out spells than specific swords.

If all of your wizards choose the same spells every time, it's because you are a Spike, who wants to win more than he wants to experience the other aspects of play.

Take your ad-hominem attacks elsewhere please. I'm a Melvin and have already stated that it's my wizards that make these choices, not all my casters. I, as I've stated earlier prefer to play Bards because they don't back me into this RP corner. Now if you're calling someone who likes playing Bards Spike, that's a new one on me.

I can't help but wonder what games are like where the PCs are all optimized with combos of this nature. Do your GMs respond by using every broken combo back at you every single fight? Or are they playing by a code of conduct you don't feel bound by?

And once more out come the ad-hominem attacks based on your preconceptions. I'm not talking about combos. I'm talking about using PHB spells for their intended purpose. Single PHB spells. I know how to make broken characters. But Wizard 20 should not be one. Neither should Druid 20.

And what my games are like is normally 4e. So I can play the character I want to play and won't have to worry much about intended choices overshadowing everyone else.

I just don't see why you fight so hard to defend this style of play. You don't seem to like it, since you keep advocating for its removal. Just don't work so hard to red-line the system in the first place. It's not like the game designers will ever be able to analyze a system the way a dedicated player base with years of free time will.

I'm not working to redline the system. If I were talking about builds like an Ur Priest/Nar Demonbinder/Mystic Theurge you would have a point. But I'm talking about straight wizard built out of the PHB (and PHB Druid's worse). Using simple spells for the purpose for which they were intended. If I were mixing Polymorph and Venomfire again you might have a point. I can redline the system. But all I'm talking about here is using core spells for their intended purpose. Apparently I'm not even allowed to do that.

Now, as you seem to want to be personally insulting while not reading my posts I'm not going to read yours any further. If I were to do so I'd lose my temper at you, not at the incompetents who deserve it IRL.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This right here says it all. I think some people expect, certainty in 4th editions case, that combat is the end all to the D&D game. Avoiding combat is just as much a part of the game as combat. I think people have a hard time looking past the numbers and looking at the game as a whole.

Wrong. Just wrong on many levels, even if I ignore the attempt at edition warring.

Just because we talk about balance as it pertains to one aspect of the game (combat in this case) does not mean that we do not include other aspects of the game. Your assumption that anyone debating balance believes 'combat is the end all to the D&D game' is baseless.

All it means is that the balance issues we've encountered mainly come up in combat. But even that isn't entirely true and I think you've glossed over other complaints along the way. Spellcasters can overshadow characters specialized in social interactions with low level spells like friends and charm person. They can overshadow characters specialized in exploration with low-level spells like knock, find traps, silence, invisibility, and fly. These complaints are not uncommon, but if you wish to label those with differing opinions as focusing solely on combat to make yourself feel superior have at it.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I just find it interesting that you take my attempts to describe the playstyle you are defending as "ad-hominem attacks." Again, if you don't like to play that way, don't.

Anyway, bye.

 

[slobster]

I would rather deal with 1,2,3 E magic then what 4E did to it and the game.

False choice. I don't want the game to be broken, but I don't want every class to be AEDU either. I also don't want every class to be Vancian, or every class to be mana-based or power-point based, or any other single mechanic.

DDN can have casters be interesting and different without making them overpowered. You seemed to agree earlier that there are overpowered options that you'd rather see excised in certain editions of D&D. I agree with that. And in any case, according to what the designers are saying, this is exactly what they are trying to do.

I hope they succeed, but it isn't the end of the world if they don't because I can always play the games I already enjoy.

 

[Sadras]

Once again, I repeat spells are equipment. Taking the biggest baddest spells you are proficient with is no different from taking the biggest sword you have easy access to. And trying to get a goood spell for a wizard is no different than trying to get a good sword for a wizard. Except that many more wizards have tried out spells than specific swords.

Just looking at this differently. Spells as equipment makes complete sense, however when I play a fighters, i usually try mix up the weapon/armour complement between my different fighter characters.
I mean I might play studded leather with a glaive or halberd, perhaps sword and shield style, perhaps two handed light weapons with no armour or I might choose the weapon with the highest damage output or the fastest speed factor, or the highest crit range, or I might play a full knight in heavies with bastardsword or might even go range and even then I can choose between a variety. So between styles, weapons, armour, on horseback - I use different equipment every time I play a new fighter character.
So I believe what Elf Witch is trying to say is that she (assuming female sry) mixes and matches her spells everytime she plays a spell caster - its not so much as she is choosing worse off spells for her caster.
I mean do you build your bard the same way everytime? Surely you've recognised a great way to optimise your bard for combat, but I'm guessing you dont design the same combat-great bard for every campaign?

 

[Hussar]

But, the thing is Sadras, presuming you're talking about 3e D&D, if you play a fighter in leather with a glaive, you're going to build that character so that he is as effective as he can be with that combination.

Earlier editions lacked those options, so, fighters were almost always wearing the heaviest armor they could, because that was the best way not to die.

What's the difference with the wizard then? If the fighter player is choosing options to make his choices the most effective they can be, why should the wizard be any different? If I choose Conjuration and Transmutation as opposed schools for my specialist, well, then I'll take feats and options that make my Charm school spells that much more effective.

Far too much time is being spent trying to blame the players and the DM's for being too stupid to play the game right. If only we were just skilled enough to not have these problems, then the game would be perfect. Unfortunately, I'm not that good of a player apparently. I have seen these problems since 1980 when I first started playing.

Apparently I run nothing but endless hack fests, starting at A for Aaracokra and ending at Zombie.

Then again, 2/3rd of the respondents in the poll are apparently just as bad as I am.

Nope, could never, ever be the system that is the problem. It's 100% my fault.