Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Surmos]

So for those that don't feel casters overshadow other classes as much:

Are you saying that the balance of the game should be more a part of the agreement of fellow players and the DM?
Not that this is bad, but I'm trying to wrap my head around your point of views.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That sounds a bit sinister (though, interesting), what do you mean?

I mean that the problem isn't really the wizard. A smart wizard is stronger than most classes - but you need to either reflexively think the right way or be trying to make them sing.

The problem can be much more clearly expressed by three classes.

1. The Fighter
2. The Druid
3. The Monk

Fighters only have one area of expertise. Fighting. Outside fighting (and being dropped from great heights or being used as a food taster I suppose) they are almost indistinguishable from a commoner - almost no skill points and a terrible class list. They have very few skills and no other powers. Any spellcaster (even a highly evocation-centric blast mage who just makes stuff go boom) is going to have a range of options outside combat that the fighter can't match. Because a fighter is so weak out of combat based on abilities he must be the best there is at what he does or he's going to be overshadowed everywhere.


Druids are fighters' worst nightmares. A Druid is not one PC but two in combat. Which means that Druids have more hit points than fighters in total and can inflict more damage. A druid just needs to pick obvious animal companions and/or wildshapes (wolves and bears will do) and they will be able to go toe to toe with any fighter built by a novice. And because druids are casters they have options out of combat a fighter literally can't touch. Which means that even in the hands of someone not trying it is entirely likely that the druid will steal the show in combat and then make the fighter feel useless outside combat.


A druid played by a novice can therefore easily force a fighter played by a novice into the shade. Which will leave the fighter feeling bad because he can't do what he's supposed to and very possibly the druid feeling bad as well. This can be a complete accident and spoils the game for the fighter - and for any perceptive druid player as he tries to hold back to let the fighter in.






And then we get to the dear old 3.X monk. Who, I suppose, is slightly better than his 1e version (that had d4s as hit dice). The monk is so multi-attribute dependent it's silly. He needs strength for damage, wis and dex for ac, and con for hit points. In combat even with a decent wis you've the AC of a rogue, and the hit points of a rogue (con being a priority for everyone - and lower for you than most). You have deflect arrows - the rogue gets uncanny dodge. You have stunning fist and flurry (don't grapple - you become meat on the ground as your AC drops to 10) - the rogue gets sneak attack. Your "unarmed damage" looks good but is about that of a shortsword. Your only strength is good saving throws - other than that you can be outfought by the party rogue. Out of combat you've only 4+Int skills/level and many stats to prioritise - you're no skill monkey. (You're behind druid and barbarian due to your MAD). You gain some out of combat abilities sure - the ability to fall down pits and off buildings safely. And immunity to disease at fifth level for what that's worth.


So in combat you're no rogue, let alone a barbarian (who, let's not forget gains speed of his own). Out of combat you're no barbarian, let alone a rogue unless you mean to take up base jumping. Choosing a monk in either 1e or 3e is simply a negative play experience if you care what you are doing for the group - you will get overshadowed by people who aren't really trying to do things. (I'm delighted to say from experience that choosing a monk in 4e is emphatically not - you're a wire-fu martial artist who can run over buildings or up walls and perform breathtaking leaps without always having a chance of failure).






One core issue to me is that flexibility is power. Classes with spells are always going to be more flexible than those without, so they need to allow the mundane ones to be significantly better than those who can cast spells at anything the mundanes choose to focus on. (Which to be fair has been the case with the classic wizard with his d4 hit dice and pathetic BAB/THAC0 - but not the cleric so much).

 

[bloodtide]

Fighters only have one area of expertise. Fighting. Outside fighting (and being dropped from great heights or being used as a food taster I suppose) they are almost indistinguishable from a commoner - almost no skill points and a terrible class list. They have very few skills and no other powers. Any spellcaster (even a highly evocation-centric blast mage who just makes stuff go boom) is going to have a range of options outside combat that the fighter can't match. Because a fighter is so weak out of combat based on abilities he must be the best there is at what he does or he's going to be overshadowed everywhere.
.

I just don't get this, and guess I never will. So a high centric blaster mage has more options outside of combat then a fighter? How?! If all the mage can do is blow stuff up, and all of the characters feats, spells, abilities and such are focused on that, how can they have 'so many options'? If that mage wanted to sneak into a place, what would he do? All he can do is blast.

Or is it because the mage can go home and spend lots of time and money and redo his spellbook? Assuming, of course, he goes to a magic mart and/or has infinite time to craft whatever he needs(and plenty of money too). That seems like an odd thing to me.

And I don't get the 'even divination' makes a caster so powerful. What divination spells? In general, divinations only help out in bland one track railroad adventures. Where you can ask the DM ''what is in room 12B'' and the DM looks at his notes and tells you. But in a more open game, it's pointless to ask ''what will I encounter today?'' as you 'might' encounter anyone of a hundred foes. And it is great if you know ahead of time that 'monster number three is vulnerable to cold', but does that really help out all that much...knowing the weakness of one monster? And can you really just 'get' cold spells out of thin air?

I guess some people won't be happy unless fighters can cast spells, or at least have 'powers' that are exactly like spells, but with another name.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

It is not a false choice. I do not enjoy 4E I didn't enjoy how combat worked I hated what they did with wizards. So for me right now I have a choice if I want to play DnD either play one of the older editions or don't play DnD.

My hope is the 5E will allow me to to play in the style I like that is there stated design goal to allow all of us a game system that works.

But if it goes to far like it did with 4E then I would rather just play the editions I enjoy.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

The flip side of this is that those of us who don't have these issues are being told it is because we handicap our casters or we don't know how to make powerful combos. Or I get the impression we are just to stupid to realize that there is an issue.

We game play the game wrong because our characters don't really take the idea that we could be killed seriously otherwise we would only pick the most powerful combo of spells.

The system is 100% broken and we are to naive to see that.

 

[Elf Witch]

So for those that don't feel casters overshadow other classes as much:

Are you saying that the balance of the game should be more a part of the agreement of fellow players and the DM?
Not that this is bad, but I'm trying to wrap my head around your point of views.

Yes and no. The best way is if the system is as balanced as possible. But I believe that it is impossible to balance a system perfectly unless you make every character exactly the same.

So I do believe that an agreement needs to be reached between the DM and players.

 

[Roland55]

Had to vote yes ... but, perhaps oddly, that issue never really bothered me or the people I have gamed with over the years.

We just expected "magic" to be the dominant force in D&D. And, after all, anyone could be a wizard who wanted to be. It was just a few dice rolls away.

 

[Lwaxy]

So for those that don't feel casters overshadow other classes as much:

Are you saying that the balance of the game should be more a part of the agreement of fellow players and the DM?
Not that this is bad, but I'm trying to wrap my head around your point of views.

I am now thinking it is merely a play style thing that just develops. If everyone at the table wants fun and plays their characters like, to stay with the example, the folks of the Fellowship of the Ring, and plays out fatigues and stress and mental failures on their own because it is part of having the game being realistic, then it is just no issue.

So it is not an agreement for us, at least not a conscious one. My shadow plane tainted PC's player would, for example, notice that his abilities so gained are a bit much right now if used in each encounter (although he knows the others will catch up) so he added his own fatigue restrictions for flavor and realism.

One group didn't do this at first but now caught up to how the others play. Maybe more freedom gives some more sense of responsibility - or maybe it is that with few exceptions they all started play with our groups and would not know how and why to play the game in a broken way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I just don't get this, and guess I never will. So a high centric blaster mage has more options outside of combat then a fighter? How?! If all the mage can do is blow stuff up, and all of the characters feats, spells, abilities and such are focused on that, how can they have 'so many options'?

He doesn't have many more options than the fighter. But he can still override the laws of physics even if every single way he does is destructive.

Focussed specialist evokers, or blast-sorcerors are much better at creating distractions than fighters. Sword and shield vs fireball. They are much better at causing mayhem - setting the ground on fire. They are sneaker - the fighter has this problem with any sort of weapons check. They can provide excellent SFx.

Blowing stuff up is not something that is exclusively restricted to combat. Neither is stabbing someone - but it's more restricted than blowing things up is. And anyone in the party can stab people including the sorceror.

And I don't get the 'even divination' makes a caster so powerful. What divination spells?

Other than the Locate City Bomb? (Which is an exploit rather than a use).

Detect Thoughts - if you're not holding a combat-fest this is wonderful.
Locate Object has its place.
Scrying - trying to find someone who's gone missing? Scry them.

And that's without the heavy hitters like Commune. That said, a focussed specialist diviner wouldn't be a good adventuring PC. Specialist diviners are - they have almost the versatility of a universalist wizard, and free divination spells - not so useful in combat but incredibly useful outside.

But in a more open game, it's pointless to ask ''what will I encounter today?'' as you 'might' encounter anyone of a hundred foes.

In a more open game it's extremely pointful to ask "Who lives there and what will defend it if we try to take that keep?" Or "What time are the guard patrols?"

And it is great if you know ahead of time that 'monster number three is vulnerable to cold', but does that really help out all that much...knowing the weakness of one monster? And can you really just 'get' cold spells out of thin air?

Actually that's not as useful as 'monster number three resists fire - use a different spell on it. Oh, and by the way? Those Shambling Mounds? I know they are lined up and lightning bolt looks cool. But it'll only encourage them. And don't shocking grasp them either.'

I guess some people won't be happy unless fighters can cast spells, or at least have 'powers' that are exactly like spells, but with another name.

I'm not sure who those people are. Exalted players, possibly. 4e fighters don't have spells. They have a dozen different ways to thump someone with a sword.

 

[2e Player]

If you simply play by the rules as written and assume that all characters have an equal amount of XP and treasure to work with, then yes, a high level 3rd edition caster is going to be more powerful than his mundane counterparts. There were many mitigating factors that kept mundane characters useful in 1st and 2nd edition, and many of these factors were removed in the core 3e rules.

That said, I've always found that in any game with sensible house rules, a fighter or thief can be a very valuable party member. Just some thoughts, but things I like to do in 3rd edition include:

- Make spell acquisition hideously expensive.
- Don't give wizards or clerics their free spells known at each level.
- Give mundane characters more and better feats.
- Tweak spells such as Save or Dies and Polymorph to be strong, but not completely overpowering.
- Adjust XP tables, making it much more expensive to level up a full caster.
- Give martial characters better Prestige Class options with powerful class features.
- Limit the number of spells per day (simply removing bonus spells is a huge improvement).
- Don't allow broken crap like Divine Metamagic and night sticks. This should be a no brainer.


To be honest, I always find this debate bizarre simply because it is so easy to address these issues with just a few simple house rules. I don't game with anyone who feels compelled to only play the rules as written, and I really don't even understand that mindset. If certain elements of the rules are problematic and you find them poor for your style of play, why not simply adjust them to address the problem?

So no, in my experience casters do not overshadow mundanes. But my experience has never been the 'rules as written' experience.