Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Ratskinner]

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.

I'm not sure I'm down with Timmy, Johnny, and Spike analysis for D&D. I get what you're saying, though. What I'm not sure of, is whether its possible for Spike to get his "I'm better than anyone else here" fix while having the rules keep Timmy/Johnny in the game despite their comparative ineptitude. At least, without creating a system of profound inter-class dependence or mandated mediocrity. (I want better names...these names will invoke too much inadvertent allusion to MtG, I fear.)

Really, though, the more these discussions go on, the more I wonder if they aren't solely creations of the internet as a medium. I played and ran the game for years with parties of characters that were obviously of unequal relative power, yet it never seemed to utterly destroy my games as many on here seem to feel LFQW inevitably does. Thinking on it now, it seems to me that among the various groups I've played with since 3e came out there is a distinct positive correlation between the time they spend online discussing D&D and their awareness/experience of the commonly cited problems for older editions. Whether that's an effect of CharOp, discussion, predisposition, or something else...I dunno.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

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.

I have to wonder what percentage of the super majority voting that casters are too powerful either...

1. don't care
2. accept the situation and tolerate it or
3. feel the casters SHOULD be more powerful at high levels (my answer)

 

[Sadras]

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.

Okay, i think you have missed my point completely and created a straw man argument. I was interpreting Elf Witches post in a different light for Neonchameleon. For instance, if i play a wizard over and over, I wont necessarily wish to select the exact same Evocation spells every time. I have NO issue with optimization within a particular set of choices, but as I understood Elf Witch as saying that when she plays she designs different wizards. Not always having Fireballs or Stoneskin for example. She would design them different, exploring new options/design builds, but STILL optimizing.

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.

Actually, I feel the opposite, I think there are MANY terrible DMs out there, and some on here, based on comments I've seen here on Enworld. I dont feel enough people read the DMGs these days for sound advice, unless when it comes to statistics which directly affect game play. I also feel not enough players provide constructive critique to their DMs about their DMing style which is necessary for DM growth. The latter I have myself been guilty on many occassion with numerous DMs.

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

You might be surprised, that I too voted that casters overshadow mundanes in power, but I have no issue with that. I actually expect that, its magic after all people. I would not expect Green Lantern to lose to Bruce Lee either, but to me that is obvious.
For me its more of a problem if the DM does not provide a balanced adventure and thats where good DM skills are required. Thats why the quality of the DMG is SO important.

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

And I know the systems of older editions are not perfectly balanced, I never disagreed with that. Again straw man.

 

[Sadras]

I pretty much wrote the book back in the day on ways to play the bard. And they almost all end up with a highly-overlapping equipment list even if they don't share a single spell. A no-brainer is that every character who can use a wand of Cure Light Wounds probably should. But deeper is that bards always end up in a Chain Shirt, normally a Mithral one* - and a Mithral buckler or small shield (this isn't quite as silly as the fact that a smart wizard with decent cashflow will almost inevitably buy a +1 Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt if they can - and possibly also a Mithral Buckler)

The reason not to pick a strong solid loadout of combat spells is if I want a specialist combatant when that's what I'll spend the time tweaking. Or if I'm going to be antisocial and do nothing useful in combat.

I think i can chalk it down then to different playstyles and DMs. Personally I wouldn't want to have a Cure Light Wounds wand with every Bard I played, then they might as well write the wand in as a class feature. Its a problem which I feel the DM should have fixed, because the system was broken. But thats my requirement for immersion, not necessarily everybodies, I accept that. Which again points to difference in playstyle and DMs. Ditto with the armour, just make it part of advancement similar to 4E.
As for the combat spells, there were enough to change how you optimised yourself in combat. If you're a combat caster, there are many types of designs you could take that would not have the same spells within each design.
I could choose party buff spells, I could choose range blasters, I could choose disablers, I could choose escapes & healers, I could choose solo buffs...You optimise with feats and equipment no problem, but you dont necessarily have the same combat spells, sure some overlap, but they are not all the same. That is essentially what I believe Elf Witch was saying - playing them differently for explorative purposes, roleplaying or otherwise, not necessarily handicapped.

I mean I might want to play a wizard who had a serious fear of fire, due to an accident when he was young and is now partly scarred, perhaps have a burnt arm or he could look like the Hound in Game of Thrones. Roleplaying depth enhanced. I then do not select any fire-related spells for my wizard (the infamous Fireball included)
Why would I do that you might ask? Well maybe I'm bored of the generic wizard. Maybe I want to force myself as a player to think out the box and choose spells I dont necessarily choose. Maybe I've played VtM and I think they have an awesome merit/flaw system which I think WotC should adopt to encourage roleplaying. Maybe I roleplay differently to you. Maybe all the above. Maybe none of the above....etc
I dont consider this Wizard to be handicapped, I actually see the potential for him to be fun to roleplay.

 

[slobster]

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.

No, the false choice is asserting that either

A) DDN will have AEDU mechanics for all classes, and will be balanced or

B) DDN will use unbalanced mechanics where casters are more powerful, more versatile, and use different core mechanics than other classes.

I say that is a false choice, because I choose

C) DDN will use different mechanics for different classes, so that there are Vancian and mana users and yes, AEDU, but they are carefully designed and playtested to be balanced choices overall, so that no single class dominates all the others.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But... you just SAID that you handicap your casters. I'd have to surf back into the thread a bit, for where you listed the ways that you don't have this issue, and you specifically outlined about half a dozen ways you limit your casters so that you don't have this issue.

How can you complain that we're saying you handicap your casters when you flat out admit that there are problems with caster balance and you handicap your casters because of it?

 

[Hussar]

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.

And [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION], here is exhibit A. I don't even need to surf back into the thread.

 

[Hussar]

And I know the systems of older editions are not perfectly balanced, I never disagreed with that. Again straw man.

Then why is everyone arguing? You accept that there is a balance issue. Correct? So, problems arising from that are, at least in part, a mechanical issue. While it could be resolved by social contract agreements, we're also seeing lots of people instituting house rules (see my quote of 2e player), which is a mechanical fix.

So, what's the arguement about then? Isn't this conversation done? Everyone agrees that there is a balance issue?

Now, I can see the disagreement on how to resolve the balance issue, fair enough. There are a few ways to do it. But, dozens of pages into this thread, we're still seeing people deny that this is a mechanical issue at all.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

It would seem to me that a blaster mage and a fighter would both be a fish out of water in non-combat.

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.

Please check out my Divination question thread over in Legacy.

But it sure seems like divination only work for the one track railroad type game. If the DM knows that Orc Bob will attack you at 5pm he can tell you about it. But if there are 1,000 creatures on the plane that at anyone time want to kill your character, then the divinations are useless.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, the false choice is asserting that either

A) DDN will have AEDU mechanics for all classes, and will be balanced or

Perfectly reasonable, since that's how 4e worked. We know that a structure like AEDU can be used to design balanced classes.

B) DDN will use unbalanced mechanics where casters are more powerful, more versatile, and use different core mechanics than other classes.

Also a perfectly reasonable possibility, since that was the pre-4e status quo, so is certainly achievable.

I say that is a false choice, because I choose

C) DDN will use different mechanics for different classes, so that there are Vancian and mana users and yes, AEDU, but they are carefully designed and playtested to be balanced choices overall, so that no single class dominates all the others.

Every prior edition has used different sub-systems for casters vs non-casters, and 3.x experimented with several different caster sub-systems (vancian, spontaneous, warmages, warlocks, psionics, etc). Every prior edition was imbalanced.

Empirically, the 4e approach is the only one that has delivered class balance. Trying again with an approach that's failed for 35+ years is not guaranteed to fail again. Not absolutely guaranteed...