Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[slobster]

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...

But when you tell me my two choices are to accept that it will be bland (assuming 4E is bland, I'm not going to even get into that) or accept that it will be balanced, I'm telling you "no". I will accept neither option, because I believe that there is a third which incorporates the best of those two and leaves out the rest.

Of course it's not guaranteed to work. That's not what I'm saying. I'm telling you my personal preferences for the design goals of DDN. Goals are words and lofty promises until they deliver a product, sure. But at least if you set good goals you have a chance for a good product.

[EDIT] To clarify, if you set good goals and succeed, you have a good product. If you set bad goals and succeed, you still have a bad product. I'm interested in helping set good goals (and helping fulfill those goals, but one thing at a time).

 

[Daztur]

Every prior edition was imbalanced.

Rules Cyclopedia D&D with the Weapon Mastery rules balances pretty damn well. Not perfectly and things get wonky at high levels but then 4ed doesn't balance perfectly and things get wonky at high levels there as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But when you tell me my two choices are to accept that it will be bland (assuming 4E is bland, I'm not going to even get into that) or accept that it will be balanced, I'm telling you "no". I will accept neither option, because I believe that there is a third which incorporates the best of those two and leaves out the rest.

That's a very hopeful and positive belief to embrace. There's just nothing in the history of the game to convince me that it's likely, or even possible.

Of course, when 3.5 was the latest edition, you could not have convinced me that it was possible to create a balanced game that was still recognizably D&D. 4e convinced me.

So, yes, if 5e can achieve something that's never been done before, by using the same things that have always failed to achieve that goal in the past, I will be pleasantly surprised, and sing its praises.

 

[slobster]

So, yes, if 5e can achieve something that's never been done before, by using the same things that have always failed to achieve that goal in the past, I will be pleasantly surprised, and sing its praises.

Me too! I finally came to an agreement with somebody on the internet. That's one checkmark on my bucket list!

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm not sure I'm down with Timmy, Johnny, and Spike analysis for D&D.

I wasn't directly associating Magic analysis for D&D. I was merely relating my tastes and my fellow player's tastes across different games.

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.

Well, four out of five editions of D&D plus numerous other non-D&D systems that we have actually played together allow this. So I know hrough actual play experience that it is possible.

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.

To be clear, our group's problem never was LFQW problems. It was too wide of a power gap between those with high system mastery and those with low system mastery.

Our problem was not solely a creation of the internet. I actually did not want to run 3E anymore because of the problem. None of my four players at the time wanted to run 3E either. We were on the verge of quitting. This was just before 4E was announced. The announcement was made during the week before I intended to tell the group I was done. I decided upon the announcement to keep my 3E game going so as not to lose momentum for our weekly gathering in hopes that 4E would solve the problem.

It did, but I admit we did lose some aspects of D&D that I hope 5E brings back.

 

[Savage Wombat]

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

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

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...

See, Tony, when you post stuff like this, I feel like you want to start another edition war thread. I don't feel I can comment on your post without getting into those issues again.

 

[Ratskinner]

I wasn't directly associating Magic analysis for D&D. I was merely relating my tastes and my fellow player's tastes across different games.

Not a problem, no indictment intended, either. There was thread or two a while back that did head in that direction. I was just stating my hestitation to jump on that train.

To be clear, our group's problem never was LFQW problems. It was too wide of a power gap between those with high system mastery and those with low system mastery.

Some of my 3.x groups experienced similar things.

Our problem was not solely a creation of the internet. I actually did not want to run 3E anymore because of the problem. None of my four players at the time wanted to run 3E either. We were on the verge of quitting.

I experienced quite a bit of fatigue with 3.5 as well. For me, it was just a matter of the workload as a DM. Notice how both of our actual problems receive very little attention and raise very little ire compared to the LFQW thing? That's all I'm talking about. I've met several gamers and groups that don't "D&D" on the internet, and are confused by the LFQW suggestion.

I decided upon the announcement to keep my 3E game going so as not to lose momentum for our weekly gathering in hopes that 4E would solve the problem.

It did, but I admit we did lose some aspects of D&D that I hope 5E brings back.

Me too. I had a group that split up after 4e came out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

There's degrees and degrees. An absolutely pure blaster-mage is still less of a fish out of water than an average fighter. And it takes very little effort to give the mage one non-combat spell per level, which allows them to leave fighters in the dust.

Please check out my Divination question thread over in Legacy.

It seems to say divination allows you to know everything. [Citation needed]

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.

Then you really don't get how to use divination. I'll try again.

Assume there is any sort of mystery. Detect thoughts or zone of truth can almost short-circuit it.

But as for the "one track railroad", that is utter nonsense. Divination magic works better in a sandbox than on a railroad. You don't scry for people who want to attack you (normally). You scry for people who you want to attack. It's an offensive tool not a defensive one. Scry, buff, teleport in, beat them down in a couple of rounds, then teleport away. (Known as "Scry and fry") And you absolutely have people you want to attack when you aren't on a railroad.

 

[Hussar]

I'd also point out with the Flash Bang Wizard and the Fighter, the FB Wizard is going to have about three to four times more skills than the Fighter simply because of his Int score. It's not unreasonable that the wizzie is going to have a higher Int than the Fighter.

Never mind that the wizzie's class skill list is about three times longer as well.

And, additionally, even if the FB Wizzie memorizes nothing but direct damage spells, there's umpteen magic items that are going to make him effective in non-combat. Crystal Ball pretty much trumps any information gathering you could do through skill use. While it's true that the fighter could be carrying around the crystal ball, he's going to have to forego a great deal of his combat effectiveness to do so since magic weapons and armor are not cheap.

The wizard gives up virtually nothing on his combat effectiveness to carry a crystal ball.

 

[Elf Witch]

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?

I have house rules that I feel reign in the issue with 3E magic those issues to me are the easy and cheap way to make magic items to extend the amount of spells the casters get to cast and fixing it so that skills never become I can't fail for any class.

That is very different than saying my wizards nerf themselves or choose sub optimal spells.