Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Elf Witch]

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.

Then you are misunderstanding me. I said that I would rather deal with 1,2,3, E magic then deal with 4E fixes.

I am not saying the 5E is going to do that just that is my preference with dealing with how things are now.

 

[dagger]

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.

Not my group. 4e is not D&D to us and I don't have any balance issues.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Of course they don't. You limit the spell choices that they can have. Or am I confusing you with another poster? I dug back a bit and found:

In my games I tend to make teleport dangerous and unpredictable all the time. I still use the 3.0 scry rules where if you want to be able to scry you need to have ranks in it to make it work plus an item. Sure they can max out scry but then what are they giving up to max that out.

My big issue with how magic works in 3E is how metamagic and cheap creation of magic items can really make the casters have to many resources. I don't allow quickened spells I don't allow anything that might allow more than one spell a round. And I keep an eye on the items that allow a caster more spells or slots. And I strictly enforce the the use up higher spell slots where metamagic is concerned.


I don't allow the feat that allows a druid in wild shape to cast spells unless they are in a form that has vocal chords and has hands like say a primate to do the gestures. I also enforce the rule that they have to have knowledge of an animal to be able to wild shape ,knowledge that comes from actually seeing how the animal moves.

So, of course you don't have some of the problems outlined here. YOU'VE FIXED THEM. Now, why did you fix them? Did you fix them because you saw a problem? If you did, then we agree, the problem is SYSTEMIC and not simply play style.

If it's simply a matter of play style, then why do you have a grocery list of nerfs for caster characters?

Your wizards don't choose sub-optimal options because they don't want to overshadow anyone, your casters choose sub-optimal options because the optimal choices have been taken off the table.

So, why are you arguing with us again? You apparently agree that it's a systemic issue, or you wouldn't have changed the system. Which is all anyone here is trying to pin down - is this a systemic issue. How to fix that issue is a whole 'nother beast. There's a number of methods, and they all have pro's and con's.

 

[Tony Vargas]

See, Tony, when you post stuff like this, I feel like you want to start another edition war thread.

I certainly don't want to get into "edition warring," but, neither do I want to ignore the past.

 

[Sadras]

Then why is everyone arguing? You accept that there is a balance issue. Correct?

Okay, I cant comment for everyone, I was not arguing - I just elaborated on one of Elf Witches points about playing the same class differently but not necessarily "handicapped" but still optimized, which I thought Neonchameleon might have missed.
I'm actually good. We're good.

 

[Sadras]

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.

100%. I have to admit I loved 3.x for all its details and intricacies, but I just didnt have the time to devote as a DM to maximise it to its fullest potential, its the reason why I woudlnt switch to Pathfinder if I'm DM. Didn't solve my DM problem.

 

[pemerton]

if you don't like to play that way, don't.

I don't see the situation quite as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] does, maybe because I'm more willing to tweak the ingame fiction and allow that perhaps, even though the rules say so, my particular wizard isn't capable of learning all those spells.

On the other hand, I haven't GMed a system without systematic spell list limits (Rolemaster, 4e D&D) for many many years. And when I last played a cleric in D&D (2nd ed AD&D) it was pretty broken, even though I had a less than optimal sphere set.

And anyway, I strongy sympathise with Neonchameleon at least to this extent: if the game breaks when a player pushes it even moderately hard, something has gone wrong. If choosing Web, Glitterdust, Evard's and Polymorph breaks the game, then they shoudn't be in the game in the first place - at least as a permitted combo, if not invidivudally.

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.

For me, the difference is this: Optimising across fighting styles is mathematically challenging, and highly dependent on the sorts of foes faced. Some builds are obviously weak, I think (1st level fighter, leather armour, low DEX, dagger). But others are potentially competitive (eg a low level fighter trading a bit of AC for improved manoeuvrability doesn't strike me as obviously irrational - there are no full attacks to be lost by moving, for example).

Whereas working out that Evard's is broken is a no-brainer.

I bet the people with the caster problems have DM's who don't actually flex their DM muscles and stop the 15 minute work day and the hundreds of magic shops r us.

It's not MUs who need magic shops. They can get buy with their spell load-out plus a few darts. (And, in 3E, with the items that they make themselves.) It's fighters who need magic shops, or some other way for acquiring the magic weapons, armour etc that are essential for their high level viability (as has been discussed in this and other recent threads).

I think some people expect, certainty in 4th editions case, that combat is the end all to the D&D game.

This is a complete red herring. In AD&D MUs are also broken in social engagements (Charm, Suggestion, ESP) and at exploration (Knock, Detect . . ., Fly, Inivis, etc).

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.

This is not remotely true. In any sort of rich campaign world, being able to learn stuff - who loves or hates whom, who is working for whom, who did what, who was where when - is hugely valuable.

My first long-running Rolemaster camaign broke down in part under the weight of a well-played diviner.

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.

In that same campaign, but at lower levels before it broke down, the PCs used to do this using magic detection! (They were somewhat mercenary, and big fans of the magic item resale market.)

the more these discussions go on, the more I wonder if they aren't solely creations of the internet as a medium.

In my own case, I experienced MU overshadowing of others in the first AD&D game I GMed (in 1984-85). And that was even in a game involving two-handed swords against the giants, with a 10th level ranger!

It was also a big factor in the above-mentioned RM campaign. In my second long-running RM campaign we nerfed a few things, and made various agreements in PC building, to prevent it being such a big issue.

To date, in 4e it's not been a problem. (And the campaign is currently at 15th level.)

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

I always find this debate bizarre simply because it is so easy to address these issues with just a few simple house rules.

I personally didn't find your list of rules that simple. Changing feats and XP tables, for example, are making pretty big changes to the basics of the PC build rules.

I would prefer a game that works out of the box. That's what I pay the designers for.

Casters generally do overtake mundane types and there is nothing wrong with that.

<snip>

At higher levels the Casters are going to have access to spells that are rediculously powerful because we all expect that of magic.

<snip>

lets not bastardise magic to the degree where we cant tell the difference between a martial manuever and a fireball.

Does fireball, as an element of fantasy fiction, exist outside D&D? I've never encountered it, but then I don't read a lot of contemporary fantasy.

Anyway, I do think that there is something wrong with casters overtaking non-casters. And it's not something that I expect. And in the fiction you yourself cited - as others pointed out - it is the non-caster who wins. One way to achieve this in RPG design is to give the non-casters more metagame resources. Which 4e does, via martial encounter and daily powers.

I just want the rules of the game to match up with the thematic reality of what occurs in the fiction of the game.

Yes. This is what I want from a game: a game in which, if I play by the rules, the player experience will be that which the story elements of the game appeared to promise.

The first version of D&D I played that ever really came close to this was (AD&D) Oriental Adventures. 4e is the next version that has given me this.

From Tom Moldvay's Foreword to the Basic Rulebook (page B2, and dated 3 December 1980):

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.​

Those are classic fantasy tropes - the warrior as protagonist, the priest as mentor/guide, the dragon sorcerer as antagonist. This is what D&D promised to me in 1982, when I first got the Basic Set. Unbalanced wizards don't deliver on this promise.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't see the situation quite as @Neonchameleon does, maybe because I'm more willing to tweak the ingame fiction and allow that perhaps, even though the rules say so, my particular wizard isn't capable of learning all those spells.

I'm not quite as hard line as I'm making out on this thread. I do, however, object to going through a game I've actually paid money for and spell by spell working out what is merely sensible and what is too cheesy to use. And it makes me feel hamstrung every time I want to cast one of the spells I've arbitrarily restricted myself from (which includes most of the polymorph chain except Baleful Polymorph). Let alone spells that are powerful rather than downright destructively broken.

It's not MUs who need magic shops. They can get buy with their spell load-out plus a few darts. (And, in 3E, with the items that they make themselves.) It's fighters who need magic shops, or some other way for acquiring the magic weapons, armour etc that are essential for their high level viability (as has been discussed in this and other recent threads).

And it's not just the weapons and armour - without magic weapons and armour the fighter is weakened. It's the ability to fly, or any one of a hundred other things that the casters can still do.

This is a complete red herring. In AD&D MUs are also broken in social engagements (Charm, Suggestion, ESP) and at exploration (Knock, Detect . . ., Fly, Inivis, etc).

Indeed. MUs are least broken in combat.

Does fireball, as an element of fantasy fiction, exist outside D&D? I've never encountered it, but then I don't read a lot of contemporary fantasy.

It certainly exists in the Warhammer universe. But then Warhammer, like D&D, started off with a tabletop wargame.

Those are classic fantasy tropes - the warrior as protagonist, the priest as mentor/guide, the dragon sorcerer as antagonist. This is what D&D promised to me in 1982, when I first got the Basic Set. Unbalanced wizards don't deliver on this promise.

I can't currently XP you...

 

[Sadras]

For me, the difference is this: Optimising across fighting styles is mathematically challenging, and highly dependent on the sorts of foes faced. Some builds are obviously weak, I think (1st level fighter, leather armour, low DEX, dagger). But others are potentially competitive (eg a low level fighter trading a bit of AC for improved manoeuvrability doesn't strike me as obviously irrational - there are no full attacks to be lost by moving, for example).

Whereas working out that Evard's is broken is a no-brainer.

Agreed, but lets compare apples and apples, not apples and my mothers chicken soup (metaphor). You initial examples provide a 1st Level Fighter and then you jump to a 4th Level Spell. That hardly seems fair, kind of like my comparison of my mother's chicken soup with apples. Clearly my mother's chicken soup is vasly superior.
If you gonna equate a Wizard that has the ability to cast Evards then at least level up the Fighter within the example, no matter what the design build. To be clear - I do not dispute Wizards become more extraordinary as they progress (something in fact I promote).
However if I play a wizard and use Evards to my hearts content - next campaign I play a Wizard I would probably not take it if I abused it with my previous character. But I admit that's me. I would want to try something different.

As for mathematically challenging to design/optimise fighters - I dont believe its any more challening than designing a decent PC build in 4E with all those powers (multi/hybrid). The only difference is DDI makes it easier.