What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?

[billd91]

In those cases it's the players not the DM that are the problem.

It depends. It's a problem if the player is throwing a snit over an entirely reasonable decision by the GM and, I'm sorry, an animal companion being entirely tolerant of everything a typical adventuring druid or ranger tries to make it do is pretty unlikely. It's a problem if the GM is throwing up unreasonable obstacles to the PCs trying to make accommodations for the balky companions. It's not a problem if they both say "That makes sense. Let's figure out how handle the situation." Handling it may be the druid releasing his companion for something more locally appropriate (if the campaign is expected to center there a while), the druid sending the companion on some other task (guarding a camp, going home for a while, etc), or the druid coming up with some form of accommodation that the bear will accede to.

It's also perfectly reasonable to give the bear precisely the same means of exploring the sunken wreck the PCs are using. I mean humans don't breathe water without magic.

That would be one mother-effing tolerant bear.

 

[MarkB]

It's also perfectly reasonable to give the bear precisely the same means of exploring the sunken wreck the PCs are using. I mean humans don't breathe water without magic.

That probably is a bit much to ask of a bear without training. As a DM I'd probably be requiring the character to use the Push option of Handle Animal to have the bear fight underwater, unless he'd previously taken the time to train the bear and replace one of its known Tricks with training in underwater maneuvering.

 

[Manbearcat]

That would be one mother-effing tolerant bear.

The way to a bear's mauling grab attack...errr heart...is through his stomach. Bears love fish!

 

[Hussar]

/snip

If the GM tells the ranger that his grizzly bear won't follow him into the desert, for example, the player can either say "that's a reasonable assumption, given the extremely high temperatures and the bear's fur coat, not to mention issues of not being a natural habitat for it," and start trying to figure out if he'll have the opportunity to leave the desert in the near future (e.g. after the adventure's over), or if he'll be there a while and should start looking for a new animal companion.

...or the player can say "oh come on! This is a world with fire-breathing dragons and demon-blooded sorcerers, but a bear in the desert breaks your immersion?! Damn it, this is a class feature, you taking this away weakens my character, and you're doing it just because?! Nuts to you, I'm going to Google "bears in the desert" and I'll bet I can find freaking dissertations saying that grizzlies will venture into deserts, then will you stop mucking up my ranger already?!"

In either case, the GM is making what I think is a reasonable call; sometimes things don't go exactly how the player(s) would like, but that doesn't mean that the GM is screwing them when that happens.
/snip

And when the Druid player turns to the DM and says, "Ok, I cast Endure Elements (1st level spell 24 hour duration) on the bear"? Does the DM stick to his guns? Or does he allow the companion to come along?

See, that's the problem. Virtually any "problems" that the DM can chuck the player's way can be resolved fairly simply with a spell. Losing 1 first level spell/day so I can keep my grizzly bear is a pretty reasonable trade off. Never mind if I actually went out and bought a couple of magic items for my companion to stave off this kind of thing - the books are full of minor cost magic items for just this sort of thing.

That's my problem in a nutshell with a lot of the "DM solutions" to in game problems. Many of them are too easily worked around. At least initially. So, the DM steps up the "solution" to make it a harder problem. So the players find another work around. And you wind up with this arms race that only serves to annoy everyone at the table.

Look at the above mentioned solutions to Rope Trick. I mean, seriously. Building bonfires under the rope trick? Come on. First off, how do the baddies know that rope trick is being used? Tracking? Easily fooled - you have tracks that lead out of the dungeon. Assuming of course, that the baddies can actually track in the first place and have the wherewithal to know what a Rope Trick is. Random encounters "stumbling" over resting parties? Yeah, because the fact that we rested in this secret chamber that hasn't been opened in a hundred years doesn't apparently matter. The random encounters just "find" us anyway.

Of course this presumes a level of organization in the dungeon that is very, very specific to a particular adventure. I mean, in a larger dungeon complex, you should have multiple different factions - why is it automatically assumed that we are here, and not some raiding party from the neighbours? Oh, yeah, because it's more "believable".

I would much, much rather solve issues BEFORE they became issues in the game, rather than try to massage the game to punish players.

 

[Ravellion]

Seriously, have you guys checked out Trailblazer? It solves this problem admirably.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


That would be one mother-effing tolerant bear.

You mean, a bear swimming would be out of character for a bear? Really?

Never mind that the druid can actually TALK DIRECTLY to the bear and explain to him/her what's going on and what's needed - drop a Speak with Animals. Oh, and as soon as the Druid can breathe water, so can the bear, thanks to Share Spells. Same goes for that Endure Elements.

Of course, if we have a Polar Bear, it actually has a swim score as well.

But, I think bill91 pretty much paints the picture of what I'm talking about. Getting a bear to swim, in my mind, should not be a terribly difficult thing to do. Bears swim all the time - they can swim for miles, and quite often do, island hopping in search of food. But, Bill91 is convinced that bears would never swim. Or at least, would never dive.

Now, we find ourselves at an imp arse. The DM has dug in his heels and decided that his view of reality is going to trump anything. And the player is screwed. Note, the only reason this comes up in the first place is because the DM wants to take away the player's class ability without simply coming out and saying, "no, you can't have that". It's passive/aggressive DMing. He's not denying the player anything, but simply managing the situation until the player cannot use whatever it is the DM doesn't want used.

I've run into this far, far too many times. I'd ten thousand times more accept the DM simply ponying up and telling me that I can't have X instead of letting me have X and then using the in game "realism" argument to deny me from whatever it is that's problematic. Fix the problem before it's a problem and then you never run into this.

------------

Rolling this back around to casters, that's why I look at something like the Shadowcaster from the 3e Tome of Magic as a very good template for a Vancian style caster. Tons and tons of flavor. Very specific spell list where you can either go broad for less specific power or go deep for lots of power but less flexibility. IMO, the best caster to come out of 3e.

 

[billd91]

You mean, a bear swimming would be out of character for a bear? Really?

Never mind that the druid can actually TALK DIRECTLY to the bear and explain to him/her what's going on and what's needed - drop a Speak with Animals. Oh, and as soon as the Druid can breathe water, so can the bear, thanks to Share Spells. Same goes for that Endure Elements.

Sure, you can share spells. As long as you stay within 5 feet of each other. I don't see all that much extended adventuring where that happens, certainly not enough for a druid to risk his animal companion without putting a spell directly on it. And the druid already gets significant benefits when directing and pushing his animal companion built in.

Of course, if we have a Polar Bear, it actually has a swim score as well.

But, I think bill91 pretty much paints the picture of what I'm talking about. Getting a bear to swim, in my mind, should not be a terribly difficult thing to do. Bears swim all the time - they can swim for miles, and quite often do, island hopping in search of food. But, Bill91 is convinced that bears would never swim. Or at least, would never dive.

And adventuring for an extended period of time underwater, including fighting, is just like the regular swimming a grizzly bear might do. Except that it's not. The environment is going to be significantly alien to a land creature. We make plenty of allowances for PCs because they have a player driving them and their free will. But treat the animal companion as anything but a mindless token and you think the GM is being passive aggressive. Heaven forbid a GM might try to have the environment or creatures around the PCs act with some semblance of realism if it's a complication for the players...

 

[Elf Witch]

One missile, doing 1d6 + Int (or Cha) mod damage.

However, what I would really envisage is something like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, where each spell presented a Heightened (and Diminished) version in the spell text. So, you can get two (or three) missiles if you want - just prepare it as a 2nd level spell.



Doesn't work. If some spells increase with level and some do not, you might as well just remove the ones that do not - they're obselete before they've even been published.

Even as things stand, the optimisers have identified that some spells do 1dX plus the caster's level, while others do a number of dice depending on level - and that spells in that first category aren't worth taking.



Part of my fix was to give casters more spells at low level, which should reduce the likelihood of this. But if the caster truly is out of spells then they really should suffer - that's the trade-off for those spells being awesome.

(Oh, one other thing - amongst the various metamagic options, I would suggest options to prepare a spell for use on an At-Will or Per-Encounter basis. So, if the player of the Wizard really doesn't want to risk running out of spells he has that option - with the trade-off that he would have to stick to weaker spells.)



The problem here is that, as Hussar pointed out to me on another thread, beyond very low levels scrolls represent an entirely trivial expenditure - using WbL, a mid-level Wizard can easily afford about 100 low-level scrolls, effectively bypassing Vancian casting (and, in the process, effectively rendering the Rogue's skills useless).

So if we're going to fix the issue by "making scrolls cost a lot more", that actually means multiplying the cost by a factor of at least 10.

(Incidentally, the rarity isn't a problem. In general, allowing the Wizard to use any spell once isn't a problem (even if it's a much higher-level spell than he could normally cast). The problem comes about when the Wizard can craft/buy multiple uses of spells.)



Agreed.



And agreed.



Agreed, except for the very last. I would actually present an option of three different casting mechanics: Prepared (like the Wizard), Spontaneous (like the Sorcerer), or Mana-based (or whatever; works like the Psion). The first time a character takes a caster class he chooses one of these options.

In each case, the caster trades off long-term flexibility (max spells known) against short-term. That is, the Wizard can know many spells, but only prepare a few per day (with no substitutions later); the Psion knows very few, but can cast them in any order provided he has the power points available. (The Sorcerer, of course, lies somewhere in the middle.)

But I agree - no caster should simply know all the spells for his class. That made sense in BD&D, and perhaps even in 1st Ed, when there were only a handful of spells; when there are hundreds of spells at each level it's pretty crazy. (Plus, that immediately gets rid of the whole "all Clerics look the same" problem.)

I like the idea of being allowed to cast a spell at a higher level to get more effects from it. I like that better than say having improved versions of the spells. Want your fireball to do more damage than the wizard prepares it as a higher level spell and sorcerer use a higher level spell slot. Want more missiles use a higher level slot.

I have no problem with mages running out of spells I have played in many a game where that has happened. I just don't like the idea of clerics , bards, druids not being able to save a PC with a scroll of heal because they have used up all their spells slots. And I don't think it is fair to have a rule that says arcane casters have to use a spell slot and divine casters don't. Maybe as a way to limit scrolls have a mechanic based on mana or spell energy that limit how many scrolls you can cast in a day. Make it a limited resource.

I have to disagree on this being a trivial resource if the casters is not making them himself he has to buy them make it hard to buy magic items. That is what I do in all my games because it has never made sense that people are turning out these items if the wizards making them do not adventure they would easily run out of XP and drop levels. Also wizards have better things to do with their time. In my games you want an item you have to commission it and it takes time and you have to fins a wizard willing to do it. Which is why it pays to become a member of a guild they give preference to their own people. Also certain magical spells are controlled because wizards don't want them in the hands of just anybody. Teleport is a hard spell to find someone to make for you.

As for downtime it really depends on if the group has a home base. In a lot of games that is not practical. In our Age of Worms campaign we are always on the go I barely have time to inscribe new spells in my spellbook much less scribe scrolls I am 10 level and I have scribed three scrolls and made one minor magic item for the rogue. This may not work in every campaign but it is one way to control the amount of items being made.

I am not denying that some people have seen abuse with scrolls I really never have most of the wizards I have seen played don't spend lot of time scribing scrolls and ones found tend to get placed in their spellbook and they tend to hoard resources like that in case of an emergency. Now that may not be playing as effectively as they could but it is how they play.

I like the idea of allowing them at creation picking how they cast. I really liked the sphere system in AD&D it made your choice of god far more important that it does now and I also like the idea of weapon proficiency being based on your god. A cleric of Pelor should not be running around in full plate with a mace bashing people head in as a frontline fighter type. A cleric of a nature god should look and act different than cleric of a god of war.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, you can share spells. As long as you stay within 5 feet of each other. I don't see all that much extended adventuring where that happens, certainly not enough for a druid to risk his animal companion without putting a spell directly on it. And the druid already gets significant benefits when directing and pushing his animal companion built in.



And adventuring for an extended period of time underwater, including fighting, is just like the regular swimming a grizzly bear might do. Except that it's not. The environment is going to be significantly alien to a land creature. We make plenty of allowances for PCs because they have a player driving them and their free will. But treat the animal companion as anything but a mindless token and you think the GM is being passive aggressive. Heaven forbid a GM might try to have the environment or creatures around the PCs act with some semblance of realism if it's a complication for the players...

Of course, the ten thousand OTHER things that the druid has his companion do are no problem. After all, the grizzly doesn't start eating the other PC's does he? The grizzly pretty much only reacts with "some semblance of realism" when the DM wants to take away the PC's class ability. Oh, yeah, no passive aggressiveness there at all.

"Hey, my bosom companion with whom I share an empathic link, we're going to go underwater for a bit to check this stuff out. Don't worry, I will make it so you can breathe. We'll swim about for a bit just to get you used to that. Do this and I have a HUGE barrel of fish for you at the end. C'mon, it'll be fun."

Yeah, that's too much of a stretch to believe that my DRUID can get my companion to go underwater.

Look, the only reason that this is an issue is because the DM wants to strip away a class feature. Or rather wants to limit the power of a class feature. But, instead of just saying that and discussing it with the player, he's going to continually throw in "realistic" roadblocks that are thinly veiled justifications for trying to limit the class feature.

Why not just limit the class feature in the first place. If you don't want your players to have something don't give it to them. Seems simple enough to me. I consider it very bad gaming to give the players something and then do an end run around and hide behind the wall of "realism" which is neither real nor the real reason for the limitations.

Is it really that difficult to be up front with players?

 

[billd91]

Of course, the ten thousand OTHER things that the druid has his companion do are no problem. After all, the grizzly doesn't start eating the other PC's does he? The grizzly pretty much only reacts with "some semblance of realism" when the DM wants to take away the PC's class ability. Oh, yeah, no passive aggressiveness there at all.

"Hey, my bosom companion with whom I share an empathic link, we're going to go underwater for a bit to check this stuff out. Don't worry, I will make it so you can breathe. We'll swim about for a bit just to get you used to that. Do this and I have a HUGE barrel of fish for you at the end. C'mon, it'll be fun."

Yeah, that's too much of a stretch to believe that my DRUID can get my companion to go underwater.

Look, the only reason that this is an issue is because the DM wants to strip away a class feature. Or rather wants to limit the power of a class feature. But, instead of just saying that and discussing it with the player, he's going to continually throw in "realistic" roadblocks that are thinly veiled justifications for trying to limit the class feature.

Why not just limit the class feature in the first place. If you don't want your players to have something don't give it to them. Seems simple enough to me. I consider it very bad gaming to give the players something and then do an end run around and hide behind the wall of "realism" which is neither real nor the real reason for the limitations.

Is it really that difficult to be up front with players?

Why add limitations? The feature already implies limitations. Is the high level druid going to take his dire shark animal companion into a dungeon? How about taking the T-Rex into the local tavern? Going underwater exploring with a hawk? Do those plans make much sense? I don't think so... Oh but this is the DM screwing over the druid PC because the shark has no legs and can't go on land, or the T-Rex can't fit in the door.

If a player wants a particular animal companion, he's got to accept specific animals have understandable limitations. He's not entitled to do everything with every choice. Hawks make great flying spies, they have great vision and are inconspicuous. And although he may be able to make his rhinoceros fly via magic, using a flying rhino in the same role is dumb. A flying rhino attracts attention and has poor eyesight. Taking a camel on an underwater adventure is probably as inadvisable as bringing a giant squid to the mountain fortress of the dwarven king. Yet in the course of a campaign, all these places or actions may be involved.

This whole topic reminds me of some of the routes we took to get to full caster problems. Everybody wants benefits without limitations. Game designers respond to the unfun complaints and remove limitations, leading to problems, sometimes in the problem is mechanical, sometimes it cracks immersion. A better route is to think about the choices and the trade off they necessarily include, make the wisest choice you can make, and then live with it or change your choice (and then accept that choice's limitations).