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

[Manbearcat]

Are you purposely trying to obfuscate your points with 50-cent words or do you really speak this way all the time? Can we get some elucidation up in here?

Yes. This is how I write and how I talk in my daily life but I'm not sure how my prose style matters here. And I don't know that there were any words in that last post that were particularly marked by ostentatious erudition < like that.

I absolutely agree that any build choice is metagaming (optimization or other). Not sure where you got that I would think differently. Honestly, we're at the point now where we're going to take a plunge down the semantic rabbit hole and start defining and arguing over whether craftiness/cunning/ingenuity/guile and reason are the domain of Intelligence or another ability score. I'd rather not. I think the immovable object has met the irresistible force so I'm going to make like Brady Quinn after a myoplex drink - "Now I'm done." Have a good evening.

 

[Obryn]

How is following the letter of the spell hosing the wizard? He cast cloudkill and presumably killed his targets. The spell rolls 10 feet every round for 100 rounds and does not say its dismissable. I'm not nerfing that...because maybe you WANT it to roll over armies in the future. So I am following the rules to the letter and I'm still hosing wizards? Maybe the wizard should just be more careful before he murders innocent civilians.

But yeah, thanks for the confirmation that no matter what happens, the DM is hosing players.

No, I am saying there are perhaps two good reasons for that happening, and quite a few more bad reasons.

(1) You know where every merchant on the road is, along with the prevailing winds, and the simulation of your scroll-less game world demands it, or
(2) This leads in interesting narrative ways, and will improve everyone's experience - and your players are fine with this sort of heavy-handed direction.

But with the tenor of your posts on the rest of this thread, I'm going with

(3) The merchants were added after the spell was cast so you could teach the Wizard's player a lesson.

-O

 

[Jacob Marley]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] - I am just explaining why some people view the specific question of why a Wizard's fulfillment of multiple roles is a problem whereas a Rogue's fulfillment of multiple roles is not. I think that understanding why some people see certain things as problems is a good thing regardless of whether I think it is a problem. I think it helps foster an environment where we are focused on discussing techniques and methodologies that further enhance the gaming experience.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yes. This is how I write and how I talk in my daily life but I'm not sure how my prose style matters here.

Just depends on the reader. While I've written a book of short stories that was, quite honestly, much more verbose than necessary, when talking in a fairly casual environment -like most RPG message boards- I just keep it toned down (which is natural for me, anyway). Otherwise, when reading fairly casually, certain posts get cluttered, in a way. It becomes less of a casual read. Which hurts casual conversation, in my experience.

But I've commented on your writing style before. Something about it makes me skip it most times unless the two of us are actively going back and forth. Something about your posts are sometimes so internally structured that they make it hard to read. It's like when pemerton (or you) mark things with the "(i)"s -I just skip that part of that post, unless I'm replying to it, at which point I edit it out or skirt around it.

Why is this the case? I don't know (I learned the "(i)"s for personal note-taking, not for discussion, so maybe I just like them separate). But I know that while I do use my brain while on these boards, nothing in me really wants to engage in any sort of "professional" sense, where I parse note-style paragraphs. And, I know you've said you tried breaking the habit before, and couldn't, so I'm not trying to convince you to change your writing style. I'm just pointing out why people might have a particular problem with how you word things.

As for this thread, I'm still going to stay out of it, so I think I won't comment much further than I am here. Sorry for taking up one post's worth of space. To everyone still participating: Have, uh, fun, I guess, with this 'discussion'. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] - I am just explaining why some people view the specific question of why a Wizard's fulfillment of multiple roles is a problem whereas a Rogue's fulfillment of multiple roles is not. I think that understanding why some people see certain things as problems is a good thing regardless of whether I think it is a problem. I think it helps foster an environment where we are focused on discussing techniques and methodologies that further enhance the gaming experience.

I do understand their point. What I don't agree with is that so many seem think their's is some kind of universal truth and the rest of are just wrong.

Take the 15 minute work day if it is an issue, which for some of us it is not, there is more than one to fix it. Yes you can fix it like 4E or you can fix it like some of us have suggested by the DM using pacing techniques and making it non profitable for the PCs to engage in it a lot.

My personal preference is letting the DM structure his game to deal with other then making rules to prevent it. But I can understand others want it done differently and that is okay. What I don't like is the attitude that one way is better or a more superior way, that is what I disagree with.

I like the fact that spellcasters can run out of spells I like the challenge it brings to the game I like this as both a DM and a player. I hate the encounter powers and healing surges of 4E and don't get me started om how much I hate the magic system there is not much I can say I like about the edition. It quite opposite of what I want out of an RPG.

I am not saying it is bad game or a poorly designed game just that it is not a game style I like. But when ever a thread like this get s started it does seem to end up with 4E fans on the side of spellcasters bad in 3.5 and totally broken and game breaking and 3.5 fans saying no not quite right.

Then someone will say well that is only because you have never had someone play a wizard optimized with the implication that if we had competent players we would agree with them.

 

[Elf Witch]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] - I am just explaining why some people view the specific question of why a Wizard's fulfillment of multiple roles is a problem whereas a Rogue's fulfillment of multiple roles is not. I think that understanding why some people see certain things as problems is a good thing regardless of whether I think it is a problem. I think it helps foster an environment where we are focused on discussing techniques and methodologies that further enhance the gaming experience.

I do understand their point. What I don't agree with is that so many seem think their's is some kind of universal truth and the rest of are just wrong.

Take the 15 minute work day if it is an issue, which for some of us it is not, there is more than one to fix it. Yes you can fix it like 4E or you can fix it like some of us have suggested by the DM using pacing techniques and making it non profitable for the PCs to engage in it a lot.

My personal preference is letting the DM structure his game to deal with other then making rules to prevent it. But I can understand others want it done differently and that is okay. What I don't like is the attitude that one way is better or a more superior way, that is what I disagree with.

I like the fact that spellcasters can run out of spells I like the challenge it brings to the game I like this as both a DM and a player. I hate the encounter powers and healing surges of 4E and don't get me started om how much I hate the magic system there is not much I can say I like about the edition. It quite opposite of what I want out of an RPG.

I am not saying it is bad game or a poorly designed game just that it is not a game style I like. But when ever a thread like this get s started it does seem to end up with 4E fans on the side of spellcasters bad in 3.5 and totally broken and game breaking and 3.5 fans saying no not quite right.

Then someone will say well that is only because you have never had someone play a wizard optimized with the implication that if we had competent players we would agree with them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't believe it is because of 3E I believe it is because of games like World of Warcraft those kind of games encourage finding out how to win how to beat the system. And this player had only played 4E and video games. I also think a lot of it has to do with society and the changes where we give kids a trophy when they lose because we don't want to hurt their self esteem. There is a lot of self entitlement going on. I listen to the whines it is not fair that I didn't get to participate in the combat because I was paralyzed I came to play. Or we can't roll dice for stats what if someone ends up better than me that is just not fair. The DM dared capture us and took away our magic items that is not fair. What you mean we don't get plot impunity we should because we are the PCs and the game revolves around us.

I have taught 3E to people did not play any other RPG and no video games and I have never run into this kind of whiny scenario about fairness and the DM not having the right to plan encounters that can challenge the players by making them think outside of the box.

That whole idea that the any class is turned into a commoner just because they don't have access to all their abilities is one of the things wrong with how people look at the game it is video game thinking not role play thinking. I have played in games with dead zones, wild magic, been captured and lost not only our mundane items but our magical items to boot because we chose to run instead of stay and fight. And the DMs who crafted these were some of the best most creative DMs I have ever played with. Each one of those encounters were a blast because they required us to think and plan outside of our comfort zone and to work as a team.

Here again comes the spoiled its all about me thinking so for a part of this session we are in a dead zone that is not fair because for a couple of hours I don't get to be the powerful wizard I usually am oh no you mean I might actually have to fire my crossbow or throw tangle foot bags and acid at the enemy. Oh no we are fighting undead my sneak attack does not work that is not fair you are nerfing my abilities.

It is only bad DMing if the DM does not inform the players ahead of time if there might be things that could effect their class. It would bad DMing if I didn't tell a player who wanted to play a warlock that in my world it could get him burned at the stake. I played a sorcerer in a world that had dead zones a plenty in it. In another game I had a special sword that was merciful and if I chose to do subdual damage it was useless against things like undead and oozes. And for an entire module we fought undead. And through most of that the paladin shined. Later though we were fighting living creatures and my fighter racked up a lot more damage than the paladin.

The game should be a team game and sometimes the spotlight is on someone other than you. It should only be an issue if you never get your chance in the spotlight and yes I have been in those kind of games and they suck. But that is a DM issue and sometimes a player issue when other players won't share the spotlight. I firmy believe that it is everybody responsibility to bring the fun to the table.

My issue with healing surges is that they give back permanent hit points if they gave back temporary hit points then I would not have as much an issue with it. But as they are now they make me feel as if I am playing a video game and getting extra lives. That boxer may have more energy from taking a brief rest and having a drink but his broken nose is still broken and the cuts on his face are still there. In action moves when the hero gets his wind back and through sheer will forces himself back up that is a heroic moment but usually afterwards he collapses and you see him getting treated by the paramedics.

Thank goodness for the heal wands in 3E because they made clerics fun to play. Not everyone wants to play a healing clerics and why should they have to which is why there are way for the DM to put things into the game without having to run an NPC it is why healing wands, wands of knock and other wands can help a DM run a game that is missing a class. And while not common I had a situation where the fighter had both his weapons sundered and that was why the party did not continue on they ran until they could figure out what to do.

I am not going to argue anymore about the 15 minute day it has been beaten to death nobody will ever agree that it is a major issue a lot of us don't think it is and we don't agree that the only way to stop it if it does happen is by changing the rules instead of using DM tactics against groups that do this regularly.

BTW your prejudice of 3.5 is coming through loud and clear. It is okay you can dislike it all you want and think it is broken that is your opinion just like it is okay for me to think that 4E is a boring and plays like a video game and made all the wizard one of the most boring classes ever to play.

If you are not going to engage withmy actual arguments, I don't see too much purpose in continuing. My comment about people who learned to play under 3.X was about those who learned to play from 3.X, not those who learned to play from an experienced DM. It's about all the school groups that taught themselves to play based on the rulebooks rather than anyone you have taught. This isn't the first time that D&D has had such an issue - it is fairly well known that groups who learned to play from Gygax or from someone who learned from Gygax in the oD&D/1e days end up with a sneaky, stealthy, paranoid playstyle about looting the dungeon and not engaging except at overwhelming advantage. Groups who learned to play from the books ended up with a much more directly combatative approach and were behind the XP for GP rule being extremely controversial to the point of being removed because nowhere in the books does it say why this rule is there. In almost all games there is an expectation that everyone will play fair, whatever that means, and what fair means can be gleaned from the books - but play is a far better teacher and people learn more from doing than from books.

As for "video game thinking", I couldn't disagree more. MMOs are full of pointles grind and video games in general are full of arbitrary rules. Like arbitrarily taking away powers. Video game thinking is "My way or the highway". The difference between a video game and an RPG is that video games are a waterfall model of development and playtested by many - RPGs what the DM brings to the table is only part of the story.

The cuts and bruises on the boxer's face are still there. Of course they are. That is why the boxer is quite a few healing surges below his maximum. Healing surges spent is a measure of damage taken just as hit points are. (Just one reason "healing surges" is a terrible name for the concept). As for the hero getting treated by the paramedics, not often. Where in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" are there paramedics? Or in Conan? If you mean the hero gets bandaged up before continuing, sure. What do you think happens in a short rest? A breather and bandages for them as needs them. Which is generally the people reduced below 0hp rather than those just bruised. And then they continue on if they want to - like action movie heroes (seriously, does bandaging his feet up stop John McClane in the only Die Hard movie worth talking about? Although he's pretty much out of surges by then).

 

[Hussar]

The reason this annoys me so much is the attitude that those of us who enjoy 3.5 and don't agree with all the issues that some people have are some how just not playing the game in an optimized way or the the DM is going out of his way to just nerf and punish the mages in every session. It s an assumption that we don't know what we are doing well maybe the reason you have such an issue is that your DMs don't what they are doing when it comes to running a high level game with high powered magic in it so that everyone gets to have fun.

So you are annoyed with Paizo? After all, they made HUGE changes in the balance between fighters and casters.

Are you annoyed with EVERY SINGLE EDITION AUTHOR who has seen this issue, starting with EGG himself, and tried to fix it?

It's not like we're making this problem up in a vaccuum. This has been addressed by EVERY SINGLE EDITION since OD&D.

 

[Hussar]

Take the 15 minute work day if it is an issue, which for some of us it is not, there is more than one to fix it. Yes you can fix it like 4E or you can fix it like some of us have suggested by the DM using pacing techniques and making it non profitable for the PCs to engage in it a lot.

My personal preference is letting the DM structure his game to deal with other then making rules to prevent it. But I can understand others want it done differently and that is okay. What I don't like is the attitude that one way is better or a more superior way, that is what I disagree with.

But, how is your solution any different?

"I have a problem with the 15 minute adventuring day" says a poster.

"Ok, make sure the time pressure keeps up and don't let them rest." comes the answer.

"But, I don't want to completely change my playstyle. I prefer to let the players set their own pace. And the adventures I tend to run are often site based, which means there generally isn't a huge time pressure," comes the reply.

"Too bad. If you want to run 3e, you must play it this way. If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong." is the general response, nearly every time.

IOW, the only way to make 3e work, I must adopt your playstyle. So much for the idea that 3e supports all these different playstyles. Which is why I, and others, talk about changing fundamental mechanics so that both playstyles are supported. This is exactly what 4e did do. If you want high pacing in 4e, go right ahead. If you want leisurely pacing, go ahead. It won't make much of a difference either way. But, in 3e, if I go with leisurely pacing, the 15 MAD creeps up and bites my on the petoot. Encounters become much more difficult to judge because the power of the party can be ramped up so high by magical buffs.

So, yes, I do think your solution isn't as good. It forces me to adopt a playstyle I don't enjoy and doesn't actually address the problem directly.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would mostly say you're continuing on this chain of "wizards are perfectly balanced so long as the DM hoses them on every occasion."

Given that the DM's job description is to hose all the PCs all the time, this doesn't seem like such a fargone conclusion.