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

[Orius]

One one hand, I don't want to say there is a problem, Wizard IS my favorite class and always has been. I certainly want to play with all my toys as a PC. OTOH, while I really haven't played high-level 3e, I did see an early example of the players trying to pull a 15 MAD. As a DM who started with Basic and 2e, (and 2e was an edition which certainly discouraged playstyles like the 15 MAD rather strongly) naturally my instinct was to quash this right away before it became a problem. My particular solution was to harass the PCs with an ethereal filcher until they got the hint and left the dungeon to rest up. (Note the PCs were about 4th level IIRC and they simply rested in one of the rooms, there was no rope trick involved. Also, I did not pull the filcher out of my ass, I put it there when I originally set up the dungeon.). Rope trick abuse would likely irritate the hell out of me.

Rope trick abuse isn't just a 3e problem from differing playstyles either, the RAW simply didn't support it earlier. In 2e, the duration for Rope trick is 2 turns/level. Now 3e removed the concept of turns from the game (a turn was = 10 minutes pre-3e), though some spells that had durations in turns were now 10 minutes/level which is the same thing. Unfortunately, 3e changed the duration of rope trick to 1 hour/level, which is why it's become an element of the 15 MAD. An 8th level wizard can cast a rope trick long enough to rest in, where in 2e the wizard had to be level 24, and probably wouldn't need to bother. Rope trick basically seems to be a spell that was meant to be cast to evade pursurers for a short time rather than a method to create a safe nap spot, and the 3e durations should have read 10 minutes/level if the original duration wasn't going to be preserved.

These issues were really always a problem, high level wizards were always good, but prior to 3e the issue wasn't as bad. Wizards were technically allowed to craft items, though scrolls couldn't be made until 9th level and other stuff at 11th. Of course, this is where campaigns in these editions started to wind down, and DMs may have placed a lot of restrictions on the process to the point where players didn't bother. However, 3e lowered the levels on item creation, giving wizards scrolls rightaway and other items realatively low. The idea that you'd need a feat to craft a type of item looks balanced at first because a PC probably won't be able to make everything, but it looks like in practice many players consider scrolls and wands to be sufficient, and maybe wondrous as well. I agree maybe the costs should be steeper so the expenses aren't trivial. Maybe cut the number of charges in wands down to 25 as well, since 50 is relatively high when you look at charges pre-3e.

But you'd need to boost the other classes as well. I'm not certain, but maybe changing the weak saves from 1/2 level to 3/4 level might help, I don't know. The difference between weak and strong saves isn't too bad in low-level 3e, only a few points, but once you hit level 10 they're already off by a +5, and that is enough to make a difference.

A specific issue is also how the fighter no longer gets his followers automatically. Oh sure, there's the Leadership feat, but I'm sure min-maxers would say it sucks (needs Cha to get more out of it, so not good if you're not a paladin, bard or sorcerer, and the bard and sorcerer should be taking other stuff, if not the paladin as well). To emulate the fighter's old ability to attract followers, I'd give the class Leadership as a bonus feat at level 9. I might also have a +2 to the Leadership score for classes that received followers in older editions as well to give the fighter a slight boost.

Certainly one thing I'd to if I were to run 3e again would be to wind a campaign down around level 10. No matter how much emphasis 3e tried to place on high levels, it's been said often that the game really does start to break down around the mid-teens. Certainly, I'm not adverse to letting a campaign go into low epic, but I'd probaly limit the amount of high-level play to maintain my sanity. I would however, in the sake of fairness, tell the players right off that I'm going to have things wind down past level 10.

 

[Nagol]

Pretty much this.

<snip>

Look, again, if there was no problem with the balance between caster and non-caster, why has every single D&D game designer since Gygax tried to correct the balance?

As I pointed out in a post on the first page, most designers since Gygax have made the imbalance worse by trying to remove "unfun" elements -- like spell component tracking, spell disruption, long duration preparation, limited spell knowledge, higher xp requirements, hard (high-level) magic item creation, hard choices re: which spells to prepare, and so on.

The only counters that have been put in place are hit point inflation (combined with melee damage inflation), capping direct damage spells, and a saving throw revamp that makes low-level victims more likley to save vs. a spell and high level victims less likely to save vs. a spell assuming the base game conceit.

Since these counters directly affect combat and the "unfun" elements affect all systems in the game, casters have grown increasingly vital to the group overall and the saving throw revamp means in combat they grow in effectiveness through specialising in save-or-suck rather than helping the group ablate the enemy.

 

[Bluenose]

As I pointed out in a post on the first page, most designers since Gygax have made the imbalance worse by trying to remove "unfun" elements -- like spell component tracking, spell disruption, long duration preparation, limited spell knowledge, higher xp requirements, hard (high-level) magic item creation, hard choices re: which spells to prepare, and so on.

To the point where magic that *costs money*, *takes time*, and *doesn't work perfectly* is regarded as being a possible option for D&D Next but also something that should not be in the core.

 

[N'raac]

@N'raac Please reread my post. For whatever reason, even after explaining it a second time, you're still conflating risk assessment and the accompanying determination that either the risk/reward paradigm is fubar or that it is reasonably assumed and thus the strategic planning to mitigate the assumed risk while attaining the sought end (whatever that end might be - fame, fortune, legacy, etc). I'm not talking about 100 % absolute risk aversion. I don't know why you're doing that. I'm talking about the actuarial science and speculation markets that creatures who "need/want stuff" involve themselves with in order to discern risk/reward. Evolutionary biology works off of the same principles (as I wrote above - the sought end there being survival and proliferation of genes/species). A Wizard has a "sought end" that supersedes 100 % absolute risk aversion the moment he adopts the career of "adventurer" in a world that actively wants to end his existence.

I'm talking about human behaviour. Humans do no always make optimal choices. They jaywalk and get hit by a bus rather than walk to the streetlight. They "invest" in get rich quick schemes and get burned. [We recently had a tax court case stemming from a lawyer's money lost in a "we have a box of money in the Ivory Coast and need your help to get it back" email scam.] They cut corners. They get lazy and they get sloppy. Having every wizard operate under reams of SOP is a poor reflection of the source material, and the human condition.

W00t! Craft or Profession? The incomes on those are terrible compared to scrolls.

Spellcraft, for starters. That bumps up the Caster Level of items I can reliably create by 3. Magical Aptitude tacks on another 2. Of course, if I have a natural aptitude, then I would be a "gifted pupil" ripe for hire by that old Master Wizard churning out items, so if Magical Aptitude is a natural, away I go. Aren't those Metamagic feats handy in crafting items that reflect Metamagic usage? And, of course, I need all those Item Creation feats just so I can make more pricy items.

The PCs are basically a crack commando unit always on the offensive and expecting trouble. You're suggesting precautions that massively get in the way, are bypassable as soon as they become common knowledge, and seriously annoy the people running them. If you run the chihuaha, the wizard or the thief is gleefully going to set it off as a distraction.

I do not concur that PC's are "the A Team". With all these magic items floating around for sale, there are far more powerful spellcrafters out there. And these universal precautions suggested as taken by wizards are also inconvenient and bypassable.

There are more ways than just yours of splitting loot. There's the textbook "Need or greed". In which the warrior only automatically gets the best sword if he's willing to turn in his current one. But the communal pot I'm thinking of pays people for the resources they expended (including rust-monster eaten swords) and then plans what would be best for the party.

There are lots. And if one views adventuring as a business, the partners should have a pretty well developed means of profit distribution. Of course, the business would likely have competitors, so if you don't pay the fighter well enough, he may change firms. The bottom line is that few groups will end up with a model where everything is spent on the Wizard.

And at level 13 wizard? That he went shopping at all is the opposite of paranoid. At this level, the merchants should come to the PCs.

A level 7 scroll costs 2,275 gp. How many settlements make each and every L7 spell available as a scroll? How many L13 wizards dioes that imply are in existence? Merchants aren't going to cater to their every whim. THEY ARE MERCHANTS with different wares!

Yes, although the rules aren't explicit.

I submit the rules for gaining xp from sources other than adventuring are not needed because the game presumes adventurers. Not a lot of demand for Papers and Paycheques. But they must be able to gain xp - even small settlements can have scrolls for sale created by L13+ casters. If it takes 60 years (5 years per level after 1st) to achieve 13th level, then these guys are well into their 80's (L7 spells), 90s (L8) or past the century mark (L9). Where are all these ancient wizards coming from? WalMart?

To me, scrolls are the logical "spell trading" commodity. I don't have to let you see my spellbook, and EVERY wizard can scribe them.

Scribe a scroll: No. Run a business - if it's safe you gain very little XP.

Who says non-adventurers only gain xp if they are in physical danger? Like many things in the game world, the xp system is an abstraction. A wizard does not have a new spell pop into his head because he sent in enough orc toes to qualify.

How so? If you need a 40 year old smith to get a masterwork suit of plate armour, where is the problem?

Let's se...DC of Armor (as an example) is 10 + AC bonus, so 18 for Plate. An exotic melee weapon is the same. Masterwork is 20. We can likely assume artisan tools for a +2 bonus, so we need a further +8 to take 10 on masterwork items. That means 4 levels above first (less with INT above 10 or feats to ehnance the skills), so mid-40's. Since Masterwork items are available in any thorpe (Masterwork Metal Shield costs what, 65 gp? Way less than a L2 scroll), these guys are pretty much everywhere, or they're fast (another +10 to offset the DC bump for speedier crafting).

But not nearly as old as those Wizards!

If you need to be a geriatric wizard to scribe such a scroll, where is the problem? Especially if no one ever casts one.

If no one ever casts one, who buys them to create such a ready market? And how many people live into their 80's, 90's, hundred's and don't retire? Surely these guys must make enough on their scrolls that they don't have to work themselves into old age. Remember, you make very little comparatively from Craft and Profession, and those individuals will retire some day.

That scribing is an ancient and honourable profession practiced by the elderly. And where 9th level spells come from: Antiquity. No one casts them, instead saving them for complete crisis.

Then why are there so many on the market? There are very few copies of Action Comics #1 available in decent reading conditions. How do scrolls weather so much better?

A starting elf adventurer is over 100 years old at first level. It takes them far more than 5 years to gain a level.

It takes them the same amount of time as the human teammate for a Ranger Elf to take his second level as Wizard. The ages are a conceit, another item where it is best not to pull back the curtain too far.

You presume that every single adventure though is against intelligent, organized foes in a fixed, defensible location. Additionally, these are foes with considerable experience with magic.

No, I presume that some will be. I also presume we follow the elements of the adventurers' career that challenge them, and not every minor item that happens during the day. That's why we don't play out shopping trips, for example.

Why would that pirate ship have any real experience with magic?

With wizards in every thorpe, why would they not have spellcasters on board?

How about those marauding wyverns that the town needs you to track down and kill? Or any other large, dangerous beastie that the party is asked to help against?

How about them? If there's only one encounter of note to be had, then 15 minutes is the same as 15 days - you have plenty of time to replenish afterwards. Most adventures tend towards multiple encounters.

Orcs or kobolds might have some knowledge of low level magic, they do have shamans after all. But, higher powered stuff? It's not like it gets seen all the time. It's the stuff of legend.

Every freaking thorpe has mid to high level spell scrolls, but kobolds, orcs and goblins are cut off from such knowledge?

Adventures will vary - not every one has opposition that has this level of organization. But not every one can be presumed to lack the wit to deal with spellcasters, especially in a world where magic is a commodity - this pretty universal.

So you attack the ogre lair. Do other ogres not hear you attack the first batch and come see what's going on? They move faster than humans, so following you isn't that big a stretch (doing it quietly is - I doubt you get to rest before the other ogres attack). Trolls have the Track feat, so tracking you to the rope trick is practical. Are they lead by a Troll Hunter? If so, expect something waiting when you come out of that Rope Trick. CR5 = you don't have rope trick when facing a typical Troll encounter. Ogres are CR 3.

But sure, if you run a game where most opponents are ignorant of magic, spellcasters gain an advantage. Just like a game featuring a lot of Giants is good for Power Attack, where games with lots of incorporeal undead (or just higher AC/lower hp monsters at the same CR as the giant types) make power attack a better deal.

 

[Obryn]

As I pointed out in a post on the first page, most designers since Gygax have made the imbalance worse by trying to remove "unfun" elements -- like spell component tracking, spell disruption, long duration preparation, limited spell knowledge, higher xp requirements, hard (high-level) magic item creation, hard choices re: which spells to prepare, and so on.

The only counters that have been put in place are hit point inflation (combined with melee damage inflation), capping direct damage spells, and a saving throw revamp that makes low-level victims more likley to save vs. a spell and high level victims less likely to save vs. a spell assuming the base game conceit.

Since these counters directly affect combat and the "unfun" elements affect all systems in the game, casters have grown increasingly vital to the group overall and the saving throw revamp means in combat they grow in effectiveness through specialising in save-or-suck rather than helping the group ablate the enemy.

The problem with this, imo, is that I think it's legit to find stuff like spell component micro-tracking unfun. I agree it can be a balancer, but I know that by the time 3e had come out, I'd long since house-ruled them away into something like 3e's component pouch.

I ran a Wizard once in a 2e game with super-strict component tracking. (Neither here nor there, this DM also tracked XP to the the 3rd decimal, tracked our hit points, and rolled our attacks; IIRC we only rolled our own damage. So "control issues" is what I'm saying.) It was certainly a limiting factor, but I can't say it was enjoyable.

So I can't blame the designers for going in that direction; I was happy to see it and stuff like the Concentration skill. They just did a poor job with counterbalancing it and the other items you mentioned. Higher-level playtesting with optimizers might have gone a long way.

-O

 

[Nagol]

The problem with this, imo, is that I think it's legit to find stuff like spell component micro-tracking unfun. I agree it can be a balancer, but I know that by the time 3e had come out, I'd long since house-ruled them away into something like 3e's component pouch.

I ran a Wizard once in a 2e game with super-strict component tracking. (Neither here nor there, this DM also tracked XP to the the 3rd decimal, tracked our hit points, and rolled our attacks; IIRC we only rolled our own damage. So "control issues" is what I'm saying.) It was certainly a limiting factor, but I can't say it was enjoyable.

So I can't blame the designers for going in that direction; I was happy to see it and stuff like the Concentration skill. They just did a poor job with counterbalancing it and the other items you mentioned. Higher-level playtesting with optimizers might have gone a long way.

-O

I understand why the designer would make each individual step -- and in most cases, each step has almost no impact on caster superiority. In aggregate, the caster ends up more capable in dangerous situations with more likley access to magic tuned to the current circumstance that is harder for the environment to interfere with.

I believe unlimited spell knowledge capacity for Wizards, spontaneous casting for divine casters, easy access to market in the game world, and easy item creation are outliers that have obvious material impact in and of themselves -- though the latter two cases, results at my tables ended up coutner-intuitively restricting item choice by characters -- especially secondary role items for non-casters -- everyone focused on filling out their "big 6" items to the exclusion of keeping neat or circumstantial-use devices.

 

[N'raac]

So I can't blame the designers for going in that direction; I was happy to see it and stuff like the Concentration skill. They just did a poor job with counterbalancing it and the other items you mentioned. Higher-level playtesting with optimizers might have gone a long way.

3e was also the first edition I believe was designed for the "retail market". That is, the intent was not to increase market share of existing RPG players, but to grow that market, reaching out to conventional bookstores, etc. With that in mind, leveling became much faster, on the standard that a weekly game should, IIRC, progress from L1 to L20 in about a year.

That retail gamer market is not likely looking to spend hours on end poring over minutiae in order to build that perfectly optimal character. They want a plug & play model. If the game is balanced for the powergamer/optimizer, then it is likely unbalanced (to PC detriment) for the beer & pretzel gamer.

This forces a choice by the designer - cater to the smaller, but better identified and easier targeted, hard core gamer market or cater to the much larger, but also much more nebulous "casual new gamer" market.

 

[Obryn]

I understand why the designer would make each individual step -- and in most cases, each step has almost no impact on caster superiority. In aggregate, the caster ends up more capable in dangerous situations with more likley access to magic tuned to the current circumstance that is harder for the environment to interfere with.

I believe unlimited spell knowledge capacity for Wizards, spontaneous casting for divine casters, easy access to market in the game world, and easy item creation are outliers that have obvious material impact in and of themselves -- though the latter two cases, results at my tables ended up coutner-intuitively restricting item choice by characters -- especially secondary role items for non-casters -- everyone focused on filling out their "big 6" items to the exclusion of keeping neat or circumstantial-use devices.

No argument here - I absolutely agree that's what happened and I agree the changes in aggregate boosted casters' power. I'm simply pointing out that the bits the 3e designers targeted as "no fun" are all (arguably) no fun. Components are the biggest offender here, IMO. So I agree with the designers' logic, by and large, in removing those bits from the game.

They just didn't take the extra, needed step to counter-balance it. I don't think going back to micro-managing spell components would be a positive development for the game. (Though I admit to a soft spot for spell disruption; I think that one adds a lot to both the game and the implied setting. I don't know if the designers even disagreed; they simply failed at rigorously testing the Concentration skill.)

3e was also the first edition I believe was designed for the "retail market". That is, the intent was not to increase market share of existing RPG players, but to grow that market, reaching out to conventional bookstores, etc. With that in mind, leveling became much faster, on the standard that a weekly game should, IIRC, progress from L1 to L20 in about a year.

That retail gamer market is not likely looking to spend hours on end poring over minutiae in order to build that perfectly optimal character. They want a plug & play model. If the game is balanced for the powergamer/optimizer, then it is likely unbalanced (to PC detriment) for the beer & pretzel gamer.

This forces a choice by the designer - cater to the smaller, but better identified and easier targeted, hard core gamer market or cater to the much larger, but also much more nebulous "casual new gamer" market.

I can't say I agree with this. The number of fiddly bits in both 3e and 4e are pretty excessive for any casual gamer market, no matter what WotC's intentions were. (And $105 is a heck of a buy-in.) I think this is one area where Next has it right - start with a simple core book aimed at casual gamers. Add the fiddly bits later.

And it certainly wasn't the first D&D edition aimed at a casual market - there were three Basic sets which were designed specifically for new players in the mass market, with shelf-space in toy stores. Holmes was a bit of a flash in the pan here, but both Moldvay's and Mentzer's editions were wildly successful.

-O

 

[Nagol]

No argument here - I absolutely agree that's what happened and I agree the changes in aggregate boosted casters' power. I'm simply pointing out that the bits the 3e designers targeted as "no fun" are all (arguably) no fun. Components are the biggest offender here, IMO. So I agree with the designers' logic, by and large, in removing those bits from the game.

They just didn't take the extra, needed step to counter-balance it. I don't think going back to micro-managing spell components would be a positive development for the game. (Though I admit to a soft spot for spell disruption; I think that one adds a lot to both the game and the implied setting. I don't know if the designers even disagreed; they simply failed at rigorously testing the Concentration skill.)

Very much agreed. I don't think we need go that far though.

• Capping spells that can be learner places a yoke around a Wizard so he literally can't step on everyone's toes. It also means the Wizard spell lists can grow from supplements without substantially altering a PCs power. The downside is adventure designers can't assume the spell-casters have a key for any situation and I can live with that. Adding a mechanism that allows slow change over time would be polite though so a Wizard can get out of a bad choice.
• Removing spontaneous casting and restricting the uses for channeling divine power does similar things with divine casters on more tactical level.
• Restrict opportunities to acquire magic from the market will have PCs focus their attention on trying to acquire it from the field and allows skewed treasure tables to reward non-casters with supplementary abilities once again. An approach I'm toying with is make the cost to create a magic item independent from and higher than the cost to sell the magic item. Effectively, no one makes magic items because their value to society is much less than their cost to create. If a PC really really wants a particular item made, he can acquire it, but at a hefty price premium over paying a sage to discover where such an item lies unclaimed. For example, keep the geometric cost increase to create found in 3.X, but have the sale prices increase linearly -- a +5 sword only fetches 5x the value of a +1 sword and is much less likely to be found in the marketplace as the value to owners is greater than the expected purchase price.

Another change that would seriously affect spellcastig tactics is to revert initiative away from the round-robin approach adopted in 3.X Go back to a "all declare actions; then roll to resolve initiative" system would inject a large dose of uncertainty into casting spells in a combat situation. The downside is groups would revert to piling on the casters to prevent a spell from being completed, but that's more a playstyle/narrative issue.

Secondary restrictions, should they be necessary would be have a spell component case be consumable -- say 1 gp per spell level cast unless the spell has a higher cost. It's a negligible cost to established characters, but it will act as minor disincentive at 1% the fiddliness of tracking individual components.

 

[Elf Witch]

wizards, clerics and druids were designed to be versatile that is why they are a tier 1 class they can with the use of class abilities help take on the role of another class. The issue with this is that while some see it as a feature others see it as flaw.

Now if you see it as flaw then you need to take away the versatility. You can do this my making clerics and druids not be very good when it comes to combat lower their BAB and hit points make them have to hang back with the rest of the mages or lower their ability when it comes to magic. One way to lower clerics is take away the ability to cast heal spontaneously that way they have to memorize them so that will take slots used for other spells. Another way is to limited their spells lists. Take away a druid ability to summon nature allies spontaneously and don't allow spell casting in wild shape. Power down their animal companion so they are not good in combat get rid of animals that do a lot of damage.

Wizards take away their ability to scribe scrolls and craft items or if you are going to allow it make it more expensive and higher level. Take away their ability to buff themselves. Raise the save DC on combat casting and retaining a spell if taking damage. Get rid of bonus spells and make the DC for adding new spells to the spell book harder. Problem spells either take out of the game make them an time consuming expensive ritual. Cap damage and don't allow it to raise as the wizards levels.

If you don't have an issue with the versatility but more of some players abusing that versatility and making the game unfun for others then that is where social contracts and DM control of the issue comes in.

Before you can fix an issue you first have to decide what that issue is.