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

[pemerton]

Maybe, but I don't think one player needs to be able to effectively play anything close to the full range. It simply needs to enable the characters that the particular player is interested in and suited for.

For example, (American) football posits a number of roles. If I'm a 6'8", 350 lb. giant, not all of those roles are for me.

<snip>

Similarly, in D&D, if I'm someone who likes to spend hours poring over books and preparing an optimal strategy, I'm probably a wizard, maybe a cleric, conceivably a rogue, and probably not a barbarian.

<snip>

In none of those cases do I have any expectation that any iteration of D&D would be able to match all players with all possible characters, nor do I understand the origin or the value of said expectation.

Needless to say, I have a somewhat different view about RPGing. I don't find the comparison to physical prowess in sports all that helpful; and I would associate differences in temperament with differences in characterisation and participation in the game, but not with whether you can play a magic-user or get stuck playing a fighter.

D&D posits the arcane (quasi-science)/divine magic distinction, magic that can take you to different planes of existence, raise the dead, or grant wishes, and a player's handbook where all of the above are presented as achievable character abilities.

I don't see that arcane has to be quasi-science. And in B/X the only power that you describe here that is routinely available to PCs is Raise Dead, and that's divine!

 

[Hussar]

In a thread this long, it's sometimes a good idea to recap. Now, I'm probably horribly mangling this, but, this is how I see the advice:

For those advocating a (mostly) in game solution to the problem, there seems to be about five possible solutions being put forth:

• Campaign pacing should be kept extremely high, to prevent or at least seriously curtail, crafting.
• Adventure pacing should also be kept very high, with things like wandering monsters and reactive adventures, making the 15 MAD issue too difficult to be a viable option.
• Adventure locations should be created in such a way to restrict character abilities - the whole "your bear won't swim" line of discussion.
• The magic economy advice in the DMG should be ejected so that casters may not purchase magic items. Note, non-casters should not be restricted here. The fighter can find an 8th level caster capable of enhancing his +1 sword to +2, but the caster should never be able to spend 100 gp to buy 4 1st level scrolls.

Is that about the long and the short of it? I think that's hit the high points.

I have a question then. How do you rationalize the above list of solutions with the idea that 3e D&D is so friendly to different playstyles? After all, if I adopt any one, let alone many, of these solutions, they all carry a LOT of campaign baggage. Very limited adventure design palate and many implications for the relationship between DM and players.

Is the solution to the Tier 1 caster problem, "Adopt a very specific playstyle and do not deviate from that"?

 

[Hussar]

/snip.



One of many things 3.5 did right. Although summoning 8 formian workers to cast Cure Serious Wounds is getting pretty desperate.

Fair enough. Although, I'd say, by the time you could drop 8 formian workers, since they can do it every round, you'd likely be getting 7 or 8 CSW for your money. Not bad for a class that's not supposed to heal at all.

 

[billd91]

One of many things 3.5 did right. Although summoning 8 formian workers to cast Cure Serious Wounds is getting pretty desperate.

I'd say wrong. It's a sign of the game tracking more and more to just combat, one of 3.5's worst trends.

 

[Hussar]

/sigh, this thread is giving me all sorts of grief with not seeing posts.

The problem is, Billd91, when you allow wizards that level of flexibility, they become even more powerful. As in ridiculously powerful.

If I can cast one spell and get fifteen different effects from it, isn't that spell too powerful?

I mean, is being able to completely repair a castle under the umbrella of Summon Monster? Is healing and neutralizing poison?

Never mind the insanity of scry and fry when your summonings could teleport. I LOVED Lantern Archons.

 

[Jacob Marley]

For those advocating a (mostly) in game solution to the problem, there seems to be about five possible solutions being put forth:

• Campaign pacing should be kept extremely high, to prevent or at least seriously curtail, crafting.
• Adventure pacing should also be kept very high, with things like wandering monsters and reactive adventures, making the 15 MAD issue too difficult to be a viable option.
• Adventure locations should be created in such a way to restrict character abilities - the whole "your bear won't swim" line of discussion.
• The magic economy advice in the DMG should be ejected so that casters may not purchase magic items. Note, non-casters should not be restricted here. The fighter can find an 8th level caster capable of enhancing his +1 sword to +2, but the caster should never be able to spend 100 gp to buy 4 1st level scrolls.

Is that about the long and the short of it? I think that's hit the high points.

I think that the above can be summarized even more succinctly: 3rd Edition works when encounters are tailored specifically to the PCs' strengths and weaknesses (whatever those may be). And/or, adventures are dynamic and constantly evolving in ways that the party cannot fully predict. The former is a summation of your points 1, 3, and 4, while the latter is point 2.

There is more that you can do beyond pacing and DM adjudication, I think. Playing around with treasure distribution methods, for example, can be used to soften the caster/non-caster imbalance.

 

[Orius]

Where spell availability is concerned, DMs could take an approach from 2e's spell compendiums which assigned rarities to spells, usually based on the spells sources. So with wizard spells, the core PHB could be considered common, while spells from splats would be more rare. In my game, the approach would be only PHB spells at start (maybe exceptions if starting above level 1), and only PHB spells learned at level up unless the wizard owns a scroll or spellbook with a non-PHB spell. The idea is that the spells in the PHB are known by most wizards and so have little restriction, while other spells are secrets of wizard guilds or personal spells of other wizards, and they guard their secrets. A PC wizard will have to work to get the other spells or get lucky from treasure hauls. After all, the DM is supposed to have final say over what material goes in the campaign or not (personally, I try to make sure core material is more or less available while splat material needs some work on the the part of the PCs to get).

Now, the same approach could work for druids and clerics, with clerics some spells might be restricted by deity and/or clerical orders where druid spells are known to certain druid circles. That doesn't change the problem of every spell in the PHB being potentially available all the time though. Wizards at least have some restriction in form of the spellbook.

 

[billd91]

/sigh, this thread is giving me all sorts of grief with not seeing posts.

The problem is, Billd91, when you allow wizards that level of flexibility, they become even more powerful. As in ridiculously powerful.

If I can cast one spell and get fifteen different effects from it, isn't that spell too powerful?

I mean, is being able to completely repair a castle under the umbrella of Summon Monster? Is healing and neutralizing poison?

Never mind the insanity of scry and fry when your summonings could teleport. I LOVED Lantern Archons.

I can probably figure out 15 different uses for prestidigitation and I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who might find it too powerful.

But though I think 3.5's slide toward 4e was characterized by a disastrous shift toward combat focus, that doesn't mean there should be carte blanche for all spell-like abilities. Of course, with the lantern archon, it's pretty hard to scry and fry when the archon is limited to teleporting just himself and 50 pounds of objects.

I think it would be great for summon monster to allow things other than bashing your opponent. Healing? Yes! Neutralize poison? Yes! Repairing stuff? Yes! Teleport an army of your buddies? Well, that's probably a bit too much. But this had been really interesting magic right there, the kind of magic in literature and legend - useful and not characterized by simple violence - because it wasn't reduced to just combat applications.

 

[N'raac]

In a thread this long, it's sometimes a good idea to recap. Now, I'm probably horribly mangling this, but, this is how I see the advice:

For those advocating a (mostly) in game solution to the problem, there seems to be about five possible solutions being put forth:

• Campaign pacing should be kept extremely high, to prevent or at least seriously curtail, crafting.
• Adventure pacing should also be kept very high, with things like wandering monsters and reactive adventures, making the 15 MAD issue too difficult to be a viable option.
• Adventure locations should be created in such a way to restrict character abilities - the whole "your bear won't swim" line of discussion.
• The magic economy advice in the DMG should be ejected so that casters may not purchase magic items. Note, non-casters should not be restricted here. The fighter can find an 8th level caster capable of enhancing his +1 sword to +2, but the caster should never be able to spend 100 gp to buy 4 1st level scrolls.

Is that about the long and the short of it? I think that's hit the high points.

Well, I think we can agree that you are probably horribly mangling this. To start, you indicate you see five possible solutions bandied about, then list four. Speaking for myself:

• I take no issue with crafting, except that the crafter should consider himself part of a team. Simply crafting for himself is not as productive as crafting for the team as a whole, which outfits the team as a whole in superior fashion. Available wealth will limit magic items available regardless of unlimited crafting.
• Adventure pacing should be a significant consideration in encounter crafting. If the PC’s will be able to face a single encounter in a day, that encounter should be considerably tougher than if they will face half a dozen encounters in the day.
• Adventures should feature considerable variety. In some cases, that variety will limit the availability of PC abilities. The “your bear won’t swim” line leads me to suggest your wizard has issues with his scrolls – how useful are they if they get drenched?
• I see no reason to restrict the economy to some classes over others. But then, I have not found the same problems you have.

Jacob Marley nails it – adventures should be designed for the characters, just like the adventures in fiction highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the heroes. One can certainly assume the heroes do all sorts of other things, but we don’t focus on 15 MAD adventures as they are unexciting cakewalks – the game focuses on, and the characters earn xp for, the adventures that actually challenge them.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have a house rule in all my games no splat core only without my approval this goes for new spells, classes and feats. I also have to approve any prestige class. I am not saying that I don't allow anything but it helps control the crazy stuff that can happen when allowing things in splat wise. I am also strict on multiclassing which is again no without my approval. I am not against multiclassing as a way to build your concept but I have found that this stops a lot of the power gaming.

Hussar I don't rationalize this at all. Those DM in game solutions are just one way to solve issues there are others and don't forget not everyone views these things as issues. . I have skimmed the 4E threads and I have often seen advice given to DMs when they are having issues to use in game DM solutions and no one seems to think that any way means a broken system.

The entire idea of rule 0 is a way to customize the game to your play style. But in the end there needs to be a little honesty here and that is DnD does not support every game style equally and every edition seems to cater to a different style. I know this because to do my favorite style which is a more gritty game without a lot of high magic available I have to tweak and make house rules.

The idea that magic is like science is an excellent one and it is how I look at magic and that is it should be able to do more and do it better than mundane things simply because it is magic. Which is why I have no issue with knock being better then a rogue pick locks or cleric disable trap being better. To me the key to a fun gaming experience is making sure that the mundane characters also have cool and fun things to do as well as planning encounters and role playing session that cater to each of the players strength and weaknesses. And yes I expect players to not be dicks and hog the spotlight.

Now I am not saying this is the only way or right way to play but it the way 3E was designed so if you don't like this and want something different this is my question for you. What exactly do you want magic to do in your game? If magic is not special and used to problem solve and make life easier then what do you see it doing? What do you see the purpose of magic?