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

[Ahnehnois]

I don't quite follow this. If science is like magic than why is it better than the mundane? Science is, after all, mundane.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

 

[pemerton]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Even were that true - and I personally have my doubts - it wouldn't explain why mundane PCs must have abiliites inferior to magic-users. If you read actual play reports from Gygax's games, for instance, it seems that mundane PCs regularly got access to sophisticated technology which helped them deal with the challenges posed wthin the game.

 

[pemerton]

double post

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

Who says playing a fighter means you're "stuck"? Most off the players I've had over the years favor fighters over all other classes, and certainly favor nonmagical characters over Vancian spellcasters. Playing a wizard isn't treated as desirable; it's an adventurous choice that requires a lot of work and imposes a lot of uncertainty. With a fighter, you can plug and play and you know what you're getting. As far as the fighter's desirability concerned, I've said it before and I'll say it again: the fighter is the best designed class in the core 3e game. It's the one that really shows how 3e advanced from 2e (in that it's barely even a class, among other things), and it ought to have been the starting point for any future iteration of the game. The Vancian magic system is what needs changing.

But to your original point, there are plenty of places other than football where this is true. Ever play Civilization? Once meaningful mechanical differences between civilizations were introduced there emerged clear best and worst choices for particular playstyles, with some simply being better than others overall. Some people are best suited with playing Mongols, others really need to be Romans or Indians. Personally, in Civ IV, I'm pretty much an Inca. Is that the best choice? Not for everyone, but it is for me. The same is ultimately going to be true of any game that posits different roles and asks players to assume one of them: there will never be complete parity between them, and some people will always gravitate more towards some than others.

So I just can't understand your position, which is apparently that all character choices should be equally viable for all players. Often times the parity of character creation choices is described as constituting the "balance" of the game; and it's not that. At best, it's a small subset of it. And it's this bizarrely monolithic focus on one relatively unimportant aspect of the game, apparently shared by the D&D 4e and 5e writers that has lead to the neglect of virtually everything else.

And in B/X the only power that you describe here that is routinely available to PCs is Raise Dead, and that's divine!

You have correctly ascertained that B/X is not part of my thought process, nor do I even know what it stands for. And frankly, if I-the guy who's been DMing for a decade and regularly reading D&D message boards for almost as long-don't know, then most of the D&D player base probably doesn't either. D&D has a complex and esoteric history. I don't see the relevance (and in any case, my examples are arbitrarily chosen and I'm sure that version of the game offers spellcasters numerous significant capabilities that noncasters lack).

 

[pemerton]

Who says playing a fighter means you're "stuck"?

Of course some people want to play fighters. The point is that some also want to play wizards - it is a fantasy RPG after all - even though they don't particularly care to put the same effort of bureaucratic detail into playing a game as they would into completing a tax return. They are the ones who, in my view, should not get stuck playing fighters.

I just can't understand your position, which is apparently that all character choices should be equally viable for all players.

Within the parameters of viable design, yes, that is my preference.

I don't object to the game rewarding player skill - though I personally prefer this to be a modest rather than a large part of my RPG play - but I prefer the skill of good play to cover the spectrum of archetypes. Thus skilled players can enjoy playing both fighters and MUs, and play those characters to their limits; and less skilled players can choose a character on the basis of the story elements that appeal to them rather than on the basis of what level of mechanical intricacy they are prepared to engage with.

With a fighter, you can plug and play and you know what you're getting.

But this need not be a given. It's not true in Rolemaster, for instance - playing a melee fighter can be as mechanically intricate as playing a spell caster. Nor is it true in 4e - of the 5 PCs in my game, the most complex to play is the fighter.

 

[ImperatorK]

I have a house rule in all my games no splat core only without my approval this goes for new spells, classes and feats.

Core is the most broken book in D&D. It has Wizard, Cleric and Druid right next to Monk, Paladin and Fighter.

I also have to approve any prestige class.

Except a few very good PrCs (mostly caster PrCs) there aren't any that would break the game.

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.

You're mostly hurting the weaker classes. Wizards and Clerics have everything they need right there in Core.

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.

Wizard 20. Cleric 20. Druid 20. No multiclassing needed for powergaming.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The point is that some also want to play wizards - it is a fantasy RPG after all - even though they don't particularly care to put the same effort of bureaucratic detail into playing a game as they would into completing a tax return. They are the ones who, in my view, should not get stuck playing fighters.

Isn't that why the warlock was invented? The (3e) warlock doesn't have the resource management of the "conventional" spellcasters, but you get the experience of using magic and doing supernatural things.

Thus skilled players can enjoy playing both fighters and MUs, and play those characters to their limits; and less skilled players can choose a character on the basis of the story elements that appeal to them rather than on the basis of what level of mechanical intricacy they are prepared to engage with.

I can agree that there is a certain impetus to make all the character classes more accessible and less complex.

That's why, for example, I use spell points. Keeping track of one resource is far more manageable and intuitive than tracking large numbers of spell slots (let alone daily and encounter powers and healing surges). And frankly, that type of complexity doesn't add much to the game, and no one much misses it. Tracking resources was never what the game was about to begin with.

That being said, if you're playing a character that is a generalist wizard and is highly intelligent and has a lot of knowledge of the game world, I do think it's fair that the bar for entry for a player is somewhat higher in an analagous way.

But this need not be a given. It's not true in Rolemaster, for instance - playing a melee fighter can be as mechanically intricate as playing a spell caster. Nor is it true in 4e - of the 5 PCs in my game, the most complex to play is the fighter.

Given that my reference was to positive experiences with various iterations of the fighter, I don't see that added complexity is a good thing. I don't think any class really needs to be as mechanically complex as a 4e fighter.

 

[Elf Witch]

Core is the most broken book in D&D. It has Wizard, Cleric and Druid right next to Monk, Paladin and Fighter.


Except a few very good PrCs (mostly caster PrCs) there aren't any that would break the game.


You're mostly hurting the weaker classes. Wizards and Clerics have everything they need right there in Core.


Wizard 20. Cleric 20. Druid 20. No multiclassing needed for powergaming.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the core 3E being broken. I don't believe it is every edition has things that can be abused in a powergamer hands and every edition has flaws. As you play it you learn what works and what does not and then you if chose use rule 0.

Then you have never had a true optimizer who knows the system combine classes with prestige classes and make a character that is so over powered that to properly challenge him you end up wiping the floor with the rest of the party.

Excuse me I don't hurt players in my game. By having control with what comes into the game without my permission I stop players from showing up with these over powered choices and then I have to make them redesign the character. This way we discuss it ahead of time and it gives me a chance to look at it first and research it. If it is a prestige class I can work it it into the game world and start putting role playing opportunities so that the character has a role playing reason to have this new class. I do the same with multiclassing you have to at least role play out before hand an interest in adding a class.

I have seen plenty of clerics and druid multiclassing as well as wizard doing though not as much. Not everyone believes that every PC needs to have the best optimized build around. I am playing a human paragon 3/wizard 8. I have played a wizard/sorcerer, wizard/fighter, cleric/wizard. A popular combo seems to be cleric/paladin as well as druid/sorcerer. A popular one is rogue/bard/druid/PRC I don't remember the name of the prestige class at the moment.

By also not allowing splats in with freedom I stop all the spells from them just coming into my game. Don't forget clerics and druids know all their spells and there are some pretty powerful spells in the splat books. As well as some feats that I don't necessarily want in my game.

 

[TwoSix]

Then you have never had a true optimizer who knows the system combine classes with prestige classes and make a character that is so over powered that to properly challenge him you end up wiping the floor with the rest of the party.

Except that a TRUE optimizer knows that you can do that with a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid, no splats or PrCs needed. Hell, there's only PrC that's actually a power-up for druids at ALL.

Excuse me I don't hurt players in my game. By having control with what comes into the game without my permission I stop players from showing up with these over powered choices and then I have to make them redesign the character. This way we discuss it ahead of time and it gives me a chance to look at it first and research it. If it is a prestige class I can work it it into the game world and start putting role playing opportunities so that the character has a role playing reason to have this new class. I do the same with multiclassing you have to at least role play out before hand an interest in adding a class.

Nothing wrong with that, embedding narrative hooks to the chosen mechanics makes for a stronger game.

I have seen plenty of clerics and druid multiclassing as well as wizard doing though not as much. Not everyone believes that every PC needs to have the best optimized build around. I am playing a human paragon 3/wizard 8. I have played a wizard/sorcerer, wizard/fighter, cleric/wizard. A popular combo seems to be cleric/paladin as well as druid/sorcerer. A popular one is rogue/bard/druid/PRC I don't remember the name of the prestige class at the moment.

Fochlucan Lyrist. Oozes flavor, but yea, the entry mechanics are so harsh as to weaken the character severely.

But the argument about your players not being powergamers isn't really relevant. The argument from our side (at least, my personal framing of the pro-4e camp) is that the game should support your powergaming, and not break. Period. The theory that you should weaken your character deliberately to really "roleplay" is an artifact of an earlier time that should have died with 2nd edition. (Sorry, Rath!)

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Except that a TRUE optimizer knows that you can do that with a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid, no splats or PrCs needed. Hell, there's only PrC that's actually a power-up for druids at ALL.

I know you're speaking of Planar Shepard, but there's also Moonspeaker.

And yeah, the T1 classes tend to be at that level without much splat support because they're just that powerful and versatile in core or with core and whatever book they originated from.