Are spellcasters more powerful?

[Simulacrum]

Hmmmm now who has access to good saves in BOTH will & fort?
Who has a nice big hit dice AND access to hp boosting spells?

( *Agrees with Gez* )

Well.. I don't think arcane casters are underpowered, but I do think divine casters have a LOT more power and are often overlooked for some reason.

YEP! In my book clerics are the ruling class by FAR, the only drawback of clerics is that you eventually face a BIG problem.
--> You play a cleric, you know you are the far superior than all those maggots around you....that means you have to pull a HIGH profile. You need lots of skills (and you need to be good at it too),
you need alot of punch and endurance (not too weak and a lot of con), you want to have some extra spells (wis) and you like to have the winning personality thingy everyone is talking about....
mhhh six stats, so few pointbuy points! (crap)
So if you dont want to be reduced to the stupid healing machine / buff type of character you have to be very very good at everything (that means ultimately you are quite avarage in most, compared to purely specialized chars)
But it pays off BIGTIME, just take a level of rouge or aristocrat at start and keep on taking the leadership feat and people will look at you like "check out this guy! Isnt he awesome?"
And still you have all the goodies of your class and rival all the others in their field in the long shot!

but thats exactly where the dead dog is buried, Spellcasters have to look into the other fields and take alot of time to advance here and there, while non spellcaster never face this problem, and they cover their field with 0 need for external forces to aid them.
And in D&D 3e spellcaster are NOTHING without the the "others" to protect them all along. You can balance out a fighting type char within 4 levels to have all superior saves and hitpoints and all you need for survival (something like Monk 1 /Fighter 3), Spellslingers are dead meat without their living shields they can hide behind...without them having to trade in ALOT of spellcasting for some balancing....imho

 

[AuraSeer]

IME, a spellcaster is usually the single most powerful character in the party, but only because the other characters are there. If he were wandering around alone, a tough encounter would make him expend a disproportionate number of spells on defenses and maneuvering, just to survive. When he's in a party, the meat shields take care of keeping him alive (mostly), and he can concentrate on making stuff explode.

 

[maddman75]

Below 10th level, warriors rule and spellcasters drop like flies. Above tenth, the opposite.

I thought everyone knew that

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Combine what auraseer said with what gez said. Yeah arcane casters waste spells left and right just to survive if caught alone, divine casters get by fin without any spells. And also arcane casters seem to be the big target for the nerf bat even though divine casters smack them around like their schookids.

 

[Felix]

It evens out in the end.

The casters have the slightly steeper power curve, although they start out at a lower level.

However, a caster's power is not inexhaustable.
Nor do they always have the right spells to protect them from every situation.
They rely 100% on magic. Reliance on something that can be taken away is an achellies heel.

Non casters also groove on magic stuff, but they rely on themselves to a much greater extent.
Their power is exhasuted when their HP's are.

So: The casters have the higher power potential, but with it comes greater risk; they are more vulnerable. Non-casters have lower power potential in the long run, but their risk is much reduced (again, in the long run). Any MBA's out there will notice how it's just a degree of leveraging your assets.

By the way, why do threads like this always end up sounding like the song:
CASTERS: Anything you can do I can to better!
NONCASTERS: I can do anything better than you!
CASTERS: No you can't!
NONCASTERS: Yes I can!
CASTERS: No you can't!



PS: Casters only exist to provide my Forsaker with stuff to break.

 

[Deset Gled]

I agree with other's who have said that it is both campaign and party specific.

Another point to consider is the stamina of the classes. A major balancing factor that I've seen in my campaign in the number of spells that casters have per day. A combat character, on the other hand, can normally keep bashing all day long. It can become even harder on clerics when they're expected to constantly heal the fighter who wants to keep going.

For some backup to this, look at the smackdown thread. It seems to me that I've read a lot of smacks involving casters, but most of the time it's the kind of thing that can only be preformed once a day, possibly draining the character completly. Melee smacks, on the other hand, can often be preformed repeatedly (or at least mimiced closely, as some items and abilities like rage may be limited).

 

[MarauderX]

Casters should have the upper hand at higher levels, but don't. The only caster that is strong from start to 20th is the cleric, and that's only cause she can cast with armor on, can cast healing spontaneously, and still not get destroyed if some tough fighter surprises her in melee. Wizards, sorcerers, bards all gotta hope to outrun an angry melee guy, and that just isn't going to happen if a barbarian lands in your lap. The spells don't keep up with the typical magic items fighters and even rogue acquire through adventuring, and the items a wiz kid gets are usually not focused on confrontational battle, but more for razzle-dazzle IMO. The spells aren't as damaging, and even with the higher level spells even a fighter is going to make most of his Will saves vs. a caster's spell.

It just ain't right, no sir, don't like it.

 

[Merlion]

Actually, what I wanted to vote was:

Arcane casters are lame, they drop like flies and have crappy spells that continually get shafted more and more with each revision, errata, and new edition.

But divine casters are exceedingly powerful, with their armor that equal a fighter's, their nice BAB, good saves, and nifty extra abilities like turn undead or wildshape. Plus they got to cast spells that are supposedly arcane-only, while arcane casters may die rather than cast divine-only spells.

I have to admit the Arcane/Divine divsion in magic is one thing about DnD that is begining to bug me a little. Generaly I'm a great one for, if you make sweeping changes its not DnD....but the Cleric in particular has been getting on my nerves lately. the Cleric and the Paladin step on each others toes a lot...and the Arcane/Divine divsion well...theirs little fantasy literature basis for it. Or for the Cleric class really. Mind I say little not none...and its not that I hate the cleric...I just think it should maybe be done a tad different.
One of the big reasons I am looking forward to Arcana Unearthed is because it makes magic magic with no divisions.
But in answer to the original question yes overall in some ways and some campaign types, spellcasters are more powerful...simply because they can do ANYTHING. But as has been mentioned it depends a lot on the campaign....if they dont have recovery time spellcasters can really be in trouble.

 

[LokiDR]

Well, after 59 votes, most people seem to thing that casters have the advantage (50% of votes)

I have seen casters abuse spells like polymorph self and the stat-buff spells to become combat machines. Armor is not important in the faces of spells like mage armor and shield. Improved invis is also a godsend to the mage in combat.

After 5th-6th level, arcane types can rain down death from out of reach of fighters. Casters of all stripes get save-or-die spells. You don't need a rogue when you have spells like wieldskill. Disintegrate is a far better trap disabler. Non-casters don't have the option of divination spells.

The only things I have seen be effective at slowing down casters are multiple encounters in a row. With effects like teleport, this can be a real problem. Even then, effects like persistant spell feat and long duration spells (GMW anyone) mean they can stay effective as an archer.

Bottom line: casters are better at what ever they want to be, and have options that aren't open to the fighter.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Casters often don't die as much unless they face creatures who have powers requiring high fortitude saves or death spells. A well-played caster can definitely lay down the pain. They have no equal for versatility.

Non-casters have their place. A caster would run out of spells if the fighter-types didn't do most of the killing. If rogues weren't present to deal with traps, casters wouldn't get very far either.

Overall, casters have the edge, and arcane casters have the edge over divine casters.