Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Elf Witch]

Hrm, interesting. The rogue can rock because he can access all these magic items that apparently the wizard never gets to access. I mean, why would you bother handing the wand you just found to the rogue and not the wizard or cleric who can automatically use it?

So, yes, if you completely ignore the 3e guidelines on campaign creation (buying guidelines for towns in particular) and for some bizarre reason dump all the magic goodies on the rogue, then yes, you can achieve parity.

Not that there's anything wrong with the baseline rules . After all, if there was nothing wrong, then why would you completely ignore them?

Rogues often get things they want because they usually are the ones finding the items first.

In all the games I play in once the rogue gets a decent use magic device we give him some wands the reason for this is it does not make sense for one character to horde items. It just makes sense to give them a wand of healing in case it is the cleric who goes down or to just the double the amount of people who can heal. A rogue who usually has a better dex and can't be flanked may have a better chance getting to a fallen comrade who is in the thick of melee.

I keep saying this a party is supposed to be a team and work together which is why I don't get the concept of a wizard using buffing spells on himself so he can go out fight the fighter. That seems an incredibly selfish way to play. In the games I play buff spells are usually cast on the person who can use them the best.

 

[JamesonCourage]

What baseline rules is he even talking about? What magic item shops and spellbooks being all over the place is a baseline rule? Sure it says that spellcasters can share spellbooks with each other no problem, remember that word "can" which isn't the same as "do".

Page 137 of the 3.5 DMG, upper right side under the title "Community Wealth and Population":

Every community has a gold piece limit based on its size and population. The gold piece limit (see Table 5-2) is an indicator of the price of the most expensive item available in that community. Nothing that costs more than a community's gp limit is available for purchase in that community. Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are all temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.

It goes on from there, but the general idea is that if a town has 2,001 or more people (gold piece limit of 3,000 gp), you should be able to buy anything that costs up to 3,000 gp or less from that town, unless something is messing that up (which should be the exception). Once most towns don't abide by this logic, the exception has become the rule, and you've discarded the guidelines in the DMG (as Hussar was rightfully pointing out).

And, just to give an example, there are only eight level 8 spells (on scrolls) that don't qualify for that 3,000 gp limit. That means you can usually purchase any of the other twenty-seven level 8 spells (on scrolls) in any city that has 2,001 or more people in it. Any city with 5,001 or more people has a gp limit of 15,000 gp, which is enough to buy any scroll except for Wish (which can be purchased in any town with 12,001 or more people, which has a gp limit of 40,000 gp!).

Once you get into the highest end listed (25,001 or more people), you can reliably find any single item worth up to 100,000 gp or less, ready to be purchased. It's there, it's available, and you can buy it, by the guidelines presented in the 3.5 DMG. Should it be that way? In my mind, there shouldn't be a default in the DMG (I can see campaign setting books). But, there it is. Hussar isn't wrong to reference it. As always, play what you like

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Page 137 of the 3.5 DMG, upper right side under the title "Community Wealth and Population":

It goes on from there, but the general idea is that if a town has 2,001 or more people (gold piece limit of 3,000 gp), you should be able to buy anything that costs up to 3,000 gp or less from that town, unless something is messing that up (which should be the exception). Once most towns don't abide by this logic, the exception has become the rule, and you've discarded the guidelines in the DMG (as Hussar was rightfully pointing out).

And, just to give an example, there are only eight level 8 spells (on scrolls) that don't qualify for that 3,000 gp limit. That means you can usually purchase any of the other twenty-seven level 8 spells (on scrolls) in any city that has 2,001 or more people in it. Any city with 5,001 or more people has a gp limit of 15,000 gp, which is enough to buy any scroll except for Wish (which can be purchased in any town with 12,001 or more people, which has a gp limit of 40,000 gp!).

Once you get into the highest end listed (25,001 or more people), you can reliably find any single item worth up to 100,000 gp or less, ready to be purchased. It's there, it's available, and you can buy it, by the guidelines presented in the 3.5 DMG. Should it be that way? In my mind, there shouldn't be a default in the DMG (I can see campaign setting books). But, there it is. Hussar isn't wrong to reference it. As always, play what you like

I know how it works but like I said earlier, those are guidelines. Those are to help DM's who don't want to build their own towns. Not using the DMG's guidelines is by no means breaking RAW or doing anything wrong. There is also nothing that says how many towns and what their sizes will be in your campaign. Going in and assuming you are going to find X amount of spells and magic items in a town is wrong on the player's part. There is a reason why that information is located in the DMG.

I know exactly what Hussar is going. He is trying to find a way from him to be able to say that the only way we are able to play the game with no problem is by playing the game wrong. If we were removing RAW then I could understand but not following the guideline advice in the DMG is not the same thing.

 

[Hussar]

I know how it works but like I said earlier, those are guidelines. Those are to help DM's who don't want to build their own towns. Not using the DMG's guidelines is by no means breaking RAW or doing anything wrong. There is also nothing that says how many towns and what their sizes will be in your campaign. Going in and assuming you are going to find X amount of spells and magic items in a town is wrong on the player's part. There is a reason why that information is located in the DMG.

No, there is nothing wrong with changing the guidelines. But, you're missing the point. You're saying that the problem doesn't exist in the mechanics. But, the entire game is BASED on those presumptions and so the problem does exist in the mechanics.

Claiming that the problem is entirely the fault of the DM who is simply following the guidelines that are presented in concise detail is a bit disingenuous. Sure, you can fix the problem by hosing the wizard and changing baseline presumptions in the game. But, that simply proves the point - the problem exists.

If the problem didn't exist, then we wouldn't have to eject the baseline presumptions of the game would we?

 

[Minigiant]

Again I have played high level DnD and with the right DM it balances out. DMs should control the pace of the game and while I think if a player has designed his wizard to create items he should get the ability to do so some of the time but not to extent that they are going crazy making them.

Also every member of the party should be equipped with magic items that allow them to do things like fly, see invisibility, dimension door. I think people forget that DnD is about magic always has been. It is not really suited to be played as a low magic game not at high levels.

I also think magic items are to cheap and should cost more to make.

Part of managing a high level game is getting the entire party to use resources. Also as DM you know what the party can do plan around that. They are going up against high powered BBEG who have the resources to learn about some of the parties abilities and plan according.

Every high big encounter I played with a good DM required the entire party working together to not only defeat the bad guys but not die.

Not saying it can't be done.
It is just WAY TOO MUCH WORK on the part of the DM. Constantly having to plan around the casters take time away from figuring out what Lord Black is doing and how many kobolds did Flamor add to his army.

Next thing you know every patch of grass is claimed by a dragon. Two steps in any direction is a horde of demons, undead, or savage humaniods. Epic armors and swords that have all sorts of houserule magic on them handed out like candy to the mundane. Dimensional Anchor mage police. The whole royal family is charm proof. Traps in the restroom. The farmer's dog is a lycantrope. Every other wizard is a paranoid tower hermit. 20 combats a day. etc...

DMing a game with casters shouldn't be a chore. Nor should I hope my players nerf themselves just to be balanced with each other. I want to DM high level but I don;t thing I can without treating one person like the "DM's girlfriend" and the other like the "DM's annoying brother".

 

[Tony Vargas]

30 years of 1e experience tells me to disagree here.

This is a thread about experiences. In your experience, casters didn't dominate "as much as one might expect." In mine, they did. The longest campaign I ever ran went 10 years and levels 1-14. By the end of it, everyone was playing a caster, with good reason.

I don't hold that against AD&D as much as I might, because it was by design.

 

[Tony Vargas]

supposed to be a team and work together which is why I don't get the concept of a wizard using buffing spells on himself so he can go out fight the fighter. That seems an incredibly selfish way to play. In the games I play buff spells are usually cast on the person who can use them the best.

While the wizard could buff himself to be about as good as a fighter at 'fighting,' that's just a theoretical exercise to illustrate strict superiority (and it doesn't quite pan out, even in 3.x - the fighter retains a bare edge against self-buffing casters, thanks to all his combat feats). What's really the most efficient for a 3.5 wizard is to buff himself to be an even better wizard - cast another spell every round, maximize his save DCs, etc.

In 3.0, the teamwork thing held up a little better. You couldn't buff caster stats, and your buffs to non-caster stats (STR, DEX, CON) lasted so long it was very efficient to use those spell systematically, effectively transferring 'excess caster power' to the non-casters. It was still balance by magnanimity - the 'rich' caster giving charity to the poor non-caster - and it didn't last long, but it was a little something.

 

[Stalker0]

I do believe casters overshadow non-casters eventually....and not just in terms of combat effectivness.

More and more, the game revolves around magic to do anything.

Get to the evil guys lair? Well we need to plane shift to X, then teleport to Y.

How do we know where it is? - We need divinations.

How do we bypass the walls of force? - Teleportation or Disintegrate.

How do we might the crazy powerful monsters? - An army of magic buff spells.



More and more the gametime focuses on the spellcasters just to get to the combat let alone fight it.

 

[outsider]

This is a thread about experiences. In your experience, casters didn't dominate "as much as one might expect." In mine, they did. The longest campaign I ever ran went 10 years and levels 1-14. By the end of it, everyone was playing a caster, with good reason.

Similar experience. In my 2e group, we had 3 powergamers. Two of them played Fighter/Mages. One played a Fighter/Mage/Thief. These characters were roleplayed as fighters that could cast magic(or thieves that could cast magic, as the case may be), not as mages that could fight/steal. They had no interest in actually playing out magic thematically, they just couldn't turn away from the obvious power. As the campaign rolled on, mundanes that died were replaced with casters/multiclass casters. By the end of the campaign, all of the characters were casters of some sort. Mostly F/Ms, a straight druid, a straight cleric, and a straight mage(which, incidentally, didn't feel at all weak in comparison to the f/ms by the end of the game).

 

[Lwaxy]

[MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION]


Why do you make it sound like people not knowing what they are talking about? Yes, I do GM high level campaigns a lot (as in lvl 15 and over).

The only caster problems I got is that players were reluctant to play casters, which has changed now that we've house ruled magic to work differently. Oh and come to thik of it we had one wildshape crazy druid once, who got out of hand at such high levels but that might have been a play style incompatibility.

Wizards or priests though - nope.

I might give it a test and ask the more experienced players to create some optimized wizards and fighters and then run a one short high level hack and slash. Maybe it does make a difference for minmaxers, but we do not allow minmaxing normally.