Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Steely_Dan]

Casters can get a bit hectic in 3rd Ed, in part due to changing the saving throw system (in 1st/2nd Ed, fighters had sick saves at high levels), even though as a DM I do not agree to the mythic proportions some espouse on these boards.

Well built non-casters can lay some serious smack-down (shocking damage).

Though Murderous Mist has to be one of the most annoying spells ever.

 

[Doug McCrae]

We never had any problems in our games with spellcasters of any type.

Also, if you burned all of your Turn Undead to power yourself up we were usually hit with tons of undead followed by a caster who specialized in Dispel Magic.

To me, that's the definition of a problem. As a GM, I don't want to have to plan a series of encounters around one character's powers in order to keep the game balanced.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

@Nemesis Destiny


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).

Sorry if that's what you get out of it, but some of the posts in this thread (not naming anyone) demonstrate a clear ignorance of the issue.

There are two sides to this particular coin; sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la, the problem isn't real" doesn't actually work though. Just because YOU don't have the issue, doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. And it's one that has been beaten to death. For those of us who HAVE experienced these issues, we're glad to see that it's on the designers' radar.

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.

So, in your experience, nobody played casters (until you made a bunch of houserules), so you didn't notice the problem? Coincidence? I think not.

Wizards or priests though - nope.

Lucky you then, I guess.

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.

Great. Knock yourself out. I don't care, honestly. I'm so very done with that edition (and never going back), and if 5e brings back too much of the things I didn't like about it, I'll continue with what I'm doing now, or find something else.

And again, min-maxing is perfectly legally allowed by the rules, and in a lot of the games out there. If you are fortunate enough to play in a group that can restrict such things, great. Lots of folks aren't in such a position; lots of groups HAVE to use RAW.

 

[Lwaxy]

So, in your experience, nobody played casters (until you made a bunch of houserules), so you didn't notice the problem? Coincidence? I think not.

By all the talks about restricting magic, one would expect I'd see more of a problem when liberating the magic rules. If casters were so overpowered to begin with, it should have popped up as an issue.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

@Nemesis Destiny


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.

To be quite honest, it's a waste of time that proves nothing. Tons of factors come into play during a game session such as the dice rolls, campaign setup, monster setup, magic item setup etc...

Some people on these boards think that because they had a problem then so should everyone else.

Scenarios pop up but they only benefit the side you are trying to argue for and it happens on both sides.

The "supposed" problems with the fighter class are subjective and will be argued until the end of time. Some people have problems and some don't. Personal problems do not make the class bad, it just makes the class a bad experience for you.

This goes with any class to be honest. In all my years and sessions of 3.5, I have seen low, mid and high level wizards get taken out in one hit, or fail that really important save, or most commonly, didn't have the right spell or spells prepared.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

To me, that's the definition of a problem. As a GM, I don't want to have to plan a series of encounters around one character's powers in order to keep the game balanced.

Only an example, this was never always the case.

The same principle still applies, "careful when putting all your eggs in one basket."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

By all the talks about restricting magic, one would expect I'd see more of a problem when liberating the magic rules. If casters were so overpowered to begin with, it should have popped up as an issue.

Like a lot of issues in game systems, it can get obscured by the vast range of skill, interest, sensibility, etc. that players bring to the game.

Give every 100th person in the USA a .22 rifle and ask them to go out and shoot a round into the air, in a random direction, once a week. Most of the bullets won't hurt anyone, or even do any appreciable property damage. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, devoid of negative consequences. Flaws in game rules are often like that.

 

[Elf Witch]

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".

First of all to answer one of the people who commented in wondering how many of us who don't have an issue have actually run high levels campaigns, Well I don't have an issue, several of my DMs don't have an issue and we have all run epic level campaigns.


High level games have always been labor intensive in all the editions I have ever played in or run. And it is not just because of the casters. Fighters and all their extra attacks. Monks who and rogues who can't be grappled the sheer amount of high level magic items in play at higher levels all can give DMs a headache.

Part of a DMs job is to tailor the game to his players and part of that is taking into account the different abilities each class has.

This is true at low levels as well as high levels.

Part of your job as DM is to play the bbeg any smart bbeg with resources is going to find out all he can about the people opposing him. And it only makes sense that he puts some plans into thwart them and some of their abilities.

Nice hyperbole my the way. I am creative enough not to have to resort to the farmer's dog being a werewolf to challenge my high level parties.

As for mundane characters having magic items well at high level games it has always been assumed that the mundane PCs have high level magic items. If you don't want to play that then you do have an issue because that is how DnD has been designed. And low magic games don't tend to work if you don't do something to modify all the casters.

It seems almost impossible to have a discussion on this topic with people just exaggerating like you just did.

Their seems to be an assumption that since you have an issue then it is because of the way the system is written but people who don't have an issue it is because we don't play to our full strengths or we don't DM high level games.

I want a system that allows me as DM to tailor my game I can balance things, I can say no to certain game breaking combos. Other DMs may want something that is easier in their eyes to run they want all the balance be hard written in the system. Which is fine.

I just wish people would stop with all the exaggerated hyperbole.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sorry if that's what you get out of it, but some of the posts in this thread (not naming anyone) demonstrate a clear ignorance of the issue.

There are two sides to this particular coin; sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la, the problem isn't real" doesn't actually work though. Just because YOU don't have the issue, doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. And it's one that has been beaten to death. For those of us who HAVE experienced these issues, we're glad to see that it's on the designers' radar.

So, in your experience, nobody played casters (until you made a bunch of houserules), so you didn't notice the problem? Coincidence? I think not.

Lucky you then, I guess.

Great. Knock yourself out. I don't care, honestly. I'm so very done with that edition (and never going back), and if 5e brings back too much of the things I didn't like about it, I'll continue with what I'm doing now, or find something else.

And again, min-maxing is perfectly legally allowed by the rules, and in a lot of the games out there. If you are fortunate enough to play in a group that can restrict such things, great. Lots of folks aren't in such a position; lots of groups HAVE to use RAW.

Well I can guess I am one of the people you are talking about. Since I am one being one of the most vocal about it.

There are two sides of the coin. And assuming that those of us who don't have an issue with it is because we just don't play the game right or we don't play high level or we Nerf our characters is one side I see brought up all the time.

Here is something to consider you say you are glad that the designers listened to your complaints and changed things and if they change them to far back then you won't buy 5E as far as I am concerned they listened to much to people like you and ruined the game I play so I had to either switch to Pathfinder or play an non supported edition. As far as I am concerned if they go to far towards what they did in 4E I won't be buying 5E.

So tell me which of us is in the right and which is in the wrong? I feel that neither of us is and it comes down to taste and what we want from a game.

 

[Dausuul]

Personal problems do not make the class bad, it just makes the class a bad experience for you.

The poll on this thread is hardly a scientific one, but it's the closest thing we've got to real data. When 64% of poll respondents said "Yes, casters eventually overshadow mundanes"--it's not just a personal problem. Something that affects a majority of players is a system problem. Even if the poll overstates the issue by a factor of 2 or 3, I'd say 20% is still a system problem.