Casters vs Mundanes in your experience

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

I agree, neither is right. I hope the designers can achieve their goal of addressing the power gap issue while not "getting in the way" of those who did not experience the problem or who found solutions to it that were satisfactory for them.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

Here is the real issue.

Do you have the data that shows just how much of the gaming population comes to Enworld?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

Real quick:

Let's say there are 100 people out there. Now only 25 of those 100 people come to Enworld. That right there is 1/4ths of the gaming population. Now lets say 18 out of 25 say they have a problem with the fighter.

That's just dealing with 25% of the total gaming population, you have no clue what the other 75% feel.

You know where this is going.

 

[keterys]

Casters being a problem in 3e is... extraordinarily well documented. There's a certain amount of table variation, of course, but it's indisputable that it's one of the most complained about issues with the edition.

Mind you, PCs with triply enhanced crit range vorpal bladed gauntlets so they could great cleave behead enemies on 2s was _also_ a problem in 3e. Or haste harm / whatever auto-slay folks. Or... at a certain point, whether someone saw a problem with thermonuclear war or not may depend on what treaties or MAD they observed, possibly without even realizing it.

It's much more arguable if you're talking about earlier editions. Spell disruption, weaker hit points, more difficult to acquire spells, etc were all serious factors. Especially if you didn't get to rest often, casters were something to multiclass into for additional versatility, rather than power houses on their own. If you could rest whenever you want, you enter a much murkier area, where casters had a number of trump cards like fly and stoneskin, but the DM had a lot more curveballs to throw at them, like planar effects that stopped them from using half of their spells and creatures like golems that ignored any sort of magic.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

Even better!

Out of 126,720 people only 164 have actually bothered to take part in the poll.

I'm sure you can do the math.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Casters being a problem in 3e is... extraordinarily well documented. There's a certain amount of table variation, of course, but it's indisputable that it's one of the most complained about issues with the edition.

You have posted links to the Wizard's site which uses the same thing that I have mentioned about here at Enworld. Nobody knows the percentage of the gaming population that goes to the Wizards site so it's pointless to use these as facts.

 

[Lwaxy]

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.

Nice example Although I'd say the "random direction" is the flaw and if people would know about gun safety it would not be an issue anymore.

 

[keterys]

You have posted links to the Wizard's site which uses the same thing that I have mentioned about here at Enworld. Nobody knows the percentage of the gaming population that goes to the Wizards site so it's pointless to use these as facts.

I posted links to designers of the game discussing how the cleric could be more effective at melee than melee characters, while also being an effective caster, as well as one of many discussions comparing power levels of most classes.

Though, yes, there is a poll on one of the links that roughly mirrors the poll in this one I suppose.

I was only googling for a few seconds, though. There's plenty more exhaustive evidence, deconstruction, and math behind it, and the problems have informed numerous game products since, including 3.5's many nerfs to spellcasting, tome of battle and 4e's improvement of non-spellcasters, etc.

In general, 3e stripped away many of the limitations on casters by vastly increasing their access to spells, scaling saving throw DCs, easier casting in combat, loss of casting time, removal of most spell penalties (aging, system shock, etc). Even in simple areas like hit points, a caster used to get less benefit from constitution than a fighter, but now gets as much... and got better ability to improve their constitution, with powers like polymorph and bear's endurance.

There's a reason a ton of that stuff got nerfed in 3.5. It was a bit wild.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

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.

Look, I'm not trying to say anyone who isn't having a problem should be having one(and I don't see a lot of other posters saying that either) - those are words you're putting in others' mouths. What I AM saying, and what I see others on "this side" of the argument saying, is that for *some people* which includes me, it HAS BEEN a problem. That you and others do not have the problem is irrelevant. That a huge chunk of the community has is the issue and what makes it worth addressing.

If they can't find a way to address the concerns of both sides, then 5e flat out fails.

That said, it's easier, more practical, and sensible to the concerns of organized play to restrict, and give advice on how to remove the restrictions than it is to just say, "go nuts," and deal with the fallout of that decision for those who *can't* houserule.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I posted links to designers of the game discussing how the cleric could be more effective at melee than melee characters, while also being an effective caster, as well as one of many discussions comparing power levels of most classes.

Though, yes, there is a poll on one of the links that roughly mirrors the poll in this one I suppose.

I was only googling for a few seconds, though. There's plenty more exhaustive evidence, deconstruction, and math behind it, and the problems have informed numerous game products since, including 3.5's many nerfs to spellcasting, tome of battle and 4e's improvement of non-spellcasters, etc.

In general, 3e stripped away many of the limitations on casters by vastly increasing their access to spells, scaling saving throw DCs, easier casting in combat, loss of casting time, removal of most spell penalties (aging, system shock, etc). Even in simple areas like hit points, a caster used to get less benefit from constitution than a fighter, but now gets as much... and got better ability to improve their constitution, with powers like polymorph and bear's endurance.

There's a reason a ton of that stuff got nerfed in 3.5. It was a bit wild.

To be quite frank, unless the designers are answering a RAW question, their view on certain things falls into the realm of opinion just like everyone else's.

Sure their word may hold more weight because of their title but that doesn't automatically make them right. Sure they might have created the game but I can promise you that is was more the player base who found things that you could do with the rules that the designers never intended or even though of.

The math is only a fraction of all the other factors that come into play. It's not simple as having a 1 + 1 = 3 error.

Just because you work for Wizards doesn't make you the person that has the know all end all to knowledge about the game.

If they can make the mistakes they made with the rules then they sure as hell can with their advice and reasoning.