Casters vs. non-casters in your game.

[Dandu]

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

How do you achieve this goal?

By taking the useful abilities your class gives you and using them well.

Which classes tend to have the most useful abilities?

The ones that get to tell reality to sit down and shut up.

Casters dominating non-casters is not inevitable. After all, to quote a Russian proverb, "To a bad dancer, even his own nuts are an obstacle." A poorly played caster is dramatically less effective (and less likely to make other classes feel small in the pants) than a well played one.

In addition, there is the question of what the caster does with his power. If a spellcaster focuses on supporting his allies through buffing and etc, he's not likely to make anyone feel invalidated (Treantmonk and The Logic Ninja advocated this type of play) compared to someone who is not a team player and one-shots an epic level monster with the appropriate spell.

But yes, in general, it's quite possible to make an non-caster feel useless. When other party members call upon the power of their gods, teleport through time and space, turn into nightmarish monsters, and generally screw up reality on a daily basis, a class who gets +1 to attack and maybe a feat when he levels up might feel that he's not contributing as much.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Nope. 1st edition even with a few tweaks to power up casters ( MUs start with more spell slots, get INT bonus, etc) The initiative system combined with most spells needing to be carefully targeted to avoid affecting allies help keep casters rather even with the martial characters.

There are no shops to buy stockpiles of cheap scrolls and wands and casting from a scroll adds 3 segments of casting time to a spell resulting in a higher liklihood of disruption if cast in combat.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In your game do you find (or have you in the past found) casters significantly stepping on the toes of/and or dominating the play over non-casters. This question applies to both in and out of combat play. If this is happening currently, how so? If this was in the past but is not now, what changes have you made? If it is not happening at all, is it because of conscious effort or has the imbalance simply not occurred and therefore has never been a worry?

No.

There are too many defenses against magic, and my players aren't in to the really abusive spells. I've always tried to push the nonmagic classes forward in my houserules, but even before I implemented most of them, I don't remember casters dominating. Players frequently didn't want to do the amount of work it took to research a caster, and the challenges I present are sufficiently unpredictable and reactive that it's hard to plan for them.

My first 3.0 campaign, the most memorable character was a rogue; the others that were effective/interesting were a psion and ranger.

My next campaign, the most memorable character was definitely a fighter, who was played into epic levels. There was also a sorcerer who later became a deity.

My next campaign was all over the map with casters and fighters and had many characters overall. A cleric with a very generous prestige class did a lot, but so did several fighters, a sorcerer, a DMPC rogue, an invisible stalker, an assassin, and so on...

Another campaign revolved around a cleric, a monk, and a multiclassed warlock/rogue/prestige character, all of whom were good.

Since then, it's been a mix, people are taking hybrid classes or multiclassing. My current campaign includes what might be the first wizard I've ever seen played that wasn't weak, a beginner playing a druid reasonably well, and an effective two-weapon ranger.

In my occasional exploits as a PC, my best character was probably a rogue, followed by a druid. The most powerful character I had (somewhat unintentionally) was a shifter.

We've had a lot of good druids over the years, and one good cleric, and a couple of decent sorcerers, but by no means have casters dominated. In my experience, every character fills a role; fighters are weak without casters, casters are weak without fighters. The team is what is strong.

 

[Dandu]

In your game do you find (or have you in the past found) casters significantly stepping on the toes of/and or dominating the play over non-casters. This question applies to both in and out of combat play. If this is happening currently, how so? If this was in the past but is not now, what changes have you made? If it is not happening at all, is it because of conscious effort or has the imbalance simply not occurred and therefore has never been a worry?

Doesn't happen, but mainly because I play a spellcaster and advise others who do, and I get to influence the way magic is used to avoid overshadowing others. That being said, it has happened on occasion when situations crop up that the melee characters just aren't capable of handling.

Last year in a Red Hand of Doom campaign, DM decided to just throw as many enemies at our party as he could, just to see what would happen. Our level 8 party of a Barbarian (made by me, played by another), Paladin, Shapeshift Druid, Cleric, and Sorcerer (me) came across an encampment of orcs, goblins, and zombies of the Red Hand Horde, along with a Hill Giant, and a Hippogriff, and perhaps some other monsters that I don't remember. Roughly a hundred enemies.

Well, it was a pretty big battle so all the gloves came off. The casters started pulling some very nasty tricks, such as casting Entangle and Rock to Mud to tie down large amounts of enemy troops. Flamestrike, Wings of Flurry, and Stinking Cloud (among other spells) were used to kill/disable large groups of enemies per casting.

Meanwhile, the Barbarian and Paladin were just taking enemies one at a time. The best moment for a melee character was when the Paladin used Spirited Charge on the Hill Giant and killed it by rolling very well on his attack and using a lance. Other than that, their impact on the battle at large was minimal.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

The casters started pulling some very nasty tricks, such as casting Entangle and Rock to Mud to tie down large amounts of enemy troops. Flamestrike, Wings of Flurry, and Stinking Cloud (among other spells) were used to kill/disable large groups of enemies per casting.

Meanwhile, the Barbarian and Paladin were just taking enemies one at a time.

Yeah. I think this ties into the whole "game changing every 5 levels" sort of thing. As the levels go up, there's a greater emphasis on multiple enemies; not just single really tough ones. Casters are able to really shine in these situations because of crowd control/crowd effect spells; fireball hitting multiple targets being another common enough example.

This can tie into playstyle/GM style too though. If a GM tends to run few creatures, but very tough ones, then the non-casters are more likely to be able to have an influence. Group combat situations though, shifts the ability for them to participate.

In fact, if there's a tendency at higher levels for single tough creatures, casters can feel gimped because their blowing through spells like a fighter blows through attacks.

I suspect that it's the sort of thing that's often overlooked in the caster vs non-caster discussions: not just "what level is the caster/non-caster disparity happening" but "how are the encounters being constructed?"

 

[Vegepygmy]

In your game do you find (or have you in the past found) casters significantly stepping on the toes of/and or dominating the play over non-casters.

No, I don't / have not.

When I have discussed this issue with those who do find casters dominating play, I often find that they play the game with a very different set of assumptions than I do. For example, they may feel it is "unfair" or unsporting of the DM to have enemies focus their attacks on casters in order to take them out quickly in combat. This, in turn, allows casters to devote less of their resources to defense and concentrate their power into offense and the infamous "save-or-die/suck" spells.

That's just one example. Another is habitually letting casters rest whenever they run out of spells, making resource management a non-issue. I'm sure I could think of others.

This is not to say that these styles of play are wrong, but they do seem to be differences that contribute to the phenomenon of casters dominating play.

 

[Dandu]

This can tie into playstyle/GM style too though. If a GM tends to run few creatures, but very tough ones, then the non-casters are more likely to be able to have an influence. Group combat situations though, shifts the ability for them to participate.

In fact, if there's a tendency at higher levels for single tough creatures, casters can feel gimped because their blowing through spells like a fighter blows through attacks.

It has been my experience that single tough creatures are harder on fighters than on casters. What specific monsters are you thinking of?

For example, they may feel it is "unfair" or unsporting of the DM to have enemies focus their attacks on casters in order to take them out quickly in combat.

Heh, whenever this happens to me I feel flattered.

 

[Vegepygmy]

"Are you low on/out of spells?"
"Yes."
"We should rest."

... has been a part of almost every D&D campaign I've participated in. I assumed it was a standard survival tactic.

IME, it is a standard survival tactic. But it often doesn't work.

A few weeks ago, the casters in my current campaign ran low on/out of spells and called for a rest. Unfortunately for the PCs, they had alerted the BBEG to their presence in his lair, and when they didn't kick in his door, he went looking for them. The PCs (and their casters) were forced to fight, and were ultimately victorious, but guess which one of them died? The cleric. He certainly didn't dominate the game that session!

 

[Angrydad]

I had a horrible time of it. I played a fighter who was inferior to a druid's summon powers. As in "Step back fighter, I'm going to summon an ape! Haha, you can go sit this one out now!" *sigh* Then the druid would cast cool spells and shape change, and I would wonder why I showed up to the game.

Sounds like it's time to start some inter-party conflict (STABBITY STAB!)

On subject, as the DM for 18 years now, I can safely say that the pure spellcasters frequently do become quite powerful, but usually end up as glass cannons. Even the clerics burn through their spells and then become passable melee combatants. All the DM needs to do to help the "15 minute day" problem is just keep throwing random encounters at the group so resting is not possible, then the players will conserve spells and you can get far more encounters in per game day. It encourages strategic thinking and lets the warrior types have time in the spotlight. Alternatively, just give enemies Spell Resistance or the ability to cast Dispel Magic multiple times/create and anti-magic field.

 

[Stormonu]

I've never had any problem with spellcasters who think their invincible get themselves pwned - without my really having to try. It's usually harder to kill the fighters - they tend to be more cautious and alert to the situation around them. (That said, I don't go out of my way to kill players. Challenge them yes, but kill no - the dice fall where they fall, most of the time, if not to the player's advantage).

I actually used to have a problem getting anyone to play a pure wizard character (or cleric) in 1E/2E. I've seen more in my 3E play, but it's never gotten beyond the point I can handle. I've never had the problem with the "15 minute adventuring day", though I've certainly seen the party hole up after the cleric and/or wizard has completely blown their wad. But I've also seen the rest of the party tell the wizard to suck it up if he's used up his spells too early and the party is still raring to go.

Of course, I should also mention I refuse to play any version of D&D (and that includes 4th) past about 12th-14th level.