D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3.5 - Are full casters overpowered when compared to melee characters?

[kitcik]

Based on JaronK's tier classifications, full casters have a significantly higher level of "power" based on the definitions he provides. My take is that the versatility provided by spells allows casters to take on a variety of roles and shine at any of them (depending on how focussed they are). Also, eventually they have access to spells that are "broken" in the sense that they can alter the world in ways a melee character could never hope to achieve. The end result of this being that, if they choose, a caster can outshine a non-caster at just about anything and that a party of caster can do anything while a party of non-casters is severely limited.

Two caveats:
1) Clearly, at low levels, this difference is less apparent, or maybe even reversed as limited spell selection and poor defense hinder the casters.
2) Casters may not outshine their non-caster friends if they so choose.

I am just curious as to the level of agreement on this.

 

[xigbar]

The immediate instinct for new players is to make a blaster, due to the "ooh shiny" effect. Oddly, something as trivial as hitpoint damage is the only area that non-casters will surpass casters. Therfore, if played in novice hands, things are about even, since the wizard will still be forced to pick at least SOME utility along the way, in addition to Fireball.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I agree with JaronK in that inherently, in a vacuum, the primary full-caster classes (Cleric, Druid, and Wizard) are more powerful than the mundane classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, etc.). Most games are not played in a vacuum, however.

The problem is that there are, usually, three-to-four other players around the table; each with varying levels of skill as it pertains to optimization, logistics, strategy, and tactics; as well as a DM with his/her own varying skill in encounter design and campaign management. It is my opinion that these latter elements play a greater role in the outcome of an encounter and of the overall campaign than does the inherent power level of a class.

In fact, I'd argue that the way a DM manages his/her campaign has the greatest effect on how wide (if any) the gulf between casters and noncasters will be. This does not mean that the DM is intentionally trying to affect the gulf; it is just that it is an inevitable result of DM decision making. Further, neither the DM nor his players may even be aware of the effect that the DM's decisions have on their game.

Regarding your poll, I'm not sure I like any of the answers. I'll vote the "Yes, if" answer, but, I think that answer severely over estimates most player's knowledge and skill. It seems to imply that players are aware of the situation but are skilled enough to mitigate it - I don't believe that's true.

 

[orion90000]

Everything is circumstantial in these arguments. A wizard that is out of spells is by far more useless than a warrior. Also a wizard that is being grappled and silenced can't do a whole lot either. I've played both melee and caster and I'll say that when working together they are more effective than either alone.

 

[kitcik]

The immediate instinct for new players is to make a blaster, due to the "ooh shiny" effect. Oddly, something as trivial as hitpoint damage is the only area that non-casters will surpass casters. Therfore, if played in novice hands, things are about even, since the wizard will still be forced to pick at least SOME utility along the way, in addition to Fireball.

So true.

Regarding your poll, I'm not sure I like any of the answers. I'll vote the "Yes, if" answer, but, I think that answer severely over estimates most player's knowledge and skill. It seems to imply that players are aware of the situation but are skilled enough to mitigate it - I don't believe that's true.

Agreed - there are a lot of mitigating factors that result in varying levels of power discrepancy. For instance, in our current campaign the two full casters (both druids) are played by the two novices, including my 9-yr-old daughter. Also, it is magic item heavy, which favors non-casters.

Everything is circumstantial in these arguments. A wizard that is out of spells is by far more useless than a warrior. Also a wizard that is being grappled and silenced can't do a whole lot either. I've played both melee and caster and I'll say that when working together they are more effective than either alone.

I agree with your first sentence and your last sentences 100%. The two middle sentences are true, but those situations shouldn't happen often at mid to high levels as the caster can avoid them.

 

[xigbar]

Everything is circumstantial in these arguments. A wizard that is out of spells is by far more useless than a warrior. Also a wizard that is being grappled and silenced can't do a whole lot either. I've played both melee and caster and I'll say that when working together they are more effective than either alone.

1. True, but wizards reach the point where there spells boot fighters and the point where they have more than enough spells for a day at about the same spell. I'd put this at 7th level, personally.
2. A wizard shouldn't be getting grappled in the first place. Abrupt Jaunt, if the fighter actually got to them. Invisibility, Fly, in core alone, should be enough for a wizard to prevent the fighter from getting there in the first place. Contingency is often keyed to Anti Magic Field or Silence. However, Silence is a spell, which means the reverse could be true for the Silencer.
3. Work with who, an enemy? If it's two PCs, sure, but in arena games, or against enemies, moot point.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

In fact, I'd argue that the way a DM manages his/her campaign has the greatest effect on how wide (if any) the gulf between casters and noncasters will be. This does not mean that the DM is intentionally trying to affect the gulf; it is just that it is an inevitable result of DM decision making. Further, neither the DM nor his players may even be aware of the effect that the DM's decisions have on their game.

This, absolutely. How many encounters the party has in a day; how much of the loot the party find is scrolls/wands versus say...really nice arms and armor that's useful to the party's noncasters; the kinds of enemies the DM uses (in my level 17 core rules game, DM regularly uses advanced HD monsters, mainly outsiders, with SR in the mid to upper 30s, the archmage player retired her character for an archer ranger out of frustration if you can believe it!); to what extent the DM allows spells to replace mundane capabilities and/or is open to "anime style" epic-like skill and class feature usages (same DM poo-pooed the monk's fast movement applying to a fly spell even though RAW it totally does; he's not perfect ); and more.

The DM controls so much, he can make any party feel balanced if he is competent and focused enough on the goal of nerfing the casters into the ground and raising the noncasters up.

Of course, it'd be nice if the base rules were more balanced. I chose the 2nd option, btw.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Yes.

Unless the caster is played by someone who plays poorly for whatever reason.

Or the melee is a Bo9S character, Psychic Warrior, or some well designed multiclass setup.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Not if the DM does his job well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the second option is the most appropriate.

In theory, the ceiling for wizards and clerics is much higher than for fighters and barbarians. In practice, fighters and their ilk are more popular and the rules and most DMs tend to find a lot of ways to countermand or restrict the most powerful magic.

I think the big issues are with dead levels in the noncaster classes and lack of interesting high level (but not supernatural) options. Fighters have to prestige to be interesting, and they shouldn't. The rogue also needs some rethinking, the health system needs to be more deadly (making it easier for a martial character to inflict meaningful harm), medium saves should be in and nonmagic characters should improve in this category, and it helps to have TB combat reactions or some other similar benefit for high-level martial characters.

Conversely, there are individual spells that are problematic, but once you discount the obvious ones that an experienced DM bans or modifies (polymorph being the most obvious), casters play well at all levels. Casters could use some revision but the biggest issues are with complexity, not power.

***

The reality is this. Nonmagic characters should only ever get better at things, things that anyone could theoretically (if not realistically) do. Magic should be able to accomplish things that you can't do without magic, period. No amount of use limitation or cost could ever "balance" the ability to control minds, teleport, raise the dead, or grant wishes, and no one should be able to do things as good as those without magic. The game has been balanced enough to play for some time, but if you break it down, there should always be an inequality between magic and not magic. That's what makes it magic.