D&D General D&D 3.5 - splatbook power creep or no?

[Maxperson]

It's also wildly untrue, especially at lower levels where spell slots and treasure are limited. When's the last time anyone complained about how their 1st-level fighter was being regularly outclassed by the party's 1st-level wizard?

Slots are always limited, especially in 3e where you had to dedicate slots to specific spells. Even a high level wizard isn't going to be the party rogue, cover the holes in the party capability, have dedicated defensive/utility spells to keep him alive in combat, and have offensive spells to use in combat. Something has to give, and it's not going to be combat ability. That leaves either failing to cover the holes in party capability, or choosing not to be a jerk and invalidate the rogue's ability to contribute.

 

[TwoSix]

I've always rejected that argument, because it's quite frankly stupid game play. The wizard, cleric, or druid can do so many different things(but not all at once), that if the player of the spellcaster is going out of his way to cover what the rogue can do instead of doing something else with his limited spell slots, he's just being a jerk and doubling up on coverage in the process.

A smart, thoughtful player isn't going to take spells that invalidate the rogue. He's going to identify actual holes in what the party can do and cover those instead.

Yea, but that isn't really the argument. It's not about a specific player, it's about the integrity of the class niche.

I agree that if a player in your group is playing a rogue, than using your wizard spell slots to cover stealth and lockpicking is a waste. Where the issue arose is if the question becomes "We're going to do several different dungeon crawls in this game, I'm going to play a character to cover scouting, stealth, and lockpicking"; you're much better off (in terms of being efficacious at those roles) making a Spellthief 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer X as opposed to a Rogue X (or even Rogue 5/roguish prestige class).

In an ideal world, some version of fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard (or similar substitutes) would be the ideal balanced party. But in 3.5, a party of tank cleric/support cleric/2 utility wizards is simply much more flexible and potent that a party with a fighter and rogue in those spots instead.

This isn't some white room theorycrafting for me; I watched this happen in real time over the course of my years running and playing 3.5 and later PF1. By the time we got to our third campaign, a group that had seen a mix of caster classes and other classes had converted to all playing variations of casters.

 

[GrimCo]

It's also wildly untrue, especially at lower levels where spell slots and treasure are limited. When's the last time anyone complained about how their 1st-level fighter was being regularly outclassed by the party's 1st-level wizard?

Never. There's a reason most people call levels 3-8 sweet spot. Levels 1-2 is survival mode, 9+ is superhero to demigod mode. In 3-8, characters become competent and heroic, but still not game breaking.

 

[Maxperson]

Yea, but that isn't really the argument. It's not about a specific player, it's about the integrity of the class niche.

I agree that if a player in your group is playing a rogue, than using your wizard spell slots to cover stealth and lockpicking is a waste. Where the issue arose is if the question becomes "We're going to do several different dungeon crawls in this game, I'm going to play a character to cover scouting, stealth, and lockpicking"; you're much better off (in terms of being efficacious at those roles) making a Spellthief 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer X as opposed to a Rogue X (or even Rogue 5/roguish prestige class).

In an ideal world, some version of fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard (or similar substitutes) would be the ideal balanced party. But in 3.5, a party of tank cleric/support cleric/2 utility wizards is simply much more flexible and potent that a party with a fighter and rogue in those spots instead.

This isn't some white room theorycrafting for me; I watched this happen in real time over the course of my years running and playing 3.5 and later PF1. By the time we got to our third campaign, a group that had seen a mix of caster classes and other classes had converted to all playing variations of casters.

I don't believe in the integrity of class niche in classes that aren't being played. The rogue wouldn't be the only stealthy and/or lockpicking class in the world, so already there's no real niche protection going on.

In my experience, the party with the two clerics and two wizards is relying on magic for everything, including social interactions. Virtually every fantasy society would make mind influencing/controlling magics highly illegal, with severe punishments. Every time I've seen official settings handle the question, that's how it went down, because if you allow mind influence/control to be legal, society would break down as spellcasters just rob people blind and convince them to do all kinds of things detrimental to a functional society.

Also, as was mentioned earlier, tank cleric takes at least 2 rounds to get functional, where the fighter is functional out of the gate. And tank cleric has to get to 7th-9th level to really get there, because Divine Power is 4th level, and Righteous Might is 5th level. Prior to that you aren't fighting better than a fighter

 

[GrimCo]

Slots are always limited, especially in 3e where you had to dedicate slots to specific spells.

Wizards get Scribe scroll feat at level 1 as class ability. It's cheap and easy way for storing utility spells, specially for out of combat use.

 

[Maxperson]

Wizards get Scribe scroll feat at level 1 as class ability. It's cheap and easy way for storing utility spells, specially for out of combat use.

If the DM is lax, sure. Even scroll scribing takes both time, and calm around the wizard. If the DM is just like, "Okay, 3 weeks pass while you scribe scrolls. Now what does everyone want to do?" it can break the game. If the world keeps on moving like a living, breathing world does, the wizard player is sitting on his butt while everyone else is doing stuff. Players don't like to sit around at the table while everyone else is having fun, so only a few important scrolls get scribed and most magic items are found or purchased(if items are for sale).

 

[TwoSix]

I don't believe in the integrity of class niche in classes that aren't being played. The rogue wouldn't be the only stealthy and/or lockpicking class in the world, so already there's no real niche protection going on.

I mean, that's fine if you're not concerned, but that's the core of the argument around class tiers and class imbalance.

I mean, I didn't care much either, but I was also savvy enough to look at the nascent CharOp sites and realize that playing casters was the better option, so that's what I always did.

In my experience, the party with the two clerics and two wizards is relying on magic for everything, including social interactions. Virtually every fantasy society would make mind influencing/controlling magics highly illegal, with severe punishments. Every time I've seen official settings handle the question, that's how it went down, because if you allow mind influence/control to be legal, society would break down as spellcasters just rob people blind and convince them to do all kinds of things detrimental to a functional society.

My experience doesn't match those. Clerics generally had decent Charisma (better than fighters and rogues, normally), and skill-boosting items weren't that expensive. Mind magic never really played a role in caster dominance, IMX. Charming/suggestions were a "break glass in case of emergency" type thing.

And although there weren't many Charisma classes in Tier 1, there are plenty of sorcerer-type classes with Cha primary as "nearly as good" Tier 2 classes, which also saw plenty of play.

Also, as was mentioned earlier, tank cleric takes at least 2 rounds to get functional, where the fighter is functional out of the gate. And tank cleric has to get to 7th-9th level to really get there, because Divine Power is 4th level, and Righteous Might is 5th level. Prior to that you aren't fighting better than a fighter

Tank cleric was more of a meme than an actual build you needed to fear, true. Although you don't need a lot of buffs to stand in front of the party with a high AC derived purely from armor.

A 3.5 caster party relies on control spells and summons to hold the line, not individual defensive prowess.

 

[Voadam]

A smart, thoughtful player isn't going to take spells that invalidate the rogue. He's going to identify actual holes in what the party can do and cover those instead.

Low level utility spells in wands or scrolls are really effective things for a wizard to buy or craft in general so I don't think a smart thoughtful player will avoid taking them.

Knock is a decent wizard investment for auto opening a lock versus an average lock DC 25 skill check for the rogue who might or might not invest in that specific skill. Also necessary for getting past an arcane lock warded thing.

In 3.0 a wand of invisibility will be 30 minutes of invisibility per charge, great for turning someone into a sneaky scout in addition to being able to be used defensively for the wizard themself. Even in minute per level 3.5 it is also a great buff for a rogue, allowing them to often get off a sneak attack they might not otherwise get such as if they are staying out of melee.

My eldritch knight regularly used charm person to interrogate minion prisoners for information instead of social skill checks or roleplaying out interrogations (I found threats of torture and actual torture very distasteful).

A wand of low level summon monster is decent for triggering suspected traps without getting hit yourself.

Spider climb, levitate, and flying are very useful, and often their auto success is better than a possible success climb skill roll.

 

[Stalker0]

If the DM is just like, "Okay, 3 weeks pass while you scribe scrolls. Now what does everyone want to do?" it can break the game.

And that is why the game was broken. Because many many MANY campaigns have down time. If inserting downtime break's the game....then yeah the game is broken.

I played 3.5 across every level, and yeah high level wizards had a scroll for every occasion. Especially any spells level 1-2, whose costs for a scroll were completely trivial by that level.

 

[Maxperson]

And that is why the game was broken. Because many many MANY campaigns have down time. If inserting downtime break's the game....then yeah the game is broken.

I played 3.5 across every level, and yeah high level wizards had a scroll for every occasion. Especially any spells level 1-2, whose costs for a scroll were completely trivial by that level.

There's never really down time. The wizard starts scribing a scroll and 4 hours in a woman screams from a nearby alley. The world moves on and interesting things happen. The wizard might get lucky and nothing happens. Or something might happen and it takes 4 hours of game time for everyone else at the table to finish with it.

Down time is an artificial construct to enable PCs to break the game. If the DM is running a living, breathing world, there will rarely, if ever be any down time.