How did initiative rules make casters stronger in 3E?

[Noumenon]

I can't wait for Mearls to explain it -- he said at the end of this post:

There re a lot of little transitions like that between 2e and 3e... because of shifts in mechanics that have subtle effects on distant portions of the system. For instance, IMO the change in initiative made casters into unstoppable beasts, but that's another post for another time.

What does he mean?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, I can't speak for Mike, of course. But back in 1E and 2E, spells had casting times measured in "segments" (portions of rounds), and that value was added to the caster's Initiative roll. (In those editions, low init was better.)

So the fact that casters essentially got faster in 3E could be what he's talking about.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The ability to pump the DCs of Save or Die/Suck spells, the greater reliability of these spells and battlefield control in general, and the HP inflation for 3E in general making damage dealing less viable than before was what made casters stronger. Casters are the masters of the 3E one turn kill, also known as rocket tag. A nonspellcaster has to optimize heavily and focus every resource to achieve rocket tag. A spellcaster needs only to max his/her casting stat and pick decent spells.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Well, I can't speak for Mike, of course. But back in 1E and 2E, spells had casting times measured in "segments" (portions of rounds), and that value was added to the caster's Initiative roll. (In those editions, low init was better.)

So the fact that casters essentially got faster in 3E could be what he's talking about.

I think this is the right of it - it is easier to cast spells in 3E because the chance of disruption is/was minimized.

The ability to pump the DCs of Save or Die/Suck spells, the greater reliability of these spells and battlefield control in general, and the HP inflation for 3E in general making damage dealing less viable than before was what made casters stronger. Casters are the masters of the 3E one turn kill, also known as rocket tag. A nonspellcaster has to optimize heavily and focus every resource to achieve rocket tag. A spellcaster needs only to max his/her casting stat and pick decent spells.

This seems a very one-sided view of 3E casters. Those of very high level - sure. But what about all the weak-arsed wizards that died before they got anywhere near this high-a-level? What about all the wizards that needed the other classes to help them do their thing while they were nowhere near throwing out save-or-die spells? This blanket criticism of 3E casters that seems to get wheeled out by the same people as if it is beyond conjecture just does not seem fair to me.

A recent thread on fantasy fiction, computer games and D&D provided an interesting landscape of what influenced player's expectations and I think perhaps illuminates the thinking that goes into casters and their place in the game. For those of us who got into D&D through fantasy fiction, of course wizards were powerful - and when they reached this power, who could stand against them? The pay off to play this style is obviously that they started weak and developed in power whereas other classes had a more linear development. However, for those who have gotten into D&D through computer games moreso than fantasy fiction, the lack of "balance" is obvious (be it being weaker at lower levels or more powerful at higher levels).

Thus, I wonder if our perceptions of wizards (be they 1E-3E or 4E) is coloured by how we got into D&D and what we expect our games to represent (a piece of fantasy fiction or perhaps a game)?

Just some thoughts.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Cadfan]

A recent thread on fantasy fiction, computer games and D&D provided an interesting landscape of what influenced player's expectations and I think perhaps illuminates the thinking that goes into casters and their place in the game. For those of us who got into D&D through fantasy fiction, of course wizards were powerful - and when they reached this power, who could stand against them? The pay off to play this style is obviously that they started weak and developed in power whereas other classes had a more linear development. However, for those who have gotten into D&D through computer games moreso than fantasy fiction, the lack of "balance" is obvious (be it being weaker at lower levels or more powerful at higher levels).

I doubt its computer games. The shift is present in fiction as well. It probably correlates most with the idea of a spellcaster as a member of a team of adventurers, instead of as a mentor, a nemesis, or a loner wish fulfillment vessel.

 

[Olli]

I think it´s the ability to refocus and start as the first one from round 2 on, the lesser chance to be disrupted (in prior editions to 3.X you lose your spell if you are hit during casting) and the streamlined xp-Tables. All of this work to make the caster stronger then in previous editions.

olli

 

[mearls]

I think this is the right of it - it is easier to cast spells in 3E because the chance of disruption is/was minimized.

Yes! It's a subtle but huge shift. Looking back at 3e, I sort of grokked the change but didn't fully understand it until I played around with OSRIC.

IME, in AD&D magic users and clerics lived in constant fear of having a spell ruined by an incoming attack. Since you had to declare casting before rolling initiative, a caster slung a spell only if it had a short casting time or if he was assured of safety. That's where fighters came in.

Between 3e's initiative system and the Concentration skill, that concern faded away. It didn't strike me at the time, because I didn't play a caster in 3e until 2002 or so, and by then I had so thoroughly adopted the 3e initiative system that I had forgotten how it used to work.

On top of that, spells like mage armor allowed a magic user to spackle over his horrid AC. With 3e giving mages more slots than before, it was much easier for a caster to prepare and use it.

The AD&D initiative system may have been a pain (I much, much prefer the OSRIC system!), but it served an important role in reigning in the power of spellcasters.

 

[Hussar]

IME, the casting time rules simply meant that you only picked spells with low casting times.

Now, in 2e, when weapon speed factor came into play with initiative, the MU was almost always faster than a weapon wielding opponent. A longsword forex has a speed factor of 5. Compare to Magic Missile's casting time of 1, even lightning bolt's casting time of 3. Almost all the attack spells had pretty low casting times which generally meant the MU was getting them off before the baddies had a chance to act.

Even medium creatures had a Speed of 3, again, compared to a rather wide range of casting time 1 spells, meant that fighting critters, you generally got your spell off more often than not.

That was my experience with casters anyway.

 

[Noumenon]

I think it´s the ability to refocus and start as the first one from round 2 on,

That changed in 3.5, didn't it? Was it a big deal before that?

Since you had to declare casting before rolling initiative, a caster slung a spell only if it had a short casting time or if he was assured of safety.

And you're not saying that was a good way to balance spellcasters, just that it was a balancing factor that was so subtle no one noticed it being removed and thus couldn't compensate for it. Or does anyone think it would be good to bring this back as a house rule to get casters back in line?

 

[Olli]

sorry, still playing 3.0 over here!

Also, we still roll initative every round and state the actions before the roll. But our games tend to be frankenstein´d Hybrids anyway, so I don´t think we count that much in this discussion!

Olli