Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6655963" data-attributes="member: 996">Which is a big part  of the problem.  A D&D caster can Polymorph because that was a magical power often seen in greek (and celtic, and many other mythologies).  It was often the sole power of a villain or monster in a story.  Changing his own form is all Proteus could do.  It's about all most lycanthropes do.  It's all a Skinwalker realy does.  It's a 'common' power in mythology, but it's very often a sole and only power that makes a monster dangerous, or magician magical, or story possible.In D&D, it's a 4th level spell any wizard could cast, one of hundred.  Because D&D has combed every myth, legend, tradition, novel, movie and shortstory a guy in the Midwest could find in the early 1970s for any sort of magical stunt, and given /all/ of them to D&D casters. Why would you be sure of that.  Just because any Magic-user who could cast Polymorph Other could do quite a bit more?  No, look at what these characters actually did in their stories.  It's often very, very little, indeed.  One or two things, that D&D lifts, bundles, and gives to casters, creating PCs who are vastly more versatile and often more powerful, than individual examples of the archetypes they're based on. Typically, in genre, the hero would be a martial type, and the villain a 'caster,' and the hero would emerge victorious.  Caster abilities were limited, both few in number, and in what it took to evoke them, what they could accomplish, who they could effect, and how easily they could be countered (carry a nail iron and he'll be powerless to transform you, crap like that).The reason caster & martial PCs should have some sort of parity is not because they have it in fiction or myth, but because a game requires it to run well and be enjoyable for all.  That's why Vancian was chosen, because it was more practical and less limiting than elaborate rituals.  Going with genre would have casters painfully limited, and martial characters dominant.Caster dominance is an artifact of D&D's failure to achieve that balance.   If any disparity called for by plot/theme/genre/whatever can be handled by level, there's no need for the classes to be imbalanced.  If you want to run a Fellowship game where Gandalf is much more powerful than Frodo, give him more levels, don't make wizards OP.  Heck, give him 10 more levels, Bounded Accuracy will help keep poor Frodo participating. Nod.  The Thief was, like Vancian casting, one of those pivotal early - can't really call it anything but a 'mistake' - that has left an indelible mark on the game.  The funny thing is, it's been partially overcome:  the Rogue was, eventually, given meaningful combat ability.   And, there are already Clerics & Paladins.  Nothing stopped 4e from doing it with Epic Destinies, either.  Demi-God was in the PH1, Hercules was pretty do-able.  Not quite spell Atlas for a few minutes, but doable.An EK has magic and a fighter's DPR, the Warlock's DPR also comes pretty close - in fact, most classes give up very little DPR or durability relative to the fighter's to get quite a lot of magical ability. Yet he always looses.  In a story, that's the author - in a game, it has to be reflected in the stats of the monsters and PCs and the rules of the game.  The Caster Villain might be a Legendary Monster in 5e, which sets him up to display some awesome power and threat before the PCs gank him - but, his intimidating power needn't be shared with the wizard PC.  In fact, doing so ruins the whole exercise.</blockquote>

Verification