Once and for all- Is D&D magic overpowered?

[Psion]

D&D, by the definition of being a roleplaying game, seeks to simulate every situation the could come up under its rules.

No, it really doesn't. The definition does not imply that. Even so far as RPGs inherently allow for much more flexibility than a board game, it loses utility if you diverge widely from the default assumptions of the setting. Try playing Call of Cthulhu as an action combat game some time, and I think you will understand why.

There are games out there that try to simulate everything under the sun... and they tend to have a lot of baggage.

A prudent game designer picks their battles, to tune the rules set better to the topic and playstyle.

 

[fusangite]

Improved Initiative + Archer-type + Readied action = no problem. (Generally speaking, of course.)

My casters usually have their second highest attribute in Con, take Combat Casting and max-out Concentration. This means that by 13th level or less, they can cast all spells with no risk of interruption.

That stated, I agree with others. Few massive damage and death spells don't have saving throws. And most high-level martial classes can survive a couple without even saving. 20th level casters of ultra-high level evocations will, on average, only deliver 70 points of damage against characters who fail their saves. The average 20th level fighter will be able to take two of those without losing consciousness. The average 20th level fighter will also have three quarters of a million gp worth of magic items. Items that deal with spell casters using perception and movement-affecting spells I'm sure would account for a few thousand gp at least of such a hoard.

D&D is balanced just fine. Of course, if a GM wants to run an unbalanced game, he always can. But D&D provides the opportunity to run balanced games -- and that's the most a system can do.

 

[gizmo33]

To build a world, to run an intrigue/secrecy/political campaign, or to make the game fun for everyone involved at every level of play, that's what I'm worried about.

Sorry this is so long, but your real question is about how to set up a DnD campaign the way you want it. It's a really complicated situation, so I don't know how to do justice to the topic without a long post:

MAGIC IS IMPORTANT
IMO the first thing you have to do is accept that magic plays an important role in a DnD society. It's not all that different from actual historical societies that believed that the gods or whatever had to be on their side for them to be successful. All viable groups of persons are going to have important persons within them that have spell-casting capabilities of some kind. This could be a cleric-chaplain, household bard, or court wizard. Even low-level spell caster cohorts of a high level fighter can significantly augment the power of a high level fighter by covering for some of his weaknesses. This doesn't mean that fighters don't rule. But it probably means that a fighter without some magical resources cannot (depending on the size of his domain).

LEADERSHIP IS NOT ABOUT WHO CAN KILL MORE THINGS AS AN INDIVIDUAL
Leadership is about who controls the most powerful resources in the kingdom/society. A pair of 10th level wizards might find it in their interest to follow a 20th level fighter, and kill a rival 20th level wizard. The fighter provides them with the security of a front-rank character that they know won't teleport away on them at the last minute. True, the fighter, winds up with more killing power but it's not because of his personal capabilities. IMO fighters make better leaders than wizards because they lead by example.

DEMOGRAPHICS IS YOUR FRIEND
You have to consider demographics - and I don't follow 3E on this so I'm not sure if this is cannon. But in general - a high level wizard SHOULD be able to dominate a village. What happens though, when a 15th level wizard not only has to contend with a 15th level fighter ruler, but also a host of 10th level characters of all classes who each serve that 15th level fighter in some capacity (guilds, vassals, relatives, former adventuring buddies, cohorts, etc.) It's not as simple as just bumping off the 15th level fighter and thinking everyone is going to love you for it.
Also - demographics can be your friend if 50% of your world's population is not a 20th level character. High level characters who are rare enough would control large portions of the population. Even with 10 times as much divination and scrying, there's just no way to keep track of everyone. An evil wizard would spend his time scrying a pair of whispering lords at court, only to find out they were gossiping about an affair, while a real assassin took advantage of the wizard's distraction to plot the wizard's death. And consider that a number of mundane protections (like lead-shielded rooms) might be in common use in the society, similar to the various superstitions (throwing salt over your shoulder to ward off curses) in the real world.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX OF TYPICAL DUNGEON CRAWLING
For example - there's no reason that the gods would not notice the death of even the least significant of commoners and decided to send down a deva, pack of blink dogs, or whatever, at a critical time to counter the schemes of the Evil Wizard trying to dominate the world. Even simple advice provided by an incorporeal spirit to a group of vengeful fighters ("here's where the wizard teleported to") can really tip the scales. IMO the slaying of a high level wizard in this situation would almost require a few special events. Also consider that every high level character in any given world is not accounted for. High level characters could be retired and operating as bar-keeps or whatever. A commoner runs into his bar, and he decides to get the old group together one last time to go kill the Evil Wizard usurper.

SPELLS HAVE WEAKNESSES
Detect thoughts only works when the person knows they're lieing. If I'm an 8th level fighter vassal to a high level evil wizard, you better believe I'm going to avoid meeting with him at all costs. I'll send my seneschal, who doesn't know he's lieing. Or I'll buy a Ring of Mind Shielding.
Sense Motive reveals a charmed/dominated person IIRC.
In addition - I think you are completely justified with developing spells to counter some of the high level spells of 3E because I think the game does a good enough job with providing counter spells for the lower level ones (see invisible, misdirection etc.) but tends to fall short of the higher level ones. For example - a Glyph of Warding that goes off on anyone that teleports into the area. Spells that feeblemind the first person who scrys into an area.

THE FOG OF WAR
Take all of these issues together. Take the situation of characters switching allegiances, of family and guild ties, etc. The hypothetical wizard who you think is going to rule the world is going to have to watch his back constantly. Even a simple misdirection spell might mean that he attacks the wrong person at the wrong time. IMO there's just too much going on, even in a magical world, for any one individual to dominate a situation without the same leadership, organization skills, and perception and real world leadership requires. And IMO the spells don't help you with that, and I would think each class would have it's share of persons gifted in those areas.

 

[WizarDru]

But there's definitely a balance that needs to be struck. Removing the Wizard's ability to be ultra-effective during melee and replacing it with a stronger knowledge base will simply change his role slightly - not make him less effective in a group. At least, that's what I'm hoping. It's still in the early design stage.

And that's the best way to go about it, IMHO. As long as you're aware of the potential pitfalls, you should be fine. For the right kind of game, being ineffective or sub-optimal in combat is OK, as long as the character has a chance to shine elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with being the bookworm, as long as the bookworm gets to discover the secret of the ancient prophecy and is the only one who can decipher the seal to the tomb of power. If he gets his focus time doing that, he won't mind if he has to hide behind the warrior during the battle...his skills and 'screen time', if you will, are elsewhere and intact.

To build a world, to run an intrigue/secrecy/political campaign, or to make the game fun for everyone involved at every level of play, that's what I'm worried about.

Ah...then your question wasn't really "Is magic overpowered?", but rather "Can a logical campaign world be established with the de facto standard of magic in D&D?", is that correct? That's a very different question, as you might imagine.

There are a few schools of thought to the idea:

• the 'hong' school: Proponents of this theory can state it plainly: 7.5 billion chickens. Or, in the long form: D&D has lots of silly inconsistincies, because it's a game, not a simulation. Simulations aren't fun, mang, so stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.
• the Magic Medieval Society school: Must reading for any DM, IMHO, is jgbrowning's Magic Medieval Society. (Seriously, read this book.) This school believes that magic has an effect on society, but the general combination of economic and social restrictions, coupled with magic's many limitations and the overall scarcity of magic-users in contrast to the general populace dramatically reduce the impact of D&D magic on the world. Some classic examples include the book showing how various spells like StoneShape don't have the dramatic effect on the world you might think they would, when you factor in all the associated costs with the actual output and limited number of practicioners.
• the Uncle School: "Iiiyaaa! Only magic can defeat magic!" Often forgotten is the fact that no man is an island; no wizard an empire. Unless all the world's spellcasters are in cahoots, they're usually in competition. Clerics and wizards not only cancel each other out, but are often in direct contention with each other. It takes a lot of resource to keep yourself protected, and every spellcaster keeps a certain percentage of their spellpower reserved for just that purpose (show me a 20th level wizard who doesn't cast mindblank every day, and I'll show you a dead man).
• the Everybody does NOT want to rule the world theory: Newsflash! Ruling the world is NOT FUN. Even as an evil despot, you have to keep the mines working, the trains running and the food growing. Unless you're a fallen Maia who doesn't care if the world burns to ash, you've got a lot of administrative work ahead of you. Many powerful beings simply choose not to get involved or not help. Sure, Morty the Wizard can cast Teleportation Circle...that doesn't mean he wants to do it to supplement trade between kingdoms. COULD doesn't mean WILL.
• The Gods Must Be Crazy (and so are People) school: Many people have conflicting agendas, politics and religious beliefs. Some of those people happen to be able to cast spells. Sure, the church of Bubba-La could dominate the village, if they so desired...but that would be in violation of Bubba-La's tenets. Yes, the powerful warrior Veslo COULD slay the king and seize the kingdom...but that would violate his oaths of loyalty and betray every ideal his father taught him. The Dread Wizard Bogart COULD dominate the king...but now he's got to keep an eye on him all the time, he's got to dominate the court wizard, the high priest and anyone else who can free him, he's got to dedicate spell slots to maintaining the infrastructure of his dominance, and he's got to scry his enemies, protect himself, travel around....frankly, it's exhausting. So he doesn't bother, and just hides in a remote tower away from the kingdom in general.
• the People follow leaders school: quick, how many players have a knowledge:law skill with more than 4 ranks in it? have it at all? How many have profession:anything? How much charisma does that wizard or cleric have? how many skills does that sorceror or druid have? How do they stack against an Expert or aristocrat of similar level?

Put simply, D&D is about creating an environment where heroes encounter challenges. Thinking too hard about the specifics can lead to the realization that 75% of the world's populace in a standard D&D world could be slain by a common housecat...even while fully armed and armored. A certain degree of verisimilitude is expected, but D&D doesn't try too hard to answer all of the possible questions...that's left as an exercise to motivated DMs who find it compelling enough.

The case can and has been made that for some people, magic in D&D IS too prevalent. For those folks, their are loads of good options, chief among them being Grim Tales. Adapting settings like Midnight or the Valus are also good options, as well.

 

[Desdichado]

Kamikaze Midget, I think there's some serious flaws in your argument. First, your comparison to Chutes & Ladders is a complete non sequiter. Going off the board is a complete non-option in that game, just as travelling sideways through the fourth dimension is in real life. D&D, as Willowhaunt alluded, being an RPG is much more open. By design, it's not merely a set of four or five options for every scenario; it's wide open and players can attempt to do anything they can think of in their capabilities. Comparing rpgs and board games in this case doesn't say anything to me, because the point of both is different. My complaint about what makes for good RPG design doesn't apply to board games. Maybe that's all you're pointing out, but I already knew that, and I assumed that it was implicitly clear that I was talking about roleplaying games, not any game at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with that whole string of reasoning.

And I can accept that D&D was designed under some default assumptions of team-working dungeoncrawling. However, you're taking my complaint that any (roleplaying) game that only works right in extremely limited conditions, exacerbating it to (IMO) absurd levels, and then saying that it's not a problem after all. Then, in direct opposition to that position, you say that an RPG shouldn't be as linear and tightly controlled as a computer game. I don't get what you're trying to say, as it seems you're making all my points for me and then somehow mysteriously coming to the exact opposite conclusion that seems natural to me.

And then you say that PC vs PC (with or without an N in front of that) is outside the scope of the game, and if that's what I want, I should be playing something other than an RPG altogether! This is in spite of the fact that the iconic villains of almost every module ever published are classed NPCs, as well as the villains of most of the game fiction. Where you're getting the idea that the game isn't about PC class on PC class action is completely beyond me, as that's clearly always been an integral part of the game.

And then later, you go on to say stuff that I at least understand, although I disagree strongly with it. The idea that you must have a "balanced party" of the four iconic PC types is anathema to me. To me, the whole point of the game is to give players a chance to play a role of their choosing. I've never been in a group (other than one-shots with pregen characters) where all of the iconic character classes were represented, or in which one role wasn't over-represented. You may think that it's perfectly fine for the game designers to essentially say, "sorry, man, you're not playing the game "right" so you're on your own," but to me, that is the very definition of bad game design. So, we'll just have to disagree on that point.