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

[Knight_Arothir]

I feel that many gaming systems (especially d20) try too hard to make every player feel that their characters are on equal footing in combat. The Rogue can hide and sneak attack, the Ranger has favoured enemy, the Paladin smites, and the spellcasters have their spells.

And personally, I don't like this. I don't feel the classes should be balanced more of less from a combat perspective. I think it cheapens spellcasters for them to basically be walking machine guns with the mental equivalent of ammunition jammed into their skulls.

I'm working on a system right now that will make a more contemporary spellcaster class - one that has mostly spells for scrying, and illusions - things of that nature. Damaging spells will be harder to get - and insta-death spells will not exist. And most of the spellcaster's abilities will focus on knowledge and learning - rather than just having tons and tons of spells and spell-related abilities.

It's not a shot at D&D, of course. I'm not saying the way it's currently done is -wrong-. I just dislike the way, especially at later levels, a Wizard is kicking out as much, if not more, damage than the guy who made his entire career about wading into battle and killing things.


So is D&D magic overpowered? Maybe! Maybe not. What I can say with complete surety is that D&D magic does not fit everyone's concept of how magic should be handled.

 

[Gez]

I think it's a pretty poor analogy if almost every other RPG besides D&D works fine without those same legs, though. Clearly, they aren't "essential" legs to the roleplaying experience.

Excuse me? When was this discussion hijacked to be about "the roleplaying experience"?

The question is: "Is magic in D&D overpowered."
I say, "No, it isn't, since D&D balance is built around it."
You reply, "Well, other games do not have D&D magic and feel just fine."

This is about as relevant as discussing, in a World of Darkness messageboard, whether or not vampires are overpowered compared to werewolves, and having someone pointing out that in D&D, vampires have an higher LA than werewolves.

 

[ThirdWizard]

How do you know that? In my experience, PCs get separated all the time, often on purpose.

The game isn't built with that in mind, though. The game is built around a group of PCs overcoming challenges together. You can't balance a wizard by pitting him against a fighter. You can't balance a Monk by pitting him against a cleric. The classes are balanced based on the assumed four person party going against challenges as a team. That is what the whole encounter system in 3.X is built around. Therefore, it doesn't matter if a wizard can best a fighter in sigle combat or not. Balancing the two classes in a pit-fight does nothing to help the game, and in fact will hinder it.

 

[Philip]

I think what we are disagreeing about right now is the projected purpose of the D&D game.

I see it as being the simulation of a reality in which magic and monsters exist. I don't really see it as a game as much as a sim where anything can and should have the opportunity to happen, a imaginary sandbox, as it were. I think pigeonholing the game as a teamwork excersice belittles the possibilities of the roleplaying genre- there are too many stories that cannot happen if partying is the only option...

(I'll have more to say once I've slept and am coherent again)

That was pretty funny. First you ask yourself why magic using classes and non-magic uses aren't balanced. Then you make PvP and real-world comparisons, and now a simulationst model.

I think you answered you own question. A good simulation doesn't have balanced sides. Neither do real world conflicts (or PvP) have balanced sides. Lord of the Rings doesn't have balanced sides for sure (Gandalf wipes the floor with the rest, but Aragorn could take down the hobbits just as easily).

D&D doesn't have this balance because it doesn't need balance for it to be a fun game. It might be actually detrimental since it is a team game and built around supporting each other's weaknesses.

 

[WizarDru]

I feel that many gaming systems (especially d20) try too hard to make every player feel that their characters are on equal footing in combat. The Rogue can hide and sneak attack, the Ranger has favoured enemy, the Paladin smites, and the spellcasters have their spells.

And personally, I don't like this. I don't feel the classes should be balanced more of less from a combat perspective. I think it cheapens spellcasters for them to basically be walking machine guns with the mental equivalent of ammunition jammed into their skulls.

I'm working on a system right now that will make a more contemporary spellcaster class - one that has mostly spells for scrying, and illusions - things of that nature. Damaging spells will be harder to get - and insta-death spells will not exist. And most of the spellcaster's abilities will focus on knowledge and learning - rather than just having tons and tons of spells and spell-related abilities.

Understood, and it's all good. However, here's a few ideas to consider:

1) Games aren't solely balanced around combat, but combat is the easiest thing to balance around. That is to say, I can easily figure out how to make a spell that allows a wizard to have a chance of fighting a powerful melee creature, in the same way as I can create a feat for a warrior. These work out to base numerical equations. Balancing 'fact time' in role-playing mode is extremely difficult, from a rules standpoint. Characters in D&D are not just based around combat effectiveness, but also around being in the spotlight. Magic Trap on a locked chest ahead? The rogue will get the spotlight (or the appropriately prepared wizard). Prismatic wall ahead? Better ask the spellcasters. Iron Golem attacking? Get out the weapons.

2) Knowledge is power, and that applies to combat, as well. As anyone familiar with the classic 'scry and fry' technique could tell you, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. If spellcasters have lots of information, they become significantly <i>more</i> powerful.

3) Taking away a spellcaster's combat effectiveness has the potential to render large parts of the game as boring to them. Remember: D&D was founded as a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff. Combat is the centerpiece of the game, by design. This doesn't mean that spellcasters can't have fun, but if you take away too many of their salient, real-time abilities, they swiftly become boring to play during combats.

A lot of what you're suggesting sounds interesting, but I'd be very careful about polarizing their classes. If only the melee fighters have anything useful to contribute during combat, I hope there isn't too much of it, or you'll have some very bored spellcasters. By the same token, the melee characters will be bored stiff during the spellcaster diviniation sequeneces, again if you're not careful.

It is certainly can be considered a legitimate complaint about D&D that magic is expected and required at high levels for either side to compete in the core rules. It's also true that D&D can be jerry-rigged to not require it be that way (see Grim Tales for an example). Ultimately, all that matters is what works out as fun for your group.

 

[Desdichado]

Excuse me? When was this discussion hijacked to be about "the roleplaying experience"?

The question is: "Is magic in D&D overpowered."
I say, "No, it isn't, since D&D balance is built around it."
You reply, "Well, other games do not have D&D magic and feel just fine."

This is about as relevant as discussing, in a World of Darkness messageboard, whether or not vampires are overpowered compared to werewolves, and having someone pointing out that in D&D, vampires have an higher LA than werewolves.

Gez, you're being obtuse. My point is that there are obviously other ways to balance the classes. And, as this thread has shown, it's arguable that the magic-using classes truly are balanced with the others anyway, especially at high level.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that D&D magic is balanced just fine, and in fact to restrict it would cause problems in the game (presumably that's what a wobbly table means...) I'm saying I think that's nonsense; the game clearly works just fine with a more restricted set of magic rules. As evidence, I show that other games do not need such magic to be balanced. Heck, other d20 games don't need it.

It's completely relevent, although you are trying to ignore it. If you are going to imply that the game doesn't work very well without standard magic (my interpretation of your wobbly table comment) you better be prepared to explain how it is that other games work just fine without D&D standard magic, and not try to blow it off as irrelevent.

 

[Gez]

Other games are other games, not D&D, and are thus completely irrelevant. That Mile Christi, the historical RPG about knight templars, doesn't have D&D's magic level doesn't change anything about D&D's magic level in D&D. Even for other d20 games.

Wheel of Time d20, for example, has a magic that is less prevalent than D&D. As a result, character classes in WoT d20 have defense bonus to AC, that compensate for the lack of AC-boosting magic items.

As such, it is irrelevant to bring in other games, whether d20 or not, in the discussion. They are not D&D. Period.

D&D adventures are written with certain assumptions, the monsters' CR are calculated with certain assumptions, and so on.

A monster with an instakill gaze attack, like a bodak or a catoblepas, will have a CR much higher if raise dead isn't available, for example. Because a character losing one level to magical resurrection and a cleric having one less fifth-level spell prepared is a much milder loss in resource than a party losing one of its members.

Yes, I say that D&D's magic is balanced just fine, and that restrictions put to it can cause problems. Because it's true.

Of course, usually, DMs who have issues with D&D's level of magic are also those who have issues with D&D's goofy monsters, and thus they'll tend to avoid using a catoblepas, a bodak, or a beholder. It can balance itself out that way.

Personally, I'm just tired of reading rants about how magic is too powerful in D&D. Generally, said rants are really just rants about wizards' supposed power, and the ranting DM just says they've gutted the wizard out of all spells that are "too" efficient (like magic missile), spells that can circumvent plots (like scry, fly, and teleport), and spells that overlaps other classes' roles (like open door). In the end, remains... nothing worth d4 HD, bad BAB, and no useful weapon profiency.

 

[Psion]

Gez, you're being obtuse. My point is that there are obviously other ways to balance the classes.

Sure there are... but the existing assumptions are built around the level of magic that actually do exist. Which is to say, these are issues you will have to think about if you want to change it. (For example, Grim Tales' balancing system has a factor for CR and EL lacking the normal distribution of magic items.)

And, as this thread has shown, it's arguable that the magic-using classes truly are balanced with the others anyway, especially at high level.

Just because someone can argue something doesn't mean that the argument has validity. Really, balancing a game depends heavily on what you are going to call balanced. If you have your own idea of balance or otherwise preferable in your game, that is fine and dandy for your own purposes, but you can hardly be justified reacting with astonishment when the game designers are designing to their own criteria instead of your. And their criteria is not PvP battles. It's a fairly well rounded party operating in an environment somewhat like a dungeon with combat being a primary measure of capability.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that D&D magic is balanced just fine, and in fact to restrict it would cause problems in the game (presumably that's what a wobbly table means...) I'm saying I think that's nonsense; the game clearly works just fine with a more restricted set of magic rules. As evidence, I show that other games do not need such magic to be balanced.

Other games have other design differences and criteria, often entirely different from D&D; Gez's point is entirely valid. No you don't need magic to be balanced, but the surrounding structure assumes you have it, so if you blindly rip out magic and don't change anything else, you do so at your own peril.

Heck, other d20 games don't need it.

Other d20 games aren't D&D, and, if well written, take into account their shifts in the power of magic and balancing assumptions.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cleric, Druid, Bard.

Bard?! Bards don't count!

And yeah, you can remove magic, but then it's not D&D, thus making the question "Is D&D magic overpowered?" completely pointless for you. In D&D, magic isn't overpowered.

And if your PC's are getting separated, and you're playing basic, magical D&D, they're not going to be a very effective party. When the fighter is being Charmed, or the Wizard is being Poisoned or the Cleric is a victim of area-effect damage, or when the Monk can't hit the high-AC critter, or when the rogue can't soak up the damage they're recieving......that's when you rely on your other party members. And the game was made with the assumption that you could rely on your other party members.

Going it alone is just waiting for the other shoe to drop, unless you've changed the D&D game drastically enough to make every character self-sufficient.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that D&D magic is balanced just fine, and in fact to restrict it would cause problems in the game (presumably that's what a wobbly table means...) I'm saying I think that's nonsense; the game clearly works just fine with a more restricted set of magic rules.

Step 1: Take a group of level 15 PCs.
Step 2: Remove all magic from the party.
Step 3: Send them against a CR 12 Encounter.
Step 4: Watch them die.

The game is balanced around the current wealth per level. The game is balanced around clerics having cure spells and wizards having offensive spells. Warrior types should have magical weapons. Take these things away, and you do not end up with a balanced game. You end up with dead PCs.

Unless you change the game to compensate.