Scaling the Caster Classes Back

[Merlion]

What works in fiction doesn't always work in rpgs. Rpgs need class balance.

I agree entirely. However, RPGS are inspired by fiction, and are for many ways of emulating, creating, re-creating etc various works of fiction, or at least the feel of fiction.

Both are important, and are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ptolemy18]

I pick this one.


I guess that means that Fighters are just meat shields for wizards, who do nothing but swing a sword every round.

This is exactly what they're getting as by "Class Roles." We each play our part.

<joke> What is this... COMMUNISM??? </joke>

Class Roles should only be a guideline for new players. Some of the most interesting parties don't use all the class roles. Some of the most interesting classes, like the Druid, don't fit well into any one role. Now, it makes sense for Wizards to use the more "role-suited" classes in the new PHB and to introduce the concept of Class Roles... for NEWBIES. But beyond newbies, people should build their characters based on what THEY want to play, not based on a perceived need of the gaming group. If they want to make a character to fill a need, then obviously that's great, but all too often I've seen people say "Guess I have to make a cleric because the party needs one, sigh...."

I don't know about you guys, but when I create a RPG character, I think of them as their own character, as if I were casting them in a book or movie, and as if they could theoretically go on adventures themselves and have a "life story" of going on adventures themselves. Their role in the party is secondary. I am not a player killer or a goof-off-for-the-heck-of-it, but the character comes first, the party is secondary.

Fighters have tons more to do than swing their swords. It's soooo much better than it was in 1e or 2e. Disarm, Sunder, Grapple, Bull Rush, Power Attack, Expertise, Trip... fighters have a LOT of options which they didn't have prior to 3e. More maneuvers are always good, and it's good that 4e is apparently going to have even more of them... but... BUT...

But.... frankly, most people who play fighter-type characters, in my experience, do so because it's the simplest character to play. I'm sure there are people who are into it from a roleplaying or the coolness of playing a fighter. But I have met lots of people who like playing fighters because playing a wizard or other spellcaster is more complicated and requires looking through the spell charts. Not just novice gamers, but people who have been playing for a long time and just prefer playing simple, fighter-type characters.

So what's the answer to this? Well, the answer is definitely NOT "simplify spellcasters." When I say that spellcasters are for "hardcore roleplayers" I don't mean that they are into roleplaying necessarily, I mean that they're for people who are into the nitty-gritty, spell-choosing, spell-memorizing aspect. It's much quicker to just pick up a fighter-type character and play. (Well, there are feats in 3e, but...)

Obviously it's good to give fighters more combat options. BUT if the idea is to make all classes of equal complexity, then that is a bad idea. It's also impossible. In any kind of intelligently done fantasy game, a spellcaster is always going to have more options than a non-spellcaster at any given moment. Spellcasters deserve more complexity because they can do more things and they are for people who don't mind having all those options whirling around in their head at once. The difference between "Shall I power attack or regular attack? Shall I sunder or parry?" is important -- but it is way, way, WAY different from "Shall I throw a lightning bolt, summon a monster, cast plant growth, try to charm the monster, or create a wall of stone?"

And if your reaction to that is, "Well, it's okay if fighters can cleave through dozens of opponents and do 200~ damage in one round, but it's game-breaking if spellcasters can do too many weird things," then... :/ Well, to each their own campaign. Now maybe they are going to make it so that the Sorcerer class is more of the "simple to play spellcaster" (like it already is) and the Wizard is more the "complicated and bookkeeping-intensive" spellcaster (like it already is). But I just don't want the fun of spellcaster to vanish by having them locked into a particular role.

 

[William Ronald]

Yeah, comparing fiction to the game does not work, unless you run a sole game.

In Wheel of Time Rand is THE MAN. Best sword fighter, best channeler (mage) and the most powerful person in the world. Makes for a nice story, but I would not want to play a 5-6 person game with another player being Rand. In fact I would not want to be Rand. Even the second person in the group would be a fifth wheel.

In a game there needs to be some kind of balance, real balance across all the levels. In 1E, or better, 2E, he wizard was terrible. One friggin spell at first level. What fun! Shine in the party for 6 seconds a day.

Now it is better, but the wizard needs to contribute at all levels, and not totally dominate at all elvels.

I still feel that the wizard will be more powerful at higher levels, especially outside of combat, if spells like teleport, scry and such are left in. But in combat they will not as much.

Combat should not be the sole measure of a class. All classes should be somewhat effective in combat, playing different roles. However, there are some things that not all character classes can do as well as other character classes. (For example, most fighters wearing heavy armor are probably not going to be all that great at sneaking around, nor are most wizards goign to be expert at disarming traps as examples.) However, all characters houdl be important, and have some challenges. (One thing I would like to see is more of a focus on things to help a group. For example, a knock spell might help a wizard with a tricky door but possibly their might be a way for the same caster to provide a boost to a rogue ally working on a difficult lock.)

 

[ruleslawyer]

In almost every high fantasy setting -- I'm sure people can think of a few that are different, but basically, in almost every setting -- powerful wizards are The Biggest Badasses Around.

Not to dogpile on this statement, but I will suggest to you that you can have your cake and eat it too. Here's an idea: Maybe, just maybe, those "Biggest Badasses Around" can be replicated in game by HIGHER-LEVEL characters?

Seriously; the game simply doesn't work if class option A is overwhelmingly superior to class option B at an equal level of investment/advancement... unless you get to play Options A and B in parallel (cough *Ars Magica* cough). And seriously, if you really wanted to model most fantasy/S&S settings, you would make spellcasters NPC-only. Unless you think that Gandalf, Merlin, Malygris, Thoth-Amon, Ningauble, etc. are suitable PC archetypes.

 

[ptolemy18]

Yeah, comparing fiction to the game does not work, unless you run a sole game.

In Wheel of Time Rand is THE MAN. Best sword fighter, best channeler (mage) and the most powerful person in the world. Makes for a nice story, but I would not want to play a 5-6 person game with another player being Rand. In fact I would not want to be Rand. Even the second person in the group would be a fifth wheel. .

Very true. In a RPG like D&D every character has to be equally important. But everyone should also be able to shine (and grandstand) in their own way.

On the other hand, it may be inevitable that some people dominate because of better luck at stat-rolling or good character creation choices (everyone always has the freedom to make sucky characters -- or, to put it another way, the devoted minmaxer will always be able to beat a Roleplayer in sheer number-crunching, and there is no way to eliminate this in a game like D&D). Newbies should be given all the info to make the best characters they can... but there should be no ONE way of making the "best character," and sometimes an inequality comes out in the course of play. In these cases, it's up to the DM to try to provide opportunities for the disadvantaged player and their character -- this is just DMing 101. Inequalities and different focuses between characters can come about as a result of willful choices. For instance, I like playing Druids, because Druids are cool, and if the other players in my group wish I was playing a Cleric because I'm not as good of a Healer... well, tough. Druids are cool. People should play RPGs, firstly, to play the characters they want to play, and secondly to fit the party's demands. If what they *want* is to fit the party's demands, of course, then that's great, but that isn't the First Rule.

 

[ptolemy18]

Not to dogpile on this statement, but I will suggest to you that you can have your cake and eat it too. Here's an idea: Maybe, just maybe, those "Biggest Badasses Around" can be replicated in game by HIGHER-LEVEL characters?

Seriously; the game simply doesn't work if class option A is overwhelmingly superior to class option B at an equal level of investment/advancement...

True. But even in 3rd ed., if you get that 20th level fighter next to that 20th level wizard...? Well, if the fighter survives his saving throw against whatever instant-death spell the wizard throws, which is likely, then the wizard is dead on the next round. A fighter-type is always going to rule in hand-to-hand.

Also, the "wizard as walking battery" aspect which allows them to compensate for higher powers by being weak when they're exhausted is, IMHO, an excellent mechanic. It's really the only way to do it. Not all character classes need to be about resource allocation. The wizard is a carefully guarded store of resources. The fighter, as written, is a limitless pool of a relatively proscribed type of ass-kicking. I like the former type, but I've known plenty of gamers who liked the latter type better.

 

[Merlion]

Also, the "wizard as walking battery" aspect which allows them to compensate for higher powers by being weak when they're exhausted is, IMHO, an excellent mechanic. It's really the only way to do it..

It isnt the only way to do it, although there are not a whole lot.

The unfortunate part is it leads to frustration for people who like to play wizards but dont want to have to either spend most of their thought on resource management and/or end up nearly useless in their role while everyone else can still continue.

 

[ruleslawyer]

True. But even in 3rd ed., if you get that 20th level fighter next to that 20th level wizard...? Well, if the fighter survives his saving throw against whatever instant-death spell the wizard throws, which is likely, then the wizard is dead on the next round. A fighter-type is always going to rule in hand-to-hand.

What is this "hand to hand" you speak of?

I'm not going to play the PvP analysis game, especially since it's not relevant in a party game anyway, but a wizard will never, ever be subject to a fighter's attacks unless he's stupid or caught blind drink at the local tavern (think "use my first turn to turn improved invisible and quickened dimension door or teleport out of the fighter's melee range," or any one of a hundred other reasonable tactics).

Also, the "wizard as walking battery" aspect which allows them to compensate for higher powers by being weak when they're exhausted is, IMHO, an excellent mechanic. It's really the only way to do it. Not all character classes need to be about resource allocation. The wizard is a carefully guarded store of resources. The fighter, as written, is a limitless pool of a relatively proscribed type of ass-kicking. I like the former type, but I've known plenty of gamers who liked the latter type better.

Search the boards for "9:00-9:15" or "five-minute adventuring day" or any one of a number of analogous terms to see what the problem with that sort of "balance" is. Unfortunately, in 90% of likely scenarios (and the percentage gets worse at higher levels what with teleport and all), the wizard will simply call a halt to his adventuring day once his resources are exhausted; thus, the resource management problem of the wizard isn't really a problem. If, OTOH, most of the wizard's powers are usable in each encounter (like the fighter's, at present), then the party can rest when everyone is ready to. In either case, the caster could use a bit of the nerf bat (the cleric more than the wizard, IMO).

 

[Merlion]

What is this "hand to hand" you speak of?

I'm not going to play the PvP analysis game, especially since it's not relevant in a party game anyway, but a wizard will never, ever be subject to a fighter's attacks unless he's stupid or caught blind drink at the local tavern (think "use my first turn to turn improved invisible and quickened dimension door or teleport out of the fighter's melee range," or any one of a hundred other reasonable tactics).

Search the boards for "9:00-9:15" or "five-minute adventuring day" or any one of a number of analogous terms to see what the problem with that sort of "balance" is. Unfortunately, in 90% of likely scenarios (and the percentage gets worse at higher levels what with teleport and all), the wizard will simply call a halt to his adventuring day once his resources are exhausted; thus, the resource management problem of the wizard isn't really a problem. If, OTOH, most of the wizard's powers are usable in each encounter (like the fighter's, at present), then the party can rest when everyone is ready to. In either case, the caster could use a bit of the nerf bat (the cleric more than the wizard, IMO).

In the case of the wizard I'd say its less of a nerfing and more of an evening, but I agree entirely about the Cleric.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Class Roles should only be a guideline for new players. Some of the most interesting parties don't use all the class roles. Some of the most interesting classes, like the Druid, don't fit well into any one role. Now, it makes sense for Wizards to use the more "role-suited" classes in the new PHB and to introduce the concept of Class Roles... for NEWBIES. But beyond newbies, people should build their characters based on what THEY want to play, not based on a perceived need of the gaming group. If they want to make a character to fill a need, then obviously that's great, but all too often I've seen people say "Guess I have to make a cleric because the party needs one, sigh...."

Yeah, yeah, I hear ya' .... but I think you're over-dumbing the idea of class roles. They're there for the advanced players as well as the newbs. Have you seen the threads about 'all Fighter' campaigns, or whatever? You can still play that in 4e. The Class Roles just make it easier to conceptualize what you're going to be missing, and therefor help you plan ahead and compensate.

I don't know about you guys, but when I create a RPG character, I think of them as their own character, as if I were casting them in a book or movie, and as if they could theoretically go on adventures themselves and have a "life story" of going on adventures themselves. Their role in the party is secondary. I am not a player killer or a goof-off-for-the-heck-of-it, but the character comes first, the party is secondary.

Yeah, I do the same. However, the Class Roles may help me pick the class that best fits my conception.

Fighters have tons more to do than swing their swords. It's soooo much better than it was in 1e or 2e. Disarm, Sunder, Grapple, Bull Rush, Power Attack, Expertise, Trip... fighters have a LOT of options which they didn't have prior to 3e.

Yes, I agree. I was being sarcastic to suggest you were over-reacting in your characterization of the 4e wizard. I should have been more clear.

I have met lots of people who like playing fighters because playing a wizard or other spellcaster is more complicated and requires looking through the spell charts. Not just novice gamers, but people who have been playing for a long time and just prefer playing simple, fighter-type characters.

Wouldn't it be nice if the class was more accessible to new players?

So what's the answer to this? Well, the answer is definitely NOT "simplify spellcasters." When I say that spellcasters are for "hardcore roleplayers" I don't mean that they are into roleplaying necessarily, I mean that they're for people who are into the nitty-gritty, spell-choosing, spell-memorizing aspect. It's much quicker to just pick up a fighter-type character and play. (Well, there are feats in 3e, but...)

Obviously it's good to give fighters more combat options. BUT if the idea is to make all classes of equal complexity, then that is a bad idea.

So, "hardcore roleplayers" are into memorizing hundreds of obscure and randomly assigned spell effects? Anyone who isn't willing to take up this un-necessary challenge doesn't qualify?

Look, I'm not going to belabor this point to much, but I will say one thing: chess. I can explain to someone the basic rules to chess in about 30 seconds, and they'll have those rules memorized in 10 minutes. Go is even easier to learn the basics of.

Do you think that either of these games are easy to master? Or that there's no such thing as a "hard core" chess player? Obviously it is hard, and there are hard core players. Complexity must not be confused with depth.

It's also impossible.

So is making a perfectly safe car. That doesn't make air bags a bad investment.

In any kind of intelligently done fantasy game, a spellcaster is always going to have more options than a non-spellcaster at any given moment.

I would argue the opposite. Many things are needlessly complex because they were designed by idiots.

Spellcasters deserve more complexity

Deserve?? Do you mean to say that players who choose to play wizards are more deserving than those who do not? That doesn't fly with me. Not at all.

The difference between "Shall I power attack or regular attack? Shall I sunder or parry?" is important -- but it is way, way, WAY different from "Shall I throw a lightning bolt, summon a monster, cast plant growth, try to charm the monster, or create a wall of stone?"

Yeah, but is that a failure of the spell mechanics, or the combat options?

And if your reaction to that is, "Well, it's okay if fighters can cleave through dozens of opponents and do 200~ damage in one round, but it's game-breaking if spellcasters can do too many weird things," then... :/ Well, to each their own campaign.

Uh, no. What we're saying is that "It's ok for the fighter to cleave through 200 hp worth on monsters in a round, and for wizards to be equally helpful in fighting baddies. What's not OK is the fighter getting his magic armor & sword sundered, and then standing around while the wizard wins the adventure for him." We're bringing the classes into parity. That means everyone else at the table gets to shine (not just you, the wizard guy). If you can't handle your buddies actually being good at something ...

Now maybe they are going to make it so that the Sorcerer class is more of the "simple to play spellcaster" (like it already is) and the Wizard is more the "complicated and bookkeeping-intensive" spellcaster (like it already is). But I just don't want the fun of spellcaster to vanish by having them locked into a particular role.

You know what's complex and book-keeping intensive? The US Federal Tax Code. You know what the Tax Code isn't? Fun.

Unnecessary complexity /= fun. The fun part of being a wizard lies elsewhere. I'm pretty sure it'll still be fun in 4e.