If there were not a
second level spell that could easily solve this problem, I would take your point more seriously.
If you don't see the point, and are happy to just cast oodles of spells to solve basic mundane every day problems, more power to you. But this means you'll have fewer spell options available, should something happen...
Depends on the person, doesn't it? Some people are inspired and awed by the ability to reshape reality to your whim.
Yep, but fear and respect, don't ensure true loyalty or willingness to sacrifice themselves for your cause.
The statement "But perhaps more flavourful?!? God forbid! Someone actually enjoying themselves!" seems to be a little charged.
*shrug* some might see it as an attempt at humour.
2) I would dispute this because fighters have to spend their feats on fighting, as they aren't great in their designated, and the general suckiness of most metamagic and item creation feats leaves spellcasters with free feats.
Well, we disagree. I see lots of other feat options for both classes. But if I were playing a sorcerer, I might be more tempted by other various heritage feats or reserve feats, personally. Especially if I was in a campaign that allowed me to summon 14th level clerics to do my bidding as an 11th level caster...
3) Can you provide evidence of how, if the spellcaster's 6th level feat slot were spent on Leadership, it would be a "tough choice" because that would hinder qualification for a cool prestige class? Very few prestige classes for spellcasters that I know of seem to involve such intense feat requirements, and several spellcasting classes get bonus feats.
Nope, not reading up on lots of wierd PrC's for a mere thread in Enworld. Suffice to say, if a fighter and a wizard were both aiming for different PrCs, both which required a 4 feat investment, the fighter would still have a few feats left.
4) Is it not true that, if a fighter wanted to get into a prestige class, he will also have to spend feats to qualify for it? What if the feats required are not fighter bonus feats?
That is what his standard feats are for. Fighter gets 2 feats at 6th level... He can take Leadership and one other feat.
I prefer to use an example because in the past, I have been accused (several times, come to think of it) of using a "schrodinger's wizard" who has ever spell known when needed. My opponent felt this to be unfair and disingenuous on my part, which was hardly my intent.
Examples are good. But so is realising that the arcane spellcasters will run out of spells towards the end of the day if they keep the pace suggested by you. How many 6th, 5th, and 4th level spells can a 12th level wizard memorize / sorcerer cast per day?
But if you want to discuss this "generically", let me make a point to counter your point. It seems that a Wizard can learn a vast array of spells that give him incredible versatility and power, even without going for the broken options. He can, with 9 hours of rest and prep time, retool his arsenal to gear for an entirely different game should the party switch from, say, heavy combat to stealth infiltration or a search for some object lost among the planes. A fighter, by contrast, does not get to do this. It is doubtful if, working with what the fighter class gets mechanically, he could ever match a full spellcaster in this regard.
Mechanically? Probably not: but it shouldn't be necessary. The point being, the wizard cannot do all this in one day, and still be potent at the end of the day. Campaign specific: 3-4 encounters per day. Sure, the wizard / sorcerer has a degree of flexibility, but there are very real limits on that flexibility. Once the sorcerer or wizard is drained of spells, they really are just a breathing bag of feeble hp. How often the DM allow the party to suddenly withdraw, because the wizard has run out of spells? Go adventuring alone often?
I do not disagree that people need to be involved, I merely contend that it is much easier to contribute with some classes than others since certain classes get a much better toolkit.
As I stated before: the toolkit is "better" because the options are presented very clearly for spellcasters.
What do you do when a character who is casting basic spells (Grease, Glitterdust, and Stinking Cloud) is having much more of an impact on the game than the others without intending to overshadow people? (I'm seeing it in two games I am currently in. The DMs encourage roleplaying and etc like what you are suggesting, but some people still feel less than useful. Feel free to say they're not good DMs, though that's starting to ring of "No true Scotsman" to me.)
1) Up the number / duration of encounters. Eventually, the spells start to peter out, and if the encounters stay highly unpredictable, spellcasters will become more conservative with spells.
2) I'm not accusing anyone of being a bad DM: I'm saying DM's often put far more time into creating and maintaining their campaign than players are willing to appreciate. Players need to wake up, and help the DM to help them. DM's need all the help they can get: keeping notes, making maps, and helping to define the world.
3) It isn't unreasonable, as a DM, to flex things to help the fighter or rogue along: if they engage in the world around them, provide them with powerful connections. They, too, could sign agreements and contracts with angelic or demonic forces. That they can't summon them themselves, doesn't prevent them from hiring someone else to do so, or meet them while otherwise adventuring.
Agreed; they were, of course, examples of how, by the books, casters are overpowered and one of the ways you can overshadow others. But it is by no means the only way, and there are a lot more ways to do so with non-broken spells.
Yep, my main secondary complaint on spellcasting, is the ability to negate skill points and third is movement. I have no problem with artillery.
How does a non-spellcaster, who goes around being involved in various organizations, feel as if they contribute as much as someone who can do that and alter reality on top of it?
Because you can't do everything at once.
Just as Gestalt characters are not really twice as powerful in combat. Even during downtime, actions are limited in time. Sure, the spellcaster can short cut and use spells to achieve a huge amount in a very short period of time, if he chooses. But they need to be wary for having a reserve available, should some unexpected emergency appear.
Restrict the spellcaster's flexibility, by applying some of the idea's presented.
In adventuring mode: more encounters, more lengthy encounters, more skill challenges, more time-dependant adventuring. Less time for recouperation over several days.
Sure, the wizard could teleport everyone over the grand canyon, but is it the best use of party resources?
I don't know. Sometimes, I think it comes down to the player's perception of their own contribution. It isn't easy.
