Throwing down the Tyranny of the Spellcaster.

[Bluenose]

What if the martial character say can swing that sword 3 times a round but the wizard can only cast said spell once? Does that make it closer to equivalence to the spell?

What if the wizard can cast that spell but only once or twice a day, but the martial character can keep slamming his sword, multiple times a round, all day long?

What if the wizard had the powerful spell, but had to predict what spells he needed LONG before the encounter so that occasionally the wizard would predict wrong and have a useless fireball (say in a room where you could not cast the spell for fear of combustion), but the martial classes had to make no such predictions?

Seems to me that D&D already has the framework to solve imbalance and requires tweaks and updates, not changing it into another game.

Is that an argument that you've got to have balance between what magic and martial can do or it's not fair to the character who is disadvantaged?

 

[NewJeffCT]

Right. Let's compare 2e Mages and 3e Wizards.

Wizards get:

More spells, in total.
No limit to the number they can have in their spellbooks.
Guaranteed access to spells every time they level up.
An improved ability to learn new spells.
Easy access to the ability to craft magic items.
Faster xp progression at high level compared to other classes.
An increased ability to cast spells without interruption.
Increased probability that high-level enemies will not save against their spells.
Ways to make it harder for enemies to save against their spells.
Reduced drawbacks on many of the spells they cast.
Increased ability to get through spell resistance/magic resistance.

And I'm probably forgetting a few things.

Now, if you're going to claim that 2e Mages and 3e wizards are balanced, despite those increases in the power of the Wizard relative to the Mage, then you either need to show significant advantages that the Mage has, or equally significant advantages that other classes gained in the transition from 2e to 3e. Otherwise, the 'balance' that you claim is find in both editions would seem to be absent.

I'm not sure how 3.5E got better XP progression compared to other classes? I thought the XP progression was the same no matter the class?

Other classes gained quite a bit as well -
1) Fighters (and other fighting classes like Ranger, Paladin, etc) gained multiple attacks more rapidly and did significantly more damage because many feats were fighter-oriented. I can't remember how many times my 2E ranger would hit with his longsword for d8 damage, plus 1 for his 16 STR and then whatever plus he had for his current magic adjustment, so was hitting for 5-12 points of damage per hit at the end of the campaign when he has a +3 sword.

You no longer needed +2 or +3 weapons to even hit certain monsters - you just had to do more damage than their easily overcome DR.

2) Rogue sneak attack was significantly easier to use in 3.5E than in prior editions, where you needed to completely surprise an opponent to use it.

3) Clerics gained spells up to level 9, including the divine equivalent to Wish with Miracle. They only went up to level 7 in previous editions.
Clerics were also able to spontaneously cast Cure spells.

In going through a long running 3.5E campaign a few years back, I found both sides - the PCs and the bad guys - rarely failed their saves on those Save or Die/Save or Suck spells. In older editions, saving throws were far more dicey a proposition.

Monsters were also significantly tougher in 3.5E as well - more hit points and they'd get to apply STR bonuses to their damage rolls as well.

As I said above in this thread - I never felt that the party wizard, cleric or psion were overpowered in my 3.5E game when compared to the elf paladin, the human fighter, the dwarf fighter, the goliath barbarian or the human rogue in the party. Everybody had their shining moments in combats (i.e., the dwarf fighter hitting a balor with 5 attacks, including 2 crits, and doing a good 200 or more points of damage to it...or the goliath barbarian doing close to 130 points of damage with a single crit on a raging giant barbarian (she had a x4 crit modifier)).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Seems to me that D&D already has the framework to solve imbalance and requires tweaks and updates, not changing it into another game.

I'd give the "changing it another game" aside a little more credence if it wasn't seemingly trotted out repeatedly on behalf of the crowd that wants to remove the pacing aspect of D&D from hit points, by any means necessary. Why don't you guys go play RuneQuest or something similar, that did what you wanted already in the late '70s, instead of this multi-decade push to "change D&D" into another game?

Or maybe we could just drop such asides, on the grounds that if you need stuff like that to buttress your argument, it means that either you don't have much of an argument, or you need to state the case for your argument more clearly.

 

[Bluenose]

I'm not sure how 3.5E got better XP progression compared to other classes? I thought the XP progression was the same no matter the class?

Which, to make my point clear, is exactly how they weren't at most levels in 2e. High level Mages required More XPs to level up than other classes.

Other classes gained quite a bit as well -
1) Fighters (and other fighting classes like Ranger, Paladin, etc) gained multiple attacks more rapidly and did significantly more damage because many feats were fighter-oriented. I can't remember how many times my 2E ranger would hit with his longsword for d8 damage, plus 1 for his 16 STR and then whatever plus he had for his current magic adjustment, so was hitting for 5-12 points of damage per hit at the end of the campaign when he has a +3 sword.

You no longer needed +2 or +3 weapons to even hit certain monsters - you just had to do more damage than their easily overcome DR.

But then, everything is getting more damage, and more attacks, including the spell caster and the monsters. Hit point inflation is also a factor, but didn't keep up with the increased damage. So instead of being a tough fighter who could stands minutes in combat with a dragon, you're going down in twelve seconds.

2) Rogue sneak attack was significantly easier to use in 3.5E than in prior editions, where you needed to completely surprise an opponent to use it.

Although you're still low on hit points and, often, AC. But it's one thing Rogues got that's an improvement over Thieves.

3) Clerics gained spells up to level 9, including the divine equivalent to Wish with Miracle. They only went up to level 7 in previous editions.
Clerics were also able to spontaneously cast Cure spells.

Right, spell casters got given some nice stuff.

In going through a long running 3.5E campaign a few years back, I found both sides - the PCs and the bad guys - rarely failed their saves on those Save or Die/Save or Suck spells. In older editions, saving throws were far more dicey a proposition.

No, they weren't. High level characters routinely save on 6+/7+. Without any magic item bonuses. The absolute minimum Save DC for a 9th level spell in 3e is 23 (10 + 9 (spell level) +4 (minimum characteristic of 19)). If it targets a weak save, that is +6. From rolling 7+ to save to rolling 17+ to save is not an improvement.

Monsters were also significantly tougher in 3.5E as well - more hit points and they'd get to apply STR bonuses to their damage rolls as well.

Yes, it's harder to take monsters down with hit point damage, and they do more damage. Which since their saving throws are generally worse than they used to be makes casting spells at them far more effective than doing hit point damage. The latter being the only option for people who aren't spell casters, of course.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As I said above in this thread - I never felt that the party wizard, cleric or psion were overpowered in my 3.5E game when compared to the elf paladin, the human fighter, the dwarf fighter, the goliath barbarian or the human rogue in the party. Everybody had their shining moments in combats (i.e., the dwarf fighter hitting a balor with 5 attacks, including 2 crits, and doing a good 200 or more points of damage to it...or the goliath barbarian doing close to 130 points of damage with a single crit on a raging giant barbarian (she had a x4 crit modifier)).

My experience in 3E was that fighters could almost hold their own into the early teen levels, and sometimes excel ... if the fights were highly static. That difference between full attack versus a move and single attack can be huge. The only problem with that, is that I've never liked static fights.

We compensated for awhile in the 7th to 11th level range by making sure that all of the fighters got a lot of mobility items. For example, my wife's fighter N/rogue 3 character in one campaign got to be almost useless for awhile around level 10, until the party conveniently found some wings of flying with her name on it. That whipped things back into shape for two or three levels. Another straight fighter with the leadership feat used on a fast, magical mount, using a lance, was actually overpowered, because the default 3E lance charge rules can be broken, depending upon how you interpret the various charge and rideby mechanics. (Note the 3.5 nerf of the lance charges.)

And we rarely had single-class casters played wide open. I seriously considered (before Arcana Unearthed came out), running a 3E game where no more than half the levels could be spent on a straight casters. That even makes the 3E bard an excellent option, not being a full caster. I think the martial options would be quite attractive in such a game--though fighter specifically is still not bringing much unless you want to do "stupid feat tricks" with the "build." Now, that's about the only way I'd run an otherwise straight 3E game past 10th level or so. If the way to make a straight fighter palatable by 3E RAW is to nerf straight casters enough to make a 50/50 fighter/wizard option a good choice, then that doesn't say much good about the fighter by itself, does it?

 

[Stormonu]

So you whittle down magic damage to equal what mundane weapons do. How do you then balance the fact that a caster is limited on how many spells they get a day but a fighter type can swing that sword and do damage all day long?

I did say "unless that spell is only going to be usable once every 5/6 rounds".

If the wizard can only get the spell off once, the damage should account for that. If 5E is going to have at-wills or per encounter, the damage should reflect that as well. The wizard's damage output shouldn't be superior to the fighter's output. We shouldn't be seeing the wizard doing something like dropping 5 consecutive 15d fireballs in a fight on half a dozen enemies while the fighter is doing 1d8 + Str mod a round to a single opponent. By the end of the fight, I'd like to see the damage both dealt (and the risk to their own well-being) being at a similar level.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

What I have in mind is
- Spellcasters must choose a speciality. They can cast spells outside their speciality at reduced effect / chance of success.
- Magic is a skill. A check must thus be made to successfully cast a spell.
- A magic check failure doesnt necessarily mean that the spell doesn't go off, but rather it costs a certain number of hit points for the caster to cast it.
- Casting time can be augmented to increase chance of success.

This would help make magic in D&D close to what I have in mind when I'm thinking about magic in a fantasy world. In most (I haven't read them all - I'm using Steven Erickson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series as a starting point) fantasy books, spellcasters can't do everything and magic can be tiring, if not dangerous to the caster.

 

[fuindordm]

What I have in mind is
- Spellcasters must choose a speciality. They can cast spells outside their speciality at reduced effect / chance of success.
- Magic is a skill. A check must thus be made to successfully cast a spell.
- A magic check failure doesnt necessarily mean that the spell doesn't go off, but rather it costs a certain number of hit points for the caster to cast it.
- Casting time can be augmented to increase chance of success.

If we're going down the "skill roll" road, I'd prefer the 4E model of attack rolls vs static defenses. Either way the player had to roll something, and it's more similar to how a fighter works.

But I prefer even more the 3E model of "cast a spell and it always goes off", because I want magic to lean more toward the Vancian model of getting a few encounter-changing effects per day.

Having said that, however, I think a skill roll with side effects for failure is a robust limitation on magic, which could replace the standard V/S/M limitation. It's great for the Wild Mage archetype, for example.

As for the first point, I don't want spellcasters to have to choose a specialty outside the theme defined by their class choice. Cleric + domains (as extras) is OK, and I wouldn't mind an option for clerics to specialize in the domains at the cost of fewer general spells per day (for example), but it's important that PCs can fulfill all their general functions. Too much specialization can be crippling.

[ASIDE: The 2E model of spheres was a good attempt at making cleric magic more flavorful, but I found it very difficult to manage and balance. Deities ended up granting lots of minor spheres just so that the cleric could cover the basics at low levels, but the spell choice for higher level spells was too severely limited. The 3E model strikes a very good balance between general functionality and specialization]

By the same token, I don't want fighters to have to specialize in a single weapon to be effective. I'd rather see them have a choice between feats/class abilities that supports both the "master of a weapon" play style and the "master of arms" play style. For example, if Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization (two feats) gives +1 to hit and +2 to damage, would it be balanced to have another two-feat sequence that gives +1 damage with all weapons, and +2 to threat confirmation rolls with all weapons?

Phew! That was longer than I intended. Regarding your last point, increased casting time for better effect sounds like a really good rule for all spellcasters.

Cheerio,
Ben

 

[Gryph]

First off, the premise I don't agree with. A truly great wizard should have unmatched power. If he doesn't, magic isn't very magical. Magic is not a career choice, it is a mystical energy that produces effects beyond what mortals are capable of.

And yet I didn't vote for the non-nerfing option.

I do not think that 3.X wizards/full casters are particularly well-balanced. Their lives are just way too easy. They have an enormous repotoire of spells that never fail. I would be quite happy if magic had real costs, was not always successful, and I like the casting time idea as a specific cost.

There are also a number of larger system-based issues. For example, if a fighter could disable a moderate-level wizard with one blow, that would be a great equalizer.

However, I do not think the choice or power of magical abilities should be limited. D&D wizards are defined by their versatility and are reflections of the choices they make. Necromancers and Conjurers and Evokers are cool, but there should be a full set of options both for characters as a whole and for an individual character. Also, Wish is a sine qua non, which pretty much says all I need to say about power.

Wizards should still be able to do anything. It just shouldn't be so easy.

I would agree with this for Wizards as a whole, but not for every individual wizard.

That's why I voted to limit spell selection. Any given wizard should be able to do 6 impossible things before breakfast; but it shouldn't be 6 of the 600 impossible things he knows how to do.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would agree with this for Wizards as a whole, but not for every individual wizard.

That's why I voted to limit spell selection. Any given wizard should be able to do 6 impossible things before breakfast; but it shouldn't be 6 of the 600 impossible things he knows how to do.

I don't mind limiting spell selection by number of spells. I don't think a high-level character needs dozens or hundreds of options, he just needs better spells.

I don't think it's appropriate to limit spell selection thematically. I don't think a necromancer should be limited to only necromancy spells, simply because that isn't how it has worked in D&D.