What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?

[Argyle King]

I have a question I'd like to put the posters here.

I've notice that the fact divine spell casters have access to the entire spell list is one of the chief complaints.

I was wondering, if the cleric/druid/whomever asked for a certain spell, have you ever had the deity step in and say "I can grant you that but I want X in return".

I've seen it done where it lead to some awesome role-playing and I've seen it result in a half hour bicker-fest between the player and gm.

I'm just curious if anyone else has had experience with that.

I have done that.

Isn't the idea behind being Cleric that they've already decided to do X to be granted the power they have.

That being said, I also find that to keep it from getting old you also need to allow the reverse to happen. There should also be occasional opportunities for a cleric who has served his deity well to ask for something extra. I used that as a way to grant a power refresh to a player in a 4E game.

 

[Nagol]

I have a question I'd like to put the posters here.

I've notice that the fact divine spell casters have access to the entire spell list is one of the chief complaints.

I was wondering, if the cleric/druid/whomever asked for a certain spell, have you ever had the deity step in and say "I can grant you that but I want X in return".

I've seen it done where it lead to some awesome role-playing and I've seen it result in a half hour bicker-fest between the player and gm.

I'm just curious if anyone else has had experience with that.

For higher-level spells (generally above 3rd level), I will (very) occasionally alter the list of spells granted if the deity knows something about the upcoming situation the player character doesn't. I won't step in with a negotiation though -- the "terms of the deal" for the cleric are decided when the class is taken and/or patron chosen.

 

[MarkB]

I have a question I'd like to put the posters here.

I've notice that the fact divine spell casters have access to the entire spell list is one of the chief complaints.

I was wondering, if the cleric/druid/whomever asked for a certain spell, have you ever had the deity step in and say "I can grant you that but I want X in return".

I've seen it done where it lead to some awesome role-playing and I've seen it result in a half hour bicker-fest between the player and gm.

I'm just curious if anyone else has had experience with that.

I certainly wouldn't phrase it as a bargain - as mentioned, the cleric already made that bargain when he took up his god's service. But, since clerics regain spells by praying, I don't see any reason why those prayers shouldn't occasionally be answered in person. And I've seen very few cleric players who, if their deity told them something needed doing, would lightly refuse, even without an overt incentive.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is easier to limit how many spells a day a wizard can cast it dose not matter if you know 100 spells if you can only cast say six.

Which in 3.5 means that you have to be about second level - and not count cantrips.

The argument that there is a spell for everything is just plain nonsense in my book of course there is a magical fix for most things the reason they are in the game is to help parties that are lacking that skill. Take knock the spell that is usually used as an example. I in 30 years of playing have never once ever seen this spell abused in a way to stomp all over the rogue. The only time I have seen it used by mages is when the party does not have a rogue to open locks. A wizard who memorizes this spell gives up other better useful spells so why bother when you have a rogue who can pick locks all day long until the cow comes home.

I don't think I could better underline one of the core problems of the wizard. "A wizard who memorizes this spell gives up other better useful spells". But the rogue, naturally, can't do any of the better useful things a wizard can so he pitches in by picking locks and allowing the wizard fun toys. 4e Knock wins here - it takes a minute to cast when the rogue can have the lock open in seconds.

I have heard the argument why would a wizard not get a wand of knock because it is so much better than a rogue ability. If the game was real life and death then that would be true but we are playing a game and as much as I like a lot of realism in the game there are times to have self imposed limits. So a player taking knock and just stepping all over the rogue is being a dick. And the DM is letting him by not saying no and talking to him out of game.

The point is the rogue should be better at picking locks than the wizard. That you have to impose metagame limits on very basic roleplaying just points to a problem with the system.

But having a spell like knock allows DMs to have locked doors when there is not a rogue in the party.

No rogue in the party has never stopped me either. If necessary the PCs can use a crow bar or even a battering ram. Picking locks merely allows stealth and speed. An unpickable lock can still be forced. So the entire argument vanishes in a puff of smoke..

Then there is the argument that fighters just point pointy things at people and mages move mountains. Boo Hoo sorry but magic is supposed to be special and powerful and moving mountains seems rather epic level and epic level fighters can mow down most armies. If players want to move mountains then don't play a fighter.

"If you don't want to be special and powerful don't play a fighter." Right.

As for "An epic level fighter can mow down most armies", Giant in the Playground had a series of duels. Level 13 wizard vs Level 20 fighter. The wizard was seriously nerfed - no teleporting away, no prebuffing, no scrying. And the fighter did win one - but that had nothing to do with being a fighter rather than being a glorified commoner with three quarters of a million GP worth of equipment. The level 20 fighter wasn't a match for the level 13 wizard, despite the wealth.

And for an army? 1 arrow in 20 from the commoners is going to hit. Doing about d8 damage. 400 archers with light crossbows? That level 20 fighter is going down like Jacques Cousteau.

A fighter's job is to protect the squishy team members and go toe to toe with big bad ugly things. If you think fighters are unfun to play then make them fun give them more things to do but stop blaming the wizards and magic on that.

The squishiest team member can protect himself. A high level wizard is a hell of a lot harder to kill than a high level fighter (who just gets punked by something against his will save). The fighter's schtick is waving a pointy bit of metal around. This can be fun. A big part of the wizard's schtick is making pointy bits of metal irrelevant. This too can be fun. Unfortunately, put the two together and there are problems.

To put things another way, in the 1970s Pong looked like a fun computer game. As computer games go, a high level fighter is still playing pong - the wizard, meanwhile, is carrying a smartphone loaded with games. Including pong (Tenser's Transformation) if the wizard can be bothered.

 

[Bluenose]

It is easier to limit how many spells a day a wizard can cast it dose not matter if you know 100 spells if you can only cast say six. The argument that there is a spell for everything is just plain nonsense in my book of course there is a magical fix for most things the reason they are in the game is to help parties that are lacking that skill. Take knock the spell that is usually used as an example. I in 30 years of playing have never once ever seen this spell abused in a way to stomp all over the rogue. The only time I have seen it used by mages is when the party does not have a rogue to open locks. A wizard who memorizes this spell gives up other better useful spells so why bother when you have a rogue who can pick locks all day long until the cow comes home.

Bravo. The wizard has better, more important things to do than open locks. What does the rogue have that's more important? Or is this a case of leaving less important tasks to the lesser members of the party while the wizard handles the important things?

 

[Manbearcat]

There are tons of problems with tier 1 caster (many of them outlined here). However, one of the main problems with tier 1 casters versus martial melee characters is the Action Economy framework of the 3.x/PF system. The action economy of casting a spell is bound up in standard actions. Spellcasters' payload scales along the paradigm of the standard action as they level up. However, this is not the way for martial melee (ranged manyshot excluded) characters. Their payload is bound up in the full attack action and therefore scales with usage of that action economy framework. As such, forgoing a full attack in order to leverage a move action and a standard action becomes more and more punitive as the game progresses; punitive to the point that anything other than standing in front of an enemy and rock-em sock-em full attack routine is costing you and your group in the action economy game versus your enemies. In a game as swingy as mid to high level D&D, that is a very, very bad idea. Further, the same goes for monsters with multi-attack routines that rely on full attack actions; the main reason why high level enemies have to be casters because kiting/shutting down melee enemies is a joke...and the reason why dragons go from being dragons to...well sorcerers.

Why they went this route, I don't know. Standardizing the action economy in 3.x/PF would address a few (not remotely all) of the problems between casters and melee characters (however, it would also help casters in the summon game and when they want to turn into fighters themselves...). Further, it would create more dynamically mobile combat, more room for tactical depth, and less action economy relevant trap feats like spring attack. At the end of our 3.x days, I had brutally house-ruled the system (including removing full attack actions and standardizing the action economy) such that it actually looked like...well, 4e.

- Nerf and hard code spells.
- Remove problem child spells or put them into a Ritual paradigm so that the scope of the game doesn't become bound up into "How can we circumvent this encounter, adventure, plot arc with a spell"...and then the DM has to respond in kind with contrived, adversarial nonsense and the rock/paper/scissors game feeds back on itself ad infinitum.
- Less spells.
- Nerf companions and summons.
- Nerf spell DC scaling.
- Standardize the Action Economy such that melee characters' and monsters' payload isn't bound up in a full attack routine (thus rendering tactical mobility null) but scales with Standard Actions just like tier 1 casters.
- Better, richer, more thematically and tactically deep options for martial archetypes.

That fixes most of the problems with the tier 1 spellcasters and brings the martial melee characters (and high level melee monsters) more in-line.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Manbearcat, I think you hit the nail on the head of why people like (and sometimes dislike) Tome of Battle. It gives good martial options as standard actions, although there is of course variety and maneuvers are everything from immediate to full-round actions.

 

[delericho]

However, one of the main problems with tier 1 casters versus martial melee characters is the Action Economy framework of the 3.x/PF system. The action economy of casting a spell is bound up in standard actions. Spellcasters' payload scales along the paradigm of the standard action as they level up. However, this is not the way for martial melee (ranged manyshot excluded) characters. Their payload is bound up in the full attack action and therefore scales with usage of that action economy framework.

This is a very good point. It's also something that's not obvious from a read-through of the rules, but emerges in gameplay, which makes it tricky to spot.

Why they went this route, I don't know.

The playtests focused very much on lower-level play, using standard options, and by players who were used to playing older editions. As such, things like high-level play and item purchase/crafting didn't get anywhere near as much playtesting, and didn't really get enough playtesting. (FWIW, neither did 4e's high levels, and neither are 5e's.) As a result of this, the appropriate subsystems look like they have a strong mathematical rigour behind them, but in fact they are somewhat lacking.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have a question I'd like to put the posters here.

I've notice that the fact divine spell casters have access to the entire spell list is one of the chief complaints.

I was wondering, if the cleric/druid/whomever asked for a certain spell, have you ever had the deity step in and say "I can grant you that but I want X in return".

Isn't the cleric (literally) doing their god's work already?

If the rules said you could only pick a subset of spells, I'd be fine with it (provided the spell selection made sense and wasn't too narrow or too broad), but "bargaining" seems set to create conflict between players and DMs.

 

[Manbearcat]

Manbearcat, I think you hit the nail on the head of why people like (and sometimes dislike) Tome of Battle. It gives good martial options as standard actions, although there is of course variety and maneuvers are everything from immediate to full-round actions.

Yup. Absolutely.

The playtests focused very much on lower-level play, using standard options, and by players who were used to playing older editions. As such, things like high-level play and item purchase/crafting didn't get anywhere near as much playtesting, and didn't really get enough playtesting. (FWIW, neither did 4e's high levels, and neither are 5e's.) As a result of this, the appropriate subsystems look like they have a strong mathematical rigour behind them, but in fact they are somewhat lacking.

Makes sense. Good post. Thanks for the enlightenment. I playtested FR for them but the system was already "banged into shape" by that point.