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

[Elf Witch]

One of the big flaws in this is DMs who don't know the rules and don't enforce the limitations of certain spells. Take scribe spell you have to have time to do this if your casters are spending so much downtime just sitting around scribing spells then take away some if that downtime. Also make them keep track of the XP costs. Also unless they have a Hewards handy backpack it takes time to find the exact scroll you are looking for and in combat digging around in your pack can trigger an AOO.

You also need to play the enemy smarter when it is appropriate there are ways to counter invisible creatures like magical spells that let you see invisibility glitter dust and mundane things like paint, flour, blankets. If they are casting summoning spells and don't have silent spell then you should get a listen check to see if you can hear them. These are all things I have done as a player with dealing with an invisible creature.

Certain magical items should be hard to find like the other poster pointed out.

Part of the problem for me is skills and they way they can be easily max out be quickly if that was in the game then making a concentration check not to lose a spell becomes more difficult.

Also DMs need to plan encounters that don't have all the combatants in one area to be taken out by an area spell. Make the magic users have to work for it.

One of the things I often read about is fixes that just basically make the mage unfun to play. Like making them say what they are doing before the round unless you make every class do this this unfairly penalizes mages and their players ability to adjust what they were going to do while they wait there turn to go. Making spells take more time so basically players who play mages have to sit around doing nothing while the other players get to play. Making spells full round actions is one thing longer than that is to long for spells used in combat though for some non combat or special spells I see no harm with doing that.

My big issue with clerics and druids is that they get to know every spell on their list. I much prefer a limited list based on the cleric deity a lot like they did with spheres back in AD&D or if you don't want to go that route make them pick spells like a sorcerer and give them spell slots for casting.

I have never really found a druid's companion that big of an issue they should not just attack because the druid is in combat the druid should have to either command them to which requires rolling a handle animal or the animal should feel threatened. Also I have seen DMs let druid companions get away with things like flanking these are animals not familiars and they should again have to be commanded to do it again another handle animal roll and some training when not in combat.

Personally I would like to strangle the person who came up with the tier system used as a tool for the DM to know how to plan encounters is one thing but it has become a see this class is better than that class kind of thinking.

 

[S'mon]

I think actually the biggest single problem with Wizards is that saving throws are too hard to make at high level; this makes save-or-suck spells hugely overpowered when compared to older editions where saves got easier, not harder. You could probably add half level to everyone's saving throw bonuses, or double the listed bonuses, and it would work out about right.

Here's a simple table that would go a long way to restoring 1e-2e play balance:

Character Level/Hit Dice Bonus to All Saves (not cumulative)
7 +3
10 +5
13 +8
15+ +10

This does not solve the Druid overpowered animal companion issue in 3e; Pathfinder seems to have scaled them down to a reasonable level though.

 

[Dandu]

Personally I would like to strangle the person who came up with the tier system used as a tool for the DM to know how to plan encounters is one thing but it has become a see this class is better than that class kind of thinking.

Wouldn't it make more sense to strangle the people who misuse it?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I'd imagine the biggest problem with Tier 1 full spellcasters is their need to have to put up with all the weaker classes.

I mean, seriously, CR of monsters was not figured out based off a party of Fighters.

 

[Nagol]

I'll discuss the concerns from a Basic-->1e->2e-->3e+ perspective.

The problems with tier 1 casters break down into a few areas:

They are the only classes that can develop many forms of convenience/campaign altering utility. Teleport, divination, communication, plane travelling, recovery from mishap, and survival in hostile environments like lave or ocean depths, means the range of adventures/available responses goes up dramatically as the character gain access to the abilities. By controlling the choice of the abilities, tier-1 casters gain a disproportionate say in what the party does.

Magic became less rare and more predictably available. 3e+ had a basic conceit of fungible and available magic items that weakened the desire to hold on to secondary treasure finds. This undercut skewing in the treasure result and allowed each character to focus on power/effectiveness in his role rather than developing a broader mix of eclectic ability. In the arcane spellcasters' case, this loosening also meant much greater access to spells to add to their repetoire. 3e exasperated the problem by developing a geometric cost structure for magic items, introducing magic item creation rules for low and mid-level characters whilst introducing the (mis-applied) concept of Wealth by Level.

Each edition tried to remove an annoying feature of tier-1 casters. Failing to get a coveted spell isn't fun therefore 2e allowed a roll per level rather than a roll per character. Even failing for a level or three isn't fun so 3e dropped the concept entirely. Tracking spell components wasn't fun, so spell component cases were introduced that allowed unlimited cheap components. Losing a spell n combat because the opponents managed to strike the caster wasn't fun so 3e introduced the Concentration check. Having hard cap on spells known wasn't fun so it was loosened in 2e and removed entirely in 3e. Maintaining a list of curative magics wasn't fun so spontaneous conversion of spells was introduced. The result of this loosening was a much wider range of ability for tier-1 casters and a lessened need on trade-offs in spell discovery and preparation. In other words, the spell casters could more easily step into other roles.

The concept of caster skill making magic harder to resist reversed the original resistance progression. Originally, a character would succumb to almost any spell but became more resistant with level gains. Later editions had low-level characters resist spells frequently, but the resistance became less frequent as the spell level and caster strength went up faster than the inherent bonuses to saving throws. General hit point inflation and non-spell combat damage inflation increased the emphasis on bypassing hp rather than helping ablate them with spells. The net result is tier-1 casters aren't helping in the hit point ablation mini-game. They are working independently to remove the opponents.

 

[ImperatorK]

Players are the biggest problem.

 

[Uzzy]

I'd say that the five minute work day is the biggest problem. Resting and recharging all your spells is far too easy in 3.5, often at no penalty whatsoever to the party. Remove the spells that give wizards safe extradimensional spaces they can sleep in, and lower the number of spells recharged when resting in an uncivilised area.

 

[Manbearcat]

XP is turned off for @Nagol but you can pretty much shut down the thread and just sticky post 15. Nothing will nail it down any better.

 

[Elf Witch]

Wouldn't it make more sense to strangle the people who misuse it?

Basically I am lazy it is easier to strangle one person.

 

[Stormonu]

I have never really found a druid's companion that big of an issue they should not just attack because the druid is in combat the druid should have to either command them to which requires rolling a handle animal or the animal should feel threatened. Also I have seen DMs let druid companions get away with things like flanking these are animals not familiars and they should again have to be commanded to do it again another handle animal roll and some training when not in combat.

"A druid or ranger can handle her animal companion as a free action or push* it as a move action."

"For instance, to command a trained attack dog to attack a foe requires a DC 10 Handle Animal check. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action."

Thus, even a 1st level druid with even a 15 Wis (+2), 4 ranks Handle Animal (+4) only needs a 4 or better to command an animal companion to attack, and can do it as a free action. A "better build" druid could reduce the number needed even quicker. It's very easy to have a first level druid that can't fail the check, and by 4th level (6th level when the animal is wounded), the need for a check goes away completely without even trying hard.

I will say, I have only had one druid player (out of 3) who did abusive things with his druid (spells and wildshape into an air elemental) - and even then it was not with animal companion. But the potential for abuse is there.

* Note: “Push” an Animal: To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn’t know but is physically capable of performing. This category also covers making an animal perform a forced march (PHB, p74)