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

[billd91]

And [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], the problem isn't just the player being out of synch with the table. It's that D&D 3.X is busted enough that that player can never be in synch with such a game.

I don't suppose we could can the hyperbole can we? Even one game that has a wizard power gamer with his players in sync with his style of play proves you wrong. And I expect there are plenty of people around here who don't mind that style of play.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't suppose we could can the hyperbole can we? Even one game that has a wizard power gamer with his players in sync with his style of play proves you wrong. And I expect there are plenty of people around here who don't mind that style of play.

Point accepted. 3.X merely makes it very hard for certain people to play at the same table as each other despite the fact they can in any other edition of D&D (as long as you don't allow in too many 2e splatbooks like Skills and Powers or the Complete [] series).

 

[Hussar]

But this isn't about using a class ability. Your implied use was about pushing a class ability, pointing out just how many a caster could afford if they decided to pursue that strategy. Well, not everybody uses that class ability to the same degree because they don't feel the need to pursue that strategy - and your claim was that they were incompetent. That's pretty insulting.

Taking a bear along with my druid is "pushing" the system? After all, this whole side bar started by saying that DM's should use in game reality to limit class abilities.

Using 30% of a character's resources to completely get around a class limitation is "pushing" the system? Really? And that's a high estimate. You don't even need to go this big to do it.

So, yes, a player who is using stock class abilities in a fairly reasonable way should not be seen as "pushing" the system. And a player who fails to use stock class abilities in a completely reasonable way is pretty incompetent. Or, at the very least, is not engaging in much system mastery. Something which 3e is meant to promote.

To use your flawed terms, perhaps those caster players were all incompetent. Frankly, I've seen a warlock played in a pretty abusive manner with his various invocations (how a wizard can be considered too powerful with his ability to use invisibility for limited durations yet the warlock not with his virtually unlimited ability is beyond me). And line those wizard-killing constructs and other magic resistant opponents up because the war wizard eats them for breakfast.

The problem is, the WIZARD kills those wizard-killing constructs far, far more easily than the war wizard. But the war wizard isn't bypassing virtually every single challenge the DM throws at the party by virtue of having a spell for that.

If your idea of an abusive character is a wizard that focuses on direct damage, then, well, this conversation isn't going anywhere because we're not even speaking the same language anymore.

And, I noticed, you still failed to actually answer my question. If there is no problem with the system, if the problem is entirely with the players, why does every single variant caster lower the power of the caster classes?

 

[Elf Witch]

Point accepted. 3.X merely makes it very hard for certain people to play at the same table as each other despite the fact they can in any other edition of D&D (as long as you don't allow in too many 2e splatbooks like Skills and Powers or the Complete [] series).

This is such bullcrap. Thousands of people play just fine at the table if what you are trying to claim is true then very few people would chose to still play 3.5 or Pathfinder yet in some markets Pathfinder outsells 4E.

At this point it becomes clear that to me that you are so blinded with dislike for 3.5 that you cannot really discuss it in an impartial rational manner.

You keep making these broad sweeping statements about how broken 3E is and how it is impossible to really play. You can't seem to admit that plenty of people don't agree that we actually enjoy the system and that a lot of this comes down to a play style difference.

If people said the same things about 4E like you do about 3.5 then they would be accused of edition warring.

 

[Elf Witch]

Pretty much this.

Let's see, in this thread, I've seen people claim that there are no problems with the system, only problem players. Yet, you, billd91, have absolutely no problem with that claim. Yet, when I claim that perhaps the reason you and others don't see the problem is because your players are not terribly good at system mastery, suddenly I'm a jerk?

Look, again, if there was no problem with the balance between caster and non-caster, why has every single D&D game designer since Gygax tried to correct the balance?

Why is okay for you to say that those of us who don't have the issues you do that it is because we don't have players with enough system mastery but it is not okay for us to say maybe the problem is the some DMs don't know how to run encounters? Please explain exactly what the difference is? Talk about a frakking double standard.

Actually they have been trying to balance everything in the system since the start from character creation, to races, to how to handle non combat encounters, to niche protection and balance. And each time they fix one thing another bug pops up. It is the nature of the beast. It was hard back in AD&D to get people to play humans then in 3E humans became the best class to play and some people complained about that.

In earlier editions low level wizards were weak they fixed that in 3 by making lower level wizards have more spells. People complained about being dependent on the DM for magic items so they allowed players the ability to get magic items without the DM through crafting feats and then that was to powerful.

I doubt they will ever have a perfect system. But we have different systems to choose from which more closely fits our style of play and that is a good thing. It is just to bad people feel the need to convince others that their way of playing is wrong and their chosen system is broken beyond repair.

 

[stevelabny]

I'm purposely making a mistake again.

Can the three (four?) of you who keep railing about how the system is broken explain what your purpose is here?

The original point of the thread was someone asking "What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters? ". And adds "Otherwise, some other consensus I received was that if the GM were to enforce Spell Components, such as Material Components, Focuses, XP, and others, then a lot of issues that people have with the wizard will likely become a lot less of an issue. But also to enforce the rarity of certain spell focuses too- "

So most of us have listed multiple things that we think create this issue, or perceived issue.* Some of us have gone as far to say that its not even noticeable if players "play our way". You guys keep insisting either 3.x is broken or that every incarnation of D&D (and possibly other systems) is broken because of continual caster/non-caster balancing issues.

But you aren't offering solutions or even suggestions, and are actively fighting against solutions brought up by other posters because of DM abuse or too much work or something.

So what is your endgame here?



*Because I acknowledge that the economy is a horrible broken mess. And I acknowledge the CR/XP system is nothing more than a rough guideline and if used as a rule, is a horrible broken mess... but I can separate both of those from the classes themselves.

 

[Manbearcat]

My good faith effort can be found here and here. I used this (and some other stuff) to resolve systemic issues that plagued us (from level 6 onward and become unwieldy at level 9 + and truly untenable around level 13) in our two longer term 3.x games. They featured Generalist Wizards in both and a Cleric and a Druid in each; two 3.x games played through high level (3.0 level 1 - 16 and 3.x level 3 - 22). The place where I saw the problem perfectly on display was in the legitimacy of high level martial, melee campaign villains vs the legitimacy of high level casters. In order to be even remotely threaten your PCs (and thus legitimize the villain's credibility as a major campaign foil), the BBEG had to be a Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Druid. You can't play a Dragon as a Dragon. You have to play it as a gargantuan, flying lizard sorcerer that occasionally breathes fire/acid/lightning, etc. Normalizing the action economy let me present threatening, legitimate martial BBEGs as campaign foils.

This worked for me to make our gaming experience more enjoyable.

 

[Obryn]

Can the three (four?) of you who keep railing about how the system is broken explain what your purpose is here?

...because talking about elfgames on the internet can be fun, sometimes? I mean, what's your purpose here?

But you aren't offering solutions or even suggestions, and are actively fighting against solutions brought up by other posters because of DM abuse or too much work or something.

So what is your endgame here?

I have several solutions - but they involve fixing the actual rules of the game, rather than ... well, whatever kind of passive-aggressive tack you're taking on reining in wizards' power, complete with a casually sexist crack and complaints about munchkin powergamers thrown in here and there.

I'm not even remotely arguing that 3.x is unplayably broken. I will, however, gladly argue that the caster/non-caster power gap is worse in it than in any other edition of D&D - and possibly larger than any game where that gap wasn't intentional (like Ars Magica). It mirrors my experience under 3.x, and last I checked, it isn't even considered generally contentious among 3.x players.

Remember - the folks who came up with the Tier system and refined it are people who play and love 3e and want to keep playing it; it was made to help bypass the power disparity problem entirely. (Their solution? Everyone uses a Tier 3/4 character. Or, run E6.)

*Because I acknowledge that the economy is a horrible broken mess. And I acknowledge the CR/XP system is nothing more than a rough guideline and if used as a rule, is a horrible broken mess... but I can separate both of those from the classes themselves.

...So to the OP, I've changed my answer... "What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?" The answer is... the players. Period. No further explanation necessary.

-O

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Some of you are very clearly not fans of one system or another. We don't have a problem with that.

We do have a problem when, if you don't like a system, you take every opportunity to beat the crap out of it, and tell others how utterly horrible and flawed it is. The line between constructive criticism and edition-bashing is not a particularly hard one to miss, and some of you are fairly consistently over it. That, for any particular post, you don't egregiously break EN World Rules doesn't mean you aren't engaged in badgering in the long haul, making forums unpleasant for others. We have, in the past, had to ban people for such behavior. We may have to again.

If you find yourself asking, "Is that a threat?" then for you maybe it is, and you may need to reconsider how or why you engage in discussions.

Here's a simple hint - don't spend nearly so much time trashing on stuff you don't like. It is a huge world out there, and it is full of great stuff. Stop spending your leisure time in negativity, and go find or start a thread about things you actively like. Me, I'm not really a fan of Brussels sprouts. You don't see me spending hours and hours trying to convince others of how horrible a vegetable they are. I may mention it occasionally, in passing, but I generally leave those who do like them alone. That's a pretty awesome model for posting - give folks who do like a thing some room, already!

Thanks for reading. We now return you to your previously scheduled thread, which from this point on should have negligible amounts of edition warring.

 

[PhillyG]

Untested houserules can mess up anything.