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

[N'raac]

I can't say I agree with this. The number of fiddly bits in both 3e and 4e are pretty excessive for any casual gamer market, no matter what WotC's intentions were. (And $105 is a heck of a buy-in.) I think this is one area where Next has it right - start with a simple core book aimed at casual gamers. Add the fiddly bits later.

And it certainly wasn't the first D&D edition aimed at a casual market - there were three Basic sets which were designed specifically for new players in the mass market, with shelf-space in toy stores. Holmes was a bit of a flash in the pan here, but both Moldvay's and Mentzer's editions were wildly successful.

I suppose I could assert "1 ed, 2 Ed, etc", but the truth is I had forgotten those old boxed sets (and I started with the Blue Book with the Dragon Cover too...)

I would still say planned for the retail market (even if the marketing plan may not be one I agree with). The boxed sets cost, what, $20? Checking CPI from 1981 to 2011, that would be about $50 today, and paper prices rose faster than most commodities. Still a hefty increase, and I should have looked at an older CPI - most of the increases were pre-2000's, though - at least double would be right. Comic books were 35 or 40 cents when I started playing those boxed sets - they've increased by a factor of 10 or so.

In any case, 3rd was the first attempt in many years to penetrate the mass market. Certainly, 2e was not expected to do so. I think part of the problem is that Hasbro wants mass market sales, and WoTC wants to keep the RPG market, two goals that are tough to reconcile.

The end result (before splatbooks) is probably less than successful at appealing to the mass market, but needs all the add-ons to make the real gamers happy. Then again, look at board games - those Train Games (Ticket to Ride?) and expansions, Killer Bunnies, etc. seem to find markets hybridized between the classic gamer and the casual buyer.

 

[Hussar]

How would I resolve the issue, now that we can finally admit that an issue exists?

1. No core casters. Replace the wizard with a sorcerer, cleric with Favoured Soul and Druid with Ranger.

No more problem. I don't generally see the same game changing problems with Sorcerers since they can't really go too hog wild on the game changing spells - they don't get cast often enough to make it worth the Sorc's time. Favoured Soul's do the same thing to clerics - remove the ability to cherry pick spells for every situation. And, if I want a nature protector, a Ranger works just as well as a Druid, IMO.

That, or I could just stick with playing other editions than 3e/Pathfinder and not have this issue as well.

I remember back when we first started playing 3e. I played a Wizard/Conjurer (a carry over character from 2e). The group was about 8th (ish) level when we took possession of a ruined keep. Small keep, nothing too large. The walls were fallen down and it was in pretty bad shape, but, fixable. So, we decided to take up residence and make ourselves a nice base. No problem.

The DM pulls out his Stronghold Builder's guide and starts calculating costs of repairing the keep. I peruse my PHB (3e) and realize that my summoner can get about 9 Formian Workers for 7 rounds (on average). 3 Formian Workers can cast Make Whole at will. This meant I had 20 (again, ish) Make Whole spells per day. That was 70 cubic feet/casting or 1400 cubic feet of Make Whole per day.

A bit of back of the envelope calculation later and we realized that my Wizard could repair the keep in about 3 months for no cost.

This is what I'm talking about when I talk about casters just being too powerful. Too powerful in the game changing sense. The non-casters simply could not do what I did. There's no way they could. Never mind if we just headed into a larger town/city and bought a Lyre of Building, but, again, we did it on the cheap.

Now, was I abusing my character? Was I powergaming? Is that "pushing the system"? I completely bypassed the DM's plans - hiring workers, protecting/feeding the workers, lots of RP, etc - simply by applying a spell that was straight out of the PHB.

This, to me, is the biggest problem with Tier 1 Casters. The fact that with fairly simple applications, they can bypass the DM's campaign.

I'd also note that in the changes from 3e to 3.5, this got nerfed. Every single summonable creature on the Wizard list that had spell like abilities for use out of combat got removed. I mean, at higher level, I could have used those formians to cast Cure Serious Wounds. Never mind summoning Unicorns.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[...]
This is what I'm talking about when I talk about casters just being too powerful.

I don't get this example at all. If one player can rebuild a castle quickly and at minimal expense, how is that too powerful? Why is this a problem? If I'm a DM, I'm feeling great about the player coming up with an interesting idea and creating a new stronghold they can use. If I'm the other players, I'm patting my conjurer on the back for making us a new HQ for our party. I don't see how it's a problem that one character can do this and not others.

The fact that with fairly simple applications, they can bypass the DM's campaign

I suppose this is supposed to be the explanation, but I still don't get it. Isn't creating a new castle likely to push the campaign in a new interesting direction? Doesn't the DM have tons of options to complicate or countermand this process if he doesn't want it to be that easy?

The same is true of many of the more powerful magical abilities. Teleportation bypasses some things, sure, but it just gets you to a new adventure site more quickly, for example.

Not that there aren't problems with spellcasters, but I think this line of thinking completely misses those problems.

 

[Aenghus]

I don't get this example at all. If one player can rebuild a castle quickly and at minimal expense, how is that too powerful? Why is this a problem? .

I'm not Huzzar, but I agree with the problem he raises and will give my own reasons.

The issue, basically, is that spellcasters are rewarded far more for system mastery and exhaustive research than non-spellcasters. For any given problem, the player of a spellcaster is far more likely to find a persuasive point-and-click magical solution than the player of a non-spellcaster. (non-spellcasters using spellcaster followers just leads back to magic more easily solving problems than anything else).

It's not just building castles. Diplomatic problems, disguise, trickery, espionage, information gathering, travel can be carried out more reliably and quicker in many games with magic rather than mundane methods, given some research for the win button.

In my experience new spells get approved by the DM individually some time before they are first used, often when the DM seems in a good mood, and typically without any discussion of potential combos or synergy. This raises the chances of a powerful combo working at least once - after all the components were approved beforehand.

And because this use of magic often requires research for supporting fluff text and the expenditure of resources, I find DMs are less likely to give a straight "No" to such means, while skill use, being "unlimited" is far more likely to be assigned crippling situational penalties and multiple rolls(and so chances for failure) to accomplish tasks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The issue, basically, is that spellcasters are rewarded far more for system mastery and exhaustive research than non-spellcasters.

I should hope so. In the worlds posited by D&D, magic is much like science. People who understand it well understand the workings of the universe, and should be rewarded for doing so. There's a lot of room to make their tasks more difficult, but the ceiling should always be higher for magical abilities than for nonmagical abilities; magic should always be able to do things that you couldn't do (or couldn't do as effectively) without magic. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Without that dynamic, there's no reason to have magic in the game at all.

And because this use of magic often requires research for supporting fluff text and the expenditure of resources, I find DMs are less likely to give a straight "No" to such means, while skill use, being "unlimited" is far more likely to be assigned crippling situational penalties and multiple rolls(and so chances for failure) to accomplish tasks.

I tend to agree with this (separate) conclusion though. DMs probably say yes to too many things, magic-wise, and the way the rules are structured encourages that. Spells are overly specific, overly automatic, and are available too easily. In my mind, this would be the justification for doing skill-based magic, and for increasing costs and restrictions on magic.

 

[Hussar]

It's too powerful because it completely bypasses the DM's campaign. If the scenario was recruiting workers to rebuild the castle, defending the castle and the workers against possible wandering threats, and making in character RP moments for interacting with both the workers and the other possible lords of the area, then the wizard character has just flushed all that down the toilet.

Plus, it plays merry hell with the rewards economy if that castle was considered to come out of party wealth. Because now they have their wealth AND the castle. They no longer need to worry about having one or the other.

Give another example. Playing a merchant type campaign where the PC's gain a decent sailing ship and they are going to start shipping and possibly dealing with pirates. Cool. After a few minutes of looking at the ship, the wizard player turns to me (the DM at the time) and says, "Y'know, if we sell the ship, buy a few teleport scrolls in the city where we live and we know we can buy these, we could make TONS more money, much more safely than screwing around with this ship".

I looked at it and he was completely right. My entire campaign, the reason that we're sitting at this table, gets flushed down the toilet in a single sentence. We kinda saved it by simply ignoring that option and going back to what we wanted to do - sailing and swashbuckling.

This is the problem with Tier 1 casters. With non-casters, this never happens. There is no way for a non-caster to completely bypass a scenario. But the casters, particular Tier 1 casters radically alter the campaign.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's too powerful because it completely bypasses the DM's campaign.

I guess I see that as being a problem with the DM's campaign. If the DM plans to do something and the players find a way to circumvent it, that's just part of the game.

I looked at it and he was completely right. My entire campaign, the reason that we're sitting at this table, gets flushed down the toilet in a single sentence.

I don't see why this would have come as a surprise. When I ran a nautical campaign, I put thought into teleportation and established reasons why the ship was being used. When I ran a session based on a teleport and the players had a mishap, I went with it and took the campaign somewhere it wouldn't otherwise have gone. I still don't see where the players doing unexpected things that circumvent the DM's plans is such a problem. If you want to railroad them, railroad them. If you don't, be ready to improvise.

We kinda saved it by simply ignoring that option and going back to what we wanted to do - sailing and swashbuckling.

So you and the players agreed to a conceit for mutual enjoyment, ran a game, and put a note in the back of your head to resent the rules you voluntarily ignored to do it? Seems unnecessary to me.

There is no way for a non-caster to completely bypass a scenario.

Sure there is. Rogue sneaks up behind a high-level NPC and kills him with one backstab. DM sets up a gladiator tournament for the fighter, and he ignores it and gives up the sword to romance another character. Bard diplomances an NPc into doing something he shouldn't. DM plans on any character going one way and he goes another. Players screw up DM plans all the time in ways big and small. The rules are a rather incidental participant in this dynamic.

 

[billd91]

It's too powerful because it completely bypasses the DM's campaign. If the scenario was recruiting workers to rebuild the castle, defending the castle and the workers against possible wandering threats, and making in character RP moments for interacting with both the workers and the other possible lords of the area, then the wizard character has just flushed all that down the toilet.

PCs are constantly changing campaigns with their ideas. This just means you can shift from staffing the rebuild to permanently staffing the castle, dealing with the local lords, dealing with the superstitious locals shocked that the castle was repaired overnight wi magic, dealing with the inevitable political fallout from not using guilded masons and craftsmen, and so on. Not that big a deal.

Give another example. Playing a merchant type campaign where the PC's gain a decent sailing ship and they are going to start shipping and possibly dealing with pirates. Cool. After a few minutes of looking at the ship, the wizard player turns to me (the DM at the time) and says, "Y'know, if we sell the ship, buy a few teleport scrolls in the city where we live and we know we can buy these, we could make TONS more money, much more safely than screwing around with this ship".

I looked at it and he was completely right. My entire campaign, the reason that we're sitting at this table, gets flushed down the toilet in a single sentence. We kinda saved it by simply ignoring that option and going back to what we wanted to do - sailing and swashbuckling.

This is the problem with Tier 1 casters. With non-casters, this never happens. There is no way for a non-caster to completely bypass a scenario. But the casters, particular Tier 1 casters radically alter the campaign.

At a shade under 1200 gp per one-way trip, a limitation of 900 miles, a limitation in cargo weight of whatever the reader and a few other dudes can carry, the chance of teleport error, and the caster level check for using a scroll above the reader's level, they thought that would somehow replace the value of a ship's enormous capacity?
Moreover, one of your players brought this up and it nearly short circuited the campaign idea?
Any of the groups I play would have told the wizard player he was crazy and we would have fired you as DM for listening to him. Teleporting merchants may make as much sense as Federal Express - great for relatively small cargoes that need to get somewhere fast (could make for an interesting courier campaign in a high magic world), but it's not a realistic solution for moving or supplying colonies, armies, towns, or cities with the goods they'll demand.

 

[Hussar]

Hrm, 9th level teleport gives me 4xmaximum load. That's about 300 pounds each. 1200 pounds of goods per casting. Instant transport and one HELL of a lot better chance of getting there safely than taking a ship or overland travel.

Yeah, totally uneconomical. Never mind that the ship costs ten thousand gp itself. Just about ten castings of teleport. 5 round trips. Yeah, I'm never, ever going to make my money back on those trips.

And, 10k for the ship was a pretty darn cheap ship as well. That's not counting prices to equip, feed, defend and whatnot the ship for a several week journey to travel 900 miles. Or more, depending if I want to travel further.

 

[N'raac]

Hrm, 9th level teleport gives me 4xmaximum load. That's about 300 pounds each. 1200 pounds of goods per casting. Instant transport and one HELL of a lot better chance of getting there safely than taking a ship or overland travel.

Yeah, totally uneconomical. Never mind that the ship costs ten thousand gp itself. Just about ten castings of teleport. 5 round trips. Yeah, I'm never, ever going to make my money back on those trips.

And, 10k for the ship was a pretty darn cheap ship as well. That's not counting prices to equip, feed, defend and whatnot the ship for a several week journey to travel 900 miles. Or more, depending if I want to travel further.

Teleport caps at 100 miles per level. If you need to go 1,500 miles across the ocean, now you need a L15 scroll of Teleport. And how did you get there the first time to carefully study the locale to reduce (NOT eliminate) your chance of error. The first time you fall short a couple of hundred miles, the ocean should be a quick reminder that Teleport is not without its own risks.