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

[TwoSix]

I know you're speaking of Planar Shepard, but there's also Moonspeaker.

Fair point. Moonspeaker is very solid. Planar Shepherd takes Druid up a tier, though, which is saying something when the class is already Tier 1.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the core 3E being broken. I don't believe it is every edition has things that can be abused in a powergamer hands and every edition has flaws. As you play it you learn what works and what does not and then you if chose use rule 0.

For the record, oD&D was tested to death with powergamers before it was first released and doesn't break. 1e doesn't break in core. And 4e has been errata'd so it doesn't break. The only thing to truly abuse in 4e is consumables, and even they aren't utterly broken. 3e stands pretty much alone in being as easy to break as it is in the D&D family.

Then you have never had a true optimizer who knows the system combine classes with prestige classes and make a character that is so over powered that to properly challenge him you end up wiping the floor with the rest of the party.

A true optimiser who knows the system knows that the most powerful two classes in core are the wizard and the druid (the cleric needs a bit of splat support). And as a druid the joke is you only take prestige classes beginning with "P". And ending in "-lanar Shepherd". You do not need prestige classes to break wizards or druids - they are just icing on the cake.

I have seen plenty of clerics and druid multiclassing as well as wizard doing though not as much. Not everyone believes that every PC needs to have the best optimized build around.

Of course not. The issue is that the game should be able to take such PCs. Not that everyone is going to use them.

 

[pemerton]

I am also strict on multiclassing which is again no without my approval. I am not against multiclassing as a way to build your concept but I have found that this stops a lot of the power gaming.

I have seen plenty of clerics and druid multiclassing as well as wizard doing though not as much. Not everyone believes that every PC needs to have the best optimized build around.

Are you saying that it's good to restrict multi-classing because it's overpowered, or that it's good to encourage multi-classing because multi-class casters are less mechanically optimised?

My understanding is that overpoweredness of casters and multi-classing are mostly orthogonal, because most of the potentially game-breaking stuff - summoning, polymorph, teleport, scrying, etc - is in the core PHB and is avaible to a druid or wizard without any multi-classing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, to an extent. Yes, there's a lot of "broken" stuff in core. I'm not going to deny that; that was a problem when I was making my RPG (which started as 3.5 house rules). But, it breaks a lot worse with a lot of non-core stuff added. Certain PrCs (most anything for Sorcerer), tons of feats (DMM clerics), etc. are not in core. Yes, Core has Time Stop, Shapechange, chain-Gating, Simulacrum, Natural Spell, etc., but the argument "it makes no difference" is just inaccurate. As always, play what you like

 

[Loonook]

The 10 best ideas I have seen on this and boards to remedy most of the abuse come down to these:

1.) Get rid of the Spell Component pouch, make Eschew Materials and Natural Spell into Metamagic feats that works like Still and Silent Spell, and make components count.

2.) Polymorph-like spells requires an appropriate Knowledge check upon witnessing an example of the creature to cast equal to an appropriate DC (that number I would have to look into of course, but somewhere between 10-15 + (1/2HD/1*HD) sounds about right). This check may be made once/level if the creature is encountered again.

3.) Eliminate Celerity and similar spells, and close Conjuration (creation) money loopholes through adding a subclause that makes the products of such spells worthless in the open market.

4.) Make Knock function like Find Traps.

5.) Double the costs to create wands, and do not sell dozens of wands in your local Magimart.

6.) Drop all Flight spells by 2 steps, minimum 1 rd/level. Fly? 1 rd/lvl. Overland Flight? 1 minute/lvl. This one is probably the one I have the biggest problem with, but ehh.

7.) Enforce all rules for spells to the letter.

8.) Use Pathfinder's version of Forcecage.

9.) Enforce localized rarity of spells. I shouldn't be able to get a 'desert' spell from Sandstorm while in the middle of the frozen tundra. Subset: Allow only 1 spell/level to be from a regional book. Same rules for Sorcerers and all other casters (see below).

10.) Priests, Druids, and lower tier groups that gain 'all' spells on their home list get Prayer books/Training Books/etc that function as spellbooks. I worked on this at my blog before I got injured, and plan to return to the idea with vigor once I can crunch better as this post has taken me almost 45 minutes to generate and I'm worn out.

Yeah, not the most popular routes, and it doesn't solve all of the problems of every possible issue... But for less than a page of text it fixes a heck of a lot of issues and/or forces the Wizard player to specialize for certain powerful spells.

So? How does this sound?


Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Elf Witch]

Except that a TRUE optimizer knows that you can do that with a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid, no splats or PrCs needed. Hell, there's only PrC that's actually a power-up for druids at ALL.



Nothing wrong with that, embedding narrative hooks to the chosen mechanics makes for a stronger game.


Fochlucan Lyrist. Oozes flavor, but yea, the entry mechanics are so harsh as to weaken the character severely.

But the argument about your players not being powergamers isn't really relevant. The argument from our side (at least, my personal framing of the pro-4e camp) is that the game should support your powergaming, and not break. Period. The theory that you should weaken your character deliberately to really "roleplay" is an artifact of an earlier time that should have died with 2nd edition. (Sorry, Rath!)

I never said I didn't have any powergamers in my group. I have two my roommate happens to be one of them and she has two in her game. I don't think there is anything wrong with powergaming. They way I define powergaming is having system mastery and wanting a competent character that is optimized. that is important to them but not to the point that it breaks the game or ruins the fun at the table. That is a munchkin and I have played with them over the years and seen the havoc they cause. And there have been munchkins in every edition that I have played. I remember some of the munchkins back when skill and powers came out for 2E. The difference is I have had my powergamers ask me if they thought they were over powered and was it effecting the game in a negative way they have also accepted when I have felt the need to say I think something I allowed in is causing issues and we work to make it better.

I have found that 3.5 can support powergaming and yes it does require the DM to keep an eye out when it strays into being a munchkin. I only played 4E for a few months so I can't say if it can be munckined but if the price to prevent it the style of 4E then no thank you.

And nobody weakens their character to play. My game supports both optimizer and non optimizer and both have fun at my table because of the way I tailor my encounters and my games. I don't really consider it weak to have a mage style PC choose not to memorize a ton of knocks because there is a rogue this frees them up for other spells and helps not step on the rogue toes. Sure wizards in my game have scry and teleport and but they also know that it is no guarantee that those will work every time because I play my NPCs to be as smart as they should be which means a lot of foes will have things to stop scry and teleport.

Wizards may have ton of good area spells and point and die spells but there will be foes that can handle that and that will require the party to work as a team.

 

[Elf Witch]

For the record, oD&D was tested to death with powergamers before it was first released and doesn't break. 1e doesn't break in core. And 4e has been errata'd so it doesn't break. The only thing to truly abuse in 4e is consumables, and even they aren't utterly broken. 3e stands pretty much alone in being as easy to break as it is in the D&D family.



A true optimiser who knows the system knows that the most powerful two classes in core are the wizard and the druid (the cleric needs a bit of splat support). And as a druid the joke is you only take prestige classes beginning with "P". And ending in "-lanar Shepherd". You do not need prestige classes to break wizards or druids - they are just icing on the cake.



Of course not. The issue is that the game should be able to take such PCs. Not that everyone is going to use them.

I am sorry but I find this hard to believe. Way back when I was playing the older editions I saw munchkins break the game. Back when the internet was in its infancy there was plenty of talk on the Genie boards about how to deal with munchkins that term has been around longer than 3E. It has always been an issue. Do I think it got worse in 3E yes I do because 3E opened up so many choices. But I happen to like that it is why it is my favorite edition because of the choices available. If the trade off for that is having to deal with over the top munchkins then that is a trade off I am willing to make.

No not a true optimizer a munchkin looks at the game that way. Not every one who likes to optimize their PC does so by playing a tier 1 class. One of my players loves monks and he optimizes the daylights out of it and in the end comes out with a powerful character that does everything he wants. I have seen the powergamers in my game make some pretty strong characters out of lower tiers. They play a druid when they want to play a magical woodmen if they don't want the magic then they play a ranger. First they pick what they are in the mood for then they go to town optimizing it.

Optimizing should not mean only playing the strongest classes but building any class to be the best it can be and that is how they chose to play the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

Are you saying that it's good to restrict multi-classing because it's overpowered, or that it's good to encourage multi-classing because multi-class casters are less mechanically optimised?

My understanding is that overpoweredness of casters and multi-classing are mostly orthogonal, because most of the potentially game-breaking stuff - summoning, polymorph, teleport, scrying, etc - is in the core PHB and is avaible to a druid or wizard without any multi-classing.

I am saying that certain multiclassing combos are over powered and I hate cherry picking especially in front loaded classes. Which is why I don't just allow it without asking me first. I have found that this often stops arguments. Players know rom day 1 this is how I DM so while they might try and convince me to change my mind on a combo that I think is over powered I have found that this way makes players less angry then allowing anything and then having to pull it out of the game. The players I have right now are pretty good but I have had some who would not take to kindly to it being after the fact.

And yes multiclassing can be away to pull down tier 1 classes. In a game I ran I wanted it very low magic so anyone playing any kind of tier 1 had to multiclass with a mundane class.

 

[Hussar]

Not a bad list Loonook. I could live with most of these:

The 10 best ideas I have seen on this and boards to remedy most of the abuse come down to these:

1.) Get rid of the Spell Component pouch, make Eschew Materials and Natural Spell into Metamagic feats that works like Still and Silent Spell, and make components count.

Not sure about this one to be honest. For one, most of the spell components (unless you also want to go through every spell and change those) are hardly rare or difficult to get. Pinch of sand for a sleep spell? Not exactly hard. Some might be a bit tricky, but, for the most part, it's not a huge deal. And the casters are already getting reamed with book keeping. I'd also point out that this only really affects wizards as the cleric and druid are mostly using their focus.

2.) Polymorph-like spells requires an appropriate Knowledge check upon witnessing an example of the creature to cast equal to an appropriate DC (that number I would have to look into of course, but somewhere between 10-15 + (1/2HD/1*HD) sounds about right). This check may be made once/level if the creature is encountered again.

I'd go with a different fix. Limit size. If you can only polymorph into a large or smaller creature, that gets around a LOT of the issues. No more Behir polymorph cheese. You could also possibly cut it down to certain monster types as well - Animals and magical beasts, for example - would bring the spell way back in line.

3.) Eliminate Celerity and similar spells, and close Conjuration (creation) money loopholes through adding a subclause that makes the products of such spells worthless in the open market.

4.) Make Knock function like Find Traps.

5.) Double the costs to create wands, and do not sell dozens of wands in your local Magimart.

6.) Drop all Flight spells by 2 steps, minimum 1 rd/level. Fly? 1 rd/lvl. Overland Flight? 1 minute/lvl. This one is probably the one I have the biggest problem with, but ehh.

Good... good...

7.) Enforce all rules for spells to the letter.

That's a bit stickier. For one, a lot of the spells are pretty darn vague. I mean, what does that mean when I'm casting Spectral Force? There's a spell with a LOT of leeway. Look at all the disagreement on what Charm actually means. I like the intent, but, I'm thinking that you'd have to do a massive rewrite on the spell section in the PHB in order to achieve this.

8.) Use Pathfinder's version of Forcecage.

9.) Enforce localized rarity of spells. I shouldn't be able to get a 'desert' spell from Sandstorm while in the middle of the frozen tundra. Subset: Allow only 1 spell/level to be from a regional book. Same rules for Sorcerers and all other casters (see below).

Works.

10.) Priests, Druids, and lower tier groups that gain 'all' spells on their home list get Prayer books/Training Books/etc that function as spellbooks. I worked on this at my blog before I got injured, and plan to return to the idea with vigor once I can crunch better as this post has taken me almost 45 minutes to generate and I'm worn out.

Yeah, I 'd be behind this.

Yeah, not the most popular routes, and it doesn't solve all of the problems of every possible issue... But for less than a page of text it fixes a heck of a lot of issues and/or forces the Wizard player to specialize for certain powerful spells.

So? How does this sound?


Slainte,

-Loonook.

I think this goes a long way towards fixing the issue.

 

[Loonook]

Not sure about this one to be honest. For one, most of the spell components (unless you also want to go through every spell and change those) are hardly rare or difficult to get. Pinch of sand for a sleep spell? Not exactly hard. Some might be a bit tricky, but, for the most part, it's not a huge deal. And the casters are already getting reamed with book keeping. I'd also point out that this only really affects wizards as the cleric and druid are mostly using their focus.

Yes, but that then provides for the situational tracking. Pretty much I see it like this: If you absolutely, positively are stuck in an area where bat guano, a live spider, or a glass rod and wool are not available? You can prepare the spell as need be. Would also allow for Eschew to Eschew a Focus for the same reason in case a priest is separated from their holy symbol. Admittedly it makes EM a bit dicey, but it also makes a heck of a lot more sense than having a snowball in the middle of a desert. Traveling wizards with regional spells that have weird components or who may be traveling on the planes away from ready resources wouldn't have the Infinite Component case.

I'd go with a different fix. Limit size. If you can only polymorph into a large or smaller creature, that gets around a LOT of the issues. No more Behir polymorph cheese. You could also possibly cut it down to certain monster types as well - Animals and magical beasts, for example - would bring the spell way back in line.

I like the thought, but there are a lot of nice Large sized creatures. You eliminate the Behir or force a high Knowledge check would limit you well. The Monster Type issue is also resolved as the average caster of Polymorph will only have so many points to put into various Knowledges to allow for those successful checks. Not a hard fix, but I think meeting in the middle here may actually make everybody happy.

Good... good...

I am glad.

That's a bit stickier. For one, a lot of the spells are pretty darn vague. I mean, what does that mean when I'm casting Spectral Force? There's a spell with a LOT of leeway. Look at all the disagreement on what Charm actually means. I like the intent, but, I'm thinking that you'd have to do a massive rewrite on the spell section in the PHB in order to achieve this.

Ehh. Coming from 2e I still don't see Charm as such a big deal. Indeed the old Charm was so, so good in comparison depending on the intelligence of the target as to be ridiculous.

And as I said, I'm going for major slicing, not the thin ones. If we can correct 80-90% of things with a short bit of text? Makes my work worthwhile.

Works.

Yeah, I 'd be behind this.

To be honest I'd love to return Divine Spellcasting to the old Sphere system where you got full access to spells in certain Spheres and low level access to others. That is a pipe dream, so I'll go with spellbook analogues as a correction.

I think this goes a long way towards fixing the issue.

Yeah. There are definitely things to fix beyond that, but I think that those fixes and some testing/balancing of the martial and skill-based classes around that would be for the best.

Slainte,

-Loonook.