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

[Neonchameleon]

In BD&D/AD&D the opposite was true, at least at high levels. 'Trick' spells simply weren't reliable enough to use compared to 'blasty' ones to be worth using. It turns out that reversing that situation had some rather drastic consequences.

Mostly that the fun of trick spells is finding ways to make them better than blasty spells. The fun of blasty spells is their raw power. If blasty < trick, both fail.

It ends up creating wizards/mages that seem closer to their mythical and fictional counterparts.

It would if they had half a dozen tricks. Including cantrips. Not a couple of dozen.

 

[pemerton]

However, if we remove the magic shop, then we effectively add to the power of the Crafting spellcasters. The noncasters can't get items to make them more versatile without that magical economy.

N'raac, you've misattributed a lot of the quotes in this post to me.

 

[pemerton]

Player empowerment can just as easily become player entitlement.

If the GM tells the ranger that his grizzly bear won't follow him into the desert, for example, the player can either say "that's a reasonable assumption, given the extremely high temperatures and the bear's fur coat, not to mention issues of not being a natural habitat for it," and start trying to figure out if he'll have the opportunity to leave the desert in the near future (e.g. after the adventure's over), or if he'll be there a while and should start looking for a new animal companion.

Whether or not this is reasonable depends very much on what the broader understanding is about the purpose and consequences of play.

Is finding a new animal companion about resources? play time? Spending play time to rebuild an assumed class feature generally sucks, for instance.

 

[delericho]

Very much this. The "there's a spell for that" syndrome is one of the biggest issues.

True. And yet, frustratingly, I've met occasions where my party (mostly spellcasters) want to do something, by rights should be able to do that thing, and yet I've been unable to find just the right spell/item/whatever to do that thing. Despite all those thousands of spells, there are still gaps!

What I think I would quite like to see is a significant reduction in the number of specific spells/items in the game, possibly including the elimination of some iconic spells, but then the addition of a much more freeform Ritual system. (And, in fact, the Epic rules contain something that's not too far from what I'd be looking for.)

Of course, balancing a ritual system would be extremely tough (as tough as writing a genuinely balanced magic item crafting syste, in fact). But I would have thought it might be possible. Also: I see no great reason why such a Ritual system should automatically be limited to Casters - in a magical universe, it's entirely possible that even the most mundane of Fighters might know a couple of simple charms. (cf Robin Hobb's "Soldier Son" trilogy, and the "keep fast" charm.)

Problem is, each step takes us further away from 'fixing' 3e, and a step towards an entirely new edition. And I've tried that; it didn't go so well.

 

[MarkB]

Whether or not this is reasonable depends very much on what the broader understanding is about the purpose and consequences of play.

Is finding a new animal companion about resources? play time? Spending play time to rebuild an assumed class feature generally sucks, for instance.

The right approach helps - one of my best role-playing experiences in a play-by-post game was when my half-orc druid had to reluctantly set free his horrid dire wolf animal companion because we were venturing into the Underdark and she'd have had trouble with the large amounts of climbing and pitch darkness involved. But then, you don't want to go through all that every time you switch environments.

Of course, as always, There's A Spell For That. Have the Ranger dedicate a 1st-level spell slot to Endure Elements, and the bear will be comfortable in desert conditions all day, every day.

 

[N'raac]

N'raac, you've misattributed a lot of the quotes in this post to me.

OOPS!! Sorry; think it's fixed now.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't see this as a problem with the rules, though. If the GM is screwing with a druid or ranger's animal companion "just because he can," then he is, quite simply, doing it wrong. It wasn't that 3E didn't like giving GM's that power (though, to be sure, it pushed forward ideas of player empowerment), as the quote I made before is from the 3.X DMG, it's just that it - like all editions - presumes that the GM isn't trying to be a jerk.

This works on both sides, too. Player empowerment can just as easily become player entitlement.

If the GM tells the ranger that his grizzly bear won't follow him into the desert, for example, the player can either say "that's a reasonable assumption, given the extremely high temperatures and the bear's fur coat, not to mention issues of not being a natural habitat for it," and start trying to figure out if he'll have the opportunity to leave the desert in the near future (e.g. after the adventure's over), or if he'll be there a while and should start looking for a new animal companion.

...or the player can say "oh come on! This is a world with fire-breathing dragons and demon-blooded sorcerers, but a bear in the desert breaks your immersion?! Damn it, this is a class feature, you taking this away weakens my character, and you're doing it just because?! Nuts to you, I'm going to Google "bears in the desert" and I'll bet I can find freaking dissertations saying that grizzlies will venture into deserts, then will you stop mucking up my ranger already?!"

In either case, the GM is making what I think is a reasonable call; sometimes things don't go exactly how the player(s) would like, but that doesn't mean that the GM is screwing them when that happens.

Which call?

1: That a grizzly bear that is bonded to either a druid or a ranger wouldn't go in the desert and they'd have no petty-magic way of keeping their animal companion at the right temperature?

2: That sending a PC with a grizzly bear pet through the desert is something other than a jerk move?

3: Agreeing that the PC has a grizzly bear pet at character generation despite knowing there were significant deserts ahead that would make the PC's grizzly bear have serious problems and leave them.

Because if we look at the simple call the GM made then yes, once the GM has painted themself into that corner/been painted into that corner the call is defensible. But the GM should not have let themselves be painted into such a corner.

 

[billd91]

Which call?

1: That a grizzly bear that is bonded to either a druid or a ranger wouldn't go in the desert and they'd have no petty-magic way of keeping their animal companion at the right temperature?

Grizzly bear may not know that and may still balk at far more than just the heat. A good amount of animal handling will probably overcome this, but even that can fail.

2: That sending a PC with a grizzly bear pet through the desert is something other than a jerk move?

3: Agreeing that the PC has a grizzly bear pet at character generation despite knowing there were significant deserts ahead that would make the PC's grizzly bear have serious problems and leave them.

It may well be that this campaign isn't on a railroad and the players have used their own free will to choose a quest that will take them through a desert. It shouldn't be seen as a DMing failure that PCs with pets, animal companions, mounts, or other complicating companions may end up adventuring in environments not suited to those creatures. If a druid with a grizzly bear animal companion gets involved in an adventure exploring a sunken wreck, it's perfectly reasonable to do without that animal companion for the duration of the adventure. Let it guard a base camp on dry land.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It may well be that this campaign isn't on a railroad and the players have used their own free will to choose a quest that will take them through a desert.

In those cases it's the players not the DM that are the problem.

If a druid with a grizzly bear animal companion gets involved in an adventure exploring a sunken wreck, it's perfectly reasonable to do without that animal companion for the duration of the adventure. Let it guard a base camp on dry land.

It's also perfectly reasonable to give the bear precisely the same means of exploring the sunken wreck the PCs are using. I mean humans don't breathe water without magic.

 

[pemerton]

It's also perfectly reasonable to give the bear precisely the same means of exploring the sunken wreck the PCs are using. I mean humans don't breathe water without magic.

Good point!