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

[Bluenose]

Me, I put the blame squarely at the feet of the system. When I run a game I present the PCs with challenges and, depending on the game, a motivation. How they solve it is up to them. And it's not as if a castle designer goes round saying "I'll put a locked door for the rogue here, and a ward to dispel for the wizard here, and a portcullis to lift here". This is not a technique that fails in most games.

On this, note that if you've got three wizards then they can open the locked door (Knock), dispel the ward (Dispel Magic) and lift the portcullis (Strength). Three rogues/thieves can open the locked door and perhaps lift the portcullis if one of them is strong (though the 18/50 of Strength is beyond them). They cannot deal with the ward. Three Fighters should have no problem with the portcullis, cannot deal with the ward, and before and before 3e would have had no way to open the locked door (with their number of skill points and class skills 3e improves their chances infinitely, as any increase from 0% represents an infinite increase). One of those groups is more versatile than the others, and hardly suffers for it.

 

[billd91]

On this, note that if you've got three wizards then they can open the locked door (Knock), dispel the ward (Dispel Magic) and lift the portcullis (Strength). Three rogues/thieves can open the locked door and perhaps lift the portcullis if one of them is strong (though the 18/50 of Strength is beyond them). They cannot deal with the ward. Three Fighters should have no problem with the portcullis, cannot deal with the ward, and before and before 3e would have had no way to open the locked door (with their number of skill points and class skills 3e improves their chances infinitely, as any increase from 0% represents an infinite increase). One of those groups is more versatile than the others, and hardly suffers for it.

That's quite a cherry-pick of a situation. How many wizards in any edition prepped a strength spell to use on themselves? How many wizards, even with a strength spell on them, are going to have the base strength necessary to lift that gate?

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's quite a cherry-pick of a situation. How many wizards in any edition prepped a strength spell to use on themselves? How many wizards, even with a strength spell on them, are going to have the base strength necessary to lift that gate?

How much does our gate weigh? Levitate can move one object of up to 100lbs/level, and that's a fairly common utility spell. Those with Summon Monster III prepared can go for strength directly with Celestial Black Bear or a Fiendish Ape (and monsters only get stronger as your level goes up).

And [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION], the fighters can kick the door off its hinges.

 

[N'raac]

And yes, my thinking was that wands would work in the same way as scrolls - instead of having charges they would instead allow the caster to spontaneously cast the spell as often as he had slots available.

I’ve toyed with the “no charges/replaces a spell of the same level” idea. I find that powerful, in that the item is now something that won’t just crumble to dust after a while. That makes a meaningful tradeoff. Changing all wands makes Use Magic Device a lot less useful, though.

I don't think I could better underline one of the core problems of the wizard. "A wizard who memorizes this spell gives up other better useful spells". But the rogue, naturally, can't do any of the better useful things a wizard can so he pitches in by picking locks and allowing the wizard fun toys. 4e Knock wins here - it takes a minute to cast when the rogue can have the lock open in seconds.

How does the Wizard do fighting in close quarters where the Rogue and Fighter can always flank the target? A variety of challenges typically allows all party members a chance to shine. The Fighter and Rogue have no difficulty battling in Silence either.

The point is the rogue should be better at picking locks than the wizard. That you have to impose metagame limits on very basic roleplaying just points to a problem with the system.

How many locks can a wizard get through in a day? And why don’t Evil creatures have locked containers for their possessions – putting a lot of trust in those other Evil creatures not to steal their stuff (like those N and even G rogues do in some PC parties!)

As for "An epic level fighter can mow down most armies", Giant in the Playground had a series of duels. Level 13 wizard vs Level 20 fighter. The wizard was seriously nerfed - no teleporting away, no prebuffing, no scrying. And the fighter did win one - but that had nothing to do with being a fighter rather than being a glorified commoner with three quarters of a million GP worth of equipment. The level 20 fighter wasn't a match for the level 13 wizard, despite the wealth.

So the Wizard knows he’s going up against a single L20 Fighter, and customizes his spellbook and spell selection for same? Can the Fighter have a magic item that puts an Anti-Magic Shell around him, or creates (or transports him and the wizard to) a Dead Magic Zone for a brief period of time? Perhaps a magical sword with a few wizard killing abilities?

What happens if we take that Wizard who’s loaded up for the day to face a single L20 fighter and instead place him against a CR 13 challenge that lacks the fighter’s weaknesses? Say a group of L10 wizards (enough to equal CR 13, forget CR 20) with lots of Dispel Magics and FORT/REF save spells (or just loaded up with Dispels and Magic Missiles)? Let’s say about half delay to Dispel if the L13 Wizard casts, while the other half use Magic Missiles, Scorching Rays, etc. (no 3^rd level offense – they need that for Scorching Ray!).

And for an army? 1 arrow in 20 from the commoners is going to hit. Doing about d8 damage. 400 archers with light crossbows? That level 20 fighter is going down like Jacques Cousteau.

I see. An Animal Companion being reassured enough to use a water breathing spell offends your sense of verisimilitude, but 400 commoners all easily able to target a single Fighter in their midst does not. I think that Fighter has Total Cover from a lot of those Commoners’ crossbows.

There are tons of problems with tier 1 caster (many of them outlined here). However, one of the main problems with tier 1 casters versus martial melee characters is the Action Economy framework of the 3.x/PF system. The action economy of casting a spell is bound up in standard actions. Spellcasters' payload scales along the paradigm of the standard action as they level up. However, this is not the way for martial melee (ranged manyshot excluded) characters. Their payload is bound up in the full attack action and therefore scales with usage of that action economy framework. As such, forgoing a full attack in order to leverage a move action and a standard action becomes more and more punitive as the game progresses; punitive to the point that anything other than standing in front of an enemy and rock-em sock-em full attack routine is costing you and your group in the action economy game versus your enemies. In a game as swingy as mid to high level D&D, that is a very, very bad idea. Further, the same goes for monsters with multi-attack routines that rely on full attack actions; the main reason why high level enemies have to be casters because kiting/shutting down melee enemies is a joke...and the reason why dragons go from being dragons to...well sorcerers.

Pathfinder helped with this one. Cleave was changed to allow a standard action to take one swing and, if it hits, take a second one on an adjacent target. Great Cleave allows them to continue as long as they keep hitting, until every target in reach is struck (or you miss – but all these are at full BAB). Poor fighter has to suck up a -2 to AC, though.

There are also feats (and some class skills) allowing a single attack that does more damage. Vital Strike allows double base damage, with a chain boosting this to triple and quadruple. IIRC, a lot of bonus damage didn’t multiply, but one attack at top BAB vs 4 at declining BAB seems a reasonable tradeoff.

“There’s a Feat for that” offsets “There’s a Spell for that”, at least to some extent.

Our rogue has a once a day knock on his lock picking tools. He rarely uses it because he hoards it in case he can't get through a door so often it ends up not being used.

That’s how I see any Wizard with Knock memorized played. He only gets to do this once, so he’s not likely to waste it.

And if this happens a lot I lay the blame at the DMs feet for not planning better encounters that allow all the PCs a chance to participate. As a DM you know what your players can do you have far more knowledge when it comes to preparing the bad guys and the encounter. If your wizard pulls those kind of spells hold back some of your NPCs to attack after the wizard has blown these spells this allows you to have throw a huge amount of bad guys at the players for a very climatic battle and do so without just outright killing them.

Agreed. As an example, if the Wizard focuses on 1 target Save or Suck spells, groups of enemies level the playing field. The Wizard does not always know what is coming up next.

When I play part of the fun is getting to the battle and if we all get to have fun doing that then often it does not matter who takes out the big bad guy it only becomes an issue if it is the same player again and again. We are supposed to be a team and at my table there is always a lot of high fives when the bad guys go down we don't much care how it goes down as long as he goes down.

I find “who took him down” often an interesting question. Well, the Fighter struck the final blow, but the Rogue’s sneak attacks eroded his hp, and the Wizard’s spells weakened the Big Bad, while the Cleric’s healing spells kept the fighter from falling before that blow was struck. So who took him down?

I agree that a DM should not be looking for ways to negate abilities all the time. But there is nothing wrong with taking players out of their comfort zones either now and again.

Variety keeps it interesting and lets each character shine. Sometimes, the Rogue can’t Sneak Attack or the Warrior can’t hit. Other times, spells are less useful or completely nerfed. Try slapping a Silence on the area just before combat is engaged and watching that Wizard frantically search for a spell without a verbal component (or have him grappled by a snake, etc.).

So your party carries around crowbars mine rarely do but then my DMs enforce weight limits.

There’s generally a high STR warrior in the party who can double as a pack mule. Mine carries a crowbar (I even put the improve weapon stats on his sheet, as I considered using it if he needed a blunt weapon, especially at L1). But you do leave a nice trail of broken locks, where the Rogue can even re-lock that special door (let’s see Knock do that!).

So freaking what big deal

in a duel which is a planned fight a wizard mainly won against a higher level fighter. How does this prove anything other than wizards are better in duels.

Wizards (clerics, druids, etc.) can customize for specific known challenges. That’s what it proves. Do they always know everything that is coming up next? Let’s see an example from, say, a L10 Wizard with lots of spell access.

Same goes with the special ops dungeon dwellers who know exactly what a rope trick is and have all the proper counters for it. Yup, it works in THIS dungeon. But is every dungeon the same? Every single adventure will have NPC's with detailed SOP's to counter a rope trick? It's not believable.

Every military team has SOP for dealing with a sniper, don’t they? If Rope Trick use is so common as to be nearly universal, I suggest a lot of groups would have procedures for dealing with it.

Others won’t. But if the heroes don’t have the time to spend one full day on every encounter, that also eliminates this as a viable strategy. So what do the PC’s do after winning Encounter #1, but knowing two of the opposition fled the scene?

Let’s go Rope Trick. OK, the remaining denizens have a full day to bolster their defences, so the next encounter may be more challenging than it otherwise would have been. The Shaman leader can change all his spells around too.

If I’m designing an adventure where I expect the PC’s will have only one encounter in a day (perhaps an ancient tomb – nothing will happen until they enter), then those encounters will be powerful enough to be challenging assuming a party that can and will use every resource available against it.

((Also, while it does say it's hazardous to have an extradimensional space within another one, it never exactly tells you what that means. It's going to explode? It's going to give me cancer? What?))

Let’s ignore or brush off all restrictions on spells and then complain that spells are too powerful. That said, I prefer Pathfinder’s approach that other ED spaces simply stop working (ie while in a Rope Trick, your Haversack and Bag of Holding spaces cannot be accessed; toss a Bag of Holding in a Haversack and you have to take it back out to access the items inside).

Same goes with the pacing arguments. It makes too many assumptions about the campaign. "You won't have time to craft because things are happening." Well, that depends. I mean, I ran the Savage Tide Adventure Path from Paizo a few years ago. In one adventure, you spend over six months on ship. In another, you will spend at least three months getting to the adventure location. Tons and tons of free time. Our current Dark Sun campaign is about 9th level right now and we've been on the go for over two years in game time. So, no, high speed pacing is too campaign specific.

I see crafting the other way, in that a GM who plans a frenetic pace should tell the player his crafting feats will likely be frustrated and maybe he should consider something else. Their wealth caps their ability to benefit from Crafting anyway. There’s also XP loss in 3.5, but again I prefer Pathfinder’s approach (which also allows for some use of crafting on the road).

As far as pacing goes, the reining in effect comes from not allowing the PCs' actions to go without a meaningful response. Pop in and hit a couple rooms and turtle up? They've stirred a hornet's nest and the hornets might be savvy enough to find the PCs directly. And whether they do or don't, the situation won't be the same when the PCs stick their necks out again.

Exactly. If the PC’s suffer a “hit and run” attack, would they just go about their usual business waiting for the next one? Why would the goblin tribe just proceed as if nothing has happened?

I disagree. Every single one of the examples I listed are primarily about reining in imbalances. Why do we have high paced campaigns? To stop the 5 minute adventuring day. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter. If 15 MAD didn't exist as a tactic, then whether the party goes fast or slow would be entirely up the party and the game would not break either way.

All you have to do is structure your adventures with a single encounter day in mind. I did that commonly back in the day for wilderness travel – you’re not going to have a series of small encounters a la dungeon exploration, so either the travel fades into the backdrop, or you have a big encounter that is challenging enough to be a danger all by itself, rather than just consuming a bit of your resources.

On this, note that if you've got three wizards then they can open the locked door (Knock), dispel the ward (Dispel Magic) and lift the portcullis (Strength). Three rogues/thieves can open the locked door and perhaps lift the portcullis if one of them is strong (though the 18/50 of Strength is beyond them). They cannot deal with the ward. Three Fighters should have no problem with the portcullis, cannot deal with the ward, and before and before 3e would have had no way to open the locked door (with their number of skill points and class skills 3e improves their chances infinitely, as any increase from 0% represents an infinite increase). One of those groups is more versatile than the others, and hardly suffers for it.

It’s pretty easy to structure a situation where three wizards have a big advantage, especially if they happen to have just the right spells memorized today. Let’s have an encounter past the locked door, ward and portcullis (which were set up last night, after they took out the sentries then retreated to rest). Past the portcullis, a group of Goblins moves up, while a second group emerges from behind. They all have crossbows. One fires his crossbow, and suddenly the wizards can hear nothing, as the bolt (now jammed in the wood portcullis frame) had a Silence spell cast on it.

Now, of course, THESE wizards will also just happen to have a whole pile of spells with non-verbal components/Silent Spell on them, because they are the Wizards Prepared for Any Challenge, but I doubt that will be the case with a typical group of, say, 3 PC L7 wizards.

So, to return to the initial question, my simple answer is "DM's that refuse to customize their adventures to take the strengths and weaknesses of the party into account."

 

[N'raac]

I know I am not sure what I did wrong. I have tried to fix it three times and the last time it kept timing out.

I tag my multi-quotes, hit reply and copy the mess to Word. Then I copy the response back. Time out isn’t a concern then, since the work is in Word.

 

[Bluenose]

That's quite a cherry-pick of a situation. How many wizards in any edition prepped a strength spell to use on themselves? How many wizards, even with a strength spell on them, are going to have the base strength necessary to lift that gate?

It was something I regularly used to memorise for AD&D games. It's one of the best buff spells available for it's level, giving 18/50 strength to anyone it's cast on. Which is often a boost even for a fighter or other melee specialist. The 3e version was less good, of course.

How much does our gate weigh? Levitate can move one object of up to 100lbs/level, and that's a fairly common utility spell. Those with Summon Monster III prepared can go for strength directly with Celestial Black Bear or a Fiendish Ape (and monsters only get stronger as your level goes up).

And @Bluenose, the fighters can kick the door off its hinges.

True. It's probably easier for them, in fact, than it is for the thief group to get the portcullis lifted.

It’s pretty easy to structure a situation where three wizards have a big advantage, especially if they happen to have just the right spells memorized today. Let’s have an encounter past the locked door, ward and portcullis (which were set up last night, after they took out the sentries then retreated to rest). Past the portcullis, a group of Goblins moves up, while a second group emerges from behind. They all have crossbows. One fires his crossbow, and suddenly the wizards can hear nothing, as the bolt (now jammed in the wood portcullis frame) had a Silence spell cast on it.

Now, of course, THESE wizards will also just happen to have a whole pile of spells with non-verbal components/Silent Spell on them, because they are the Wizards Prepared for Any Challenge, but I doubt that will be the case with a typical group of, say, 3 PC L7 wizards.

No, I'm pretty sure using magic that can't be negated by their own magic screws them over quite thoroughly. Though since the thief party and fighter party don't have their own magic, they have some rather significant problems.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How does the Wizard do fighting in close quarters where the Rogue and Fighter can always flank the target?

Five foot step and web.

How many locks can a wizard get through in a day? And why don’t Evil creatures have locked containers for their possessions – putting a lot of trust in those other Evil creatures not to steal their stuff (like those N and even G rogues do in some PC parties!)

Brute force deals with both these problems. As I say, carry a crowbar if you don't have a rogue handy. Lockpicking is a tool of stealth rather than one of opening - and by the time you reach the treasure the owners are normally dead (or the rogue isn't around to blame).

So the Wizard knows he’s going up against a single L20 Fighter, and customizes his spellbook and spell selection for same? Can the Fighter have a magic item that puts an Anti-Magic Shell around him, or creates (or transports him and the wizard to) a Dead Magic Zone for a brief period of time? Perhaps a magical sword with a few wizard killing abilities?

The fighters were customised a lot more than the wizards.

What happens if we take that Wizard who’s loaded up for the day to face a single L20 fighter and instead place him against a CR 13 challenge that lacks the fighter’s weaknesses? Say a group of L10 wizards (enough to equal CR 13, forget CR 20) with lots of Dispel Magics and FORT/REF save spells (or just loaded up with Dispels and Magic Missiles)? Let’s say about half delay to Dispel if the L13 Wizard casts, while the other half use Magic Missiles, Scorching Rays, etc. (no 3^rd level offense – they need that for Scorching Ray!).

Three level 10 wizards vs a level 13 wizard? The action economy has it unless there's a Contingency in place or the L13 wins initiative. I thought the advantage a group of PCs had against a single NPC was well known.

“There’s a Feat for that” offsets “There’s a Spell for that”, at least to some extent.

Given that I can't think of a single feat that adds more flexibility than a second level spell like Levitate (not counting either Spellcasting Prodigy or the Bo9S), and the number of spells a wizard gets is far in excess of the number of feats a fighter does, I'm going to have to go with "to very little extent".

Agreed. As an example, if the Wizard focuses on 1 target Save or Suck spells, groups of enemies level the playing field. The Wizard does not always know what is coming up next.

If the wizard focusses almost exclusively on 1 target Save or Suck spells that wizard is stupid. Why don't you use as your example a wizard who focusses exclusively on stat buffs? It's about as realistic. For starters there are plenty of Area Save or Suck spells. (Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and Evard's Black Tentacles giving complete save coverage between them and all ignoring SR and Magic Immunity in 3.5). Now there is a place for single target save or suck spells for the rare times you can't place AoEs. Especially whatever that spell from Frostburn doing 3d6 Dex (and so having a good chance of 1-shotting a dragon) is. But any approach that starts "If the wizard only focusses on one single thing" just means "If the wizard plays like a chump." No one doubts that a badly played wizard can be useless. Or dead.

Variety keeps it interesting and lets each character shine. Sometimes, the Rogue can’t Sneak Attack or the Warrior can’t hit. Other times, spells are less useful or completely nerfed. Try slapping a Silence on the area just before combat is engaged and watching that Wizard frantically search for a spell without a verbal component (or have him grappled by a snake, etc.).

There are enough spells to deal with both. And there's the "who gets initiative" quesion.

There’s generally a high STR warrior in the party who can double as a pack mule. Mine carries a crowbar (I even put the improve weapon stats on his sheet, as I considered using it if he needed a blunt weapon, especially at L1). But you do leave a nice trail of broken locks, where the Rogue can even re-lock that special door (let’s see Knock do that!).

Indeed. Open Lock in the right situation is superb. The right situation is as part of a team of conmen and thieves. The average team of adventurers is about as subtle as a sledgehammer in terms of disguising where they've been (broken locks are the least of your worries).

Wizards (clerics, druids, etc.) can customize for specific known challenges. That’s what it proves. Do they always know everything that is coming up next? Let’s see an example from, say, a L10 Wizard with lots of spell access.

The big problem is that the fighter has two weak saves, and the wizard (unlike the fighter) has a get-out-of-jail-free button or two (Teleport, Contingency).

Others won’t. But if the heroes don’t have the time to spend one full day on every encounter, that also eliminates this as a viable strategy. So what do the PC’s do after winning Encounter #1, but knowing two of the opposition fled the scene?

What do you mean winning Encounter #1?

A level 10 specialist wizard with an Int of 20 has 4 5th level spells, 5 4th and 3rd level spells, and 6 each of 1st-2rd level spells. You think that our wizard is going to blow 26 spells in a single encounter? This is even more absurd than the wizard with only single target save or suck spells. There's a reason for E6 being E6 - at that point the wizard "only" has 14 substantial spells.

All you have to do is structure your adventures with a single encounter day in mind. I did that commonly back in the day for wilderness travel – you’re not going to have a series of small encounters a la dungeon exploration, so either the travel fades into the backdrop, or you have a big encounter that is challenging enough to be a danger all by itself, rather than just consuming a bit of your resources.

Alternatively the wizard makes the whole thing irrelevant with teleport or Phantom Steed at higher levels.

It’s pretty easy to structure a situation where three wizards have a big advantage, especially if they happen to have just the right spells memorized today. Let’s have an encounter past the locked door, ward and portcullis (which were set up last night, after they took out the sentries then retreated to rest). Past the portcullis, a group of Goblins moves up, while a second group emerges from behind. They all have crossbows. One fires his crossbow, and suddenly the wizards can hear nothing, as the bolt (now jammed in the wood portcullis frame) had a Silence spell cast on it.

Assuming the wizard knows what's happened, a smart wizard takes off his hat or cloak and covers the crossbow bolt. Silence is an emanation so you block it. The other two wizards then proceed to AoE the goblins.

Next?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Double post. So I'm just going to point out that a seventh level specialist wizard with Int 18 has 3 4th level, 4 third level, 5 second level, and 6 first level spells. Or 18 spells. Each. Assume half are used for utility (and they will do things like have Bull's Strength prepared), that's nine combat spells each. At two spells per wizard per combat they are still happily managing four encounters per day on a generic loadout.

 

[billd91]

It was something I regularly used to memorise for AD&D games. It's one of the best buff spells available for it's level, giving 18/50 strength to anyone it's cast on. Which is often a boost even for a fighter or other melee specialist. The 3e version was less good, of course.

I have no idea what version of the strength spell you're referring to. Neither 1e's nor 2e's strength spell works like that. Both add just 1d4 Str to a wizard's strength, no exceptional possible unless you are a fighter class/subclass.

 

[Hussar]

I really, really get the feeling in these discussions that those who claim that there isn't a problem have never seen a highly competently played caster. The counter examples are just so bad. Single target save or suck spells? Come on. NeonC nicely shows how ridiculous this is.

NeonC brings up a 7th level wizard. That's a character wealth of 16000 gp, on average. A measly 10% of my character wealth (1600 gp - about the price of a +1 sword) nets me about one HUNDRED 1st-3rd level scrolls. NeonC is nice in that he uses half his load out for utility spells. I wouldn't bother. All my utility spells are on scrolls. No one puts combat spells on scrolls because, as was mentioned, you lose actions pulling out scrolls. I have 18 spells per day. I don't NEED combat spells on scrolls. And, because we're talking about utility spells, taking a standard action doesn't matter outside of combat. I have time. Heck the rogue takes minutes to unlock that lock. I unlock it in 6 seconds and I have 99 scrolls left over.

And that's not counting wands.

So, my 7th level wizard is using scrolls for utility, or possibly medium term buffs (the 10 minute/level stuff that can be cast when you know a combat is coming). All for about 10% of my character wealth.

You allow a fighter by 7th level to have a +1 weapon no? That's not considered a problem. So, why is my wizard suddenly a problem? After all, how long does it take to forge a masterwork weapon? Oh, that's right, it's totally believable that the fighter picks up any sword, so long as its masterwork, and gets it enchanted. That's no problem.

Like I said, the counter arguments here just boggle my mind. I can totally see why some people don't see the problem if their players have the tactical and strategic sense of concussed badgers.

The problem comes when you have a decently competent player sitting at the wheel of a caster. Look, nothing I listed above is abusing the system. This is straight from PHB 1. No additional books, no cherry picking feats and/or spells from fifteen different sources. This is just Caster 101 stuff.

This is the problem with these conversations. We wind up spending a dozen pages with people refusing to accept that for some of us, these are actual problems IN OUR GAMES. And telling us to just play the way you play isn't the solution. I don't want to play the way you play. The game is supposed to support multiple playstyles. Telling me to play the way you play is essentially telling me that the game doesn't actually support anything other than your playstyle.