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

[billd91]

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.

You might make some money back, but you're not going to be able to transport nearly as much. You're carrying a little over half a ton, but that 10,000 gp sailing ship has a capacity of 150 tons. To carry as much will take you 250 trips and at 1,125 gp per trip (assuming no round trips which means only getting 75 tons to the other destination and 75 back), 281,250 gp in transportation costs alone. I think that's going to be more than the 10,000 gp ship plus crew wages and supplies, even if you knock off a few tons for crew supplies.

Like I said, it may fit the FedEx model of shipping - small and valuable cargoes - and courier service. But not a very good economy of scale.

 

[Orius]

The problem with this, imo, is that I think it's legit to find stuff like spell component micro-tracking unfun. I agree it can be a balancer, but I know that by the time 3e had come out, I'd long since house-ruled them away into something like 3e's component pouch.

Not to mention that microtracking spell components isn't really a good way of balancing things across all levels of play. Many of the components are stuff that is cheap, like sand or rose petals for sleep. How many pinches of sand can a wizard realistically buy for 1 gp? Probably quite a lot. We're talking stuff that costs coppers here, a high level wizard is not going to notice at all, and even a low level wizard might not take much notice. So it's a lot of picky fiddly bookkeeping over crap that has a cost likely measured in copper or silver rather than gold; thus it's considered a waste of time.

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.

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.

I'd have to agree with Hussar here, easy castle repair at 8th level feels a bit powerful. I wouldn't worry too much if the characters were around say level 15, but at level 8, it feels like they didn't earn it. This is typically around the point in classic D&D where players start establishing bases and such, and usually it meant that they invested time and wealth into it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Two comments.

First, just because magic is like science within the gameworld (itself a contentstable notion), it doesn't follow that the player of the magic-using PC should have to be able to think like a scientist. I would want to be able to play Reed Richards or Prof X in a Marvel game without having to be able to think like a scientist (given that I'm not one!).

In my view its a strength in an RPG's design if a given player can effectively play a range of different archetypes in that game.

Second, that magic is a key part of the world doesn't mean that it has to be more powerful than non-magical abilities: there can be reasons for it to exist other than its power. And even if it is more powerful, it doesn't follow that PCs should have access to that magic, and it certainly doesn't follow that some PCs should get access to that magic simply as a class feature.

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.

The idea of playing the game as pure world exploration is all very well, though not my personal prefernce.

But what sort of world is interesting to explore? I mean, if Hussar had started his campaign using classic Runequest rather than D&D the issue he describes wouldn't have arisen - no teleport. Conversely, Rolemaster has a fly spell available to 1st level magic-using PCs, which means that the impact of flight magic on the gameworld, if you use the rules as written, is even greater than in D&D.

I think it's quite legitimate to criticise the game rules as giving rise to unfun worlds when used for world exploration play.

 

[Bluenose]

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.

D&D magic. Dictating what the campaign can be about even before the campaign starts.

D&D mundane. Not dictating how the campaign goes even after the campaign starts.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In my view its a strength in an RPG's design if a given player can effectively play a range of different archetypes in that game.

Maybe, but I don't think one player needs to be able to effectively play anything close to the full range. It simply needs to enable the characters that the particular player is interested in and suited for.

For example, (American) football posits a number of roles. If I'm a 6'8", 350 lb. giant, not all of those roles are for me. I might play offense or I might play defense, but I'm definitely on the line somewhere. Conversely, if I'm a 5'8", 160 lb. dynamo, I'm probably a scatback or a return guy; quarterback is out of my league.

Similarly, in D&D, if I'm someone who likes to spend hours poring over books and preparing an optimal strategy, I'm probably a wizard, maybe a cleric, conceivably a rogue, and probably not a barbarian. If I'm someone who wants to plug and play but still be effective, I'm probably not playing a Vancian spellcaster, more likely a fighter or rogue or maybe a (3e) warlock. If I'm the passive, type B sort, I might play a cleric and focus on healing, or I might play a rogue, but I'm not trying to summon angels.

In none of those cases do I have any expectation that any iteration of D&D would be able to match all players with all possible characters, nor do I understand the origin or the value of said expectation.

First, just because magic is like science within the gameworld (itself a contentstable notion), it doesn't follow that the player of the magic-using PC should have to be able to think like a scientist. I would want to be able to play Reed Richards or Prof X in a Marvel game without having to be able to think like a scientist (given that I'm not one!).
...
Second, that magic is a key part of the world doesn't mean that it has to be more powerful than non-magical abilities: there can be reasons for it to exist other than its power. And even if it is more powerful, it doesn't follow that PCs should have access to that magic, and it certainly doesn't follow that some PCs should get access to that magic simply as a class feature.

Sure. If you're starting from scratch and making an rpg, none of those things are given. If you're playing D&D, I think they pretty much are. D&D posits the arcane (quasi-science)/divine magic distinction, magic that can take you to different planes of existence, raise the dead, or grant wishes, and a player's handbook where all of the above are presented as achievable character abilities.

I think it's quite legitimate to criticise the game rules as giving rise to unfun worlds when used for world exploration play.

I think that's true enough (and forms the basis of many 4e criticisms).

D&D magic. Dictating what the campaign can be about even before the campaign starts.

Yep. Sure.

D&D mundane. Not dictating how the campaign goes even after the campaign starts.

Really? Seems to me those characters dictate just as much, (though it isn't as obvious, perhaps).

I'd have to agree with Hussar here, easy castle repair at 8th level feels a bit powerful. I wouldn't worry too much if the characters were around say level 15, but at level 8, it feels like they didn't earn it.

If the DM simply allows you to sit around for the three months or whatever and simply do that without having any enemies come attack the castle, some noble try to claim it, or some event distract the characters, I'd agree it wouldn't feel earned. To make it a working castle, you probably need a variety of things that Make Whole does't provide, such as people, resources, and magical defenses. However, if the characters did overcome some complications, I'd argue that it is earned. It's also worth noting that the character apparently spent months tied to a location and using spell slots in this example, and have probably wasted a lot of adventuring time.

That said, it's a fantasy world, and it's full of castles. Most of them are probably owned by nobles, most of whom are probably not above level 8. At level 8, you're already well past the level that most NPCs (or PCs) will ever achieve, and you have access to abilities that make you start to feel meaningfully better than the common man. That's why E6 is a popular cutoff point; past that is a meaningful transition. To me, if your campaign allows for a stronghold, you ought to have a decent one at around this time.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Like I said, it may fit the FedEx model of shipping - small and valuable cargoes - and courier service. But not a very good economy of scale.

I agree with that and I look at teleportation the same way, but beyond the economy aspect I think at some point, the world simply runs out of teleports. How many characters are of high enough level in an enabling class and are willing to use the spell for this purpose (i.e. they're not out adventuring or teleporting royals around or just holed up in a tower not selling spells to anyone)? Just because the DMG gives a price for teleportation doesn't mean you can buy an indefinite amount of it. I think if you tried to start teleporting cargo routinely, you'd run out of available spellcasters quickly.

 

[Bluenose]

Yep. Sure.

Really? Seems to me those characters dictate just as much, (though it isn't as obvious, perhaps).

How often do you reject a scenario concept because there's a Rogue in the group and that makes it pointless because their class abilities mean the central concept is easy to overcome? How often do you suddenly find that the abilities of a Fighter mean a situation can be bypassed at little cost? How much does that happen with a spellcaster?

 

[Ahnehnois]

How often do you reject a scenario concept because there's a Rogue in the group and that makes it pointless because their class abilities mean the central concept is easy to overcome? How often do you suddenly find that the abilities of a Fighter mean a situation can be bypassed at little cost? How much does that happen with a spellcaster?

Routinely for all of the above.

Or, conversely, I also find that the absence of any one of those affects what I can do.

 

[Aenghus]

System mastery helping the players of spellcasters far more than the players of 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.

I respectfully disagree. While that's one valid interpretation, it's not the only one. While I would shy away from being totally unpredictable, at higher levels I like to make my game feel more mythological, with non-spellcasters being able to accomplish what would be impossible in the real world, but similar to what often happens in ancient tales and fairly tales, and without the use of overt magic.

I believe this is fairer to players who just happen to prefer non-spellcasters, or don't have good system mastery. I really felt the rewards for system mastery and punishments for a lack of it became too extreme at a certain point.

The paradox is that pseudo-scientific magic-above-all D&D really favour my own personal strengths as a player, but at the cost of creating a bunch of undercastes of players whom this style doesn't suit for various reasons, a cost I have come to the conclusion is too high.

Magic trumping mundane methods most of the time

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.

While I would want to give more guarantees of competence to mundane classes, or just make all classes less mundane as they rose in levels(including non-spellcasters).

 

[Neonchameleon]

On the "Wizard is restricted to just the spells they automatically get" issue, this goes a long way to reducing the wizard towards the power of a sorceror (a Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 class). The wizard is, of course, still the more powerful of the two (substantially so every odd numbered level excluding levels 1 and 19 and they have a far greater mastery of their top level spells even if less depth every even numbered level before level 20 as a sorceror on an even numbered level (excl. 2 and 20) will know 1 top level spell and 2 second highest level spell). A specialist Conjurer, Transmuter, or possibly Illusionist or Enchanter is a very powerful tier 2 caster even at the 4 spells/level restriction, whereas a generalist might possibly push tier 1 but overall is unlikely to be as effective as the conjurer or transmuter. (Illusionists and Enchanters are target-sensitive). The cleric, also, is probably Tier 2 if you restrict to core only.

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.

One of many things 3.5 did right. Although summoning 8 formian workers to cast Cure Serious Wounds is getting pretty desperate.