Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6074435" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Why they went this route, I don't know. Standardizing the action economy in 3.x/PF would address a few (not remotely all) of the problems between casters and melee characters (however, it would also help casters in the summon game and when they want to turn into fighters themselves...). Further, it would create more dynamically mobile combat, more room for tactical depth, and less action economy relevant trap feats like spring attack. At the end of our 3.x days, I had brutally house-ruled the system (including removing full attack actions and standardizing the action economy) such that it actually looked like...well, 4e.</p><p></p><p>- Nerf and hard code spells.</p><p>- Remove problem child spells or put them into a Ritual paradigm so that the scope of the game doesn't become bound up into "How can we circumvent this encounter, adventure, plot arc with a spell"...and then the DM has to respond in kind with contrived, adversarial nonsense and the rock/paper/scissors game feeds back on itself ad infinitum.</p><p>- Less spells.</p><p>- Nerf companions and summons.</p><p>- Nerf spell DC scaling.</p><p>- Standardize the Action Economy such that melee characters' and monsters' payload isn't bound up in a full attack routine (thus rendering tactical mobility null) but scales with Standard Actions just like tier 1 casters.</p><p>- Better, richer, more thematically and tactically deep options for martial archetypes.</p><p></p><p>That fixes most of the problems with the tier 1 spellcasters and brings the martial melee characters (and high level melee monsters) more in-line.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6074435, member: 6696971"] 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. Why they went this route, I don't know. Standardizing the action economy in 3.x/PF would address a few (not remotely all) of the problems between casters and melee characters (however, it would also help casters in the summon game and when they want to turn into fighters themselves...). Further, it would create more dynamically mobile combat, more room for tactical depth, and less action economy relevant trap feats like spring attack. At the end of our 3.x days, I had brutally house-ruled the system (including removing full attack actions and standardizing the action economy) such that it actually looked like...well, 4e. - Nerf and hard code spells. - Remove problem child spells or put them into a Ritual paradigm so that the scope of the game doesn't become bound up into "How can we circumvent this encounter, adventure, plot arc with a spell"...and then the DM has to respond in kind with contrived, adversarial nonsense and the rock/paper/scissors game feeds back on itself ad infinitum. - Less spells. - Nerf companions and summons. - Nerf spell DC scaling. - Standardize the Action Economy such that melee characters' and monsters' payload isn't bound up in a full attack routine (thus rendering tactical mobility null) but scales with Standard Actions just like tier 1 casters. - Better, richer, more thematically and tactically deep options for martial archetypes. That fixes most of the problems with the tier 1 spellcasters and brings the martial melee characters (and high level melee monsters) more in-line. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?
Top