Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[Njall]

High-level CRs are not very accurate IMO. I think the numbers are generally few levels too high, but aside from that it's hard to enforce the gradual-attrition assumption of the EL model.

Well, that's what the books assume you're facing at those levels.
So, the core books assumes that a wizard ( or, more in general, a spellcaster ) can kill a monster that should be a challenge for the entire party 3/4 times /day in 1 round, 45-55% of the time, and still have enough spell slots to make the whole group invisible, fly all day long, knock a couple of locks just in case there isn't a rogue, Poly into something nasty in case he's stuck in melee...I can go on, but I think I've made myself clear.
That's why you hear people saying that RAW, spellcasters are not balanced, at all.
Now, you can say that those numbers are not appropriate, and "fix them" using higher level monsters. That's fine, but isn't it an admission that yes, spellcasters are indeed unbalanced?
A CR 20 dragon against a party without a caster is overkill, or at least a hard fight; against a party with a properly optimized spellcaster it is, usually, a pushover.

 

[Reynard]

Core wizard polymorph's into a Behir. Now he's a grappling master that out damages any class at level 9. Against a single target, he wins. Every time. No save.

You're right, direct damage is pretty weak in 3e. But, there are so many save or die/suck spells, plus "I Win" spells that get around defenses. Web at low levels is pretty much an instant win spell. Evard's Tentacles also incredibly powerful. You certainly don't need to go outside of core to have wizards at the top of the food chain in double digit level games.

I cannot believe that anyone thinks that this is a new issue. EVERY poll on the General Forum put Wizards, Clerics and Druids in the top three of classes. EVERY TIME. Didn't matter if it was 2002 or 2008.

When the same classes are considered the most powerful classes in the game every time the issue comes up, maybe, just maybe, those classes were a bit overpowered.

Yes, casters were powerful, but the point is that the balancing factors built into the system -- spells/day, lower defenses and hit points and the big fat target on them, not to mention the fact that PCs don't just pick whatever spells they want, they have to acquire them (for wizards anyway) -- get ignored in these discussions. Sure the wizard looks like a juggernaut when one assumes he can have whatever spells he wants and give no thought to resource management or conservation, which of course then leads to the 15 minute adventuring day complaint.

So now, instead, we have removed the interesting magic and effects from the game to save the poor fighter player the heartache of being less awesome than the wizard, while at the same time alienated the casual player who doesn't want to have to learn a dozen "spells" and the simulationist fiddler player who wants to tweak skill points and feat choices for days on end to get just the right feel, just so we can have a 2x 15 minute adventuring day instead.

 

[Branduil]

What you call "interesting magic and effects" I call "stealing everyone else's thunder and giving the DM massive headaches."

 

[Reynard]

What you call "interesting magic and effects" I call "stealing everyone else's thunder and giving the DM massive headaches."

This is the complaint I don't understand, because there is so much more that goes into a real world play situation. it always strikes me as a theoretical complaint. Sure, given optimal circumstances all the time, the caster can steal the show and make life hell for the DM, but those optimal circumstances are the DM's fault by letting the wizard player have whatever he wants whenever he wants it and the oter players' fault for not reminding the wizard he is a part of a team and to reserve some spells for utility that helps the whole party, and of course the wizard player's fault for being a self absorbed jerk.

But then, as player or DM, I don't mind so much when a particular PC gets the spotlight in one particular situation as long as everybody gets a chance to shine and most situations do engage the whole party. I don't mind encourage creative casting and spell choice by creating situations where wizards are necessary (which has the added benefit of requiring a spell like fly instead of yet another fireball or whatever).

 

[terraleon]

Core wizard polymorph's into a Behir. Now he's a grappling master that out damages any class at level 9. Against a single target, he wins. Every time. No save.

Black Pudding with an illusion making it appear to be an AngryMeatyThing. That's even EL -1. If I advance it to an even EL9 it's got even more potential.

I sit back and watch the mage die a terrible unpleasant death and try not to laugh. Please, attack into my grapple and attempt to determine what the monster is, increase the number of puddings that will consume your fellow party member.

It all depends on the sort of game. 4E seems to take whole swaths of playstyle and say, "Your game was not appropriately mainstream. We will not support you with our new shiny toys until some time in the future. Bummer for you." Can any GM make 4E work for those campaigns? Sure, I guess...but there's going to be a lot more work involved for some of them, and that's my concern with it.

-Ben.

 

[Mort]

This is the complaint I don't understand, because there is so much more that goes into a real world play situation. it always strikes me as a theoretical complaint. Sure, given optimal circumstances all the time, the caster can steal the show and make life hell for the DM, but those optimal circumstances are the DM's fault by letting the wizard player have whatever he wants whenever he wants it and the oter players' fault for not reminding the wizard he is a part of a team and to reserve some spells for utility that helps the whole party, and of course the wizard player's fault for being a self absorbed jerk.

Why do you think the 4e designers spent so much effort re balancing the classes? Because it is by no means a theoretical complaint, casters dominated unless the DM took drastic measures to change the situation. Saying a player is a jerk when the dominate the party in no way changes the fact that they can dominate.

But then, as player or DM, I don't mind so much when a particular PC gets the spotlight in one particular situation as long as everybody gets a chance to shine and most situations do engage the whole party.

Wizards could fly, and cast knock, and scry and so many other non-combat things as to be ridiculous. Then when there was a combat, they could dominate that too (maybe outshined by the druid or cleric - but hey that's because they're casters too).

I don't mind encourage creative casting and spell choice by creating situations where wizards are necessary (which has the added benefit of requiring a spell like fly instead of yet another fireball or whatever).

The problem was not creating a situation where the wizard was useful, the problem was creating a situation where the wizard was not.

 

[Reynard]

Wizards could fly, and cast knock, and scry and so many other non-combat things as to be ridiculous. Then when there was a combat, they could dominate that too (maybe outshined by the druid or cleric - but hey that's because they're casters too).

Again, you assuming optimal circumstances, with the wizard having all the right spells at exactly the right time with no need to conserve his resources for future encounters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Black Pudding with an illusion making it appear to be an AngryMeatyThing. That's even EL -1. If I advance it to an even EL9 it's got even more potential.

How well does the equal level Fighter or Rogue stand up against this Black Pudding?

 

[Shabe]

Again, you assuming optimal circumstances, with the wizard having all the right spells at exactly the right time with no need to conserve his resources for future encounters.

No we are assuming the wizard has haste, fireball and dispel magic prepared. Then he has scrolls of knock, comprehend languages and flight. Oh and that he will get to rest when the cleric runs out of healing.

 

[Lizard]

Again, you assuming optimal circumstances, with the wizard having all the right spells at exactly the right time with no need to conserve his resources for future encounters.

Like I said -- apparently, in some games, wizards just keep the PHB and the Spell Compendium on their laps, and pick any spell they like at any time.

In games I'm in, you have:
a)A limited subset of spells to pick from -- you don't get to know every spell in the book (well, unless you're a cleric/druid...), and it's easy for the DM to say, "Sorry, there's no one you can learn that spell from".
b)Of that subset, you can only prepare a limited number.

If people think that not allowing players a day's rest after each encounter, or surprising them with combat in what should be a non-combat situation, or making sure their enemies are just as aware of how the world 'works' as they are and take the same precautions is "unfair" or "screwing the players", well, I'm glad they enjoy their games. I'd be bored stiff.

(Also, making wands/scrolls/potions costs gold and takes *time*. Even when we have a long 'downtime' between adventures, we all have things to do besides sit in our rooms and scribe scrolls! We have lives, families, contacts, connections, side trips, duties, personal projects -- all of which eat up weeks of downtime, leaving only a bit left for item crafting. Are your characters so divorced from the world that they need do nothing but craft magic items anytime they're not adventuring?)