why do people dislike tiers in dnd?

[Morty]

Well a system that's focused on mechanical balance is going to have less mechanical distinctiveness amongst character options. I mean look at what people who disliked 4E complained about, the sameness of the classes or that they felt more similar. It's also not as workable for a system where magic is supposed to be more powerful. And you can have mundanes in even that kind of system, hell the Buffy RPG does that, Ars Magica sort of does that. WoD can do that.

Neither Ars Magica nor WoD put normal people on the same level of play as supernatural ones. Ars Magica has everyone play a magician, who is just straight-up better... or more powerful, since "better" clearly has bad connotations. Everyone also plays their mage's top non-magical enforcer and servants. It's a troupe-style play, completely different from D&D. WoD mortals operate on a completely different level than any supernatural beings and mixed parties aren't remotely the intent.

I also can't see how reducing the efficiency of one option somehow reduces mechanical variance. It increases it, because more tactics are valid. Instead of the casters disabling enemies and letting the warriors mop them up being the right call most of the time. And it's not like warriors are the only ones getting shafted here - damage-dealing casters as well.

As far as "giving more options" it's not a problem, but you can't give enough options to maintain status as mundane and also compete with tier 1s in terms of direct ability to influence a game, that means that tier 1s need to be regulated or they need to self regulate, tier 5s need to optimize or play a class that better out of the box, that's the real crux of character building in 3.5, and 3.5 is ABOUT character building as much as anything else, so if you lose elements where building a good character involves skill the character building minigame becomes largely meaningless.

No one is talking about "competing" with tier 1s. That's a losing proposition, which would also turn the game into even more of a ridiculous rocket tag than it is already. In this context, giving non-magical character options means simply making it less likely for them to be rendered irrelevant with a single spell.

The argument about character-building falls pretty flat as well. More options for the option-deprived classes, once again, increases the character-building variety. Character-building in 3.5 has little to do with effectiveness or power and more about jumping across the arbitrary hurdles the system puts everywhere. Which, surprise, apply to non-casters a lot more than casters.

Interesting point. Whose job is it to resolve problems between players: the system's, the GM's, or the players'? You are clearly arguing that it is exclusively the system's job. I usually put that ball primarily in the players' court. But is there a One True Way answer to that question?

I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth.

Define "better". Certainly, there are systems which are more resistant to certain classes of failure, such as the one under discussion. But, unless they also have the ability to allow for play to be dominated by a single tactic, if that's your thing, then they aren't objectively better - they just allow for different styles of play.

Unless you're contending that one style of play is objectively better than another.

*sigh* Can't use the word "better" around here without some people taking offence, can I. "Better", in this context, means better suited to the kind of play D&D is supposed to give us. The game is meant to let us play a team of adventurers who work together to solve problems and defeat enemies. Differences in power are one thing, but allowing gameplay be domianted by a single tactic is not a good or justifiable element. No other system intentionally has it - not even those that discard any idea of balance.

Of course, no system really discards the idea of balance entirely. There's always a balancing line drawn somewhere. In WoD, Exalted and other Storyteller systems, supernatural beings are clearly more powerful than mortals - but when physical Disciplines were weak in 1e Requiem, it was a problem the second edition set out to fix. Because it interfered with the story and gameplay the system was meant to allow.

[Quertus]

In this context, giving non-magical character options means simply making it less likely for them to be rendered irrelevant with a single spell.

*sigh* Can't use the word "better" around here without some people taking offence, can I. "Better", in this context, means better suited to the kind of play D&D is supposed to give us. The game is meant to let us play a team of adventurers who work together to solve problems and defeat enemies.

This isn't matter of offense, it's a matter of asking you to use your words in a clear, unambiguous manner. Which is something I have issues with myself at times.

Giving people options is not the same as taking options away, and those words should not be used interchangeably.

"Better" could mean many different things to different people. Thank you for clarifying what you meant.

Differences in power are one thing, but allowing gameplay be domianted by a single tactic is not a good or justifiable element. No other system intentionally has it - not even those that discard any idea of balance.

I'd argue that most games intentionally are dominated by a single tactic - it's part of how they get differences in theme / feel. Some are dominated by firing on full auto from cover, some are dominated by nuke the site from orbit, some are dominated by research the threat for multiple sessions until you deduce a way to actually harm it.

However, there's a difference between having a dominant strategy in a game, and having a single strategy completely dominate D&D 3e. Usually, if a single strategy owns every encounter in 3e, it's a sign of bad encounter design. Because 3e has the option for encounters to be so gloriously diverse, there's little reason for a single tactic to dominate them all beyond a lack of GM skills. There are numerous threads on this site where a GM has complained that someone is dominating the game with a single tactic, and the response is generally a facepalm and a brief explanation of the diverse array of encounters which would not be dominated by that tactic. Learning to automatically vary your encounters, before it becomes a problem, and without even needing to look at the party composition, is an important GM skill that many neglect.

[georgie_leech]

Are their many (combat) encounters in 3.5 that can't be solved with some variation of "cast disabling spell, mop up as required?"

[Lord Raziere]

Are their many (combat) encounters in 3.5 that can't be solved with some variation of "cast disabling spell, mop up as required?"

Knowing wizard? probably not.

Thing is though: If someone uses disabling spell then mop up, is it really combat or just killing immobile things that are helpless against you?

I mean sure one can make the argument that its a playstyle about avoiding combat so as to win using any means necessary, but why then is one doing that, when the entire game is about and focused entirely around combat? Why is one avoiding the main feature of the game by solving it instantly? Its like buying a book just so you can look the covers and ignoring all the pages in between, and avoid opening it at all costs. Or going into a casino to do anything but gamble. Why even bother in the first place?

and then there is the recommendation to go find another system: well why not take some of their own medicine? there are RPGs specifically devoted to wizards and only wizards being the protagonists, starting out weak and becoming godlike. I can name at least three, and they all do the concept better than 3.5 ever can, I even like Mage: The Ascension because its up front about what it is rather than being a product of false advertising and poor balance. I can happily play a powerful Mage there because thats the premise. however "wizard that hacks reality and becomes godlike" is not the premise of DnD and I cannot accept attempts to do so, or to act as if it was intended all along or that its okay without any problems with its actual premise whatsoever. Its just not really something believable.

I believe that actual premise of DnD is so obvious as to be left unstated. I don't need to tell any of you this.

[Darth Ultron]

Well you don't need to tailor EVERY encounter, you just need to tailor some encounters,

I would say that you need to do it every time. The Casual DM that does not want to put in any time, effort or planning is a huge part of the problem.

I typically play fighters, and I can't tell you how many times I have had to sit back and been completely unable to engage with the game (at least mechanically) outside of combat because I have no out of combat class abilities and my skill list is pathetic.

The thing here is: you should not be playing a fighter. The fighter is made for just one thing: fighting. You want a class with lots of out of combat abilities: don't pick fighter.

Likewise when fighting a mage there have been more than a few occasions when a single spell (typically force cage or ray of stupidity) incapacitated my character without even allowing me a saving throw and then forced me to sit back and watch.

Though this is not a problem: this is how the game is.

One of the GM skills I harp on the most is learning to automatically vary your encounters. A good GM* should, in general, be able to publish his adventure without having laid eyes on the PCs, and then run it as written without encountering this problem.

To make an adventure is very much a learned skill. Way to many DM's don't really take the time to learn how to do it, or worse go down the path of ''they don't need to do it''.

Though I would note that as a DM of a group you *Should* make the adventure with the characters and players in your group in mind.

Interesting point. Whose job is it to resolve problems between players: the system's, the GM's, or the players'? You are clearly arguing that it is exclusively the system's job. I usually put that ball primarily in the players' court. But is there a One True Way answer to that question?

The DM is really the only answer here. ''The system'' can never, ever cover everything and it is not interactive. And while sometimes some players can work things out, most of the time you need a neutral third party: The DM.

[AMFV]

[exaltedfanboy]It's not MY fault you didn't pick Glorious Carnage Typhoon as your last Charm![/exatedfanboy]

And Exalted is a system with very different assumptions and a very tone than 3.5 D&D, which is fine, I'd have nothing wrong with Lord Raziere playing that particular system or the Lord Commander playing that particular system.

....Why won't it just teleport away, leaving the Fighter with nothing to fight?

Cause it wants to murder the fighter...? This is not super complex stuff and you're being deliberately obtuse. Not everything that you put on a table to fight is going to be like "OMG PCs I'mma run away now", there are plenty of beasties with Teleport SLAs that aren't really run away inclined. Like Demons and Devils for example.

Um, dood, they (and the US) kind of DID dominate the world. It was called the 'Cold War', it was a big deal at the time.

Yes, and if he'd made that argument in 1981 then it would have a lot better standing as an argument. But as a realism argument made post-1992 it no longer is effective.

I thought we were discussing Player Characters here, not peasants.

He was discussing the state of the entire campaign setting, which involves peasants. So again, no need to actually alter anything your complaint is wrong.

One of Cu Chullainn's buddies: he promised to take a dive in his next battle with CC, so when they fought, he swung to miss CC's head, and instead chopped the tops off of three mountains.
Those ancient Irish were SUCH otaku, right?

And that's still not "killed thirty guys in one stroke" and that's still not a recent legend. Like I'm not referring to ancient mythology, which is why I talked about Anime rather than historical texts. Yes, in historical texts you can find ridiculous feats done by demigods, and you know what there are systems made to accommodate that.

A large part of the problem is all the stuff a 3.X wizard can do OUTSIDE combat - maxed-out ranks in swim/ride/climb/etc are STILL worse than Flight, for example. And at high levels, the wizard is predicting the future and building their own army of golems in their custom-built pocket universe while the fighter is... swinging a sword.

Only if you're ****ty at playing fighters... As has been pointed in this very thread, a fighter can be built to deal with all kinds of combat stuff. Also I've never seen the pocket universe army of golems wizard at a table, there are ways to stop that and DMs tend to. Also for that to happen the player has to be quick enough on his feet to survive people deciding that they're not okay with that, and players cannot predict the future and as such cannot always have the right spell prepared.

"This is a job for Aquaman!"

Who is a standing member of the Justice League and has in all incarnations I've read had a huge contribution, only place where he was actually useless was in Super Friends, turns out that comic book cred isn't gained by parodying comedians. Aquaman is exactly what I've been arguing fighters should work to be.

Swing wide, push forward, and cut them all in half. It's not hard if you ignore that pesky 'physics' thing, like the magician's been doing since Day 1. (Swinging SO hard that you cut the very air in half is optional but recommended.)

Yeah and when somebody plays a fighter in D&D, they don't usually want to ignore physics, or if they do, then they're better served by another system.

They were _supposed_ to be balanced, the problem is that the playtesters played like it was AD&D with a healbot cleric, a blastomancer wizard, and so on. It wasn't until the players got hold of the game that people realized how OP save-or-cry spells were, for example.

Yeah, cause save or suck spells didn't exist in AD&D and weren't considerably nastier and hard to fight off in that system, that totally wasn't the case. It's just that the devs were idiots instead of like people who wound up creating a game with similar dynamics.

And no everybody doesn't play AD&D that way either. Sorry, bud.

These days, it seems like the Paizo staff is in rather deep denial about the problem, possibly because they know actually trying to fix it will draw screams of rage from the loyalists. It's worth noting that casters in Starfinder only get 6th level spells, as far as I know.

Because if somebody wanted a balance-focused system they'd have jumped to 4E instead of jumping to Pathfinder. They want a system that's like 3.5 with a few tweaks, that's what Pathfinder's appeal is. So of course people aren't going to be happy when people change that, like if you went to a boxing match and got told that kicks were being allowed.

Neither Ars Magica nor WoD put normal people on the same level of play as supernatural ones. Ars Magica has everyone play a magician, who is just straight-up better... or more powerful, since "better" clearly has bad connotations. Everyone also plays their mage's top non-magical enforcer and servants. It's a troupe-style play, completely different from D&D. WoD mortals operate on a completely different level than any supernatural beings and mixed parties aren't remotely the intent.

Mixed parties can however work though in WoD, and there are other games where that's the case.

I also can't see how reducing the efficiency of one option somehow reduces mechanical variance. It increases it, because more tactics are valid. Instead of the casters disabling enemies and letting the warriors mop them up being the right call most of the time. And it's not like warriors are the only ones getting shafted here - damage-dealing casters as well

Which is best done with encounter design rather than other things. Also a blaster Wizard or Mailman sorcerer is completely valid, An Ubercharger is completely valid, a horizon tripper is completely valid, a spiked chain tripper is completely valid. Basically the only way that you push yourself to invalidity is by picking a bad class and refusing to optimize it. The options are there buddy, people don't like them.

And if they want to play Tier 1 Martials, there's exalted for that.

No one is talking about "competing" with tier 1s. That's a losing proposition, which would also turn the game into even more of a ridiculous rocket tag than it is already. In this context, giving non-magical character options means simply making it less likely for them to be rendered irrelevant with a single spell.

Yes, what options do you propose we give them? Cause I'll bet you a silk pajama that those options probably already exist, there are a lot of splatbooks and there are a lot of ways to improve the lot of martial characters.

The argument about character-building falls pretty flat as well. More options for the option-deprived classes, once again, increases the character-building variety. Character-building in 3.5 has little to do with effectiveness or power and more about jumping across the arbitrary hurdles the system puts everywhere. Which, surprise, apply to non-casters a lot more than casters.

Character-building in 3.5 is it's own game, that's why it has those hurdles and for those who enjoy that game it's a feature not a bug.

*sigh* Can't use the word "better" around here without some people taking offence, can I. "Better", in this context, means better suited to the kind of play D&D is supposed to give us. The game is meant to let us play a team of adventurers who work together to solve problems and defeat enemies. Differences in power are one thing, but allowing gameplay be domianted by a single tactic is not a good or justifiable element. No other system intentionally has it - not even those that discard any idea of balance.

Well that's only a problem if the DM is committing bad encounter design. One single spell tactic will not dominate every single battle, a canny DM can learn what his players enjoy and create some things that will challenge some players more than others. This is about encounter design and planning more than anything else.

Also Wheel of Time, again, high powered Wizard, low powered martials adventure together. The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, the Saga stories Tolkien was basing things on. Also many other influences for D&D specifically involved power disparities in adventuring groups.

Of course, no system really discards the idea of balance entirely. There's always a balancing line drawn somewhere. In WoD, Exalted and other Storyteller systems, supernatural beings are clearly more powerful than mortals - but when physical Disciplines were weak in 1e Requiem, it was a problem the second edition set out to fix. Because it interfered with the story and gameplay the system was meant to allow.

Well there is some balance point, yes. But it doesn't have to bring complete equality.

Are their many (combat) encounters in 3.5 that can't be solved with some variation of "cast disabling spell, mop up as required?"

That depends, if you're building a lot of encounters of similar structure, then no. If you aren't then yes.

Remember that players at a table aren't batman wizard, they don't get access to all the tricks all the time, they have to guess at what spells they need, and divination in that case only helps so much (I use it to figure out which sets I should prepare). But that's because Wizards have a limited amount of spells they can use at any given time.

Knowing wizard? probably not.

I've answered this above, and I'm fairly sure that you've never seriously played a wizard at a table.

Thing is though: If someone uses disabling spell then mop up, is it really combat or just killing immobile things that are helpless against you?

I don't know, is me calling in naval gunfire no longer combat just because it levels the town that we're looking at engaging? That's a part of combat, everybody has their role. The wizard's is often to immobilize or make weak. And yes that is combat, the same way that going out and arresting people who are under the effects of OC spray and tear gas is still riot control, it's just more efficient combat.

I mean sure one can make the argument that its a playstyle about avoiding combat so as to win using any means necessary, but why then is one doing that, when the entire game is about and focused entirely around combat? Why is one avoiding the main feature of the game by solving it instantly? Its like buying a book just so you can look the covers and ignoring all the pages in between, and avoid opening it at all costs. Or going into a casino to do anything but gamble. Why even bother in the first place?

Because winning combat quickly is part of the game, the players look for the best solution, the DM invents puzzles the player can't solve easily that's the name of the game here.

and then there is the recommendation to go find another system: well why not take some of their own medicine? there are RPGs specifically devoted to wizards and only wizards being the protagonists, starting out weak and becoming godlike. I can name at least three, and they all do the concept better than 3.5 ever can, I even like Mage: The Ascension because its up front about what it is rather than being a product of false advertising and poor balance. I can happily play a powerful Mage there because thats the premise. however "wizard that hacks reality and becomes godlike" is not the premise of DnD and I cannot accept attempts to do so, or to act as if it was intended all along or that its okay without any problems with its actual premise whatsoever. Its just not really something believable.

Those all tell stories ONLY focused on the Wizard though, they don't let you tell stories about a mixed group where power disparity exists. Take for example the Justice League, or Wheel of time, or the example I provided above. Those kind of stories require wizards to be powerful, and you can't use Ars Magica or Mage or the other Mage for those stories, it wouldn't work.

And why should we find another system? We have one that already suits our needs as-is. With thousands of useful analysis already done, like the tier system.

I believe that actual premise of DnD is so obvious as to be left unstated. I don't need to tell any of you this.

A bunch of nobodies explore dungeons and eventually become powerful enough to either become lords or gods.

[WarKitty]

I would say that you need to do it every time. The Casual DM that does not want to put in any time, effort or planning is a huge part of the problem.

To make an adventure is very much a learned skill. Way to many DM's don't really take the time to learn how to do it, or worse go down the path of ''they don't need to do it''.

The DM is really the only answer here. ''The system'' can never, ever cover everything and it is not interactive. And while sometimes some players can work things out, most of the time you need a neutral third party: The DM.

I feel like if these rules were followed, most groups I've dealt with would never be able to actually have a game.

In college, we didn't have anyone who were experienced with the game. We were learning as we went. And it went badly because the game had hidden traps we didn't know about.

Now - like I said, I have a life outside of D&D. Rather a full one. So do most other post-college GM's that I know. Devoting a large chunk of time every week to game design just isn't going to happen, because we have things like jobs and housework and families to attend to. That happened when we played in grad school too - the DM had a lot going on outside of the game and couldn't always do a bunch of in-depth planning. You either live without all the time investment, or you don't play.

[AMFV]

I feel like if these rules were followed, most groups I've dealt with would never be able to actually have a game.

In college, we didn't have anyone who were experienced with the game. We were learning as we went. And it went badly because the game had hidden traps we didn't know about.

Now - like I said, I have a life outside of D&D. Rather a full one. So do most other post-college GM's that I know. Devoting a large chunk of time every week to game design just isn't going to happen, because we have things like jobs and housework and families to attend to. That happened when we played in grad school too - the DM had a lot going on outside of the game and couldn't always do a bunch of in-depth planning. You either live without all the time investment, or you don't play.

Well it's not actually that much time investment once you know how to do it, and once you think about it in terms of your group. It's a lot of time investment when you're learning the theory, but not really outside of that, you can develop encounters tailored to a particular group playstyle almost as fast as just looking up monsters in the book.

[Darth Ultron]

Now - like I said, I have a life outside of D&D. Rather a full one. So do most other post-college GM's that I know. Devoting a large chunk of time every week to game design just isn't going to happen, because we have things like jobs and housework and families to attend to. That happened when we played in grad school too - the DM had a lot going on outside of the game and couldn't always do a bunch of in-depth planning. You either live without all the time investment, or you don't play.

This is a very important and very over looked point. DMing D&D takes a lot of time and effort, oh, and even more time to just prepare to play.

Yes, a DM can just sit there with a pen and a blank paper and ''make stuff up out of nothing'' or a DM can ''make stuff up based on a handful of notes''. Or otherwise ''Improv" a game.

Still, neither is as good as ''DM made an adventure to go on."

Now it's not that the first way can't be fun or whatever else....that is not the point. The point is you run in hard to the ''imbalance'' the ''the tiers are real''. And D&D is very, very, very bad at this right after like 1st level.

The Improv game really highlights the imbalance, puts a spot light on it, and puts it front and center. The planned game has very little imbalance....and the focused planned game has none.

[Quertus]

Well it's not actually that much time investment once you know how to do it, and once you think about it in terms of your group. It's a lot of time investment when you're learning the theory, but not really outside of that, you can develop encounters tailored to a particular group playstyle almost as fast as just looking up monsters in the book.

+1 this.

It's about learning that "20 encounters with armed soldiers" or "20 encounters with undead" is very same-y, and very susceptible to "one tactic always wins".

Flight, ranged, casting, melee, single / multiple, start drain, disabling, terrain, traps, etc etc - there are so many different options just for combat that no single strategy should always win.

Are their many (combat) encounters in 3.5 that can't be solved with some variation of "cast disabling spell, mop up as required?"

Well, now, just how many different disabling spells is this wizard memorizing, and just how many encounters is he having in a day?
Ignoring the impossible Batman wizard, who always has just the right spell, there will be plenty of encounters that don't work out like this. And that's even before traps, avalanches, etc.

IME, the best low-level BFC is the Druid. Let's take a loadout of Entangle x4, Green Blockade x3*. Entangle will really help against the random encounter of a dozen orcs, but won't completely trivialize the encounter. If the Druid can win initiative, a held action for Green Blockade can totally be a lifesaver against the Hydra random encounter, but still leaves the BDF in a desperate race to kill the beast before it devours him**.

But they do nothing against ranged flying units, like baby dragons. Or against the ambush which dropped our point man in the surprise round. Or against shadows. And very little against most traps. And, in the barren dungeon, Entangle is useless, and 3 castings of Green Blockade really isn't enough BFC for 6-10 encounters in the dungeon. Did save some characters from having their skulls crushed by angry ogres, so it was really handy, but not enough to win the game all by itself.

* we'll just assume that the Wand of Lesser Vigor will be enough to keep the party going.
** a race which he lost, btw, in the adventure I'm cribbing heavily from for these examples.

[georgie_leech]

That depends, if you're building a lot of encounters of similar structure, then no. If you aren't then yes.

Remember that players at a table aren't batman wizard, they don't get access to all the tricks all the time, they have to guess at what spells they need, and divination in that case only helps so much (I use it to figure out which sets I should prepare). But that's because Wizards have a limited amount of spells they can use at any given time.

Acknowledged that Tier 1 casters frequently don't have the right spell prepared. But I'm looking at the claim that different encounters can require different tactics, not different spells. Is using a disabling spell that shuts down one type of encounter tactically different than using a different spell to **** down a different one? For instance, is using Hold Person to paralyze important humanoid oponents tactically distinct feom using Hold Undead to do the same thing to importamt Undead opponents? I'd argue not, so with that in mind, what kind of varied encounter design does 3.5 bring to the table? This isn't a gotcha, but me actually attempting to understand the position better.

EDIT RE: Quertus above:

Right, a Druid won't always have the right spells prepared to deal with a situation. But in terms of a tactic being dominant, in what way would using, say, Wind Wall to shut down ranged fliers be distinct from using Entangle to shut down melee brutes? I'd argue that "not having Wind Wall prepared" isn't so much a case of the tactic being different and not always having access to the tactic.

[Quertus]

Acknowledged that Tier 1 casters frequently don't have the right spell prepared. But I'm looking at the claim that different encounters can require different tactics, not different spells. Is using a disabling spell that shuts down one type of encounter tactically different than using a different spell to **** down a different one? For instance, is using Hold Person to paralyze important humanoid oponents tactically distinct feom using Hold Undead to do the same thing to importamt Undead opponents? I'd argue not, so with that in mind, what kind of varied encounter design does 3.5 bring to the table? This isn't a gotcha, but me actually attempting to understand the position better.

You're assuming that that's a single "important" opponent to target, and that it will fail its saving throw before more conventional means "disable" it. That's another part of good encounter design: varying the numbers. Hold Person is pretty useless against a score of identical orcs. And the party archer (or Pegasus-mounted übercharger, or even SA Monk) is likely the go-to man vs a low HP "mage unit" (like an enemy wizard or a beholder).

I'm actually not sure what the optimal course of action is for a wizard when faced by a dozen leveled orc warriors backed by a beholder. Run, maybe?

[Cosi]

Acknowledged that Tier 1 casters frequently don't have the right spell prepared. But I'm looking at the claim that different encounters can require different tactics, not different spells. Is using a disabling spell that shuts down one type of encounter tactically different than using a different spell to **** down a different one? For instance, is using Hold Person to paralyze important humanoid oponents tactically distinct feom using Hold Undead to do the same thing to importamt Undead opponents? I'd argue not, so with that in mind, what kind of varied encounter design does 3.5 bring to the table? This isn't a gotcha, but me actually attempting to understand the position better.

Every fight reduces to "take action, hope for victory, repeat". That doesn't make them all the same. There are obvious differences between e.g. acid fog and finger of death as tactical tools, and they are frankly vastly more interesting than the "charge it or wish I could charge it" pattern that dominates low-tier characters.

Also, high-tier characters can do things that aren't combat. Then, that probably doesn't count as anything, because it's still overcoming challenges by using abilities, and that's apparently only one kind of thing.

[georgie_leech]

You're assuming that that's a single "important" opponent to target, and that it will fail is saving throw before more conventional means "disable" it. That's another part of good encounter design: varying the numbers. Hold Person is pretty useless against a score of identical orcs. And the party archer (or Pegasus-mounted übercharger, or even SA Monk) is likely the go to man vs a low HP "mage unit", like a beholder.

Hold person is useless, but Entangle was used in your above example. In either case, the tactic was "use applicable spell to weaken opposing side, others finish off weakened opponents." Is that actually a different tactic because the spell that was recognized as being helpful was different?

Edit:

Every fight reduces to "take action, hope for victory, repeat". That doesn't make them all the same. There are obvious differences between e.g. acid fog and finger of death as tactical tools, and they are frankly vastly more interesting than the "charge it or wish I could charge it" pattern that dominates low-tier characters.

Also, high-tier characters can do things that aren't combat. Then, that probably doesn't count as anything, because it's still overcoming challenges by using abilities, and that's apparently only one kind of thing.

I was just referring to combat encounters, but yes, that is part of my problem with low tier characters: the binary between "can I do the specific thing I built to do or not" doesn't leave a lot of room for much tactical variance in their choices.

[Quertus]

Hold person is useless, but Entangle was used in your above example. In either case, the tactic was "use applicable spell to weaken opposing side, others finish off weakened opponents." Is that actually a different tactic because the spell that was recognized as being helpful was different?

Hmmm... Of the... Not quite triple digit parties I've adventured with in 3e, I believe only 3 had a druid... Erm, I believe only 6 had a character who could cast Entangle. Druid isn't a popular option at my tables, apparently, and neither are Archivists or Illithid Savants.

Yes, entangle would help against 20 orcs, but wouldn't end the encounter the way Fireball or Diplomacy would. Heck, I once saw a half ogre with a dwom totally wreck an entire roomful of orcs in a single Great Cleave attack, and that was far more effective than Entangle - and would (probably) work in an AMF.

But, yes, imo, there is a distinct difference between "SoD works, end encounter", "SoD works, encounter is easier", "SoD works, but why did you bother?", "SoD fails", and various similar variations on various debuff / BFC / AoE / direct damage options.

EDIT:

I was just referring to combat encounters, but yes, that is part of my problem with low tier characters: the binary between "can I do the specific thing I built to do or not" doesn't leave a lot of room for much tactical variance in their choices.

Yup, I sadly agree. This is part of why I believe higher-options tiers are generally a better design goal.

[Cosi]

I was just referring to combat encounters, but yes, that is part of my problem with low tier characters: the binary between "can I do the specific thing I built to do or not" doesn't leave a lot of room for much tactical variance in their choices.

What characters do you think have tactical choices then?

[Arbane]

And that's still not "killed thirty guys in one stroke" and that's still not a recent legend. Like I'm not referring to ancient mythology, which is why I talked about Anime rather than historical texts. Yes, in historical texts you can find ridiculous feats done by demigods, and you know what there are systems made to accommodate that.

"Recent legend"....? As far as I know, Paul Bunyan didn't get in many swordfights.
And, funny thing - you'll have to search far and wide to find ANY myths in which spellcasters are as omnipotent as high-level D&D casters. Name three, I'll wait.

Yeah and when somebody plays a fighter in D&D, they don't usually want to ignore physics, or if they do, then they're better served by another system.

So, what DOES a someone want to do when they play a Fighter? Apparently the answer is 'I swing at them' over and over and over again....

Character-building in 3.5 is it's own game, that's why it has those hurdles and for those who enjoy that game it's a feature not a bug.

I'd argue it is a bug, seeing how it's possible to make two characters of the same class/level/etc who are vastly different in effectiveness at their job, never mind the immense gulf in capability between the Spell-Casting God-Kings of the Overcosmos and the non-spellcasting peasantry.

Also Wheel of Time, again, high powered Wizard, low powered martials adventure together. The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, the Saga stories Tolkien was basing things on. Also many other influences for D&D specifically involved power disparities in adventuring groups.

You _are_ aware that situations a writer can force to work in fiction will often not work in a game ruled by capricious and merciless dice, right?

Those all tell stories ONLY focused on the Wizard though, they don't let you tell stories about a mixed group where power disparity exists. Take for example the Justice League, or Wheel of time, or the example I provided above. Those kind of stories require wizards to be powerful, and you can't use Ars Magica or Mage or the other Mage for those stories, it wouldn't work.

Again, I'm having a mighty tough time thinking of any situations Green Lantern can't handle that Green Arrow can.

And why should we find another system? We have one that already suits our needs as-is. With thousands of useful analysis already done, like the tier system.

Because sometimes, we wanna play a sword-swinger who can keep up with the big boys, a concept D&D3.x really doesn't support very well. (How many times have you said 'just play Exalted' in this thread alone?)

[Cosi]

So, what DOES a someone want to do when they play a Fighter? Apparently the answer is 'I swing at them' over and over and over again....

AMFV is confusing the fact that people who want to play powerful characters don't make swordsmen (because they are weak) with the notion that people want swordsmen to be weak. The flaw in this logic should be obvious.

You _are_ aware that situations a writer can force to work in fiction will often not work in a game ruled by capricious and merciless dice, right?

Also, Wheel of Time isn't really "low power mundanes". Perrin is straight up magic (he commands a bunch of wolves), and Mat doesn't contribute by killing individual enemies non-magically -- he contributes by leading an army, and that only works because there is a problem which an army is needed to solve.

[Pex]

Are their many (combat) encounters in 3.5 that can't be solved with some variation of "cast disabling spell, mop up as required?"

All of them because monsters make their saving throws sometimes, so the spell doesn't work. Also, the spellcaster doesn't always have the appropriate disabling spell at the moment it's needed.

[Samzat]

If i were to flatten the tier list a bit, I would make it so that Arcane Casting beyond a certain spell level (lets say spell level 4) costs HP. The higher spell level, the more HP it costs. There are ways to lower this cost- and for the max level spells these are necessary- but those are lost secrets that you need to adventure to find, and even those are not necessarily free.

To make sure Divine casters dont get too op because arcane got nerfed, I would make it so you have to do some special tasks (dependent on deity) to achieve spell level 5 and have to do more every spell level above that.

[georgie_leech]

What characters do you think have tactical choices then?

Casters, mostly. I don't disagree that acess to different spells gives them different tactical options, I just meant that it seems to me the most efficient tactic is usually to use a spell to disable the opponents. They do have acces to spells that can bring in reinforcements, buff allies, reshape the battlefield, and non-wizards frequently have access to healing magic

Hmmm... Of the... Not quite triple digit parties I've adventured with in 3e, I believe only 3 had a druid... Erm, I believe only 6 had a character who could cast Entangle. Druid isn't a popular option at my tables, apparently, and neither are Archivists or Illithid Savants.

Yes, entangle would help against 20 orcs, but wouldn't end the encounter the way Fireball or Diplomacy would. Heck, I once saw a half ogre with a dwom totally wreck an entire roomful of orcs in a single Great Cleave attack, and that was far more effective than Entangle - and would (probably) work in an AMF.

But, yes, imo, there is a distinct difference between "SoD works, end encounter", "SoD works, encounter is easier", "SoD works, but why did you bother?", "SoD fails", and various similar variations on various debuff / BFC / AoE / direct damage options.

EDIT:

Yup, I sadly agree. This is part of why I believe higher-options tiers are generally a better design goal.

That's fair. It's not the kind of tactical diversity I'm usually looking for when I care about tactical choices, but I better understand where you're coming from now.

And yeah, I prefer Tier 3 for my design space for that reason. I like having characters able to have a specialty strong enough to be meaningful when it applies, without being totally useless when it doesn't. That is something I like that 4e managed, though it's hidden by a power deign that gives the impression of samey-ness. The 4 major roles are (as I like to think of them) Killing it Dead (Striker), Stop Killing my Friends (Defender), Making my Friends Awesome (Leader), and Making my Enemies Suck (Controller). Every class is designed around (with varying degrees of success) being very good at one while having some skill at another. For instance, Fighters are a Defender that is also pretty good at Killing Things Dead, while Paladins are Defenders that are natively good at Making Their Friends Awesome. As always, optimization leaves some wiggle-room for what your Major and Minors are, but classes still have an out-of-the-box identity.

[AMFV]

Acknowledged that Tier 1 casters frequently don't have the right spell prepared. But I'm looking at the claim that different encounters can require different tactics, not different spells. Is using a disabling spell that shuts down one type of encounter tactically different than using a different spell to **** down a different one? For instance, is using Hold Person to paralyze important humanoid oponents tactically distinct feom using Hold Undead to do the same thing to importamt Undead opponents? I'd argue not, so with that in mind, what kind of varied encounter design does 3.5 bring to the table? This isn't a gotcha, but me actually attempting to understand the position better.

I wouldn't call 'Casting a spell' one tactic, any more than I would call, participating in combat a single type of solution. I mean there are solutions other than fighting, so that's even a tactical choice in most situations.

"Recent legend"....? As far as I know, Paul Bunyan didn't get in many swordfights.
And, funny thing - you'll have to search far and wide to find ANY myths in which spellcasters are as omnipotent as high-level D&D casters. Name three, I'll wait.

Again we are not roleplaying myths. That's not what the games are intended to replicate. If you want to roleplay the Aeneid there are games better suited to that objective than 3rd Edition D&D, which is set up for specific stories. I like how you and various other D&D detractors here ignore important argument points to focus on minutiae, hint that's not great, don't do that.

So, what DOES a someone want to do when they play a Fighter? Apparently the answer is 'I swing at them' over and over and over again....

Yeah, I guess sundering, tripping, bullrushing, power-attacking, full defense actions, targeting spell foci and items, switching weapons based on a situation, and using magic items are all just "swinging at somebody". I stand corrected.

I'd argue it is a bug, seeing how it's possible to make two characters of the same class/level/etc who are vastly different in effectiveness at their job, never mind the immense gulf in capability between the Spell-Casting God-Kings of the Overcosmos and the non-spellcasting peasantry.

You don't understand the tier system and you're not arguing in good faith. The idea is that Wizards have more options that are more effective, that's what the tier system says. So as a Wizard that effects how you should be playing unless you're being an *******.

You _are_ aware that situations a writer can force to work in fiction will often not work in a game ruled by capricious and merciless dice, right?

Yep, but those situations can be remedied by rules support. That's why different games tell different kinds of stories well.

Again, I'm having a mighty tough time thinking of any situations Green Lantern can't handle that Green Arrow can.

Yes, Green Lantern theoretically could handle more situations than Green Arrow, but Green Lantern can only handle a limited number of situations at one time. The same way that in play a tier 1 can't solve every problem, they cannot always have the right spell, and sometimes a fighter can solve many problems. The Tier system is pointing out that one character is Green Lantern and the other is Green Arrow, so if you're playing Green Lantern, sometimes you have to do something is not the most optimal action in order to not always hog the spotlight, if you're playing Green Arrow, you have to always do the optimal action or something very good to succeed.

Because sometimes, we wanna play a sword-swinger who can keep up with the big boys, a concept D&D3.x really doesn't support very well. (How many times have you said 'just play Exalted' in this thread alone?)

D&D is not a competition and a level 20 fighter keeps up with Wizards just fine, if they optimize properly.

The "play Exalted" comments were about people who wanted Fighters to be able to do things that would be heavily supernatural, like anime characters. There is nothing wrong with that, hell you could probably find a d20 hack that does that, but it isn't a core system assumption.

AMFV is confusing the fact that people who want to play powerful characters don't make swordsmen (because they are weak) with the notion that people want swordsmen to be weak. The flaw in this logic should be obvious.

I'm not actually. And I've made swordsmen who pulled their weight and weren't weak. You're confusing me saying "I don't want my mundanes to have the ability to do Wushu anime things because it's not setting appropriate" with me saying "Mundanes should be weak." The key here is that in the sort of setting D&D is best at, mundanes should be different, and differences in this case

Again, D&D is not a competition, the tier system shows basically the amount of metagame effort the player needs to put into how they plan things. A Wizard has to put effort in not to overshadow people, a fighter needs to put effort in to keep up at higher levels, but it's doable. It's not about power, it's about relative problem solving abilities.

Edit: Also it's worth noting that the line between Anime wushu type things and regular mundane things can be fuzzy. It's a taste issue. However, stab 30 people with one attack is definitely way over it.

Also, Wheel of Time isn't really "low power mundanes". Perrin is straight up magic (he commands a bunch of wolves), and Mat doesn't contribute by killing individual enemies non-magically -- he contributes by leading an army, and that only works because there is a problem which an army is needed to solve.

Commanding a bunch of wolves is an order of magnitude lower in power than commanding fire that literally wipes things from existence and can cause resurrections due to this fact. I would say Perrin would be some kind of ranger in typical D&D, or a beast master character. Which is a lower tier character. That would be tier 4 probably in the Tier system which people have forgotten is the whole point of this discussion.

And as to the second point. THAT IS MY FRICKING POINT THE WHOLE TIME. It's the DM job to create problems that the fighter can solve. The tier system is useful because it shows the Wizard that he can solve more problems, so it lets the player know that he should solve a more limited number than he possibly could to avoid hogging the spotlight. So for a fighter in AD&D who did have an Army, that would be something you'd want, you'd want army problems, and magic problems and a variety of problems. That's certainly attainable in D20 variants.

And also there's nothing wrong with giving Perrin wolves, or a ranger animal companions, or a fighter magical items or an army. But you're still not going to bump them up to tier 1 doing that, it's just not how that system works, they're going to still be lower tier, I mean you might get folks to tier 3, but that's a stretch.

[Cosi]

That is a terrible design.

First, the problem with arcane casters isn't that they can cast a bunch of forcecages or wail of the banshees. The problem is that they can cast planar binding at all.

Second, you've now made it mandatory that every campaign go on the "power up" adventures for their casters, which shifts the spotlight even more to them.

Third, it's not terribly difficult to ignore any remotely sane HP cost if you don't change the actual spells.

[Cosi]

I'm not actually. And I've made swordsmen who pulled their weight and weren't weak. You're confusing me saying "I don't want my mundanes to have the ability to do Wushu anime things because it's not setting appropriate" with me saying "Mundanes should be weak." The key here is that in the sort of setting D&D is best at, mundanes should be different, and differences in this case

You think those statements are different, but they are not. Not wanting mundanes to be powerful is wanting them to be weak, because that is what "not being powerful" means.

Commanding a bunch of wolves is an order of magnitude lower in power than commanding fire that literally wipes things from existence and can cause resurrections due to this fact. I would say Perrin would be some kind of ranger in typical D&D, or a beast master character. Which is a lower tier character. That would be tier 4 probably in the Tier system which people have forgotten is the whole point of this discussion.

It's still not mundane. Perrin's powers are not mundane powers. They're less powerful than Rand's powers, but they're still magic.

And as to the second point. THAT IS MY FRICKING POINT THE WHOLE TIME. It's the DM job to create problems that the fighter can solve.

No, it's the system's responsibility to ensure that classes have the ability to solve expected encounters. Asking that the DM do extra work to support your concept is selfish. Somehow, this is perfectly obvious to everyone when the extra work is being done because mages over-perform, but completely incomprehensible when martials under-perform.

[AMFV]

You think those statements are different, but they are not. Not wanting mundanes to be powerful is wanting them to be weak, because that is what "not being powerful" means.

Are you arguing that an Ubercharger that can do 1,000,000,000,000,000 damage in one hit is weak? They're not weak they're just specialized. So if you have a combat with a foe that winds up in a long field and your a wizard and your friend is an ubercharger you should let them do the thing they're best at. It's not super complicated, and it isn't about being powerful, it's about versatility.

Edit: Or even worse the Giant Thrower that can do more die of damage than there are particles in the known universe.

It's still not mundane. Perrin's powers are not mundane powers. They're less powerful than Rand's powers, but they're still magic.

They're pretty explicitly not tied in with the "power" or magic in that setting. They aren't normal, but they wouldn't be Arcane or Divine magic in D&D, they'd be some other kind of supernatural thing. I would put that generally on the divide with mundane as opposed to caster. Just like Smite (a clearly supernatural ability) falls on that side. It's a lot taste and tonal issues there though.

No, it's the system's responsibility to ensure that classes have the ability to solve expected encounters. Asking that the DM do extra work to support your concept is selfish. Somehow, this is perfectly obvious to everyone when the extra work is being done because mages over-perform, but completely incomprehensible when martials under-perform.

And THEY FRICKING CAN. A party of all tier 4s and 5s can solve level appropriate just fine. The system has done it's job, interparty is entirely the realm of the table, since there's no way to really plan for that.

So you make a party with a CW Samurai, a Rogue, a Healer, and a Warmage. They'll be able to take on level appropriate encounters just fine, not as efficiently as a party of tier 1s, but they'd handle it. They problem is disparity in the group, and that's always going to be present.

Hell, I've had games where the imbalance was that one player was an engineer and knew complex physics and therefore could figure out solutions that others couldn't and I had to balance around that. There's no perfect solution because player competence is more of an issue than anything else. In a party with an unoptimized wizard, an unbercharger might overshadow them completely.

[Lord Raziere]

I disagree that anything I want for fighters is in any way supernatural. I do not want fighters to dress in robes, wiggle their fingers and say silly words. They do not entreat spirits or study occult knowledge or anything activity of the sort. They fight. The method of achieving an action is more important for determining whether its supernatural or not than how powerful the action is. for a game where everyone is participating in the same party, it is the ideal mindset to take, not being anal about whether or not things should be magical. because really there is no point in whether something is magical in a fantasy. Its fantasy, its a different world by definition where things just work differently and I could justify it working differently without needing magic at all, magic is not included in its definition. its an often used cliche, but one could have a fantasy without anyone having magic.

[Cosi]

Are you arguing that an Ubercharger that can do 1,000,000,000,000,000 damage in one hit is weak? They're not weak they're just specialized. So if you have a combat with a foe that winds up in a long field and your a wizard and your friend is an ubercharger you should let them do the thing they're best at. It's not super complicated, and it isn't about being powerful, it's about versatility.

Yes, they are less effective than a caster, who can do comparable damage and also cast spells. Can they contribute to some problems? Sure, but it's damn difficult to produce a character who brings nothing to the table. The fact that they have a niche isn't important. What's important is that they have a unique niche. Otherwise, you're relying on people having sufficiently different tastes for the game to remain balanced.

They're pretty explicitly not tied in with the "power" or magic in that setting. They aren't normal, but they wouldn't be Arcane or Divine magic in D&D, they'd be some other kind of supernatural thing. I would put that generally on the divide with mundane as opposed to caster. Just like Smite (a clearly supernatural ability) falls on that side. It's a lot taste and tonal issues there though.

If your definition of "mundane" includes "has supernatural abilities" it is not a useful definition.

And THEY FRICKING CAN. A party of all tier 4s and 5s can solve level appropriate just fine. The system has done it's job, interparty is entirely the realm of the table, since there's no way to really plan for that.

That's not a good test of balance, because you're testing where success is expected. You also need tests where you expect some number of failures.

So you make a party with a CW Samurai, a Rogue, a Healer, and a Warmage. They'll be able to take on level appropriate encounters just fine, not as efficiently as a party of tier 1s, but they'd handle it. They problem is disparity in the group, and that's always going to be present.

If one party encounters more problems than another with the same encounters, the game is not balanced.

There's no perfect solution because player competence is more of an issue than anything else. In a party with an unoptimized wizard, an unbercharger might overshadow them completely.

That doesn't mean there's no possible improvement. You can make the game more balanced, even if it will never be perfectly balanced. Also, you're still missing the fact that some people might want to play characters that are martial but are comparably effective -- before the DM puts his finger on the scale -- with casters.

[Darth Ultron]

All of them because monsters make their saving throws sometimes, so the spell doesn't work. Also, the spellcaster doesn't always have the appropriate disabling spell at the moment it's needed.

This gets back to my points of: Adventure Design and How you Play the Game.

Take a ''Type T'' DM and a ''Type T'' group all doing ''Type T'' Adventure design and playing the game ''Way Type T'', then the Tier system exists and things like "All (combat) encounters in 3.5 canbe solved with some variation of "cast disabling spell, mop up as required?" are true.

Change anything to not be ''Type T'', and suddenly there is no tier system and things are not true anymore.

For a Non Game Example: Bob sets up a table in his front yard. Then, in the morning at six he puts five one dollar bills on the table. When he goes back out at six in the evening he finds all six of te one dollar bills gone. Bob gets all mad and he just can't understand why his dollar bills are not there: he put them there, they should be there. Every day for a week, Bob puts five one dollar bills on this table on his front yard, and every day they are just gone. Bob is sure nothing he is doing is wrong, so he does not change anything...but he sure is mad about all the lost money.

Next week, helpful Ed comes over and suggests to Bob ''hey why don't you put some rocks on your dollar bills it will stop them from being blown away." And, amazingly, Ed's advice is good: some days at six when Bob checks on his dollar bills they are still there under the rocks. Bob never thought the wind would blow away his money...but it did, every day. Still, some days, even with the rocks, Bob's money is gone.

The week after that helpful Andrew points out ''It is not a good idea to just leave money in your front yard...someone will just take it." Bob is again just amazed and had never thought of that. And then Andrew digs a little deeper and asked ''Bob why are you even putting money in your front yard everyday anyway?"

[AMFV]

I disagree that anything I want for fighters is in any way supernatural. I do not want fighters to dress in robes, wiggle their fingers and say silly words. They do not entreat spirits or study occult knowledge or anything activity of the sort. They fight. The method of achieving an action is more important for determining whether its supernatural or not than how powerful the action is. for a game where everyone is participating in the same party, it is the ideal mindset to take, not being anal about whether or not things should be magical. because really there is no point in whether something is magical in a fantasy. Its fantasy, its a different world by definition where things just work differently and I could justify it working differently without needing magic at all, magic is not included in its definition. its an often used cliche, but one could have a fantasy without anyone having magic.

Certainly! You can have a fantasy without magic, there are games that really do that well! There are variants of D&D that do that well even, like E6 does that much better, d20 Past is really good at that.

But you're missing it, it is an important mindset to take, because anime settings where people can do magic with their swords and fly and what-not, are different in tone and reception than western settings where people who are not explicitly wizards have less magical power. It's a different tone, in D&D the tone is keyed for that western setting and that balance point reflects that. That's why 3.5 is good at the kind of games it's good at. So if you're a DM or a system designer you have to be anal about what kind of tone you're making and what kind of story you're telling.

There's a big difference between what you're discussing "Killing 30 guys in one stroke" and what is typically of a fighter in most games. There are games that are really well suited to that, but 3.5 D&D unedited is not one of them.

Yes, they are less effective than a caster, who can do comparable damage and also cast spells. Can they contribute to some problems? Sure, but it's damn difficult to produce a character who brings nothing to the table. The fact that they have a niche isn't important. What's important is that they have a unique niche. Otherwise, you're relying on people having sufficiently different tastes for the game to remain balanced.

Actually damaging casters are way outclassed by damaging martial, like it's not even close. Casters cannot do more die of damage than there are particles in the universe, they're also generally significantly reduced below uberchargers. And if you're contributing 1/5th of the time in a party of 5, then you're equally effective, even if you could theoretically contribute 4/5ths of the time.

If your definition of "mundane" includes "has supernatural abilities" it is not a useful definition.

Hardly, there is a distinction between things that are overtly magical and things are sort-of magical, and things that are not magical at all. THERE ARE NO MUNDANE CHARACTERS in 3.5 D&D, not after like 2nd level. Fighters are using magical swords, magical items, and kinds of stuff, they would not be mundane by a consideration that eliminates all supernatural abilities.

The line is more along the lines of "sort-of magical" and "explicitly super-magical"

That's not a good test of balance, because you're testing where success is expected. You also need tests where you expect some number of failures.

Right, and the game is imbalanced, when have I argued that it was balanced? I've only said that you could make the imbalances not significantly affect table-play relatively easily.

If one party encounters more problems than another with the same encounters, the game is not balanced.

Yes, and it's not supposed to be, that's not a design goal for them, or at least not a high priority design goal. The balance point is "Are they able to handle appropriate CR encounters" everything after that isn't at all important, because that's something that can be fixed by DMing.

That doesn't mean there's no possible improvement. You can make the game more balanced, even if it will never be perfectly balanced. Also, you're still missing the fact that some people might want to play characters that are martial but are comparably effective -- before the DM puts his finger on the scale -- with casters.

You're misunderstanding how I'm saying that DMs and players should deal with things, and you're conflating versatility and variety with raw power. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Just aren't. Until you can understand that difference you're not going to be able to contribute to this. The DM isn't making encounters more powerful so they challenge the wizard, the DM is altering encounters based on what the Wizard does so that some encounters will avoid his abilities, and the DM is making encounters where the Wizard is the only solver for the situation. That's what you have to do. It's not raising the power level, it's providing a variety of encounters so everybody can shine.

And if you want balance look at 4E, the things they did to make the game balanced, are the things that people objected to with the edition change. Like literally almost all of the complaints were about things that were balance fixes. That's why they brought back imbalances for 5E.

[Cosi]

Actually damaging casters are way outclassed by damaging martial, like it's not even close. Casters cannot do more die of damage than there are particles in the universe, they're also generally significantly reduced below uberchargers. And if you're contributing 1/5th of the time in a party of 5, then you're equally effective, even if you could theoretically contribute 4/5ths of the time.

Casters are better at ubercharging than Fighters are. Because they can get all the buffs they want, and then also a pile of extra bonuses from abusing shapechange.

Yes, and it's not supposed to be, that's not a design goal for them, or at least not a high priority design goal. The balance point is "Are they able to handle appropriate CR encounters" everything after that isn't at all important, because that's something that can be fixed by DMing.

Yes, that is a design goal. And "able to handle appropriate CR encounters" carries with it the implicit expectation "not able to handle inappropriate CR encounters", and if you have those two properties the game is balanced.

You're misunderstanding how I'm saying that DMs and players should deal with things, and you're conflating versatility and variety with raw power. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Yes they are. Fundamentally, both "getting more abilities" and "getting better abilities" resolve to "can defeat more encounters". Also, after being told that "+10,000 to all ability scores" is an increase in versatility, I am not at all convinced that there is even a meaningful difference.

The DM isn't making encounters more powerful so they challenge the wizard, the DM is altering encounters based on what the Wizard does so that some encounters will avoid his abilities, and the DM is making encounters where the Wizard is the only solver for the situation. That's what you have to do. It's not raising the power level, it's providing a variety of encounters so everybody can shine.

Except that only works if the Wizard is not fully optimized, or, less powerful than he could be.

And if you want balance look at 4E, the things they did to make the game balanced, are the things that people objected to with the edition change. Like literally almost all of the complaints were about things that were balance fixes. That's why they brought back imbalances for 5E.

4e is the result of insisting that people be allowed to play characters that do not have abilities. The design decisions that lead to 4e are "allow Fighters to not have abilities" and they are the decisions you are pushing for. Those decisions are bad decisions and they make bad games. Stop asking us to make them.