The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Mechalich]

That's another way I'm glad that my experiences differ. When there's double digit players, they cannot all be party leader. I don't know what the "secret sauce" was that my tables tended to get that, and have large helpings of abnegation, but they did.

Double-digit players? What kind of games were these? Table-top RPGs are not, outside of very specialized tournament modules, designed for play by double-digit groups. Any experience or observation based on play is such a massively oversized group cannot be used to generalize to typical play experience.

So, were playing a perfectly balanced game, like golf or MtG, but my player skills let me win more or less guaranteed unless I give you a handicap. My brother regularly played MtG 1-on-3 at his lunch table (and usually won).

Magic the Gathering is not 'perfectly balanced' and I do not know how you could possibly think that it is. Firstly, individual cards very greatly in overall power and utility and are ranked by rarity to at least partially reflect this (and some cards are considered sufficiently overpowered that they have to be banned from play). Second, various combinations of cards are better than others, to the point that at any given time less than ten or so deck builds are considered viable in any of the major formats, and these builds cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars to assemble. If you're not willing to invest said funds it presents a hard cap on your capability regardless of your skill.

The situation you're describing, of regular victory in 1-on-3 matches, is highly anomalous and suggests not only a vast difference in investment wherein you're brother's decks were simply markedly better than those of his opponents, but also that his opponents lacked even a rudimentary understanding of how to play the game; as victory in that scenario, even with a much more powerful deck, should be nearly impossible (though in a fully unrestricted format it's more viable but that's not normal play).

So, when the game is balanced, yet someone is obviously superior, what do you suggest?

Then, if you have an answer to that question, are you suggesting making RPGs enforce mechanical equivalence, and using *only* your answer to the above, and not mechanical differentiation, to balance player skill at the table?

A properly designed game should minimize variance produced between players utilizing the same chassis. The goal shouldn't be to reduce it zero, but to keep it within a reasonable range. A player using the rules to break the game is a failure mode for design in the same way that a player being unable to contribute is.

[Ignimortis]

Other than high BAB, high HP, good fort save… and probably tools that are probably unique, like multiple AoO (oh, look, it's those reactions you mentioned) or whirlwind attack or great cleave.

The ShadowRun Street Samurai doesn't feel special because he's the only one who can engage the combat minigame - he feels special because he engages it *so much better* than everyone else.

I won't deny that it's a different feel. But do you really want to deny the other characters the ability to interact with the mundane world, or just let the Fighter do so better?

(I don't think anyone but me wants something truly magical)

Street Samurai break the action economy and have vastly better combat capabilities than non-combat characters, though (aside from conjurer mages who are just BS, really). You act three to four times in the time others act once, your armor is practically on another level (imagine having 40 AC at level 4 without sacrificing everything else? That's what an optimized SAM is), and your ability to hit people is probably high enough you hit most opponents 99% of the time. All of that is quite achievable at the start of the game by standard runner rules.

Compare that to Fighter, who at level 4 or 5 basically doesn't do much that a Gish couldn't. Fighter has maybe 2 more BAB (+10% to hit, but most combat-specced characters are at 70%+ to hit anyway), 10-12 more HP if they neglected everything but STR/DEX/CON, and maybe +2 AC? But the basic resolution mechanic is a d20, and you're basically 10-15% ahead of the curve, not 300% ahead. That's the thing - everyone is expected to be good at combat in D&D, so a Fighter who only fights ends up being either replaceable (why play a Fighter if you can DMM Persist Divine Might at level 7 and basically forget you ever had anything worse than Fighter?), or overpowered (see uberchargers).

[Satinavian]

(I don't think anyone but me wants something truly magical)

Not for wizards. Also not to put in he same party as more traditional roles. And certainly not in games similar to D&D.

I could see the case to make a game where you play magical fey creatures either having adventures in the also complatele magical fey realms or visiting the mortal lands and exploring those as some hostile, non-magical environment where nothing works as it should.

That might work with one of those rule light systems having special mechanical emphasis on feelings and motivations of the characters while not paying too much attention on simulating powers or making a tactical combat system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, since "Wizard" has the lowest floor (at least in 3e), how do you propose buffing them to make them more noob friendly?

First, I doubt that's actually true. A "what looks good" wizard in 3e is going to end up a blaster. Sub-optimal, but lightyears better than a "what looks good" monk (or heaven-forfend, truenamer).

Second, I'd make wizards actually depend on class features, instead of being "Giant Spell List, the class". That way you bring up the floor and lower the ceiling, while providing thematic choices and enforcing opportunity cost. I'd do the same for the fighter, by the way. Being "Bonus Feats, the class" is a bad way to go.

So, were playing a perfectly balanced game, like golf or MtG, but my player skills let me win more or less guaranteed unless I give you a handicap. My brother regularly played MtG 1-on-3 at his lunch table (and usually won).

So, when the game is balanced, yet someone is obviously superior, what do you suggest?

Then, if you have an answer to that question, are you suggesting making RPGs enforce mechanical equivalence, and using *only* your answer to the above, and not mechanical differentiation, to balance player skill at the table?

If you're using competitive games as an analogue, you've already missed the entire point. Sure, in golf a handicap is OK. But D&D is not a competitive game, so handicaps just breed resentment from both sides. The one who is hobbled doesn't get to play his full character and has to constantly worry about breaking things; the ones who "benefit" see their friend struggling not to break the game and wonder why that character is even adventuring with them in the first place when he could race on ahead and solve the problems himself.

Instead reduce the salience of the difference. Bring the floor and ceiling closer together and make sure the default settings (the "what looks good" options) are robust and simple. Tune the system so that you don't need optimized characters, so that the window of viability is really wide and flat. Above all, eliminate trap options. A group of people without system mastery should be able to make characters that can handle any 1PP adventure path with tolerable inter-character balance simply by following the basic archetypes presented, no matter which class options they choose. Being the runaway star is not fun for most people; neither is falling desperately and insuperably behind because you didn't know that your entire class/play-style was a trap option (looking at you 3e monks, where the stock advice for playing that style is "go unarmed sword-sage instead").

[Talakeal]

@ Quertus:

On my phone, so no fancy quoting.

Its not that Gandalf holds the party back, its that he holds individualsmback from getting all the glory. In the same way that the gold medal winner is keeping the silver medal winner from being recognized as "the best".

To use another metaphor, in a world with Superman, even other super heroes often feel mundane.


I agree, 2E figters were awesome. In 3E they are at best one trick ponies who are made completely redundant by broken spells.

I dont recall your tricks for getting out of a force cage, did it involve wasting a lot of gold and item slots on buying cloaks of the montebank and rods of negation? Or begging your allies to waste their turn teleporting you out?

[Pleh]

On Playing Fighters: I thought that might speak to you. As for what your not seeing: I think you have seen it you just didn't recognize it for what it is. After all, we are talking about problems that make fighters unfun to play, so if you aren't having fun playing fighters maybe you have already found them. (We could go into more detail if you want to be sure.)

To be fair, there is a difference between not liking fighters because they aren't designed well and not liking them for their basic aesthetic design. When you dislike both, it could be understandably hard to disentangle them.

[AMFV]

I agree, 2E figters were awesome. In 3E they are at best one trick ponies who are made completely redundant by broken spells.

I dont recall your tricks for getting out of a force cage, did it involve wasting a lot of gold and item slots on buying cloaks of the montebank and rods of negation? Or begging your allies to waste their turn teleporting you out?

Figure out how to get UMD as a class skill then use any teleportation item yourself. Have any sort of teleportation item (there are many). As a fighter of the level where you should be running into force cages you should have a reliable means of self-teleportation in D&D, you're no longer mundane at that point, and if you're trying to still be mundane then you are the problem.

If seventh level spells are in play your fighter should have means of teleporting, at least once a day, or should have some other means of dealing with being stuck some place, if not you're basically admitting you're okay with being stuck in a force cage.

At low to mid teen levels nobody should be mundane any more, at least not in any real sense of the word.

[Cluedrew]

[Stuff I cut up and put elsewhere, this is just here for the arrow now.]

Several things:

• "That certainly hasn't been my experience." Your experience seems to be an outlier. If we could package how you solved or did not encounter gameplay problems and send them around that would be great. But I don't know how to do that. If you could describe it maybe we could learn from it. Or maybe it would even be less fun for the average D&D player for other reasons. Did anyone ever play an optimized wizard at your table?
• "magic item shops and Leadership let them get as much utility as they wanted." Leadership and magic item shops should probably be counted under universal tools. Except maybe magic melee weapons and armour. Any anyone can take leadership right? (I actually don't know.) So why doesn't the wizard? Some roleplaying reasons aside, I think it is because the wizard had better options as spells anyways.
• "Other than high BAB, high HP, good fort save…" These are not new tools, just better versions of the old tools. Not that its worthless. But it tends not to open up new interesting approaches to problems. See "exception based abilities" in post #1.
• "[...] and probably tools that are probably unique, like multiple AoO [...] or whirlwind attack or great cleave." Closer, new abilities that change what you can do. Except that whirlwind attack and great cleave are - and correct me if I'm wrong - effectively just flavourful ways to add area of effect to the fighter's attacks that the wizard's spells already have. Good and part of some very strong builds but not a unique tool yet. The multiple AoO are something I would like to explore in more detail.
• "I believe I gave a whole list of solutions to Force Cage;" I haven't seen that list, do you still have it?
• "I haven't seen many challenges that a 3e "Fighter" simply cannot solve." Other people have (flying enemies has been mentioned, a door too strong to break down). My personal worst experience was trying to interrogate a prisoner that we couldn't ungag because they were a spell caster and they knew teleport. Conversely do you know any problems a wizard can't solve that a fighter can?

And this bit is kind of off topic.

How would someone who does not understand muggle culture be ill suited to exploring the remains of another unknown culture?

Wizard: What's this?
Rogue: Its a- ... trap."
Cleric: {Sigh}

I mean if anyone can do it is probably you. Still D&D is not the game I would choose to do it in. I would pick something with a stronger social focus to make the point both more significant and yet not possibly not as harsh when it comes up. Or maybe not. I'm going off a couple lines on your idea.

To Pleh: That is what the offer to talk about it more was for. It is entirely possible someone still wouldn't enjoy a properly implemented fighter. And then there is the question of what a "properly implemented fighter" looks like. The disagreement over that is no small part of this issue.

[AMFV]

First, I doubt that's actually true. A "what looks good" wizard in 3e is going to end up a blaster. Sub-optimal, but lightyears better than a "what looks good" monk (or heaven-forfend, truenamer).

Second, I'd make wizards actually depend on class features, instead of being "Giant Spell List, the class". That way you bring up the floor and lower the ceiling, while providing thematic choices and enforcing opportunity cost. I'd do the same for the fighter, by the way. Being "Bonus Feats, the class" is a bad way to go.

The other thing is that even a "what looks good" wizard in 3e can decide to prepare a spell that will be actually effective at any time they want to. So even supposing they have a set of entirely useless spells, they can have a different set after a day.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The other thing is that even a "what looks good" wizard in 3e can decide to prepare a spell that will be actually effective at any time they want to. So even supposing they have a set of entirely useless spells, they can have a different set after a day.

True, but for people with low system-mastery a bit over-stated. I find that "prepared" casters played by new people usually don't change their lists very much. They might jettison a spell they don't ever use or add an additional one if there's an obvious thing ("Oh, we're going swimming tomorrow. Better prepare water breathing.").

I often think that we on the forums over-value versatility.

[AMFV]

True, but for people with low system-mastery a bit over-stated. I find that "prepared" casters played by new people usually don't change their lists very much. They might jettison a spell they don't ever use or add an additional one if there's an obvious thing ("Oh, we're going swimming tomorrow. Better prepare water breathing.").

I often think that we on the forums over-value versatility.

I think that's very true. I'm a pretty heavy optimizer and I usually pick between two or three lists at most depending on what I expect to encounter if I'm playing a prepared caster. But the thing is that fixing a fighter (at least in 3E) involves a lot of work, whereas "fixing" a caster is relatively easy if the caster figures out how to do it. That's the thing, they only have to prepare color spray or black tentacles one time to see that it's awesome and then use it many more times.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you're using competitive games as an analogue, you've already missed the entire point. Sure, in golf a handicap is OK. But D&D is not a competitive game, so handicaps just breed resentment from both sides. The one who is hobbled doesn't get to play his full character and has to constantly worry about breaking things; the ones who "benefit" see their friend struggling not to break the game and wonder why that character is even adventuring with them in the first place when he could race on ahead and solve the problems himself.

This has come up before, combined with the idea of class "tiers"... that different classes supposedly exist to present different challenge levels or handicaps... it's an approach that I take a VERY VERY dim view of, for several reasons, not least of which is, as you say, that RPGs are not a competition sport.

[AMFV]

This has come up before, combined with the idea of class "tiers"... that different classes supposedly exist to present different challenge levels or handicaps... it's an approach that I take a VERY VERY dim view of, not least of which is, as you say, that RPGs are not a competition sport.

I think this is a problem as well, but knowing the tiers and having some idea of how the system works can allow you to have different classes operate together and all contribute to the party to some degree. I would say that it's useful to know that to play a fighter well in a group with lots of more competent characters you have to have a greater degree of system mastery as a player.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This has come up before, combined with the idea of class "tiers"... that different classes supposedly exist to present different challenge levels or handicaps... it's an approach that I take a VERY VERY dim view of, not least of which is, as you say, that RPGs are not a competition sport.

Tiers work only as a descriptive matter, not a prescriptive one. That is, they give information like "Class X and Class Y don't play nicely together without special care", not "X should be stronger than Y".

The fact that you can create tiers observationally is a sign that the system is significantly out of balance.

But yes, treating it like a competition sport just makes everything worse. D&D (specifically) is designed around the party as the minimum unit of the game, not the individual. Individuals are the protons/electrons/neutrons and the party is the whole atom.

[Kyutaru]

But yes, treating it like a competition sport just makes everything worse. D&D (specifically) is designed around the party as the minimum unit of the game, not the individual. Individuals are the protons/electrons/neutrons and the party is the whole atom.

I like that. Neutrons acting like the Electron is overpowered just cause he's more useful outside the atom and can do a lot of things. Meanwhile the core of the party, the Proton, is stuck in a singular role that never really lets him get past defining the element.

Though if you really want to, apply some of that Electron-powered science and watch the Proton explode all over the enemy.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's not a competition, it's a play. It's a cinematic, and how strong you are determines your screen time. Just because everyone is on the same team, working together, doesn't mean that how important one person is vs. another isn't a big deal.

From 5e, I played an Arcane Trickster, once. It's a Rogue that uses an invisible, telekinetic hand to grab and steal things. I also knew a bunch of low level rituals, which included a familiar. Not only could I perform just fine in combat, but most of the team was basically having to wait for me to solve most of our non-combat problems. I felt like an utter piece of garbage, because I was winning, and they weren't. At the same time, though, I shouldn't have to make myself weaker in order to bring other people up.

Additionally, the Barbarian I played before that barely contributed to anything that wasn't combat. Anything I tried to do, anyone else could do better. I felt like I was limited to being comedic relief rather than a reliable contribution.

Just because a team is successful doesn't mean everyone is having fun, and what else is the point of playing a TTRPG if people aren't having fun?

[Max_Killjoy]

I think this is a problem as well, but knowing the tiers and having some idea of how the system works can allow you to have different classes operate together and all contribute to the party to some degree. I would say that it's useful to know that to play a fighter well in a group with lots of more competent characters you have to have a greater degree of system mastery as a player.

As PhoenixPhyre said, that's a descriptive use, when you're trying to analyze a system and deal with its faults.

My real gripe is that a few posters have, in the past, enthusiastically treated tiers as prescriptive, that rather than being an analytical sign that a system has a major problem, they're something that supposedly should be designed into a system, so that you can intentionally put the best player in the "worst" class to "handicap" them and "balance" the players in the group.

And to be blunt, that approach is rubbish, for so many reasons, starting with:
* it treats RPGs as a competition between the players
* it claims to tell the players what sort of class they "should" be playing depending on their "mastery" of the system, and treats "mastery" of the system as the most important thing a player can bring to the table (as opposed to roleplaying ability, good will, cooperative approach, patience, etc, etc, etc, in no particular order)
* it treats bad game design as a goal rather than a pitfall

[Man_Over_Game]

As PhoenixPhyre, that's a descriptive use, when you're trying to analyze a system and deal with its faults.

My real gripe is that a few posters have, in the past, enthusiastically treated tiers as prescriptive, that rather than being an analytical sign that a system has a major problem, they're something that supposedly should be designed into a system, so that you can intentionally put the best player in the "worst" class to "handicap" them and "balance" the players in the group.

And to be blunt, that approach is rubbish, for so many reasons, starting with:
* it treats RPGs as a competition between the players
* it claims to tell the players what sort of class they "should" be playing depending on their "mastery" of the system, and treats "mastery" of the system as the most important thing a player can bring to the table (as opposed to roleplaying ability, good will, cooperative approach, patience, etc, etc, etc, in no particular order)
* it treats bad game design as a goal rather than a pitfall

I get it.

"It's not imbalance if it's intentional!" is a bad motto. That's what you're saying.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's not a competition, it's a play. It's a cinematic, and how strong you are determines your screen time. Just because everyone is on the same team, working together, doesn't mean that how important one person is vs. another isn't a big deal.

From 5e, I played an Arcane Trickster, once. It's a Rogue that uses an invisible, telekinetic hand to grab and steal things. I also knew a bunch of low level rituals, which included a familiar. Not only could I perform just fine in combat, but most of the team was basically having to wait for me to solve most of our non-combat problems. I felt like an utter piece of garbage, because I was winning, and they weren't. At the same time, though, I shouldn't have to make myself weaker in order to bring other people up.

Additionally, the Barbarian I played before that barely contributed to anything that wasn't combat. Anything I tried to do, anyone else could do better. I felt like I was limited to being comedic relief rather than a reliable contribution.

Just because a team is successful doesn't mean everyone is having fun, and what else is the point of playing a TTRPG if people aren't having fun?

Not just on how strong, but on how versatile.

The character with the tools to contribute in more situations will be directly involved in more situations.

I get it.

"It's not imbalance if it's intentional!" is a bad motto. That's what you're saying.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

[Willie the Duck]

My real gripe is that a few posters have, in the past, enthusiastically treated tiers as prescriptive, that rather than being an analytical sign that a system has a major problem, they're something that supposedly should be designed into a system, so that you can intentionally put the best player in the "worst" class to "handicap" them and "balance" the players in the group.

On this site, or elsewhere?
I ask because, well, yes. Yes there are more than a few people on a site dedicated to a D&D 3e webcomic that are rather invested in the 3e system. And 3e was rather predicated on the idea that system mastery was both 1) a way to paper over design errors (the part that is focused on a lot nowadays), and 2) a reward for invested gamers, and thus a selling point to them (which had worked for WotC's other signature product, MtG). Overall, given A) how many people still really enjoy 3e/PF and work hard to make it usable despite much of that papered-over design errors being real problems, a B) how much griping people have about that setup, I'd say it was a mixed success or mixed failure.

Still, overall, you are 100% right. Leaning into the problematic components of the game is facilitating the problems at the expense of other foci, as well as making them a goal onto themselves.

[Max_Killjoy]

On this site, or elsewhere?

I ask because, well, yes. Yes there are more than a few people on a site dedicated to a D&D 3e webcomic that are rather invested in the 3e system. And 3e was rather predicated on the idea that system mastery was both 1) a way to paper over design errors (the part that is focused on a lot nowadays), and 2) a reward for invested gamers, and thus a selling point to them (which had worked for WotC's other signature product, MtG). Overall, given A) how many people still really enjoy 3e/PF and work hard to make it usable despite much of that papered-over design errors being real problems, a B) how much griping people have about that setup, I'd say it was a mixed success or mixed failure.

Still, overall, you are 100% right. Leaning into the problematic components of the game is facilitating the problems at the expense of other foci, as well as making them a goal onto themselves.

Both here and elsewhere.

It's not that knowing the system is ever a bad thing. It's the attitude that system mastery is a competition between players, and that the system should be designed around either offsetting or rewarding differences in system mastery, that irks me.

[Kyutaru]

Both here and elsewhere.

It's not that knowing the system is ever a bad thing. It's the attitude that system mastery is a competition between players, and that the system should be designed around either offsetting or rewarding differences in system mastery, that irks me.

I think there's just a lot of differences in ideology given the wide range of rules this topic covers.

2nd edition was my favorite and power differences were a fact of life. Thief leveled faster than every class and really couldn't do much besides percentage-based skullduggery checks and backstabbing for multiplied damage. But since it was already much weaker than a fighter, this really didn't make it combat viable. Wizards meanwhile had some of the most broken and unrestricted magic the game has ever seen and it was up to the DM to referee what they could and could not do with it. There's supposed to be only one Wish spell and yet tons of spells were just as open ended even if limited in scope. Clerics were weaker fighters who provided buffs and heals to the party and then passed their turn. Unless the enemy was Undead, they really weren't adding much to the battle beyond those support powers.

And yet people took to roleplaying and brought extra fighters and multiclassed to get low hanging fruit. They dual classed into titans that could handle both realms of expertise. They enjoyed the game despite certain classes being overwhelmingly more relevant while simultaneously 100% relying on each other class because they could do exclusive roles that no one else could. If you played a healer, you were usually pointing at an ally with a stated buff and then passing your turn. No dice, no action, no glory. After combat is when you use your healing spells to bring everyone back to healthy and that's more of a number crunching maintenance cost.

People who prefer to play 3e where everything was Build Wars and competitive as heck to see who can be the most overpowered will naturally see weakness in their class as something that must be expunged. It's so anti-teamwork to be envious of what the other guy can do while discounting what you can do. Even if the wizard can do everything you can do it comes at the cost of a lot of prepared magic, is temporary, and can't be repeated all day. If people are finding that not to be the case then your DM isn't following the rules concerning how many party resources should be getting spent per encounter. My days were always spent wishing I had just one more Fireball and a safe place to rest because we had to stretch ourselves very thin toward the end of the day. Yet every debate concerning Wizards will inevitably see them throwing around 7th level spells as if they were in plentiful supply.

Again, it may just be the differences in ideology editions have brought up. 1st edition was a war game based more in strategy and weapon counters, 2nd edition really brought out the fantastic and permitted customization, 3rd edition enabled cookie cutter build creation and making any class into something that suits the player, 4th edition heavily focused on the rules and tactical gameplay with more concrete directions, and 5th edition threw power out the window with the baby and the bathtub in favor of getting back to the social aspects of the game where combat is very light and quick. Then there's Pathfinder... they're all going to produce different mindsets of what's acceptable and what's not when in reality it depends on who you ask.

[noob]

I think there's just a lot of differences in ideology given the wide range of rules this topic covers.

2nd edition was my favorite and power differences were a fact of life. Thief leveled faster than every class and really couldn't do much besides percentage-based skullduggery checks and backstabbing for multiplied damage. But since it was already much weaker than a fighter, this really didn't make it combat viable. Wizards meanwhile had some of the most broken and unrestricted magic the game has ever seen and it was up to the DM to referee what they could and could not do with it. There's supposed to be only one Wish spell and yet tons of spells were just as open ended even if limited in scope. Clerics were weaker fighters who provided buffs and heals to the party and then passed their turn. Unless the enemy was Undead, they really weren't adding much to the battle beyond those support powers.

And yet people took to roleplaying and brought extra fighters and multiclassed to get low hanging fruit. They dual classed into titans that could handle both realms of expertise. They enjoyed the game despite certain classes being overwhelmingly more relevant while simultaneously 100% relying on each other class because they could do exclusive roles that no one else could. If you played a healer, you were usually pointing at an ally with a stated buff and then passing your turn. No dice, no action, no glory. After combat is when you use your healing spells to bring everyone back to healthy and that's more of a number crunching maintenance cost.

People who prefer to play 3e where everything was Build Wars and competitive as heck to see who can be the most overpowered will naturally see weakness in their class as something that must be expunged. It's so anti-teamwork to be envious of what the other guy can do while discounting what you can do. Even if the wizard can do everything you can do it comes at the cost of a lot of prepared magic, is temporary, and can't be repeated all day. If people are finding that not to be the case then your DM isn't following the rules concerning how many party resources should be getting spent per encounter. My days were always spent wishing I had just one more Fireball and a safe place to rest because we had to stretch ourselves very thin toward the end of the day. Yet every debate concerning Wizards will inevitably see them throwing around 7th level spells as if they were in plentiful supply.

Again, it may just be the differences in ideology editions have brought up. 1st edition was a war game based more in strategy and weapon counters, 2nd edition really brought out the fantastic and permitted customization, 3rd edition enabled cookie cutter build creation and making any class into something that suits the player, 4th edition heavily focused on the rules and tactical gameplay with more concrete directions, and 5th edition threw power out the window with the baby and the bathtub in favor of getting back to the social aspects of the game where combat is very light and quick. Then there's Pathfinder... they're all going to produce different mindsets of what's acceptable and what's not when in reality it depends on who you ask.

The trick is that with a level 7 spell you can get a simulacrum that casts more level 7 spells for you.(draw from your spc a part of a level 30 spellcaster)
Thus once you have level 7 spells you can throw them around a whole lot.

[Florian]

(No quotes, on the phone)

@Quertus:

People only complain when they feel locked into an arms race. For example, the ability to cast Fly only become important when there is an actual need for flight or when you are dead-set on gaining an advantage by being able to use it.

The Gish formula is actually pretty simple. You weight a permanent investment (say, 2 levels of Paladin and then progress your sorcerer with Eldritch Knight) against your spells and spell slots, then compare how your floor/ceiling would look like fully buffed while looking at the non-Gish and full-Gish basis. A bit in the abstract, you move part of the decision-making process from the "can do/could do" to the "already done".

Ok, I think it is very easy why I make this assumption: In games that use a common "currency" and have a cost structure set up in such a way that everything costs the same, compared to the currency, the underlying suggestion is that every selection is equal. AD&D and RIFTS were honest about classes having more or less option and modeled with different XP tables to level up. Dark Heresy and DSA are honest because they assign different costs to skills/talents, either based on the class that can buy them (DH) or viewed on a global scale (DSA, as in the XP costs assigned to learn and advance an insignificant or very basic skill is far less then that for and important or highly complex skill). The core design of 3E and upwards, tho, uses a very streamlined approach that suggests everything is equal because of the underlying skeleton and unified cost structure.

And yes, Gandalf can be seen as "holding the party back". The presence of someone who already knows the answers or already has the solutions at hand means that it is a waste of time to either put your back into it and do it yourself or find unconventional ways because you are stuck.

As for your assessment of Wizards: Please excuse me, but I still doubt that you have seen a well-played Wizard lately. Wizard optimization goes thru some very distinct stages:
1) Get to know your spells, find spells that are multifunctional, be on a level with the Sorcerer.
2) Get to know your spells and monsters, find out how you can call/summon stuff that brings spells that you lack and need right now.
3) Get to know your spells, monsters and slot mechanics, find out what overlooked specialist spells there are and how to access them on the fly.
4) Understand divinations and brutalize the game.

We are not talking about anything OP there, just gong in-depth with the system we are using, before build or anything more elaborate.

My preference are martial classes and I know my way around the Fighter, Paladin and Slayer, but when I'm asked to play the Oracle or Wizard role (Doing just that in a Kingmaker campaign), I've a hard time to "balance to the table" with the power automatically granted (We could compare notes. I currently play a tiefling Wizard/Infernalist that managed to replace summons with binding when hitting level 15....)

[Kyutaru]

The trick is that with a level 7 spell you can get a simulacrum that casts more level 7 spells for you.(draw from your spc a part of a level 30 spellcaster)
Thus once you have level 7 spells you can throw them around a whole lot.

That 5th edition exploit is thankfully not so abusive in other versions of the game. But older editions had similarly broken magic that DMs all had to either nerf themselves or beware when players used them to their fullest extent. There's half a dozen ways to destroy the world in 2nd edition as a wizard. Simulacrums should be expensive as they once were and weaker than the caster. That Simulacrum would be far less awesome if it still had only half the caster's levels, no personality, and required the use of a limited wish spell which ages the caster by 1 year per 100 years of lifespan (so 5 years for elves).

Age of Conan showed one way to balance casters in the form of the Demonologist. Certain spells would cost the player health and one buff in particular would guarantee he died unless healed. Introducing costs to magic again would have player wizards roleplaying Gandalf more often and RESERVING magic because it comes at a price. This was already how many older spells worked. Haste used to age you by 1 year when a wizard was already pretty old. Some spells drained you of 1 point of an ability score permanently. Resurrection cost an entire Constitution point on the raised target, but what if the Cleric had to pay the price instead? Spells with XP costs were plentiful and expensive material costs prevented spamming. Modern D&D makes magic too free to use and limits wizards only by time, something they can literally control.

[Max_Killjoy]

That 5th edition exploit is thankfully not so abusive in other versions of the game. But older editions had similarly broken magic that DMs all had to either nerf themselves or beware when players used them to their fullest extent. There's half a dozen ways to destroy the world in 2nd edition as a wizard. Simulacrums should be expensive as they once were and weaker than the caster. That Simulacrum would be far less awesome if it still had only half the caster's levels, no personality, and required the use of a limited wish spell which ages the caster by 1 year per 100 years of lifespan (so 5 years for elves).

Age of Conan showed one way to balance casters in the form of the Demonologist. Certain spells would cost the player health and one buff in particular would guarantee he died unless healed. Introducing costs to magic again would have player wizards roleplaying Gandalf more often and RESERVING magic because it comes at a price. This was already how many older spells worked. Haste used to age you by 1 year when a wizard was already pretty old. Some spells drained you of 1 point of an ability score permanently. Resurrection cost an entire Constitution point on the raised target, but what if the Cleric had to pay the price instead? Spells with XP costs were plentiful and expensive material costs prevented spamming. Modern D&D makes magic too free to use and limits wizards only by time, something they can literally control.

It does seem like they dialed back the costs without dialing back the power.

[Morty]

As PhoenixPhyre, that's a descriptive use, when you're trying to analyze a system and deal with its faults.

My real gripe is that a few posters have, in the past, enthusiastically treated tiers as prescriptive, that rather than being an analytical sign that a system has a major problem, they're something that supposedly should be designed into a system, so that you can intentionally put the best player in the "worst" class to "handicap" them and "balance" the players in the group.

And to be blunt, that approach is rubbish, for so many reasons, starting with:
* it treats RPGs as a competition between the players
* it claims to tell the players what sort of class they "should" be playing depending on their "mastery" of the system, and treats "mastery" of the system as the most important thing a player can bring to the table (as opposed to roleplaying ability, good will, cooperative approach, patience, etc, etc, etc, in no particular order)
* it treats bad game design as a goal rather than a pitfall

I get it.

"It's not imbalance if it's intentional!" is a bad motto. That's what you're saying.

I feel like D&D could actually benefit a lot from variable and adjustable power levels... if they were intentional and explicitly named as such, instead of mostly happening due to poor design and tradition. And if you could play different kinds of characters on different "tiers", instead of being higher up the more magic you have. In fact, it's pretty much the only way I can think of to reconcile the completely contradictory expectations people have.

[Cluedrew]

I agree that from what I can see magic has become cheaper without becoming weaker over D&D editions. Mostly I just wanted to post this relevant quote I got from Vizzerdix's signature.

I understand it now, Fighters are like a status symbol. If you're well off enough to own a living Fighter, you must be pretty well off!

[noob]

I feel like D&D could actually benefit a lot from variable and adjustable power levels... if they were intentional and explicitly named as such, instead of mostly happening due to poor design and tradition. And if you could play different kinds of characters on different "tiers", instead of being higher up the more magic you have. In fact, it's pretty much the only way I can think of to reconcile the completely contradictory expectations people have.

You can play mutants and masterminds where you can pick how polyvalent the players are(chose the cap in size of arrays and the number of power point per pl) and how powerful they are(chose the pl)
You can totally do dnd in mutants and masterminds.

[Satinavian]

Age of Conan showed one way to balance casters in the form of the Demonologist. Certain spells would cost the player health and one buff in particular would guarantee he died unless healed. Introducing costs to magic again would have player wizards roleplaying Gandalf more often and RESERVING magic because it comes at a price. This was already how many older spells worked. Haste used to age you by 1 year when a wizard was already pretty old. Some spells drained you of 1 point of an ability score permanently. Resurrection cost an entire Constitution point on the raised target, but what if the Cleric had to pay the price instead? Spells with XP costs were plentiful and expensive material costs prevented spamming. Modern D&D makes magic too free to use and limits wizards only by time, something they can literally control.

Permanent costs that you can't ever make up for are a bad mechanic.

Sure, it is a cool story if the caster sacrifices something important to achieve a goal. But then the session is over but the penalty sticks as long as he is played. That is not particularly fun. It also leeds to casters who don't use those powerful abilities only rarely, it leads to casters who don't use those powerful abilities at all or who don't even bother with learning them in the first place.
As long as you can retreat to fight another day, there is no real need for such sacrifices. There would be also resentment if the caster is asked o make sacrifices again and again to get the plot done while the other party members just level up and grow more powerful.

That 3.x changed all sacrifices to xp or money was a good thing. Those things are fine because you could re-earn them. It is just a pity that the economy was a broken mess and what is a cost at level x is no longer a cost at level x+5 and that running with different xp is a hassle by raw.