The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Rhedyn]

I prefer GMing caster players, it allows my villains to make perfect plans and the PCs to win anyways.

But I also GM only to be surprised, if I predict what the party will do that sucks.

[Telok]

In response to Willie the DuckTo Quertus: Is there a way for a fighter (or any similar class, if there is a mounted Tome of Battle rider class that is great) to acquire a flying mount in the same way a wizard can acquire fly? Which is to say as a consequence of leveling up, in a safe way that cannot be taken from them, although temporarily disabled is fine.

Sort of in 3.5e, not so much in 4e or 5e. While it's widely know for the potential for abuse in theory/totally premissive games the feat Leadership can got you a flying mount as a cohort at higher levels. Likewise the web-published feat Wild Cohort can do the same thing. Although I think that's at slightly higher level (for anything better than a giant bat) but with a better 'recovery after loss' mechanisim.

[Cluedrew]

We seem to be focused on areas where characters are locked out or shut down. There are some other ideas I could talk about but I'll pick this and try to come back to the others.

And to be fair, I don't consider a flying mount to be a fighter's advantage since the wizard can have the exact same mount (even easier with the right summoning). No reason the fighter can ride a beast up to smash any easier than a wizard can ride a beast up to deliver a touch spell.

Better yet, a wizard high enough level to fight dragons can probably Fly without any mounts or magic items.

Between magical flying and the fact that spells are almost always ranged I'd say flying enemies will always be better handled by casters. Broadly speaking over the two groups, a mounted warrior that levels up to have a flying mount similar to the example above should probably be able to clear the skies.

Still I don't think the fighter should be completely helpless. I say just give them a ranged weapon and the ability to be dangerous with it. Hey maybe the range specialist (ranger or archer) might even outdo the wizard in ranged damage.

As for the other situations... a lot of them come from magic so if magic could just stop hard countering things that would be great. Then there is things like being underwater. Water breathing magic aside holding their breath and swimming at a reasonable/superhuman speed should give them the advantage there.

To Willie the Duck & Rhedyn: Yes, I think fighters should have interesting options as well. Not only so they don't get shot down at every occasion but then they can go to the next step and cause meaningful things to happen.

To Telok: Thank-you.

[Rhedyn]

Sort of in 3.5e, not so much in 4e or 5e. While it's widely know for the potential for abuse in theory/totally premissive games the feat Leadership can got you a flying mount as a cohort at higher levels. Likewise the web-published feat Wild Cohort can do the same thing. Although I think that's at slightly higher level (for anything better than a giant bat) but with a better 'recovery after loss' mechanisim.

Nah monstrous mount https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/gener...mount-mastery/

It's for Pathfinder. Anyone can get an at-level animal companion with a feat chain, so Fighters can do this by level 9 and Cavaliers by level 7. I actually hold Cavaliers as better Fighters because there is just more to work with than what Fighters give. Though I do have a fighter build I like.

Spoiler: Fighter build I like

Show

Dwarf(Mountaineer, Sky Sentinel, Craftsman) Fighter || 16 14 16 12 10 8 || Traits: Glory of Old, Seeker|| Perception, Climb, Craft(Clothing)
1. Steel Soul, Combat Reflexes
2. Step-up
3. Master Armorer, Armor Training
4. Power Attack
5. Master Craftsman (Clothing), Weapon Training(Heavy Blades)
6. Disruptive
7. Craft Wondrous Item, Armored Juggernaut
8. Cut From the Air
9. Smash from the Air, Versatile Training(Intimidate, Ride)
10. Spellbreaker
11. Shatterspell, Armor Specialization
12. Combat Stamina
13. Pindown, Defensive Weapon Training
14. Warrior Spirit
15. Armed Bravery, Critical Deflection
16. Fighter’s Reflexes
17. Sprightly Armor, Trained Initiative
18. Improved Initiative
19. Armored Sacrifice
20. Weapon Sacrifice

Spoiler: A sample Cavalier

Show

Human Order of the Shield Cavalier || 18 14 14 12 10 8 || Climb (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis) || Fav(+¼ Banner Bonus)
1. Challenge 1/day, mount, order(Shield), tactician(Escape Route), Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack
2. Order ability(Resolute)
3. Cavalier's charge, Spirited Charge
4. Challenge 2/day, expert trainer
5. Banner, Monstrous Mount
6. Bonus feat(Power Attack)
7. Challenge 3/day, Monstrous Mount Mastery
8. Order ability(Stem the Tide)
9. Greater tactician(Shake It Off), Combat Reflexes
10. Challenge 4/day
11. Mighty charge, Blind-Fight
12. Bonus feat(Trick Riding), demanding challenge
13. Challenge 5/day, Indomitable Mount
14. Greater banner
15. Order ability(Protect the Meek), Mounted Skirmisher
16. Challenge 6/day
17. Master tactician(Coordinated Charge), Iron Will
18. Bonus feat(Stunning Assault)
19. Challenge 7/day, Familiar Bond
20. Supreme charge

Cavaliers, Barbarians, and Slayers are just better mundane martials in PF.

[Florian]

@Rhedyn:

You could also swap the components around a bit. The combination of Barroom Brawler and Abundant Tactics adds a number of free-floating feats to any Fighter build. You can basically remove any feat choice from your build that is based on A/W mastery, instead grab Advanced A/W Training feat to access all options from AMH/WMH as you see fit. Switching from plain Fighter to Fighter (Viking) allows to chose and pick between using Fighter bonus feats or Bararian rage powers, the later being strictly superior, especially when it comes to the anti-caster feats you have already in.

[Pleh]

As is usual for debates around balance, we seem stuck on talking about one point that isn't even the best example.

We shouldn't get hung up on flying mounts. They don't contribute all THAT much to the martial/caster disparity (due in no small part to the fact that Martials and Casters can obtain them about as easily as one another). There are still other scenarios that leave martials without an effective combat option, and very few scenarios that can make a caster ineffective except bad spell selection.

The bias towards casters arises from the fact that fighters will absolutely need external support, like mounts and magic items, which means that there are always a set of features necessary to the fighter that are merely optional to the caster, while there aren't really* any that casters need that fighters don't.

*You can say casters need material components, but I've never had a DM enforce that. It's always been assumed that they filled their pouch with the components for every spell they prepared. It's kind of like how fighters at my table have never needed to keep track of ammo.

[Rhedyn]

@Rhedyn:

You could also swap the components around a bit. The combination of Barroom Brawler and Abundant Tactics adds a number of free-floating feats to any Fighter build. You can basically remove any feat choice from your build that is based on A/W mastery, instead grab Advanced A/W Training feat to access all options from AMH/WMH as you see fit. Switching from plain Fighter to Fighter (Viking) allows to chose and pick between using Fighter bonus feats or Bararian rage powers, the later being strictly superior, especially when it comes to the anti-caster feats you have already in.

I've looked into that idea

I decided it was more important to take base feats in chains to increase flexibility.

You could also throw in Eldritch Guardian and then your familiar benefits from your flexible feats which opens up team work feat combos

Hey it's no spells, but it's something. Martial Master Mutagen Warrior Eldritch Guardian, your only remaining class features are 8 bonus feats and base proficiencies.

I think it's important to note that most people who disparage Caster Martial disparity have really tried to over come it.

[Florian]

I've looked into that idea

I decided it was more important to take base feats in chains to increase flexibility.

You could also throw in Eldritch Guardian and then your familiar benefits from your flexible feats which opens up team work feat combos

Hey it's no spells, but it's something. Martial Master Mutagen Warrior Eldritch Guardian, your only remaining class features are 8 bonus feats and base proficiencies.

I think it's important to note that most people who disparage Caster Martial disparity have really tried to over come it.

Not there yet.

Base race of Fetchling will allow automatic Plane Shift and Shadow Walk as SLAs as you progress. You can pick up a racial feat to convert that to DimDoor. Access to DimDoor again opens up the Dimensional feat chain, with the most important one being Dimensional Assault and Dimensional Step-Up.

Start with the basic building block of Fighter (Weapon Master) 3/Occultist (Panoply Savant) 2 with the Trappings of the Warrior. Basic Large Shield and Scimitar is fine for that, keep in mind the Barroom Brawler/Abundant Tactics thins, now ramp that up to 21 (repeat the basic building block until Fighter 12/Occultist 8). Sync your chosen trappings with the ability to switch on any Item Mastery feats you need and you are way ahead of the curve compared to the really essential stuff. (And you will still have a solid Sword´n´Board TWF Smash from the Air kind of build with a lot of options to activate when you see it as necessary)

And yes, I´ve tried and gotten quite good results. Thing is, I think that this is what Quertus tries to get at, that these results are so good, casters look weak compared against that.

[Rhedyn]

Not there yet.

Base race of Fetchling will allow automatic Plane Shift and Shadow Walk as SLAs as you progress. You can pick up a racial feat to convert that to DimDoor. Access to DimDoor again opens up the Dimensional feat chain, with the most important one being Dimensional Assault and Dimensional Step-Up.

Start with the basic building block of Fighter (Weapon Master) 3/Occultist (Panoply Savant) 2 with the Trappings of the Warrior. Basic Large Shield and Scimitar is fine for that, keep in mind the Barroom Brawler/Abundant Tactics thins, now ramp that up to 21 (repeat the basic building block until Fighter 12/Occultist 8). Sync your chosen trappings with the ability to switch on any Item Mastery feats you need and you are way ahead of the curve compared to the really essential stuff. (And you will still have a solid Sword´n´Board TWF Smash from the Air kind of build with a lot of options to activate when you see it as necessary)

And yes, I´ve tried and gotten quite good results. Thing is, I think that this is what Quertus tries to get at, that these results are so good, casters look weak compared against that.

Dude you are just using spells at that point. My magi also look pretty good next to unoptimized spellcasters.

[Quertus]

Ah, senility. I don't think anyone is actually addressing the point I was making (which wasn't about flying mounts, but about how Wizards have tactical options that can get taken away from them, too - arguably moreso than the Fighter does), so I'll probably just drop that line unless anyone finds that particular point worth discussing.

The corollary to that point is, Wizards have so many options, they don't *have* to protect any one option - and, thus, IME, at my tables, the Wizard is far less likely to have answers to protect an option than the Fighter is. The smart Fighter will prioritize and have some form of Flight to make "melee range options" viable; the (smart or otherwise) Wizard certainly won't prioritize, and often won't have such answers, instead using a more convenient spell.

Speaking of my senility,

Now it saddens me a bit that Quertus hasn't answered my PM RE: Wizard builds.

I'll look at that PM - if i remember.

Part of the problem, for D&D and similar kitchen-sink style games at least, is that the endless versatility of the full casters makes it easier to produce adventure modules because so long as the party has a full caster they'll be able to cobble together an answer to any sort of specific challenge. If you don't have those answers available, certain enemies become impossible to counter - as the classic Allip TPK scenario illustrates. Essentially, if the game has the full kitchen sink of possible problems, the party needs to have the full kitchen sink of possible solutions. Part of the problem with martials is that the system encourages specialists in face-stabbing and skull-crushing and then throws out hordes of opponents who are entirely immune to those methods of problem solving. You can compare this to an alternative d20 situation like Star Wars in which the 'shoot it!' approach will pretty much always do something.

Remind me again of the specifics of the Allip.

I actually find the caster versatility a complication rather than an asset for adventure design.

I roughly know what Conan in a gritty setting can do to get through a mountainous blizzard which means I can stick a yeti fight in the only shelter and justify spending time to make an interesting encounter there. Because I know, that is where he will end up.

For dr strange? I’m much less able to predict what he will do, teleport, plane shift, protection from cold, poly morph are caster has so many way he might be able to fix this problem that I have hundreds of more things I need to prepare for stretching me far thinner. In addition, that's ignoring the possibility that the wizard did not happen to memorize (or spent) the right spell for this encounter.

Going back to the star wars example if you know the party does not have any repair people then you can build your adventure around that either by not making it a requirement to solve the problem or by sticking an npc with the skill in the area. With a wizard (cleric or druid), you never know exactly what they are going to be able to do.

edit
with the allip example its only a problem if you dont know what your party is capable of doing. Designing a fun fight is more than just throwing level appropriate encounters at the party you need to understand what the party can do. Again this is far easier to do with martial who dont even change that much level to level in terms of what they can do compared to casters who change every single day. Did the wizard remember to bring magic missile or magic weapon or are they loaded down with sleeps, glitter dust and web?

I view this as "Protection for Rails" - or, at the very least, "Protection from Illusionism". I don't want the GM to waste time designing a yeti encounter that I may or may not realistically bypass.

I want the GM to put their time into the things that I *will* be dealing with, like the countess who is trying to block the party's goals - *why* she has chosen to do so, *who* she is, *how* she thinks, so that she can *react* to whatever plans the players come up with, and *respond* to the PCs attempts to resolve matters (@Cluedrew - an example of a time "resolve through romance / marriage" didn't match the story that the GM had written), *in addition to* creating her own plans.

EDIT:

And yes, I´ve tried and gotten quite good results. Thing is, I think that this is what Quertus tries to get at, that these results are so good, casters look weak compared against that.

Yes, a well-built muggle will often not really need their party caster(s), and can certainly be OP compared to more "conservatively"-balanced casters.

[Rhedyn]

Oh yeah my Fighters have out classed druids 50% of the time. Mainly because one guy is really bad at playing druids and grabs tons of crossbow feats.

[Cluedrew]

The bias towards casters arises from the fact that fighters will absolutely need external support, like mounts and magic items, which means that there are always a set of features necessary to the fighter that are merely optional to the caster, while there aren't really* any that casters need that fighters don't.

I think we could organize a character's abilities into three parts:

Player Based: Or things that come from how the character thinks about the world. I call it player-based because it reflects with player skill, but it is a bit more complicated than that once we drop the assumption every player is maximising their character's cleverness at every opportunity. There may be a particular personality in mind.

Character/Sheet Based: Things that come from the character's mechanics. Stats & abilities, the character's ability to engage with mechanics (even softer ones like a reputation bonus) and do things with them. This is mostly the character themselves, but starting resources might also count as well as things the character can make.

Environment Based: No one is an island and characters do not exist in a vacuum. Things found in setting that the character can use. Some of these are a given, other may disappear occasionally and still others may only be in a few games. You could call this power from the GM, if the GM is using there own setting.

So for caster/martial we really want to talk about the character based ability. Which may be effected by and effect the other two but it is the thing that really changes with character archetype. How does that sound.

Ah, senility. I don't think anyone is actually addressing the point I was making (which wasn't about flying mounts, but about how Wizards have tactical options that can get taken away from them, too - arguably moreso than the Fighter does), so I'll probably just drop that line unless anyone finds that particular point worth discussing.

I mean yes, in that 5% of 100 is more than 75% of 4. Which is to say that when you are dealing with a smaller starting set of options, you don't have to loose as many to really feel it. And that (as you mention in your next paragraph) wizards don't defend there options reflect this. A wizard who can't use fireball casts thunderbolt. A fighter who can't close to melee does nothing.

Which might be another bias. Preventing counters on an existing ability does very little for power and versatility. It prevents them from going down put do nothing to increase them. More ways to bring the same ability to bare does a bit more. I guess a it helps versatility more than power. Entirely new abilities does even more. Considering these things as equal might be a bias as well. (I'm not sure if Quertus was but it occurred to me while reading his post.)

[Mechalich]

I think we could organize a character's abilities into three parts:

Player Based: Or things that come from how the character thinks about the world. I call it player-based because it reflects with player skill, but it is a bit more complicated than that once we drop the assumption every player is maximising their character's cleverness at every opportunity. There may be a particular personality in mind.

Character/Sheet Based: Things that come from the character's mechanics. Stats & abilities, the character's ability to engage with mechanics (even softer ones like a reputation bonus) and do things with them. This is mostly the character themselves, but starting resources might also count as well as things the character can make.

Environment Based: No one is an island and characters do not exist in a vacuum. Things found in setting that the character can use. Some of these are a given, other may disappear occasionally and still others may only be in a few games. You could call this power from the GM, if the GM is using there own setting.

So for caster/martial we really want to talk about the character based ability. Which may be effected by and effect the other two but it is the thing that really changes with character archetype. How does that sound.

This sounds about right, though there are certain character abilities that interact with the environment in specific ways. That is, there's always the Aquaman problem - whose abilities vary drastically depending on whether or not they are in a specific environment. On land, Aquaman is just a dude with super-strength and a pointy stick; in water, he is a living god. This is problematic because there are certain archetypes that you really can't separate from their environmental abilities, and fantasy has a bunch of these. For example, playing a member of a flight-capable species, or being a construct. For instance, most published adventure modules are going to break down in serious ways if the players choose to run an all-warforged party at it. There are systems that try to quantify environment-based abilities. GURPS does, for one, and in a different way Eclipse Phase, with it's separation between character stats and the stats of the shell you're currently wearing, also does this, but it's tricky and at times cumbersome.

In order to get at the core of the disparity you do want to look at purely character options, but it's hard to maintain that divide in a system like D&D that combines traits across several levels on the character sheet in ways that are not mathematically consistent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This sounds about right, though there are certain character abilities that interact with the environment in specific ways. That is, there's always the Aquaman problem - whose abilities vary drastically depending on whether or not they are in a specific environment. On land, Aquaman is just a dude with super-strength and a pointy stick; in water, he is a living god. This is problematic because there are certain archetypes that you really can't separate from their environmental abilities, and fantasy has a bunch of these. For example, playing a member of a flight-capable species, or being a construct. For instance, most published adventure modules are going to break down in serious ways if the players choose to run an all-warforged party at it. There are systems that try to quantify environment-based abilities. GURPS does, for one, and in a different way Eclipse Phase, with it's separation between character stats and the stats of the shell you're currently wearing, also does this, but it's tricky and at times cumbersome.

In order to get at the core of the disparity you do want to look at purely character options, but it's hard to maintain that divide in a system like D&D that combines traits across several levels on the character sheet in ways that are not mathematically consistent.

I would say that most character abilities interact with the other two layers strongly.

1. How the player thinks about things/approaches things has a massive influence, both on choices made and on strengths and weaknesses. Most wizards I see (playing 5e) want to blast more than do the tricksy battlefield control. Because blasting is fun--throwing large piles of dice around and removing tokens from the board. I see lots of dragonborn, despite them being very suboptimal as a race. Because dragons are cool. They'll use their breath weapon at every opportunity, despite it doing less damage than their normal full attack routine. Because it's cool.


2. The scenario (environment) makes a huge difference in the outcomes, as you said. This includes the DM's side of optimization. I don't do heavily challenge-based gaming, so my players all feel valuable since no one has to specialize to the point of incapacity outside their specialty. I don't think I've set a DC over 20 in a very long time. And I try to include things in environments so that the players can try what they like to do and be successful (at least a large part of the time). For a blaster wizard who loves fireball, I'll include hordes of small fry to nuke. For the fighter who would rather play luchador--seriously, he's got all sorts of crazy plans including dropping on people from a distance, sinking them into the floor, etc. Anything except actually hitting them with sharp objects it seems--I'll include ledges he can jump off of, environmental hazards to push things into, etc.

Challenges (combat or not) in white rooms are a significant part of the disparity. If it's all down to "push button to solve problem", then sure, martials have fewer buttons. But that's so rarely the case in real play, at least in my experience.

This is not to say that 3e-era martials are fine. They're not. But that's because that particular system set things up horribly wrong (for balance purposes), not something inherent in martials themselves.

[Pleh]

I think we could organize a character's abilities into three parts:

Player Based: Or things that come from how the character thinks about the world. I call it player-based because it reflects with player skill, but it is a bit more complicated than that once we drop the assumption every player is maximising their character's cleverness at every opportunity. There may be a particular personality in mind.

Character/Sheet Based: Things that come from the character's mechanics. Stats & abilities, the character's ability to engage with mechanics (even softer ones like a reputation bonus) and do things with them. This is mostly the character themselves, but starting resources might also count as well as things the character can make.

Environment Based: No one is an island and characters do not exist in a vacuum. Things found in setting that the character can use. Some of these are a given, other may disappear occasionally and still others may only be in a few games. You could call this power from the GM, if the GM is using there own setting.

So for caster/martial we really want to talk about the character based ability. Which may be effected by and effect the other two but it is the thing that really changes with character archetype. How does that sound.

I agree, but this is only really half of the question you're proposing.

Character abilities, of any of the three types, are tools. They're Operators that need an Operand to function upon.

It's not just about what abilities are made available to the characters, but also what kinds of challenges they are being put against and how those abilities interact with the challenges. It's definitely partly a question of what the DM is preparing for his table, but the Rules that govern NPC antagonists definitely participates in the issues of balance and bias.

In CoC, there's some diminishing of bias and imbalance by the fact that all PCs are screwed no matter what Character Based Abilities they pick.

In 3.5, anyone can smash a Zombie, but you really want a Cleric to use Turning. Anyone can blunder through the wilderness, but you'd really want a guide with Survival skill, preferably a Barbarian, Druid, or Ranger. Anyone can shoot a flying monster with a bow, but not everyone can reliably damage an incorporeal creature (which naturally flies), so you'd want a caster who can even the playing field against an incorporeal creature in a number of ways (while a Martial tends to have no Character Based Options for doing so besides Become A Wizard).

This is often defended by the idea that codified Roles of Character Based Abilities was a Feature, not a Bug. It's a feature that I'm fond of, but it becomes Bias when picking one class gives you access to any role you want, while another locks you into solving only very specific problems. We have to be careful not to put too much significance on Schrodinger's Wizard, because it doesn't function that way in real play, but the ability of a wizard to retreat for a long rest and swap out spells to suit the situation definitely contributes to the bias (of Wizard Based Abilities having both greater versatility and power than Fighter Based Abilities). Concluding my side point, if we want both balance of Character Based Abilities and Clearly Defined Roles based on Character Abilities, then each class will have to get an equal portion of the Character Role pie, which means either Everyone Can Do Everything, or Magic Has Limits.

Back to the more general thread of where the Bias is located, Schrodinger's Wizard doesn't have an unlimited Spellbook full of every spell in the splats, but some spells are by themselves both versatile and powerful enough that a Wizard often won't need to stop and swap spells (even while having the option to do so is still a point in their favor). No need to choose between Burning Hands or Cone of Cold depending on a monster's resistance types, when Glitterdust will blind them all the same regardless their resistance to hot or cold.

But to hammer the point I started with a little firmer, Creatures immune to visual effects are far more rare than creatures resistant to heat or cold. That is a form of bias towards visual based attacks. It may seem to just contribute to Verisimilitude and Simulationism, but we're talking Game Balance right now. The bias is quite clear. Fighters have no Character Based Abilities to blind their foes with anywhere near the reliability or frequency of a caster with Glitterdust.

Or to put it another way, they could always balance 3.5 in still a different way, giving the monsters (but more particularly, the Environment in general) greater resistance to spells besides just beefing up their Saving Throw Modifiers or Spell Resistance. Taking the example of Glitterdust, imagine if more monsters had auxiliary senses, so that blindness from Glitterdust only reduced the range of their perception. I mean, technically, the rules already support that, since a blind creature could try to make spot or listen checks to detect other creatures even while blind, but we all know that's a losing strategy in an active combat. I'm talking about having more monsters that could use an ability like Scent to automatically detect other creatures within a short range, like 20ft. Sure, you blinded the Dragon, but within his range of blindsense, he still knows exactly where you are, so it's still up to you to step beyond his range to force him to seek you out or retreat. I'm just choosing an arbitrary example of another way to balance the system from the other end. It effectively nerfs the caster by making a spells effects on the environment less profound, which evens the playing field with the martial somewhat, as playing anything short of an Ubercharger means your effect on the environment will always have less potential to be less profound than casting a spell.

[Cluedrew]

To Pleh: If I may try to boil your post down to one line: Measuring abilities only has meaning when we have a set of challenges/situations the abilities are supposed to be used on/in. Do that sound right?

[Pleh]

To Pleh: If I may try to boil your post down to one line: Measuring abilities only has meaning when we have a set of challenges/situations the abilities are supposed to be used on/in. Do that sound right?

Yes, though it also means that we have two variables in our equation (probably more). Both character abilities and challenges are variable, but interdependent.

The reason we keep reaching for flying mounts and schrodinger wizards is to set one of the variables as constant so we can solve for the other variable. Any solutions we find with this method will be limited by the assumptions we make by setting the other variable as constant.

[Quertus]

That is, there's always the Aquaman problem - whose abilities vary drastically depending on whether or not they are in a specific environment. On land, Aquaman is just a dude with super-strength and a pointy stick; in water, he is a living god.

This is (one of the reasons) why I hate "thematic" casters.

Oh, look, it's another mindless monster immune to fire - I guess it's "guy with pointy stick"'s turn to shine. Oh, next an incorporeal creature that we need to mind control, followed by something that need burning? How did I guess?

I'd much rather nobody be shut down, and everyone get to participate (yes, even if unequally).

For a blaster wizard who loves fireball, I'll include hordes of small fry to nuke.

This - enabling your players - is a much better attitude than most GMs (who look for ways to disable the abilities that their players' PCs have) have. Kudos!

[Talakeal]

This is (one of the reasons) why I hate "thematic" casters.

Oh, look, it's another mindless monster immune to fire - I guess it's "guy with pointy stick"'s turn to shine. Oh, next an incorporeal creature that we need to mind control, followed by something that need burning? How did I guess?

I'd much rather nobody be shut down, and everyone get to participate (yes, even if unequally).

This - enabling your players - is a much better attitude than most GMs (who look for ways to disable the abilities that their players' PCs have) have. Kudos!

What sort of thematic caster has literally only one trick though? Every school of magic should have dozens of ways to contribute in a fight even if youre enemy is immune to your go to best offense.

[Quertus]

What sort of thematic caster has literally only one trick though? Every school of magic should have dozens of ways to contribute in a fight even if youre enemy is immune to your go to best offense.

Most of them, in most of the systems I hate.

I don't want to see D&D go that route. Classes like the Beguiler & War Mage already go too far, IMO.

Most of all, I want the archetype I fell in love with back - the scholar whose sole* source of power is scraps of code ("arcane lore", whatever) gleaned from the remains previous civilizations.

* Barring spell research, of course.

[Talakeal]

Most of them, in most of the systems I hate.

I don't want to see D&D go that route. Classes like the Beguiler & War Mage already go too far, IMO.

Most of all, I want the archetype I fell in love with back - the scholar whose sole* source of power is scraps of code ("arcane lore", whatever) gleaned from the remains previous civilizations.

* Barring spell research, of course.

I can't say that's something in any system I have ever seen, certainly not in any edition of D&D.

[Quertus]

I can't say that's something in any system I have ever seen, certainly not in any edition of D&D.

D&D has kept the versatile Wizard (outside 4e, I think), but, to hear several posters talk, one would think ShadowRun didn't go far enough with niche protection, compared to what they want for D&D.

A great many systems IME have telepaths who can only do mental stuff, Pyromancers who can only burn stuff. I've seen spiritualists who can only interact with spirits, healers who can only heal, and technomancers whose power ends at interacting with technology. Not to mention several point-buy systems that make it functionally impossibly (you get 100 points; your base spell costs 40 points, and is useless unless you pump more points into it).

Now, that said, one of my favorite characters was a Telepath, but the system was open enough that, as a "Telepath", I was effectively an Illithid Savant about a decade before there was such a thing.

From another PoV, is not that I might not enjoy a limited concept from time to time, but, unless the system is built from the ground up with "real Wizards" in mind, they're not likely to be added back in well (if at all).

[Talakeal]

D&D has kept the versatile Wizard (outside 4e, I think), but, to hear several posters talk, one would think ShadowRun didn't go far enough with niche protection, compared to what they want for D&D.

A great many systems IME have telepaths who can only do mental stuff, Pyromancers who can only burn stuff. I've seen spiritualists who can only interact with spirits, healers who can only heal, and technomancers whose power ends at interacting with technology. Not to mention several point-buy systems that make it functionally impossibly (you get 100 points; your base spell costs 40 points, and is useless unless you pump more points into it).

Now, that said, one of my favorite characters was a Telepath, but the system was open enough that, as a "Telepath", I was effectively an Illithid Savant about a decade before there was such a thing.

From another PoV, is not that I might not enjoy a limited concept from time to time, but, unless the system is built from there ground up with "real Wizards" in mind, they're not likely to be added back in well (if at all).

Are these class based systems or skill based / point buy systems?

I can't imagine a game designer ever making someone play a character who can only burn stuff, that's like, worse than a 3E fighter right there; but I can see a player deciding to dump 100% of their resources into burning stuff and then throwing a tantrum when they run across a problem that can't be solved by burning it.

[Quertus]

Are these class based systems or skill based / point buy systems?

I can't imagine a game designer ever making someone play a character who can only burn stuff, that's like, worse than a 3E fighter right there; but I can see a player deciding to dump 100% of their resources into burning stuff and then throwing a tantrum when they run across a problem that can't be solved by burning it.

Then you cannot imagine the stupidity of some game designers.

These weren't exactly popular systems. The most popular… I only skimmed it, but was the, uh, "burster?" from Rifts limited to "burn it" powers? Or could they do other stuff, too? If so, them all the systems I'm aware of with such limited Pyromancers are less popular than Rifts.

[Talakeal]

Then you cannot imagine the stupidity of some game designers.

These weren't exactly popular systems. The most popular… I only skimmed it, but was the, uh, "burster?" from Rifts limited to "burn it" powers? Or could they do other stuff, too? If so, them all the systems I'm aware of with such limited Pyromancers are less popular than Rifts.

Oh right, Rifts. I have heard a lot of bad stuff about that game, but never actually read it myself.

[Florian]

I can't say that's something in any system I have ever seen, certainly not in any edition of D&D.

That's the initial setup of oD&D to AD&D. After the apocalypse, the world is more or less back in the stone age and you can gleam some understanding and power from collecting physical print-outs of the equivalent of wikipedia pages, aka spells, from ancient bunkers.

The logic behind this only got destroyed by folks like our Quertus insisting that things can de researched and by systems like 3E that included stuff like sorcerers, automatic "spell research" when you leveled up and such.

Oh right, Rifts. I have heard a lot of bad stuff about that game, but never actually read it myself.

What's the problem there? RIFTS did not use any concept of "universal magic" and did not equate it to "science" in any way.

[Talakeal]

That's the initial setup of oD&D to AD&D. After the apocalypse, the world is more or less back in the stone age and you can gleam some understanding and power from collecting physical print-outs of the equivalent of wikipedia pages, aka spells, from ancient bunkers.

The logic behind this only got destroyed by folks like our Quertus insisting that things can de researched and by systems like 3E that included stuff like sorcerers, automatic "spell research" when you leveled up and such.

I was talking about thematic casters being limited to only a single schtick, not that spells were found randomly in hoards.

[Cluedrew]

D&D has kept the versatile Wizard (outside 4e, I think), but, to hear several posters talk, one would think ShadowRun didn't go far enough with niche protection, compared to what they want for D&D.

A great many systems IME have telepaths who can only do mental stuff, Pyromancers who can only burn stuff. I've seen spiritualists who can only interact with spirits, healers who can only heal, and technomancers whose power ends at interacting with technology.

This is where most of martial characters are right now though. I also think D&D wizards are a bit too far the other direction, not because they have the varsity to act in every challenge but because they excel in all of them. We had a conversation about this, about power * versatility vs. power + versatility, I'm not sure if you remember that.

So I agree that light things on fire is a bit too narrow. A telepath who can speed mind-to-mind, to some mind reading, mental commands and modify memories, that is not a narrow or one-trick character in my mind, that is a full versatile skill set. Healers who only heal... I would say let it spread out to medical skills in general, I think that is enough and doctors train their whole lives for that sort of skill. Not that "because reality" is a good reason for game design, but it is a good point to keep in mind.

On Rifts: For reference Palladium often does things like have specialized characters that are not better at a thing than someone who picked up some auxiliary skills in it. And in some cases it they might even be worse. They are not good at system design.

[Florian]

On Rifts: For reference Palladium often does things like have specialized characters that are not better at a thing than someone who picked up some auxiliary skills in it. And in some cases it they might even be worse. They are not good at system design.

RIFTS was at least pretty honest. They modeled the classes based on the in-game reality, which is by and in itself unbalanced and so are the classes. But they didn't claim otherwise.

[Arbane]

Most of all, I want the archetype I fell in love with back - the scholar whose sole* source of power is scraps of code ("arcane lore", whatever) gleaned from the remains previous civilizations.

* Barring spell research, of course.

Try Call of Cthulhu.