DnD's Legacy Curse: High level casters

[georgie_leech]

No. My complaint is that full-casters can, after level 10 (and in a lot of cases, sooner), solve most problems that define other characters. On top of that, their abilities make them plot-driving, whereas the abilities of a lot of other classes (frenzy barbarian and fighter being amongst the most gruelling cases) leave a lot to be desired in terms of impactful out-of-combat options that are somewhat unique to their class.

Yes, I know the DM can change it, and yes, I know the DM can make the world so it constantly fit tropes. I'm just underwhelmed that the system seems to be catering so much to the full-casters at later levels in terms of mechanically supported options.

Crafting, persuasion, sneaking, healing, transporting, leading etc. - a lot of theses options pale when you can magic your way through the obstacles and challenges those skills would usually help you overcome.

Wasn't there a certain webcomic about why that faith in magic doesn't always pan out?

[Skylivedk]

Wasn't there a certain webcomic about why that faith in magic doesn't always pan out?

There is :) I'm not claiming magic can do it all, all the time. Just very often and very well and quite often better than most other things. And across all three pillars, and to the detriment of other classes' shine.

[Rhedyn]

OP forgets that there are gods in the multiverse that manage everything while having at least one or two gods keep an eye on future events.

How many stories do you hear of casters turning bad and being killed by virtuous adventurers? How sure are you that these aren't cover stories? #GoodEvilSameTeam#TheTruthIsOutThere#RiseUpMortals

[ZenBear]

OP forgets that there are gods in the multiverse that manage everything while having at least one or two gods keep an eye on future events.

How many stories do you hear of casters turning bad and being killed by virtuous adventurers? How sure are you that these aren't cover stories? #GoodEvilSameTeam#TheTruthIsOutThere#RiseUpMortals

#MortalLivesMatter#MartialPride

[Tanarii]

Crafting has in every version so far been a caster trait. 5e is pretty vague on crafting, so pardon my legacy thinking in presuming that casters would play a role here as well. It makes little sense to me that it would be a fighter's or Paladin's speciality (but could be a nice addition for out of combat abilities that their crafting could actually matter). I also find it rather amusing that in a thread about why the abilities of full-casters overshadow the abilities of other classes, your solution is to give a full-caster ability to a non-caster. Well, if we give the non-casters the abilities of full-casters, I agree: problem solved ;)

Well, original, only Fighters got to use THE most powerful magic items: swords. Seriously, until a certain uber staff was added to the game, magic swords were by far the most powerful magic item. The got the biggest bonuses, had the most special abilities, and we're frequently intelligent to boot. And magic swords were always the most common.

Later editions of D&D kept a lot of legacy stuff that was powerful because it was "cool" like the highest level spells, while thoroughly breaking the balance by removing stuff because "it wasn't fair". Things like: assumption that most play occurred at low levels, slow leveling through the first levels, even slower leveling for magic users, huge GP gold sinks to get powerful (training, spell research, scroll making), assumptions casters started old and would die in the campaign from old age before getting to high level, truly glass cannon magic-users with no unlimited spells per day (ie cantrips), spell casting easily interrupted, Fighters gaining worldly power / followers, and Fighters getting the best magic items.

All that stuff kept magic-users somewhat in check. Especially the low levels being the assumed standard for playing D&D ... at the higher levels it still broke down in Wizards favor to fairly large degree, probably intentionally.

And of course, people ignored it all as un-fun, and then complained that wizards ruled while fighters drooled. And those "unfun" elements all slowly got revised out of later editions. So really, there's no reason to be surprised that modern D&D still has issues for "legacy curse" reasons. The designers created the curse because that's what players wanted ... all the power with none of the original limitations.

[JoeJ]

No. My complaint is that full-casters can, after level 10 (and in a lot of cases, sooner), solve most problems that define other characters. On top of that, their abilities make them plot-driving, whereas the abilities of a lot of other classes (frenzy barbarian and fighter being amongst the most gruelling cases) leave a lot to be desired in terms of impactful out-of-combat options that are somewhat unique to their class.

Yes, I know the DM can change it, and yes, I know the DM can make the world so it constantly fit tropes. I'm just underwhelmed that the system seems to be catering so much to the full-casters at later levels in terms of mechanically supported options.

Crafting, persuasion, sneaking, healing, transporting, leading etc. - a lot of theses options pale when you can magic your way through the obstacles and challenges those skills would usually help you overcome.

There are two separate issues here that are being conflated. The first is balance between PCs within a party. I've shown in previous posts why I think this is only a problem if the DM doesn't enforce the idea that spell slots are a limited resource that need to be conserved for the times they can be most effective.

The other issue is the power that magic using NPCs (which includes some monsters as well as actual spell casters) have in the world. This, I would argue, is a feature not a bug. D&D is not Pendragon (although I found it was surprisingly easy to come up with a few house rules to turn it into something more like that). The PHB spells out clearly that both adventurers and villains are generally expected to use magic.

[Skylivedk]

There are two separate issues here that are being conflated. The first is balance between PCs within a party. I've shown in previous posts why I think this is only a problem if the DM doesn't enforce the idea that spell slots are a limited resource that need to be conserved for the times they can be most effective.

Thank you for separating the two issues.

I appreciate how you clarify the discussion.

My disagreement lingers. I understand where you are coming from, but
a) it still feels contrived for me that a high-int character would continue to engage in such suboptimal settings as those imagined by the short-rest system.
b) I'm DM'ing an evil group of players where I can see why they'd go for snatch and grabs much more.
...
c) I am currently enforcing the resting system quite severely; I'm not saying I CAN'T make it work, only that it strains my suspension of disbelief the longer the game goes on.

The other issue is the power that magic using NPCs (which includes some monsters as well as actual spell casters) have in the world. This, I would argue, is a feature not a bug. D&D is not Pendragon (although I found it was surprisingly easy to come up with a few house rules to turn it into something more like that). The PHB spells out clearly that both adventurers and villains are generally expected to use magic.

And that is perfectly fair - it makes having high-level antagonistic NPC spell-casters much harder for me, since they could quite often wipe the party.

[Fwiffo86]

OP forgets that there are gods in the multiverse that manage everything while having at least one or two gods keep an eye on future events.

How many stories do you hear of casters turning bad and being killed by virtuous adventurers? How sure are you that these aren't cover stories? #GoodEvilSameTeam#TheTruthIsOutThere#RiseUpMortals

This is precisely what I was mentioning. Casters that "take over" are a fallacy in DnD. Any player group will have numerous "evil" wizards they have taken out throughout their career. Assuming that they are the only adventurers out there is bad conceptualizm at best, and bad DMing at worst.

The reason Mages don't run everything with an iron boot is simply, some other group takes them out when they become troublesome.

While Mage vs. Fighter is an argument that never ends, I think it would be more appropriate to gauge Mage vs opposing party consisting of your basic four. I seriously doubt how "powerful" your mage is, still stands up to four other equally powerful characters. After all, the entire system is based off of the 4 v world build.

[Tanarii]

Assuming that they are the only adventurers out there is bad conceptualizm at best, and bad DMing at worst.

The PCs being special is brought up over and over again in the PHB / DMG. So your claims of badwrongfun are unjustified. It's completely reasonable for a DM to decide that 'adventurers' aren't a common thing in their world. That doesn't make them bad DMs.

[Skylivedk]

This is precisely what I was mentioning.

SNIP

While Mage vs. Fighter is an argument that never ends, I think it would be more appropriate to gauge Mage vs opposing party consisting of your basic four. I seriously doubt how "powerful" your mage is, still stands up to four other equally powerful characters. After all, the entire system is based off of the 4 v world build.

If it takes four characters to deal with a single caster, my point stands.

Also, as Tanarii points out: some campaigns are built around the players being true exceptions. Kind of like how Conan is truly exceptional in his world - or most mythical characters are exceptional in their myths

[Fwiffo86]

If it takes four characters to deal with a single caster, my point stands.

I did not claim that it takes 4 characters to deal with a caster. If you interpreted that from my language, I apologize. I meant to point out that even in the best of circumstances, the majority of forum arguments are 1 wizard vs 1 target. Focus fire for the win. That is not the reality that a PC wizard who takes over anything violently is likely to deal with. If/when they are forced to defend their claim, they will be out done by action economy alone.

I am simply suggesting that someone analyze 1 wizard of 20th level, vs 4 17-20th level characters. The reason for this is simple. The game is built on this premise, and for all intents and purposes, the "PC Wiz" has simply stepped into the role of evil conquering wizard. A position that the Wizard should already know is the bread and butter of adventurers and/or armies.

Also, as Tanarii points out: some campaigns are built around the players being true exceptions. Kind of like how Conan is truly exceptional in his world - or most mythical characters are exceptional in their myths

Not arguing that at all. Simply pointing out that whether it's another group of characters, or an army, I can't see mages ruling anything for very long, especially by force. Someone (character group/mythic hero/army of kingdom X) will step up to deal with it. That is what I'm saying.

[Tanarii]

Not arguing that at all. Simply pointing out that whether it's another group of characters, or an army, I can't see mages ruling anything for very long, especially by force. Someone (character group/mythic hero/army of kingdom X) will step up to deal with it. That is what I'm saying.

thats a fair point. But you chose to toss in the judgement "bad DMing". That's what I was objecting to.

[Skylivedk]

I did not claim that it takes 4 characters to deal with a caster. If you interpreted that from my language, I apologize. I meant to point out that even in the best of circumstances, the majority of forum arguments are 1 wizard vs 1 target. Focus fire for the win. That is not the reality that a PC wizard who takes over anything violently is likely to deal with. If/when they are forced to defend their claim, they will be out done by action economy alone.

I am simply suggesting that someone analyze 1 wizard of 20th level, vs 4 17-20th level characters. The reason for this is simple. The game is built on this premise, and for all intents and purposes, the "PC Wiz" has simply stepped into the role of evil conquering wizard. A position that the Wizard should already know is the bread and butter of adventurers and/or armies.



Not arguing that at all. Simply pointing out that whether it's another group of characters, or an army, I can't see mages ruling anything for very long, especially by force. Someone (character group/mythic hero/army of kingdom X) will step up to deal with it. That is what I'm saying.

This entire thread is about how full casters have massive impact on the world around. How their amount of powerful options leave the somewhat linear scale of the other classes after lvl 10 or so.

The point isn't about a 1v1 discussion in some abstract white room.

Nor is it about traditional conquering of kingdoms - even though full casters being able to take countries hostage is part of the point.

Look at the amount of things full casters can do at lvl 10 and compare with lvl 18/20. Notice how many NEW types of situations the caster can deal with with ease. Do the same comparison with other classes. Notice how most of them can do what they did better, but not much else.

Tanarii points out in another way: a lot of the legacy spells were in the game to reward players for surviving. That has become A LOT easier for the full casters due to cantrips, hit die, bonded accuracy, etc. The spells remain largely the same as from previous editions.

I'm happy that WotC is trying to make all classes fun at all levels. I just wish they had spread the higher level love a bit better

[2D8HP]

In the old 70's/80's D&D I used to play, it made thematic sense for low level Magic Users to be weak (otherwise every other villager would be a Mage) and it seemed to fit the literature that the "Great and Powerful Wizard" would be more potent than "The Mighty Warrior". It also seemed like a just payoff for sticking it out and surviving, when most everyone choose Fighting-men PC's instead. Now some guys could have fun as a 1st level M.U. but they were the same guys who enjoyed rolling up a drooling begger in "Stormbringer".
I admit that both as a player and a DM I have not got past 5th level in 5e, and I have been enjoying how much more effective low level PC's are, especially the Spellcasters. As a DM I have also made use of "Anti-Magic Fields", and being forewarned (Thanks playground!) about over powered Wizards at higher levels, has made me consider stealing er... homaging Larry Niven's "Magic Goes Away" and have over use of Magic cause Anti-Magic Fields!
This could explain why a post apocalyptic Dark Age setting (but with some Renaissance technology cause Plate Armour and Rapier's natch'), the loss of a high magic civilization leading to ruins all over! Then the Magic (and the Monsters!) returned (my Lord I love worldbuilding)!
So over use of magic (such as from a high level Wizard/Sorcerer duel!) drains "manna" from an area leaving it "dry". So what makes magic return? Maybe just enough time, or maybe something sinister like in David Brin's "Life Eaters".
So you can have heroes and villains battling to keep or cause Magic from draining away, always with the threat of too much use making magic impossible, and possibly there can be foul evil Necromatic rituals that temporarily boost available Magic!
Or you can just make it neccesary to have levels in Sorcerer (a natural ability is required to cast Arcane Spells) before anyone can use Wizardry.
Or just impose level limits, or different XP requirements to level up, like in the old days.

D&D is not Pendragon (although I found it was surprisingly easy to come up with a few house rules to turn it into something more like that). The PHB spells out clearly that both adventurers and villains are generally expected to use magic.

JoeJ,
DnD is my favorite RPG I have actually played (much better than other not fun RPG's *cough* Cyberpunk *ahem*), Pendragon is my favorite RPG I never got to play! Please, please and please tell me what house rules you had in mind!

[KorvinStarmast]

The basic solution is to stop thinking that because its in the PHB, it is standard fair for every gameworld. One of a plethora of reasons I am not a fan of FR, is the nearly impossibly high level of magic in it.

That's two of us.

Crafting has in every version so far been a caster trait. 5e is pretty vague on crafting, so pardon my legacy thinking in presuming that casters would play a role here as well.

I was not discussing crafting, at all. If in 20 levels of adventuring in D&D a fighter didn't pick up a magic item or two, or three, I'd be surprised to find out that you'd been playing D&D. Once again, if a martial character has a caster he's been adventuring with for 20 levels, it is also not out of the realm of the rational that maybe a favor is done or an item made. It's variable, since level of magical items/treasures will vary from campaign to campaign.

[JoeJ]

JoeJ,
DnD is my favorite RPG I have actually played (much better than other not fun RPG's *cough* Cyberpunk *ahem*), Pendragon is my favorite RPG I never got to play! Please, please and please tell me what house rules you had in mind!

Posted here.