Quote from: TJS;1090149Jargon just gives the illusion of clarity while obscuring other things - it's generally best to resist it.

Whaugh.

Quote from: kythri;1090173Whaugh.

Gesundheit!

Quote from: kythri;1090139So what single word would you then use to group those like classes so that you can refer to them without listing each one?

Non-casters is the term I've generally heard used when discussing 3e.

Technically though "non-caster" should be understood as "classes that are not full casters" where full caster is a class with 9 levels of spells and where spellcasting is their primary class feature/means of problem solving"... see the cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard.

Of particular note are spellcasting classes like the cleric and druid who can automatically prepare any spell added to the list of cleric/druid spells from any splatbook the DM allows at the table (the wizard is almost as bad, but at least needs to find the spell and add it to his spellbook first). They essentially have a massive list of class features they can adjust every day when they prepare spells to meet the expected challenges of the day. Prepare three "detect secret doors" spells and you now have a 3/day "detect all secret doors in range with no check needed" class ability. The same goes for a spell like Knock (open locks with no checks needed X times per day).

This allows them to essentially rewrite their character sheet just by knowing what they're preparing for. If they know what to expect and can pray first, they will absolutely have the best suite of tools/spells for dealing with the problem.

They aren't known as CoDzillas (Cleric or Druid-zillas) for nothing.

By contrast, the 3e Bard only gets up to 6th level spells and has to pick a small number of spells from a much more restricted list that they actually know how to cast. This means they won't always have the best tools for the job even if they know what to expect and can prepare first.

Anything with less casting ability than a Bard is, practically speaking, a non-caster (when compared to clerics, druids and wizards), even if they do have some spells they can cast. What spells they do have are exceedingly limited in number and scope and almost never the primary focus of their class features (ex. paladin and ranger).

There's a reason why anyone with a deep understanding of 3e's issues will tell you the game runs better if you actually ban the classes from the Player's Handbook and allow only classes from the WotC splatbooks; the PHB has the vast majority of the strongest (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard) and weakest (fighter, monk, paladin*) classes in the game with only the Bard being truly in what is considered the "sweet spot" (the barbarian, ranger and rogue are passable, but on the weak side). In fact, if you're using the splats then the warblade is straight-up Fighter+, Crusader is Paladin+ and Swordsage is Monk+.

The splats are where you generally find more limited and thematic casters like Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, War Mages, Incarnates and Totemists and stronger non-casters like the aforementioned Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage, plus the Factotum (i.e. Rogue+) who are good at one thing and useful at others or above average (but not the best) at a wide array of things.

Seriously, if you want to run a 3e game and not have it fall apart mechanically around level 13 or so, Google "class tiers 3.5e", allow every WotC splatbook and just ban everything outside of tiers 3 and 4. You'll have a party that can't take the game sideways with tier 1-2 abilities or feel useless like the tier 5-6 classes if they're in a party with anything stronger (like a Bard).

* for perspective, in terms of the 3.5e rules, the NPC Adept class from the DMG is considered a stronger class with more to offer a PC party than the fighter, monk or paladin classes do.

Quote from: Chris24601;1090178Good stuff

Thank you - I am familiar with most of what you went over, or, at least the claims/theory of, but I truly do appreciate the concise treatise.

I'm just saying, for me and mine, in actual play, the issues have never cropped up - of course, I don't believe anyone I've played with has played without some form of cross-classing or what not, so, I dunno?

Quote from: kythri;1090132This always seems to be a problem on paper, that rarely crops up in actual play.

Maybe, amongst my group and others I've played with, we just all play casters wrong/poorly.

I mean, that's not to say that casters aren't powerful in our games, they just don't overshadow martials like the Internets claims they do.

It depends on the group/people. I still have a long-running 3.5 game that the PC's are about 16th level. They're pretty powerful but they don't step on each others toes. The group consists of a Ranger/Scout/Battlefield Sniper, a Duskblade, a fighter/crusader/purple dragon knight, and a Dragonborn fighter.  A new player wanted to join with a Dread Necromancer and when I looked at the character I discovered he could drop Enervation and drain a monster up to 17 HD worth of levels simply using one 4th and one 5th level spell slot in the same turn. He would've pretty much wrecked the rest of the campaign had I allowed it.

Quote from: kythri;1090180Thank you - I am familiar with most of what you went over, or, at least the claims/theory of, but I truly do appreciate the concise treatise.
I'm just saying, for me and mine, in actual play, the issues have never cropped up - of course, I don't believe anyone I've played with has played without some form of cross-classing or what not, so, I dunno?

And that is entirely possible. The designers of 3e didn't see the issue either because they still played just like 2e.

If the wizard just loads up on magic missiles, acid arrows, fireballs, lightning bolts and the like for their attack spells (i.e. the 2e paradigm of dealing with high level monsters who could easily make the saves so you're looking at the half-damage as the main feature and the failed save as a happy bonus) and the cleric mostly uses their slots for in-combat healing and the like... and didn't bother with maneuvering much, then you'd probably not have that much of a disparity between the fighter (who without having to take more than 5-ft steps could get their multiple attacks in), rogue, wizard and cleric.

As one person described it, the tiers people have used for the 3.5e classes are based more on the ceilings (the limits of their optimization) than the floors (what they're capable of if you pick the weakest possible options for everything). A poorly built wizard (tier 1) might dip all the way down to tier 5, but a fighter tops out at tier 5, but can only sink to tier 6 (which is bottom of the barrel, let's play using the Warrior NPC class level) by aggressively trying to pick bad options.

The interesting thing is that many of the mid-tier (3-4) classes are actually far less swingy. Their spell lists are typically constrained and they tend to avoid the MAD (multi-attribute dependency) of some of the PHB classes (ex. the paladin needs STR for their melee attacks, WIS for their spells, CHA for their other class features... a Bard needs CHA for its spells and class features, DEX for AC/ranged attacks and can take the weapon finesse feat to use it for melee attacks too). A Bard peaks at tier 3, but only drops to about a 4 if you build one badly... as long as you put in the minimum ranks into Perform to unlock your class features you'll be able to improve one of your best buffs (Inspire Courage) and use it nearly every battle and can deliver healing via a wand of cure light wounds if nothing else. Likewise, the Warmage is hard to mis-build because they automatically know all the spells one their list and are a spontaneous caster... just pile your casting stat as high as you can and you'll hit the class' tier 4 cap almost instantly.

Quote from: Batman;1090183It depends on the group/people. I still have a long-running 3.5 game that the PC's are about 16th level. They're pretty powerful but they don't step on each others toes. The group consists of a Ranger/Scout/Battlefield Sniper, a Duskblade, a fighter/crusader/purple dragon knight, and a Dragonborn fighter.  A new player wanted to join with a Dread Necromancer and when I looked at the character I discovered he could drop Enervation and drain a monster up to 17 HD worth of levels simply using one 4th and one 5th level spell slot in the same turn. He would've pretty much wrecked the rest of the campaign had I allowed it.

And this isn't surprising either. Ranger and Duskblade are tier 4 classes, the fighter/crusader is a mix of a tier 5 and tier 3 class (so probably about tier 4 on average) and dragonborn fighter is a tier 5. They absolutely lack any trick that's going to break a campaign the way a tier 1 or 2 class can and are within a tight span of tiers.

They may feel powerful, but I guarantee you that if you dropped a 16th level bard into that party, every single one of them would feel under-powered. But no one will care because the bard is exceptional at making its allies fight better (its Tier 3 precisely because that is the one thing its really good at and still okay at other stuff)... some minor "Inspire Courage" optimization (use a war horn as your instrument, grab the inexpensive badge of valor item, and pick Inspirational Boost as one of your 1st level spells) and you could give the entire party +6 to hit and damage with all their attacks (so a dual-wielding or rapid shot ranger could be getting +36 damage per round) for the duration of every combat they face in a day without even touching their spellcasting (beyond using inspirational boost as a swift action when you activate Inspire Courage). They're going to improve the odds of everyone hitting by 30% and could add 90+ points of damage per round to the party's output even if all he did was stand there and sing (his own three attacks per round would be similarly boosted, putting them on par with an unbuffed fighter's attacks and that's presuming he's not employing something like the Collector of Stories skill trick which would put him up at buffed fighter level).

Similarly, the Dread Necromancer is another tier 3 class, but one that keeps that power to itself instead of sharing it like the bard does. Of course it was going to look game breaking compared to a bunch of tier 4-5 classes, but it's a piker compared to what a neutral aligned cleric (with a neutral deity of death, so it can pick spontaneous cure wounds and command undead instead of turn undead) could do... including play the party healer if needed or buff the party with various spells or rain down holy fire if it was so inclined to prep flame strikes that day while commanding 16 HD of shadows and wraiths and 32 HD of skeletons and zombies he created the day before... and that's not even an optimized cleric.

Power level is relative.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1090066Is this a thing?

Only in 3e/PF, and only then after 5th or 6th level. Playing the Pathfinder Beginner Box (levels 1-5) the classes are quite well balanced.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1090066Is this a thing?

Nah, only exists on the internet.

Quote from: S'mon;1090207Only in 3e/PF, and only then after 5th or 6th level. Playing the Pathfinder Beginner Box (levels 1-5) the classes are quite well balanced.

It does exist in other games as well. Rolemaster, for example. Or RIFTS. Star Wars Saga Edition and its force users.

But to return to what I have been alluding to above: it's nonsensical to try to make martials one-on-one-balanced against wizards within the game world, whether by nerfing spells or by severely buffing mundane abilities or by proliferating magical abilities/items. Gandalf and Boromir are not on the same raw power level - nor should they be, as it would undermine the nature of magic within the setting. The conclusion to be derived from that is that if you want any semblance of balance without undermining magic, the limitations must primarily be of narrative nature instead.

Quote from: JeremyR;1090077It seems to mostly be a 3.x thing.

Unsurprising when they removed a lot of the constraints on casters that had been present in previous editions, like spell components.

Quote from: Kiero;1090249Unsurprising when they removed a lot of the constraints on casters that had been present in previous editions, like spell components.

Could you expand on this, please?  Spell components are still a thing in 3E/3.5, and we still use them/require them...

Quote from: S'mon;1090207Only in 3e/PF, and only then after 5th or 6th level. Playing the Pathfinder Beginner Box (levels 1-5) the classes are quite well balanced.

It's why E6 is such an awesome thing

Quote from: Batman;1090395It's why E6 is such an awesome thing

I like how 5e D&D made E20 RAW in the DMG. And you can use the rules to do eg 5e E10 equally well, though I don't think it's necessary - 5e has a few broken spells, but basically works fine 1-20.

I only did it once, and I'm probably done with 3.*, but if I were to play it again, I'd use one house rule for a 3E core-only game:  Full casters must multi-class.  They cannot take a full caster class two levels in a row.  

It's not perfect if someone wants to really break it, and I doubt it holds up with splats.  It does work with Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Eldritch Might mixed in.  It means that spells top out at level 6 (short of "epic" abilities allowing higher level spells), and pushes the breaking point into the end of the 20 level progression instead of starting around 11 to 13. But for a game like ours where the play style is more casual in the "build" department, it's easy for the players to understand, and prevents most of the inadvertent power discrepancies.  Basically, it allows everyone to make a slightly a character that is more well-rounded and slightly sucks compared to the power gamer options, but that's OK if the GM takes it into account.

You can think of it as a wider level range, somewhat milder form of E6.

Quote from: kythri;1090250Could you expand on this, please?  Spell components are still a thing in 3E/3.5, and we still use them/require them...

In 3/3.5/PF most spell components are handled using an item called a "spell component pouch." If you had one you were presumed to have all the trivial components (ex. grasshopper legs for the jump spell or the bat guano for a fireball) you'd ever need for casting them with no need to track specific components.

only a few spells that required things like precious gems actually required tracking spell components for them, and even then mostly it was a gp-value that the DM would often let spellcasters abstract by subtracting it from their general wealth.