Caster versus noncaster imbalance: It stems from something deeper

[Libertad]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards

There's no denying that full casters rock the house that is Dungeons & Dragons.  Many people blame poor playtesting, flaws in the system, and the incredibly versatile customization options for casters.

These are all good reasons, but I think that there are other major factors, factors that go deeper than Dungeons & Dragons.

People expect mages to be awesome.  The thieves and fighters are meant to be heroic everymen, capable of doing plausible stuff that we can imagine ourselves doing with enough training.  Conan can nimbly dodge bad guys and lop off arms with a sword, and stuff like that has happened in the real world.  Not so with magic.

Nobody blinks an eye in most settings when a mage calls forth a comet to crash upon the invading army or create a castle out of thin air.  Magic is supposed to be this all-powerful force that goes beyond human limits.  Mages are supposed to be special, because having this power is a privilege that sets them apart.  Even an impoverished hermit can have awesome power at his fingertips if he's a wizard.

There's also the factor of "realism" and "verisimilitude."  It's much easier for us to believe that a mage can grow ten feet tall, but not as much for a barbarian (unless said barbarian is a shapechanging race or something).  Why was Tome of Battle maligned by a vocal minority (Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic!)?  Because it lifted melee characters out of the "everyman hero" spot!  How does a Warblade get super-sonar senses with the "Listening to the Air" ability?  Sounds like magic!

Something I've also noticed is that power-ups to mages don't cause as much outrage when an equivalent thing is done to "everymen heroes."  I remember reading about an Elfwood artists' D&D house rule: big creatures have big natural weapons, so they can get around a shield's defenses better due to sheer size.  Apparently he instituted this rule because he got tired of the party fighter applying his shield bonus to AC against trolls or something.

On the surface, this house rule sounds plausible: a 90-foot giant stomping on a 6-foot fighter is going to connect unless the fighter can jump out of the way.  In reality, this house rule screws the fighter even more.  The poor guys' not doing as much damage as two-handed power attack or charging with a lance.  Why punish him in such a cruel fashion?  I also noticed that the guy didn't seem to have a problem with Wizards using their magic to negate attacks (He didn't bring this up).  What about Mirror Image?  Or Blur?

So why do we give Wizards Knock and Invisibility but nothing of equivalent power to the sneaky rogue?  Because we have the idea that mages should be able to do everything and not be limited to class roles?  The idea that magic is just plain better?  I think the answer to these last two questions is "yes" in the minds of many.

Look at literature:  In the 1,001 Arabian Nights, magicians can do all sorts of stuff the other heroes couldn't.  They can fly, shapechange into ferocious beasts, lift a castle into the air, and turn into fire.  But that was the point: In Middle Eastern folklore, magic was revealed to humanity by the angels Harut and Marut as a test of moral character.  Said angels warned the humans that this was bad mojo.  Those who learned magic got corrupted by the power and damned their souls.

The idea of the all-powerful mage in D&D is not just a product of poor game design; it's part of our cultural construct.  When we make RPG games with elements based off of fantasy, mythology, and folklore, we bring those aspects in.  And somewhere along the way Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards snuck in.

[Basket Burner]

It's simpler than that. Simple games favor simple classes. Complex games favor complex classes.

In most video games, run up and hit it solves problems so it shouldn't come as a surprise that in most video games, melee is the dominant force. About the only time it isn't is when the game is gear dependent and gear is random, then it becomes caster dominant because they don't need specific high end loot to function.

In D&D, run up and hit it has so many counters that it's more a question of your opponent allowing you to work than anything else. You need a broader array of abilities than that. And if you can't cast spells, you won't get it.

[Bozwevial]

Quick nitpick: Only "verisimilitude" really applies with D&D, because realism went out the door when we first used the word dragons.

But yes, from a mechanical standpoint it is absolutely horrible to tell the mundanes that they will forever be second-string players. So you have to get over the cultural taboo against letting someone break the laws of physics through sheer training alone, and it helps if you also stop casters from being do-everything people.

[Libertad]

It's simpler than that. Simple games favor simple classes. Complex games favor complex classes.

In most video games, run up and hit it solves problems so it shouldn't come as a surprise that in most video games, melee is the dominant force. About the only time it isn't is when the game is gear dependent and gear is random, then it becomes caster dominant because they don't need specific high end loot to function.

In D&D, run up and hit it has so many counters that it's more a question of your opponent allowing you to work than anything else. You need a broader array of abilities than that. And if you can't cast spells, you won't get it.

The warrior/caster divide isn't as bad in consoles, but it is noticable in some RPGs.  Mages in Dragon Age: Origins were awesome.  They got area of effect spells, can combine their magic attacks into new spells, can heal and resurrect party members, and recharge their mana with potions to cast spells all over again.  Warriors and rogues used stamina instead, and there was no "stamina potion" equivalent in the normal game (I don't know about DLC).  This could be due to the whole "Mages were once the most powerful people on the continent" thing in their history.

Quick nitpick: Only "verisimilitude" really applies with D&D, because realism went out the door when we first used the word dragons.

But yes, from a mechanical standpoint it is absolutely horrible to tell the mundanes that they will forever be second-string players. So you have to get over the cultural taboo against letting someone break the laws of physics through sheer training alone, and it helps if you also stop casters from being do-everything people.

I think that the term "realism" should not be used when discussing sci-fi and fantasy in regards to complaints about suspension of disbelief.

Despite this, I still hear about some people who hold casters and non-casters in a separate mold: "casters don't need to be realistic, noncasters have to."

In such games, an ideal solution is to either everybody be a caster or keep magic in the hands of powerful NPCs.  I don't think that many people will opt to play as a Muggle in a Harry Potter RPG.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Quick nitpick: Only "verisimilitude" really applies with D&D, because realism went out the door when we first used the word dragons.

Hmm?

[veekie]

One thing in fiction, other game lines and previous editions. Magic is expensive.

Not in wealth, though it can be that. RL mythological magi made use of a large quantity of rare, toxic and valuable materials, on top of physical and metaphysical sacrifices.

Many spell effects require extensive ritual to setup and maintain abilities(e.g. you don't cast telekinesis with a quick flick of a hand, you cast it with an hour long, complicated ritual, after which you can magically hurl things around as long as you renew it).

Sanity and service are a common price. Many of them are rather unstable(its got to do with all the toxic metals and hallucinogenic elixirs they use), and those that aren't generally owe service to a greater being.

Magic is extremely hard to learn. D&D sorcerors alone have far more spells than most mythical magi, and far more breadth too. In myth, a mage would have their handful of spells they actually master(and lots of variations on these, on demand), with their remainder being equivalent to cantrips at the best.

Magic is subtle. This is more a thing with RL myths(since you know, most magic doesn't really work), it exerts influence over a long term rather than burst effects. Lots of these tend to be predictive.

Magic is slow. D&D magic is really insanely fast, especially for producing complex effects. In other games, fiction and myth alike, spellcasting generally takes place on the scale of minutes, hours or even days, barring the weaker effects like magical missiles or minor kinesis.

Magic is unreliable. Spells are supposed to be easy to screw up, with consequences when they do. D&D magic is safe, easy and reliable. You have a bigger chance of shooting yourself with a rocket launcher than getting a spell wrong.

Magic can be countered by mundanes. Common rituals exist to ward off malign influence, though not fully effective, someone can be expected to successfully defend themselves against some spells without another magi.

Magic is common(yes really). While high end and direct magic is exclusive to spellcasters, everyday people know minor rituals and can make them work sometimes. Charms to speed healing, sense malign influences, enhance weapons, armor and livestock all are to some degree common lore(in later eras this changed to praying for divine assistance).

So, lots of factors really. Wizards are quadratic because the powerful aspects of magic are in, but its drawbacks are not.

EDIT: Fixed a phrasing.

[Basket Burner]

It's simpler than that. Simple games favor simple classes. Complex games favor complex classes.

In most video games, run up and hit it solves problems so it shouldn't come as a surprise that in most video games, melee is the dominant force. About the only time it isn't is when the game is gear dependent and gear is random, then it becomes caster dominant because they don't need specific high end loot to function.

In D&D, run up and hit it has so many counters that it's more a question of your opponent allowing you to work than anything else. You need a broader array of abilities than that. And if you can't cast spells, you won't get it.

The warrior/caster divide isn't as bad in consoles, but it is noticable in some RPGs.  Mages in Dragon Age: Origins were awesome.  They got area of effect spells, can combine their magic attacks into new spells, can heal and resurrect party members, and recharge their mana with potions to cast spells all over again.  Warriors and rogues used stamina instead, and there was no "stamina potion" equivalent in the normal game (I don't know about DLC).  This could be due to the whole "Mages were once the most powerful people on the continent" thing in their history

I haven't played that game. Is it in depth and/or gear dependent? If so that explains it.

[Bozwevial]

Hmm?

Correction: Fire-breathing dragons.

Or magic, I guess, but whatever.

[Kuroimaken]

Quick nitpick: Only "verisimilitude" really applies with D&D, because realism went out the door when we first used the word dragons.

But yes, from a mechanical standpoint it is absolutely horrible to tell the mundanes that they will forever be second-string players. So you have to get over the cultural taboo against letting someone break the laws of physics through sheer training alone, and it helps if you also stop casters from being do-everything people.

See, this is why the Japanese do this shit better. For one, even the "mundane" fighters are head and shoulders above mundane "people". The fighter isn't just the guy who swings a sword; he's the guy who swings a sword so fucking fast he can deflect raindrops, verisimilitude be bent over the knee and spitroasted like a common whore.

Record of Lodoss War illustrates this best. At one point, Slayn and other members of Parn's crew are ambushed. Slayn wants to cast a spell to bring a quick end to the conflict, so what does he do? He asks to be defended because casters are helpless while casting. But D&D made this too simple. Partly because most encounters do not last over a minute, and partly because buffs notwithstanding, making a concentration check is that damn easy, the moment when casters are supposed to be their most vulnerable does not exist.

[Libertad]

I haven't played that game. Is it in depth and/or gear dependent? If so that explains it.

On Casual mode you can pretty much fight most battles with minimal effort and strategy.  The difficulty amps up on Normal mode, and you have to use tactics to win the more difficult combats: you need to consider proper use of buff moves and area of effect attacks; you're gonna get fucked if you use up all your mana/stamina early with big powerful attacks or have your guys charge through dangerous terrain and traps in the mid-boss and elite boss battles.

You need more powerful gear at certain points if you expect to deal adequate damage at later levels, even for mages (magic staffs increase spell power).  Don't expect your guys to be rockin' out in battles if they're using crappy equipment they got at Ye Olde General Store in Small Farming Town.

[Bozwevial]

On Casual mode you can pretty much fight most battles with minimal effort and strategy.  The difficulty amps up on Normal mode, and you have to use tactics to win the more difficult combats: you need to consider proper use of buff moves and area of effect attacks; you're gonna get fucked if you use up all your mana/stamina early with big powerful attacks or have your guys charge through dangerous terrain and traps in the mid-boss and elite boss battles.

You need more powerful gear at certain points if you expect to deal adequate damage at later levels, even for mages (magic staffs increase spell power).  Don't expect to your guys to be rockin' out in battles if they're using crappy equipment they got at Ye Olde General Store in Small Farming Town.

Origins is problematic because mages just generally rock the house.

Wide-scale abilities that confer really annoying status effects? Check.

The ability to refill their mana pool while warriors and rogues are left behind? Check.

A specialization that lets them cast from hit points? Check.

They also have a couple of very nice spells in the Spirit tree that help a lot with the tougher fights. Crushing Prison does exactly what it sounds like it does (basically Forcecage, except more painful), and Force Field lets you pick an enemy and tell it to sit in timeout for a while or pick a party member who's in a tight spot, make them invulnerable, and use them as a danger magnet.

[SorO_Lost]

Dammit, just spent an hour on TVTropes. Spoiler those links! >.>

[Garryl]

On Casual mode you can pretty much fight most battles with minimal effort and strategy.  The difficulty amps up on Normal mode, and you have to use tactics to win the more difficult combats: you need to consider proper use of buff moves and area of effect attacks; you're gonna get fucked if you use up all your mana/stamina early with big powerful attacks or have your guys charge through dangerous terrain and traps in the mid-boss and elite boss battles.

You need more powerful gear at certain points if you expect to deal adequate damage at later levels, even for mages (magic staffs increase spell power).  Don't expect to your guys to be rockin' out in battles if they're using crappy equipment they got at Ye Olde General Store in Small Farming Town.

Origins is problematic because mages just generally rock the house.

Wide-scale abilities that confer really annoying status effects? Check.

The ability to refill their mana pool while warriors and rogues are left behind? Check.

A specialization that lets them cast from hit points? Check.

They also have a couple of very nice spells in the Spirit tree that help a lot with the tougher fights. Crushing Prison does exactly what it sounds like it does (basically Forcecage, except more painful), and Force Field lets you pick an enemy and tell it to sit in timeout for a while or pick a party member who's in a tight spot, make them invulnerable, and use them as a danger magnet.

Don't forget the "I'm a better Warrior than you, the Warrior" spec. Gishes rejoice when you have every lovely magic thing on top of better armor than a Warrior. Plus that Shimmering Shield thing is a nutso defensive boost if you can gear up to at least partially offset its massive mana drain.

(click to show/hide)

With a greater than 10.0/sec mana regen, Shimmering Shield doesn't deactivate when you run out of mana. Toss on 25% magic resist and Spell Shield and you have 100% MR on a 0.5s cooldown. You don't care when it drains your mana because SS doesn't deactivate because you still have positive mana regeneration. Add in Rock Armor and you have 27.5 armor on top of whatever massive armor you wear, maxed resistances, and your healing and whatever else spells.

On Nightmare you can even use Miasma to automatically get all the threat you need to tank everything nearby, too.

Also, any DA:O Mage can pick up his or her best spells by level 3 since they're limited by Magic instead of by level. A Warrior or Rogue has to slog through 12 levels of minor boosts and specials that are mostly only slightly better than auto-attacking. Two-Hander is actually pretty good earlier on, though, as the good abilities are early on and the Sunder Arms/Armor talents also give you a hidden extra attack (you hit twice instead of once as you'd expect). Not that the tooltips will tell you any of that.

[Libertad]

I can't say for certain, but the Dragon Age designers intentionally made the Mage class a lot more powerful than the other two.  This according to TV Tropes Linear Warrior/Quadratic Wizards article, and it doesn't cite sources.  I'd take this statement with a grain of salt, but I can see it being a deliberate decision.

[Azrael]

If only mages were more powerful than warriors in MMOs...

[Basket Burner]

I haven't played that game. Is it in depth and/or gear dependent? If so that explains it.

On Casual mode you can pretty much fight most battles with minimal effort and strategy.  The difficulty amps up on Normal mode, and you have to use tactics to win the more difficult combats: you need to consider proper use of buff moves and area of effect attacks; you're gonna get fucked if you use up all your mana/stamina early with big powerful attacks or have your guys charge through dangerous terrain and traps in the mid-boss and elite boss battles.

You need more powerful gear at certain points if you expect to deal adequate damage at later levels, even for mages (magic staffs increase spell power).  Don't expect your guys to be rockin' out in battles if they're using crappy equipment they got at Ye Olde General Store in Small Farming Town.

That wasn't quite what I was getting at but if the good gear is rare stuff you have to grind for then that would really help to explain it.

Most of the time though, it's caused by lack of options. When all you can do is run up and hit it, or in some cases that's the only thing worth doing you're going to be second rate.

[RobbyPants]

I think a lot of this problem comes from a combination of people not knowing what they actually want, and making broad generalizations from a fairly large player base. A lot of people are fine with ToB-style mundane characters. A lot of people aren't.

Quick nitpick: Only "verisimilitude" really applies with D&D, because realism went out the door when we first used the word dragons.

From my understanding, verisimilitude has taken on a new meaning in context of these discussions. It seems more to have to do with creating a coherent world view. So things that stretch verisimilitude are things like standard medieval castles in a world with flying, teleporting mages and dragons; not the mages and dragons themselves.

[Unbeliever]

First, RobbyPants has the right of it when it comes to verisimilitude, the game world needs to hold together and seem coherent.

Second of all, I disagree on pretty much everything the OP says.  The argument in the OP boils down to: 

Magic will inherently be better than mundanes b/c magic gets to avoid some amount of realism.

This is a function of D&D, not of myth, literature, or even inherent to the ideas.  I think Veekie pointed out that there are a number of things in myth, etc. that are simply not included in D&D for whatever reason. 

There are also numerous counterexamples in literature and in games.  In Rifts, for example, mages sort of sucked -- or were at least forced to be extremely subtle:  few Ley Line Walkers can stand up to a Glitter Boy in a straight fight.  They had to rely on niche abilities (e.g., immunity to energy) to survive.  Conan (in Robert E Howard's writings) is another great example.  He's great at, well, everything mundane, and he murders mages while still being reasonably afraid of their power. 

I think the point is that the paradigm that D&D sets up for magic is both extremely potent and extremely easy to use.  So, to match it, warrior-types have to be really really awesome.  Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that I suppose -- D&D characters at 12th level nowadays resemble characters from Bleach more than they resemble Conan or the Jaime Lannister -- so everything is just amped up.  But, I think it's largely an artifact of the game rather than some deep-seated construct. 

As a further note, I don't think there's anything inherently problematic with having character  A being able to "reshape reality at a whim" and character B being "the greatest knight in the land."  D&D and related games are combat action adventure games, so being good at those things is sufficient.  The problems only start to arise when character A is better at being a knight than character B is, or character B can be shut down from his appointed task too easily. 

P.S.:  citing Dragon Age Origins for anything approaching balance is just a bad idea.  The game is stupidly broken, and as others have noted, has some silly, completely mechanical (i.e., not conceptual) quirks that tilted it in favor of mages rather than in favor of a mixed party, which was the ideal I thought they were going for. 

[veekie]

Yeah, its quite difficult to buff mundanes up to the height of easy, disposable magic. If you were to pick a number of the restrictions and limitations, putting them in would make the gap far smaller.

Lovecraftian games(which I can't recall offhand) have learning/using magic being difficult and extremely hazardous to sanity, but with potent power. Spells are also highly specific in nature. A spellcaster in these would be a candle, each time you use it to light the darkness, it burns further down, and coming back is hard to impossible.

Exalted has magic being common(practically every character is magical in limited, skill specific ways), with sorcery itself requiring a roleplaying sacrifice(trivial in game), casting time and lowered defense while casting, expending magical energy in a relatively inefficient way.

Mage has quick magic as unreliable, due to how dicepools work(you can gather a whole bunch if you work ritually instead). Of course its magic is even worse than D&D magic, its scope is pretty much anything.

So...which restrictions fit best on D&D magic? How do we make it no longer Quick, Easy and Reliable?

[Basket Burner]

You are coming at it from exactly the wrong perspective.