Funny thing about D&D basic assumptions

[ImperatorK]

We know that 3.5 was made on the assumption that groups would play the classic team of Beatstick, Skillmonkey, Blaster and Healer. But I just noticed something that doesn't add up. Namely it looks like Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric and Druid are so overpowered because the devs though that they would use their spells to help (either through buffs, debuffs or BFC) their weaker, mundane teammates. Did you notice?

[Wiggins]

I doubt this is news to anyone

[ImperatorK]

I doubt this is news to anyone

But you see, Wizard is supposed to be a Blaster and yet apparently it is expected from him to buff up his allies. How is that?

[Wiggins]

Ray of Enfeeblement et al. ?

[caelic]

The developers actually said as much, at various points.  I can't recall who it was who said that a fighter at high levels should be unable to survive on his own without the help of spellcasters (anyone?  Bueller?)

The problem they failed to spot is that, as the fighter's becoming more and more dependent on the spellcasters for survival, the spellcasters are becoming less and less dependent on the fighter.

[Wiggins]

One way it can work is using settings that have in built distrust of magic, comparing it to the devil worship etc.

Wizards are then caught between being despised by the common folk in spite of their actions if they are heroic, and attracting the attentions of devils and demons (not to mention witch hunters) if they are less than heroic.

If every parley, and for that matter every town and every castle is covered by as large an anti-magic field as it can afford, and still the sorcerer is spat on and can't get a word in, regardless of his charisma, bluff and diplomacy, then maybe there's still a point to the mundane characters in the late game, for being the mouthpiece of the group, the way they interact with everyone else.

Just make sure that the evil option remains unappealing.

And for their evil counterparts, you then find a Grand Moff Tarkin holding your Vader's leash.

As a goodie, they never get thanks from anyone but the party. As a baddie, they never get to make a decision for themselves without a high high price.

[caelic]

The problem I see is that that sort of "limitation" affects the rest of the party, as well.  If the wizard's feared and hated, his companions aren't going to be looked on favorably, either.

It's like the barbarian from first edition, who was "limited" by his hatred of magic.  The problem was that it meant the rest of the party had to bend over backwards to keep him from seeing magic used, or from becoming aware that other party members had magic items. Either that, or just kick him out of the party entirely.  In practice, it wound up being more of a limitation for the OTHER members of the group than for the barbarian himself.

[SneeR]

Mechanics are what need to be targeted for every class to be more equal. What I mean is that either fighters need to be more awesome, or wizards need to be less awesome. The subtractive fix for wizards is unappealing to most beyond a certain extent (no one objects to fixing polymorph...), so that means that fighters need to be boosted. We need to bridge the fundamental gap between these classes. They need to operate on the same planes of play. At higher levels, it become apparent how 2D the fighter lives as the wizard finally embraces his 3D existence.

To impose fluff limitations does, as stated by caelic, limit other classes instead of the class in question more often than not, but what it does not do is balance the fundamental disconnect in playstyles. In older editions it might have been okay for fighters and wizards to hold hands with the DM and everyone just say, "Fighters get cool stuff! Wizards should tone it down for the flavor!" However, 3.5 is so codified in its rules, so mechanics-based, that trying to cleave the rules from the world is stupid.

When the answer to the question, "Why don't wizards and druids rule the world?" is "Because the DM said so" rather than "Because fighters have held their own for all eternity against them," the game doesn't make sense on a deeper scale.

[veekie]

Well, the issue with subtractive and additive fixes is nobody has a common opinion of how far they should go. Whether its restrictive, single theme casters(no Master of All Trades, and the Jack of All Trades only turns up later in levels) or planar sundering, meteor parrying fighters, theres always conflicts. Subtractive fixes to magical archetypes are easier to get through, since they actually cleave closer to magi in myths and media, though they offend against gamer tradition(what do you mean I can't do X anymore?). Additive fixes slam up against verisimilitude, even amongst open minded players, who just can't imagine how it can begin to work.

Enforced dependencies(ala 4E's stricter class protection) doesn't necessarily work either.
Bane-based mechanics(e.g. Fighters with a whole bunch of mechanics to specifically say fuck you to casters) are completely missing the point(since it was always a matter of who contributes better, rather than who wins in a duel, except for dick contests).
Educating...is even more unlikely to work than the rest. Gaming being an optional entertainment activity, people would cleave towards the game that fits their conceptions of what a game should be more than innovative games that do not fit.

If there was an easy out we wouldn't still be debating it now.

[DDchampion]

When the answer to the question, "Why don't wizards and druids rule the world?" is "Because the DM said so" rather than "Because fighters have held their own for all eternity against them," the game doesn't make sense on a deeper scale.

Let me ask you, is our world ruled by nobel prize winners and/or the dudes who're better at killing others?

And aren't there countries out there that survive despite not having literal nukes? Even if they provoke the countries that do have nukes?

Leadership =/=personal power. A caster may be pretty powerful and versatile, but that doesn't mean people automatically follow him. The caster may not even want followers. He may just want to be left to his studies, or go planar traveling, or ascend to godhood, or whatever. Running a country may actually prove counterproductive when you're suddenly spending your days filling paperwork instead of working towards unlimited arcane/divine powah.

So in some places there may be charismatic casters that indeed rule nations and then we have magedoms or the Lich's king mountain or whatever. But in other places the caster is happy playing advisor (like Gandalf and Merlin). And in some other cases simply no caster still hadn't the time/interest to go conquer it (why would you want to take over that god-forsaken desert when you have to deal with three other rival caster neighbourhoods?).

And in some other cases, the casters simply obliterated each other trying to take over the land and the fighter was all that remained to be declared the local king because the casters didn't consider him a threat (plenty of cases of that in real world History as well).

I can perfectly imagine standstills with a "fighter kingdom" between two rival "caster kingdoms", none of the casters atempting to take it over because it would drop their defenses against the other caster. 

[ImperatorK]

Err... Maybe I'm dense, but I don't follow some of your posts, guys.
What I said in the OP is: The devs playtested the game with a Blaster Wizard/Cleric Healer and didn't think that the class could be played differently and be so powerful as it is (that's part of the reason the game is unbalanced), BUT at the same time it looks like the whole game assumes that a Wizard/Cleric buffs his teammates, because the mundanes lack the power or versatility that casters can provide them.
Don't you think it's a little odd? If the Wizard was supposed to be blasting and the Cleric healing, but by not doing (just) it they become so overpowered, then why does the game assume that they do more than blast/heal? Or is it just coincidence that mundanes are so helpless without spells and casters are so powerful because of spells?

[Halinn]

I think the basic assumption was that the wizard/cleric didn't use the SoD spells much, and that they didn't buff themselves.

[sirpercival]

Why would a cleric buff himself?  A fighter is a much better fighter...

[ariasderros]

To answer part of the question, The cleric was given buffs so that he didn't just stand around waiting for someone to get hurt. It has been said many times on these boards, but not only is walking wand of CLW not a viable character concept, it isn't generally fun to play. At the same time, if there was an assumption that clerics didn't buff themselves, as some have asserted, then why would many of the best melee buffs for clerics be personal only?

The cleric does need something better than just walking wand of CLW as his role, but the problem is finding a role for him, and making him decent at it, w/o making him a clearly overpowering choice. An archer cleric does this rather well IMO.

I think the problem with the Wiz is an actual issue with the fact that blasting isn't viable compared to the other strategies. Damage spells are not good enough, and the SoD and SoS spells are both too prolific and tend to be too good. Evard's interracial hentai is fine, but Trap the Soul can get downright ridiculous. Really, if it's a SoD or SoL it really shouldn't have any effect on a passed save (well, Fear is okay, but there are too many spells that are too good not to use even if the enemies always pass) so that the half damage provided by a fireball is actually a feasible choice.

[SneeR]

I would actually like to throw in that I created a raptoran healer (yes, that healer) at level 1, and it was extremely satisfying to heal so much with a Cure Minor. I think that if healing were actually able to keep up with damage, being a full-time healer would be quite exhilarating, personally!

[sirpercival]

I would actually like to throw in that I created a raptoran healer (yes, that healer) at level 1, and it was extremely satisfying to heal so much with a Cure Minor. I think that if healing were actually able to keep up with damage, being a full-time healer would be quite exhilarating, personally!

The problem with that idea is that while attacking hit points is by far the most common tactic that monsters have, whenever you go up against an opponent that uses a different tactic (like SoDs, for example) you have no defense.  Even if you're awesome at fixing hp damage, especially at high levels you get marginalized.  You have to have other tricks in your pocket.

[DDchampion]

I would actually like to throw in that I created a raptoran healer (yes, that healer) at level 1, and it was extremely satisfying to heal so much with a Cure Minor. I think that if healing were actually able to keep up with damage, being a full-time healer would be quite exhilarating, personally!

The problem with that idea is that while attacking hit points is by far the most common tactic that monsters have, whenever you go up against an opponent that uses a different tactic (like SoDs, for example) you have no defense.  Even if you're awesome at fixing hp damage, especially at high levels you get marginalized.  You have to have other tricks in your pocket.

You mean, like removing all those annoying effects that make SoD so powerful in the first place? Death Ward and Freedom of Movement alone will protect the party from plenty of dangerous stuff. Then a cleric can go around removing fear and stuns and paralyzis and poisons and diseases and, well, pretty much ever bad status effect out there.

There's even those spells that bring players back from the dead right in the middle of battle, they're literally life-savers.

[ImperatorK]

Re: Best buffs being "Personal".
That's why one of my houserules is that there's no "Personal" spells. Touch is the bare minimum a spell can be.

[ariasderros]

Re: Best buffs being "Personal".
That's why one of my houserules is that there's no "Personal" spells. Touch is the bare minimum a spell can be.

Yes, but your houserule has no bearing on the overall assumption, unless you think that everyone uses the same houserule.

[ImperatorK]

Yes, but your houserule has no bearing on the overall assumption

Where did I say it does?

unless you think that everyone uses the same houserule.

No, I'm just saying how I dealt with it.