|
Just a random thought I had that I was wondering if anyone else had tried implementing. Would bringing down the damage output of spells help bridge the gap between being a Wizard* versus a Fighter* ? It'd be better if there was some overall ruling that could be applied rather than have to apply adjustments on a 1 for 1 basis.
Maybe something like halving the rate of damage accrual? So spells like Fireball would only do 1d6 per 2 levels? Magic Missile would gain an extra missile at 4,9,13,&17? Etc. You could apply this to non-damage spells too, if needed.
Or if that's too much, what about downgrading the die one type? D4's for Fireballs, d3+1 for Magic Missile, etc.
Idk, just a thought.
*(or whatever)
Personally, I don't think a wizards power really comes from being able to cast fireball.
Being able to just out right kill something..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caster damage already sucks and any competant melee fighter should outdamage a wizard that isn't sinking all their resources into blasting--that's not what creates a disparity.
What creates a disparity is the same thing that has always created a disparity:
1) Spells are a single feature that can cover any role; mundane features cover only a single role.
2) Spell effects are more open ended and flexible than mundane effects. You can't possibly list all the uses for a spell like Stone Shape. It would be very easy to list all the uses for a mundane ability like Trapfinding or Favored Enemy.
3) Spell effects and supernatural abilities are not bound by suspension of disbelief as tightly as mundane abilities. The mundane ability to jump 30' straight up is going to, at best, garner "when did D&D become anime?" sneers. But make that ability supernatural or a spell? Yeah, that's fine. Magic can do that.
Trying to actually survive the beginning of the game as a Wizard or something used to be difficult. It could maybe justify the exponential power increase magic users got as they leveled, since they actually earned it. But now, they get all the same breaks, and a lot of changes over the past few editions have been dedicated to making casters less squishy early on. So, the disparity is much more in the forefront of everyone's minds because casters now routinely survive to exercise their great power.
I like others dont think that spell damage is the real cause of the disparity. The truth is the big guy with the sword already does more damage. The issue is that the caster can do all this OTHER cool stuff besides damage. I think it is a better idea to ADD options to the martial types then try to weaken specfic caster abilities to make them more even.
My biggest fixes personally..
Giving martial classes SR at a high level. When I imagine a world with level 20 fighters who on par with wizards.. this is one of the first things I see is that fighters can shrug off spells with ease.
Like "You gonna cast fire ball at me?! I'll cut through the weave and smash you in the face!" or the fighter catches/deflects the fireball somewhere else or throws it..
Essentially, fighters need ways of bending reality as well. things that would be considered to be "super human"
BASTARD!! is probably one of the better cases of this, with some of the characters, such as the ninja, just shrugging off spells.
BASTARD!! is probably one of the better cases of this, with some of the characters, such as the ninja, just shrugging off spells.
I prefer S.H.I.T., but that's just personal bias.
The SR is just the start. Making more feats makes more crap truthfully. Cause most characters are nearly feat starved as well. It also creates things where it stuff becomes more based around a limited number of feats. Like "spit out the side of your mouth" suddenly becomes a feat, and you can't do it unless you spend one of your ten general feats to do it.
About the only thing I can really think of for Pathfinder to do, is go version 2, where everything is a point buy system. Perhaps each class has certain points they develop faster.. (like fighter produces more combat points than wizards or rogues..)
Kirth, BASTARD!! is an anime, based off DnD and Rock Metal.
Pretty much the entire purpose of D&D Fourth Edition was to equalize casters and non-casters.
Pretty much any attempt to equalize them is going to end up with something similar to 4e.
The reason I still prefer Pathfinder over 4e is pretty much entirely because magic is still magic in Pathfinder. And magic should be awe-inspiring.
That doesn't mean I always play a caster, but I like magic to be awe-inspiring even if my own character isn't doing any of it.
1. Pretty much the entire purpose of D&D Fourth Edition was to equalize casters and non-casters.
2. Pretty much any attempt to equalize them is going to end up with something similar to 4e.
1. Largely true.
2. Patently false.Anything else?
Kirth, BASTARD!! is an anime, based off DnD and Rock Metal.
Ah, gotcha. The only cartoons I watch involve a coyote with an infinite line of Acme credit.
Man, you guys are some masterdebaters. Both delivering compelling and solid arguments.1. Pretty much the entire purpose of D&D Fourth Edition was to equalize casters and non-casters.
2. Pretty much any attempt to equalize them is going to end up with something similar to 4e.
1. Largely true.
2. Patently false.Anything else?
I suppose it depends on what it means to be "similar to 4e." In my mind it means that the casters and non-casters will have to have similar, if not identical, mechanics, just as they do in 4e. Otherwise the sheer difference in mechanics alone will compel people to say one or the other is "unbalanced."
Man, you guys are some masterdebaters. Both delivering compelling and solid arguments.
Well, take out the "de" (and swap an "o" for an "e") and you're probably right on the money.
That's the lazy fix of 4e. If everyone has to use the same mechanic then the game isn't balanced, it's just lacking in variation. You're just removing the choice from the player and any options he does get is simple recoloring. A well-balanced game would have unique flavor to every character without making anyone feel like they are lacking or behind on the power curve.
I suppose it depends on what it means to be "similar to 4e." In my mind it means that the casters and non-casters will have to have similar, if not identical, mechanics, just as they do in 4e. Otherwise the sheer difference in mechanics alone will compel people to say one or the other is "unbalanced."
And this is an impossible goal because, as I said, people will view the difference in mechanics ALONE to be all the ammunition they need to call one class or another "unbalanced."
That's WHY 4e uses the same mechanic for every class. Because that's the only way after THREE YEARS of game research that Wizards game designers were able to agree that classes were (mostly) balanced.
Your approach is like trying to solve world peace. Sure, all we have to do is to get everyone to agree to one approach to world government and PRESTO! problem solved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I actually like the fact that PF is not "balanced." Game balance is a highly overrated concept imho. I don't play Pathfinder so that any dude swinging a stick can be just as powerful as a wizard who has mastered the arcane secrets of the universe.
It is integral to the concept in my own head of a magical fantasy world that magic is what makes it different, compelling and dangerous. Magic SHOULD be more powerful than pounding things with a stick.
In 4e they "solved" the "problem" of balance by essentially making everyone a spellcaster. (My 4e ranger retrained a daily power and instantly gained the ability to create portals that could teleport his allies on the battlefield. You tell me how that's not a spell.)
Game balance doesn't greatly interest me. Game fun does. I don't have to be playing the most powerful member of the party to have fun. It doesn't ruin my day for my character to not be equal in power to every other party member. Sometimes I play a wizard, sometimes I play a rogue. I enjoy both without having any desperate need for the rogue to be equal in power to the wizard. The rogue just has to be fun to play. That's all.
Rangers are casters. Have been since first edition.
Rangers are martial characters with limited spell casting ability which is intentionally far less than a "full caster".
Have been since first edition.
In 4e ranger "spells" are every bit the equal of wizard "spells."
If you want to get technical, I could have used fighter instead of ranger as an example of 4e "balance."
|
|
That sure is a random thought. Almost as if you had never bothered to read up on why people think there's a disparity between martial classes and spell casters.
Actually you aren't wrong, I haven't really paid much attention to them in the past and obviously I was way off on what the problem was. Sorry.
This was a middle of the work day idea to try and fix what I mistakenly thought was the problem. Serves me right for trying to share my idle musings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't ruin my day for my character to not be equal in power to every other party member.
That's awesome, but it's not true of everyone. I actually dislike spellcasting in D&D and always have. I don't even love the aesthetics. When I play 4e, I'm all about the Warlord just about every Defender.
In any edition of D&D before 4e? I play a caster because I feel as though I have to. I don't feel like I have a choice unless casters are banned or something. They're too powerful. It's like someone saying, "I will give you either $20 or $10. Your choice."
Yes, of course, $10 for nothing is awesome. I could be very happy with $10 and have fun with it. Except, as soon as I realize I could have had $20 instead, well, $10 feels like crap.
So, yeah, it's awesome that you don't care about balance at all, it really is. And I'm not saying I'm some kind of balance-nazi who needs every feature to be exactly equal. But I need to be close, like, at all. 4e is a good example--for a long time, Rangers were flat out better damage dealers than any other class (they still might be, but I've not read 4e stuff in a while). But they weren't so over the top better that the other Strikers weren't worth playing.
It was a question of (arbitrarily) 100 dpr vs. 95 dpr, not 100 dpr vs. bypassing the encounter using phenomenal cosmic power.
Sometimes I play a wizard, sometimes I play a rogue. I enjoy both without having any desperate need for the rogue to be equal in power to the wizard. The rogue just has to be fun to play. That's all.
If they were close at all, I'd agree, or I'd like to think I would. But the gap is so wide that the Rogue can't even see the other side of it. The Wizard, obviously can, via at least 50 different spells. Plus, he used a spell to create the gap in the first place. Oh, and you probably don't mind because the Wizard charmed you. ;)
It doesn't ruin my day for my character to not be equal in power to every other party member.That's awesome, but it's not true of everyone. I actually dislike spellcasting in D&D and always have. I don't even love the aesthetics. When I play 4e, I'm all about the Warlord just about every Defender.
In any edition of D&D before 4e? I play a caster because I feel as though I have to. I don't feel like I have a choice unless casters are banned or something. They're too powerful. It's like someone saying, "I will give you either $20 or $10. Your choice."
Yes, of course, $10 for nothing is awesome. I could be very happy with $10 and have fun with it. Except, as soon as I realize I could have had $20 instead, well, $10 feels like crap.
So, yeah, it's awesome that you don't care about balance at all, it really is. And I'm not saying I'm some kind of balance-nazi who needs every feature to be exactly equal. But I need to be close, like, at all. 4e is a good example--for a long time, Rangers were flat out better damage dealers than any other class (they still might be, but I've not read 4e stuff in a while). But they weren't so over the top better that the other Strikers weren't worth playing.
It was a question of (arbitrarily) 100 dpr vs. 95 dpr, not 100 dpr vs. bypassing the encounter using phenomenal cosmic power.
Sometimes I play a wizard, sometimes I play a rogue. I enjoy both without having any desperate need for the rogue to be equal in power to the wizard. The rogue just has to be fun to play. That's all.If they were close at all, I'd agree, or I'd like to think I would. But the gap is so wide that the Rogue can't even see the other side of it. The Wizard, obviously can, via at least 50 different spells. Plus, he used a spell to create the gap in the first place. Oh, and you probably don't mind because the Wizard charmed you. ;)
I can intellectually understand the concept that some people have a need to feel like their character is totally equal to any other character in the party.
I just don't. For two reasons.
First, as I said above, the whole concept I have of a magical fantasy universe is all about the magic.
But just as important to me is that I don't play the game to "win" D&D. I play the game to experience a collaborative, interesting and entertaining story. No matter how powerful my character is, I'm going to get most of my enjoyment out of role playing that character. Sometimes it is more fun to role play the party runt. Sometimes it's just more fun to be in a particular role (that's partly why I like playing sneaky skill-monkeys).
But then again, I don't play at epic levels because after about level 14 or so, the game just starts to get insane in too many ways. I'm currently playing a level 18 4e character and that character and that world still feels much the same as it did at level 8. In PF and 3.5 that's not been the case. Once you get into double digits the game starts to diverge dramatically from the lower level dynamic.
Some people probably like that more than they like the low level stuff, but again, for me, super powerful demigods aren't what I view as magical fantasy realms anyway. If I want to play superheroes, heck, there's actually a GAME for that.
For me the game works best from levels 1 - 12 or so. It always has. At those levels a rogue can contribute a lot just by allowing casters to conserve spells.
Pathfinder at levels 1 - 12 or so is just about the ideal "Goldilocks Zone" for fantasy role playing for me. And at those levels I've been able to contribute no matter what class I play.
But just as important to me is that I don't play the game to "win" D&D. I play the game to experience a collaborative, interesting and entertaining story. No matter how powerful my character is, I'm going to get most of my enjoyment out of role playing that character. Sometimes it is more fun to role play the party runt. Sometimes it's just more fun to be in a particular role (that's partly why I like playing sneaky skill-monkeys).
If the game allowed for Rogues to be equal in power, you could still choose to be "the party runt." Nothing stops you from choosing to be weaker than your potential for a roleplaying reason
The difference, though, would be that if Rogues were balanced, you could pick between two choices:
1) Rogue that is weaker than the other party members
or
2) Rogue that isn't weaker than the other party members
As it stands now, there's no choice--if you want to be a Rogue, you can only pick #1.
I just want to get across that it's not necessarily about needing to win--it's about having the possibility of winning if you wanted. If you play a Wizard, you can be all-powerful and amazing, or you can play down to the power level of the party and make sub-optimal choices. As a Rogue, you are just beholden to the Wizard's mercy--you need him to play down to your level, you are incapable of playing up to his.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A rogue contributing by allowing a caster to conserve spells is a net drag on the party unless he's saving the caster more spells than the caster has. At least fighters generally contribute DPR more efficiently than blasters at least until spell perfection becomes available.
A rogue unlocking a door so a wizard doesn't have to invest a second level spell slot on "knock" is a net drag on the party? A rogue sneaking down the corridor to investigate what is ahead so the wizard doesn't have to cast a divination spell is a net drag?
I must really be missing something here. This logic simply fails to compute in my head.
We will have to agree to disagree I suppose. I don't play the game the way you do, that's all. We seem to get a different type of enjoyment out of the game. I like the story and the role playing. I like solving the puzzles put in front of the party. If my rogue takes a back seat to the wizard in combat (while the wizard still has spells anyway) well, OK. My rogue will do plenty of fun stuff outside of combat, and will do what he can during combat.
I play Pathfinder because the fantasy experience is more important to me than party balance between characters. I get all the party balance I need in my 4e games anyway. I prefer the flavor of Pathfinder, even when I'm playing a less powerful character. That's all. I suspect there are quite a few players like me who prefer the PF world to the 4e world because it feels more like a fantasy world. Well, my assertion here is that feel comes in part from that lack of party balance between casters and non-casters. Trying to "fix" that is what results in 4e. I don't think it's a problem, and imho the "solution" is worse than the "problem."
For people who think wizards are "supposed" to be much more capable than mundane characters, you might be better off playing in a system in which that is pre-supposed: Ars Magica is a very good example. Or some kind of Harry Potter RPG.
In Pathfinder, on the other hand, we have "PC classes" and "levels" and "CR" that are supposed to indicate that a 10th level PC is equal to any other 10th level PC. If you don't want them equal, then use a 10th level wizard and a 5th level fighter and presto! They're not equal, and shouldn't be -- you've gotten exactly what you wanted!
But to call them both 10th level, at the same number of XP, and still have one of them be ten times better is fundamentally dishonest. Also, as noted above, it forces your playstyle on everyone else, so that anyone who wants to play a character like Conan or Fafhrd or Beowulf or Cu Cuhlainn -- a martial character who can be a hero, rather than a caddy, at higher levels -- is automatically "badwrongnofun." That's not cool.
The game can be built to allow everyone to play their thing, not secretly divide customers based on preferred playstyle and throw half of them under the bus, while pretending not to. And that does NOT "automatically lead to 4e" any more than baking a better cherry pie automatically leads to a souffle.
Finally, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Just because I don't have a flying car powered by Mr. Fusion doesn't mean that I should automatically take a sledgehammer to my Ford and walk to work from now on.
Actually, the article Monte Cook wrote about Ivory Game Design states pretty bluntly that this isn't true. Two PCs of equal level are not supposed to be equal in 3.0-3.5 and I believe Paizo follows that same philosophy of game design. There are sub-par options in this game by design.
For example, playing anything other than Wizard is a trap choice.
I have never read anything that made me as sad about a roleplaying game as this statement did. I really hope you're wrong or I've just lost a lot of love for D&D, Pathfinder, and Monte Cook.
Actually, the article Monte Cook wrote about Ivory Game Design states pretty bluntly that this isn't true. Two PCs of equal level are not supposed to be equal in 3.0-3.5 and I believe Paizo follows that same philosophy of game design. There are sub-par options in this game by design. For example, playing anything other than Wizard is a trap choice.
That's exactly the problem I've had with every edition of 3.X. Notice I said "the game CAN be built," not "the game IS built." I feel that what Monte et al. did is fundamentallty dishonest, and is an example of very poor game design. Which is why I don't play straight Pathfinder any more; I play S.H.I.T. (Superior Hybrid Interactive Tabletop game, which some wit dubbed "Kirthfinder"). It is, I hope, better balanced back towards mundane characters -- and yet is nothing at all like 4e. Frank and K did as well or better (but aiming for a much more tactically brutal game than mine), with their "Tome" stuff.
This kinda thing though will persist as long as spell casting is exponential in growth.
Take for example a fighter vs wizard going from Core book, to APG. The fighter you built stays exactly the same. Any changes you could do to him, (like new gear) a minimal at best. But the wizard gets a large collection of new spells he could buy up.
all these new archtypes and feats will never help a fighter already made. But a new spell is practically instantly available for a wizard or cleric.
The only way to develop and create balance is both by limiting down a spell caster and building on mundane classes with things they don't have to spend limited resources on. (like no new feats..)
As I have been saying, (and apparently confirmed by Monte Cook), PF is deliberately designed for spellcasters to be more powerful than mundane fighters.
That's because that's what many people, probably MOST people think of when they think of fantasy realms. Places where magic happens because magic is powerful, and powerful spellcasters rule the world.
I'm absolutely fine with that. It fits my concept of what a fantasy world IS. That's why I LIKE PF better than 4e.
For those of you who think "class balance" is some sort of game design holy grail... go on, 4e is waiting for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose part of the problem is that some people thing that magic should do everything and anything but that fighting should stay within human bounds for some reason.
Because when mundane fighting becomes vastly more powerful than any human being could actually accomplish, your fighter is by definition "supernaturally powered" which is merely a synonym for "magical." So your "fighter" with vast fighting powers is just as "magical" as a wizard is, the rest is just semantics.
Which is one of my main problems with 4e. EVERY character is a magic user. They just PRETEND that some aren't so they can maintain a disingenuous charade about "martial" vs "magical."
I suppose part of the problem is that some people thing that magic should do everything and anything but that fighting should stay within human bounds for some reason.Because when mundane fighting becomes vastly more powerful than any human being could actually accomplish, your fighter is by definition "supernaturally powered" which is merely a synonym for "magical." So your "fighter" with vast fighting powers is just as "magical" as a wizard is, the rest is just semantics.
Which is one of my main problems with 4e. EVERY character is a magic user. They just PRETEND that some aren't so they can maintain a disingenuous charade about "martial" vs "magical."
This is a fantasy universe if you can't manage to "pretend" you may want to rethink your choice of hobbies.
Besides if a wizard can be magical why not a fighter? Hell just about every tv show/anime/cartoon/whatever that includes a swordsman gives him some kind of super power either directly from his sword or in terms of pure supernatural ability, it really isn't that far outside of the norm for fantasy universes and that means that it isn't really a valid reason to make sure that melee characters are inherently worse than casters.
LOL, "rethink my hobbies..." Lord how many times have I rethought my hobbies over the years? Just when I think I'm free... BAM it pulls me right BACK! Sigh...
You sound like a perfect candidate for 4e. It pretty much does exactly what you describe here. I highly recommend it for you. It's a great game, it really is, it just lacks a certain.... "flavor".
And the flavor it lacks is the flavor Pathfinder maintains... so that's why I prefer PF. Funny, I seem to be the one who is experiencing PF as it was intended, yet you think I should be the one to rethink MY hobby. LOL.
... go on, 4e is waiting for you."Play E6" would probably be a better recommendation.
Perhaps so, I've never played E6. I should check into it.
Just a random thought I had that I was wondering if anyone else had tried implementing. Would bringing down the damage output of spells help bridge the gap between being a Wizard* versus a Fighter* ? It'd be better if there was some overall ruling that could be applied rather than have to apply adjustments on a 1 for 1 basis.
Maybe something like halving the rate of damage accrual? So spells like Fireball would only do 1d6 per 2 levels? Magic Missile would gain an extra missile at 4,9,13,&17? Etc. You could apply this to non-damage spells too, if needed.
Or if that's too much, what about downgrading the die one type? D4's for Fireballs, d3+1 for Magic Missile, etc.
Idk, just a thought.
*(or whatever)
I wonder why people think Fireball is such an OP spell. You're not the only one, my buddy who plays mostly fighter used to groan everytime i casted it.
Anyway fireball caps out at 10d6, sounds awesome right? Max of 60? Well you will never actually roll 10 sixes, you average damage is 30. Most monsters you fight at lvl 10 can take 3 of these before going down. Most mosters at that lvl can also make the reflex save about 1/2 the time so those lucky ones will take an average of 15. A 2-hand fighter at lvl 10 can take out one enemy in half the time and one dead enemy is mor useful to the party than 5 damaged ones.
I've read through 4e and I agree it lacks flavor in fact it really isn't even similar to the game which is why I don't play it but you've never addressed the fact that a game can be balanced without being 4e it can even do that while maintaining your well defined "flavor".
And really who cares how the game was intended? I personally think it would be better if the game had a bit more balance and given all the b%%&~ing about how worthless rogues are and whether or not anyone plays fighters on these forums I'm sure some other people agree.
Now nobody ever said to get rid of magic or to make casters useless or anything like that but would giving melee fighters their own niche really be so very terrible?
Yes, I did address the balance vs 4e thing. Twice. I said that WotC spent THREE YEARS trying to "balance" the game and the only way they could all agree it was balanced was to have all the classes have the same mechanic. That was point 1.
Point 2 is that in order to balance the game, WotC made EVERY CLASS a casting class, which is exactly what you've proposed.
My point is that SO FAR the only successful attempt to modify the game to balance the classes has ended up as 4e or something similar to 4e.
I have been playing versions of D&D for 30 years now, and all but 4e were "unbalanced." Believe it or not, the most common complaint about the earliest versions of D&D was that they were unfairly biased AGAINST magic users (that's what wizards were called then). Because a first level wizard could cast a SINGLE first level spell, and had at most FOUR hit points. For many "wizards" (including the first character I ever rolled up) a magic user could die from a RAT BITE. Seriously. So the first several levels of the game was a desperate effort to keep the magic user alive. The reward for making it to level 7 was that your wizard was now awesome. That's how the game was designed. Deliberately. Back then very few players started a character at any level but level 1 unless they were replacing a killed character in an active campaign.
It's never been balanced. It was never intended to be balanced. Balance is, as I have said, highly overrated. The game was not originally designed so that every character in the party could equal every other player. It was designed to provide escapist role playing in a magical fantasy environment. And it did that well enough that it spawned an entire industry.
I have never understood the cries for fighters to be as powerful as wizards. Wizards should rule. That's how I see the fantasy world that I play in.
But that doesn't mean I can't contribute to the party as a rogue, a fighter, a ranger or any other class.
For a long, long time my favorite character type to play was the rogue. I just liked the feel of the rogue. I didn't care if he couldn't equal the wizard, because I wasn't playing a wizard. I played plenty of wizards so I got plenty of time to be the uber-awesome dude of the party. You know, that can get tiresome too. In fact I eventually came to appreciate playing less powerful characters who over-achieved. I took it as a challenge.
There are game systems that strive for character balance. I say again, 4e is calling out for you.
By the way, if I were to design my own fantasy game system, it would be entirely skill based, not class based. I hate classes. I want to be able to create a character based on what he can DO not based on some box he was forced into when he was created. But most of my gamer friends play PF, 3.5 or 4e, so I'm sorta stuck with classes.
But I still have a grand old time playing my characters, whether they be witch, rogue, fighter, druid or ranger (my current set of active characters). I like them all. None of them feel "unbalanced" to me and I believe each of them adds as much to the GAME EXPERIENCE as any other character, regardless of their "power." It's not, and for me never has been, all about power. For me it's about role playing, telling a story and having fun. And of the fantasy roleplaying game systems I can find groups to play with, PF does that better than any other.
FOR ME.
That's all.
I have never understood the cries for fighters to be as powerful as wizards. Wizards should rule. That's how I see the fantasy world that I play in.
I think the disconnect here is that, while I have no issue with magic trumping mundane, I do have an issue with one PC trumping another.
Magic can still win out if the PCs are either A) not given the ability to use it or B) all given the ability equally.
It's the same problem people run into with Star Wars rpgs. People in the "Jedi need to be better than non-Jedi" clash with the "PCs should be balanced" crowd, and nobody sees the extremely obvious and easy solution:
Stop mixing power levels in one party.
For example, I've run various version of D&D for almost 20 years, and for almost 20 years, in all but one game I ran, I've banned PC spellcasters and included less than a dozen, total, non-MacGuffin magic items.
The villains still had spellcasting, when appropriate, but the PCs did not. And they were all equal because of it. Oh, and that one game I ran that was an exception: it had only casters, and that worked, too.
Similarly, I've run Star Wars games with all Jedi or no Jedi--however, I will not run games with a mix, because it's not even close to fair.
So, here's the issue I have: rewarding someone for system mastery is kind of a ridiculous and pointless concept in the age of the internet. The first guy that gains system mastery that posts his mastery online flips the design-goal on its head.
Instead of rewarding your awesomeness because the average gamer doesn't know the things you know, suddenly, the game is punishing your ignorance, because the average gamer does know the secrets because they read it online, in a forum like this one.
So, that's an outdated concept and it just comes across as dishonest now, as someone said before (though I don't believe it was intentionally dishonest). If Wizards are designed to be better than Fighters, it should be flat out stated and the GMs guide should have sections dedicated to how much better they are, how to make a game work when one PC is obviously stronger than the rest of them, and most importantly, why it's ok to restrict choices (all casters, no casters, only 3/4 casters, etc.) at character creation to ensure balance.
It doesn't take much.
But ok, I got to rambling. The ultimate point is that there can be a disparity in the world between magic and mundane without there being a disparity in PC power levels.
By the way, if I were to design my own fantasy game system, it would be entirely skill based, not class based. I hate classes. I want to be able to create a character based on what he can DO not based on some box he was forced into when he was created. But most of my gamer friends play PF, 3.5 or 4e, so I'm sorta stuck with classes.
Try Savage Worlds! Seriously, not only do I consider it my favorite (and the best) rpg ever, it's also probably the best sort of game to transition to after D&D.
Stop mixing power levels in one party.
I've got no issue if you want to run the game this way. If the players would be upset for some characters to be more powerful than others, then by all means enforce whatever balance mandate you feel necessary.
I'm just lucky I guess that my gamer groups so far have not had an issue with casters being more powerful than non-casters. It's just part of the game. I suppose if people started complaining we'd do something similar.
One thing we do as a group, and have even as the group has added and lost players over the years, is to allow new players to pick their choice of class first, and they tend to always pick casters. So they get to play an "overpowered" character in a group of more experienced and knowledgeable players who play less powerful characters. This in itself sort of balances out the result. Over time as that player gets more comfortable with the game, because their first experience with the group was to be the "big gun" or whatever you want to call it, they are more than happy to give the next newbie that same opportunity when we add a player, or just rotate that "honor" (or "responsibility" depending on how you view it) to the next player who wants it.
In general I play supporting characters because I'm one of the longest-playing members of the group and I have no problem playing a non-caster and letting someone else have all they glory. I just want the group to have fun.
*checks Adamantine Dragon's username*
Oh. That explains it.
LOL... I wasn't able to use the same old name on some new boards, so I decided to consolidate my board appearances under a name I could get in multiple sites.