Brilliant Gameologists Forum
Play Like You Have To! => D&D Deliberations => : Necrosnoop110 September 28, 2011, 03:05:44 PM
-
Speaking generally I would think it would require three mains things:
(1) Ways to be as strong offensively and defensively as the casters without actually becoming casters
(2) Ways to do their own jobs in their own domains better than any caster
(3) Ways to do things either as interestingly or with as much utility as casters
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Necro
-
I think this very concept was just deliberated in the thread you first posted in. :p
What would non-casters need to hold their own vs. equal CR creatures? (http://'http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13107.60')
A point was made about proper magic item optimization, primarily people forget that Fighters and the like are meant to have magic items at higher levels, and most people try to compare them to casters with out taking that into consideration.
On the other side of coin strong arguments were made with the opinion that melee classes would benefit from having more/better optimized/strengthened special abilities on top of what they already get (including extra feats). Within that same deliberation was a reference to Races of War (Frank and K) (http://'http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Races_of_War_(3.5e_Sourcebook)') which I've been looking over, and agree are pretty decent boosts to melee classes. Especially Fighters. It treats them a bit more like the extraordinary characters (read heroes) that they're suppose to be... especially at higher, near epic, levels.
-
A point was made about proper magic item optimization, primarily people forget that Fighters and the like are meant to have magic items at higher levels, and most people try to compare them to casters with out taking that into consideration.
The problem with this line of thought is that casters get just as much wealth, and they aren't forced to spend that wealth on anything in particular (see: multiple weapons; armor; shields; mounts; mobility items; various offensive, defensive, and utility items). All a caster really needs is to boost his Con and primary casting stat and he can use his spells to do any- and everything else. Even wizards don't NEED to buy more spells to throw into their spellbooks; they could easily make do with the 2/lvl they get, or they can use any of various means at their disposal to get more if they want.
If fighters got wealth and casters didn't (or if they got six times as much wealth in magic items), this would be fine. But they don't. And worse, casters can stretch their wealth to a ludicrous extent. Fighter-types generally can't.
-
Here's a brief list of what casters can do that's special (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm). Maneuvers and stances can't, and probably shouldn't, try to mimic anywhere near all that.
-
What would happen if you eliminated the two free spells per level wizards and archivists get and remoevd or severely nerfed the cleric's self buffing spells? This would be in addition to granting access to things like ToB. How much would that change right off the bat?
-
What would happen if you eliminated the two free spells per level wizards and archivists get and remoevd or severely nerfed the cleric's self buffing spells? This would be in addition to granting access to things like ToB. How much would that change right off the bat?
With wizards, it depends on how much wealth they have access to, really, as well as enemy mages. Regular WBL means a wizard just has to have access to the right spells and he can have all the spells he likes. And it'd be more likely that he'd go enemy-wizard-hunting to scavenge their spellbooks.
-
And casters who can't cast spells at the levels when the game expects them complicates the game and tends to frustrate players. As a Wizard, I want to be able to use all of my spell levels. This isn't Second Edition anymore.
-
A point was made about proper magic item optimization, primarily people forget that Fighters and the like are meant to have magic items at higher levels, and most people try to compare them to casters with out taking that into consideration.
Thats what you got from all of that? :banghead
No one forgets that, we all know that, its just that it doensn't make them equal. Getting an "artifact" sword (figuratively speaking) doesn't make a Monk = to a mage. Unless that thing gets mage casting on its own.
And even if it does get mage casting, the mage can buy/aquire one as well.
Giving them magic item gift cards doesn't make that mechanics more viable. Thats why people like frank and k, that and well the awesome explanations of the fluff.
-
A point was made about proper magic item optimization, primarily people forget that Fighters and the like are meant to have magic items at higher levels, and most people try to compare them to casters with out taking that into consideration.
Thats what you got from all of that? :banghead
No one forgets that, we all know that, its just that it doensn't make them equal. Getting an "artifact" sword (figuratively speaking) doesn't make a Monk = to a mage. Unless that thing gets mage casting on its own.
And even if it does get mage casting, the mage can buy/aquire one as well.
Giving them magic item gift cards doesn't make that mechanics more viable. Thats why people like frank and k, that and well the awesome explanations of the fluff.
That's not all I took away from that, but some rather decent points were made about melee not being as feeble and helpless as they're often made out to be. But the melee vs caster issue plagues virtually every system. Melee will always be much more gear dependent when compared to magic users of just about any flavor. Hell, look at World of Warcraft and their warriors versus.... just about any other half caster or full caster. Or even Mass Effect, Dragon Age or even Star Wars. Any melee brute needs the right equipment for the right situation, most casters will have most of what they need on hand already, and equipment is just icing on the cake. xD
SRs, DRs, and Anti-Magic field as a (su) could help, but then you start getting into the 'anime' fight, I'd think.
...I may have derailed my own comment. Sorry. >_>
-
Here's a brief list of what casters can do that's special (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm). Maneuvers and stances can't, and probably shouldn't, try to mimic anywhere near all that.
What are you saying, then? If we want them to be equal, you can do one of three things:
1) Strengthen non-casters
2) Weaken casters
3) Both
I think you can close the gap a long way with "mundane" options by having them mimic a lot of what spells can do. It just requires a certain amount of WSoD. So, at a certain level, your rogue can move so fast as to gain Greater Invisibility for a round. In addition, certain non-magical classes need to become magical as they gain levels. So, eventually, barbarians start getting spirit totems or whatever, that let them do stuff like fly, summon spirits, and gain mystical protections.
Basically, figure out what you want PCs to do at certain levels, and make sure everyone can do that. A good place to start is the Monster Manual. Any class should be able to win a one-on-one encounter against any (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#iceDevilGelugon) of (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#glabrezu) these (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#greenDragon) monsters about 50% of the time, and you need to assume the monsters are using their SLAs to their advantage. You need to assume these fights could be happening on any plane.
-
2 is definitely necessary, theres only so much strengthening you can do to a mundane without fundamentally altering them so they don't behave the same anymore(look to many of the Tome rewrites, they're mechanically good, but most regular players would deny they share much more than the name of the class.
And really, a party of effective T4s is already going to handily deal with pretty much all the situations, but as a team. Aiming for that is much more feasible than the T3 goal often set.
-
What Would It Take For Non-Casters To Be On Par With Casters?
Spells.
-
...
2) Weaken casters
...
I've been thinking about this a bunch the past few days. Some spells could be seriously tweaked down by making them either more ritualistic in nature, longer casting times, concentration to maintain, longer periods of time before the spell takes effect... etc. Basically making useless for spur of the moment combat casting.
As for some others... minor, lesser, and greater versions might help, being accessed at higher spell levels. Or just change how they scale.
Alternatively, start giving Spell Resistances to melee heavy roles. Or create melee specific feats with a level requirement doing the same thing, instead of a granted class feature.
-
Spell Resistance isn't much of a help. You have to get numbers so big that most developers and DMs would shit their pants at the sight to matter at all, what with True Casting, Assay Spell Resistance, and the numerous ways to just boost your caster level for real. Then it doesn't even help against instantaneous conjurations, and indirect spell attacks like telekinetic thrust with poisoned ballista bolts.
Maybe if you started with SR 15 + class level (class levels stack for all classes that grant it), with feats available to boost it further, and starting around level 10 you started projecting an antimagic field as an Ex effect that doesn't affect you or your gear, and reaches 5' per class level (again, stacking, and again with feats to make it better).
-
I have been toying around in my head a possible limitation on Wizards. Its not going to be a fix (as you would need to change the spells themselves to really fix spellcasters I think) but at the very least its a limitaiton.
Work maximum spell level know kind of like the rangers favoured enemy, for example: Wizards start out with a specalist school as per normal and 2 other schools of magic that they can cast a maximum spell level of 0 (cantrips) from. Every odd level their specalist school maximum spell level increases by one (as per the standard Wizard spell progression) and 2 schools of their choice have their maximum spell level increase by 1. At 5th, 10th, 15 and 20th they can add a new school to cast cantrips from, which can then be increased as previously stated. These extra schools would be a new class feature so would not be gained by classes that increase caster levels.
-
Spell Resistance isn't much of a help. You have to get numbers so big that most developers and DMs would shit their pants at the sight to matter at all, what with True Casting, Assay Spell Resistance, and the numerous ways to just boost your caster level for real. Then it doesn't even help against instantaneous conjurations, and indirect spell attacks like telekinetic thrust with poisoned ballista bolts.
Maybe if you started with SR 15 + class level (class levels stack for all classes that grant it), with feats available to boost it further, and starting around level 10 you started projecting an antimagic field as an Ex effect that doesn't affect you or your gear, and reaches 5' per class level (again, stacking, and again with feats to make it better).
Still doesn't do it.
That works only by dint of fucking over casters, so in an arena match of some sort you might come out on top. You aren't dealing with the functionality issues that way.
-
Spell Resistance isn't much of a help. You have to get numbers so big that most developers and DMs would shit their pants at the sight to matter at all, what with True Casting, Assay Spell Resistance, and the numerous ways to just boost your caster level for real. Then it doesn't even help against instantaneous conjurations, and indirect spell attacks like telekinetic thrust with poisoned ballista bolts.
Maybe if you started with SR 15 + class level (class levels stack for all classes that grant it), with feats available to boost it further, and starting around level 10 you started projecting an antimagic field as an Ex effect that doesn't affect you or your gear, and reaches 5' per class level (again, stacking, and again with feats to make it better).
AMF or Antimagic Shield as a free action that last x/rounds per encounter per level?
-
I did actually homebrew something along these lines once in an attempt to boost the sohei (Sort of Monk/Paladin/Barbarian) to tier 2. Not entirely sure if I succeeded but it basically involved a lot of spell like abilities at relevant levels.
It does have spells but with a worse list than a paladin so... yea...
if you want to read it its here:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8388.0
-
...
2) Weaken casters
...
I've been thinking about this a bunch the past few days. Some spells could be seriously tweaked down by making them either more ritualistic in nature, longer casting times, concentration to maintain, longer periods of time before the spell takes effect... etc. Basically making useless for spur of the moment combat casting.
I've been working on some 3.5 house rules lately, and switching how spells work is part of it. Admittedly, it's a very quick and crude patch, but it might help a bit. It was more of an effort to make different types of spells be on par with each other. Basically, it goes like this (I go into a bit more detail in the actual rules):
Save or Die:
Increase casting time to an entire round (not a full-round action), similar to Sleep and the Summon Monster spells. The advantage is it gives people time to react, and the caster has to consider if it's worth trying to cast. Also, I like the cinematic concept of the caster ominously chanting while everyone either runs for cover or desperately tries to get past the fighter and stop him.
Save or Lose:
These are categorized as spells that deal a laundry list of conditions (such as blinded, stunnded, and nauseated), spells that lower your movement to half or less, and spells that completely trivialize your actions (like Baleful Polymorph). These are cast as full-round actions. You can still fire them off in one round, but you can't also move. Makes it a little harder to set up Color Spray at low levels.
Direct Damage:
These get boosts to damage based on the spell level and an additional rider effect based on the damage type (catch on fire for [fire], Str-based penalties for [cold], Dex-based penalties for [electric], etc).
Again, this doesn't even come close to bridging the gap between casters and non-casters, but I'm curious to see how it works in practice. I think a full approach would sadly include re-writing most of the spells from scratch.
-
I don't know if the spell system needs an overhaul. Again, I don't think there's a huge issue, but that's also b/c I am willing and able to engage in serious optimization to make my non-casters work out.
Brief suggestions:
- Remove some of the most broken spells. That is, the "I win" buttons. These are things like Celerity (with daze mitigation, it's probably ok otherwise unless they get wands of it or something), nerfing Polymorph, etc. The obvious stuff. I'd be happy to do the same for non-casters, too, but generally 1000+ hood-style battle jumpers are frowned upon in my gaming groups.
- Restrict casters thematically. I'd be happy if they all got turned into something in the middle ground between a Dread Necromancer and a Sorcerer. Sorcs agonize too much about their particular spell choices (annoying), but there aren't enough Dread Necro type classes to go around. But, something along those lines, that way 1 spellcaster can't be all things to all situations.
- Work in some of the things that non-casters need into their classes or into feats. For example, maybe beef up Iron Will, et al. into mini-Iron Heart Surge type effects. Stuff like that. That way they don't have to rely on items or on super-good optimization as much. These might include ways of "countering" spells or supernatural effects, viz. Tome's Foil, which would help along the lines of what RobbyPants is discussing.
- I like the idea of scaling feats. I don't love the way they're implemented in the Tome, as they still lose a bit of the mix and match flavor I like for feats. But, the idea is sound.
- Make things like combat maneuvers more viable without committing an entire build to them. That is, given interesting, dynamic combat abilities. TOB and things like Stunning Surge weapons are decent models.
I think much of this can be done in the current system, but it's a headache. So, making it less of a headache so that people can both access it more readily and also do more things with their resources would be great, especially once you've restricted spellcasters a bit.
-
- Restrict casters thematically. I'd be happy if they all got turned into something in the middle ground between a Dread Necromancer and a Sorcerer. Sorcs agonize too much about their particular spell choices (annoying), but there aren't enough Dread Necro type classes to go around. But, something along those lines, that way 1 spellcaster can't be all things to all situations.
Along this idea, how about making the dread necro list contain every necromancy spell? Of course when you work on others you would have to be careful with Transmuters and Conjurers, possibly by splitting the schools down some more and having a summoner and a creator rather than conjurer.
-
- Restrict casters thematically. I'd be happy if they all got turned into something in the middle ground between a Dread Necromancer and a Sorcerer. Sorcs agonize too much about their particular spell choices (annoying), but there aren't enough Dread Necro type classes to go around. But, something along those lines, that way 1 spellcaster can't be all things to all situations.
Along this idea, how about making the dread necro list contain every necromancy spell? Of course when you work on others you would have to be careful with Transmuters and Conjurers, possibly by splitting the schools down some more and having a summoner and a creator rather than conjurer.
I'll admit that I don't love the way the schools are broken down. Honestly, if I were GMing and someone could credibly pitch to me how a spell fits the Dread Necro's idiom (and especially their DN's idiom), I'd let it fly. But, I am perhaps more hand waivey than some others when it comes to these things.
But, yeah, stuff along these lines.
-
Along this idea, how about making the dread necro list contain every necromancy spell?
No. What makes the dread necro and pals relatively balanced it's precisely that they automatically don't know dozens of spels per level.
If you want some obscure super necromancy spell, that's for what you have advanced learning.
-
Along this idea, how about making the dread necro list contain every necromancy spell?
No. What makes the dread necro and pals relatively balanced it's precisely that they automatically don't know dozens of spels per level.
If you want some obscure super necromancy spell, that's for what you have advanced learning.
Thing is, after a point you run out of different necromancy effects... sure you may have 5 or 6 different spells that inflict a particular ailment but thats not really any better than having one that does it.
-
Thing is, after a point you run out of different necromancy effects... sure you may have 5 or 6 different spells that inflict a particular ailment but thats not really any better than having one that does it.
For one, it encourages the dread necromancer to bring a pile of books to the table and spend extra time looking for that specific necromancy spell that's more apropriate to the specific situation every round, slugging down the game for everybody else.
For other, here and there on splatbooks there's obscure necromancy spells that allow things normally not associated with necromancy (like dominating the living, which should be an enchanter's stick).
So by allowing full spontaneous acess to necromancy, you're vastly increasing the dread necromancer's power by giving it effects it would normally have acess to, while slugging down the game for everybody else. Two wrongs definetely don't make a good in this case.
If you really want to encourage splatbook diving like there's no tomorrow, at least limit it to dread necromancer swaping spells from his known list every level up, so at least the total number of spells known remains stable and it's easier for the DM to make sure he doesn't try to sneak in some borked necromancy spell from some obscure splatbook or something like that. It works for the sorcerer.
-
- Restrict casters thematically. I'd be happy if they all got turned into something in the middle ground between a Dread Necromancer and a Sorcerer. Sorcs agonize too much about their particular spell choices (annoying), but there aren't enough Dread Necro type classes to go around. But, something along those lines, that way 1 spellcaster can't be all things to all situations.
I've liked this idea for a while. A big help would be to create three or four more similar classes, pay close attention to their spell list, and quick patch any bad spells. This is probably the easiest way I can think of to bring casters down in that they lose some of their flexibility, and it's a lot easier to watch for broken combos.
Along this idea, how about making the dread necro list contain every necromancy spell?
No. What makes the dread necro and pals relatively balanced it's precisely that they automatically don't know dozens of spels per level.
If you want some obscure super necromancy spell, that's for what you have advanced learning.
I agree that this would kill most of the point of forcing specialization. Careful monitoring of spell lists is what makes those classes work better. IMO, Advanced Learning is still a problem. It could be fixed by providing a list of axillary spells, so that no broken ones get taken. Any others can be taken at the DM's discretion, but that gets risky.
-
It works for the sorcerer.
No, it really doesn't...
-
I don't know if the spell system needs an overhaul. Again, I don't think there's a huge issue, but that's also b/c I am willing and able to engage in serious optimization to make my non-casters work out.
One thing is the resource mechanic to begin with really. With how spell slots work, each level adds a new array of options, but the earlier slots are all still there, and for the best spells, they do not grow significantly obsolete. Using your newer spells do not hinder your ability to pull an early nuke out of your pocket, nor does using the low level spells in bulk do anything about your general energy.
Either you do what they were trying ham handedly with the spell CL caps, or you can merge and streamline the magic mechanic.
-
One thing I've been thinking about with Clerics is turning them into a Vanican Ardent.
Basically, remove their access to any Divine spell that isn't a part of a Domain, and then let them choose an additional domain every few levels. Then redesign the domains so they don't suck as much, but aren't capable of ruining the campaign.
-
Basically, remove their access to any Divine spell that isn't a part of a Domain, and then let them choose an additional domain every few levels. Then redesign the domains so they don't suck as much, but aren't capable of ruining the campaign.
I've seen at least two other homebrew projects that run on that basic idea, and I personally quite like it (even used it to one of my monster classes). It makes sense and it's easy to implement.
Actualy, anything that removes automatic acess to an ever-growing list of abilities is a good idea. It's what the most borked spells (polymorph-type, calling-type) have in common. They allow you to cherry pick from a massive list that just gets bigger with every new source of material.
-
The domains-as-cleric-spell-lists idea is a good one; 2e's spheres basically worked the same way, and it did a good job of differentiating divine casters.
For arcane casters, maybe you could take a page out of the ToB and give spells prerequisites. The point has been made before that maneuvers and feats require a bunch of prereqs while a non-evoker can pick up meteor swarm despite never having cast a fire spell before, so why not change that? Spells would require a certain number of other spells of the same type/theme/descriptor based on their level and potency, so fireball might require 1 other [Fire] spell or 2 other Evocations, for instance, while finger of death might require X [Death] spells of level A or higher plus Y other Necromancy of level B or higher or the like. The main complaint about ToB prereqs is that they make building higher-level adepts more complex, but that's mostly from the IL mechanic, I think; it shouldn't add too much complexity to a wizard.
-
I kinda wanted to replicate MtG's Splice onto Arcane mechanic for Arcane casters, but that idea is absurdly complex and potentially unbalanced, especially when given to the Big 6.
I may just make a different subsystem for that idea.
-
IMO, Advanced Learning is still a problem. It could be fixed by providing a list of axillary spells, so that no broken ones get taken. Any others can be taken at the DM's discretion, but that gets risky.
In response to that, way I'm seeing it, advanced learning ain't the problem at all. The problem is that there is a "broken spell" at all, so... what spell's are you so afraid of the dread necro getting his hands on in that case?
-
The domains-as-cleric-spell-lists idea is a good one; 2e's spheres basically worked the same way, and it did a good job of differentiating divine casters.
For arcane casters, maybe you could take a page out of the ToB and give spells prerequisites. The point has been made before that maneuvers and feats require a bunch of prereqs while a non-evoker can pick up meteor swarm despite never having cast a fire spell before, so why not change that? Spells would require a certain number of other spells of the same type/theme/descriptor based on their level and potency, so fireball might require 1 other [Fire] spell or 2 other Evocations, for instance, while finger of death might require X [Death] spells of level A or higher plus Y other Necromancy of level B or higher or the like. The main complaint about ToB prereqs is that they make building higher-level adepts more complex, but that's mostly from the IL mechanic, I think; it shouldn't add too much complexity to a wizard.
Is there a write up about just converting spells into a more psionic-style system? Spell slots to points. Higher level spells require more points to cast...
Anyway, aside from that I was mulling over spells today, and considered making a table for spell potency, and having various levels of potency. Good, Average, Poor... sort of like the BAB table, with values for damage/saves/etc (numbers of forms you can polymorph to?). Wizards would have to pick a favored school... spells from that school would progress along the Average column, with the exception of hand-picked favored spells (possibly even outside of the favored school)... which would all progress along the Good column. Considering those are spells represented as being something the Wizard uses more often, and therefore has a better understanding, and control over. All spells outside of the favored school (or schools?) would progress as poor. Due to the wizard either not using them often, or just not understand that side of the Arcane quite as well.
For spells known, my players have started printing, or writing lists of spells they're likely to use with all the relevant information needed... speeds things up a bit.
I know that's not necessarily a simple change, but thought it may be an interesting twist, and could potentially limit spell lists a bit more.
-
I don't know if the spell system needs an overhaul. Again, I don't think there's a huge issue, but that's also b/c I am willing and able to engage in serious optimization to make my non-casters work out.
One thing is the resource mechanic to begin with really. With how spell slots work, each level adds a new array of options, but the earlier slots are all still there, and for the best spells, they do not grow significantly obsolete. Using your newer spells do not hinder your ability to pull an early nuke out of your pocket, nor does using the low level spells in bulk do anything about your general energy.
Either you do what they were trying ham handedly with the spell CL caps, or you can merge and streamline the magic mechanic.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. My point was that I can build non-spellcasting characters that can readily compete with pretty heavily optimized spellcasting ones. I'm not saying it's easy or it isn't a lot of work, it just so happens that I (and really I mean to include everyone in the 3 groups I regularly play with) are used to doing that anyway. So, the game balance concern isn't as dire to me, in effect, as they are by just reading the rules. That's due to some combination of gentleman's agreement and optimization.
That being said, lower level spells should become less effective as you go up in levels. Generally, a 1st level spell is "supposed to" be a less impressive use of your limited combat actions than a 5th level spell. That's not to say you won't find reasons to cast your 1st level ones -- sometimes that's the effect you're really looking for and the closest thing you have memorized is a low level spell. Or, sometimes the extra oomph from the higher level just isn't worth it: a lot of higher level spells do the same damage as lower level ones, but to multiple targets, and if there aren't those targets handy then you'll opt for the lower level spell.
Now, I said "supposed to" b/c naturally there are some spells that are just really good regardless. I think these might be overstated. Grease is probably a great example, but even then it does get less useful: at higher levels more opponents can fly or teleport or just have high enough Dex scores to make the Balance check untrained. Solid Fog might be another good example along these lines -- it doesn't lose much effectiveness as the game wears on. Although it's also a reasonably high level spell (4th), so I'm less discomfited by it.
That being said, to the extent that a spell doesn't lose much in the way of effectiveness as the game progresses, that might be an indication that it is "broken," and should probably be changed or excised (in this I am again in agreement with Midnight_v's post a few ones up).
One final thing directly addressing the question: you need multiple encounters before "resting." Without a lot of encounters, spellcasters don't have to manage their resources, and the "I can do this all day" guys are just left in the dust b/c the spellcasters can use their most powerful options all the time. It would take some work to rebalance things if you essentially get rid of the resource issues for spellcasters. And, don't jump on me and tell me that a 12th level Wizard will never ever run out of spells. That's largely true, the question is how many of his 5th and 6th level spells he has to sling for every encounter.
-
My point was that I can build non-spellcasting characters that can readily compete with pretty heavily optimized spellcasting ones.
I'm more concerned with the Story-breaking abilities than I am with combat efficacy. Noncasters can't compete with Resurrection, Wish, Genesis, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc. I'm fine with spellcasters being able to lockdown encounters (and I encourage similar optimization from my noncasters), but I dislike it when a reasonably thought-out storyline gets ended prematurely because of a minor oversight in character creation on my part. Being able to go Tippyverse is fine in moderation, but stuff like Dominating an entire plane is outright wrong.
That's the first thing I would fix.
-
^ I can't really argue with this. In fact, I have been doing it for a long time at this point -- Teleport is usually the only one that is up in the air in my games. The other ones get moderated, e.g., we confine Resurrect effects to stuff like Revivify, where we can handwaive and say "you weren't really dead, just incapacitated."
-
One final thing directly addressing the question: you need multiple encounters before "resting." Without a lot of encounters, spellcasters don't have to manage their resources, and the "I can do this all day" guys are just left in the dust b/c the spellcasters can use their most powerful options all the time. It would take some work to rebalance things if you essentially get rid of the resource issues for spellcasters. And, don't jump on me and tell me that a 12th level Wizard will never ever run out of spells. That's largely true, the question is how many of his 5th and 6th level spells he has to sling for every encounter.
Only thing is, the "I can do this all day" guy can't do it all day because his health(his sole resource) depletes faster than spell slots. By the time the 12th level wizard is half down(requiring an epic number of encounters), the single resource types have run out already.
Ultimately, the resource mechanic isn't compatible.
As for planned obsolescence it just plain doesn't work, especially for buffs(because you can raise them without combat actions, and either you assume everyone has them and screw those without them, or you assume nobody does and they have a significant advantage). You'd be much better off dramatically abolishing low level spells entirely for basic spell units, which you can sink spell slots into to make them appropriate to the level.
-
(Playing Devils Advocate here)
What would you say to someone who claims that ...
1) From in game OBSERVATIONS, casters are only more powerful than non-casters because of "lazy DMs"
2) From in game OBSERVATIONS, casters are only more powerful than non-casters because of "whiny players"
3) The overwhelmingly large majority of caster/non-caster balance can be handled by ace DM-ing and involved PCs
4) The caster/non-caster imbalance only comes about due to theoretical optimization and not in an average game table
5) DMs can even out this potential imbalance by creating challenges and opponents that tax bot casters and non-casters with a little bit of effort
Basically, the problem of caster/non-caster balance is uncontrolled "theoretical optimization" and lazy DMing.
Thoughts?
Peace,
Necro
-
One final thing directly addressing the question: you need multiple encounters before "resting." Without a lot of encounters, spellcasters don't have to manage their resources, and the "I can do this all day" guys are just left in the dust b/c the spellcasters can use their most powerful options all the time. It would take some work to rebalance things if you essentially get rid of the resource issues for spellcasters. And, don't jump on me and tell me that a 12th level Wizard will never ever run out of spells. That's largely true, the question is how many of his 5th and 6th level spells he has to sling for every encounter.
Only thing is, the "I can do this all day" guy can't do it all day because his health(his sole resource) depletes faster than spell slots. By the time the 12th level wizard is half down(requiring an epic number of encounters), the single resource types have run out already.
Unlimited, if slow, healing is tragically cheap and easy to acquire.
As for planned obsolescence it just plain doesn't work, especially for buffs(because you can raise them without combat actions, and either you assume everyone has them and screw those without them, or you assume nobody does and they have a significant advantage). You'd be much better off dramatically abolishing low level spells entirely for basic spell units, which you can sink spell slots into to make them appropriate to the level.
Huh? Why do we assume that buffs don't take combat options? Some last a long time, like Stoneskin, but what 1st-3rd level spells are you referring to in this regard?
There are, surely, some uber buffs out there -- like Polymorph -- though again a 4th level spell and also the exemplar broken spell. While casting even a pretty good buff, like Shield, can be handy, as you gain levels, you will find more and more valuable things to do with your actions than that.
--NA
-
Basically, the problem of caster/non-caster balance is uncontrolled "theoretical optimization" and lazy DMing.
Thoughts?
It's not the only source of problems, but it's a big part of it.
For example, Sinfire Titan mentions several "problem" spells that attack the storyline, but they can all be prevented with some decent DMing. Teleport doesn't work towards locations of big power. There's multiple ways to stop ressurection. There's a freaking species of inevitable whose only purpose is hunting those that try to start wish loops or similar. Those are all completely 100% RAW tools the DM has at its disposal. And that are completey ignored in theoretical organization, and when brought up TOers tries to pretend they don't exist.
That's not to mention the rampart word twisting that's quite common in TO, and then spread around the net as if it was the truth, until nobody seems to bother to stop to read the original text and only the twisted version exists.
Then there's completely arbitary criterias like "A true character must rely only in his own skills under pressure, so non-casters can't use magic equipment they can't craft themselves, BUT wizards have shops with every scroll in existence in every village and artificers have all the raw materials for crafting and time in the world they could want, and even tough they can only craft 1000 GP per day worth of stuff and thus will eventually need weeks of downtime to craft all their crap, non-casters can't use that time to go loot stuff of their own. "
That's one of the main reasons that led me to make the DMing guide on my sig.
Only thing is, the "I can do this all day" guy can't do it all day because his health(his sole resource) depletes faster than spell slots. By the time the 12th level wizard is half down(requiring an epic number of encounters), the single resource types have run out already.
Ultimately, the resource mechanic isn't compatible.
Devoted Spirit's Stance of fanatic healing (or whatever it's called, what matters it's that it allows you to fully heal the party by hiting rocks from lv 1) says hi.
Also I'm currently DMing a campaign with a lv 15 wizard conjurer specialist with Abrupt Jaunt, Greater Mirror Image, circlet of rapid casting, three prc dips, and most of the super wizard crap, and trust me, he considers himself lucky if he still has meaningfull spells for the 3rd day ecounter. Buffs alone consume a good chunk of his spell slots, and when the enemies aren't mindless brutes whitout anti-caster defenses whatsoever, he needs to easily spend around half a dozen spells per ecounter. Fogs? IHS, freedom of movement, teleport abilities. No save touch spells? Scintilating scales, miss chances, or plain immunities (quite common by this level). Glitterdust? Please, everything has blindsight/mindsight or similar by now. If they fail the save that is.
It demands work on the DM's part, yes, but it would be foolish to think an unskilled DM that just picks monsters at random from the books can properly challenge a party of four or more much more experienced optimizers.
-
Unlimited, if slow, healing is tragically cheap and easy to acquire.
In which case the 4 encounters/day thing doesn't work, because you expended no resources in the conflict. Granted it didn't work to begin with, but this is the same source of complaints from GMs who feel they aren't putting pressure on the party(see common warlock, ToB complaints)
-
^ how is this even a response to my point?
To recap:
I contended that one of the key balancers to spellcasting power was that they had limited resources. But, that in practice, this is often overlooked. You said that noncasters, the "I can do this all day" folks whomever they are, are just as limited b/c of hp is that kind of a resource. To which I (and Oscelamo as well) pointed out that there was a very easy, ubiquitous patch for that.
So, sure, the Fighter (or Warlock, TOB, whatever) didn't really expend resources in that fight -- that's the whole point of their "I can do this all day" advantage -- but the spellcaster still did. Put in enough encounters, with some short breaks in between them, and you mitigate some (not all, not even the majority of, but some) of the advantages a caster has.
-
IMO, Advanced Learning is still a problem. It could be fixed by providing a list of axillary spells, so that no broken ones get taken. Any others can be taken at the DM's discretion, but that gets risky.
In response to that, way I'm seeing it, advanced learning ain't the problem at all. The problem is that there is a "broken spell" at all, so... what spell's are you so afraid of the dread necro getting his hands on in that case?
It's a matter of if you want to put your work effort into creating spell lists or into fixing all the spells. I find the former a bit easier, but either one is technically possible.
-
(Playing Devils Advocate here)
What would you say to someone who claims that ...
1) From in game OBSERVATIONS, casters are only more powerful than non-casters because of "lazy DMs"
Show them the spells that allow no DM wriggle room. Show them that, even if you restrict the casters to half WBL and the noncasters get full, a 20th level Wizard is still more efficient than a 20th level Barbarian (or go so far as to show how the Warblade still doesn't measure up).
2) From in game OBSERVATIONS, casters are only more powerful than non-casters because of "whiny players"
See above, but with more emphasis on the spells that shut enemies down completely.
4) The caster/non-caster imbalance only comes about due to theoretical optimization and not in an average game table
Stat up a Wizard of X level, and prove the issues first-hand.
5) DMs can even out this potential imbalance by creating challenges and opponents that tax bot casters and non-casters with a little bit of effort
Show them that such encounters only work until around 7th level, when the spellcasters start dominating encounters on a large-scale. Show them that noncombat encounters are far less risky when solved by spellcasting abilities than by noncasters doing their jobs.
Even the dreaded Tomb of Horrors can be swept by spellcasters, seeing as the 3.5 version is designed for 9th level characters (and Summon Elemental has just become an option)
-
^ how is this even a response to my point?
To recap:
I contended that one of the key balancers to spellcasting power was that they had limited resources. But, that in practice, this is often overlooked. You said that noncasters, the "I can do this all day" folks whomever they are, are just as limited b/c of hp is that kind of a resource. To which I (and Oscelamo as well) pointed out that there was a very easy, ubiquitous patch for that.
So, sure, the Fighter (or Warlock, TOB, whatever) didn't really expend resources in that fight -- that's the whole point of their "I can do this all day" advantage -- but the spellcaster still did. Put in enough encounters, with some short breaks in between them, and you mitigate some (not all, not even the majority of, but some) of the advantages a caster has.
You need to look beyond a player-to-player contest. The party, as a whole, is expected to go through resources over the course of an adventuring day, for gameplay pacing purposes. It's the opposite of the 15 minute workday.
This is not how it should be, or how it is, but how it is perceived(because with the spell mechanic as it is, you don't really run through that many slots), so the end effect, is you lose people who wind up seeing a class that can be awesome 24/7 because this is 'obviously broken'. Its the same reason why some people ban melee having nice things, because you can do things like kill enemies in one shot while expending no resources(shock trooper, leap attack etc)
And perception is important. People don't care how good your rules are if they think its broken.
-
Page 42 of the DMs Guide "the classes are carefully balanced against each other at each level."
-
Page 42 of the DMs Guide "the classes are carefully balanced against each other at each level."
[spoiler]
............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
[/spoiler]
-
^ how is this even a response to my point?
To recap:
I contended that one of the key balancers to spellcasting power was that they had limited resources. But, that in practice, this is often overlooked. You said that noncasters, the "I can do this all day" folks whomever they are, are just as limited b/c of hp is that kind of a resource. To which I (and Oscelamo as well) pointed out that there was a very easy, ubiquitous patch for that.
So, sure, the Fighter (or Warlock, TOB, whatever) didn't really expend resources in that fight -- that's the whole point of their "I can do this all day" advantage -- but the spellcaster still did. Put in enough encounters, with some short breaks in between them, and you mitigate some (not all, not even the majority of, but some) of the advantages a caster has.
You need to look beyond a player-to-player contest. The party, as a whole, is expected to go through resources over the course of an adventuring day, for gameplay pacing purposes. It's the opposite of the 15 minute workday.
This is not how it should be, or how it is, but how it is perceived(because with the spell mechanic as it is, you don't really run through that many slots), so the end effect, is you lose people who wind up seeing a class that can be awesome 24/7 because this is 'obviously broken'. Its the same reason why some people ban melee having nice things, because you can do things like kill enemies in one shot while expending no resources(shock trooper, leap attack etc)
And perception is important. People don't care how good your rules are if they think its broken.
I don't know if I'm just slow, but I still can't really understand what you're saying. Are you for the 15 minute workday, or against it? I find this post incredibly difficult to parse.
Are you saying that b/c people think guys who can do things 24/7 are broken they intentionally weaken them? I don't know about that one way or the other. The point I was trying to make was an obvious one: part of what is built into D&D's balancing system, to the extent it exists, is that spellcasting, especially of the highest level spell slots available, is a tightly-limited resource. So, by allowing for the equivalent of 15 minute workdays you tilt the scales very much in the favor of traditional spellcasters, and against warrior-types, binders, ToB characters, warlocks, etc.
That's all. The party is, ideally, supposed to be some melange of these abilities, or find ways to plug those holes. That's part of the fun of the game (as opposed to other RPGs), but the thread was about comparing casters to non-casters.
-
Hmm... I have a question, it seems to me that you Unbeliever are suggesting having number of encounters sufficient enough to overwhelm the amount of highest level spell slots full casters get.
Yet, allow for cheap efficient, infinite, out of combat healing as a "patch" to deal with the issues that arise because Hp are a finite resource as well.
Is that kinda long the line of what you're thinking? That brings about another set of isses, you should know.
1. I still think the non-casters roll sucks. Waiting all day long until you caster is out of spells, before you get to useful is kind of shitty to be honest.
2. The second you encounter a "Late Day Encounter" (and thats what were calling this from now on, The Late Day Encounter, method or LDE for short, which is the counter to the 15 min workday). . . Running a LDE is in MANY ways similar to running a horror campaign if you've read the Heroes of Horror, or played in the rokugan... thats an aside, but the moment you run across a LDE and the MAGES are out of magic, then you die... unless:
The encounters are needlessly simplistic,
or plays to the strengths of melee (obvious)
or is a caster itself.
I'll find some example of this given a day.
3. Changing the dm style to accomodate for weaker classes is possible, but thats only one answer to the title question and in my book its kind of a shitty answer.
tl;dr? Running a Late Day Encounter system, is unsatisfying, obvious in terms of damaging verismlittude and doesn't take into account fighting spell casting monsters/melee defeating mosnters, puzzle monsters etc... when the mage is out of spells. ImHO
-
^
tl;dr? D&D (3.5 and earlier) assumes Late Day Encounter system. It assumes you're going to have several encounters in a day and is built around that. That may be dumb (I have no real opinion one way or the other), but that's part of the thinking that informs the system. If, in effect, you don't have LDEs, then the system is likely to need some serious rebalancing, either boosting the "all dayers" or nerfing the "limited resource" guys.
My contentions are that regardless of whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, the LDE model is what 3.5 D&D assumes to a large degree, and so not using it tilts things in favor of the casters/limited resources guys. And, further, that the usual "hp are more limited than spells" contention is not all that true. D&D is a game about resource management.
You elide between "mage being out of spells" and "mage being out of all his best spells." There's a big difference there. Ray of Dizziness or Ray of Enfeeblement are good, low-level spells. I rarely feel like a chump for casting them. But, they do not have the encounter-changing effects of say, Solid Fog. Ideally, this should track the level of the spell, though it does so only imperfectly. I always found part of the fun, if occasional frustration, of playing a D&D spellcaster to be picking what ability you're going to choose to expend.
Finally, I've said this a number of times, but I think the gulf between non-casters and casters is less than is usually assumed in practice, given a reasonable level of optimization. I personally play 2 noncasters with some regularity -- a supermount with a gold dragon and a crusader/master of nine -- and I never feel outclassed, even when we have a single encounter a day. Now, perhaps the response is "holy shit that's a lot of optimization you're using already!" and maybe that's the answer -- optimize the hell out of noncasters and not casters (though in both games there's a BFC, god wizard, Initiative of the 7Fold Veil, so it's not he's a chump ...).
P.S.: if you want to do away with the daily resource management of D&D, and I'm not saying that's a bad idea (Star Wars Saga Edition 90% did, and I like that game), I'd focus on encounter-based system like ToB does for spellcasting. Perhaps with a number of Action Points that can let you refresh them, or some other type of mechanic.
-
D&D (3.5 and earlier) assumes Late Day Encounter system. It assumes you're going to have several encounters in a day and is built around that.
Wrong. D&D 3.5 was "balanced" around the notion that on an average adventuring day a party would engage in FOUR encounters of CR equal to the average level of members of the party.
And, further, that the usual "hp are more limited than spells" contention is not all that true.
What evidence do you have to back this up? Your standard melee character will get the shit beat out of him in every fight where there is an "appropriate melee threat" that he is trying to fight.
maybe that's the answer -- optimize the hell out of noncasters and not casters
That's never the answer. You don't provide tons of options for one type of character and forbid other characters from taking them.
-
D&D (3.5 and earlier) assumes Late Day Encounter system. It assumes you're going to have several encounters in a day and is built around that.
Wrong. D&D 3.5 was "balanced" around the notion that on an average adventuring day a party would engage in FOUR encounters of CR equal to the average level of members of the party.
I meant something on the order of 4 encounters per day to fit the LDE model. The LDE model was proposed in contrast to the 15 minute workday, or at least so I understood. If I'm abusing a terminology invented a few hours ago I apologize.
Do the math on that: 3+ rounds x 4 encounters equals at least 12 rounds. Casters do not usually have 12 spell slots for their highest level of spells (at high level they will have it for their highest two levels, I suppose). See my above comment re: eliding "being out of spells" and "being out of your highest level spells."
And, further, that the usual "hp are more limited than spells" contention is not all that true.
What evidence do you have to back this up? Your standard melee character will get the shit beat out of him in every fight where there is an "appropriate melee threat" that he is trying to fight.
As noted previously in several posts, cheap between encounter healing is extremely easy to acquire. The Wand of Lesser Vigor is the most common example. Even if the melee character is down to 1 hp, if you have a bit of rest between encounters, then he can be back up to full for a trivial cost. There are other ways as well, depending on the builds of the characters around, but that's probably the most broadly applicable one. I was summarizing an argument made earlier.
maybe that's the answer -- optimize the hell out of noncasters and not casters
That's never the answer. You don't provide tons of options for one type of character and forbid other characters from taking them.
I think I was being unclear, actually. However, I don't think your comment speaks to what I was saying. I would never deny a spellcaster the options that a melee character has -- that's absurd -- it's just a question of what options are on the board or not.
This is sort of a separate issue. But, I view, e.g., someone as having followed TreantMonk's guide in building a God Wizard as hella optimized. Especially with regards to the thing that really matters -- spell choice. It just so happens that matters a lot more than his choice of prestige classes or feats (he can be Wizard 20 and do just fine). In conversations on this board, though, this is taken to be the standard example for what a wizard or conjurer can do. I don't think my examples of noncasters differ from that level of optimization. My comments on this point would depend a lot on what one considers "high" or even "practical" optimization.
I don't know what things look like on the other end of the scale. I can't really tell how a Wizard with an essentially random set of spells and a non-optimized non-caster stack up. From a game design perspective that might be the more important question, though D&D and games like it heavily reward system mastery.
-
I wanted to add that I agree with everything that Bkdubs has just said, but that isn't to say that I'm attacking "you" its just that I find the idea of a Late Day Encounter (LDE) ran game to be similar how it was in the rokugan/OA 3.5, setting.
I mentioned that before, and I wanted to elaborate so:
Rokugan and the LDE
[spoiler] One of my earliest D&D 3.X games was a rokugan game,
I had played D&D before when I was a kid 13-14 ish but this was as an adult.
Set in the Rokugan 3.X I did like the settting the flavor and I sure as hell
didn't know jack about the difference between a horror campaign and a Heroic
campaign, but what I'd like to say is that it actually ISN'T the inclusion of
taint mechanics that create that enviorn (not that using vile damage, is somtimes
as equally bad for the puprose of "bad damage that doesn't heal right). What
created that environ of "helpless" was
1. The encounter level of the enemies and monsters but MORESO do they have the "AWESOME" tag.
and
2. The lack of effective Magic.
See in the Rokugan the only "Valid" spellcaster from a player perspective is the
Shugenja. The shujenja has a lot of problems as a full caster and if you optimize
it like any other caster its can get nifty prc's and maybe metamagics that let it
actually be a threat. Thing was, there were few prc's out at that time, and
really most people in the party wanted to be Samurai. Which was cool because we
had 3.0 2 Samurai, a "berserker" Samurai (3.5 barbarian), a shujenja, and a multiclass
"rogue" who was also a "samurai" by title.
Much like you'll come to find in almost any practical game of inexperinced D&D, because
at level 1 the melee's are capable of killing things in 1 hit, and the casters are squishy,
people tend to think that the game works at all levels. OR people from the old school think
well yeah at low levels you guys are the nuts but at high levels "It is I!".
Well, this shugenja was a "fire" shugenja, so the healing mostly came from a wand or whatever.
So at somepoint we were pretty well off, however, at somepoint we had to enter into the shadowlands
For those of you who don't know this place, its the horrid part of the world where something terrible
has "broke the land" or whatver, the MOURNLAND, The BANEMIRES, whatever you want to call it, generally
speaking its a place you can't go through without getting hit by Late Day Encounters.
Now this may be influenced by party composition or whatever, but what I learned was that without a GOOD
full-caster to help play GOD, team evil can totally kick your ass.
We fought mostly while we were out there undead, Oni(giants) and Greater Oni(outsiders), there were also
opposing casters. Thing about this is the opposing casters were Blood sorcerers (banned for player use) but
they were actually freaking sorcerers using the sor/wiz list.
If you fight an opposed full caster and your team good caster is depleted for the day... its a curb stomp
in the making. I remember fighting a maho-sorcerer and some skele's... an really the skele's were just
mostly in the way so he could cast spells, but it totally ended up raping. We go duex ex'd out in that
the Dm let one of the samurai rollplay out an intimidate check, that sent the caster packing.
I talked to the dm about it later and he said "I tried to use a bunch of non lethal spells to inconvience
the party, and the skeletons were really like medium hp bags, you guys could easily dust. I didn't expect
(whatver bfc spells he was using at the time) to get everybody wailed on like that...damn". Thing is our
caster was a blaster and he sucked yes (not paying attention, so sometimes we were in the radius of his spells)
but the thing was in the end we ended up getting saved a LOT because the MONSTERS sometimes were actually stonger
than us in melee, and I bring this up because:
Having an ineffective caster in the party simulates, what its like to have a caster who at the end of the day is
out of spells.
Though I admit for a while.. iujistu helped a bit.
The 15 minute workday ISN'T a thing because, wizards break the world, it exists because after a certain point
the wizards are the ones that win 90% of the encounters. Maybe not directly, maybe in a Treantmonk "God" sense
but they're the ones who make the difference in combat. They make the difference because the melee's will often
just DIE without them vs bigger, stonger monsters. . . and they get facerolled vs monsters with any decent spell
lists.
So when the wizards like "Hey, lets me rest and recharge" people tend to listen, and with good reason,
Team monster has the potential to totally wreck people on the LDE schedule. [/spoiler]
So if you're not interested in that long winded anecdotal issues. LDE scheduling doesn't take into account the strengths of team monster, the fact that casters are used to defeat many encounters, the 15 minute workday is a result of people WANTING to live, and melee's losing at melee to oppsing melee brutes... AND enemy casters encourages that idea set. Even if the idea was "Lets buff the Warrior before we open the door" and not "Deep Slumber"... the Warrior is going to want to have the best buff's available each time, so he doesn't get smashed. Its more egregious when the mosters get the awesome tag, but honestly they don't particularly need it, if they 1 member who has spell likes.
-
I don't know what things look like on the other end of the scale. I can't really tell how a Wizard with an essentially random set of spells and a non-optimized non-caster stack up. From a game design perspective that might be the more important question, though D&D and games like it heavily reward system mastery.
I did work out once (for a sorcerer rather than a wizard) that if they memorised and cast random PHB spells they would cast a decent spell once every 3 rounds at least at lower levels. The issue is that new people don't take random spells, they take blasting spells
-
The only point I really wanted to make was that the 15 minute workday really plays to spellcaster's strengths b/c it removes one of their major constraints.
If you are in the business of heavily remaking D&D and trying to figure out how to balance spellcasters v. non-spellcasters, I think that should be taken into account.
@Midnight's anecdote
[spoiler]
Is it the case that you guys didn't have particularly optimized non-casters? I mean, they don't sound that optimized. I mean, I hate to be repetitive here, but I play challenging games regularly, and my melee dudes do fine. And, we don't have a ton of relevant house rules. Now, that may be b/c by "melee dude" I mean "20 hit die gold dragon at 12th level." And, as a patch to a game with imbalances (rather than say, playing 4E), I might advocate more melee dudes along those lines.
I'm not saying parties shouldn't have spellcasters. To date I've never played one without like 2 full-time ones. I'm just saying that the gulf, to the extent it exists, always feels smaller to me than it seems to be on BG.
[/spoiler]
-
^ Spells take 1 minute to cast per spell level, except Evocation spells which use their normal times?
-
I think the biggest problem is in regards to the casters' versatility.
Spells can create "save or lose" effects, area of effects, enhanced mobility (fly, burrowing, teleport), the altering of terrain through grease and illusion, etc.
The Core classes like the fighter, monk, and rogue cannot replicate these abilities (if you're just using a Core-only game). The Rogue has Use Magic Device, but this isn't a unique option because casters can use magic items as well (plus anyone can take ranks, albeit they're less effective).
Less of a game design element but more of a player bias thing: in pop culture and literature magicians are just more powerful. I've met gamers and fantasy fans who have no problem with fictional magic-using characters doing earth-breaking stuff, yet shake their heads in disappointment if the "everyman hero" masters some cool technique. I think this mindset translates into our tabletop games.
That's why I think that the Tome of Battle was a step in the right direction. Give melee guys/noncasters the ability to do "spell-like" stuff and change the flavor text to something "martial."