PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Meleers and casters, Core and splatbooks



Killer Angel
2009-05-18, 02:54 AM
Let me be clear on this: I don’t want to argue on the superiority of casters in regards to meleers, I take this as a state of fact.
Even if you think that the power gap between casters and non-casters is not too high, the premise of the thread is that casters wins hands down, ok?
Note also that I don’t want to discuss a fight between wizard Vs casters, but the efficacy in facing challenges for the group of characters and the “contribution” to the party from every pc.
I want to focus on the difference between casters and meleers in Core (considering Core only PH1, DMG1 and MM1, given that PHII is listed as an expansion to the core (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512)) and non-core (expansion, splatbooks, etc.).

What I wonder (which is the point of this thread), is that I often read how the meleers in Core are patetically weak and boring (‘specially fighters), while splatbooks brings more variety and makes the meleers stronger; ToB is a must-have, and thanks to it, the meleers are worth playing (in terms of power, they feels no more useless when adventuring with full casters).
I don’t think this is completely true.
My opinion is another: while is true that splatbooks can give more fun and options in playing meleers, i think that the power-gap between them and the casters, has become greater.

We know the limits of meleers in Core, and we know that some of the most broken spells are Core (starting from alter self and grease, to polymorf and Gate and many others). We also know that druid 20 is one of the most overpowered class available, etc.
The difference in power between casters and non casters, in core, is HUGE.
But expansions and splatbooks, have eliminated every limit to casters’ power.

Want to talk about cleric? If you stay in Core, say goodbye to Clerzilla. Oh, yes... a cleric can go ‘zilla in core, but he needs rounds of buffing... DMM with nightstiks combo don’t exist, so in Core a cleric can’t go all day with persist divine favour, or righteous might, etc.
If the enemy sourprises the group, the cleric is without buffs... if the group explores a subterranean complex, the cleric can’t be a killing machine for all the day, but only for some minutes in a 24 hour period.

Want to talk about Arcane casters?
Outside Core, direct damage is a possible tactic... the orb spells are one example. If you stay in Core, direct damage is very weak.
In Core, not only you have no feats as persist spells, but, most af all, you have no more metamagic reducers that can bring at 0 metamagic cost.
Wanna apply metamagic feats to spells? It’s possible, but you’ll pay a price.
The use of metamagic rods are very costly, and it’s difficult (if not impossible) to launch spells with a lot of feats on them.
And certainly you don’t have quicken empowered maximise twinned orb of instadeath using a third level slot.

At low levels, but most af all at high levels, magic can resolve a fight in the first rounds (in Core as outside core)... But in Core, at least the casters must win the initiative, and if they lose, the demons goes first. Outside Core? Contingency with celerity solved even this last problem.

Want to talk about PrC? DMG1 has some good one (archmage?), but those usually works at high levels, not on low-mid ones.
You can certainly make a ToB class strong and funny. A 10° or 15° lev. Pc using ToB is a lot stronger than a 10° or 15° lev. core barbarian. But at least there are no Sublime chord, Planar shepard, Incantatrix...

My opinion is that splatbooks has given more power and fun for the meleers, but that the power gap between casters and non caster, has dramatically increased.
Am I totally wrong, or do I have some points?

NeoVid
2009-05-18, 04:50 AM
You're largely right.

A big part of why Cleric/Druid/Wizard were stupidly overpowered was due to the fact that they were in the PHB, meaning that thanks to being core, every time new options came out, they got even more ways to be more powerful.

Now, how many new options were given to fighters or monks compared to new spells for the Big 3? So yeah, the imbalance got worse until they basically replaced the old classes with better designed ones later on... and even then, the core classes which were used the most continued to be the most uneven in power.

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-18, 06:46 AM
But in Core, at least the casters must win the initiative, and if they lose, the demons goes first. Outside Core? Celerity solved even this last problem.



Are you sure you can take immediate actions if flatfooted? Not to say that celerity it's not broken, but just to ask. :smallwink:

Dark_Scary
2009-05-18, 07:17 AM
One issue is that even though caster limits were shattered, most people don't let you play with shattered limits.

Lots of DMs and lots of Players feel bad if DMM Persist/Incantatrix/ect are involved. But no one feels bad about ToB.

ect.

It's not that the dynamics have changed, it's that people are far more likely to reject power ups of that type for casters.

Killer Angel
2009-05-18, 07:25 AM
Are you sure you can take immediate actions if flatfooted? Not to say that celerity it's not broken, but just to ask. :smallwink:

oppss... i should have written that i was thinking to celerity in combo with contingency :smallredface:. I'll edit my post.

(mmm... question: is possible to twin a Celerity spell?)

But what do you think about this argument?

Killer Angel
2009-05-18, 07:35 AM
Lots of DMs and lots of Players feel bad if DMM Persist/Incantatrix/ect are involved. But no one feels bad about ToB.



Sadly, many DM considers ToB the sum of all brokennes.
But this is not the point: even if you don't play Incantatrix or don't use metamagic reducers, they still exists, and are options addedd to the game.
Otherwise, i shoud say that druid is not broken if I nerf a single class feature (animal companion) and a single feat (guess which one?).

Flickerdart
2009-05-18, 07:36 AM
The new options make casters even more powerful, but they're already broken in Core (just not as much). Whether a Wizard has 20 or 200 different spells that win the game doesn't really matter, since he only needs one or two. But splatbooks give melee and skillmonkey types the necessary options to at least try and stay competitive.

@ Dark_Scary: You'd be surprised how many people ban ToB as "too anime" or "overpowering". Some people believe that magic should be better cause, well, it's magic.

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-18, 07:52 AM
oppss... i should have written that i was thinking to celerity in combo with contingency. I'll edit my post.

But what do you think about this argument?

Yeah. Celerity is anyway "teh borken" (seriously).

I think that you are right, but I feel very uncomfortable with a lot of "Internet Assumption".

If you can play with celerity, does not mean you must. If you can roll an incantatrix, does not mean you must. Any option you can meet among a book, it's a tool to increase you fun. If you make it break your game because the DM is enough dumb to spam nightsticks in magic shops, well..

I never felt meleers so boring - even if I realize that this can be different for somebody else. I always have seen my melee players come with ideas and heroic actions of physical prowess, and the way thay managed melee and full attack was not the "I can only charge and full attack".

And even if magic can be powerful, CELERITY is powerful, I can't accept the whining of the noobs saying that GREASE is broken because they never fought in a swamp or in a sunken dungeon.

There are a lot of ways to counter magic, and the amount of choices can lead to broken combos, but even to the option of CHOOSE what is proper and what not in a certain campaing.

OF COURSE a lot of the effort I make to play a balanced game should be done by the designer, but they have chosen to head the game in a "comfortably dumb" direction, so I play with what I have.

MORE, I think that a lot of times you, designer, don't care to produce a failed product, because you can sell updates and finally the new shining not broken edition, just before all the dorks in the internet start to min-max-min-max-min-max till the new toy will break. And if will not break, this means that the situation it's even worst, because you can break a stratocaster, not a stik beating a log.


Anyway, yes, the mere nature of the system advantages casters with the increase of splatbook.

So what? It's up to you have fun or break you game. You can read teh internet to find a way to make something work, or to ruin your game.

"Faber est suae quisque fortunae"

Killer Angel
2009-05-18, 07:55 AM
The new options make casters even more powerful, but they're already broken in Core (just not as much). Whether a Wizard has 20 or 200 different spells that win the game doesn't really matter, since he only needs one or two.

On this, I can agree (even if there was no need to create more broken spells).
But it's not only a matter of spells, it's the new feats, magical objects, class features, etc.
For example, even without new spells, is the combo DMM / persist spell / nightsticks, that creates the real Clerzilla.

Killer Angel
2009-05-18, 08:06 AM
If you can play with celerity, does not mean you must. If you can roll an incantatrix, does not mean you must. Any option you can meet among a book, it's a tool to increase you fun. If you make it break your game because the DM is enough dumb to spam nightsticks in magic shops, well..

QFT.
but sometimes it's a thin line, the one between "having fun" and "break the game".
'specially if you don't know really what you were doing choosin' that cool PrC...


I never felt meleers so boring - even if I realize that this can be different for somebody else. I always have seen my melee players come with ideas and heroic actions of physical prowess, and the way thay managed melee and full attack was not the "I can only charge and full attack".


Me neither. The last meleer I played, was a barbarian / ranger 2WF (main favored enemies Vermin!) core only. And he was even effective in combat! :smalltongue:
After all, we know that even in Core and for optimizers, is possible to have some good combat build (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80415).

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-18, 08:20 AM
QFT.
but sometimes it's a thin line, the one between "having fun" and "break the game".
'specially if you don't know really what you were doing choosin' that cool PrC...


Right - but if the gamer community spent such a big effort to break thousands of games, maybe can invest something to keep things balanced without senseless whinigs (not referring to you, KA).

Because we all now where whinings lead. Lead to 10 minutes casting time silence.

Zhirax
2009-05-18, 08:25 AM
personally i am one of the persons who do not like TOB as i find it extremely overpowered due to the uses of per encounter(i am not fan of 4e i should say and this is way too close to 4e for me).

i do not know how you play your scenarios, but i don't think that, the power gab between meleers and casters are just how you make it to be. sure a wizard lv 20 could own a fighter lv 20, but in what instance...is the wizard far away? has he had time to prepare? is the fighter naked or stocked up with protective gear and weapons? there are a bunch of instances and unless your world is flat and empty there is always going to happen stuff..
what about a fighter with a armor of spell absorbation or antimagic zone?

you can't just say well because he is a fighter he is boring and weak compared to casters:P its what you as a player make with them, if you jsut go with me big, me hit stuff youre not exploring any of the roleplaying possiblities that this class provides...why is he a fighter, what is his specialty, what do he like/dislike sometimes just good roleplaying is what makes a character overpowered

this is a team game and you will always have need for a meleer and a caster to enhance and protect each other. and each paticipant contributes just as much as the other some in battle, some in puzzels, some in social gatherings, some in fun and the list goes on

and talking about gear. no matter if you use core or splat, gear is always an importent part of the party's power range.

so what i'm trying to say is if you think that one class is especially weak or powerfull..make it your goal to change that, the rules are just rules...its the roleplaying that makes dnd worth playing
:smallbiggrin:

Draco Dracul
2009-05-18, 08:56 AM
personally i am one of the persons who do not like TOB as i find it extremely overpowered due to the uses of per encounter(i am not fan of 4e i should say and this is way too close to 4e for me).

i do not know how you play your scenarios, but i don't think that, the power gab between meleers and casters are just how you make it to be. sure a wizard lv 20 could own a fighter lv 20, but in what instance...is the wizard far away? has he had time to prepare? is the fighter naked or stocked up with protective gear and weapons? there are a bunch of instances and unless your world is flat and empty there is always going to happen stuff..
what about a fighter with a armor of spell absorbation or antimagic zone?



A level 17 caster can destroy a planet (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2013195&postcount=89). I'm pretty sure there is nothing more broken than that (except Pun-Pun).

mohdri
2009-05-18, 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by Swordguy

Got it! Eschew Materials feat + Major Creation.

There's no book value listed for either Osmium or it's antimatter counterpart.
(more stuff)

Except this. I'm going out on a limb guessing this "Osmiun" is outside core (and possably extended core for that matter has I have most 3.5 non-campaign specific books and never heard of it).

This is one of those instances that no sane DM would (or should) ever allow this in any game.

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-18, 09:25 AM
A level 17 caster can destroy a planet (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2013195&postcount=89). I'm pretty sure there is nothing more broken than that (except Pun-Pun).

O..k... and maybe I'm supposed to take it seriously, perfectly in-character?

I like these things, but as i like lolcats. But there are not lolcats in my campaing setting.

arguskos
2009-05-18, 09:34 AM
Except this. I'm going out on a limb guessing this "Osmiun" is outside core (and possably extended core for that matter has I have most 3.5 non-campaign specific books and never heard of it).

This is one of those instances that no sane DM would (or should) ever allow this in any game.
Uh... Osmium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmium) is a real life element. It was used because it's amazingly dense, as I recall.

Draco Dracul
2009-05-18, 09:42 AM
Uh... Osmium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmium) is a real life element. It was used because it's amazingly dense, as I recall.

It is generally accepted as the densest element. One cup of osmium weighs roughly 12.5 pounds.

mohdri
2009-05-18, 10:09 AM
Uh... Osmium is a real life element. It was used because it's amazingly dense, as I recall.
Thank you. I have expanded my knowlegde for today (no sarcasam intended or implied, it really is nice to know). So how are medival (scientifically speaking) spellcasters supposed to know about this material?

My points are simply these:
a) People [compare/complain about comparing] real world situations to a fantasy game, then try to use a real world element to break said game (planet)? (retorical question)

b) My original point was that, yes spell casters are better than meleers (in core and outside), but using the "planet killing" scenario to make a point about the being overpowered is theoretical, at best (as is Pun-Pun to begin with) and IMO has nothing to do with the actual mechanics that create the disparity between meleers and casters.

Edit: And as another point, highlights out the break in the spell itself as even a little amount of ANY rare material should have a GP cost, and therefor fall outisde the bounds of Eschew Materials.

arguskos
2009-05-18, 10:22 AM
Thank you. I have expanded my knowlegde for today (no sarcasam intended or implied, it really is nice to know). So how are medival (scientifically speaking) spellcasters supposed to know about this material?

My points are simply these:
a) People [compare/complain about comparing] real world situations to a fantasy game, then try to use a real world element to break said game (planet)? (retorical question)

b) My original point was that, yes spell casters are better than meleers (in core and outside), but using the "planet killing" scenario to make a point about the being overpowered was theoretical, at best (as is Pun-Pun to begin with) and IMO has nothing to do with the actual mechanics that create the disparity between meleers and casters.
Reasoning that a level 50 caster (which the Anti-Osmium Bomb was made for) is INSANELY powerful and intelligent, I wouldn't put it past them to have more advanced technology and science than our society.

In any case, your points are fully valid, and yet, utterly irrelevant in this case. I'm not being mean here, but the Osmium Bomb isn't a useful tool here, simply because it was used as a "well, you asked for cheese, here you are" trick. No sane person EVER permits something that inane.

More on-topic, here's the easy way to figure out the caster vs. non-caster issue: think of it in terms of options.

For example (in core), a Wizard 10 has ~20 spells per day, each of which can solve one certain type of issue, but there will be some overlap (limited spell pool). A Fighter 10 has his primary weapon, maybe 1 backup, and a ranged weapon for good measure. He has perhaps 6-7 tricks total (combat tricks like disarm/trip/whatever). There are roughly 10-15 rounds of combat in a given day. See who's ahead? And this is JUST core.

Now, expand that to everything. It looks like the Fighter made out like a bandit, gaining 10+ tricks and abilities, and the Wizard still has his ~20 spells. BUT, consider that each of those spells can handle 1 wildly different situation. Now, the Wizard has a number of tricks equal to spells prepared, which rockets up as he levels. The Fighter? He's still left in the dust.

It's all about versatility and who's got the options. Sure, in Core casters are limited, but melee is more limited. Outside of Core, melee has more options than in Core, but casters have even more than that. It's not really fair.

mohdri
2009-05-18, 10:34 AM
This is one of those instances that no sane DM would (or should) ever allow this in any game.

If you note, I said this in my first post. It is irrelevent (the "Anti-Osmium Bomb" that is).

And I agree with everything you just said.

imperialspectre
2009-05-18, 11:20 AM
For example (in core), a Wizard 10 has ~20 spells per day, each of which can solve one certain type of issue, but there will be some overlap (limited spell pool). A Fighter 10 has his primary weapon, maybe 1 backup, and a ranged weapon for good measure. He has perhaps 6-7 tricks total (combat tricks like disarm/trip/whatever). There are roughly 10-15 rounds of combat in a given day. See who's ahead? And this is JUST core.

This analysis is really good, except that any Fighter 10 that has 6-7 tricks is hopelessly gimped because you have to specialize to have a chance at doing anything effectively (Improved Grapple/Trip/Disarm/Bullrush are all necessary to do any of their respective tricks effectively, and the other "tricks" are generally at the end of long feat trees and no good anyway). Generally speaking, a Fighter 10 that's built anywhere near effectively will have "full attack" plus ONE of the following tricks: Improved Trip + free attacks, and something to make those attacks good ("Jack B. Quick" or a similar build), Charge + megadamage, or threaten attacks of opportunity and shut down effective enemy tactics (the so-called "lockdown fighter"). You don't actually have enough feats to do a bunch of different tricks, just enough to do a couple things well.

So yeah, the quoted post is a really good analysis of why Wizards are still more capable than Fighters, even if you give the Fighter in question twice as many bonus feats.

Regarding the argument in the OP, I'd argue that going outside of Core, with a couple notable exceptions (incantatrix, arcane thesis, dweomerkeeper, Killer Gnome), does not substantially widen the gap between full casters and beatsticks. I only know of one Core melee build (Saph's Horizon Tripper) that approaches anything near usefulness in a broad variety of situations. There are a couple direct damage tricks in Core for fighters, but they become dramatically more effective with the addition of the Complete books--Leap Attack, for example, is critical to get a good return on charging. Meanwhile, Core wizards are chain-gating, all the full casters are shapechanging, and clerics need at most ONE round of buffing to be just about as good as fighters in melee from mid-levels on (let alone the Cleric Archer, who just laughs hysterically at the competition).

There is one aspect in which the caster-beatstick gap widens substantially outside of Core: clerics and druids, by RAW, know literally every cleric/druid spell respectively in every supplement allowed in a given game. Wizards and sorcerers, however, pretty much just cherry-pick a few spells that are better than their Core counterparts, and the Core arcane PrCs are largely on a level playing field with PrCs from the other books, incantatrix and killer gnome excepted.

Random NPC
2009-05-18, 02:01 PM
you can't just say well because he is a fighter he is boring and weak compared to casters:P its what you as a player make with them, if you jsut go with me big, me hit stuff youre not exploring any of the roleplaying possiblities that this class provides...why is he a fighter, what is his specialty, what do he like/dislike sometimes just good roleplaying is what makes a character overpowered

this is a team game and you will always have need for a meleer and a caster to enhance and protect each other. and each paticipant contributes just as much as the other some in battle, some in puzzels, some in social gatherings, some in fun and the list goes on


I'm only going to tackle this two points.

If we go down the role playing point, I can say the same about Tim the Wizard. Tim has all of those amazing spells that can do almost anything. Tim has gone out of his way to research all of the amazing combat spells, utility spells and what not. He has this slew of options that are mind boggling. He could totally play a different character each day by the shear amount of options Tim has and still being quite effective.

Did I mention Tim also has this awesome role playing going on? Did I mention that Tim convinced THE Archmage of his guild and other guilds to get all of these powerful spells? He role played on how to get his -class abilities- improved.

Now, let's check on Bolf, the Fighter. He's an amazing role player too, but no matter how improved he is, his -class abilities- are not as diverse and as powerful as Tim's. He can't do the same thing Tim does. He will be Bolf every day and each level he will only be able to do what his -class abilities- limit him. He can do stuff and use all of the strategies presented to the fighter, but he can't be effective unless he specializes on it. While Tim, the Generalist Wizard who didn't specialized in anything still can be as effective as a specialized wizard.

Fair?

Well, Bolf still has this plethora of options presented to him in all those nice splat books. But so does Tim.

Well, well. Bolf is still the melee king, right? Well, he was, until Eleck the Elf Druid and Dorf the Dwarf Cleric came in with their spellcasting options and nice melee capabilities. Heck, even Tim can handle melee thanks to his nice Polymorph spell.

Well, they still need someone to get it on with the crowds, right? Oh, look at Tim and his nice Enchantment spells. Well, you still need someone to bash that door open, right? Oh, look at Tim and his Greater Open (Disintegrate).

Eldariel
2009-05-18, 02:30 PM
This is a mostly pointless comparison. In Core-only, there aren't enough feats to make a Fighter worth a damn. Rogue, Ranger and Barbarian have some things going on for them, but overall, true melee support doesn't exist in Core. This means melee characters aren't going to be really able to pull off what they should be doing.

I mean, throw any non-caster level 20 multiclass at the Tarrasque. At best they can stay out of its reach with flight from magic items. Throw one at an ancient Black Dragon. Let's just say the Dragon wins. Yet they're both CR 20, which is supposedly an equal challenge to what a level 20 Fighter poses. With splats in the mix, the Fighter has a chance. Hell, throw a Fighter 12 at a Purple Worm. Or Fighter 10 at an 11-Headed Hydra; it's the same either way, Fighter has serious trouble beating an equivalent level martial monster once you start to approach double digit levels.


So what if casters get stronger out of Core? Melee becomes competent out-of-Core, able to defeat equivalent challenges, even without major optimization. In my books, that means melee out of core is infinitely better than melee in core and thus, it's better compared to casters simply because out-of-core melee can be rated vs. casters, while core melee can't.

Casters do get stronger, yes, but not by much, and most of what makes them stronger is already on peoples' short ban list (that starts from Polymorph-line spells). Generally a caster out of Core just has more options on how to solve each problem; few options truly outclass the Core-options besides Immediate Action defenses, which melee gets out of core too.

Waspinator
2009-05-18, 03:55 PM
Even if we ignore combat effectiveness, Core melee fighters suffer in terms of being interesting. Spellcasters get many interesting spells and therefore combat options and the number increases as they level up. Fighters? Not so much. They tend to just charge in and beat things up with full-attacks.

And about the roleplaying a fighter discussion, it's pretty irrelevant. It's not like it's harder to roleplay one class over another. A fighter and a warblade could easily have the same personalities, histories, or whatever. Interesting roleplaying, combat effectiveness, and interesting combat are not connected concepts. And I don't think anyone is going to argue that warblades don't get more and more interesting options in a fight than a fighter does.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-05-18, 03:55 PM
Ok, Im going to try to adress your post one point at a time...


personally i am one of the persons who do not like TOB as i find it extremely overpowered due to the uses of per encounter(i am not fan of 4e i should say and this is way too close to 4e for me).

While I do not argue that this is more like 4e, I DO argue about the overpoweredness of this. Let us assume that you have 4 encounters a day. A FS Wizard or Sorcerer can cast easily one of her highest level spells each encounter. Which is more powerfull, a ToB manuever or a spell?


i do not know how you play your scenarios, but i don't think that, the power gab between meleers and casters are just how you make it to be. sure a wizard lv 20 could own a fighter lv 20, but in what instance...is the wizard far away? has he had time to prepare? is the fighter naked or stocked up with protective gear and weapons? there are a bunch of instances and unless your world is flat and empty there is always going to happen stuff..
what about a fighter with a armor of spell absorbation or antimagic zone?

Ok, assume the following situation. Wizard 20 vs Fighter 20. Wizard is naked and unbuffed, Fighter is equipped with normal WBL AND a magic belt that prevents him from being affected by spells, as antimagic field. Fighter wins initiative.
Round 1: Wizard casts Celerity to cast Timestop. Rolls a 2.
Round 1a: Wizard casts Ironguard.
Round 1b: Wizard casts Shapechange.
Round 1: Fighter's sword goes strait through the Wizard, not doing anything.
Round 1: Wizard is dazed.
Round 2: Fighter keeps missing.
Round 2+: Wizard tears fighter to shreds.

And that is a very, very simple example


you can't just say well because he is a fighter he is boring and weak compared to casters

Actually you can, thats what everyone is currently saying.


its what you as a player make with them, if you jsut go with me big, me hit stuff youre not exploring any of the roleplaying possiblities that this class provides...why is he a fighter, what is his specialty, what do he like/dislike sometimes just good roleplaying is what makes a character overpowered

...And you are saying that a wizard cannot roleplay? What is your point here? I cannot understand your grammer :smalltongue:, sorry.


this is a team game and you will always have need for a meleer and a caster to enhance and protect each other. and each paticipant contributes just as much as the other some in battle, some in puzzels, some in social gatherings, some in fun and the list goes on

Yeah, you dont really need a meleer when you get to higher levels. Infact, a "meleer" probably would just slow down the casters. And puzzles, social situations, and fun in general are not related to class. In. The. Slightest. Stormwind Fallacy.


and talking about gear. no matter if you use core or splat, gear is always an importent part of the party's power range.

Wait, how is this relevant?


so what i'm trying to say is if you think that one class is especially weak or powerfull..make it your goal to change that, the rules are just rules...its the roleplaying that makes dnd worth playing :smallbiggrin:

By what you are saying...you would like 4e. You like ballance, say that the rules are just rules, and think the roleplaying is the most important part of it. Yeah, try 4.0

But seriously, if you are attempting to ballance all of the classes, if that is your goal, then you should use ToB.



OP: Yeah, I get what you are saying. The main thing about it is while, yes, the difference is minimized in core, the actual ability to play a fun melee character is as well. Without making a Horizon Tripper, core severely limits your options to make a great meleer.

Keldon
2009-05-18, 06:34 PM
First thing to say, i don't like TOB for some of the reasons from the above posters, mainly because it turns 3.5 into something i don't like (slightly closer to anime and a lot closer to 4E).

Secondly, maneuvers are a bit overpowered, but a careful spell selection of some encounter-ruining spells are a little bit more effective than maneuvers. Maneuvers can surpass spells in raw damaging power and such, but spells are more versatile (you can use them to face a wider array of situation). Of course someone could make a minmaxed wizards with lots of metamagic brokeness, but then someone could also make a TOB character with some broken mechanics. Who said leap attack?

However, you must all remember that while the wizards only have their limited per day spells, TOB classes have a much higher BAB and HD, armor and weapon proficiency and the same amount of skills, in ADDITION to those powers. They are melee fighters who gain lots of things (which can be used more times per day) and trade nothing for it.

Also, TOB classes can wear armors AND use maneuvers, Wizards can't use armors and spells (without still spell or class abilities - not worthy). TOB classes are not useless inside an antimagic field - wizards are (Unless they have orb spells or things like that, Beholders and Golems are almost unbeatable by their usual abilities). TOB abilities bypass SR. TOB classes don't spend that much time buying and learning from scrolls - wizards do, and spend resources when doing so. Also, some maneuvers are limited by encounters, meaning that TOB classes can keep doing that over and over. Also, i don't recall maneuvers that require expensive material components/focus, and lots of usefull spells do.


So, how it would compare:

TOB classes/Wizards:
Better HD/Lower HD
Better BAB/Worst BAB
Armor and Weapon Prof/Almost no Weapon/Armor Proficiency

TOB Powers/Wizard Spells:
More daily uses (limited by encounter)/Daily Limited
No arcane failure from armor/Arcane failure from armor
Can be used inside an antimagic area/Can't be used within AF
Less versatility (only "in combat" uses)/MUCH more versatility
No need to spend resources learning/Need to buy scrolls and such
Best damage output/Good damage output (without breaking the system, in which case wizards could deal more damage)
No material cost/Material cost or material focus sometimes.

Most of you are only trying to compare the effects, without looking at the whole class and the nature of those effects.


Round 1: Fighter's sword goes strait through the Wizard, not doing anything.

The fighter surely has a weapon that surpasses ironguard at that level.


Let us assume that you have 4 encounters a day. A FS Wizard or Sorcerer can cast easily one of her highest level spells each encounter. Which is more powerfull, a ToB manuever or a spell?

That doesn't say anything, we can just say "assume you have 14 encounters a day" and the Tob Maneuver will be more effective :smallsmile:

This is pointless, IMHO.

Eldariel
2009-05-18, 06:51 PM
Most of you are only trying to compare the effects, without looking at the whole class and the nature of those effects.

Because Wizards protect themselves with miss chances, instant action teleportation, contingencies and the like. A Wizard doesn't need to get hit, so he doesn't need HP or armor. Indeed, much of Wizard's arsenal is dedicated towards making him a very difficult target to catch. And a damage-optimized non-infinite Wizard will beat an optimized non-infinite ToB character in damage; it just takes too much effort to build the said Wizard for it to truly be worth it. Dealing damage takes a lot of effort, thus casters have more efficient means for dealing with opponents at their disposal.


You also seem to forget that compared to maneuvers, charging Barbarian with the charge-line feats basically always deals way more damage, so maneuvers aren't broken in terms of damage they can dish out; melee characters have been doing that since Complete Warrior came out. Charging Frenzied Berserker wins the damage race pretty easily at least before level 17. ToB-characters generally don't match a two-handed charger in sheer damage (although some of the ToB-charges do help with the archetype, thus making for decent dip). ToB however does enable moving+attacking (without feeling like a chump for giving up a bunch of attacks), two-weapon fighting somewhere in the same neighborhood as two-handed fighting, sword&board fighting to a reasonable efficiency and hell, one-handers that don't absolutely, totally suck.


It seems like you think ToB characters beat out Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Knight/etc. in terms of pure damage, but that's not the strength of ToB, nor the problem of melee types in the first place. You seem to know this, but the second paragraph of your post makes it unclear whether you actually do; how can maneuvers be overpowered if they can only be used in melee and do damage, and less so than a Barbarian? The use of maneuvers in the first place is moving and doing damage, and doing damage without focusing your character on it, and doing things other than damage without being a spellcaster. I don't see how any of that is "broken".

Also, spells are a lot more effective than maneuvers. First of all, you don't need to attack to use a spell. Second, you don't need to penetrate target's hit points for spells to be effective. Third, you can hit a large number of targets at once with a spell, which is rarely possible with the more powerful maneuvers, and never from range (without Bloodstorm Blade at any rate).


A single well-placed spell can easily just cut out half of the baddies in the encounter, with or without a save (depending on whether the baddies have a bad save or not). Try that with a maneuver. Maneuvers are handy, but they are still just attacks. Spells just circumvent all the hoops you need to jump through to hit guys, and always can hit a target's weak point, while it is very hard to target a high AC target's saves as a ToBber.

There's that one signature on Wizards that says it the best:
"Martial Adepts still play the same game we've all played for years. High level casters play rocket launcher tag and nobody else gets to play."

lsfreak
2009-05-18, 06:58 PM
You claim ToB is too anime? Throw out the fluff. There. Now it's just as anime as the different schools of magic.

Other than that, Eldariel and Random NPC beat me to everything I was going to say.

Keldon
2009-05-18, 07:01 PM
Because Wizards protect themselves with miss chances, instant action teleportation, contingencies and the like.

Sure, because every wizard starts at level 20. Most of you forget that during the low levels, wizards will not get near this potential. They need to survive at least until level 11 in order to use those contingencies. Until then, they NEED high HP, armor and things they don't have. If the meatshield monster full-attacks a wizard on low-levels, he is done. Period.

The wizards may gain more usefull powers at higher levels, but the TOB classes have access to their overall usefulness during ALL their carreer - always with their weapons, shields and stuff.

Stop trying to make an analysis of level 20 wizards only, most campaigns don't even get to level 20 and most wizards will suffer more than half their carreer until they reach the level on which the broken combos work as they should.


Also, spells are a lot more effective than maneuvers. First of all, you don't need to attack to use a spell. Second, you don't need to penetrate target's hit points for spells to be effective. Third, you can hit a large number of targets at once with a spell, which is rarely possible with the more powerful maneuvers, and never from range (without Bloodstorm Blade at any rate).

It doesn't matter if you need an attack roll or a saving throw in order to affect someone with your ability: both maneuvers AND spells need one check to succeed, be it a saving throw or attack roll.

The thing is, maneuvers bypass SR, maneuvers bypass antimagic, maneuvers can be used more often, maneuvers can be used with armor, maneuvers DO NOT PROVOKE ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY (that's important), etc, etc, etc.

Also, the area attack is rarely effective after the first or second round, when the allies have engaged the enemies on melee (unless you are an archmage or have the extraordinary spell aim feat, etc).


Spells just circumvent all the hoops you need to jump through to hit guys, and always can hit a target's weak point, while it is very hard to target a high AC target's saves as a ToBber.

The same way you can target a weak saving throw (a charm spell against a fighter), you can target an attack roll to a low-armored enemy. Same thing, not relevant, IMHO. Are you going to charm the fighter or the cleric? Are you going to attack the armored BBEG or his unarmored caster cohort?

imperialspectre
2009-05-18, 07:09 PM
None of the ToB maneuvers are more powerful than a 6th-level spell, and most aren't that powerful. If you gave a Bard full BAB and heavy armor, you'd probably end up with something about as powerful as a White Raven Crusader or Warblade.

Casters, on the other hand...a disintegrate does more damage than a lot of 9th-level maneuvers. A harm spell does as much damage as the Iron Heart 9th-level strike (assuming that at high levels a martial adept averages 50 damage a hit before bonus damage from maneuvers). And that's direct damage, which is casters' least effective trick.

Besides, your analysis of comparative class features is woefully misdirected, because you mostly analyze stuff that doesn't matter for wizards. HD? Wizards don't get hit unless they're stupid. Armor? Same thing. BAB? Virtually all spells with attack rolls hit touch AC. On the other hand, martial adepts WILL get hit at least a little bit (you can't rely on using immediate-action interrupts because you only get one of those a round, and they trade off with swift-action boosts that you need for offense), they need a little bit of AC so that their opponents don't just Power Attack for full, and they need BAB to fulfill their primary function.

And your analysis of maneuvers misses the fact that at every single level, wizard spells are better than martial adept maneuvers of comparable level (and spells like Glitterdust and Grease are great at any level).

ToB is mechanically a boost for beatsticks that lets them be useful. It doesn't break the game, and it certainly doesn't make casters underpowered. The only reason ToB can seem overpowered to people with a basic understanding of D&D mechanics is that ToB classes are generally better than all but carefully-optimized core melee classes. However, core melee classes suck, and the easiest way to fix the "overpowered" thing is to take white-out and a sharpie and change "Crusader" to "Paladin," "Warblade" to "Fighter," and "Swordsage" to "Monk." You're done, and you're welcome. :smallwink:

Edit: Ninja'd hard by Eldariel

Eldariel
2009-05-18, 07:19 PM
Sure, because every wizard starts at level 20. Most of you forget that during the low levels, wizards will not get near this potential. They need to survive at least until level 11 in order to use those contingencies. Until then, they NEED high HP, armor and things they don't have. If the meatshield monster full-attacks a wizard on low-levels, he is done. Period.

The wizards may gain more usefull powers at higher levels, but the TOB classes have access to their overall usefulness during ALL their carreer - always with their weapons, shields and stuff.

Stop trying to make an analysis of level 20 wizards only, most campaigns don't even get to level 20.

I thought you just said "level 11" yourself, not level 20. Also, Mirror Image is a level 2 spell. Invisibility is level 2. Blur is level 2. Displacement is level 3. Disguise Self is friggin' level 1 and can often avoid a lot of fire. Silent Image is level 1. Out of core, Abrupt Jaunt is available from level 1. Wings of Cover is level 2. Greater Mirror Image is level 4. Celerity is level 4 and Lesser Celerity is level 2. People should stop pretending a Wizard needs to be high level to protect himself. Above level 3 is plenty. Really, this whole "you're talking about Wizard 20"-crap is annoying. Wizard gets insane abilities from level 1.

First 2 levels are hard (without doing dumb stuff; that's true for everyone not specifically optimized for those levels and to suck later tho), but since the Wizard has the best offensive potential on those levels and probably enough Dex to Hide/Move Silently, it's still not horrible.


It doesn't matter if you need an attack roll or a saving throw in order to affect someone with your ability: both maneuvers AND spells need one check to succeed, be it a saving throw or attack roll.

Uh, some things are harder to hit than it is to make their save fail. Also, Touch AC is often easier to hit than actual AC (the only maneuver that does that does little damage). The whole point is that Wizard can always attack the weakest point of a creature. Ogres? Well lookey, they prolly have a bad Will-save (and Reflex for that matter). How about a Sleep/Color Spray/Glitterdust? Or maybe Web or Grease? Or a Lich. It probably has a bad Fortitude-save. How about Disintegrate? (of course, as it's a Wizard it can defend itself, but a ToBber never gets to the Lich as it can move much more quickly than ToBbers can while Wizards still operate at range) Or a Dragon. It probably has bad touch AC (unless Arcane Sight shows it having defensive spells on, in which case you obviously Dispel first). How about Enervation? Or Orb of Force?


The thing is, maneuvers bypass SR, maneuvers bypass antimagic, maneuvers can be used more often, maneuvers can be used with armor, maneuvers DO NOT PROVOKE ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY (that's important), etc, etc, etc.

Spells bypass SR when you need 'em (Solid Fog doesn't offer SR, Orbs don't offer SR, Acid Fog doesn't offer SR, Web doesn't offer SR, etc.) and the same ones work in anti-magic fields too (besides, how often do you run into stationary anti-magic fields large enough to disrupt a Wizard in your campaigns? Wizards can walk, and have the skillpoints and lack of armor for Tumble, btw). Attacks of Opportunity? Ever checked the "Defensive Casting"-rules?

Besides, spells can still be cast at range so AoOs are rarely an issue unless you're literally alone. And even then, there's always the trusty 5' step. Now, maneuvers require you to be right next to the bad guy so you'll get the beatdown. Spells don't. So on the only category of any relevance you brought up, spells actually win out.


The same way you can target a weak saving throw (a charm spell against a fighter), you can target an attack roll to a low-armored enemy. Same thing, not relevant, IMHO.

...did you read what you wrote? Wizard can target any weakness on an individual target. So if the opponent has any bad save, Wizard can hit that. If it has bad Touch AC, Wizard can hit that. And if it has no weaknesses, Wizard can hit it with stuff that offers no save, no SR and has no attack to at least shut it down, such as Wall of X or Forcecage or such. And if need be, Wizard can hit hard-to-hit targets with True Strike and penetrate spell resistance with Assay Resistance and so on.

Try to do similar things that "break the number limits your class should reach" with a melee type. If ToBber runs up against a guy with very high AC, tough break. He's not doing much, other than hoping for 20s or spamming Emerald Razor (or most efficiently, using his actions to pump teammates and acting as a wall of flesh).


If you battle a group of similar opponents (that is, brutes or casters or whatever), they generally share a weakness. And if there's a single opponent of relevance (not counting mooks), you obviously need to penetrate that one type's defenses. In either case, the option of "going to hit someone else" just is not there.

This is further reinforced by existence of battlefield control effects, terrain and such. It's not hard for monsters to pit the tough guy against the ToBber. Try that vs. a caster who can target any of the tough guy's defenses, and hit any other guy in spite of flesh walls.


No, being able to switch targets (occasionally when not prevented from doing so) isn't anywhere near the same realm of usefulness as being able to hit the weakness of every target you face.

lsfreak
2009-05-18, 07:21 PM
As we've already said, with a few exceptions, maneuvers also do less damage than a semi-optimized melee character, it's just that unlike that semi-optimized melee character, they're more than 1-trick ponies and they don't do ridiculously low damage when they can't full attack/sneak attack/whatever. So yes, they bypass magic immunity... but it still doesn't compare to the 30d6+70 damage a rogue is doing at 10th level or the 9d6+180 of a barbarian. It simply means that when the rogue or barbarian can't pump out that damage, they're not reduced to something pathetic like the 4d6+4 that a rogue might be.

Also, wizards are still powerful at low levels. Focused specialist (conj) can pump out high-level save-or-lose/save-or-die spells over the course of many encounters; by 3rd level they can win an encounter with a single spell and they can do it 4 times a day, and still hold their own if they have to in more encounters.

Keldon
2009-05-18, 07:29 PM
None of the ToB maneuvers are more powerful than a 6th-level spell, and most aren't that powerful. If you gave a Bard full BAB and heavy armor, you'd probably end up with something about as powerful as a White Raven Crusader or Warblade.

I hope you come up with statistics to support that. :)


Casters, on the other hand...a disintegrate does more damage than a lot of 9th-level maneuvers.

Disintegrate is a poor example regarding damage, because it does more damage than any other spell. Why? Simple. This is compensated by the fact that this spell requires TWO checks to work: attack roll and saving throw - three, if you count spell resistance. The maneuver? You hit, you deal the damage. No spell resistance, no antimagic field, no attack of opportunity, no failure chance from armor, more times per day, no spell immunity.


A harm spell does as much damage as the Iron Heart 9th-level strike

I wasn't comparing them to the cleric, i was comparing them to the wizards. :)


Besides, your analysis of comparative class features is woefully misdirected, because you mostly analyze stuff that doesn't matter for wizards.

That means we shouldn't make an analysis of how the classes perform outside combat, because that doesn't matter for melee classes, right? And that means we shouldn't count the wizards overall usefulness outside combat outside the combat, right? Which means that, according to you, "wizards can do anything else, TOB classes can only fight" doesn't matter at all.

Wrong. We should take into consideration every aspect of a class in order to compare it.


HD? Wizards don't get hit unless they're stupid. Armor? Same thing. BAB? Virtually all spells with attack rolls hit touch AC.

Again, you forget that most campaigns start at first level, and wizards don't get their ubber protections until very later on. Until then, hit points, armor and BAB are very important. More or less until half the wizard's carreer.

Wizards are not born high-level archmages.


And your analysis of maneuvers misses the fact that at every single level, wizard spells are better than martial adept maneuvers of comparable level (and spells like Glitterdust and Grease are great at any level).

Maneuvers have the advantages i already said:

- No AOO
- No spell resistance
- No spell immunity
- No arcane failure for wearing armor
- More daily uses
- Works in antimagic area

Etc.


I thought you just said "level 11" yourself, not level 20. Also, Mirror Image is a level 2 spell. Invisibility is level 2. Blur is level 2. Displacement is level 3. Disguise Self is friggin' level 1 and can often avoid a lot of fire. Silent Image is level 1. Out of core, Abrupt Jaunt is available from level 1. Wings of Cover is level 2. Greater Mirror Image is level 4. Celerity is level 4 and Lesser Celerity is level 2. People should stop pretending a Wizard needs to be high level to protect himself. Above level 3 is plenty. Really, this whole "you're talking about Wizard 20"-crap is annoying. Wizard gets insane abilities from level 1.

How long will those lower-level protections last? Will the low-level wizard be able to protect himself like that during most encounters during the day? :)

And if he does use protections all day, how much will be for offensive spells? Almost nothing.

When i said level 11 i was talking about contingency. When i said level 20 i was talking about people always trying to compare minmaxed 20th level characters. They are LESS common than 1st level characters and people use those as a compartion MORE often. People forget how tough life is for a first level wizard.

Also, i don't care if you don't like my argument about "Wizards 20 crap is annoiying", really. You have the right to disagree, as i do to your arguments. Period.


...did you read what you wrote? Wizard can target any weakness on an individual target.

- If they have the spell prepared for it.
- If they have enough spells prepared to affect all the specific saves he needs in every specific target during the day (which may happen on high levels but WON'T happen on low to mid levels, if the wizard wants to protect himself so badly). Please don't say "buy a wand or scroll", because the rogue can do the same.


And if need be, Wizard can hit hard-to-hit targets with True Strike and penetrate spell resistance with Assay Resistance and so on.

How many targets, how many times per day? Not too much on low to mid levels, unless he sacrifices defensive and support spell selection - supposing they know that much spells.

And other spells require an action to use (varies, according to the version of True Strike you use).


Spells bypass SR when you need 'em (Solid Fog doesn't offer SR, Orbs don't offer SR, Acid Fog doesn't offer SR, Web doesn't offer SR, etc.) and the same ones work in anti-magic fields too (besides, how often do you run into stationary anti-magic fields large enough to disrupt a Wizard in your campaigns? Wizards can walk, and have the skillpoints and lack of armor for Tumble, btw). Attacks of Opportunity? Ever checked the "Defensive Casting"-rules?

If you only memorize enough spells that bypass SR, is prepared all the times and know said spells, congratulations, you have a few spells that do what all maneuvers do. :)

Also, have you heard of Beholders and Golems? They are not unusual opponents, you know.

And i know the defensive-casting rules. I also know that the spell is lost if you fail the check, which is possible on low to mid levels. Do you know that? :)


And even then, there's always the trusty 5' step.

If you consider that there aren't reach weapons or large creatures then yes, you are perfectly safe.


So on the only category of any relevance you brought up,

That's your oppinion of relevance, of course. This is not a fact.


it certainly doesn't make casters underpowered.

It certaily doesn't - i never said otherwise :)

Just comparing, that's all.

Eldariel
2009-05-18, 07:52 PM
How long will those lower-level protections last? Will the low-level wizard be able to protect himself like that during most encounters during the day? :)

Depends on in how quick succession the encounters are. Clearing a dungeon? Even one Mirror Image can go a long way (and, y'know, the scout). If also using Hide and Move Silently, and having other party members (like the Druid and his animal companion), getting targeted is unlike to be an issue.

And this is again without mentioning the abilities offered out of core, such as Abrupt Jaunt which makes the Wizard almost untouchable Int times per day, and doesn't require spell slots, and the "screw attacks"-spells like Wings of Cover and Lesser Celerity.


And if he does use protections all day, how much will be for offensive spells? Almost nothing.

One spell can end one encounter. A low level Wizard can easily get by with 4 offensive spells every day and using the rest for defense. On level 1, you're right, he has no defensive spells (or almost none; they wouldn't be worth it if he prepared any anyways) hence the importance of hiding and initiative and having killer offense.

Level 3? He can already afford a bunch as his spell capacity just effectively doubled with the new level of spells available.


When i said level 11 i was talking about contingency. When i said level 20 i was talking about people always trying to compare minmaxed 20th level characters. They are LESS common than 1st level characters and people use those as a compartion MORE often. People forget how tough life is for a first level wizard.

"People always" is awfully obscure. It hasn't happened in this thread. I see literally one reference to level 20 Wizard's abilities (Celerity -> Time Stop) in this thread and that was a specific response to a comparison between Wizard 20 and Fighter 20. I think you're making really generalizing accusations here.


Also, i don't care if you don't like my argument about "Wizards 20 crap is annoiying", really. You have the right to disagree, as i do to your arguments. Period.

Well, this I need to address. We're not talking about Wizard 20s. That's not the comparison. Yet you claim the comparison is done with minmaxed level 20 Wizards. Therefore, you make a false claim. That is what annoys me. I haven't even drawn upon half of the potential of a level 12 Wizard, let alone a Wizard 20. Simple fact of the matter is, one doesn't need to.

I'm just annoyed how this all needs to be repeated for every user ever, with all the material right there in the PHB, and broken out in many online guides. We wouldn't need these threads if people bothered to just read what Wizards can do. It feels like people want to claim Wizards aren't as good as they are just to be different or to disagree or something, which sidetracks these threads always. :/


For the record, I did address the original question in my first post; I have nothing more to add to that, my take is that Fighters become competent once you leave Core while Wizard competency merely increases, so leaving Core improves Fighters' abilities in this regard as comparing incompetent to competent just can't be done, while the degrees of competency can.

Keldon
2009-05-18, 08:00 PM
"People always" is awfully obscure. It hasn't happened in this thread. I see literally one reference to level 20 Wizard's abilities (Celerity -> Time Stop) in this thread and that was a specific response to a comparison between Wizard 20 and Fighter 20. I think you're making really generalizing accusations here.

Well, this I need to address. We're not talking about Wizard 20s. That's not the comparison. Yet you claim the comparison is done with minmaxed level 20 Wizards. Therefore, you make a false claim. That is what annoys me. I haven't even drawn upon half of the potential of a level 12 Wizard, let alone a Wizard 20. Simple fact of the matter is, one doesn't need to.

I'm just annoyed how this all needs to be repeated for every user ever, with all the material right there in the PHB, and broken out in many online guides. We wouldn't need these threads if people bothered to just read what Wizards can do. It feels like people want to claim Wizards aren't as good as they are just to be different or to disagree or something, which sidetracks these threads always. :/


Since you cared to address in a polite way, i'll do the same.

I'm sorry for generalizing, that was wrong, even if it doesn't changes the rest of my arguments. Clearly, i can't say that all people on this thread make that mistake, but that's what i see in most comparations of balance. In any case, i can't guess the oppinion of everyone on this thread. For that, i am sorry.


For the record, I did address the original question in my first post; I have nothing more to add to that, my take is that Fighters become competent once you leave Core while Wizard competency merely increases, so leaving Core improves Fighters' abilities in this regard as comparing incompetent to competent just can't be done, while the degrees of competency can.

I too, have nothing more to add than i already have. It seems we have entered an eternal loop of the same and same arguments from both sides and won't get anywhere, right?

In any case, since you cared to explain the misunderstanding i care to appologize too. No hard feelings and such, right? :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel
2009-05-18, 08:07 PM
- If they have the spell prepared for it.
- If they have enough spells prepared to affect all the specific saves he needs in every specific target during the day (which may happen on high levels but WON'T happen on low to mid levels, if the wizard wants to protect himself so badly). Please don't say "buy a wand or scroll", because the rogue can do the same.

What does it matter what a Rogue can do (also, they can't craft 'em so it costs 'em more; and this comparison didn't include Rogues anyways)? Any decent Wizard has a Fort-save, a Will-save and a Ref-save targeting spell (at least one) prepared come level 5-6. Before that, he'll mostly target Will-saves and Reflex-saves as everything fails either-or anyways, and there're no good Fort-save spells on level 1. At this point, a Wizard can leave a spell slot empty (or better yet, acquire a Pearl of Power) and just reprepare whatever he's spent with 15 mins.

He'll have the right slot available because he sees to it. Also, you tend to know if you're going to meet solely one type of opponent all day (such as if you're entering an Undead-infested dungeon). In that case, you can prepare more of the appropriate spells. Otherwise, it's very rare that you'd only run into opponents of the same weak save and thus run out of spells. A ToBber hasn't had the option of hitting their weak save in the first place.


How many targets, how many times per day? Not too much on low to mid levels, unless he sacrifices defensive and support spell selection - supposing they know that much spells.

How many Touch AC 20+ opponents do you face daily? Scroll of True Strike is all it takes most of the time. Come level 5-6, you can easily prepare 1 if you really want to.


And other spells require an action to use (varies, according to the version of True Strike you use).

*shrug* If you're facing a boss-type opponent with insane Touch AC, using an extra action (or a charge of your Circlet of Rapid Casting) is hardly too big a price for not dying.


If you only memorize enough spells that bypass SR, is prepared all the times and know said spells, congratulations, you have a few spells that do what all maneuvers do. :)

No, maneuvers don't affect multiple targets, work at range, disable opponents with no save and linger for multiple rounds.


Also, have you heard of Beholders and Golems? They are not unusual opponents, you know.

*shrug* Grease works just fine on Golems, as does Web. Solid Fog (or any form of Fog), summons, ground morphing spells, Orbs, the like. Most of Wizard's spells worth casting are SR-free. Chances of a Wizard running out of them each day again requires a very specific circumstance (such as you running into nothing but Golems all day, and the Wizard somehow not having figured it out beforehand and not having enough Scrolls to keep up; a lot of ifs).

As far as Beholders, block the line of effect. You have that thing called "move action". Get behind an obstacle and cast something that doesn't require a line of effect (such as a Fog or Glitterdust or any area spell). Or cast a Generic Wall between you and it. Or y'know, win the initiative and disable the ****er. Any but Will-save will work just fine.


Bottomline, the average prepared spells of a Wizard are going to deal with such just fine.


And i know the defensive-casting rules. I also know that the spell is lost if you fail the check, which is possible on low to mid levels. Do you know that? :)

*shrug* You can pick up Combat Casting and retrain it later. You can get Third Eye: Concentrate and never fail the check again. And you can 5' step out and cast without defensive casting. And you can not run into the opponents like an idiot, and let your Druid block 'em.


EDIT: I don't have any grudges against you. So no hard feelings. It's the issue I'm trying to solve here to leave absolutely no ambiguity to the matter.

Killer Angel
2009-05-19, 03:58 AM
OP: Yeah, I get what you are saying. The main thing about it is while, yes, the difference is minimized in core, the actual ability to play a fun melee character is as well. Without making a Horizon Tripper, core severely limits your options to make a great meleer.

I agree. I don't deny that outside core, meleers have more options and so there's more fun (note that i'm not speaking 'bout role-playing, but only on the mechanics and class features).
You can have fun even playing a static dwarven defender, but this is completely unrelated with my OP, which was focused on effective power.
My opinion is that, going outside Core, meleers have more options (so, it's less "boring" playing them), but the power gap between them and the casters (not necessarly only wizard) became wider, thanks to DMM, metamagic reducers, broken PrC, etc.
For the moment, i've seen someone who shares my opinion, and someone who don't think so (Eldariel, for example), bringing valid reasonings but imo not resolutive.
Unless a DM leave access to ToB and other sources for fighters, limiting some of the broken combo for casters (nightsticks, metamagic reducers to zero cost, etc.). In this case, we'll have something resembling a sort of game balance...
Proabably, the question will remain open.

ericgrau
2009-05-19, 10:09 AM
Yeup, splatbooks cause more power gap.

As for lack of options in core, I partly blame the DM. Both him and the players should try out the rules cheat sheets in my sig for interesting encounters geared at the martial guys (that, quite plausibly, should be commonplace). You can:

Use various special attacks: even without the feat there are times when they are so easy or advantageous that you just gotta. There's 10 different things I could get into here. Also workable on the DM side and brings in counters like locked gauntlets and always carrying a light weapon for grapple fights. Or the caster getting still spell, combat casting (for high grapple DCs), etc.
Take a 20 on an untrained search checks to find common things or about 1/3 of the traps out there, even at high levels (DC does not go up). And then step over the pressure plate, jam something in the hole, or otherwise bypass it without a stupid disable device check (which doesn't/shouldn't work on 100% of traps anyway). Search a room top to bottom if you have the time; it's 2 minutes per square.
Ready an action: Especially if you're taking a standard anyway, consider if it would be better to wait until your target acts. Force a concentration check on spell-casting, for example. Remember you can include a 5 foot step with your readied action, and you could also ready a move action.
Get a mount: Even at high levels, spells and magical beasts can provide durable ones. Drop behind the mount as an immediate action to get +4 AC, guide it with your knees as you fire a bow or THF, trample, get on or off it as a free action, let it attack at the same time as you for extra hits, get a nice +1 to hit for being higher than your opponent. This also opens up counters like trip attempts to dismount you.
Get a cross class skill: DCs for a large number of skill checks are only 10-20, some let you take a 10 or 20.
Break doors, hinges, chests, locks, walls: There are so many interesting ways to get past that door/etc., why is the rogue doing it again?
Obtain strategic advantage. AB bonuses are often underestimated, but even a +1 is quite valuable. Get on higher ground like stairs, hit the guy who's grappling, flank, take [improved] cover, kneel as you fire your bow. Like a lot of other bullets, DMs who make unrealistic empty rectangular rooms with unsupported ceilings are partly to blame for this.
Alchemical items: tanglefoot bags, etc.
Exotic weapons: trip/disarm from range, extra melee options/advantage to trip/disarm, net the last baddy before he runs so you can question him, etc.
Expendable magic items: Potions, expendable wondrous items and otherwise can do loads of interesting things. A lot of non-expendables can be fun too, if you have the slot and gp for them. Some like boots of flying might be essential at some point.

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-19, 12:15 PM
Yeup, splatbooks cause more power gap.

As for lack of options in core, I partly blame the DM. Both him and the players should try out the rules cheat sheets in my sig for interesting encounters geared at the martial guys (that, quite plausibly, should be commonplace). You can:

Use various special attacks: even without the feat there are times when they are so easy or advantageous that you just gotta. There's 10 different things I could get into here. Also workable on the DM side and brings in counters like locked gauntlets and always carrying a light weapon for grapple fights. Or the caster getting still spell, combat casting (for high grapple DCs), etc.
Take a 20 on an untrained search checks to find common things or about 1/3 of the traps out there, even at high levels (DC does not go up). And then step over the pressure plate, jam something in the hole, or otherwise bypass it without a stupid disable device check (which doesn't/shouldn't work on 100% of traps anyway). Search a room top to bottom if you have the time; it's 2 minutes per square.
Ready an action: Especially if you're taking a standard anyway, consider if it would be better to wait until your target acts. Force a concentration check on spell-casting, for example. Remember you can include a 5 foot step with your readied action, and you could also ready a move action.
Get a mount: Even at high levels, spells and magical beasts can provide durable ones. Drop behind the mount as an immediate action to get +4 AC, guide it with your knees as you fire a bow or THF, trample, get on or off it as a free action, let it attack at the same time as you for extra hits, get a nice +1 to hit for being higher than your opponent. This also opens up counters like trip attempts to dismount you.
Get a cross class skill: DCs for a large number of skill checks are only 10-20, some let you take a 10 or 20.
Break doors, hinges, chests, locks, walls: There are so many interesting ways to get past that door/etc., why is the rogue doing it again?
Obtain strategic advantage. AB bonuses are often underestimated, but even a +1 is quite valuable. Get on higher ground like stairs, hit the guy who's grappling, flank, take [improved] cover, kneel as you fire your bow. Like a lot of other bullets, DMs who make unrealistic empty rectangular rooms with unsupported ceilings are partly to blame for this.
Alchemical items: tanglefoot bags, etc.
Exotic weapons: trip/disarm from range, extra melee options/advantage to trip/disarm, net the last baddy before he runs so you can question him, etc.
Expendable magic items: Potions, expendable wondrous items and otherwise can do loads of interesting things. A lot of non-expendables can be fun too, if you have the slot and gp for them. Some like boots of flying might be essential at some point.


I definitively second all of this. You can make an enconter far more interesting even with a table in the middle of the room, exspecially if players want to "follow you" and you monsters and NPC in strange maneuvers and interesting things.

The weapons and items are important - the care a fighter dedicates to his weapons should be the same a wizard dedicates to his spellbook.

More, with handle animals you can take not only mounts able to fly, but even to gide inside the earth and similar cool (and strategic) things.

The things that alchemical items are useless after a while it's just another false meme. They can bring you an edge, and can be used very well if well placed (see complete adventurer for capsules, as an example).

Finally, you can see a good meleer seeing the way he readies actions and use terrain, tools, and good combinations of standard maneuvers, maybe with a little bit of flexibility from the DM.*


* I remember even designers recommended it: in one article of archives, as an example, a designer suggested that you could always accomplish players if they do something cool and not game breaking: example, free action to take a weapon from the wall with QUICKDRAW, even if the weapon was not actually sheated, but pinned on the wall :smallsmile:

darkblust
2009-06-06, 09:21 AM
This is why you should play spellcasters on your own.Use your own ideas,and iftheir broken,then don't use them,or use them only in the most necessary predicament.some times min/maxers feel like this too me= :roach:

but sometimes they feel like this= :mitd: ,cause they know what their doing.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-06, 09:55 AM
The fighter surely has a weapon that surpasses ironguard at that level.

You do not know what Ironguard is. I shall explain.

Lesser Ironguard makes one immune to attacks by nonmagical metal weapons.

Ironguard makes one immune to attacks by magical metal weapons. It is a poorly thought out spell.

raptor1056
2009-06-06, 03:28 PM
I love how this thread became exactly what it didn't want to be-- an arguement about whether caster beong easier to bork than meleers is ok. My opinion: Meleers are easier to play, and thus, fittingly, less powerful. They may take as much design, but wizards have to prep spells each morning, all casters have to record spells/ day, yada yada yada. A fighter just spends a few minutes strapping on his armor, and he's good to kick as much bootah as he possibly can. Also, a wizard needs protection. Maybe he summons a critter to rotect him. If so, he's expending his resources that day for a neccesary resource. A fighter protects himself as is. Not really making a definite point with this last stuff, just throwing it out there for discussion.