PDA

View Full Version : melee or magic?



sir collino
2009-08-17, 08:19 PM
What is better at low level,mid level,and high level.Melee or magic?I've been lurking for a while but i have never really seen the answer.

RTGoodman
2009-08-17, 08:22 PM
I've been lurking for a while but i have never really seen the answer.

:smallconfused:

Er, well, melee can do okay in the lowest levels, especially with fancier toys to play with (Tome of Battle, rage, etc.), but after that magic wins. I'll let others explain it better, but basically, if it can be done by a non-caster, then there's a spell that lets a caster do it better, faster, harder, cheaper, and easier.

Sanguine
2009-08-17, 08:22 PM
ToB Allowed: Low-Melee, Mid-Probably Even, High-Magic(though not as much so as below)

ToB not allowed: Low-Melee, Mid-Magic, High-Most Definitely Magic

Of course this is just my opinion and is assuming 3.5 DnD is the system.

Milskidasith
2009-08-17, 08:26 PM
With just Core, it's probably Low: Arcane = Melee > Divine, Mid: Arcane > Divine = Melee, High: Arcane > Divine >>> Melee.

With non core, including ToB, it's probably Low: Melee > Arcane = Divine, Mid: Arcane = Divine > Melee, High: Arcane > Divine >>> Melee

FMArthur
2009-08-17, 08:29 PM
A fighter can kill an enemy in one turn, but a wizard can just end the encounter with the right spell(s), at any level of play, keeping the fighter around to go through the formality of actually slaying the crippled or incapacitated enemies. It's a partnership: the wizard does things that matter, and the fighter saves the wizard spell slots so he doesn't have to summon fighter-equivalent monsters.

Eldariel
2009-08-17, 08:31 PM
ToB Allowed: Low-Melee, Mid-Probably Even, High-Magic(though not as much so as below)

ToB not allowed: Low-Melee, Mid-Magic, High-Most Definitely Magic

Of course this is just my opinion and is assuming 3.5 DnD is the system.

You mean

"ToB not allowed:

Low (1-5): Even
Mid (6-10): Magic
High (11-20): Core has 3 classes, rest fillers"

Sanguine
2009-08-17, 08:35 PM
You mean

"ToB not allowed:

Low (1-5): Even
Mid (6-10): Magic
High (11-20): Core has 3 classes, rest fillers"

No because at low levels Barbarian is most definitely better then Wizard and is slightly better than Cleric(just slightly).

Milskidasith
2009-08-17, 08:35 PM
Well, Sorcerer can almost be competitive in core if he's specced right, so 4 classes. And divine classes aren't nearly as strong until you go out of Core and they have huge spell lists and ways to put new twists on existing spells (Holy word at CL +10, anybody?) But other than that, I agree with the above.

EDIT: At low levels, a barbarian is not better than a wizard. They are even. Why? Both of them can kill an encounter in one turn. If the wizard gets a sleep off on the Barbarian, it's CDG city; even a wizard can CDG well enough to kill a level one character. If the barbarian passes his save (about a 50% chance) there's a pretty good chance he kills the wizard in one shot.

Eldariel
2009-08-17, 08:43 PM
No because at low levels Barbarian is most definitely better then Wizard and is slightly better than Cleric(just slightly).

Are you sure? I don't know what I'd do without Sleep, Color Spray, Grease, Enlarge Person, Ray of Enfeeblement, Silent Image, Glitterdust, Web, Fog Cloud, Invisibility, Silence, Detect Magic & Prestidigitation.

Having access to True Strike to accurately throw Tanglefoot Bags doesn't hurt either. Really, a Barbarian is good to have on low levels for sure (especially one with reach weapon, tripping-line feats and good Con), but so is a Wizard and I'd even wager a Wizard can solve more nearly-unwinnable situations than a Barbarian.

Korivan
2009-08-17, 08:44 PM
While I tend to agree with magic is better, remember, melee has its uses. Even at higher levels. Even the lowly fighter at high levels can potentially to do hundreds of points of damage in a round. While a mage can negate a fighters ability to do damage, or even act at upper levels, both a meleer and magic user has thier place in a party.

Sanguine
2009-08-17, 08:44 PM
Wow I've been convinced the two are evenly matched at low levels without ToB.

AshDesert
2009-08-17, 08:45 PM
Even though it's been said by ... well, everyone, after level 5, your wizard turns into an engine of pure destruction that keeps the fighter around so the monsters don't attack his squishy butt, and, well, the fighter keeps all the monsters off the wizard's squishy butt (unless your DM is a meta-gaming D-Bag).

If you include non-core, there are some melee classes and feats that can keep the warriors relevant (sort of) until about 10th level, but it still ends up as:

Wizard: "I end the encounter, you go chop there heads off our something."

Warrior: "But, I didn't even get do anything!"

Wizard: "You know, Gate doesn't complain, just saying."

Warrior: :smallfrown:

Okay, I'm using hyperbole here, but not that much:smalleek:.

FMArthur
2009-08-17, 08:54 PM
EDIT: At low levels, a barbarian is not better than a wizard. They are even. Why? Both of them can kill an encounter in one turn. If the wizard gets a sleep off on the Barbarian, it's CDG city; even a wizard can CDG well enough to kill a level one character. If the barbarian passes his save (about a 50% chance) there's a pretty good chance he kills the wizard in one shot.

You're talking about level one class-vs-class, not low levels and real encounters in general. Sleep isn't useful in your hypothetical situation, either, because of its casting time of 1 round. Color Spray is what you're looking for, and the barbarian has a much lower than 50% chance to make a will save against a wizard's normal spell DC at that level. And that's the best situation - things go the wizard's way with increasingly favorable odds and power from there.

Kallisti
2009-08-17, 09:00 PM
I have to say, beginning at about third level, spellcasters beat melee warriors. Now, a medium-optimized wizard at low or mid levels won't beat a muchkin-sized uber-warrior, but at high levels even someone only competent, as opposed to highly skilled, at character building wins with magic.

At low levels, they're equivalent.

At mid-levels, magic is pretty definitely better, though not by too much.

At high levels, the wizard is dancing on the corpses of fallen enemies singing "Anything you can do, I can do better!" while the druid destroys hordes of foes, the cleric works miracles, and the fighter makes coffee for the rest.

sonofzeal
2009-08-17, 09:04 PM
At level 1, everyone sucks, but melee sorts can suck all day long. When anything you do has a roughly 50% chance of failure, the ability to keep on going is invaluable. By level 3... eh.

Level 1-2: ToB > Divine > Melee > Arcane
Level 3-7: ToB = Divine > Arcane > Melee
Level 8-12: Arcane > ToB = Divine >>> Melee
Level 13-20: Arcane > Divine > ToB >>> Melee

shadzar
2009-08-17, 09:10 PM
It really depends on your character. If you are playing a character that fears, or for some reason doesn't use magic, then it will be useless to them at all levels.

If you are playing a character that focuses solely on magic due to frailty or just ineptitude at hand-to-hand, then melee will be useless to them at any level.

darkblust
2009-08-17, 09:15 PM
Whats so good about spells?I know its a stupid question,but a high level fighter can do hundreds of damage,what can spells do compared to that?

Sanguine
2009-08-17, 09:17 PM
Whats so good about spells?I know its a stupid question,but a high level fighter can do hundreds of damage,what can spells do compared to that?

Look up Tenser's Transformation(or whatever the srd name for it is) or the Clerics Version which is better and lower level Divine Power. Those two spells render Fighters oblivious and those aren't even the worst things in core.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-17, 09:22 PM
Tenser's? Don't make me laugh.

"I'm going to go into melee without any feats to support me! Yay!"


Whats so good about spells?I know its a stupid question,but a high level fighter can do hundreds of damage,what can spells do compared to that?
Hundreds of damage.

Crippling the enemy.

Grab the non-reality of anti-spacetime and tear it a new one.

sonofzeal
2009-08-17, 09:24 PM
Whats so good about spells?I know its a stupid question,but a high level fighter can do hundreds of damage,what can spells do compared to that?
1) Completely remove the ability of what you're facing to damage you (Fly, Invisibility, Solid Fog, Etherealness, Forcecage, Wall of Force, etc)

2) Render it useless (maximized twinned Enervation, split ray Ray of Exhaustion, Baleful Polymorph, Power Word: Kill, Cloudkill, Dominate Monster, Antimagic Field)

3) Beat it at its own game (Tensor's/Nightstalker's Transformation, Polymorph, Shapechange, Iron Body)

Sanguine
2009-08-17, 09:25 PM
Tenser's? Don't make me laugh.

"I'm going to go into melee without any feats to support me! Yay!"

Okay Tenser's suck I will admit. Really I have always hated that spell don't know why I mentioned it.

Eldariel
2009-08-17, 09:32 PM
You can also generate your own, far superior, Fighter with Planar Binding-line. Lesser Planar binding gets you one of those swell Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightmare.htm)s as a Mount. It's a ****ing kickass mount, btw. (otherwise, get one with Phantom Steed - that's actually faster, but Etherealness is nice).

Planar Binding gets you a Glabrezu (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#glabrezu)-tank that easily outperforms most tanks of its level with slight magical buffing.

Greater Planar Binding gets you a Pit Fiend (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#pitFiend). I needn't tell you why they're pretty good.


This is without abusing Efreeti (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/genie.htm#efreeti) or similars for stupid amounts of Wishes and what-not. I guess you could get that Pit Fiend's Wish, but bleh. Oh, and how do you win the Charisma-check? See Circlet of Persuasion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#circletofPersuasion), Cloak of Charisma, various Debuff-effects while the creature is bound (such as Bestow Curve), and ultimately Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm) to guarantee your victory.

Kizara
2009-08-17, 09:35 PM
Seriously, in core, melee is obsoleted by a wand of greese at any level until they get a ring of freedom of movement.

I'm not kidding, compare the following:

Lvl 10 party consisting of 2 fighters and a barbarian.

Lvl 10 party consisting of 1 barbarian and an apprentice level wizard that has a wand of greese (that's had its DC meta-magiced to be competitive to this level).

Fight takes place in a narrow hallway.

If you don't believe me, try to play it out.

Milskidasith
2009-08-17, 09:37 PM
If the fighter invested in balance, then it might not be that tough for the fighters to stay up.

Kylarra
2009-08-17, 09:45 PM
If the fighter invested in balance, then it might not be that tough for the fighters to stay up.

The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str).

:smallfrown:


Poor fighters and their crossclass skills.

woodenbandman
2009-08-17, 09:49 PM
No. The fighter didn't invest in balance. None of your fighters ever have, and don't pretend that they did.

Sanguine
2009-08-17, 09:52 PM
No. The fighter didn't invest in balance. None of your fighters ever have, and don't pretend that they did.

No but plenty of my Warblades have.

kpenguin
2009-08-17, 09:54 PM
No. The fighter didn't invest in balance. None of your fighters ever have, and don't pretend that they did.

Your games have clearly never gone anywhere near a boat. Balance is important for a naval campaign.

nightwyrm
2009-08-17, 09:54 PM
No but plenty of my Warblades have.

One of the many thing that makes warblades > fighters.

sonofzeal
2009-08-17, 09:55 PM
My current Barbarian has 5 ranks in balance, precisely because I'm aware of how easy it is to screw yourself otherwise.

Eldariel
2009-08-17, 09:58 PM
No. The fighter didn't invest in balance. None of your fighters ever have, and don't pretend that they did.

Anyone who knows the basics of Wizards' power has 5 ranks in Balance while playing melee type regardless of their class.

Milskidasith
2009-08-17, 10:00 PM
Honestly, I'd find Balance to be a better investment than most of the fighters skills, especially if swimming and climbing are rarely obstacles.

Berserk Monk
2009-08-17, 10:04 PM
What is better at low level,mid level,and high level.Melee or magic?I've been lurking for a while but i have never really seen the answer.

Low level: melee
Mid level: either or
High level: magic

Eldariel
2009-08-17, 10:22 PM
Low level: melee
Mid level: either or
High level: magic

Why are you convinced that melee is better on low levels?

Elfin
2009-08-17, 10:23 PM
Wondering that myself...magic could easily beat melee even at low levels.

Yukitsu
2009-08-17, 10:26 PM
Low level magicary requires thinking, while low level fighteryness doesn't really. You can get along fine with either.

Later on, if you don't think, you die. To be honest, a fighter can hack it in later levels, though not to the degree of a wizard. They just have to be well prepared to think to win.

Milskidasith
2009-08-17, 11:32 PM
Solid Fog, Fly, Greater Invisibility, *insert no save just suck spell here.*

Yeah... a fighter can't hold his own against a mage, and a mage can use most all of his anti melee techniques against monsters.

readsaboutd&d
2009-08-17, 11:52 PM
It depends on the level of thought you put into him. With little thought, casters are weak compared to melee at low levels and less overwhelmingly strong at mid ones. With alot, magic is a bit stronger at low ones and overwhelming mid.

Deepblue706
2009-08-18, 12:06 AM
Wait, I'm confused. Are we talking about Party vs. Monsters or Party Members vs. Each Other?

I mean, all this talk of Grease ruining a Fighter's day is making me go through monster manuals in search of how many monsters use Grease...

Milskidasith
2009-08-18, 12:09 AM
You have it backwards there. Casters need an incredibly small amount of thought to completely shut down melee with no save, while a melee character needs tons of different magic items to have a chance of hitting a caster.

At level 1, all a caster needs to beat melee characters is grease and a decent number of spells that are instant death (mechanically, they are going to fail their save against two castings of sleep pretty often, and at that low level it's also possible a magic character could just shoot them with a bow.)

At level 10, a caster has so many options in core alone to shut down a melee character that it's not even funny, while a melee character needs an item that lets him fly, an item of freedom of movement, an item of true seeing, a way to dispel a casters buffs, a way to keep a caster from teleporting away, etc. He

Teron
2009-08-18, 12:12 AM
Wait, I'm confused. Are we talking about Party vs. Monsters or Party Members vs. Each Other?

I mean, all this talk of Grease ruining a Fighter's day is making me go through monster manuals in search of how many monsters use Grease...
While you're at it, check how many monsters have ranks in Balance.

Deepblue706
2009-08-18, 12:16 AM
While you're at it, check how many monsters have ranks in Balance.

Adzooks! It's like Wizards can contribute!

But wait, with all those Flying monsters that plague Fighters, this will obviously never be useful.

AslanCross
2009-08-18, 01:03 AM
Whats so good about spells?I know its a stupid question,but a high level fighter can do hundreds of damage,what can spells do compared to that?

Even at mid-levels, you have these:

-Solid Fog: Take out a whole bunch of enemies out of the fight almost instantly. You can easily run away from them. None of them can pursue you to the best of their ability. No save, no resistance, no way out short of dispelling the fog.

-Black Tentacles. This has screwed up so many of my encounters. This spell is almost guaranteed to neutralize any mob of Medium enemies. Even Large enemies get slowed down.

-Shivering Touch: Instantly disable a dragon (granted it's much harder than proponents of this cheesy spell let on).

-Glitterdust: This lowly level 2 spell works against almost any monster (it works against undead too). It nails invisibility and blinds the targets.

At higher levels:

-Otto's Irresistible Dance: Nuff said.

-Avasculate and Avascular Mass: "Make a Fort save." "I succeed!" "No you don't! Half of your HP gets cut off as your blood explodes out of your body! HA HA!"

And these are just single spells. I'm not even getting into the cheesy combos. The biggest problem is that the melee character's potential hundreds of damage points is easily frustrated or outright negated by incorporeality or Etherealness.

Frosty
2009-08-18, 01:41 AM
My current Barbarian has 5 ranks in balance, precisely because I'm aware of how easy it is to screw yourself otherwise.

True, but is that a bit metagaming though? not that I'm saying a bit of metagame is bad, but how many NPC Fighters will get 5 cross-class ranks in Balance?

Yora
2009-08-18, 01:57 AM
At low levels, a barbarian is not better than a wizard. They are even. Why? Both of them can kill an encounter in one turn. If the wizard gets a sleep off on the Barbarian, it's CDG city;
At low level, if the barbarian gets a power attack on the wizard, the wizard is dead.

And every wizard tactic at lower levels, that is not highly concentrated cheese, that I have ever seen, can be overcome by stalling things until he is out of spells.

Kylarra
2009-08-18, 02:04 AM
True, but is that a bit metagaming though? not that I'm saying a bit of metagame is bad, but how many NPC Fighters will get 5 cross-class ranks in Balance?All the ones that survive to level 7!

sonofzeal
2009-08-18, 02:07 AM
True, but is that a bit metagaming though? not that I'm saying a bit of metagame is bad, but how many NPC Fighters will get 5 cross-class ranks in Balance?
Well, {a} the Barbarian in question is quite acrobatic, {b} he didn't have to crossclass it, and {c} I would expect citizens of a world to have a basic understanding of how that world works, even if it's just on the level of "if I practice my footing enough, I can learn to fight better on slick ground". That's hardly metagaming, that's just gaming.

A and B may not apply to NPC fighters, but C does. Many would have other priorities, and it wouldn't matter much until they're at least level 7, but it's something that veterans and swordsmasters may take the time to learn. Footwork is pretty foundational in most combat forms IRL, and ranks in balance fit for that.

Saph
2009-08-18, 02:36 AM
Generally I've found that the rule is:

• Levels 1-4: Meleers dominate over casters.
• Levels 5-10: Melee and casters are fairly balanced.
• Levels 11-14: Casters dominate over meleers.
• Levels 15-20: Casters dominate over everything.
• Level 21+: Divide by Cucumber Error. Please reinstall universe and reboot.

I've played plenty of level 1 games, and honestly, wizards and sorcerers suck at that level. They're like glass cannons, except they're cannons that can only fire three shots per day, oh, and the shots aren't actually guaranteed to do anything even if you manage to get them off. Meanwhile the Warblade and the Crusader are going through enemies like a buzz saw.

Comparing Wizards to Fighters is going to give you skewed results because the Wizard is one of the best casting classes while the Fighter is one of the worst melee classes.

Frosty
2009-08-18, 02:41 AM
Well, {a} the Barbarian in question is quite acrobatic, {b} he didn't have to crossclass it, and {c} I would expect citizens of a world to have a basic understanding of how that world works, even if it's just on the level of "if I practice my footing enough, I can learn to fight better on slick ground". That's hardly metagaming, that's just gaming.

A and B may not apply to NPC fighters, but C does. Many would have other priorities, and it wouldn't matter much until they're at least level 7, but it's something that veterans and swordsmasters may take the time to learn. Footwork is pretty foundational in most combat forms IRL, and ranks in balance fit for that.

To be honest, why DON'T Fighters get Balance as a class skill anyways? It doesn't make any sense.

Dhavaer
2009-08-18, 04:42 AM
To be honest, why DON'T Fighters get Balance as a class skill anyways? It doesn't make any sense.

They're weak on skills to compensate for the awesome power of full BAB. True story.

Eldariel
2009-08-18, 10:11 AM
To be honest, why DON'T Fighters get Balance as a class skill anyways? It doesn't make any sense.

The funny part of this is that the real world melee fighting has a great deal to do with putting your opponent off-balance and maintaining your own balance. You'd think the warrior-types most of all would care about their Balance.

Saph
2009-08-18, 10:25 AM
It does seem weird, doesn't it?

By contrast, Warblades not only get Balance, but Balance is the key skill for Iron Heart, the "pure fighter" discipline. That makes much more sense, I think.

Sharkman1231
2009-08-18, 10:36 AM
My lvl 12 cleric took on our party's minmaxed barbarian (lvl12) in one-on-one melee combat. I could only cast buffs, no healing or offensive spells, after about 8 rounds, I won but was reduced to about 20 hp. Clerics pwn.:smallwink:
Just in case I didn't say it, all buffs were cast beforehand, core only

Tengu_temp
2009-08-18, 10:56 AM
To be honest, why DON'T Fighters get Balance as a class skill anyways? It doesn't make any sense.

Because they're not a very balanced class. Zing!

Doc Roc
2009-08-18, 11:29 AM
It does seem weird, doesn't it?

By contrast, Warblades not only get Balance, but Balance is the key skill for Iron Heart, the "pure fighter" discipline. That makes much more sense, I think.

And this is why I ban fighter. Because it just hurts my head to think that Skip did this to his favorite class.

Eldariel
2009-08-18, 11:38 AM
And this is why I ban fighter. Because it just hurts my head to think that Skip did this to his favorite class.

At least you can't blame him for favoritism!

quick_comment
2009-08-18, 11:39 AM
Really, even if fighters had a class ability letting them automatically kill anything in a single hit, it still wouldnt help them fight wizards.

aje8
2009-08-18, 11:44 AM
• Levels 1-4: Meleers dominate over casters.
• Levels 5-10: Melee and casters are fairly balanced.

Strongly Disagree.

Have you played games at 5th level? It's balanced there with ToB otherwise.... not so much. Glitterdust and Stinking cloud end encounters fighter hits things. Wizard now has many defensive options including invisability and flight. By level 7 Wizard can cast Enervation, Polymorph and Black Tentacles. He now overpowers even the ToB fighter.

Levels 1-2: A house cat is a serious threat to the Wizard. Nuff said.
Levels 3-4: ToB>Wizard=Fighter
Levels 5-6: Wizard=ToB>>>Fighter
Levels 7-8:Wizard>Tob>>Fighter
Level 9: Melee is dead. Ok, ToB is midly useful. If optimized.

I actually think divine is in much better shape though. A Cleric isn't signifcantly worse than a Wizard till like level 11 or so. Druids stay frimly better than Wizards till like levels 10. Balanced with Wizards for like levels 11-12 and worse than Wizards at lv. 13.

Saph
2009-08-18, 11:56 AM
Strongly Disagree.

Have you played games at 5th level? It's balanced there with ToB otherwise.... not so much. Glitterdust and Stinking cloud end encounters fighter hits things. Wizard now has many defensive options including invisability and flight.

I've played games at 5th-level. At which Wizards have invisibility and flight. For 1 minute/level each. After spending a standard action and a spell slot to cast them. I used to play in a party with a wizard who did that all the time. Round 1, wizard casts Invisibility, round 2, wizard casts Fly, round 3, rest of the party basically finish the battle and it's over but for cleanup. A Wizard who always puts his own safety first usually ends up being irrelevant.

And Glitterdust and Stinking Cloud don't end encounters. They debuff one or two enemies, for a few rounds, assuming the enemies fail their saves. A blinded opponent can still fight, a nauseated opponent can still move away to the other side of the cloud and wait for the effect to wear off. If the rest of the party have surrounded the enemy and are all beating on them when the wizard lands his debuff, then sure, the encounter's over. But for the Wizard to claim sole credit for the team's success is being really arrogant.

Deepblue706
2009-08-18, 01:43 PM
The funny part of this is that the real world melee fighting has a great deal to do with putting your opponent off-balance and maintaining your own balance. You'd think the warrior-types most of all would care about their Balance.

I don't think that's a proper assessment of what the Balance skill plays into. When the game was released, there weren't really that any attacks that called it into use; the skill is only used when walking a tightrope or trying to get across a field of churning oil (a Grease spell). How would combat training translate to that which is learned for circus stunts?

Sinfire Titan
2009-08-18, 02:00 PM
:smallfrown:


Poor fighters and their crossclass skills.

And Armor Check Penalties. Nice Full Plate, hope you like my Grease spell!

Eldariel
2009-08-18, 02:50 PM
I don't think that's a proper assessment of what the Balance skill plays into. When the game was released, there weren't really that any attacks that called it into use; the skill is only used when walking a tightrope or trying to get across a field of churning oil (a Grease spell). How would combat training translate to that which is learned for circus stunts?

I'm willing to bet any skilled swordsman has way above average balance and could walk the rope much easily than Joe McFarmer. Sure, he's not a specialist and as such, probably wouldn't pull it off consistently (even without armor), but he's not your average guy either.

Specialists have Skill Focus, Dex-focus, Skill Mastery, no friggin' Full-Plate and so on; of course the Fighter can't match that (without going Circus himself), but he should have it in class.

Darcand
2009-08-18, 03:46 PM
I don't think that's a proper assessment of what the Balance skill plays into. When the game was released, there weren't really that any attacks that called it into use; the skill is only used when walking a tightrope or trying to get across a field of churning oil (a Grease spell). How would combat training translate to that which is learned for circus stunts?

You would be hard pressed to find a professional boxer that hasn't studied dance, just because no matter if you're throwing punches or swinging an axe all of your power comes from balance and leverage.

In one on one encounters (i.e. the party vs the BBEWizard) where the caster is free to dump his entire spell load without worry about what comes next then the caster quickly take the upper hand. The longer an encounter lasts, and the more encounters per day experianced however really begin to eat into a casters effectiveness, whereas the melee classes will continue to maintain. Anytime you have to stop in the middle of storming a castle and go home to take a nap, you lose.

The issue with Casters in general is that they have been "fixed" to the point of being broken. Ages and versions ago their spell lists were extremely limited (the first edition of D&D I owned, a starter set that only went to level 5, had eighteen spells in it) and there were alot of situations that were not covered.

Since then enough people have complained that new spells have slowly been added until, now, there is something to do everything. The Caster classes aren't broken, the spells are, and not so badly that you couldn't fix them with thirty minutes and some white out.

tiercel
2009-08-18, 07:49 PM
Strongly Disagree.

Have you played games at 5th level? It's balanced there with ToB otherwise.... not so much. Glitterdust and Stinking cloud end encounters fighter hits things. Wizard now has many defensive options including invisability and flight. By level 7 Wizard can cast Enervation, Polymorph and Black Tentacles. He now overpowers even the ToB fighter.

A standard D&D game kinda assumes that you have multiple real, threatening encounters per day. (I believe 4 is the canonical average number.)

If you give your wizard exactly one fight every day, and especially if you give him as many rounds as he likes to buff beforehand, of course he is going to rock the encounter. Give him enemies always tightly clumped into 10' and 20' spreads, and he is going to rock.

If your wizard has to ration his spells over 4 encounters -- or, more specifically, an *unknown* number of encounters which may be fewer or greater than 4 -- even *occasionally* doesn't have the luxury of prebuffing, and doesn't always face enemies in concentrated clumps, I think you will find that Mr. Wizard doesn't just win everything at levels 5-7.

In my experience, that's why wizards increasingly begin winning more at lvls 9-12 (not only are they getting access to more powerful spells but they are getting *more* spells, enough that they rarely run out, even of their favorite spells, over the course of several encounters) and especially at levels 13+ (when individual spells are becoming increasingly unhinging plus there are so many spells per day that more and more of them can be used on prebuffing and divination).

In my experience, D&D tends to sift out something like:

Lvl 1-4:

Spellcasting is potent but highly rationed -- a given spell may end or at least turn *one* fight, but it's not going to be enough to go around all the fights in a day. Melee classes are soaking up some of the best frontloaded abilities they have.

Multiclassing characters generally haven't even multiclassed (or much) yet.

Lvl 5-8:

Spellcasters get access to increasingly powerful spells and in enough numbers that they can contribute pretty significantly to every fight in a day. Melee types which are well built may be coming into their prime as they enter a PrC or complete some feat tree.

Multiclassing characters (e.g. gish, mystic theurge, etc.) often hate these levels as they are getting over the "worst of both worlds" and barely getting into their PrC.

Lvl 9-12:

Spellcasters now have enough spells that they not only are heavily contributing but can be throwing pretty much at least one significant spell per combat round, not to mention some of their spells change the nature of combat/campaign, moreso than previously possible (e.g. teleport, heal). Melee types are increasingly hard-pressed to match the growing power of full spellcasting, even with a good build/PrCs+equipment, though they can remain quite relevant (with spellcasters using some of their growing spell bounty to buff their meatshield buddies as well as themselves).

Multiclassing PrCs are starting to pay off.

Lvl 13-16:

Spellcasters (multiclass or otherwise) have so many spells they are trying to find ways to burn through them all (swift and immediate action spells, Quicken spell, lots of prebuffing, diivination, etc.) , and spells of sufficient power and scope that melee is not only avoidable but can be fairly readily made completely obsolete. Melee types are heavily dependent upon excellent gear and spell buffs to contribute.

Lvl 17+:

9th level spells shatter all of existence into a whirling vortex of brokenation that sucks your *players* out of their chairs and into oblivion. Epic is never reached not only because of this, but because epic brokenates you so hard that it destroys your campaign *from the future*, never allowing you to reach it.

----

...aside from the mild hyperbole in the last segment, I find in practice that while "spellcasters win" does eventually happen with increasing levels in D&D, it generally takes longer in practice in a reasonable campaign than it does in the confines of message board discussions or single fight-per-day thought experiments or PvP death matches.

Deepblue706
2009-08-19, 02:27 AM
I'm willing to bet any skilled swordsman has way above average balance and could walk the rope much easily than Joe McFarmer. Sure, he's not a specialist and as such, probably wouldn't pull it off consistently (even without armor), but he's not your average guy either.

Specialists have Skill Focus, Dex-focus, Skill Mastery, no friggin' Full-Plate and so on; of course the Fighter can't match that (without going Circus himself), but he should have it in class.

Really? Although footwork can be a vital part of melee combat, I'm hard pressed to see a Fighter being better-suited to walking a rope any better than anyone else of equal Dexterity. It just strikes me as a sort of specialist skill, from the standpoint is was originally introduced, at least.

Perhaps the "updated" Fighter (*ahem* Warblade) is deserving of it because of how with later supplements Balance was given more use than "Avoid Falling on Grease, also, walk ropes", but if your game lacks those supplements, then do you really need it? I don't see how knowing your footing on solid ground should automatically prepare you for situations where the ground beneath you is now a field of oil, or shifting due to an earthquake, etc.

I suppose I understand the aesthetic appeal of being just badass enough to get out of those situations anyway. Although, nothing has suggested to me that a Fighter really ought to be capable of that on the basis of being a warrior alone, or even a PC one at that.


You would be hard pressed to find a professional boxer that hasn't studied dance, just because no matter if you're throwing punches or swinging an axe all of your power comes from balance and leverage.

Then should a Fighter get Perform (Dance) as a class skill, too? And should it give combat benefits? Also, the first sentence of Balance's description: "You can walk on a precarious surface." It says nothing like "You can keep your footing wherever you are, whatever is happening."



In one on one encounters (i.e. the party vs the BBEWizard) where the caster is free to dump his entire spell load without worry about what comes next then the caster quickly take the upper hand. The longer an encounter lasts, and the more encounters per day experianced however really begin to eat into a casters effectiveness, whereas the melee classes will continue to maintain. Anytime you have to stop in the middle of storming a castle and go home to take a nap, you lose.

The issue with Casters in general is that they have been "fixed" to the point of being broken. Ages and versions ago their spell lists were extremely limited (the first edition of D&D I owned, a starter set that only went to level 5, had eighteen spells in it) and there were alot of situations that were not covered.

Since then enough people have complained that new spells have slowly been added until, now, there is something to do everything. The Caster classes aren't broken, the spells are, and not so badly that you couldn't fix them with thirty minutes and some white out.

I wouldn't say it's "the spells", but rather "a few spells". And when I say "a few spells" I mean a few that are exploitable, but not terribly powerful under all circumstances. Although, I believe it's a poor idea to let those circumstances be limited only by a guess at what opportunities DMs would provide in their campaigns, so the statement that something is broken is still accurate.

I try my hardest not to ban material outright, but instead control the game through ways the RAW doesn't really address: limitations like time constraints to prevent constant divination, gathering of information and preparation of optimal magics. Keeping polymorph selections to known creatures (as in, having encountered them or made appropriate knowledge checks, etc) is another thing I stick to.

I also always use a wide variety of monsters (I mean I look for excuses to have the players encounter something different). It increases the chances of spellcasters being unprepared for the fight; which gives non-casters more of a chance to shine, as I see it. Not that preparation isn't good for everyone, but, it often keeps Wizards from saying "Oh, good thing I have Kill That Monster prepared.", and instead they have to rely on the Really Annoy That Monster they prepared. The Fighter may never get all of the thunder, but instead everyone tends to be doing something cool-enough.

Various quantities of various enemies within a single encounter also seem to help with that. Although I try not to give the players something like "A Gelatinous Cube, a Rust Monster, a Mummy and Five Grizzly Bears are all hanging out in a room playing cards..." I find you can keep an individual from dominating the whole combat if various abilities are required to be applied simultaneously in order to win. I'd say magic still wins out in such a game, but Wizardly Folk get to bespell their easy targets, Divine Chums can shout "I Smite Thee" at something, Sword Guys get to hit things with a really cool Sword, and Roguely Fellows can stab something or use a scroll, or disarm the Cloudkill trap that triggers when the last Bear dies.

Saph
2009-08-19, 02:33 AM
Various quantities of various enemies within a single encounter also seem to help with that. Although I try not to give the players something like "A Gelatinous Cube, a Rust Monster, a Mummy and a Grizzly Bear are all hanging out in a room playing cards..."

Oh, why not? If your players are going for optimised builds you might as well have fun with it.

The first encounter the party ran into in the Test of Spite Monkening challenge was: two arrow demons (ugly green things from the Abyss. With arrows.) one glitterfire living spell (mindless ooze that causes things to glitter and explode by running over them) and a dread blossom swarm (flying, poisonous, killer rosebushes.)

I didn't even try and explain what they were doing there, but the players didn't ask. :P

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-19, 02:37 AM
I don't need to know why things are there, I just need to know how to kill them.

With fire.

And lots of it.

Deepblue706
2009-08-19, 02:48 AM
Oh, why not? If your players are going for optimised builds you might as well have fun with it.

The first encounter the party ran into in the Test of Spite Monkening challenge was: two arrow demons (ugly green things from the Abyss. With arrows.) one glitterfire living spell (mindless ooze that causes things to glitter and explode by running over them) and a dread blossom swarm (flying, poisonous, killer rosebushes.)

I didn't even try and explain what they were doing there, but the players didn't ask. :P

Wow.

Well, generally my games don't involve optimizing players. However, the principle keeps away some incidental overshadowing.

If it were strictly a question of absolute optimization, then I'd have no qualms about it. Or, if it's a Mad Wizard's den. That's a fun one to do.