PDA

View Full Version : Why so much whining... (about overpowerful casters; etc...)



umbrapolaris
2010-11-28, 10:48 PM
i always die laughing when peoples whines about the omni-powerfulness of the spellcasters or the so-called broken rules of epic spells, and co.

d&d is a fantasy ROLEPLAYING game where some kind of characters are of course more powerful than the others at same level. in the real world a mere scientist don't match the black ops commando in combat.

I don't understand why peoples want to equalize the power of each class with the others. sure a wizard is more powerful than a fighter at medium or high level; equalize the classes is not the goal of d&d ! a player is supposed to choose a class that he like to "roleplay" then try to make its character evolve to high levels becoming a hero, a paragon of his class ; not the more powerful guy in the campaign. d&d is not Diablo.

magic is a tool like a sword, but a powerful tool many times more powerful than a sword even at lv1; so at epic levels it is normal than a epic spell overcome a magic +7 sword.

in our homebrew FR campaign, we reaches epic levels, my character is a powerful optimized arcane caster; basically a Sangrolu (a kind of vampiric-lich homebrewed undead found on internet) Netherese Arcanist converted by the DM from the ad&d class found in Arcane Age: Netheril), the Death Knight Warblade is extremely strong with his dozens of epic magic items and his artifact armor, the demilich-cleric controlled his cohort of undeads, and then enter the weak rogue... an ex-powerful evil backstabber who became lawful good and loses 6 levels... stuck to our group because a strange twist of magic make him and the death knight dependent of each other after he unlocked the last trap to obtain the artifact armor of our Death Knight. if the rogue die, the death knight is destroyed and vice versa. this rogue is maybe the weakest of the group but the player roleplayed him so well, that he save our lives many times and even convince a god to not launch his vast army against us...

in d&d power is important , roleplaying is more, nothing is broken if you don't intend to compare things.

that is just my view of the game.

Toliudar
2010-11-28, 11:01 PM
I'm glad you had a good experience with your campaign. In my PBP experience here, one of the primary reasons players drift off is if they feel like they're not contributing. In a group with even not-so-optimized casters, it's hard for dedicated melee types to feel like they're essential, because so much of the time is spent doing something other than killing.

I value conversation and character interaction too, but when I feel like I'm along for the ride, it gets frustrating. Hence, I usually play either full casters or half-caster types.

Aron Times
2010-11-28, 11:04 PM
Character level is supposed to be the metric for character power. Ideally, a level x fighter should be at roughly the same power level as a level x wizard because it takes roughly the same amount of time and effort to get to such a level. Each member of the party doesn't have to be identical in abilities and power level, but players usually have more fun when they're at a similar power level to their companions.

D&D is a roleplaying GAME, to turn your argument on its head. If it involved purely roleplaying, we wouldn't need any hard and fast rules to play it. As a game, it should have some semblance of fairness among its players. The difference between the fighter and the wizard in D&D 3.5 is like a a game of basketball (or any sport) where one side only has one player while the other side has a full complement of five. Playing a wizard intelligently or at least with a little common sense results in a vastly more powerful character than a fighter played at the same level of skill. The power discrepancy between casters and noncasters is just too huge in the game.

Your group might focus more on the roleplaying aspect of D&D, but most groups go half-and-half on the roleplaying aspect and the game aspect of it. You can roleplay a weak character and a strong character equally well, but you'll get more mileage out of your roleplaying with the latter.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-28, 11:06 PM
To address your rant:

1. It is indeed a role playing game. However the game penalizes people playing classes that aren't a "powerful optimized arcane caster." If you and your party got in a fight, chances are good you would kill every single one of them. If I choose to play a sword wielding fighter who dumps every stat but combat ones I should be able to keep up my friend who plays a badly optimized wizard or druid, but instead I am penalized for not casting spells.

2. Arguing that we are "whining" about the rules and then playing a homebrewed class and race in a homebrewed campaign with a ToB Warblade Death Knight as a companion is silly. The only core character in your group is the "weakest" in the party, and rogues are in fact the highest tier none caster in core.

3. Your opinion is yours of course, but you don't offer any evidence for it in your rant. You used "of course" to justify the issues with game mechanics, and hand waved the arguments other people have made in the past by saying it isn't a video game. In short you offer no evidence for your point of view. Saying "you can still have fun" doesn't address why people are "whining."

Ninjaed.

Psyren
2010-11-28, 11:08 PM
I always liked that one quotation from the Diablo instruction manual: "Might and magic are spokes on the same wheel. In lacking one, you lack both."

I find it silly for a Muggle to expect to play in the Big Leagues without some magic. (For the purposes of this discussion, I define "magic" broadly enough to include ToB Maneuvers.)

Private-Prinny
2010-11-28, 11:10 PM
a player is supposed to choose a class that he like to "roleplay" then try to make its character evolve to high levels becoming a hero, a paragon of his class.

Right, so if I want to play a Fighter, I would want to be a guy who goes toe-to-toe with dragons using nothing more than his muscles and a sword. Unfortunately, in D&D, if I went against a dragon, I would be burned to a crisp right before the Wizard brings it down with a flick of his wrist. Therein lies the problem.

If I want to be a fighter, I want to be good at fighting! Being the wizard's audience does not make a fun game for me, no matter how much I get to talk (especially since the wizard has spells for that, too).

Goonthegoof
2010-11-28, 11:20 PM
I always use LOTR as an example here. Yes, you can have a good story even when one character (the wizard) is a bunch stronger than the fighter/ranger/commoner group, but no-one is going to have much fun playing the hobbit when he knows he's never going to achieve anything near what the wizard can.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-28, 11:22 PM
i understand what you mean, i think all depend of the DM, when the rogue had his curse, he screamed like a pregnant woman giving birth. all the other players didnt understand why the Dm was so "hard" ; the change of alignment had severe effect on the group and his character, many of his abilities were lost, he can't use some of his epic items who were very useful to the group;etc...

when i asked to my Dm why so much cruelty ! he said he was not supposed to be so harsh with him; but he feels since 2-3 adventures that the rogue feels bored with his character and have no challenges. so the dm did what he did !!! at first i told him he is crazy but now i support his action, that simple things made our campaign very attractive, and funny. The cleric and me are powerful enough to make the rogue recover his original state but he refused ! he said it is more interesting for him to roleplay a good character in a band of despicable evil guys ^^ and since he lost levels and becomes non-epic (for the moment) we must protect him all the time... who permit the dm to invent tricky events.

if the dm is creative , even the weak can becomes useful as the powerful...it is why i think nothing is broken if correctly managed and ruled.

Psyren
2010-11-28, 11:24 PM
I always use LOTR as an example here. Yes, you can have a good story even when one character (the wizard) is a bunch stronger than the fighter/ranger/commoner group, but no-one is going to have much fun playing the hobbit when he knows he's never going to achieve anything near what the wizard can.

I'm not sure that's a good example - technically, the hobbits had the biggest achievements of anybody.

MightyTim
2010-11-28, 11:36 PM
There are two related reasons why people complain about broken epic gameplay.

1.As a DM, it is incredibly difficult to create meaningful challenges for an epic level caster.
2. Because of this, any challenges to the party are completely over the head of everyone who isn't a caster.

In short, most epic games can't adequately challenge casters, while everyone else is left in the dust. Gameplay is boring for casters, since they can do anything, and everyone else is basically not playing any more, since the casters do all the work.

There are exceptions to this. You seem to be having a good time in an epic level campaign. Good for you.

Goonthegoof
2010-11-28, 11:38 PM
It is when you think about it as a d&d campaign. In a real campaign the wizard would have grabbed the ring and teleported to mount doom. In a way it proves my point- The only way for the non casters to feel like they can make a difference is to arbitrarily hamper the caster.

Kesnit
2010-11-28, 11:39 PM
if the dm is creative , even the weak can becomes useful as the powerful...it is why i think nothing is broken if correctly managed and ruled.

That's a pretty big "if." Therein lies the issue. It is up to the DM to find ways to keep the (in your case) rogue engaged. While an argument can be made that it is always the job of the DM to keep all players engaged, it becomes much more difficult when some players just have more overall options to contribute to any given situation.

Traps? Just summon a creature and send them through. SR? It's easy to boost a PCs bypass check, or lower a monster's SR. High HP monsters? Who needs to attack HP when you can lower them to 1 HP with 1 spell? Or take control of any monster and make them fight for you?

It just isn't possible to say "let the DM handle it" because sometimes, the DM just doesn't know what (s)he is doing.

Remmirath
2010-11-29, 12:03 AM
I presume the reason people complain about these things is that they have had bad experiences with them, it hasn't worked out for them, and such.

Me? I've never had a problem playing in a high level or even extremely epic game, but I certainly realise that that's largely due to the fact that my group tends to stay within the bounds of good taste and that we slap a house rule on anything that needs it. We also do focus significantly more on roleplaying than on combat, although combat is still quite important.

Still, even with other groups I've never encountered casters being overpowered. If anything I've usually seen the opposite, including the one or two guys who were obviously trying to go for a typical optimised wizard type. I think there are a lot of assumptions made with regards to optimisation that just don't seem to hold true in most groups I've been in, for whatever reason. Maybe they do in other groups. I can't prove that either way.

What it all really comes down to is whether or not the people playing are having fun. If they are, there is no problem even if it looks as though there might be from the outside. If they aren't, there is. Every group is different.

Epic spells, specifically, I do think need some house rules to not get out of bounds... which does mean that the system is inherently flawed. However, the system as it is likely to ever see use is what really matters (and most of the 'really broken epic spells' I've seen have required things so cheesy that no DM in their right mind would ever allow them).
Non-epic spells with sufficient amounts of metamagic applied to them are much more overpowering, at least at high epic levels.


It is when you think about it as a d&d campaign. In a real campaign the wizard would have grabbed the ring and teleported to mount doom.

... And upon teleporting, would have been instantly noticed by Sauron (if he wasn't simply blocked from teleporting directly into Mordor), set upon by the various Nazgul and hordes of orcs known to be out and about or possibly Sauron himself, and killed. Not to mention the fact that since none of them had actually seen that bit of terrain, he'd have a reasonable chance of botching the teleport, and in a D&D game there would probably have been a bunch of nasty traps and wards and such waiting for him at Mount Doom if he made it there.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 12:40 AM
To address your rant:

[QUOTE=Tvtyrant;9855834]1. It is indeed a role playing game. However the game penalizes people playing classes that aren't a "powerful optimized arcane caster." If you and your party got in a fight, chances are good you would kill every single one of them. If I choose to play a sword wielding fighter who dumps every stat but combat ones I should be able to keep up my friend who plays a badly optimized wizard or druid, but instead I am penalized for not casting spells.

i think you felt penalized because you focus on power level, it is what i feel when i read your comments. you want kills enemies as good as the others; do the same things as good as the others. in RPG or real life you can't, so why focused on it ? just play your character at your maximum. the others players will enjoy it better.



2. Arguing that we are "whining" about the rules and then playing a homebrewed class and race in a homebrewed campaign with a ToB Warblade Death Knight as a companion is silly. The only core character in your group is the "weakest" in the party, and rogues are in fact the highest tier none caster in core.

even in a homebrew campaign like ours, we follow the basic rules, and no one found them broken.
in roleplaying games, nothing is silly, you are supposed to do everything you want unless your dm forbid it. luckily for us, our dm is clever enough to always finding challenges for us; since lv1 to now; he said to us "one day you might becomes gods, but dont worry i will still give you hard times"

and i dont mind about "Tiers" coz it is just a basic mechanic power comparison scale, a well played monk is more powerful and useful than a bad played wizard.


3. Your opinion is yours of course, but you don't offer any evidence for it in your rant. You used "of course" to justify the issues with game mechanics, and hand waved the arguments other people have made in the past by saying it isn't a video game. In short you offer no evidence for your point of view. Saying "you can still have fun" doesn't address why people are "whining."

you right, i (and the others) don't focus too much about mechanics, and it make me bored to explain everything with mechanics. mechanics just help to make the game playable, it is not the most important things. when i started to play D&d first edition (the red box) around 25 years ago. the mechanics was insignificant. We just picked a race & class, and we were stuck with it. and we had lot of fun, nothing prevent you to have the same now.

generally people whines coz they feel they are not as powerful, useful as the others. or they found the others more powerful than them... i table RPG you are only limited by your cleverness and the dm. i saw many recent player of table rpg who were former player of online RPG where mechanics is the most important, coz if you dont optimize your character to the max, others who did it will pawned you. they are the ones who "whine" the most coz they think the individual is more important than the group.
i played at WOW long enough in a high epic guild to understand that, and i left wow coz the mechanics overcome the rest and deprive you of the fun.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 12:47 AM
Don't know about everyone else, but I find it really stretches roleplaying and versimillitude to have some PC's that aren't contributing that much, or that I could easily replace by myself. If I can replace this fighter with a couple of spells, why am I dragging him along? Why would I split loot and run the extra risk of being noticed that another person brings when I don't need him to help me with anything?

Goonthegoof
2010-11-29, 12:51 AM
... And upon teleporting, would have been instantly noticed by Sauron (if he wasn't simply blocked from teleporting directly into Mordor), set upon by the various Nazgul and hordes of orcs known to be out and about or possibly Sauron himself, and killed. Not to mention the fact that since none of them had actually seen that bit of terrain, he'd have a reasonable chance of botching the teleport, and in a D&D game there would probably have been a bunch of nasty traps and wards and such waiting for him at Mount Doom if he made it there.

Ask Elrond what Mt Doom looks like if he hasn't seen it himself, cast energy immunity:fire on yourself, cast contingent teleport (trigger, the ring is destroyed, effect, teleport two kilometres above Gondor), greater teleport straight into mount doom. LOTR in one paragraph, thank you d&d.

Morithias
2010-11-29, 12:56 AM
Let's just say when overpowered casters go outside the lines of good taste and into 'jerkass' in my campaigns, I tend to take the melee characters aside and plan a nice 'whose laughing now' moment.

I actually did the first one in my group, yes I was a fighter, but seeing how I was the one person who didn't have to sleep (warforged), once the party wizard pushed me over the line well...coup de grace.

Needless to say it's basically a house rule that "abuse of power = The dog bites back" in my campaigns. You can spam a ton of celestial power with gate? Well that's nice, shame that now the whole abyss and baator see you as a universal threat, so now you've got the Dark Eight going for you, and there's a succubus in every bar waiting for you to give in to your little friend.

Needless to say, once I put my foot down the players started toning it down. We still munchkin it up, but a lot of our builds are starting to be more "in theory" rather that "actually used".

Crow
2010-11-29, 12:57 AM
Don't know about everyone else, but I find it really stretches roleplaying and versimillitude to have some PC's that aren't contributing that much, or that I could easily replace by myself. If I can replace this fighter with a couple of spells, why am I dragging him along? Why would I split loot and run the extra risk of being noticed that another person brings when I don't need him to help me with anything?

Because he's your friend?

Or rather, because the person playing him is your friend and you're there to play a social game and have fun together, not to try and "win" D&D?

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 01:06 AM
Ask Elrond what Mt Doom looks like if he hasn't seen it himself, cast energy immunity:fire on yourself, cast contingent teleport (trigger, the ring is destroyed, effect, teleport two kilometres above Gondor), greater teleport straight into mount doom. LOTR in one paragraph, thank you d&d.

Gandalf may done it himself, but he didn't want to touch the ring...(DM rule ^^)

ok if you applied d&d rules to LOTR heroes , you should apply it to the villains too: Mount Doom is an Antimagic-field area, surrounded by infiltration detecting contingent spells, Sauron since he knows that the One ring is founded used all his divination spells, found the wielder, sent the nazguls and a horde of undeads and monsters via mass teleportation ! but Gandalf is clever by anticipating it and use anti-divination spells on Frodo...

we are back at the beginning ^^

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 01:10 AM
Because he's your friend?

Or rather, because the person playing him is your friend and you're there to play a social game and have fun together, not to try and "win" D&D?

+1, "RPG" a forgotten mystical and mysterious letters with a definition lost in the deepest layers of the Abyss ^^

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 01:18 AM
Let's just say when overpowered casters go outside the lines of good taste and into 'jerkass' in my campaigns, I tend to take the melee characters aside and plan a nice 'whose laughing now' moment.

I actually did the first one in my group, yes I was a fighter, but seeing how I was the one person who didn't have to sleep (warforged), once the party wizard pushed me over the line well...coup de grace.

Needless to say it's basically a house rule that "abuse of power = The dog bites back" in my campaigns. You can spam a ton of celestial power with gate? Well that's nice, shame that now the whole abyss and baator see you as a universal threat, so now you've got the Dark Eight going for you, and there's a succubus in every bar waiting for you to give in to your little friend.

Needless to say, once I put my foot down the players started toning it down. We still munchkin it up, but a lot of our builds are starting to be more "in theory" rather that "actually used".

Surprisingly, it's not as easy as you think to not take over, at least for those of us who want to be in the fighting rather than sitting back casting buffs and heals. Which with the later buffs still leads to the "why is this guy here?" problem.


Because he's your friend?

Or rather, because the person playing him is your friend and you're there to play a social game and have fun together, not to try and "win" D&D?

Well yeah of course, out of game I know that. But if it's a new character because his last one died, I may know that PC X is Bob's new character, but my druid doesn't know that, and doesn't have a reason to include PC X in the party. So you're forcing me to break character because "it's a PC" rather than giving me a logical in-game reason to include him and not drop his useless ass off at the next town.

Goonthegoof
2010-11-29, 01:21 AM
Gandalf may done it himself, but he didn't want to touch the ring...(DM rule ^^)

ok if you applied d&d rules to LOTR heroes , you should apply it to the villains too: Mount Doom is an Antimagic-field area, surrounded by infiltration detecting contingent spells, Sauron since he knows that the One ring is founded used all his divination spells, found the wielder, sent the nazguls and a horde of undeads and monsters via mass teleportation ! but Gandalf is clever by anticipating it and use anti-divination spells on Frodo...

we are back at the beginning ^^

I was more pointing out that the main thing keeping Gandalf back was the DM deliberately screwing him over to give the other players a chance (No, everyone except you can touch the ring. Because you're a wizard, that's why.)

Gandalf Plane Shifts the ring, Sauron seems to be pretty much immobile and can't follow, the end.

Edit: Better idea. Teleport yourself and one of those giant eagles to the edge of the antimagic field, zoom in, drop ring. It's an AMF, so there aren't any magical traps and you're flying so you can avoid the physical ones easily.

Crow
2010-11-29, 01:27 AM
Well yeah of course, out of game I know that. But if it's a new character because his last one died, I may know that PC X is Bob's new character, but my druid doesn't know that, and doesn't have a reason to include PC X in the party. So you're forcing me to break character because "it's a PC" rather than giving me a logical in-game reason to include him and not drop his useless ass off at the next town.

I've always looked at it like this;

If I can sit around a table in someone's livingroom in a suburban neighborhood and pretend Josh is a wizard, Corinne is a priestess, Andy's a knight, and I'm a pick-pocket, then it isn't much of a stretch to let my character slide a bit when it's time to get Matt's new character into the group so we can start having fun together.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 01:31 AM
I've always looked at it like this;

If I can sit around a table in someone's livingroom in a suburban neighborhood and pretend Josh is a wizard, Corinne is a priestess, Andy's a knight, and I'm a pick-pocket, then it isn't much of a stretch to let my character slide a bit when it's time to get Matt's new character into the group so we can start having fun together.

But it's not just getting Matt's new character in the group. It's keeping him along, when he's obviously not doing anything that I couldn't do just as well, and he's taking all the best items because he needs them more, and my character doesn't even like his anyway (happens a lot in our group). The only reason at all why I would be keeping this useless annoyance around is because It's A PC.

Nyarai
2010-11-29, 01:34 AM
Gandalf may done it himself, but he didn't want to touch the ring...(DM rule ^^)

ok if you applied d&d rules to LOTR heroes , you should apply it to the villains too: Mount Doom is an Antimagic-field area, surrounded by infiltration detecting contingent spells, Sauron since he knows that the One ring is founded used all his divination spells, found the wielder, sent the nazguls and a horde of undeads and monsters via mass teleportation ! but Gandalf is clever by anticipating it and use anti-divination spells on Frodo...

we are back at the beginning ^^

Gandalf not dealing with the ring himself is a plot contrivance. A 3.5 caster would cast enough buffs to put his Will Save modifier in the stratosphere (or be straight up immune (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindblank.htm)) and get on with it.

The defenses for Mt. Doom you describe do not fit with the story. If Mt. Doom were surrounded by an AMF, the ring wouldn't work there, which is pretty bad for Sauron. If divination spells are so important to finding the ring, why do the Nazghul torture Gollum for its location? How can a mere army thwart Sauron's divinations - and if the answer is magic, why bother with the army? All your scenario proves is what Goon said: If you orchestrate defenses to lock down the wizard, he will be particularly useless.


Well yeah of course, out of game I know that. But if it's a new character because his last one died, I may know that PC X is Bob's new character, but my druid doesn't know that, and doesn't have a reason to include PC X in the party. So you're forcing me to break character because "it's a PC" rather than giving me a logical in-game reason to include him and not drop his useless ass off at the next town.

Sometimes you just have to value the "game" over the "role-playing."

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 01:35 AM
Edit: Better idea. Teleport yourself and one of those giant eagles to the edge of the antimagic field, zoom in, drop ring. It's an AMF, so there aren't any magical traps and you're flying so you can avoid the physical ones easily.

hahaha ! excellent ! ok...hmmmm... you were detected by sauron anti infiltration spells surrounding the AMF, he sent the nazguls with their wyvern-like creatures , they killed the eagle, you fall, you eat the dust ^^ oh u throw the rings before.. no problem sauron designed a colossal glass wall to cover the volcano mouth ^^

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 01:36 AM
Sometimes you just have to value the "game" over the "role-playing."

The fact that it's fixable doesn't make it not broken. Sure I *can* suspend my roleplaying in this area, but if the system worked properly I wouldn't have to.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-29, 01:37 AM
Let me put it this way then: lets say for the point of argument I play a rogue. I have low combat skills compared to most classes, and my abilities as a rogue center around sneaking, traps and locks. My wizard "friend" summons 1d3 fiendish rats and sends them ahead to trip all of the traps, then casts Knock on the lock, and casts greater invisibility on himself so he can sneak around.

Said Wizard has just invalidated my character without any real effort, despite two of those spells being low level. Your right that if I was talking just about "killing" things then role playing would be more important, but a wizard alone is exactly as good (or better) as a wizard with a party. Your only argument to this has been to repeat "role playing" and "DM Fiat," which is fine for an individual campaign, but you are arguing that because you can ignore rules they are not a problem.

Yes by ignoring rules and mechanics you can make the game work; this also means that your game is inherently not the game being played by the people on the board, as what we as a group have in common is the rules. You could play by flipping coins and it would be a viable game style, but we couldn't have any meaningful discussion about it without every single person on the board memorizing your system.

WitchSlayer
2010-11-29, 01:39 AM
Oh oh

I get to take the third one :D

It's a FANTASY roleplaying game, in most fantasy, non-magic types can be PRETTY CRAZY too. It shouldn't just be limited to magicky magickers

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 01:47 AM
Let me put it this way then: lets say for the point of argument I play a rogue. I have low combat skills compared to most classes, and my abilities as a rogue center around sneaking, traps and locks. My wizard "friend" summons 1d3 fiendish rats and sends them ahead to trip all of the traps, then casts Knock on the lock, and casts greater invisibility on himself so he can sneak around.

Said Wizard has just invalidated my character without any real effort, despite two of those spells being low level. Your right that if I was talking just about "killing" things then role playing would be more important, but a wizard alone is exactly as good (or better) as a wizard with a party. Your only argument to this has been to repeat "role playing" and "DM Fiat," which is fine for an individual campaign, but you are arguing that because you can ignore rules they are not a problem.

i understand your point of view, but you are not forced to do the job of the others members of your group, and so did i. take your example in real life, your manager (the wizard) can do your job maybe better than you, but he let you do it ! why ? because he has something else to do (cast some divination spells) ? save his time for more important things (save his spells for better use later) or just because he employ you for that specific job that fit with your skills ( you are the anti-traps infiltrator, you are in the group for that) . that it ^^

TheMeMan
2010-11-29, 01:50 AM
hahaha ! excellent ! ok...hmmmm... you were detected by sauron anti infiltration spells surrounding the AMF, he sent the nazguls with their wyvern-like creatures , they killed the eagle, you fall, you eat the dust ^^ oh u throw the rings before.. no problem sauron designed a colossal glass wall to cover the volcano mouth ^^

You seeing the problem with this? To counter-act a wizard(Or most full core casters), a great-deal of BS-Fu needs to be created. With other classes, you don't need to think of the countless layers of traps just to bring the party Caster in line with the rest. Instead, what you have shown, is that a caster, realistically(In any normal game without the multiple levels of finagling) will dominate any situation easily, if they know even a lick about what they are doing.

Goonthegoof
2010-11-29, 01:52 AM
hahaha ! excellent ! ok...hmmmm... you were detected by sauron anti infiltration spells surrounding the AMF, he sent the nazguls with their wyvern-like creatures , they killed the eagle, you fall, you eat the dust ^^ oh u throw the rings before.. no problem sauron designed a colossal glass wall to cover the volcano mouth ^^

Why did Sauron do that exactly? Sauron wasn't expecting anyone to go for volcano, he expected if someone like Gandalf got it then he'd wear it rather than trying to drop it in.

Why would he put glass over the volcano mouth in the first place? Since when do orcs have glassblowing techniques in the first place? And why wouldn't the glass melt (what with being on the mouth of a volcano and all)

And how would the ringwraiths get to you in time? Unless a ringwraith happened to be within a few hundreds metres of you for some reason how would they catch you?

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 01:53 AM
You seeing the problem with this? To counter-act a wizard(Or most full core casters), a great-deal of BS-Fu needs to be created. With other classes, you don't need to think of the countless layers of traps just to bring the party Caster in line with the rest. Instead, what you have shown, is that a caster, realistically(In any normal game without the multiple levels of finagling) will dominate any situation easily, if they know even a lick about what they are doing.

Also, what's the fighter going to do with all those traps?

TheMeMan
2010-11-29, 01:53 AM
i understand your point of view, but you are not forced to do the job of the others members of your group, and so did i. take your example in real life, your manager (the wizard) can do your job maybe better than you, but he let you do it ! why ? because he has something else to do (cast some divination spells) ? save his time for more important things (save his spells for better use later) or just because he employ you for that specific job that fit with your skills ( you are the anti-traps infiltrator, you are in the group for that) . that it ^^

Placing non-casters into suboordinate roles aside(as it creates a massive amount of animosity), that doesn't work. Your manager hired you specifically because he can't do everything at once, or even knows how to do anything(As anybody who has had any job knows). A wizard doesn't really have that problem. They can cast tons of spells, without even being remotely drained by the end of the day. Likewise, they can literally shape and destroy the world on a whim if need be. I don't see many Wal-Mart managers having that ability.

Nyarai
2010-11-29, 02:00 AM
hahaha ! excellent ! ok...hmmmm... you were detected by sauron anti infiltration spells surrounding the AMF, he sent the nazguls with their wyvern-like creatures , they killed the eagle, you fall, you eat the dust ^^ oh u throw the rings before.. no problem sauron designed a colossal glass wall to cover the volcano mouth ^^

You mean the Nazghul that were halfway across the continent six seconds ago? Sauron's defenses were thwarted by two hobbits walking in while a small strike force basically waved their arms and said, "Yoo hoo!" He's a giant eye, and a pretty dim one at that. He didn't even have security in the volcano, despite knowing they would be there to destroy the ring. Hell, Gollum - an emaciated, insane former-hobbit(?) - was enough to steal the frickin' thing back. Put one Urk-hai at the convenient "ring dropping" platform and it's goodbye fantasy epic, hello Age of Eternal Darkness. Not even sure what to say to a giant glass volcano cover. :smallconfused:

Your argument loses value if the only way to keep it reasonable is to endlessly shift the goalposts.

Goonthegoof
2010-11-29, 02:03 AM
You mean the Nazghul that were halfway across the continent six seconds ago? Sauron's defenses were thwarted by two hobbits walking in while a small strike force basically waved their arms and said, "Yoo hoo!" He's a giant eye, and a pretty dim one at that. He didn't even have security in the volcano, despite knowing they would be there to destroy the ring. Hell, Gollum - an emaciated, insane former-hobbit(?) - was enough to steal the frickin' thing back. Put one Urk-hai at the convenient "ring dropping" platform and it's goodbye fantasy epic, hello Age of Eternal Darkness. Not even sure what to say to a giant glass volcano cover. :smallconfused:

Your argument loses value if the only way to keep it reasonable is to endlessly shift the goalposts.

It's not quite like that- He never even suspected they'd try to destroy the ring, the concept was alien to him. He was expecting someone like Gandalf or Galadriel to acquire it, declare themselves the new Voldemort and royally **** over the rest of the world. The idea that both would try to destroy it rather than use its power for themselves never occured to him, so he didn't put safeguards in place.

LordBlades
2010-11-29, 02:15 AM
Tbh, I don't think most ppl have a problem with character x being more powerful than their character (if they do, they usually end up playing full casters anyway).

What most people(me included) have a problem with is their character being made completely obsolete by a couple of spells (see divine power+righteous might, or wild shape+buffs, or polymorph or etc for the fighter).

tenshiakodo
2010-11-29, 02:17 AM
(Warning: LONG)

I think the real problem here is that, at high levels, a party of characters is more like a council of powerful, influential people. When a problem appears, these people gather to discuss what to do about it.

Now each character, then, has their own area of expertise.

-The Chosen Prophet of Akarith (Cleric), has the power to call upon miracles due to his devotion to his goddess, and is a sage of all things Divine*.

-The Grandfather of the Thieve's Guild (Rogue), is a master of gaining entry to dangerous places, can bypass any trap, and no one knows more about all things illegal*.

-Aradaxus, the Mighty General (Fighter), is a nigh-peerless warrior, a master of strategy and tactics, who is unbeatable in any kind of battle*.

-Elizar the Archmage, Master of the Invisible Tower, can draw upon the full might and power of the Arcane, and none no more about it's secrets than he.

Our first problem is that each of these fellows is an expert in their field; they should know more about it than anyone else. However, most of this is covered by Knowledge skills, which tend to be granted haphazardly to various classes. In this party, the Cleric has access to many knowledges, but the Fighter and Rogue hardly any at all. And armed with the highest intelligence, if the Wizard did, for example, select Knowledge-Religion and keep it as one of his best skills, then he would likely know more about divine entities than the Cleric!

The second problem is the Rogue. All that stuff about infiltration, bypassing traps, and gathering intel? In DnD, there's a spell for that. All of it. Now, I'm not saying the Rogue is replaceable; after all, having him around means that you don't need to waste any magic to replicate what he does with skill points, but at the same time, in some cases, use of spells can be more efficient than moving around a dungeon at half speed so the Rogue can search every square inch and disable every trap he comes across.

Not to mention that at higher levels, Hide and Move Silently are wastes of skill points (if anyone contests this, I'll explain).

But our Fighter, the Mighty General, is in the saddest shape. Knowledge-History and Knowledge-War aren't on his skill list. Even if they were, his knowledge of tactics, again, could be replicated by the Wizard (whose big brain would make him better at it!).

His ability to lead armies into battle? A mere Feat, that anyone can take at 6th level, and is charisma-based. Fighters generally have little use for Charisma. I could actually see, if they all had Leadership, the Cleric and the Rogue having better Leadership scores than the Fighter!

And his matchless skill in battle? Well, in this case, it really depends on how he's built; he could deliver massive damage by charging a single enemy, for example. But all of his companions can do damage, so this isn't really all that unique.

The amount, reliability, and efficiency of the damage output can vary greatly, but damage tends to be somewhat lackluster compared to effects that make enemies less effective..or even useless.

In a roleplaying game, each of our heroes should have a special niche. The argument here is that because it's a roleplaying game, of course they do. But the mechanics that describe the niche of each character are inherently flawed; not every class can do all the things you would expect them to be able to.

The story should naturally take precedence over the mechanics, that's what roleplaying is all about. But when the mechanics are horribly useless for describing the game you are playing, then there is a problem. Because the minute you attempt to act out something your character should be able to do, you must either handwave it (ignoring the rules), adjust the rules (making your own rules), or apply the rules of the game to the action.

If you're doing 1 or 2, you're playing your own, unique game. If that's the case, then you can't really apply your experiences to any discussion of Dungeons and Dragons games other people play.

If you're doing 3, then you have a problem; not every class can do the things it's supposed to. This forum is one of the better ones for discussing DnD, and you'll still find thousands of posts on this very topic.

The OP describes this as "whining". As if we are somehow simply supposed to accept that the mechanics are inherently flawed, and just roleplay, using the rules as little as possible.

Now, I've seen that tactic employed in a lot of games, and I'm not saying it isn't an enjoyable game, but once you cross that line, you're playing a very different game than the one you bought into, and that other people are playing. Telling people to "stop whining" and "ignore the rules" isn't very good advice.

The endless threads that debate what characters can and cannot do, and which characters are more effective than others exist because there are people who like the game, but have identified a problem. They want to inform everyone that there is a problem, and to discuss the problem, so that one day, the problem can be solved, and the game will be fun again.

To say that they should just ignore the problem, and play another game entirely isn't the answer they are looking for. In fact, I feel that it's more than a little disingenuous, because then, what you're saying is, that Dungeons and Dragons is the biggest scam ever devised, as anyone can do better simply by playing "make-believe"!

Nyarai
2010-11-29, 02:27 AM
*lengthy awesome snip*

If it's any consolation to the poor Generalissimo, there's a feat in Races of Faerun that substitutes Str for Cha when it comes to Leadership score. So... at least there's that. :smallsmile:

Excellent points all around. :smallbiggrin:

Just_Ice
2010-11-29, 02:33 AM
It's not a lot of levels before Wizards can fly and turn invisible. I think how the class works is most exemplified by the fact that they make the DM roll instead of themselves.

Conversely Fighters are getting Power attack or like +5 to tripping. These things simply aren't equal.

tcrudisi
2010-11-29, 02:41 AM
Not to mention that at higher levels, Hide and Move Silently are wastes of skill points (if anyone contests this, I'll explain).

First, awesome post. You did a wonderful job summarizing the inherent problems with 3rd edition.

Secondly, I have no idea why hide and move silently are bad at high levels. I can think of some reasons (namely divination spells), but I'm not 100% sure on this. Care to fill me in?

Ragitsu
2010-11-29, 02:42 AM
The OP describes this as "whining". As if we are somehow simply supposed to accept that the mechanics are inherently flawed, and just roleplay, using the rules as little as possible.!

The Original Poster is not alone in their assertion. And, believe it or not, not every D&D player/GM has ever had the problem of party balance.

Shocking, I know.

TheMeMan
2010-11-29, 02:44 AM
First, awesome post. You did a wonderful job summarizing the inherent problems with 3rd edition.

Secondly, I have no idea why hide and move silently are bad at high levels. I can think of some reasons (namely divination spells), but I'm not 100% sure on this. Care to fill me in?

Might have something to do with diminishing returns, might have something to do with higher spot/listen checks on monsters at a certain point, methinks. And that there are spells that can replicate both effects rather simply and easily.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-11-29, 02:58 AM
Might have something to do with diminishing returns, might have something to do with higher spot/listen checks on monsters at a certain point, methinks. And that there are spells that can replicate both effects rather simply and easily.

I think that it's to do with how common Scent, Blindsense, Blindsight, Tremorsense, etc. become at higher levels. Additional books can mitigate this (Darkstalker) or aggravate it (Mindsight, Lifesight).

Tvtyrant
2010-11-29, 03:01 AM
The Original Poster is not alone in their assertion. And, believe it or not, not every D&D player/GM has ever had the problem of party balance.

Shocking, I know.

Their assertion that other people's opinions are worthy of being called "whining?" You may not have had issues with party balance yourself, which is fine, but insulting everyone whose opinion differs from yours is bad form.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 03:20 AM
don't misunderstand me, i never said that fullcasters are not more powerful that the others, i said that there is no point to whine about a class supposed to be or proved to be more powerful coz the essence of roleplaying is to make any character interesting to play in a group and give fun to that group even if weak or powerful.

after if someone think a class is too much powerful, so just find a group without it; don't deprive the others the pleasure to play all facets of that class; epic or not.

we like to play epic so we do it, even if the rules seems broken for others; we use epic spells and artifacts , our enemies too, so what is the problem?


i have insulted no one, i said they "whined" coz i dont like the idea of someone who want to make something less powerful instead of make themselves better. "he should not do that coz i cant counter it"

TheMeMan
2010-11-29, 03:35 AM
don't misunderstand me, i never said that fullcasters are not more powerful that the others, i said that there is no point to whine about a class supposed to be or proved to be more powerful coz the essence of roleplaying is to make any character interesting to play in a group and give fun to that group even if weak or powerful.

after if someone think a class is too much powerful, so just find a group without it; don't deprive the others the pleasure to play all facets of that class; epic or not.

we like to play epic so we do it, even if the rules seems broken for others; we use epic spells and artifacts , our enemies too, so what is the problem?


i have insulted no one, i said they "whined" coz i dont like the idea of someone who want to make something less powerful instead of make themselves better. "he should not do that coz i cant counter it"

The problem is that the only way to actually challenge a wizard at epic levels is to completely make a situation where every other class quite literally cannot do a damn thing, or else get curb-stomped. It's not about one being more powerful, its about it creating a situation where the other classes cannot do anything.

In other words, it's a one-man game at epic levels for the full-casting core classes. Which is fun for exactly one person.

Edit: Likewise, your statement of "someone who want(s) to make something less powerful instead of making(sic) themselves better" indicate you truly don't understand the actual issue with Wizards. Wizards are insanely powerful, and don't even need to try. Most optimized Tier 3 classes can't even compare to a fairly well-made Wizard(doesn't even have to be optimized, really, just well made). This isn't a problem with trying to make their characters better, because there is a limit to what one can do without pulling out ridiculous amounts of cheese. What exactly does the Wizard have to do? Get Teleport, Polymorph, a few other obviously overpowered spells, and the utility spells which make any non-caster class obsolete, and bam-o. You see the problem? It's not that Non-Wizards are being lazy, it's that they literally cannot compete.

Now, that's not saying that a Wizard can't, or shouldn't, be played. However, it comes with the responsibility of the Wizard player to actually play in a team. And sometimes that means underpowering yourself intentionally. If you're playing in a game with all Tier 1s and 2s, fine! Be the ultimate god of destruction and whatnot. But frankly, when playing in games with Tier 3s and 4s(Or 5s... or 6s...), you have a responsibility to play in a style that won't disrupt with the team dynamics. Otherwise you're just being selfish and greedy. Frankly, your comment about how Wizards should be manager(in the dominant position, always ordering others around), and everyone else be their employees(In the subordinate position) indicates the kind of game you like to play. I've played that game before. The game where you do what the wizard wants you to, because they can kill you without even trying. Yeah, that's not a fun game at all.

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 05:43 AM
The Original Poster is not alone in their assertion. And, believe it or not, not every D&D player/GM has ever had the problem of party balance.

Shocking, I know.

It's not just party balance - it's realism. D&D 3.x is presented as trying to be at least moderately simulationist if you scan it, then you try to actually make sense of the stories that are being told in its setting and you wonder what the hell they were smoking.

Killer Angel
2010-11-29, 06:05 AM
i understand your point of view, but you are not forced to do the job of the others members of your group, and so did i. take your example in real life, your manager (the wizard) can do your job maybe better than you, but he let you do it ! why ? because he has something else to do (cast some divination spells) ?

There's certainly some truth in this, but sadly, this wont work if you pick a druid and a fighter.
Because the druid rarely will have other things to do, better than tear faces.



Not to mention that at higher levels, Hide and Move Silently are wastes of skill points (if anyone contests this, I'll explain).


Yes, maybe you're right, but please elaborate.
Mundane hiding is one of the best countermeasures against things like Invisibility purge, True seeing, etc.

fireinakasha
2010-11-29, 06:14 AM
IMO, any perceived problem with balance between casters and non-casters is actually a problem with the GM running the show. There are a lot of ways to even the odds when a caster becomes godly. Things like high spell resistance, magic immunities, good saves, and anti-magic zones even the tables. If a non-caster is stuck in a position of non-contribution, it's because the GM is operating on a bias in favor of the magic users.

I've never seen a problem with caster/non-caster balance in games I run because I make sure to provide situations where each character can be extremely useful in the role they are meant to be useful in. Fighter and wizard in the party? The wizard can take on the archmage and his acolyte, the fighter can focus on the magic-immune golems. Or, the cleric can hold back the advancing undead forces while the rogue sneaks through the traps and anti-magic zone surrounding the artifact they need. Etc, etc.

I fully believe that the RAW is balanced for all parties involved, but nobody ever takes advantage of the mechanics that have been put in place to enforce that balance.

JaronK
2010-11-29, 06:15 AM
Yeah, I find high Hide and Move Silently to be great, but you absolutely need Darkstalker (and Mindblank or being Undead is wise too).

But overall, I find that having to hold the Idiot Ball so that my buddies in the party can participate too is not conducive to role play. I want to think "what would my character do in this situation" not "what would my character do if he were trying to let the Fighter contribute too."

JaronK

Yora
2010-11-29, 06:37 AM
"Why so much whinning?"

This is the internet, that's why. :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 06:37 AM
IMO, any perceived problem with balance between casters and non-casters is actually a problem with the GM running the show. There are a lot of ways to even the odds when a caster becomes godly. Things like high spell resistance, magic immunities, good saves, and anti-magic zones even the tables. If a non-caster is stuck in a position of non-contribution, it's because the GM is operating on a bias in favor of the magic users.

I've never seen a problem with caster/non-caster balance in games I run because I make sure to provide situations where each character can be extremely useful in the role they are meant to be useful in. Fighter and wizard in the party? The wizard can take on the archmage and his acolyte, the fighter can focus on the magic-immune golems. Or, the cleric can hold back the advancing undead forces while the rogue sneaks through the traps and anti-magic zone surrounding the artifact they need. Etc, etc.

I fully believe that the RAW is balanced for all parties involved, but nobody ever takes advantage of the mechanics that have been put in place to enforce that balance.

fireina, are you familiar with spell resistance: no, spells?

There are, rather unfortunately, a lot of them.

Instantaneous conjurations pass through anti-magic zones as long as they were cast outside of them.

The only way for a GM to operate a balanced game of 3.x is for the best stuff in the game to not be in full play, whether that means your players are overlooking the stuff for the sake of gameplay or you are banning it. I fully agree that in the right group, balance is not really an issue - but that's because in the right group, players and DM take it upon themselves to not overshadow one another because it is a cooperative social endeavor.

I really can't express it any better than this:

Every single major D&D message board has amateur, semi-pro, and professional game designers on it. People who either wish they could, or do, design games for a living - most of them began as Dungeon Masters. Indeed, regardless of what you personally think of the fun-factor of 4E, it's widely agreed that it is extremely well-balanced and WotC has specifically made an entire new edition of D&D purely in counter to the flaws of 3.x.

The overwhelming consensus among these independent game designers and the people who made the game is that D&D 3 has major issues in it for balance; the point of difference is how much of a negative they view this in. Do you really think that your point of view has not been expressed in multiple and digested well before being rejected?

After all, I think the assumption of most people when they buy a product that cannot be immediately qualitatively assessed is to evaluate it on its professionalism, and D&D 3 looks very, very professional in a lot of ways. We'd all like to believe that our money and time has been well-spent - the majority of people who came to the conclusion of imbalance began assuming and/or hoping that D&D was balanced, and being dismayed by the result.

Leolo
2010-11-29, 06:49 AM
The problem is:

Balancing is needed for role playing. It helps role playing. The reason why people complaining about balancing is because of role playing.

This is the most important point in such discussions, because this argument "you do not need balancing - hey it is about role playing not about competition" rises again and again like some kind of undead.

The point is: If it is not possible within the system to play a noble defender of your caster friend then the system is hindering such role playing. If it is not possible to play a nimble thief who is solving the problems with his abilities (because he is outclassed by magical ways to do this) then the same is true.

Role playing needs that the roles played are feasable and this depends heavily on the rules.

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-29, 06:50 AM
It's rather tangential to the thread, but I feel I do have to point out that Sauron was neither immobile, nor a giant eye, despite his portrail as such in the movies. He couldn't assume a fair form after Nķmenor, but that didn't stop him assuming form at all; "Four fingers on the black hand" as Gollum said. The implications are - though no confirmation is ever given, of course - that Sauron and reassumed a humanoid form after the end of the Second Age and during the Third Age. (His presense as the Necromancer in Dol Guldar for one thing, might have kind of given the game away if everyone in Mirkwood could see a giant flaming eyeball...!)

umbrapolaris does have a point, though. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't say, "Gandalf could have teleported Mount Doom" and then say:


The defenses for Mt. Doom you describe do not fit with the story. If Mt. Doom were surrounded by an AMF, the ring wouldn't work there, which is pretty bad for Sauron. If divination spells are so important to finding the ring, why do the Nazghul torture Gollum for its location? How can a mere army thwart Sauron's divinations - and if the answer is magic, why bother with the army?

because in ramping up the world from LotR to D&D you've changed the story completely. Adding magic of D&D's level is just as world-changing as adding technology. You could just as easily say if Aragorn had a helicopter he could have flown over the Mount Doom and dropped the ring that way.

For example, if Sauron was in D&D, the whole War of the Ring would have been irrelevant, because the last Alliance of Elves and Men would have been utterly obliterated by him in the first place. Remember than when Gandalf, during his sojourn into he was in Dol Guldar, realised who the Necromancer was, he ran like buggery, because he knew he didn't want to tangle with him; and this was Sauron in his weakest state. Sauron (on a full-out D&D power scale, as opposed to those who would model Middle Earth as E6) would have probably been something like an Epic Divine Rank 0 demi-god possibly even gestault Wizard/Cleric. Isildur almost certainly wouldn't have been able to cut the ring off in the first place, rendering LotR entirely moot.

By the time of the Third Age, there wasn't anyone left who could have taken on Sauron directly anyway; remember that Gandalf and the Witch King were supposedly on even terms (which, in D&D, would have made for a rather different confrontation outside Minith Tirith...)

Witch King: Die now and Curse in Vain!

Merry: *Sneak Attacks*

Witch King: *has following buffs active Greater Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Displacement*

Witch King: ... Um, yeah. Also, Undead. So, y'know, um...no.

Eowen: *swings sword* I got a critical! *rolls* And I hit the real image!

Witch King: Uhuh. Again, Undead. Immune to crits. Oh, by the way, Chain Arcane Thesis DDM Twinned Finger of Death.

(Okay, I'm not even trying here, but you get the idea!)

D&D, without some modification, just does not do Lord of the Rings, because LotR is not set up to handle some of it's effects. Things like teleport are not actually a hugely common fantasy stable outside of D&D (at least in most of the books and things I've read or seen), it's nearly always something that's hard to do if it's possible at all. That's because the teleport advantage is so HUGE, really, really HUGE it fundementally changes everything. It's a bigger change to the way warfare is fought that anything previously, even gunpowder or powered flight. Or anything else. You're talking on the scale of the introduction of electricity. It's really THAT big of a deal. Look at Star Trek, where transporters are common place, and look how often they had to fiat-negate it because otherwise there'd be no story. After all, the travelling portion of fantasy stories is often most of the adventure.

Anyway, I'm ranting a bit too much on a side topic, so I'll stop now.

Personally, I, with a moderate-high-op group, am not finding the caster/non-caster disparity too much of a problem. However, that is under the conditions of:
a) the noncasters having a significant power boost
b) a general preference for blasting with our groups
c) very large encounters against primarily classed humanoids with full caster support
and d) the PCs having more kit than I care to imagine.

However, at that paradigm, the pure Fighter is still contributing (a great deal) and the less said about the Monk/Swordsage and the Ranger/Fighter/Crusader/Deepwood Sniper the better... On the other hand, the Cleric is more-or-less one-shotting the chaff by use of Sunburst, rendering legion of enemies basically combat-ineffective.

For my own, more LotR-y style world, I'm going to be chopping off or revising a lot of the more...problematic...spells1, which will bring the versimilitude, if not completely the power, back into something more like line. And the other thing I always say, is that at the end of the day, whatever I'm running, the game world is the "real" world, which we inexactly model through whichever gaming system we're using (be it 3.x or Rolemaster). Anything that arises as a construct of the game mechanics is nothing more than that and should either be ignored by gentlelich's agreement (MST3K mantra applies; though generally I endeavour not to have these things crop up in the first place) or will have to be houseruled out if the players deline to do so.

And for my paradigm of games, it does work very well. But of course, my games aren't everyone's games. (Actually, I suspect very few people's games are like my games...!)



1E.g. shapeshifting, teleporting, creation or celerity line spells, metamagic reducers, summoning spells and generally anything very open-ended (e.g Gate/Wish/Major Creation). Partly by having a completely different bestiary and cosmology, rendering things like accelerated time planes or SLA wish-granting genies abscent.

true_shinken
2010-11-29, 06:55 AM
{Scrubbed}

Starbuck_II
2010-11-29, 07:22 AM
For example, if Sauron was in D&D, the whole War of the Ring would have been irrelevant, because the last Alliance of Elves and Men would have been utterly obliterated by him in the first place. Remember than when Gandalf, during his sojourn into he was in Dol Guldar, realised who the Necromancer was, he ran like buggery, because he knew he didn't want to tangle with him; and this was Sauron in his weakest state. Sauron (on a full-out D&D power scale, as opposed to those who would model Middle Earth as E6) would have probably been something like an Epic Divine Rank 0 demi-god possibly even gestault Wizard/Cleric. Isildur almost certainly wouldn't have been able to cut the ring off in the first place, rendering LotR entirely moot.

Remember Gandalf wasn't at full power in that book. He was still Grey.



By the time of the Third Age, there wasn't anyone left who could have taken on Sauron directly anyway; remember that Gandalf and the Witch King were supposedly on even terms (which, in D&D, would have made for a rather different confrontation outside Minith Tirith...)

Only when Gandalf held back (was in grey). When he was white he forgot why he was holding back.


Witch King: Die now and Curse in Vain!

Merry: *Sneak Attacks*

Witch King: *has following buffs active Greater Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Displacement*

Witch King: ... Um, yeah. Also, Undead. So, y'know, um...no.

Eowen: *swings sword* I got a critical! *rolls* And I hit the real image!

Witch King: Uhuh. Again, Undead. Immune to crits. Oh, by the way, Chain Arcane Thesis DDM Twinned Finger of Death.

(Okay, I'm not even trying here, but you get the idea!)

But he forgot burst effects like vorpal care not about immunity.
*Witch king's head falls to the ground before he gets spell off.*

Gandalf didn't teleport because any high magic used would alert Sauron. He was a giant arcane eye so he would know where Gandalf is had he went full power. Sauron increases rings influence if focuses on area.
Gandalf was/never will be E6. He will always be E20 (even if rest of party was E6).

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-29, 07:44 AM
Gandalf was/never will be E6. He will always be E20 (even if rest of party was E6).

Actually, he'll always be level 60(80) and 80(100) in Rolemaster if you want to split hairs...

And in Rolemaster, don't matter what you're level is, a level 8 Hobbit can still stick a level 60 Ringwraith in the kneecap.

(For the record, I'm not a proponent of E6 myself. And the Witch-King example was supposed be more humourous than serious.)


My point was merely that with the addition of unmodified D&D spellcasting, the fundemental story would have been changed, in the same way it would if the setting was, say WW2 level of technology. You've totally changed the setting at that point. In both cases, the addition of that level of thaumathergy or technology turns LotR - assuming Sauron hadn't already just won - from an Epic travelling journey adventure into an escalating arms-race between Sauron and the West. So, it is unfair to say "Gandalf could have just teleported and Sauron couldn't stop him" because the playing field has totally changed for both sides.

(Random thought occurs: Sauron, knowing the existance of teleportation might have taken precautions not to protect Mount Doom specifially, but to ward the whole of Mordor against people teleporting in armies and suchlike. After all, he was capable of effects on a country-wide scale normally... Yikes.)

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 08:14 AM
IMO, any perceived problem with balance between casters and non-casters is actually a problem with the GM running the show. There are a lot of ways to even the odds when a caster becomes godly. Things like high spell resistance, magic immunities, good saves, and anti-magic zones even the tables. If a non-caster is stuck in a position of non-contribution, it's because the GM is operating on a bias in favor of the magic users.

I've never seen a problem with caster/non-caster balance in games I run because I make sure to provide situations where each character can be extremely useful in the role they are meant to be useful in. Fighter and wizard in the party? The wizard can take on the archmage and his acolyte, the fighter can focus on the magic-immune golems. Or, the cleric can hold back the advancing undead forces while the rogue sneaks through the traps and anti-magic zone surrounding the artifact they need. Etc, etc.

I fully believe that the RAW is balanced for all parties involved, but nobody ever takes advantage of the mechanics that have been put in place to enforce that balance.

at last someone understand what i meant... he do exactly what my DM do... thanks!

for resuming my view, (maybe it was not clear enough in my precedent posts), if roleplaying can't reduce the power difference you feel, the DM can do it in many ways without hampering the powerful ones.

i'm aware that this thread has no end, coz the topic is very subjective and depend of the point of view and tolerance of each of us about the game. i just reacted about the number of posts complaining (sorry if the word "whining" was too strong for some people) about the omnipotence of the full casters, etc...

i thanks all of you to demonstrate me many examples of what may happened with a player who "abused" of the mechanics to make is character overshadowing the rest of the group. but luckily for my group, it is not happened yet.

tenshiakodo
2010-11-29, 08:56 AM
Wow, lot of posts. Well since people have asked, I'll sidestep the issue at hand to explain the issues with 'mundane' stealth.

First, pick a monster. Any monster. Note that if it has skill points, they are almost always spent on Listen and Spot. Also note that if it has Feats, almost inevitably you will find Alertness somewhere on it's list.

Most optimized stealth-users can have checks that knock these basic numbers out of the ballpark, but it's just the first of many issues with how Hide and Move Silently are implemented in the game.

To make a Hide check, you need cover or concealment. The most common form of concealment being shadows and darkness. However, a great many monsters in DnD come equipped with Darkvision, an ability that, simply put, allows you to see in darkness. If you can see, then it's not considered concealment.

A creature with Darkvision need not roll Spot to see a character using darkness as concealment, they just see you.

*As a caveat here, yes, there do exist methods to foil Darkvision, but in many cases, it's an option you have to seek out for your character; Rogues, for example, do not have this ability built-in.

**Hide in Plain Sight is a special case, as it allows you to make Hide checks without actual forms of cover or concealment. Rangers can simply use natural terrain, Shadowdancers just need to be an area of darkness or shadow. The rules are not very clear about how Shadowdancers interact with Darkvision, and I've seen DM's rule that it simply doesn't work.

But this is just the beginning. Blindsight, Blindsense, Scent, Tremorsense, and certain other abilities, can greatly weaken or outright negate Hide or Move Silently checks.

Consider Blindsense, which states: "a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature."

Now it goes on to say that it's still basically firing blind if it chooses to attack said creature, but the fact is, you aren't sneaking by it, either.

As the game progresses to higher levels of play, the more you are forced to rely on things other than your actual ranks of Hide or Move Silently to actually perform as a stealthy character. Investment in magic items or specific Class or Prestige Class abilities becomes more and more vital, which affects your progression in other areas.

And magical means to negate stealth start at first-level, with effects such as Alarm. Now, if you allow Epic-level Hide and Move Silently, this does change, but as the skills are presented in the PHB, when compared to the things you're likely going to want to sneak by, you quickly realize that you're playing against the house- the game is rigged!

This isn't even including the occasional creature that gets bonuses to listen and/or spot, just because!

(/derail)

tenshiakodo
2010-11-29, 09:25 AM
And, forgive me the impertinence of a double post, but I wanted to get back to the topic at hand.

Can a good GM handle any sort of power imbalance in his game? Yes! Of course! The DM who taught me the most about how to run the game believed that it's all about the story. The mechanics were secondary; if the players took an action, it had an impact and repercussions on the world. If they beat an encounter easily, no problem, that too, would have an impact, and there was always the next encounter.

However, as I said before, the game he was running wasn't really Dungeons and Dragons anymore. It felt like the same game, we played the same classes and races (...usually), but the game lived in a place that was pretty far-removed from the rulebooks.

Was it fun? Extremely, but this isn't the point I'm trying to make.

If I purchase a game, any game, from Monopoly (tm) to Whatever Supernatural Creature White Wolf (tm) Is Exploiting To Make Money This Time, I should expect to be able to play the game by the rules it presents.

The mechanics should accurately model what occurs in the roleplay, without resorting to house rules. Every group has house rules, but these are supposed to make the game more fun, not patch the fact that the game isn't doing what you want it to do!

Analyzing the game mechanics and figuring out A), what went wrong, and B), how to fix it, will only make future games better. To say that the only solution is to divorce the game from it's rules makes it very implicit that you aren't playing the game other people are. This is very important, because it means that you can't have a meaningful discussion on the topic!

I mean, consider this. A fellow player posts something along the lines of "I'm having an issue with a player who uses Spell X to perform task Y".

If your answer to deal with the problem is simply to handwave or roleplay around the issue, as opposed to turning to the mechanics of the game system to resolve the matter, why have rulebooks in the first place? What purpose do they serve?

I'm not saying that rulebooks are holy grails of game design, because, well, they aren't. But Dungeons and Dragons is the sum of both roleplaying AND mechanics. Ignoring one in preference of the other is playing a dramatically different game than the one you purchased!

Many posts that discuss "caster supremacy" refer to the mechanics in a vacuum, and do not take the actual roleplaying and game world into account. That's a strike against them; they are discussing what is technically possible, not what would actually happen.

But the opposite tack is just as damning, because in this case, it doesn't matter what the rulebook says! The GM could say "well, that doesn't sound like much fun, it doesn't work the way you think it should".

The mechanics are the foundation upon which the game world is built. It's like the laws of physics in our world. Some things you have to take for granted. If I fall off a building, I'm going to fall. Whether people think it's fun or not!

If a Wizard casts Sleep on a pack of low level Goblins, he should expect them to fall down if they fail their save. Whether or not it's fun.

If you change a base assumption, you change the game from what it is, to something very different. Now obviously, if you have a problem with the game, yes, you should change it.

But I, and other people on these forums, hold the belief that if you are going to change the game, the change should be carefully thought-out and discussed. An arbitrary change can have terrible repercussions on play!

Now, if you're having fun in your game where you simply assume RP trumps mechanics, that's great. I've played in games like that and had fun with them. But to use that as an example of why people are wrong when they say that "option B is more effective than option C" is, again, disengenuous at best.

There is a middle ground, however, and I think it's one that deserves to be explored more fully. A game world where, yes, casters can do amazing things. And there are very real repercussions to abusing your powers. Look at the real world for a minute. The existence of a weapon, any weapon, will result in an arms race. Most will want this weapon. Others will want to find ways to limit, or even ban it's use. Some will work on ways to defend against this weapon.

This is as true for nuclear weapons as it is for Scry and Die.

Knaight
2010-11-29, 09:31 AM
don't misunderstand me, i never said that fullcasters are not more powerful that the others, i said that there is no point to whine about a class supposed to be or proved to be more powerful coz the essence of roleplaying is to make any character interesting to play in a group and give fun to that group even if weak or powerful.

i have insulted no one, i said they "whined" coz i dont like the idea of someone who want to make something less powerful instead of make themselves better. "he should not do that coz i cant counter it"

The essence of role playing is playing a role. Nothing more, nothing less. D&D isn't the only option, and if its warped around power wise then why shouldn't it be criticized? It failed at its design goals in many areas, so drastic edits are warranted, and that means understanding the way it currently is. Furthermore, the power balance screws up certain options. To some extent characters are informed by their abilities, if options don't exist for certain abilities then neither do the characters. Which, incidentally, flat out bans extremely capable mundane warriors.

Furthermore, why should we make everything more powerful? D&D wizards are far, far more powerful than magic users in pretty much any fantasy setting this side of Amber. If the group believes that characters should be limited in capability, then why not limit them? Again, this requires an understanding of the status quo, and again one of the major points warranting revelation is the imbalance of power between casters and non casters.

In short, we can roleplay in any system, however altered. Why start with a bad one? A GM can compensate for the flaws as running any system, that doesn't mean its a particularly good use of time. If the flaws didn't exist in the first place, they could put their efforts somewhere else instead. So why start with a system where one has to constantly compensate for the flaws?

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-29, 09:38 AM
if the dm is creative , even the weak can becomes useful as the powerful...it is why i think nothing is broken if correctly managed and ruled.


Let me ask you this, if you and the rogue's player changed places, would you be as happy with the general situation?
Would you have a problem with being the Rogue in this scenario rather than being the Wizard? Why?

I'm interested to see what your thoughts on the matter are. :smallsmile:

elpollo
2010-11-29, 09:47 AM
IMO, any perceived problem with balance between casters and non-casters is actually a problem with the GM running the show. There are a lot of ways to even the odds when a caster becomes godly. Things like high spell resistance, magic immunities, good saves, and anti-magic zones even the tables. If a non-caster is stuck in a position of non-contribution, it's because the GM is operating on a bias in favor of the magic users.

I've never seen a problem with caster/non-caster balance in games I run because I make sure to provide situations where each character can be extremely useful in the role they are meant to be useful in. Fighter and wizard in the party? The wizard can take on the archmage and his acolyte, the fighter can focus on the magic-immune golems. Or, the cleric can hold back the advancing undead forces while the rogue sneaks through the traps and anti-magic zone surrounding the artifact they need. Etc, etc.

I fully believe that the RAW is balanced for all parties involved, but nobody ever takes advantage of the mechanics that have been put in place to enforce that balance.

The problem is that unless you completely shut the wizard down for a fight (AMF or the like) then they're still better than a fighter or monk. Spell Resistance can be bypassed, or spells can be used where it doesn't take affect. Weak saves can be targetted, or spells that don't allow saves can be used. Even if the target has a huge SR and great saves you can still use battlefield control spells or summons to win the fight. The wizard doesn't have to specifically target an opponent to shut it down.

Fighting in an Antimagic Field is also not a reasonable answer. Firstly you take a player from being able to do something to being able to do nothing, which isn't really a good solution (some may joke about them in an AMF makes them equal to fighters out of it, but that doesn't solve the problem - if a class is only balanced with a caster when the caster has all its toys taken away then you've not got a balanced class. You've also got an unhappy caster). Secondly, it's a very small area and the wizard can simply fight around that to clear everything else up. Thirdly you're also reducing the power of the guys relying on swords and shields - their armour class, attack bonus and damage all dropped by several points (especially armour class), any buffs they have vanish, any miss chance they has goes, so they're now gonna get beat on by an enemy out of their league. Also, unless you plan on using only beatsticks then using constant AMFs not only seems a little cheap but also limits the capabilities of your enemies (and if this all seems fine to you then you may as well be playing E6. I mean, it's pretty great).

A DM allowing casters to overshadow non-casters is not favouring casters - the game favours casters by default. A DM who constantly using anti-caster tactics (and I'm not saying this isn't an option) is favouring melee classes (and I'm not saying they don't need it). A caster who understands Spell Resistance and Anti-magic and the like doesn't need to be optimising to work around it.

To the OP:

So yeah. People talk about imbalance issues because they are there. It doesn't take much to show them, and whilst they are sortable it's often in a hand-wavey "Not today, casters!" type way. They don't always crop up in a game, and with a good group you can certainly work around them, but it doesn't solve the base issue.

Killer Angel
2010-11-29, 09:49 AM
(mundane hiding)

Blindsight, Blindsense, Scent, Tremorsense, and certain other abilities, can greatly weaken or outright negate Hide or Move Silently checks.


These countermeasures help, but don't negate the goodness of a good hide.
Scent have a limited range, and so on, so yeah, it's still possible to sneak past those critters.
BTW: those kind of perceptions, weaken in the same way also invisibility.
Only, at higher level there's plenty of magic that negate invisibility, while True seeing cannot do nothing against a good hide.



Investment in magic items or specific Class or Prestige Class abilities becomes more and more vital, which affects your progression in other areas.


True, but that's obvious. Every character must invest more heavily in his abilities and skills, to keep them still effective at higher levels.

LordBlades
2010-11-29, 10:16 AM
BTW: those kind of perceptions, weaken in the same way also invisibility.
Only, at higher level there's plenty of magic that negate invisibility, while True seeing cannot do nothing against a good hide.


Except blindisght, which is what, a 2nd level spell?

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 10:18 AM
Let me ask you this, if you and the rogue's player changed places, would you be as happy with the general situation?
Would you have a problem with being the Rogue in this scenario rather than being the Wizard? Why?

I'm interested to see what your thoughts on the matter are. :smallsmile:

the "rogue" ( i oriented him with PrC to be a almost invisible backstabbing machine) is my secondary character, casters and sneakers are my favorite character classes, i like the casters coz i am crazy of the lich & demilich and i like the rogue for all the sneaky things and backstab flavor (for example in WOW, i used only one character, the rogue, the wizard was more powerful but i dont like the way he was done and i like backstab to death).

in my group with my rogue, i always looking for some concealment, hiding somewhere and waiting patiently for the wizard and melee guys to reduce significantly the hp of the mobs, then i engage them and try to finish them as quick as i can with sneak attacks. the fighter always knows my position and try to place the fight not too far from my hiding position allowing me to flank , backstab then re-hide; the wizard sometimes cast some diversion spells allowing me to re-hide, etc...i enjoy it almost more than fighting with my wizard ^^.

in non-combat situation, im the trapfinder, unlocker, and scout.

all my group know my way of playing it, and rely on me for some specific task, and it is the same for all the other characters, we know how the others used to play. so the wizard can focus on specific spells he likes instead of versatile ones.

tenshiakodo
2010-11-29, 10:26 AM
(Derailing again)

I'm not so sure though. I mean, yes, these abilities do have ranges, but the trick then becomes knowing the creature has the ability, and what it's range is. And yes, within these ranges, they do make a high Hide check irrelevant. I mean, let's look at Scent.

-A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet.

-The creature detects another creatureís presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If it moves within 5 feet of the scentís source, the creature can pinpoint that source.

So yes, you can sneak around it, as long as you are aware of it's ability, and how it's ability works. But note that at no time does Scent interact with Hide; if you are in range, it knows you're there. Not where you are, but it knows to look for you.

And if it moves adjacent to you, it instantly pinpoints your location, no check required.

You still get the benefit of your concealment, but that's not the point; scent is a common ability, and without some forethought, it can counter Hide and Move Silently.

What I find bothersome about this situation, though, is that when you read Hide and Move Silently in the PHB, the rules tell you that once you meet the requirements to make your check, you just do it, and it's opposed by Spot and Listen.

You're never told that just about everything that isn't a PC has Spot and Listen ranks (which I find amusing, as several classes don't even have Spot or Listen as Class Skills!), and you're definitely not told that there are special abilities, and common ones, at that, which can allow you to be detected with no die rolls required!

Darkvision is handed out like candy to monsters, many creatures have scent, and it just gets worse over time. Now you have rightly pointed out that True Seeing doesn't let you bypass a Hide check (although the spell does contradict itself a bit here, since it lets you see through darkness, but doesn't overcome concealment of any kind...).

(EDIT): I was originally going to get into a discussion about magical effects that can overcome Hide and Move Silently, but, while they do exist, I don't like arguments based around "Oh yeah? Well if that doesn't work, so and so would do X, Y, or Z!". I can't stand the Schrodinger's Wizard argument; you pointed out that the big "go-to" spell, True Seeing, doesn't work, and that's a good point. The question of what else a caster can do to protect themselves will likely spawn a huge and pointless debate. ^_^

Can you make it work? Probably, but whether or not the investment is worth it is the big question.

Killer Angel
2010-11-29, 10:44 AM
Except blindisght, which is what, a 2nd level spell?

Blindsight foils invisibility. For the same reason, invisibilty isn't worth?



Can you make it work? Probably, but whether or not the investment is worth it is the big question.

Your analysis isn't wrong. My point was that many of the coutermeasures against Hide, works also against invisibility.
For a wizard, is not a big problem study invisibility, even if sometime will reveal worthless.
For a ranger / rogue, is not a big problem to put skill points in hide / move silently.

Every method of passing unnoticed, can be countered. Sometime, one will work, sometime, the another one will.
But mundane hide have some goodness, so IMO, if you have a good amount of skill points to spend, it's always worth, even if you're a rogue with UMD and a wand of invisibility.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 10:44 AM
Two issues.

One, like has been said before, a lot of the non-casters are simply lacking in power. It's going to be nigh-impossible for me to play the classic high-fantasy hero that can do impossible feats like climbing by himself to the top of the world's highest mountains, or single-handedly diverting a river. The mechanics simply don't support it.

Two, it's not as easy as you say to keep things balanced. I had this problem with a druid. I picked spells that were fun and looked like they would suit my character. And I'm still ending up more powerful than some of the non-casters. In a few levels I could probably do without them easily, without actually trying. Again, that's without trying to optimize or overpower things. It's not enough to not optimize, you have to intentionally hold yourself back. Which is not fun because you have to spend your time thinking "how do I not overshadow my friend" instead of "how do we solve this encounter."

In short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw

tenshiakodo
2010-11-29, 10:52 AM
I love that skit!

tcrudisi
2010-11-29, 11:07 AM
In short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw

That was hilarious. Thank you for sharing. *runs off to show others*

Hanuman
2010-11-29, 11:09 AM
in the real world a mere scientist don't match the black ops commando in combat
It's more like a punk with a switchblade on the subway vs a flamethrower.

Flickerdart
2010-11-29, 11:14 AM
Blindsight foils invisibility. For the same reason, invisibilty isn't worth?



Your analysis isn't wrong. My point was that many of the coutermeasures against Hide, works also against invisibility.
For a wizard, is not a big problem study invisibility, even if sometime will reveal worthless.
For a ranger / rogue, is not a big problem to put skill points in hide / move silently.

Every method of passing unnoticed, can be countered. Sometime, one will work, sometime, the another one will.
But mundane hide have some goodness, so IMO, if you have a good amount of skill points to spend, it's always worth, even if you're a rogue with UMD and a wand of invisibility.
Except the Wizard pays a pittance in gold to have Invisibility, while the Rogue has to spend a permanent, limited resource on his Hide that doesn't even work as well.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 11:18 AM
in the real world a mere scientist don't match the black ops commando in combat
It's more like a punk with a switchblade on the subway vs a flamethrower.

Also in the real world the scientist stays back in the lab, and the black ops commando doesn't take anyone who can't fight to a near-equal level along with him.

Hanuman
2010-11-29, 11:26 AM
Also in the real world the scientist stays back in the lab, and the black ops commando doesn't take anyone who can't fight to a near-equal level along with him.
Depends what type of scientist.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 11:33 AM
Depends what type of scientist.

Well yes. But as a general rule, unless he contributed something the commando couldn't do on his own, he's going to be left at home.

Killer Angel
2010-11-29, 11:34 AM
Except the Wizard pays a pittance in gold to have Invisibility, while the Rogue has to spend a permanent, limited resource on his Hide that doesn't even work as well.

Yes, skill points are a permanent, limited resources, but we're not talking 'bout few, precious feats, we're talking 'bout 1 skill point / level, for classes that are skill monkeys.
C'mon, in what skills a rogue should spend his skill points? UMD, spot, listen, and?
I really don't see the point in don't having a good Hide. It will not solve all your problem, but is useful, especially when you face enemies with invisibility purge and similar tricks. Certainly more useful than open locks.

tenshiakodo
2010-11-29, 11:38 AM
Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Search, Disable Device, Tumble, Jump, Climb?

(Rats, I'm still derailing, lol)

EDIT: also, Gather Information and Balance.

Crow
2010-11-29, 11:46 AM
The problem is that the only way to actually challenge a wizard at epic levels is to completely make a situation where every other class quite literally cannot do a damn thing, or else get curb-stomped. It's not about one being more powerful, its about it creating a situation where the other classes cannot do anything.

Absolutely wrong.

Most epic monsters make their saves, which leaves epic magic as your primary curbstomper. A level 21 wizard gets 2 epic spells. Two. If you're letting your wizard abuse the mitigation system, then it's your fault if epic magic is ruining your game. If your wizards aren't abusing the system, epic magic is actually quite underwhelming.

So the wizard has recourse to summoning, which is powerful. But by the time you're at epic, your fighter should be able to beatstick at least as well as most things you can summon. Since you have that fighter around, the wizard doesn't have to waste his action summoning another beatstick unless he wants to.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 11:48 AM
Absolutely wrong.

Most epic monsters make their saves, which leaves epic magic as your primary curbstomper. A level 21 wizard gets 2 epic spells. Two. If you're letting your wizard abuse the mitigation system, then it's your fault if epic magic is ruining your game. If your wizards aren't abusing the system, epic magic is actually quite underwhelming.

So the wizard has recourse to summoning, which is powerful. But by the time you're at epic, your fighter should be able to beatstick at least as well as most things you can summon. Since you have that fighter around, the wizard doesn't have to waste his action summoning another beatstick unless he wants to.

Mind, I haven't gotten near epic yet. But there are *plenty* of no-save-just-suck spells out there.

Killer Angel
2010-11-29, 11:52 AM
Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Search, Disable Device, Tumble, Jump, Climb?
EDIT: also, Gather Information and Balance.

Diplomacy? common in funny theoretical build, but rarely seen at our table, if you don't abuse the rules. If you abuse them, you don't need any other skill at all... :smallamused:
Jump and Climb? Those, are easily covered by cheap magic items.
Tumble, after you've enough points for the standard DC, it's done.
Balance... 5 ranks are good, but seriously, you'll use balance a lot less than the other skills, and once you fly (and you will fly) it's worthless.
A rogue can afford almost 10 skills, at a very good level.


(Rats, I'm still derailing, lol)


I'm seriously thinking to open a new thread on it... :smallwink:

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 11:53 AM
Diplomacy? common in funny theoretical build, but rarely seen at our table, if you don't abuse the rules. If you abuse them, you don't need any other skill at all... :smallamused:
Jump and Climb? Those, are easily covered by cheap magic items.
Tumble, after you've enough points for the standard DC, it's done.
Balance... 5 ranks are good, but seriously, you'll use balance a lot less than the other skills, and once you fly (and you will fly) it's worthless.
A rogue can afford almost 10 skills, at a very good level.

I commonly take Diplo and I never abuse it... It's also a very commonly houseruled skill, IMX, even if a DM doesn't have a formal houserule for it.

Crow
2010-11-29, 11:59 AM
Mind, I haven't gotten near epic yet. But there are *plenty* of no-save-just-suck spells out there.

Yeah, but epic monster stats are so ridiculous that our group hasn't really noticed much of a difference. Once you land a few different nosave/sucks it starts to become noticable, but it's certainly not the one-shot deal it is at lower levels.

No save blasting spells actually become quite viable at epic levels.

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 12:00 PM
Yeah, but epic monster stats are so ridiculous that our group hasn't really noticed much of a difference. Once you land a few different nosave/sucks it starts to become noticable, but it's certainly not the one-shot deal it is at lower levels.

No save blasting spells actually become quite viable at epic levels.

That's interesting. Crow, would you do us a favor and post a thread about your campaign going into a little more detail? I've seen you mention this sorta stuff more than once, I think it's an intriguing quirk.

Killer Angel
2010-11-29, 12:05 PM
I commonly take Diplo and I never abuse it... It's also a very commonly houseruled skill, IMX, even if a DM doesn't have a formal houserule for it.

It's certainly possible, and obviously houserules are common, if not required for the skill to be playable... Diplomacy is probably the most abusable skill, as it's written.

That said, I think I'm going to stop posting in this thread in regard to this topic... too much derailment, my apologies.

Crow
2010-11-29, 12:05 PM
That's interesting. Crow, would you do us a favor and post a thread about your campaign going into a little more detail? I've seen you mention this sorta stuff more than once, I think it's an intriguing quirk.

After our next session, I'll try to get ahold of everyone's character sheets so I can put up a detailed post about it.

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 12:08 PM
After our next session, I'll try to get ahold of everyone's character sheets so I can put up a detailed post about it.

Thank you, it's very appreciated. :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 12:12 PM
Diplo is another one that you don't have to be trying to abuse to break the game with it. Say our half-elf bard has a +7 charisma mod (18 roll, +2 for levels, and a +4 item) a racial +2 to diplomacy, and 11 ranks at level 8. She can now reliably make pretty much anything indifferent to her. Without even trying to break the system.

true_shinken
2010-11-29, 12:19 PM
Thatís it. Iím sick of all this ďtier 3Ē bull**** thatís going on in the d20 system right now. Martial adepts deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what Iím talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Tome of Battle in Wizard sof the Coast for 2,400,000 Yen (thatís about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my Tome of Battle.
WotC writters spend years working on a single Tome of Battle and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest fanbase dividing game suplements known to mankind.
Tomes of Battle are thrice as sharp as Complete Warriors and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a Complete Warrior can cut through, a Tome of Battke can cut through better. Iím pretty sure a Tome of Battle could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Wizards of the Coast? Thatís right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined martial adepts and their maneuvers of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the Tomes of Battle first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Tome of Battle is simply the best fanbase dividing game suplement that the world has ever seen, and thus, martial adepts require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for martial adepts:
2xfull base attack, d20hit dice, 10 skill points per level, no familiar because that's overpowered, they are immune to all magic.

Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of martial adepts in real life, donít you think?
tl;dr = Martial adepts need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

Jayabalard
2010-11-29, 12:33 PM
It's going to be nigh-impossible for me to play the classic high-fantasy hero that can do impossible feats like climbing by himself to the top of the world's highest mountains, or single-handedly diverting a river. The mechanics simply don't support it.The climbing the worlds highest mountains bit... I don't really see what prevents the character from doing so.

The other one, well, I'm not sure I agree that it's an example from high fantasy*... it's from mythology, and seems more clearly "low fantasy".

*one of the defining characteristics of "high fantasy" (as opposed to low fantasy) is that it is set in a wholly fictional world; this can be either a purely fictional world where our world doesn't exist (ie: wheel of time), an alternate world that is reached from a portal in our world (ie: Narnia, Xanth), a distinct world-within-world (ie: harry potter), or the real world either so far in the future or past that it's not recognizable as such (Lord of the Rings).

Mystic Muse
2010-11-29, 12:39 PM
The problem is, players like to be useful in the game they're playing. I don't like players being miles ahead of me, and I don't like being miles ahead of other players. It makes some people wonder "If he can do what I'm doing better than I can, what's the point of me playing? Because I'm sure not having fun."

Now, try to think like that. If you're not having fun and feeling useless, even if the other players are your friends, why are you playing? There are surely other things you can do with friends.

I'm sure most of us have encountered a situation like this, although not Necessarily in a D&D game.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 12:40 PM
The climbing the worlds highest mountains bit... I don't really see what prevents the character from doing so.

The other one, well, I'm not sure I agree that it's an example from high fantasy*... it's from mythology, and seems more clearly "low fantasy".

*one of the defining characteristics of "high fantasy" (as opposed to low fantasy) is that it is set in a wholly fictional world; this can be either a purely fictional world where our world doesn't exist (ie: wheel of time), an alternate world that is reached from a portal in our world (ie: Narnia, Xanth), a distinct world-within-world (ie: harry potter), or the real world either so far in the future or past that it's not recognizable as such (Lord of the Rings).

On the first part - you're going to start taking cold damage way too quickly and probably pass out a third of the way up. Plus your fighter and barbarian don't have any of climb, balance, or tumble as class skills.

On the second: The defining characteristic of high fantasy versus low fantasy is how far the characters are from what you and I can do. Low fantasy features the badass normal; high fantasy features the superhero.

Amphetryon
2010-11-29, 12:58 PM
On the first part - you're going to start taking cold damage way too quickly and probably pass out a third of the way up. Plus your fighter and barbarian don't have any of climb, balance, or tumble as class skills.

On the second: The defining characteristic of high fantasy versus low fantasy is how far the characters are from what you and I can do. Low fantasy features the badass normal; high fantasy features the superhero.

Nitpick: Fighters and barbarians have Climb as a class skill.

Crow
2010-11-29, 01:51 PM
To the Tome of Battle poster above; I see what you did there. Well played.

As to climbing mountains; As someone who has done a lot of climbing, I'd say balance and tumble are not as necessary as climb.

For diverting rivers, a determined fighter could do it. It'd just require a lot of digging and logging. It's not impossible by the rules of D&D. Surely a wizard could do it easier though.

SurlySeraph
2010-11-29, 03:00 PM
Initially you said:


my character is a powerful optimized arcane caster...
and then enter the weak rogue... an ex-powerful evil backstabber who became lawful good and loses 6 levels


i think all depend of the DM, when the rogue had his curse, he screamed like a pregnant woman giving birth.
...
when i asked to my Dm why so much cruelty ! he said he was not supposed to be so harsh with him; but he feels since 2-3 adventures that the rogue feels bored with his character and have no challenges.
...
The cleric and me are powerful enough to make the rogue recover his original state but he refused ! he said it is more interesting for him to roleplay a good character in a band of despicable evil guys ^^ and since he lost levels and becomes non-epic (for the moment) we must protect him all the time... who permit the dm to invent tricky events.

But then you said:


the "rogue" ( i oriented him with PrC to be a almost invisible backstabbing machine) is my secondary character
...
in my group with my rogue, i always looking for some concealment, hiding somewhere and waiting patiently for the wizard and melee guys to reduce significantly the hp of the mobs, then i engage them and try to finish them as quick as i can with sneak attacks. the fighter always knows my position and try to place the fight not too far from my hiding position allowing me to flank , backstab then re-hide; the wizard sometimes cast some diversion spells allowing me to re-hide, etc...i enjoy it almost more than fighting with my wizard ^^.

If the rogue indeed is your secondary character with an arcane caster as your main, it rather invalidates your point about roleplaying making up for power imbalance; you can still contribute more than anyone else can with your primary character, so something that weakens your secondary character doesn't make you feel useless, as the power imbalance between casters and non-casters can in optimized games.

WeLoveFireballs
2010-11-29, 03:21 PM
The Wizard (or pick almost any general arcane spellcaster) can buff so hard he can out fight the fighter out sneak the rogue outrun the monk and out blast any divine spellcaster.

However fifteen minutes later he's back down to his puny 'o self and they are just as good as when they started. (plus the cleric has healing)

He is incredibly powerful but if he doesn't have time to rest between every few encounters he is toast.

Moderation in spellcasting is the key to a successful and fun party. If you can't hold back and just take some of the glory you will run out of spells and bog the party down. It evens power and speeds up adventures.

I have not read through the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat point.

Jayabalard
2010-11-29, 03:33 PM
On the first part - you're going to start taking cold damage way too quickly and probably pass out a third of the way up. Plus your fighter and barbarian don't have any of climb, balance, or tumble as class skillsEverest on a good summit day is only -15 F, so the fighter or barbarian in winter clothing would only have to make a fort save once per hour to avoid taking non-lethal damage, possibly with a bonus from survival (class skill for barbarians). They have climb as a class skill.

IIRC, Frostburn has more rules for cold weather gear/exposure, so I kind of expect that they'd be fine even on a bad weather day as long as they had the correct protective gear.

Mystic Muse
2010-11-29, 03:36 PM
I have not read through the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat point.

No, (at least, not that I've seen) but it's a point that's been refuted in many other threads. At higher levels, unless the wizard is using spells on everything in sight, there's very little chance they'll run out before the fighter runs out of HP at similar optimization levels is the usual retort. Plus, things like rope trick allows you to get out of dodge and replenish your spells.

WeLoveFireballs
2010-11-29, 05:44 PM
While a wizard may have spells through that how many will he have by the time the fighter rogue and cleric need to rest? I know from firsthand experience a proficiently optimized mystic theruge in a small party often needed to rest much more often than they did even with his pearls of power, wands and other spellcasting boosters.

tyckspoon
2010-11-29, 06:12 PM
Everest on a good summit day is only -15 F, so the fighter or barbarian in winter clothing would only have to make a fort save once per hour to avoid taking non-lethal damage, possibly with a bonus from survival (class skill for barbarians). They have climb as a class skill.

IIRC, Frostburn has more rules for cold weather gear/exposure, so I kind of expect that they'd be fine even on a bad weather day as long as they had the correct protective gear.

Mountain climbing would also involve Balance, Survival, and Know (Nature and/or Geography) at the least, especially doing a high-altitude summit; there's a lot more to it than just rock-climbing. Without those other skills, your Fighter is quite likely to bring down a rockfall on himself or wind up stuck in a crevasse that looked like solid snowpack before he stepped on it, or even just caught out in an extended whiteout, which will be quite dangerous even with good cold weather gear (it doesn't do you too much good when all your food is frozen too hard to eat and you don't know how to find or construct a shelter or a safe way to thaw your equipment once you have shelter.) Or he puts his foot square in the mouth of a hunting snow-worm, this being a fantasy mountain. A skills-inclined Barbarian could do it with reasonable chances of success; a Fighter is boned unless the mountain cooperates with him all the way or he resorts to magicing his way through.

Flickerdart
2010-11-29, 06:28 PM
While a wizard may have spells through that how many will he have by the time the fighter rogue and cleric need to rest? I know from firsthand experience a proficiently optimized mystic theruge in a small party often needed to rest much more often than they did even with his pearls of power, wands and other spellcasting boosters.
While the caster is casting his spells, the front line is taking HP damage and debuffs like negative levels. As early as, say, fifth level, a wizard might have thirteen spells available: three of 3rd level, four of 2nd level and six of 1st level. Assuming an average 4-encounter day, he can allot 3 spells per combat (not even talking about long-duration buffs) and still have one left over, so he's not going to declare "hey guys, I need to rest" in the middle of the day. On the other hand, the Rogue's light armour and low HP (6+4d6 averages 20, plus 5xCon makes 30ish the most he'll likely have) means he might be down to single digits after a single encounter.

WeLoveFireballs
2010-11-29, 06:48 PM
If the rogue is on the front line taking real damage then you are messing up anyway. (also don't forget the cleric!)

What you just described is a perfect example of moderation in spellcasting that keeps the party running. Usually wizard players I have encountered feel obliged to cast a spell in every turn of a 5 round encounter and need to retreat when the highest 2-3 spell levels are gone.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 07:01 PM
If the rogue is on the front line taking real damage then you are messing up anyway. (also don't forget the cleric!)

What you just described is a perfect example of moderation in spellcasting that keeps the party running. Usually wizard players I have encountered feel obliged to cast a spell in every turn of a 5 round encounter and need to retreat when the highest 2-3 spell levels are gone.

And then you get a bored caster who casts one spell and then sits on his gameboy for the rest of a half-hour combat. My rule of the thumb: if any player is sitting idle for more than five minutes routinely, or more than 10 at any time, there's something wrong. You've ceased to play a social game at that point.

WeLoveFireballs
2010-11-29, 08:58 PM
Of course but I mean he never uses that lovely +1 Flaming Repeating Crossbow that grants proficiency automatically he bought or made.

Ragitsu
2010-11-29, 08:59 PM
Round and round this thread does go, where it ends, nobody knows.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 09:01 PM
Of course but I mean he never uses that lovely +1 Flaming Repeating Crossbow that grants proficiency automatically he bought or made.

Huh? Generally if I play a caster I don't want to spend most of my time shooting a crossbow - that's what the rogue is for. Even if it is a magic crossbow. Plus I have lousy BAB and low dex so I can't hit anything anyway.

randomhero00
2010-11-29, 09:03 PM
OP:

Basically that's hard to pull off. You have to have the exact right mix of people willing to DM and roleplay such characters. Its just a rare thing in real life for that to happen. Most of us require balance.

AllisterH
2010-11-29, 09:08 PM
For me...it's two reasons and it's mostly a 3.x problem.

1. The bait and switch.

I'll start off by saying I love Ars Magica and Pendragon RPGs. Ars Magica IMO is one of the greatest medieval fantasy RPGs and Pendragon is the DEFINITIVE Arthurian/Round Table RPG.

I have no problem with the fact that these two RPGs simply invalidate mundanes and casters respectively. The fact is, they are quite open about the fact that they are supposed to be run with certain asumption. Ars Magica assumes the all-powerful wizard while conversely magic in the hands of PCs is exceedingly weak in Pendragon.

What I do hate is the fact that 3.x tries to pass off the fiction that a level 20 fighter is equivalent to a level 20 wizard with an entirely straight face (the xp tables).

Look...I have no problem with all-powerful wizards but TELL me this first. And the excuse that "of course you should know magic is all-powerful" doesn't wash since one of the main influences of D&D, Conan, magic is pretty damn weak.


2. The assumed primacy of Magic or did the designers of 3.x NOT realize what they were doing?

The switchover from 2e to 3.x There was no damn good reason why magic was increased to such potency. To go from a system where at high levels, the mundane classes more easily shrugged off ALL types of magic to one where many mundane classes actually got worse in resisting equivalent level magical effects as they increased in level.

It annoys me in principles that the 3.x designers were so surprised that lifting a LOT of the restrictions of magic resulted in all-powerful casters.

WeLoveFireballs
2010-11-29, 09:09 PM
Huh? Generally if I play a caster I don't want to spend most of my time shooting a crossbow - that's what the rogue is for. Even if it is a magic crossbow. Plus I have lousy BAB and low dex so I can't hit anything anyway.

You can still hit the minions until you get a brilliant energy one. Saves spells!

Amphetryon
2010-11-29, 09:13 PM
You can still hit the minions until you get a brilliant energy one. Saves spells!

Reserve feats let Warkitty do that while still getting the magic on.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 09:14 PM
You can still hit the minions until you get a brilliant energy one. Saves spells!

Your DM gives you minions reliably? We usually get 1-2 bosses and few to no minions. Plus a whole lot of monsters have natural armor and/or high dex, so that brilliant energy crossbow would be a plain waste of cash.

Also, you missed my first point - if I wanted to shoot my crossbow 90% of the time, I'd play a rogue and buy scrolls. You're not fixing the problem, you're just shifting it around from "fighter is bored" to "wizard is bored." Especially since, unlike the rogue, there's nothing interesting I can do with my crossbow, so I might as well sit back on my gameboy again. All players should have options on pretty much every turn of at least two different effective moves, to prevent the game from getting repetitive.

Edit: Yes, reserve feats do help. My point isn't that you can't fix it. My point is that you shouldn't need to, and it's not just a problem that comes up when you have munchkins or people trying to win the game or whatever. It's a problem that comes up when you have a group of people that want to play a social game where one person wants to focus on magic and the other wants to focus on swords.

WeLoveFireballs
2010-11-29, 09:17 PM
Reserve feats let Warkitty do that while still getting the magic on.

Reserve feats? Where are those?

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 09:19 PM
Reserve feats? Where are those?

Complete Mage. Although I should warn you, some of them are equally bad about invalidating other party members without using much effort.

Crow
2010-11-29, 09:21 PM
Where did this idea come from that a mountain climber needs to have cat-like balance. Very few peaks have anything which would require a balance check in D&D terms. Even glaciers are easy to walk over with the proper equipment.

As far as survival, I can give you that, but many climbers take guides with them.

edit: Well, glaciers aren't "easy"...but you get the idea.

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 09:22 PM
I also feel like reserve feats tromp on what little flavor Vancian casting still had, and destroy the niche of the Sorcerer. I always ban them, 100%, no reservations.

Esser-Z
2010-11-29, 09:31 PM
You can still hit the minions until you get a brilliant energy one. Saves spells!
And this is a problem. I'm not playing a spellcaster to be a crappy archer most of my career, casting encounter-changing spells one round a fight.

I play a caster to use magic. I'd like to be able to consistently do that. I don't want to overshadow the other players in the process, just be effective and have fun. Same as any other class.

I am very unfond of the 'you can't do your thing much, but it's very powerful!' balancing tactic.

Amphetryon
2010-11-29, 09:33 PM
Where did this idea come from that a mountain climber needs to have cat-like balance. Very few peaks have anything which would require a balance check in D&D terms. Even glaciers are easy to walk over with the proper equipment.

As far as survival, I can give you that, but many climbers take guides with them.

edit: Well, glaciers aren't "easy"...but you get the idea.

Can't speak to others, but my idea that a mountain climber needs balance comes from having done it as an adult with poor balance, and having needed immediate help from those climbing with me no less than three times, on a marked trail, to keep from falling off the same mountain.

5 ranks in Balance aren't 'cat-like reflexes' as I understand the reference, but I'd call them fairly important for getting to the top.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 09:33 PM
If the rogue indeed is your secondary character with an arcane caster as your main, it rather invalidates your point about roleplaying making up for power imbalance; you can still contribute more than anyone else can with your primary character, so something that weakens your secondary character doesn't make you feel useless, as the power imbalance between casters and non-casters can in optimized games.

you misunderstand me, in my group each players have 2 characters but each of them don't interact with the main one, we don't play them together... we play the secondary characters as a different band, who in our storyline may one day oppossed our main character.

like we have one character who is a X-men, and another one who is in the group of Magneto.

understand?

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 09:45 PM
And this is a problem. I'm not playing a spellcaster to be a crappy archer most of my career, casting encounter-changing spells one round a fight.

I play a caster to use magic. I'd like to be able to consistently do that. I don't want to overshadow the other players in the process, just be effective and have fun. Same as any other class.

I am very unfond of the 'you can't do your thing much, but it's very powerful!' balancing tactic.

I am fond of it, but it really would be something like giving them a delayed progression ranged maneuver with crossbows - so you're goodish with them but not great - and a few daily spells that are your nukes. I think that would be an interesting design.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-29, 09:46 PM
And this is a problem. I'm not playing a spellcaster to be a crappy archer most of my career, casting encounter-changing spells one round a fight.

I play a caster to use magic. I'd like to be able to consistently do that. I don't want to overshadow the other players in the process, just be effective and have fun. Same as any other class.

I am very unfond of the 'you can't do your thing much, but it's very powerful!' balancing tactic.

Sounds like you want a Warlock. Which is actually exactly what we should all be playing :P

randomhero00
2010-11-29, 09:47 PM
I am fond of reserve feats, because that's how I like magic to work. But they need some rebalancing...

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 09:48 PM
OP:Basically that's hard to pull off. You have to have the exact right mix of people willing to DM and roleplay such characters. Its just a rare thing in real life for that to happen. Most of us require balance.

i admit, my friends and me used to play together since ad&d 1st edition. the books of orange color. but we never had the imbalance issues between us; maybe coz we know very well the gameplay of each other. in each edition we played, we systematically use the same character and replay it with the new rules; i was always the wizard, etc... they know exactly how i will play it, i know how they will play their characters.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 09:50 PM
i admit, my friends and me used to play together since ad&d 1st edition. the books of orange color. but we never had the imbalance issues between us; maybe coz we know very well the gameplay of each other. in each edition we played, we systematically use the same character and replay it with the new rules; i was always the wizard, etc... they know exactly how i will play it, i know how they will play their characters.

Which is the exact opposite of our group. We have a lot of fairly new players. We all picked what looked cool and fun. And suddenly, BAM, the casters are far outpacing the melee without much effort on either side to optimize. Just by trying to do cool stuff that seemed fairly obvious from the way the class was designed.

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-29, 09:57 PM
i admit, my friends and me used to play together since ad&d 1st edition. the books of orange color. but we never had the imbalance issues between us; maybe coz we know very well the gameplay of each other. in each edition we played, we systematically use the same character and replay it with the new rules; i was always the wizard, etc... they know exactly how i will play it, i know how they will play their characters.

I believe it's widely suggested that the characters approach balanced (admittedly from a distance) when played more like the old editions than by simply looking at what they can actually do.

Blasting wizards, et cetera?

It's possible that you are, by sticking to how you've always played it, actually avoiding a lot of the problems that others stumble into. The fact that it happens to be your prefered playstyle is a big bonus. :smallsmile:
Essentially, you may very well be playing the only way 3rd ed was ever actually playtested.

randomhero00
2010-11-29, 09:58 PM
Which is the exact opposite of our group. We have a lot of fairly new players. We all picked what looked cool and fun. And suddenly, BAM, the casters are far outpacing the melee without much effort on either side to optimize. Just by trying to do cool stuff that seemed fairly obvious from the way the class was designed.

+1

Even when we aren't bringing in new players we all often switch between classes.We also change it up nearly every time (keep in mind our campaigns last 2-3 years so we really have to live with the consequences.) Such as free gestalt levels till 4 or free +LA 3 etc. So its too hard to predict who might suddenly come out way too over powered.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 10:06 PM
Which is the exact opposite of our group. We have a lot of fairly new players. We all picked what looked cool and fun. And suddenly, BAM, the casters are far outpacing the melee without much effort on either side to optimize. Just by trying to do cool stuff that seemed fairly obvious from the way the class was designed.

i can imagine, let me guess the encounter begin , the caster say "i throw a meteor swarm on the mobs" without waiting what the melee guys plan to do?

i show this example, coz it happened when a friend of us occasionally play his wizard with us ^^ almost killing the fighter...

AstralFire
2010-11-29, 10:12 PM
No, WarKitty spends a lot of effort to coordinate with the melee users, actually.

...

And for the record, as a pyromaniac, Meteor Swarm is disappointingly terrible. 9th Level Desert Wind is the way of fire fanatics.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 10:29 PM
I believe it's widely suggested that the characters approach balanced (admittedly from a distance) when played more like the old editions than by simply looking at what they can actually do.

Blasting wizards, et cetera?

It's possible that you are, by sticking to how you've always played it, actually avoiding a lot of the problems that others stumble into. The fact that it happens to be your prefered playstyle is a big bonus. :smallsmile:
Essentially, you may very well be playing the only way 3rd ed was ever actually playtested.

yes, we used to play as usually, the new rules permit us to have more options; i can be more effective with my spells, (in example: using feat to shaping my aoe spells to avoid my companions,etc...)..

yes i am a blasting wizard, the only non-combat oriented spells i select are those that none of my companions skills or abilities can't do.

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 10:43 PM
yes, we used to play as usually, the new rules permit us to have more options; i can be more effective with my spells, (in example: using feat to shaping my aoe spells to avoid my companions,etc...)..

yes i am a blasting wizard, the only non-combat oriented spells i select are those that none of my companions skills or abilities can't do.

See, blasting wizards aren't that bad. It's when you want to build a different kind of wizard that the problems really crop up. I personally dislike direct damage dealing in my own characters. So a controller seemed like a perfect fun build that wouldn't get in the way of anyone else.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 11:03 PM
See, blasting wizards aren't that bad. It's when you want to build a different kind of wizard that the problems really crop up. I personally dislike direct damage dealing in my own characters. So a controller seemed like a perfect fun build that wouldn't get in the way of anyone else.

it feel useless to me to play the versatile caster, specially in a group well balanced. i always favor a specialist caster. (in ad&d 2e i add the red wizard kit to my summoner wizard, it was very fun. with the 3.x edition, you can imagine my excitation with all these PrC, metamagic feats, templates, options... ^^). and in FR lost empires you can even recover forbidden schools ! ^^ MY DREAM COME TRUE ! i waited so long for that ^^

WarKitty
2010-11-29, 11:06 PM
it feel useless to me to play the versatile caster, specially in a group well balanced. i always favor a specialist caster. (in ad&d 2e i add the red wizard kit to my summoner wizard, it was very fun. with the 3.x edition, you can imagine my excitation with all these PrC, metamagic feats, templates, options... ^^). and in FR lost empires you can even recover forbidden schools ! ^^ MY DREAM COME TRUE ! i waited so long for that ^^

See I wasn't even going for "versatile." I was just going for something that wasn't a direct damage dealer.

Gavinfoxx
2010-11-29, 11:09 PM
Blasting is, in general, only worth it if you can immediately make 1+ "big threats" into "immediately no longer a threat" each round. The other better schools and spell selections can do that, easily.. and blasting is really only worth it at very high levels of optimization, where you are pretty much dealing several hundred HP of completely non resistible damage to "biggest meanest thing in sight" a round, dropping it in one, two turns max.

tcrudisi
2010-11-29, 11:14 PM
my character is a powerful optimized arcane caster


yes i am a blasting wizard, the only non-combat oriented spells i select are those that none of my companions skills or abilities can't do.

Which is it? Are you a wizard that focuses on nothing but blasting or are you a powerful optimized arcane caster?

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 11:20 PM
See I wasn't even going for "versatile." I was just going for something that wasn't a direct damage dealer.

i think d&d designer create those versatile spell to fill the lacking "jack of all trade" guy in some group. in a group it is sure you will have a wizard but not sure a bard or rogue.

@Gavinfoxx: right
@tcrudisi: optimized damage dealer primarily with a taste for summoning; to be clear. (inventive netherese arcanist base class, homebrew)

Gavinfoxx
2010-11-29, 11:28 PM
i think d&d designer create those versatile spell to fill the lacking "jack of all trade" guy in some group. in a group it is sure you will have a wizard but not sure a bard or rogue.

@Gavinfoxx: right
@tcrudisi: optimized damage dealer primarily with a taste for summoning; to be clear.

The thing is, if you are optimizing for damage dealing, as a wizard, you aren't really optimizing in an absolute sense.

Oh, you might be optimising a *specific, nerfed idea*, or optimizing the *best you can, given restrictions*, but you aren't really optimizing the tools that are naturally given to you (ie, the wizard class). What you are doing is 'making the best out of a suboptimal idea'. So you are optimizing in a SUBJECTIVE sense, not an absolute sense. Does that make sense?

Most of us here would consider VERY VERY few blasting focused builds "high optimization". Mostly things like "The Mailman".

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19868534/The_Mailman:_A_Direct_Damage_Sorcerer

Or if you want to focus on Wizard, "Cindy":

http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=5890

And notice how maddeningly FEW direct damage spells this "focuses the theme on direct damage" Wizard ACTUALLY HAS. And how much they do the other stuff...

Anyway, it's like, "I want to make the best two weapon fighting sneaky character that uses mostly levels in rogue"-optimization. An optimization challenge -- take something inherently weak, and make it as good as possible, given restrictions. The end result is generally 'viable' but not 'powerful.'

nolispe
2010-11-29, 11:32 PM
i think d&d designer create those versatile spell to fill the lacking "jack of all trade" guy in some group. in a group it is sure you will have a wizard but not sure a bard or rogue.

@Gavinfoxx: right
@tcrudisi: optimized damage dealer primarily with a taste for summoning; to be clear. (inventive netherese arcanist base class, homebrew)

See, how much damage are you doing? And at what level? If it's less than four figures at level 25ish (You said epic, right?) then you are not optimised.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-29, 11:43 PM
Anyway, it's like, "I want to make the best two weapon fighting sneaky character that uses mostly levels in rogue"-optimization. An optimization challenge -- take something inherently weak, and make it as good as possible, given restrictions. The end result is generally 'viable' but not 'powerful.'

i see, maybe i should instead used the term "maximized"

Gavinfoxx
2010-11-29, 11:51 PM
i see, maybe i should instead used the term "maximized"

Well, the term optimized isn't BAD. You might just want to say "relatively optimized" or "optimized within this role", or something like that. Did you look at the Mailman and the Cindy build? Are you doing some of the tricks that those builds enable?

You should REALLY read the Mailman thread, closely. You are an incantatar / incantatrix, right? You are stacking multiple metamagic reducers for things like maximised empowered twinned orbs of whatever, right?

Lets say you do this: You win initiative, against a golem with infinite sr, low touch AC, and low reflex save, and you want to unload damage dealing on it. What is your nova combo, and the average damage you do against such a creature in one round?

JaronK
2010-11-29, 11:52 PM
First, pick a monster. Any monster. Note that if it has skill points, they are almost always spent on Listen and Spot. Also note that if it has Feats, almost inevitably you will find Alertness somewhere on it's list.

Most optimized stealth-users can have checks that knock these basic numbers out of the ballpark, but it's just the first of many issues with how Hide and Move Silently are implemented in the game.

Like anything in D&D, you have to work for it a little to make it useful. For example, my generic stealther would be a Necropolitan Factotum with Darkstalker, and when I can afford it a ring of Darkhidden (makes you totally invisible to Darkvision only, and it's really cheap!). At this point, I simply put max ranks into Hide and Move Silently, while having a decent Dex and Int, and occasionally throw in a cheap item (like Silent Shoes, Darkweave Clothing, or eventually armor with the Shadow Enchantment). I don't want to spend too much on hiding. Eventually it becomes worthwhile to get a Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis, but this costs about 20kgp. So, it'll be a while. Provides hide in plain sight and huge stealth bonuses though. Worth getting when you've got the cash to spare. Ring of Chameleon Power is like that too... huge bonus, but it costs a bit so you'll have to wait a while.


To make a Hide check, you need cover or concealment. The most common form of concealment being shadows and darkness. However, a great many monsters in DnD come equipped with Darkvision, an ability that, simply put, allows you to see in darkness. If you can see, then it's not considered concealment.

A creature with Darkvision need not roll Spot to see a character using darkness as concealment, they just see you.

A lot of encounters happen in dungeons, caves, castles, or other areas where real cover is available. Standard hiding uses this. So, this hasn't been an issue where I've seen it. More to the point, that Ring of Darkhidden (again... cheap!) is pretty much a standard item to take.

You don't expect a melee to deal damage without spending a little bit on his magic weapon right? So why shouldn't a stealther spend 1/10th that much on stealth gear?


*As a caveat here, yes, there do exist methods to foil Darkvision, but in many cases, it's an option you have to seek out for your character; Rogues, for example, do not have this ability built-in.

Yes, which is annoying. Luckily, they're cheap!


**Hide in Plain Sight is a special case, as it allows you to make Hide checks without actual forms of cover or concealment. Rangers can simply use natural terrain, Shadowdancers just need to be an area of darkness or shadow. The rules are not very clear about how Shadowdancers interact with Darkvision, and I've seen DM's rule that it simply doesn't work.

Yeah, you'll need the Ring+Collar to completely trump detection.


But this is just the beginning. Blindsight, Blindsense, Scent, Tremorsense, and certain other abilities, can greatly weaken or outright negate Hide or Move Silently checks.

Darkstalker! You must have this feat. If not, you're not a stealther, for precisely this reason. But hey, melee doesn't work if you don't spend any feats for it. Spellcasting is a lot worse with absolutely no feats spent on it. So why shouldn't the same be true for stealth, when it trumps all detection and only takes one feat! Don't forget Mindsight... though note that the same book says that immunity to mind effects makes you invisible to mental detection. So being a Necropolitan should trump this, but that's RAI, not RAW. Consult with your DM.


As the game progresses to higher levels of play, the more you are forced to rely on things other than your actual ranks of Hide or Move Silently to actually perform as a stealthy character. Investment in magic items or specific Class or Prestige Class abilities becomes more and more vital, which affects your progression in other areas.

Sure, but it's not that bad. The Collar gives protection from cold and a few other bonuses, and the ring is really cheap. The Chameleon ring might cost a bit, but overall you shouldn't be spending more than 1/20th your WBL on stealth gear (1/10th if you're dedicated to stealth). In a game where you're expected to spend money to be good at stuff, this is very reasonable. There's no need for specific PrCs. But you do need a stealth class (Beguiler or Factotum is best. Rogue is okay).

I think you're just expecting too much from Hide and Move Silently. You do need to spend some resources to be good at it. But 1 feat and 1/10th to 1/20th your WBL is not too much to ask. If you try to be a stealther, you can rock it really hard.

With that said, the place stealth really suffers is pure kick in the door games. Because in those games, it doesn't matter if you're stealthy... you could have just had high initiative for the same effect.

JaronK

umbrapolaris
2010-11-30, 12:03 AM
You are an incantatar / incantatrix, right? You are stacking multiple metamagic reducers for things like maximised empowered twinned orbs of whatever, right?

worst than that :p


Netherese Arcanist (Inventive) 3 + master specialist 10 + incantatrix 10 + Arcane Lord 10

ok i read the mailman, it was what i think about the damage dealer, have many similitude with my character.

as a said before our campaign his an High Powered one heavily homebrewed (specially the classes & PrC) except for combat mechanics and basic rules.

actually my DM start to design a houserule allowing a player to pick a base class and select one feat and one class ability (from PrC or homebrew classes) related to that kind of class for each level from 1 to 45; similar to a D20 modern talents. allowing gestalting via a template. seems cheesy but im curious about the result.

WarKitty
2010-11-30, 12:06 AM
i can imagine, let me guess the encounter begin , the caster say "i throw a meteor swarm on the mobs" without waiting what the melee guys plan to do?

i show this example, coz it happened when a friend of us occasionally play his wizard with us ^^ almost killing the fighter...

P.S. I rarely seem to win initiative...usually the melee has already gone.

Aron Times
2010-11-30, 01:36 AM
/slightlyderail

You know, WarKitty, based on your recent posts I've read in this forum, D&D 4e would be the perfect game for you. It's extremely well-balanced and casters feel like casters. Most of the later 3.5 content (especially ToB and reserve feats) are prototypes of 4e content.

If your library keeps a collection of D&D books, you might want to try looking for "Races and Classes" and "Worlds and Monsters." These two books detail the design decisions made for 4e, and they make a lot of sense when you learn more about it. Wizards didn't "sell out to the MMO crowd" or "dumb down the game"; they implemented changes based on internal playtesting and more importantly, player feedback. 4e addresses the biggest complaints about 3e and 3.5 based on actual information submitted by actual players like you and me.

I won't lie to you; these two books are basically 4e propaganda and portray 4e in a generally positive light, but I find that it helps to hear multiple sides of the story to get an accurate picture of the game. You hear a lot of complaints about 4e all over the internet, but if you look closer, you also hear a lot of praise for it. People tend to focus on the negative, the vocal minority drowning out the words of the satisfied but silent majority.

There was a thread in this forum a few years back which linked to an old forum post about the then upcoming 3e. The complaints voiced by 3e's detractors are amusingly similar to those of the anti-4e crowd. It's basically a case of They Changed It Now It Sucks mentality; the fear of change and all that.

One of my favorites was the notion that spontaneous spellcasting would turn D&D into a video game, how the sorcerer was a dumbed-down version of the wizard for Diablo kiddies, and so on. History repeats itself.

WarKitty
2010-11-30, 01:47 AM
/slightlyderail

You know, WarKitty, based on your recent posts I've read in this forum, D&D 4e would be the perfect game for you. It's extremely well-balanced and casters feel like casters. Most of the later 3.5 content (especially ToB and reserve feats) are prototypes of 4e content.

If your library keeps a collection of D&D books, you might want to try looking for "Races and Classes" and "Worlds and Monsters." These two books detail the design decisions made for 4e, and they make a lot of sense when you learn more about it. Wizards didn't "sell out to the MMO crowd" or "dumb down the game"; they implemented changes based on internal playtesting and more importantly, player feedback. 4e addresses the biggest complaints about 3e and 3.5 based on actual information submitted by actual players like you and me.

I won't lie to you; these two books are basically 4e propaganda and portray 4e in a generally positive light, but I find that it helps to hear multiple sides of the story to get an accurate picture of the game. You hear a lot of complaints about 4e all over the internet, but if you look closer, you also hear a lot of praise for it. People tend to focus on the negative, the vocal minority drowning out the words of the satisfied but silent majority.

There was a thread in this forum a few years back which linked to an old forum post about the then upcoming 3e. The complaints voiced by 3e's detractors are amusingly similar to those of the anti-4e crowd. It's basically a case of They Changed It Now It Sucks mentality; the fear of change and all that.

One of my favorites was the notion that spontaneous spellcasting would turn D&D into a video game, how the sorcerer was a dumbed-down version of the wizard for Diablo kiddies, and so on. History repeats itself.

Honestly, we stick to 3.5 because we have the books. There's no public library anywhere nearby, and none of us can afford any new stuff. At least certainly not me, I'm stretched as it is paying for textbooks.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-30, 02:00 AM
Honestly, we stick to 3.5 because we have the books. There's no public library anywhere nearby, and none of us can afford any new stuff. At least certainly not me, I'm stretched as it is paying for textbooks.

no PDF? damn, i dont want to be the one who will help you when you will move to another house ^^

if all my collection of ad&d, d&d, were in real books i will need a truck ^^

Mystic Muse
2010-11-30, 02:02 AM
no PDF? damn, i dont want to be the one who will help you when you will move to another house ^^

if all my collection of ad&d, d&d, were in real books i will need a truck ^^

4th edition isn't being sold in PDF format. Which means any copy Warkitty could get would be illegal.

Gavinfoxx
2010-11-30, 02:04 AM
*snipped truck comment*

Uhhh it's kinda taboo to mention doing that sort of thing on this forum, you might wanna edit that...

tcrudisi
2010-11-30, 02:09 AM
/edited - I'm not sure if I'm breaking any copyright laws. When in doubt, play it safe. Sorry for this now blank post. (Oh, and it had nothing to do with D&D books, so at least take comfort with that. :smalltongue: )

tenshiakodo
2010-11-30, 02:13 AM
@JaronK: even though this really doesn't belong in this thread, I have a slight problem with your statements.

While I admit, the Darkstalker Feat and the Ring of the Darkhidden are excellent ways to make stealth viable at higher levels, pointing to them and saying "well see, this is what you do" is a problem for me.

These aren't core options. You can't assume a ring of the Darkhidden can be bought, heck, the average player might not even know what one is. And Darkstalker?

Lords of Madness is a pretty obscure rules source, you have to admit. So saying that "Yes, with splatbooks in play, including one that most groups probably won't have (LoM), high-level stealth is perfectly fine" doesn't strike you as a little warped?

I mean, while I was a bit harsh in my original statement, that spending points in Hide and Move Silently becomes a waste at higher levels, the answer I keep getting, that it's just fine once you add in supplemental material that was years away from existing when the PHB 3.5 (let alone 3.0) was written is a good answer.

I mean, if these options make stealth work the way it's supposed to, can we assume that in games where they aren't available that stealth is broken?

LordBlades
2010-11-30, 02:28 AM
@JaronK: even though this really doesn't belong in this thread, I have a slight problem with your statements.

While I admit, the Darkstalker Feat and the Ring of the Darkhidden are excellent ways to make stealth viable at higher levels, pointing to them and saying "well see, this is what you do" is a problem for me.

These aren't core options. You can't assume a ring of the Darkhidden can be bought, heck, the average player might not even know what one is. And Darkstalker?

Lords of Madness is a pretty obscure rules source, you have to admit. So saying that "Yes, with splatbooks in play, including one that most groups probably won't have (LoM), high-level stealth is perfectly fine" doesn't strike you as a little warped?

I mean, while I was a bit harsh in my original statement, that spending points in Hide and Move Silently becomes a waste at higher levels, the answer I keep getting, that it's just fine once you add in supplemental material that was years away from existing when the PHB 3.5 (let alone 3.0) was written is a good answer.

I mean, if these options make stealth work the way it's supposed to, can we assume that in games where they aren't available that stealth is broken?

On the most basic level, every type of build needs certain sources to be good(except casters, they do just fine in core, but do gain quite a lot from some aditional sources, see Planar Shepherd, Divine Metamagic or Incantatrix). If you ban the respective sources, of course the said type of build will become 'broken'.

Take melee for example, if you ban Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Battle Jump and the similar damage multiplier feats, is damage dealing melee still good? Probably not as you are most likely stuck to hitting for W+1.5xStr per attack at most.

Anything can be broken (for the good or bad) depending what you allow or not at your table, but that doesn't mean that in the system as a whole that respective option cannot be made viable.

umbrapolaris
2010-11-30, 02:28 AM
4th edition isn't being sold in PDF format. Which means any copy Warkitty could get would be illegal.

i didnt talk about 4e... (whistling) :smalltongue:

Hanuman
2010-11-30, 02:48 AM
No, WarKitty spends a lot of effort to coordinate with the melee users, actually.

...

And for the record, as a pyromaniac, Meteor Swarm is disappointingly terrible. 9th Level Desert Wind is the way of fire fanatics.
You are correct, that's why you use lesser fire spells with ranged areas and use sculpt spell and enduring to burn down colossal structures in a matter of rounds by setting strategic fires.

Fire really isn't THAT great for attacking people in DnD because:
1) Smoke only exists if it causes a smoke "effect", and in dnd you will never see people collapse just by being NEAR fire.
2) DnD has "damage" not "injury", so stumbling around in burning wreckage is 1d6/round, not I CAN'T SEE, OH GOD MY EYES ARE BURNT SHUT.
3) Fire, is simply not THAT dangerous. Sure, you get a jet of flame a thousand degrees like a propane tank exploding then you're going to see a fire shockwave, or something similar to a flamethrower, but really most fire will not give you past a first degree burn, and then only will give you a second degree burn if you catch for about 20 seconds. Because DnD is fantasy all it's fibers are natural, and hell, a lot of adventurers wear thick cloth and leather and let me tell you, leather is fireproof. 1-2mm of leather is enough to completely negate "catching on fire" damage for 5-10 rounds. The problem with fire today, mostly, is that non natural fibers are MADE of fuel, they will melt to your skin as they catch and bubble and boil on your skin. Great way to get 2nd-3rd degree burns.
4) In dnd, burns never ever go past 2nd degree. You will never see a caster who can't cast spells anymore because their tendons have been fused to their surrounding fat tissues, you will never see bone on your characters arm after a dragons breath, it just doesn't happen.

I hung out with some true dnd guys at a party the other day and me being a fire performer showed them some stuff, they were amazed I didn't get burned because they didn't understand the concepts of how fire actually conducts heat to the body so having flames on me seemed like it would burn me to hell to them.

This leads me to assume most DnD players don't actually fully understand how fire works, or even how distracting a fireball would be if it was cast 20-30' from you, the sheer sound of it must be intense.

JaronK
2010-11-30, 03:02 AM
@JaronK: even though this really doesn't belong in this thread, I have a slight problem with your statements.

While I admit, the Darkstalker Feat and the Ring of the Darkhidden are excellent ways to make stealth viable at higher levels, pointing to them and saying "well see, this is what you do" is a problem for me.

These aren't core options. You can't assume a ring of the Darkhidden can be bought, heck, the average player might not even know what one is. And Darkstalker?

Ah, but if you had said "I think move silently and hide don't work in core" you'd be completely correct. In core, all the problems you described are completely true. Those exact problems caused me to stop playing Rogues for a while (my hate for blindsense is strong!). A lot of things don't work in core (smile over there in the corner, core Fighter!). But this is a game where to do anything powerfully when you're not a caster, you have to go hunting outside of core books. Lame but true... and it applies to all non casters.

So yes, I'd have agreed with you if you'd said Move Silently and Hide don't work too well in core. Or if you'd said Move Silently and Hide don't work too well unless you know where to search for the material you need (primarily Darkstalker). I objected to the overly generic statement, because they do work. Just like melees at high level can work (if you found Shock Trooper or similar) and archers can work (if you found Splitting and a few other options). But if you're not a caster, you've got to look around a bit to be actually useful, because core sorta sucks that way.

JaronK

Souhiro
2010-11-30, 03:37 AM
I'm not sure that's a good example - technically, the hobbits had the biggest achievements of anybody.

Yeah... but I can answer you with a short video of about 30 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU

for the more lazy, and for the ones who are now at job:
This is a video showing Gandalf's plan destroying the One Ring: Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli and Legolas goes to Moria's gate and act as a bait, then Gandalf gets Frodo, who carries the ring, with a giant eagle, and drops it into the volcano.

Flying back, they make jokes about how one of two or them could have died if the should have walked the whole way.

Kiero
2010-11-30, 06:26 AM
magic is a tool like a sword, but a powerful tool many times more powerful than a sword even at lv1; so at epic levels it is normal than a epic spell overcome a magic +7 sword.


Magic is boring.

Hanuman
2010-11-30, 06:28 AM
Magic is boring.
How so? `

Flickerdart
2010-11-30, 07:32 AM
Magic is boring.
Full attacking every round isn't the peak of excitement, either.

Earthwalker
2010-11-30, 09:11 AM
I do have problems with the comparitive powerlevels within a group, for example in a group with a fighter and a full caster the fighter soon gets left behind.

This just causes more work for a DM to correct this, and more time building encounters to make it so all the players can contribute.

Lots of people have suggest solutions and they can work, but I can't see anything wrong with complaining the system doesn't work when it doesn't work.

I only play with the Core DnD books this makes the situation alot worse.

Another issue I have mainly with DnD is how the caster / non-caster situation works.

Non-casters - roll a D20 add a number and beat a DC. If you beat it you hit or pass a skill check or whatever.

Caster - It works.

The core D20 system isn't used for spell casting, its only used when a caster needs to concentrate.

Again after reading about an epic level group (from the OP) I would love to hear what encounters and resolutions happen in a session, I have no idea how the epic game would work.

Souhiro
2010-11-30, 09:25 AM
The core D20 system isn't used for spell casting, its only used when a caster needs to concentrate.

How many truth in so few words...


I think that the Truenamer was THE GREATEST answer that anyone could imagine to that. Mages that had to use their skills in order to hit, and who can use magic many times, but encouraged to use diferent tricks during the combat (Not relying to "Lightning Bolt and Quickened Magic Missle" each turn)

It's a pity that they implemented their mechanics SO bad, that Truenamer is that dead end class, next to Healer, but was a really good idea.

Mystic Muse
2010-11-30, 01:32 PM
i didnt talk about 4e... (whistling) :smalltongue:

:smallconfused: I know that you were saying you have PDFs instead of the actual book, but Warkitty was talking about 4e. Since you can't get PDFs of 4e books legally, I thought I'd say so.

Seerow
2010-11-30, 01:50 PM
:smallconfused: I know that you were saying you have PDFs instead of the actual book, but Warkitty was talking about 4e. Since you can't get PDFs of 4e books legally, I thought I'd say so.

I thought they were selling them, just selling at the same cost as a hardcopy of the book, so it is viewed as a huge waste of money.

randomhero00
2010-11-30, 01:56 PM
I think we all like playing something different. That's the point, after all, of so many options and classes in D&D.

One comment on the mega blaster wizard though: You better have the defenses to back it up, because any smart monsters will go all out on you next round as soon as they see the devastation.

Seerow
2010-11-30, 02:02 PM
I think we all like playing something different. That's the point, after all, of so many options and classes in D&D.

One comment on the mega blaster wizard though: You better have the defenses to back it up, because any smart monsters will go all out on you next round as soon as they see the devastation.

And they wouldn't after you turn their friend to stone, a toad, or send them off to some alternate dimension?

randomhero00
2010-11-30, 02:17 PM
And they wouldn't after you turn their friend to stone, a toad, or send them off to some alternate dimension?

Not neccessarily depending on their intelligence and wisdom.

I mean, in real life, what's more impressive? The ability to nuke someone (literally nuclear bomb) or put him in a dark hole for the rest of his life? Most people would be a lot more scared of the nuke.

edit: its flash vs effectiveness. Many people even with int scores in 10, are much more awed by flash than actual effectiveness.

Mystic Muse
2010-11-30, 02:20 PM
I thought they were selling them, just selling at the same cost as a hardcopy of the book, so it is viewed as a huge waste of money.

If they were, I sure didn't see them anywhere.

Seerow
2010-11-30, 02:22 PM
If they were, I sure didn't see them anywhere.

Maybe after the first few months they gave up on it when they realized nobody would pay 20 dollars for a pdf. I know I never bothered.


Personally I think they should just include pdfs as a part of their DDO service, you pay 15 dollars a month, you gain access to a pdf of any book released while you have it. You may pay 5 dollars for any book that came out prior to you having the DDO service, as long as you maintain DDO for so many months.

Susano-wo
2010-11-30, 03:05 PM
RE hide/move silently. I just want to add that in games where its not so much focused on fighting monsters, wehre many of the opponents are humanoids, etc, the sneaking disablers are much less prevelant. not going to encounter blindsense, tremorsense, etc. al lthat often.

you never know when you are going to need to sneak past taht guard, and your 4pts of sneaking skills can actually help a great deal (not saying this makes up for anything, just food for thought :P)

EDIT: after someone pirated and distributed a PDF before it was actually released in hardcopy, they stopped putting them out. 'Cause that's gonna stop em :smallsigh:

Esser-Z
2010-12-01, 04:29 PM
There indeed used to be official PDFs of 4e books. There aren't anymore.