Gosh-dangit I hate these class comparisons...

[Frozen_Feet]

Okay, so every once in a while someone wants to determine just how much better class X is in comparison to class Y. For this, they propose "duel, at ECL 20, full WBL". Now, there are varied reasons why this is facepalmingly stupid. These are my main two beefs:

1) Minority of games are held at ECL 20. How effective characters are at that point is irrevelant for the half of the game that sees the most use. A better way would be to hold four duels at ECL 1, 5, 10 and 15.

2) Why the hat is WBL factored in the equation? Especially at high level, WBL can easily replicate whole classes (literally, through hired help, even). Clever use of WBL to optimize certain key skills (namely, UMD) obviates most class features totally. All in all, combination of full WBL and high level shifts the focus to optimizing equipment rather than the character, which makes the duel less and less likely to adress the actual question.

What I theorize would give a better picture of respective character strenghts would be to give both parties nothing more but their starting wealth. (Before anyone says "... but this hurts the non-casters more", let me say: well, DUH. That should hint you that they're the more powerful classes.)

*ahem*... so what are your petpeeves for character duels?

[NNescio]

What I theorize would give a better picture of respective character strenghts would be to give both parties nothing more but their starting wealth. (Before anyone says "... but this hurts the non-casters more", let me say: well, DUH. That should hint you that they're the more powerful classes.)\

So what about artificers? If you disallow WBL they don't have much class features to speak of, and if you allow WBL only to them they'll just trounce everybody else who are without equipment.

Plus the wizard's spellbook and its extra scribed spells, to a extent.

And there's no point to not using VoP if it doesn't interfere with your main class features in a non-easily circumvented manner.

[PollyOliver]

I don't really have an opinion on wbl...but honestly, dueling is not an accurate test of what characters can do anyway. A more accurate test in my opinion would be various encounter types at levels from 1 to 20 (maybe 1, 3, 5, 10, 20). A social encounter, a scouting/stealth encounter, a skill-monkey oriented encounter, a straight-up fight encounter, a cure-the-king's-daughter encounter, a large scale warfare or siege encounter, etc. A duel just tells you that a character is really good at stabbing things. But stabbing things is far from the only thing that's important in a well-rounded campaign.

[Zonugal]

I don't really have an opinion on wbl...but honestly, dueling is not an accurate test of what characters can do anyway. A more accurate test in my opinion would be various encounter types at levels from 1 to 20 (maybe 1, 3, 5, 10, 20). A social encounter, a scouting/stealth encounter, a skill-monkey oriented encounter, a straight-up fight encounter, a cure-the-king's-daughter encounter, a large scale warfare or siege encounter, etc. A duel just tells you that a character is really good at stabbing things. But stabbing things is far from the only thing that's important in a well-rounded campaign.

I would agree with this, perhaps break it up into four really, classical encounters that match the four designated goals within a traditional party. A stand-alone fight, a stealth/social mission (think something out of a spy novel), a cure-the-king's-daughter encounter and fortifying a village for a soon-to-be siege.

Also regarding levels I might say that level one isn't the best start-off spot as everything & anything can kill you. Maybe have it be level 3, level 7, level 11 and level 15?

[Lateral]

Straight-up dueling is not a decent test of relative power; it doesn't take into account effectiveness in battles with stacked odds, unusual terrain, or monsters with special abilities. It also doesn't take into account out-of-combat effectiveness, either. I guarantee you that in a 10th level straight-up duel in a flat arena with even lighting and terrain all around, a Fighter will beat a Rogue who hasn't pumped UMD (which is really more a testament to the brokenness of the skill system in general and UMD in particular) every single time.

[Frozen_Feet]

So what about artificers? If you disallow WBL they don't have much class features to speak of, and if you allow WBL only to them they'll just trounce everybody else who are without equipment.

A variant spin on the same idea, that I thought about but discarded as too complex at the creation of this thread, was that both parties would be allowed the minimum of wealth required by the claimed stronger party. So if the Artificer is said to be strong and claimed to require X amount of wealth, the opposing party is handed X amount of wealth as well.

As for VoP: it's considerably less versatile than WBL, and if everyone has it, it should even out. It doesn't allow for similar class-feature obviation.

@PollyOliver: your proposed method is, of course, the best. But if the two players are dead-set on having a duel, what sorts of rules would you propose?

[Amphetryon]

Strongly advocate for the Same Game Test. If that's not agreeable, use WBL without shenanigans, where Wizards can't sell spellbooks to generate NI wealth, Leadership et al are off the table unless used by both parties, and you're not just testing "which of us can cheese the WBL system better."

[PollyOliver]

Okay, if it must be a straight up duel (and everyone involved understands that this proves nothing useful):

WBL is complicated. For this to be fair, it has to be in play (because taking away WBL gimps certain character types more than others, and because WBL is such an integral part of the game that taking it away does not make it a normal or fair test) but requires either a gentle(wo)man's agreement not to specifically counter the other character but to instead buy your normal gear (if you know you're coming up against an illusionist and spend a huge portion of your wealth on a rod of revealing or a mask of trueseeing, that's not really fair) or a lack of knowledge about what you're fighting.

I'd say you can come with all-day buffs already up (say, 12 hr duration or longer) but no buffs of shorter duration. If you like, do one "buffed" to mimic a situation where you scouted or used divinations where you get a set number of rounds to up your shorter buffs, and one "unbuffed" where you get only your long duration buffs that you'd always have up.

Ideally, you'd run a fight where each player wins initiative if they have similar modifiers and then a fight where the higher-mod character goes first. If you can't run that many, I guess I'd roll it, but that introduces a large element of chance (but unless you want to turn it into "who can get their initiative modifier the highest" you can't go straight up highest mod wins).

Then, start around 60 ft apart so you're not right up in each others' faces but a fighter-type can charge.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

You do realize that a lot of tests actually do multiple levels. I haven't seen a 20th level fight since the days of pre-Gleemax. Most now involve multiple tests, such as "any level from 3 to 20, your choice." I know back when Giacomo was tooting monks like crazy, a bunch of the people involved with the Test of Spite did a dungeon crawl to show the various effectiveness of the classes while Doc Roc himself did a same game test in another round.


Also, WBL is factored in, because, well, after a certain point, PCs are expected to have a +X weapon or be able to do thing alpha. It's a part of the game and while it can be used to mimic what a caster can do inherently (partially charged wands, natch), it's largely just another rule of the game.

[The Glyphstone]

Straight-up dueling is not a decent test of relative power; it doesn't take into account effectiveness in battles with stacked odds, unusual terrain, or monsters with special abilities. It also doesn't take into account out-of-combat effectiveness, either. I guarantee you that in a 10th level straight-up duel in a flat arena with even lighting and terrain all around, a Fighter will beat a Rogue who hasn't pumped UMD (which is really more a testament to the brokenness of the skill system in general and UMD in particular) every single time.

Very much this, and even arena fights are incredibly varied. Restrictions on WBL, on buffs, on consumables, on size, on being able to leave, they all factor in so many variables as to make the test meaningless. Two characters going mano-a-mano in a restricted box tells you nothing about which is better in real fights.

[Claudius Maximus]

As the primary referee of the Test of Spite (and an associate of Doc Roc, who had a habit of challenging people to high-profile duels) I feel like I should chime in on this.

There are definitely some things that duels can demonstrate or prove. The big Wizard 13 vs. Fighter 20 thing was intended to demonstrate how important WBL is to a martial character but not to a caster, as well as demonstrate how much more powerful a caster was than a martial character even when wealth enters the equation. And it succeeded in that, I believe.

The ToS ended up showing how humongous of an impact preparation has in a fight, since it boiled down to knowing your enemy and predicting them at the end there. In a related way it showed how important having a wide range of options is in optimized combat, which was the primary reason casters almost universally won the matches.

Ultimately the duels only show how effective two people are at fighting in a PVP combat scenario. If you want to judge the overall effectiveness of a class or something, I recommend same-game testing and/or a series of broadly applicable and diverse challenges. But they are very effective at showing some other things like, for example, demonstrating the offensive output of a class when going nova, and how that might compare with the resilience of an equal level opponent.

If you're getting into a duel scenario, try to establish what exactly you're trying to prove, and if it is the best method for doing so. I don't believe they're useless for testing purposes though.

Also, they can be fun.

[Veyr]

I don't disagree with you, Frozen_Feet, but I've gotta say: this thread irritates me a lot more than those duels do. If you don't like them, then just don't read them. I mean, maybe because just like to play duels? I mean, this thread just comes off as saying "Stop having badwrongfun guys!"

[SuperFerret]

*ahem*... so what are your petpeeves for character duels?

Having them for no reason. Duels and such to test a class or rules or whatever is boring for me. If a duel comes up in game, and there's a good reason for it, it's awesome.

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't disagree with you, Frozen_Feet, but I've gotta say: this thread irritates me a lot more than those duels do. If you don't like them, then just don't read them. I mean, maybe because just like to play duels? I mean, this thread just comes off as saying "Stop having badwrongfun guys!"

As a matter of fact, I rarely, almost never read them. But the proposition for a futile duel like outlined in the first paragraphs is still annoyingly common, fated to come up at least in every "martial vs. magic" thread.

... which makes me realize the thread name is bit of a misnomer. Would you have a more conscise suggestion than "I hate these flawed proposals for character comparison"? My apologies for appearing stick-in-a-mud, I was aiming for facetious.

[Delcor]

Thank goodness I'm not the only one who hates duels.

I agree with what most people have said, dueling is essentially a different game, and only proves the pvp prowess, WBL or not. The main thing that irks me about duels, is that most commonly they are fought to prove one class is superior to another in one or all respects; but that is irrelevant, because you can have a fun fullfilling DnD experience with lots of stories playing only a core tank, speacialist, dps, and healer. So the main thing that angers me about duels is that even if they did prove anything, it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[navar100]

*ahem*... so what are your petpeeves for character duels?

"Fighters suck! Don't play one!"
"Wizards are overpowered! Don't play one!"

Really, I don't give a Hoover. It does not bother me in the slightest what the wizard can Gate in while the fighter needs to use a magic item to fly. All this devotion to "balance" is stupid. The only thing that matters is for each PC to have their moment to shine. It is the DM's job to make it so. If he resents that, then he shouldn't be the DM.

For the individual DM, if one wants to ban fighters or ban wizards or otherwise prostrate themselves to Tier 3 as the Great Grand Poobah Of All That Is Gaming, that's their business, but I've had it already with those DMs claiming anyone who does not adhere to their way of thinking as playing wrong. If a particular gaming group has a Figher who likes to Trip in the same party as a Druid with Natural Spell, a Cleric with Divine Metamagic, and a Wizard/Incantatrix and they have no issues whatsoever about it, then they have no issues whatsoever about it. They are not playing wrong. They are not thinking about the game wrong. All talk about Tiers, infinite wishes, CoDzilla, or Fighters lack skills are irrelevant.

[Taelas]

If they have no problems with it, that's fantastic, and nothing further needs to be said. But how likely is that as a Fighter in that party?

[Lateral]

If they have no problems with it, that's fantastic, and nothing further needs to be said. But how likely is that as a Fighter in that party?

What he said. If it works without anyone feeling useless and making sure everyone's having fun, then go ahead.

[Frozen_Feet]

Also, WBL is factored in, because, well, after a certain point, PCs are expected to have a +X weapon or be able to do thing alpha. It's a part of the game and while it can be used to mimic what a caster can do inherently (partially charged wands, natch), it's largely just another rule of the game.

My gripe with it is that it skews the deck enough to make assesment of the actual class features near-impossible. I'm on the position that to properly test or gauge value of a mechanic, you must sometimes isolate it from the rest of the system. Which is why I feel many class comparisons would benefit from minimal item run.

[Claudius Maximus]

What he said. If it works without anyone feeling useless and making sure everyone's having fun, then go ahead.

Agreed. I don't think anyone seriously has a problem with the classes in principal, if the problems don't really show through in a given game. You *can* play a wizard and a fighter in a party without problems and nobody's going to tell you you're playing wrong or anything.

But the imbalances exist and some people just want everyone to be aware of that, because they can impact the game negatively if they show through and are not managed.

[nyarlathotep]

*ahem*... so what are your petpeeves for character duels?

The one I really wanted to see involving mister monks are better than wizards never got off the ground.

[Jack_Simth]

Let's see... if you really wanted a hard class comparison that gave actual results...


1) The test needs to run across multiple levels (e.g., 5, 10, 15)
2) The class to be tested is a fifth member of fixed party (Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Fighter; builds - including spells prepared - are fixed for the test level).
3) The test itself consists of a series of 13 challenges (some CR appropriate, some not) that the fixed party could reasonably resolve without the fifth character. All challenges need to be of vastly different types.
4) Scoring is based on time, tracked in two manners, with a penalty for character deaths:
a) Battle Rounds
b) Total time (each party death adds an arbitrary one-day "side quest" that is handled off-screen - after all, the imaginary guy playing that "PC" doesn't want to just sit there doing nothing...).

Would this be a fair test of relative class power? Granted, it's a rather lot of work....

[CTrees]

My biggest pet peeve with them is that I only seem to ever see the theory-crafting , sabre rattling, and general whinging. I've yet to see anyone propose a duel, and then have it actually happen.

This bothers me most because I want to see my opinions validated, if I completely honest. Several other reasons (and other pet peeves) are present but lower on the lists.

[Claudius Maximus]

Several duels have taken place as a result of those discussions. They're around.

It's just that it can be hard to interpret the results, and they usually fail to prove what people were arguing for. I've seen people start a whole new argument just over what the test really implied, with most people sticking to their original opinions. This is a gripe a lot of people have with these duel proposals, but I personally don't think it always has to work out that way.

[Traab]

Okay, so every once in a while someone wants to determine just how much better class X is in comparison to class Y. For this, they propose "duel, at ECL 20, full WBL". Now, there are varied reasons why this is facepalmingly stupid. These are my main two beefs:

1) Minority of games are held at ECL 20. How effective characters are at that point is irrevelant for the half of the game that sees the most use. A better way would be to hold four duels at ECL 1, 5, 10 and 15.

2) Why the hat is WBL factored in the equation? Especially at high level, WBL can easily replicate whole classes (literally, through hired help, even). Clever use of WBL to optimize certain key skills (namely, UMD) obviates most class features totally. All in all, combination of full WBL and high level shifts the focus to optimizing equipment rather than the character, which makes the duel less and less likely to adress the actual question.

What I theorize would give a better picture of respective character strenghts would be to give both parties nothing more but their starting wealth. (Before anyone says "... but this hurts the non-casters more", let me say: well, DUH. That should hint you that they're the more powerful classes.)

*ahem*... so what are your petpeeves for character duels?

The fact that people think a duel between two classes actually decides which is the better class. Who CARES if a warblade beats a artificer? Does that mean only the warforged is worth playing in any game? No! It just means the war forged won in a straight up fight. There is way more to a D&D game than just who beats who in a duel. There will always be times when X class is better and times when Y class is better. A duel is nothing more than bragging rights.

[The Glyphstone]

The fact that people think a duel between two classes actually decides which is the better class. Who CARES if a warblade beats a artificer? Does that mean only the warforged is worth playing in any game? No! It just means the war forged won in a straight up fight. There is way more to a D&D game than just who beats who in a duel. There will always be times when X class is better and times when Y class is better. A duel is nothing more than bragging rights.

This post shows me that there are way too many things in D&D with "War" as a prefix.

[Lateral]

This post shows me that there are way too many things in D&D with "War" as a prefix.

No kidding, and it's not just 'war' that's overused. 'Blade', 'battle', 'mage'...

...'level'... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html)

[tyckspoon]

This post shows me that there are way too many things in D&D with "War" as a prefix.

But not as many as there are that deal with bears! And it's harder to fit all the War stuff into one build.. at least, I don't think it'd be feasible to build a Warforged Warblade Warmage Warmage Warchanter Warshaper Warhulk wielding a Warscythe.

[The Glyphstone]

But not as many as there are that deal with bears! And it's harder to fit all the War stuff into one build.. at least, I don't think it'd be feasible to build a Warforged Warblade Warmage Warmage Warchanter Warshaper Warhulk wielding a Warscythe.

You forgot War Weaver and Warlock.

[Traab]

Sorry, I suck at remembering what I was writing so I can repeat it when needed. That was just plain odd. I think that what I actually MEANT was relatively clear though.

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, but it was funny all the same.:smallcool:

Darnit, now I'm having to resist the impulse to actually stat up the War-strosity build, call it Warren Peace, and then make it and Bearington Bearman the Bearbearian fight.

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah, but it was funny all the same.:smallcool:

Darnit, now I'm having to resist the impulse to actually stat up the War-strosity build, call it Warren Peace, and then make it and Bearington Bearman the Bearbearian fight.
By any chance did you ever see the movie "Sky High"?

[averagejoe]

Yeah, but it was funny all the same.:smallcool:

Darnit, now I'm having to resist the impulse to actually stat up the War-strosity build, call it Warren Peace, and then make it and Bearington Bearman the Bearbearian fight.

He has to come from Warrington (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=warrington&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x487afc214f6af019:0xaaf2e6ea0ea44113,Warrin gton,+UK&gl=us&ei=TxwRTvngJpSesQOPvfH-DQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ8gEwAA).

[The Glyphstone]

By any chance did you ever see the movie "Sky High"?

......yes.:smallfrown:

Why did you have to remind me?:smalleek:

[Jack_Simth]

......yes.:smallfrown:

Why did you have to remind me?:smalleek:

"Warren Peace" was the "dark" hero in the movie.

[Heatwizard]

He has to come from Warrington (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=warrington&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x487afc214f6af019:0xaaf2e6ea0ea44113,Warrin gton,+UK&gl=us&ei=TxwRTvngJpSesQOPvfH-DQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ8gEwAA).

But born in Warsaw.

[The Glyphstone]

"Warren Peace" was the "dark" hero in the movie.

I know, and until you brought it up, I had cheerfully blocked that film's existence from my brain. Curse you!

[Lateral]

By any chance did you ever see the movie "Sky High"?

Oh, god, I remember that movie. :smallsigh:

[Jack_Simth]

I know, and until you brought it up, I had cheerfully blocked that film's existence from my brain. Curse you!
Oh, god, I remember that movie. :smallsigh:
Hehehe. Hahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Although I must admit, I did want to punch the mad science teacher at the end of that one. Seriously: He has a ray gun that turns people into babies. He has concrete proof that those affected both grow up normally and retain their memories (he retained his mind, after all, and he's got an example - in the villainess - that those affected grow up relatively OK)

...and he destroys it. Idiot. He should have reverse-engineered the thing, and built a controller so it returns people to young adult status. I mean, seriously: Just because the original was used for awful things, and it was originally invented by someone who is a bit on the mad side, doesn't mean we can't learn from their insanity and make good use of it.

[Darth Stabber]

Hehehe. Hahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Although I must admit, I did want to punch the mad science teacher at the end of that one. Seriously: He has a ray gun that turns people into babies. He has concrete proof that those affected both grow up normally and retain their memories (he retained his mind, after all, and he's got an example - in the villainess - that those affected grow up relatively OK)

...and he destroys it. Idiot. He should have reverse-engineered the thing, and built a controller so it returns people to young adult status. I mean, seriously: Just because the original was used for awful things, and it was originally invented by someone who is a bit on the mad side, doesn't mean we can't learn from their insanity and make good use of it.

And that my friend is why a garden variety scientist is generally preferable to his mad brethren.

[LordBlades]

Okay, so every once in a while someone wants to determine just how much better class X is in comparison to class Y. For this, they propose "duel, at ECL 20, full WBL". Now, there are varied reasons why this is facepalmingly stupid. These are my main two beefs:

1) Minority of games are held at ECL 20. How effective characters are at that point is irrevelant for the half of the game that sees the most use. A better way would be to hold four duels at ECL 1, 5, 10 and 15.

2) Why the hat is WBL factored in the equation? Especially at high level, WBL can easily replicate whole classes (literally, through hired help, even). Clever use of WBL to optimize certain key skills (namely, UMD) obviates most class features totally. All in all, combination of full WBL and high level shifts the focus to optimizing equipment rather than the character, which makes the duel less and less likely to adress the actual question.

What I theorize would give a better picture of respective character strenghts would be to give both parties nothing more but their starting wealth. (Before anyone says "... but this hurts the non-casters more", let me say: well, DUH. That should hint you that they're the more powerful classes.)

*ahem*... so what are your petpeeves for character duels?

One of the strongest arguments IMHO against a lvl. 20 duel is the healer class.
Healer lvl. 1-16: crappy walking bandaid
Healer lvl. 17-20: 'Say hello to my army of gated solars'

[Lateral]

One of the strongest arguments IMHO against a lvl. 20 duel is the healer class.
Healer lvl. 1-16: crappy walking bandaid
Healer lvl. 17-20: 'Say hello to my army of gated solars'
Or a Truenamer.

1-19: "Durr, I suck ass because I can't do anything! Hur hur hur!"
20: "Durr, now I can chuck Gates at you all! Hur hur hur!"

[Jack_Simth]

And that my friend is why a garden variety scientist is generally preferable to his mad brethren.
Oh, he's fine, he just needs a good project manager with ethics. He's great at the technical side, but he's not very practical.

[Coidzor]

@PollyOliver: your proposed method is, of course, the best. But if the two players are dead-set on having a duel, what sorts of rules would you propose?

Tossing them outside and leaving them with nothing but wiffle bats and only the last man standing is allowed back inside. :smallamused: They wanna duel so much, they can have their duel. With wiffle bats! And you even have youtube-based blackmail potential. :smallbiggrin:

At least, most of the duel threads I've run into have been people talking about getting into an IRL argument about whether monks or paladins are better, so it seems like that would take care of a good ~33-57% percent.


My gripe with it is that it skews the deck enough to make assesment of the actual class features near-impossible. I'm on the position that to properly test or gauge value of a mechanic, you must sometimes isolate it from the rest of the system. Which is why I feel many class comparisons would benefit from minimal item run.

Well, really, the fact that they need their wealth to function already says a lot about their class features. :/ The main thing about artificer is that it's actually honest about this, takes it, and then runs with it into something glorious.


...and he destroys it. Idiot. He should have reverse-engineered the thing, and built a controller so it returns people to young adult status. I mean, seriously: Just because the original was used for awful things, and it was originally invented by someone who is a bit on the mad side, doesn't mean we can't learn from their insanity and make good use of it.

Heck, even if just used as is, he'd still make a mint from selling the service to the old and obscenely rich. Actually makes things better for the people paid to take care of them due to there being less body.

On the other hand, that basically would lead to a gerontocracy of some really bizarre flavor.

[Talya]

A third, unmentioned problem with using a duel to decide the relative power of any given class is that the purpose of a class many not be to single-handedly defeat an opponent.

A duel (without UMD) may be a legitimate way of rating the power of a purely melee type of character, that has little other utility, like, for instance, Monk vs. Fighter. (Even then, duels may not be the right way to do this. A duel doesn't adequately show the effectiveness of an "ubercharger" build, because either they get to charge and win, or they don't and they lose.) This is because said melee type has no other purpose or utility other than their ability to beat the hell of stuff. You wouldn't duel a fighter vs. a bard, however, because, apart from its ability to become a kickass melee combatant in its own right, the bard is better at making the rest of it's party kick ass. That's its primary reason for existing.

Likewise, while a wizard/cleric/druid may be able to surpass a fighter in a melee duel (which is its own level of stupid), the ability to do so doesn't even begin to show how much more powerful the wizard/cleric/druid is, because if a wizard/cleric/druid is forced to melee, they're already being less efficient than they could be by spellcasting (yes, even when wildshaping.) And, as anyone who has read TLN's guide to Being Batman can attest, a properly played wizard is not out there singlehandedly winning encounters. They are turning their party members into gods, and their enemies into whimpering fools. It's not about an "I win" button, it's about a "We win" button.

[Jack_Simth]

Heck, even if just used as is, he'd still make a mint from selling the service to the old and obscenely rich. Actually makes things better for the people paid to take care of them due to there being less body.

On the other hand, that basically would lead to a gerontocracy of some really bizarre flavor.
Hmm... could make for an odd campaign world, that.

You've got a nominal ruling class that is forced to take ten-year vacations every so often, and a set of people behind them who can dictate all the decisions with the very simple threat of "we'll simply stop doing business" - who also steps into that ten-year gap to cover things....

[Logalmier]

PvP does not work in D&D imo. PvP is based on the idea that the skill of the individual player is what determines the outcome of the fight. That is not the case in D&D. In D&D it pretty much boils down to who has the better build, or who has the better strategy planned out beforehand. There's nothing that makes PvP a test of skill. If you want PvP, play something other then D&D

[NNescio]

PvP does not work in D&D imo. PvP is based on the idea that the skill of the individual player is what determines the outcome of the fight. That is not the case in D&D. In D&D it pretty much boils down to who has the better build, or who has the better strategy planned out beforehand. There's nothing that makes PvP a test of skill. If you want PvP, play something other then D&D

The same can be said of PvP in any MMORPG, or heck, chess, due to your use of the word "or".

[olentu]

PvP does not work in D&D imo. PvP is based on the idea that the skill of the individual player is what determines the outcome of the fight. That is not the case in D&D. In D&D it pretty much boils down to who has the better build, or who has the better strategy planned out beforehand. There's nothing that makes PvP a test of skill. If you want PvP, play something other then D&D

Assuming that no outside restriction creates a gap so wide that skill is rendered less meaningful build and the better strategy planned out beforehand is player skill in D&D.

[Logalmier]

The same can be said of PvP in any MMORPG, or heck, chess, due to your use of the word "or".

Not really. You can have the "ultimate" strategy in chess and still loose due to your opponent messing up your plans. In D&D there are less ways for different characters to interact with each other, meaning its hard to base any D&D PvP match on the players skill, during a fight.

Although I suppose olentu is right in saying that the ability to make a good build is player skill in D&D.

[NNescio]

Not really. You can have the "ultimate" strategy in chess and still loose due to your opponent messing up your plans. In D&D there are less ways for different characters to interact with each other, meaning its hard to base any D&D PvP match on the players skill, during a fight.

Although I suppose olentu is right in saying that the ability to make a good build is player skill in D&D.

Ever seen one of those Tests of Spite before? And the sheer amount of layered contingencies possible? All those spell combinations and interactions from the various books are significantly more complex than chess itself, at least computationally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory)

The only difference Chess has is that both combatants must use the same build. Throw in handicaps or the use of variants and this isn't even necessarily true.

Really, there is no 'ultimate strategy' in D&D. It is not a solved game. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game) Yet.

And heck, checkers has been solved. Both players will always draw if they play optimally from the start, similar to Tic-tac-toe. People still play it in tournaments.

Now with all that said, D&D is certainly not an ideal choice for a PvP game, and its default design assumes for a team-based cooperative game. Your premise, is however, flawed.

[CTrees]

Although I must admit, I did want to punch the mad science teacher at the end of that one. Seriously: He has a ray gun that turns people into babies. He has concrete proof that those affected both grow up normally and retain their memories (he retained his mind, after all, and he's got an example - in the villainess - that those affected grow up relatively OK)

...and he destroys it. Idiot. He should have reverse-engineered the thing, and built a controller so it returns people to young adult status. I mean, seriously: Just because the original was used for awful things, and it was originally invented by someone who is a bit on the mad side, doesn't mean we can't learn from their insanity and make good use of it.

There's a trope for that. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless)

Will save or become Fascinated for 1d4 hours

[Jack_Simth]

There's a trope for that. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless)
Isn't there always?

Passed

[T.G. Oskar]

Ever seen one of those Tests of Spite before? And the sheer amount of layered contingencies possible? All those spell combinations and interactions from the various books are significantly more complex than chess itself, at least computationally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory)

Far from it being a rhetorical question, but yes. Yes I did. I made several builds using the ToS banlist, fought at least twice, and checked several builds from other people. At once, I could easily have 6-10 books open at the same time to check for interactions, and mistakes regarding that. I also experienced the same thing. And I barely recall any character getting to the dungeon stage, OR getting to the last three battles. Ravenloft and the dark powers that be claimed many a soul...

Same thing for Iron Chef competitions, which are a very different type of challenge than the Test of Spite. The main difference is that the build doesn't have to be just powerful, but elegant and original (not merely copying exactly from a cookie cutter PO build).

That doesn't qualify me to explain why people like to solve the issues of class strength through duels. The camaraderie that emerged from the Test of Spite, on the other hand, and the lessons (the lessons!) that you could learn from it? Priceless. And the ToS was pretty much (or eventually led to) endless duels between two people making builds with an ever increasing set of banned abilities and creative fixes to others. In the end, it taught a lot (I mean, just check the ToS banlist and you might figure what is broken and what is "borken") and it served a purpose, oddly enough.

I guess that's as good an answer as I can figure it out.

[Killer Angel]

I guarantee you that in a 10th level straight-up duel in a flat arena with even lighting and terrain all around, a Fighter will beat a Rogue who hasn't pumped UMD (which is really more a testament to the brokenness of the skill system in general and UMD in particular) every single time.

At higher levels, even without UMD but with WBL, rogue's chances to win increase rapidly.
But Rogue's strength, lies in its superior flexibility, so a straight up duel, arena style, don't say too much.

[Curmudgeon]

What I theorize would give a better picture of respective character strenghts would be to give both parties nothing more but their starting wealth. (Before anyone says "... but this hurts the non-casters more", let me say: well, DUH. That should hint you that they're the more powerful classes.)
This hurts in other ways, too. In particular, you're essentially denying the existence of abilities which help to acquire more wealth. For instance, any Rogue character won't have to spend 9 hours daily on mandatory rest and preparation time, and most Rogues can acquire significantly more wealth than other characters ─ even without factoring in that extra earning time they've got compared to spellcasters.

Giving equal wealth at any level to a Rogue and a spellcaster is cheating the Rogue.

[Coidzor]

Giving equal wealth at any level to a Rogue and a spellcaster is cheating the Rogue.

Is called WBL. :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

Is called WBL. :smalltongue:
Yes, and for building a character which starts above 1st level, with no prior game play, it's reasonably fair, as the character will have had no actual in-game opportunities to earn more than that, and won't incur the in-game risks associated with those opportunities. (That's assuming there are also no chances for spellcasters to spend gp or XP crafting stuff, or for other characters to commission custom magic items, before those characters are first used; after all, fair is fair.)

If, however, you're developing characters from level 1 on, then spellcasters will have opportunities to craft stuff, and Rogues who train for opportunistic earning will greatly exceed Wealth by Level.

[Boci]

If, however, you're developing characters from level 1 on, then spellcasters will have opportunities to craft stuff, and Rogues who train for opportunistic earning will greatly exceed Wealth by Level.

In a real game the problem is not many many groups will want to listen to a rogue solo-ing for some extra cash at every oppertunity. Yes I know the wizard delays the group more with spell preperal, but that doesn't matter so much to the players.

In a topurnament: how do you account for that? A fixed sum? 30% extra WBL? It becomes much easier to give standard WBL to each class.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Giving equal wealth at any level to a Rogue and a spellcaster is cheating the Rogue.

Barring Fabricate, Wall of Iron and similar shenanigans, or simply spellcasting for clients during downtime.

[tyckspoon]

Barring Fabricate, Wall of Iron and similar shenanigans, or simply spellcasting for clients during downtime.

Or the other half a dozen ways spellcasting offers to make money without really working at it.

[Talya]

Yeah, just for reference (and because I am catgirl killing sociopath) - a level 20 wall of iron would weigh approximately 30,003 lbs. (5" x 60" x 100' x 3.32) One pound of Iron as a trade good is worth 1 silver peice. Therefore, every casting of Wall of Iron nets the wizard 3,000 gold peices worth of iron.

(Corrected because I had the area of the level 20 wall wrong).

[Curmudgeon]

Yeah, just for reference (and because I am catgirl killing sociopath) - a level 20 wall of iron would weigh approximately 30,003 lbs. (5" x 60" x 100' x 3.32) One pound of Iron as a trade good is worth 1 silver peice. Therefore, every casting of Wall of Iron nets the wizard 3,000 gold peices worth of iron.
And from that the Wizard must subtract the cost of cutting that wall into pieces, and then moving them to the places where they can be sold. I would guess that cost to be pretty close to 3,000 gp. :smallwink:

[Fox Box Socks]

This post shows me that there are way too many things in D&D with "War" as a prefix.
In 4e, you can play as a Warforged Warlord/Warden (Warlock).

Named Warren.

[ScionoftheVoid]

And from that the Wizard must subtract the cost of cutting that wall into pieces, and then moving them to the places where they can be sold. I would guess that cost to be pretty close to 3,000 gp. :smallwink:

Or, you know, use Fabricate, Telekinesis (or willing volunteers) and a Portable Hole/a Bag of Holding or two. Or just cast it where you need it to be and Fabricate it into a different shape if necessary. Or use Shrink Item and a Bag of Holding. You're a Wizard, moving things for free isn't exactly hard.

Hell, don't use Wall of Iron, even. Flesh to Salt something and sell it. Wall of Stone->Stone to Flesh, enjoy your new meat business. Fabricate up Fullplate to sell in a single round. A few choice spells could probably make a decent house in less than an hour.

Or find someone who needs a certain spell cast and cast it for them at a price, rinse, repeat.