Spellcasting thoughts

[Tectonic Robot]

I will be the first to admit I'm not good a D&D. Well, at least at knowing the rules inside and out. But one common thought I've seen echoed across this forum is the superiorty of spellcasters; wizards in particular.

From what I've seen, a wizard who knows what he's doing is so far and beyond better then any other class that he renders them all moot. Why even bother playing a non-wizard, then? (This is a serious question)

I hear that 3.5 puts more emphasis on roleplay then 4.0, but does 4.0 blance out the power discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters? Being able to make nigh-invincible builds like the ones that Tippy fellow always posts annoys me, and if 4.0 fixes that I'd have to give it a shot!

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, because I can't check right now!

[Kesnit]

From what I've seen, a wizard who knows what he's doing is so far and beyond better then any other class that he renders them all moot. Why even bother playing a non-wizard, then? (This is a serious question)

I cannot speak for others, but there are 2 reasons I don't play as Wizards.
1) I don't like playing pure casters. A big part of that is the spell juggling.
2) My group does not play at optimization levels and character levels where casters becomes the end-all/be-all. So playing as my-preferred melee or gish does not cause me to have problems keeping up.


I hear that 3.5 puts more emphasis on roleplay then 4.0,

The amount of RP is based on the group, not the system. IMO, it is equally possible to RP in both 3.5 and 4.0. Maybe, possibly, a little easier in 4.0 since the smaller number of skills and the constantly-increasing skill levels make it easier to justify actually having your Fighter try a diplomacy check. :smallsmile: On the other hand, if your group does not go for diplomacy, it does not matter whether there is justification or not.


but does 4.0 blance out the power discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters?

Very much. All characters (except psionics) have the same number of at-will, encounter, and daily powers. (For the most part. Some races give a power.) Powers are a lot less abusable than spells.

That said, there is still a power discrepancy between classes, but they tend to be a lot lower than in 3.5. (I think I've seen it compared to the difference between Tier 3 and Tier 4.) Also, classes can really only be compared within their intended role (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader). Some Defenders are better tanks than others, but a Defender cannot do damage like a Striker or debuff like a Controller.


Being able to make nigh-invincible builds like the ones that Tippy fellow always posts annoys me, and if 4.0 fixes that I'd have to give it a shot!

One class cannot do-it-all in 4.0 like they could in 3.5. Each role has their purpose, and parties that have a mix of roles will tend to do better than ones with just 1 or 2 roles. Not to say a party HAS to have all roles, but a Wizard (Controller)/Cleric (Leader)/Druid (Controller) party will have a harder time than if the Druid was replaced with a Fighter (Defender) or Rogue (Striker).

[bloodtide]

From what I've seen, a wizard who knows what he's doing is so far and beyond better then any other class that he renders them all moot. Why even bother playing a non-wizard, then? (This is a serious question)

To say a wizard is 'far better' is a matter of personal views. Some do think a wizard is all powerful.

The first problem is how the DM runs the game. A lot of DM's are quite soft to wizards. They let them buy or make any magic item at will. They never have monsters or effects target the wizard's items. They tell the wizard's player all the game information. And so on.

The game information is a big one for me. A wizard is only cool if they can cheat and know all the game information to optimize their actions. And too many DM's will just hand over the monster manual to a player and tell them everything about a monster. A lot of DM's like a 'low magic' type game. So the 15th level characters are still fighting orc bandits with sharp sticks. In this type of game, the wizard can dominate easy. But when you up the fantasy, so the bandits are Half-fiend Xill Warlocks and suddenly the wizard is not all that great.

A lot of DM's also sit back and let the Rules rule the game. So if page 110 of a book says a wizard can do something, then the DM can't do anything. If a player finds a mistake, error, oversight or such in the rules, they can just sit back and laugh in the DM's face, as the DM is powerless to take any action as the Rules Are King. (Though some DM's will just say 'nope your trick does not work', and ignore what the rules say...even if it upsets the player of the wizard).

The second problem is a lot of 3X wizards are one trick ponies. If the DM uses a lot of monsters with SR, they can make a build that gives them ways to over come SR. But they only have so many levels/feats/such so while they can over come SR, they won't be able to do anything else. But the Dm never uses anything else, so the wizard gets by just fine.

Third, a lot of games do the 15 minute day. They only have four 'level appropriate' encounters, then the group hits the 'save and rest' button. This keeps the wizard at full spells all the time. And they can go nova in each fight, as they know they can rest afterwards. Of course, have a wizard play for more then 15 minutes and they are not so great.



I hear that 3.5 puts more emphasis on roleplay then 4.0, but does 4.0 blance out the power discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters? Being able to make nigh-invincible builds like the ones that Tippy fellow always posts annoys me, and if 4.0 fixes that I'd have to give it a shot!

Well, 4E is all about combat...every build is all about combat abilities, with a few phony non-combat ones thrown in for show. All 4E really does is give everyone 'spells', that is abilities that are just like spell effects in 3E, but not magic.

Nigh-invincible builds only work in theory, not in a real game.

[Flickerdart]

Anything powerful enough to take down a spellcaster will utterly devastate any mundane class optimized with the same amount of effort. A DM cannot create encounters that challenge both kinds of characters the same amount. Additionally, a Wizard has many more options than a mundane character (anybody who thinks they are one-trick ponies is quite simply wrong), and another set of options for dictating the terms of battle in the first place.

Even if the DM goes "all monsters from this day forward are immune to all magic" a Wizard or Divine caster can adapt the next day by preparing buffs and summon spells. A Sorcerer can take a buff or a summon spell next level. If the DM said "all monsters from this day forward are immune to weapon damage", 99% of mundanes are utterly shafted - because feats require prerequisites, while spells do not. Did you invest all your feats so far into more damage? Tough. Did you now want to start on the Trip tree? Please wait three more levels to take the feat appropriate for a 1st level character that's a prerequisite for everything else.

[Pilo]

I don't like to prepare spell in advance that's why I would rather play sorcerer or oracle ( or Mystic from Drangon Lance in 3.5) than wizard or cleric.

Furthermore there is something important to understand: Most of the optimised builds aren't challenging and are not fun to play (well, it depends of what you like obviously but still).

If you play a game in a barbarian setting, were strenght is all that matters, wizard would be quite weak.

If it is a political game type, bards and rogues may overpower a wizard.

So three reasons for not having a full-wizard party:
1) The flavour of the other classes.
2) Sometime, wizards suck.
3) At low level, wizards are very weak and each game is not a fast progression game.

[Malachei]

I will be the first to admit I'm not good a D&D. Well, at least at knowing the rules inside and out. But one common thought I've seen echoed across this forum is the superiorty of spellcasters; wizards in particular.

From what I've seen, a wizard who knows what he's doing is so far and beyond better then any other class that he renders them all moot. Why even bother playing a non-wizard, then? (This is a serious question)

I hear that 3.5 puts more emphasis on roleplay then 4.0, but does 4.0 blance out the power discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters? Being able to make nigh-invincible builds like the ones that Tippy fellow always posts annoys me, and if 4.0 fixes that I'd have to give it a shot!

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, because I can't check right now!

Have you seen this dominance in actual game play? How was your personal experience?

[Flickerdart]

If you play a game in a barbarian setting, were strenght is all that matters, wizard would be quite weak.

Wrong. The various buffs and shape-changing spells of a Wizard mean that he can break bones just as well, if not better, than a barbarian - even if you pretend that strength is measured only by your STR score.



If it is a political game type, bards and rogues may overpower a wizard.

Wrong. Wizards have access to the best enchantment spells that make investing into skills useless.




3) At low level, wizards are very weak and each game is not a fast progression game.
Wrong. Even at 1st level, a Wizard has something like a 75% chance of beating a Fighter built especially to kill him. These numbers have been done many, many times.

[Malachei]

If it is a political game type, bards and rogues may overpower a wizard.

Wrong. Wizards have access to the best enchantment spells that make investing into skills useless.

Not wrong at all. There are times when spellcasting isn't appropriate or even dangerous. Social skills have their use.

[Psyren]

Being able to make nigh-invincible builds like the ones that Tippy fellow always posts annoys me, and if 4.0 fixes that I'd have to give it a shot!

4e "fixes" this sort of thing in the same way that you can fix gangrene in your leg by hacking it off.

Don't let Tippy scare you away from 3.P, nobody actually uses that stuff. (Well, his games might, but they're not the norm by any means.)

[Flickerdart]

Not wrong at all. There are times when spellcasting isn't appropriate or even dangerous. Social skills have their use.
It takes a ridiculous amount of stacking the deck to make a Rogue better than an Enchanter at social interaction. Sure, the situation is conceivable, but very unlikely.

[Malachei]

It takes a ridiculous amount of stacking the deck to make a Rogue better than an Enchanter at social interaction. Sure, the situation is conceivable, but very unlikely.

Well, some games work this way, others work that way. IMC, spellcasting in social situations can cause serious issues for the caster. And sometimes you are dealing with people who are able to see what kind of spells you've put up beforehand. Absolute statements, such as "Wrong. A is better than X." really don't help. Games are diverse, let's face it.

[Flickerdart]

Well, some games work this way, others work that way. IMC, spellcasting in social situations can cause serious issues for the caster. And sometimes you are dealing with people who are able to see what kind of spells you've put up beforehand. Absolute statements, such as "Wrong. A is better than X." really don't help. Games are diverse, let's face it.
There are so many ways to cast without people knowing that you are doing it, or if they know, without knowing that you are casting. And then there are long-duration buffs like Voice of the Dragon, the Aid Another bonus from your familiar...the list goes on. A really is better than X.

[Malachei]

A really is better than X.

Well, maybe in "A is better than X" in your game, all the time, in all situations, without exception. It is not the case in all games:

Often, in social situations, NPCs will either be powerful enough or have the resources to employ casters. These are perfectly capable of finding out about PC spellcasting, on-site or cast beforehand. The more important the social situation, the more likely this will be the case.

It can be very dangerous to come to the king, or the high priest, with magic on your person that helps you try to influence them.

I'd rather have a Beguiler, or perhaps a Bard in a social campaign than a Wizard. IMO, it is also more fun.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Well, some games work this way, others work that way. IMC, spellcasting in social situations can cause serious issues for the caster. And sometimes you are dealing with people who are able to see what kind of spells you've put up beforehand. Absolute statements, such as "Wrong. A is better than X." really don't help. Games are diverse, let's face it.

Games are diverse, but it is easily possible to either use things like Silent Spell, Still Spell or similar things that make it so that, even if a person has any sort of Spellcraft, they don't necessarily know they've had their mind magic'd by a caster.:smallsigh:

[Flickerdart]

Often, in social situations, NPCs will either be powerful enough or have the resources to employ casters. These are perfectly capable of finding out about PC spellcasting, on-site or cast beforehand. The more important the social situation, the more likely this will be the case.

It can be very dangerous to come to the king, or the high priest, with magic on your person that helps you try to influence them.
Like I said, stacking the deck - you've got a bunch of dudes on the NPC side dedicated exclusively to stopping the spellcaster, and short of hitting him with a Disjunction as soon as he comes in and then covering the place with antimagic, there's still not very much they can do to make sure that he is 100% magic-free.

[Psyren]

Games are diverse, but it is easily possible to either use things like Silent Spell, Still Spell or similar things that make it so that, even if a person has any sort of Spellcraft, they don't necessarily know they've had their mind magic'd by a caster.:smallsigh:

Trivial: if I were a paranoid king, my court mage would have Battlemagic Perception up at all times anyway.

And a Telepath is way, way more dangerous than an Enchanter.

[Malachei]

No, not stopping or hitting Disjunctions. Not a fighting scenario, at all.

The other poster mentioned a political game type, hence I am talking about a social campaign.

No fighting in the king's courtyard, you see?

It would be enough for the king's court wizard to make his spellcraft check or to cast Arcane Sight or other means to know the magic on person and the spells being cast.

Shouldn't the king of a powerful nation be protected against any (N)PC walking in and magically-enhanced diplomancing (etc.) him? Wouldn't the king and his advisors expect an enemy to use such tactics? Wouldn't the realm be at risk if there would not be a defense against this? If it was possible or easy to do, the PCs would probably not be the first to do it.

Depending on the magic level in the campaign, "king" can be a placeholder for high priest, crime lord, powerful merchant, rich diplomat, etc. and realm a placeholder for religion, crime cartel, merchant house, etc.

[Flickerdart]

Trivial: if I were a paranoid king, my court mage would have Battlemagic Perception up at all times anyway.
BMP won't stop a guy from walking in and discharging Voice of the Dragon, just to name one spell. I'm certain there are others.

[Hiro Protagonest]

And a Telepath is way, way more dangerous than an Enchanter.

Yeah. They can convince clones that those aren't the droids they're looking for! :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

BMP won't stop a guy from walking in and discharging Voice of the Dragon, just to name one spell. I'm certain there are others.

A mind-affecting compulsion? Whatever will I do :smalltongue:

[Yukitsu]

A mind-affecting compulsion? Whatever will I do :smalltongue:

Depends on whether or not the guy is built around compulsions. If he is focused on enchantments, you get to do precisely nothing about it. If he's not, then the king's adviser has been giving awfully sketchy information about things for the past while...

[Flickerdart]

A mind-affecting compulsion? Whatever will I do :smalltongue:
Yes, that's a big problem with mind spells. But you can also simply use its +10 bonus, along with other skill boost magic, to jack up your checks to ridiculous amounts.

[Geigan]

Why not solve everything ever as a wizard? A number of reasons, but my main reason is even though I can do everything, I hardly ever want to do everything. Sure diversity is certainly good, but I'm not gonna do every shtick in the game when I have the whole rest of my party to play with. I have a fighter on my team? Oh look I don't have to prepare summoning spells today since I have a nice meatshield that lasts all day. Oh I have a rogue on my team? THANK GOD I don't actually have to waste a spell slot on knock, and I can stop wasting all this effort on trap detection and sneaking around since I have a friend who can do that. I have a bard on my team? I can ban enchantment so I can specialize in a school of spells I was actually interested in using!:smallsmile:

My point is, I can do everything, but why would I want to? This is a cooperative game and the less I weight I have to pull alone makes it more fun to play.

As for why play other things? They're less complicated or have another mechanic I'm interested in. Wizards are cool and all, but sometimes I want wave my hands around and make reality cry, and sometimes I just want to hit stuff in the face or play the lute or sneak around like a ninja. Sure I can make reality cry and do that too, but it can take away from the fun of it if you have to make reality cry to make it work. Even though reality's tears are delicious.:smallwink:

[Malachei]

BMP won't stop a guy from walking in and discharging Voice of the Dragon, just to name one spell. I'm certain there are others.

The king would have Mind Blank. The court wizard would have Greater Arcane Sight.

By the way, there's campaign world consistency at stake:

If it was possible to walk into the king's courtyard and just discharge an enchantment -- why should the realm exist? The king probably has powerful enemies in and outside the realm.

They'd probably already have taken over if he wasn't protected against such trivial tricks.

[Flickerdart]

The king would have Mind Blank. The court wizard would have Greater Arcane Sight.

By the way, there's campaign world consistency at stake:

If it was possible to walk into the king's courtyard and just discharge an enchantment -- why should the realm exist? The king probably has powerful enemies in and outside the realm.

They'd probably already have taken over if he wasn't protected against such trivial tricks.
They already have. Which is why the court wizard is really the leader, and the king is a figurehead.

Once you start using spells, and spells to counter those spells, and spells to counter the counterspells, the game becomes Wizard versus Wizard. The Rogue and the king are sitting in the corner talking about the weather while the real participants are doing things. This is why spellcasters are powerful - the only way to stop spells are other spells.

[Malachei]

No, not in this campaign.

The court wizard may control the king, but your wizard will be stopped at the door and not be welcome inside. While the party rogue, leaving magic items at home, is free to attend the audience.

Apart from this very mechanical point of view, in a medieval fantasy setting, things like values (alignment), legacy rights, loyalty etc. may actually mean something.

[Emperor Tippy]

Nah, you load the king down with Sakrash (Lords of Darkness 184). It's 1d4 hours of total immunity to mind manipulation for 500 GP.

Personally I use ritual magic on most of my leadership that provides them with a fairly large collection of permanent buffs. If you give the king items, well then the players will often just kill him for his shinies; if you give him a court wizard of high enough level to protect him then the court wizard not solving all problems needs to be explained. So use ritual magic that provides permanent boosts if you can afford a hundred K in rare magical ingredients and get a hundred first level casters to donate all their spell slots for the day.

[Psyren]

Yes, that's a big problem with mind spells. But you can also simply use its +10 bonus, along with other skill boost magic, to jack up your checks to ridiculous amounts.

Plenty of ways to boost Sense Motive too. And if you're keeping the spell up for the bonus, you register as magic (despite being asked to leave your items outside) and are promptly slapped with a dispel/disjoin.

And a simple Pro. Evil item (which honestly, I'd be wearing anyway as a king) will keep you from doing anything with that Suggestion even if you land it.


They already have. Which is why the court wizard is really the leader, and the king is a figurehead.

Once you start using spells, and spells to counter those spells, and spells to counter the counterspells, the game becomes Wizard versus Wizard. The Rogue and the king are sitting in the corner talking about the weather while the real participants are doing things. This is why spellcasters are powerful - the only way to stop spells are other spells.

What's wrong with that? The Wizard gets his hefty paycheck for exotic components and research, the king gets arcane protection against other wizards. It's literally win-win.

I wouldn't ask my lawyer to protect my company's data information network from hacking - I'd hire another hacker.

[Flickerdart]

What's wrong with that? The Wizard gets his hefty paycheck for exotic components and research, the king gets arcane protection against other wizards. It's literally win-win.

I wouldn't ask my lawyer to protect my company's data information network from hacking - I'd hire another hacker.
Nothing wrong with that at all. My point is, short of saying "wizard, you can't play" which is what Malachei wants, the spellcasters will always be the movers and the shakers.

Also, how exactly does Protection from Evil stop Suggestion? It doesn't grant the caster ongoing control, so PoE does nothing.

[Malachei]

Nothing wrong with that at all. My point is, short of saying "wizard, you can't play" which is what Malachei wants, the spellcasters will always be the movers and the shakers.

Wrong quote.

Somebody said "If it is a political game type, bards and rogues may overpower a wizard."

You said that was wrong and "Wizards have access to the best enchantment spells that make investing into skills useless." (emphasis mine).

I said in a social campaign, a wizard may not be able to bring his spells to effect, because social targets, especially if high-ranking and powerful, are likely to be protected.

[Psyren]

Also, how exactly does Protection from Evil stop Suggestion? It doesn't grant the caster ongoing control, so PoE does nothing.

You're right, misread a FAQ entry. Plenty of other defenses though.

[Flickerdart]

Wrong quote.

Somebody said "If it is a political game type, bards and rogues may overpower a wizard."

You said that was wrong and "Wizards have access to the best enchantment spells that make investing into skills useless." (emphasis mine).

I said in a social campaign, a wizard may not be able to bring his spells to effect, because social targets, especially if high-ranking and powerful, are likely to be protected.
Yeah, okay. And then you kept ramping up the arbitrary restrictions until the wizard wasn't even allowed to speak to the king. I'd like you to guess how that Rogue is going to do without magic against a king with both spellcasters and magic items on his side. The answer is, not very well - even if the Rogue is higher level than the king, magic will easily bridge that gap and give the king an impenetrable Sense Motive. In circumstances where the wizard is shut out from accomplishing anything, so is the rogue.

[Malachei]

As I said, this was not about fighting, but about a social encounter, where the king would be interested to be protected against enchantment and diplomancing. In a magic medieval fantasy setting, every king would have to think about defending against an NPC or PC with enchantment spells.

[Flickerdart]

As I said, this was not about fighting, but about a social encounter, where the king would be interested to be protected against enchantment and diplomancing. In a magic medieval fantasy setting, every king would have to think about defending against an NPC or PC with enchantment spells.
It's not fighting. Your itemless Rogue is talking to a king buffes to the nines with spells and items that augment Sense Motive and allow him to be an effective diplomat. He is quite simply not going to accomplish anything he set out to do.

[Malachei]

You have a point, there. What would the king's skill offense look like?

Let's assume the rogue has invested heavily in social skills, and is protected versus echantment / mind control, but has no offensive magic or magic items.

[Snowbluff]

If I was the leader of a party, I wouldn't let anyone who leveled wizard near a king. The circumstance penalties on suspecting magic alone...!

[Flickerdart]

You have a point, there. What would the king's skill offense look like?

Let's assume the rogue has invested heavily in social skills, and is protected versus echantment / mind control, but has no offensive magic or magic items.
How is he protected against jack all without magic?

[Malachei]

The court wizard can easily discern between an item that is defensive and an item that is offensive.

Also, the king & court wizard might actually not be interested in using magic on the rogue -- because the king normally gets his way without bewitching people. It may be against his alignment, or it may be avoided due to bad rumors if the nobility is using witchcraft.

[Treblain]

What does this all this arguing mean? Let's say the challenge is "talk to the king and convince him to help you"


The rogue and wizard go to the king. The rogue has ranks and CHA synergy in Diplomacy/Bluff, so he does the talking (the wizard's player can help him in whatever way he can). If he rolls high, he succeeds. If he's maxed his skill to the point that he auto-succeeds, you might as well not play this encounter.
The rogue goes to the king. He does the talking. He either succeeds or fails.
The wizard goes to the king. He mindrapes the king into being his slave. Congratulations, you own a kingdom. The wizard retires and you roll new characters.
The wizard goes to the king. Lots of protections prevent him from doing anything with magic, so he rolls a skill check. He might succeed, but he's likely to fail. Your 'social campaign' is reduced to a die roll the player has a small chance of succeeding. Why do we care about this scenario again?


If it's really a social game, than it will come down to roleplaying, which any class can do. If it still uses dice rolls heavily, there's nothing wrong for that, but D&D has so many ways to break skill checks, and not in an entertaining way.

Seriously, where is this going? What does this prove?

[Flickerdart]

The court wizard can easily discern between an item that is defensive and an item that is offensive.

Also, the king & court wizard might actually not be interested in using magic on the rogue -- because the king normally gets his way without bewitching people. It may be against his alignment, or it may be avoided due to bad rumors if the nobility is using witchcraft.
Um...it's beyond simplicity to make an item appear different from what it really is. But yes, if the Rogue gets to keep all his toys and the king doesn't use any of his own resources against him, then the Rogue is actually useful maybe sort of a little bit. But surely you must see how absurd, convoluted and specific the conditions must be for the Rogue to manage something the Wizard cannot.

[Calanon]

As I said, this was not about fighting, but about a social encounter, where the king would be interested to be protected against enchantment and diplomancing. In a magic medieval fantasy setting, every king would have to think about defending against an NPC or PC with enchantment spells.

Alright fine, I will just go around your enchantments and Dipolmancing, and use Magic Jar outside of the kings throne room. I'm a Necromancer built to optimize my Necromancy spells. The King WILL fail his save.

Neat so now I gained control over the king and can now do whatever I please... brb raiding the treasure room :smallbiggrin:



The court wizard can easily discern between an item that is defensive and an item that is offensive.

Alright cool so this guy must have some seriously good Spellcraft ranks (I love a high Spellcraft rank) but The court Wizard wouldn't need that if he had (Greater) Arcane Sight on at all times :smallwink: "Hey thats a nice amulet thats exuding Abjuration magic off of it!"


Also, the king & court wizard might actually not be interested in using magic on the rogue -- because the king normally gets his way without bewitching people. It may be against his alignment, or it may be avoided due to bad rumors if the nobility is using witchcraft.

Alright, This made me believe that you do not even understand Fantasy based politics :smallannoyed:


If you can use magic to solve your problems, the Royals are going to learn it
Every King,Queen, Duke and Duchess will be using magical enchantment to gain favor over the higher ups no matter the cost
Rumors are just rumors. As long as nobody can prove that you are using magic to gain favor in the court your golden
If its a highly fantasy based campaign, "witchcraft" will be called "Wizardry" or "Sorcerery" and use of magic will not be punishable by law (unless its one of THOSE campaigns)




If I was the leader of a party, I wouldn't let anyone who leveled wizard near a king. The circumstance penalties on suspecting magic alone...!

I like this comment alot :smallamused:

EDIT:


Nystul's Magic Aura - even if it is one of "those" campaigns, as far as anyone knows your bling is just regular gold.

This. :smallcool: Flickerdart is a Genius and he probably didn't even know it

[Flickerdart]

If its a highly fantasy based campaign, "witchcraft" will be called "Wizardry" or "Sorcerery" and use of magic will not be punishable by law (unless its one of THOSE campaigns)
[/LIST]
Nystul's Magic Aura - even if it is one of "those" campaigns, as far as anyone knows your bling is just regular gold.

[Emperor Tippy]

Mind Blank + Magic Aura on everything that glows; as far as anyone can prove you are just a normal muggle who made his will save to resist your mind reading attempt. Not magical at all. :smallwink:

And those guards who all have Arcane Sight made permanent on them while also being protected by the palaces Mind Blank trap? Yeah, we grabbed one when he went out for drinks the other day, dispelled his Mind Blank, hit him with a Mind Rape to turn him into our sleeper agent, created a permanent telepathic bond with him to deliver messages to him and receive his reports (it's existence kept hidden by the daily mind blank trap), cast mind blank on him, and sent him back to work.

Over a period of a week or so before the meeting with the king we systematically took over the minds of all his guards and servants. Then we used one of those guards to get a hair from the King and his family. A little work and our Ice Assassin's move in and remove the royal family before replacing them. The royal family is locked into a secure form of storage (I prefer Temporal Stasis before dropping them into a prismatic sphere in deep space) and then me and my Ice Assassin's move on to replace the court wizard with another such assassin.

In short order the entire leadership and advisory council are completely and utterly loyal to me with no one the wiser.

Ice Assassin, great spell or greatest spell?

[JaronK]

My answers to why I'd play anything other than a Wizard:

1) It's too easy, so I don't feel like I'm accomplishing anything. Building up a fortress requires work and ingenuity as a Rogue... it requires only some downtime for a Wizard. And it's worse if I'm holding back. If I want to kill a dragon and I'm a Rogue, I have to work with the party and make a good plan. If I do it as a Wizard... Spectral Hand + Celerity + Shivering Touch with a Wand of Maximize. Poor guy never stood a chance. But if I want to actually let the party have fun, I have to pick some other way of attacking that doesn't instantly destroy the monster. Yet that kills RP... who goes into a life or death situation and says "well, I could solve this and remain safe, but then my team wouldn't have any fun!"

2) Usually when I'm making a character, "bookish magic user" isn't it. It might be sometimes, but there's just so many other heroic characters it could be. Wizard just usually doesn't fit the RP I wanted.

3) As other classes, I can cut loose and really try to find the best solution to whatever problem there might be. Those classes don't have instant win buttons, so it's fun to be creative (instead of game breaking).

JaronK

[Emperor Tippy]

My answers to why I'd play anything other than a Wizard:

1) It's too easy, so I don't feel like I'm accomplishing anything. Building up a fortress requires work and ingenuity as a Rogue... it requires only some downtime for a Wizard. And it's worse if I'm holding back. If I want to kill a dragon and I'm a Rogue, I have to work with the party and make a good plan. If I do it as a Wizard... Spectral Hand + Celerity + Shivering Touch with a Wand of Maximize. Poor guy never stood a chance. But if I want to actually let the party have fun, I have to pick some other way of attacking that doesn't instantly destroy the monster. Yet that kills RP... who goes into a life or death situation and says "well, I could solve this and remain safe, but then my team wouldn't have any fun!"
Oh that poor wizard, what when the 30 Int Dragon decided to get Mantle of the Icy Soul cast on him a few decades back and thus became immune to Shivering Touch. And his little old Ring of Spell Battles counterspelled the wizards Celerity. Only to be even more damaged when the nifty old dragon used his standard action to activate his Weirdstone before dropping a quickened (what, you didn't think the Dragon took Automatic Quicken spell 3 times?) Disjunction on you and activating his permanent anti-magic aura.

Dragons (except Whites) are as smart as any Wizard and they have had hundreds (if not thousands) of years to plan what to do when faced with annoying adventurer's. And they also have access to Epic feats.

[vitkiraven]

I will be the first to admit I'm not good a D&D. Well, at least at knowing the rules inside and out. But one common thought I've seen echoed across this forum is the superiorty of spellcasters; wizards in particular.

From what I've seen, a wizard who knows what he's doing is so far and beyond better then any other class that he renders them all moot. Why even bother playing a non-wizard, then? (This is a serious question)

I hear that 3.5 puts more emphasis on roleplay then 4.0, but does 4.0 blance out the power discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters? Being able to make nigh-invincible builds like the ones that Tippy fellow always posts annoys me, and if 4.0 fixes that I'd have to give it a shot!

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, because I can't check right now!
Sorry to interject with the OP's question, but I thought the resident spell-caster loather should chime in here.
Mechanically, there is absolutely no reason to not play one of those depraved kneelers to foreign energies and entities. Mechanically, they have been given so much fan boy service that they cannot hope but be the most Uberpwrleet characters if there is even a hint of optimization in their creation and advancement. Since it has been proven that the "Necromancers of the Ocean's Neighbor" decided to toss the idea of anyone doing anything remotely outside of a healbot cleric or a blaster wizard, there was little to no true testing for balance (despite any claims that there is). The only way one might even consider them balanced, is if one took all of the fighter martial weapon feats that a fighter type gets at first level, and Dark Chaos Shuffled them into something useful.
Now, as to why anyone would ever want to play something other than a weak groveler to insipid extraplanar spirits and wielders of profane arcanic energies is the question at hand.
Well, for me, it's always been the ability to have quotes similar to this and have them be some what honest.

When I was a fighting-man, the kettle-drums they beat,
The people scattered gold-dust before my horses feet;
But now I am a great king, the people hound my track
With poison in my wine-cup, and daggers at my back.

What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie?
I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky.
The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.

Gleaming shell of an outworn lie; fable of Right divine—
You gained your crowns by heritage, but Blood was the price of mine.
The throne that I won by blood and sweat , by Crom, I will not sell
For promise of valleys filled with gold, or threat of the Halls of Hell!
and

"If that's true, then answer this priest, why are we in these pits, hiding from some animal?" Conan asked "Someday, when all your civilization and science are likewise swept away, your kind will pray for a man with a sword."

And sometimes, you just have to get to glory for killing those foul entities with your own strength and courage, not relying on some stolen might from a form that is not your own, or power coming from an otherworldly nebulous entity. Be strong, be fierce. Embrace the Inner Warrior.

This post sponsored by Being Bane: A Guide to Cracking Small Men, and your local Barbarian Recruiter. Aim High, Crush the Skull.

[Hirax]

Sadly mantle of icy soul got changed in Spell Compendium and is no longer permanent. Strangely, they didn't update its fiery Sandstorm counterpart. But there's also some good news! The new version takes the fire subtype away from creatures that have it, which can be useful for other purposes. Otherwise mantle of the icy soul now needs to go on persist lists (due to algid enhancement).


Mechanically, they have been given so much fan boy service that they cannot hope but be the most Uberpwrleet characters if there is even a hint of optimization in their creation and advancement. Since it has been proven that the "Necromancers of the Ocean's Neighbor" decided to toss the idea of anyone doing anything remotely outside of a healbot cleric or a blaster wizard, there was little to no true testing for balance (despite any claims that there is).

Seconding this.

[Emperor Tippy]

Sadly mantle of icy soul got changed in Spell Compendium and is no longer permanent. Strangely, they didn't update its fiery Sandstorm counterpart. But there's also some good news! The new version takes the fire subtype away from creatures that have it, which can be useful for other purposes. Otherwise mantle of the icy soul now needs to go on persist lists (due to algid enhancement).

Piffle, those are clearly different spells. What with having different durations, different components, different saving throws, and different effects. Since Spell Compendium doesn't actually claim to be the primary source and the Frostburn errata doesn't alter the spell, Mantle of the Icy Soul works just fine.

:smallwink:

[hamishspence]

It doesn't have to "claim to be the primary source" if it's a later-written book.

[Hirax]

Heed the wink, I don't think he was serious. The new version is an hours/level spell, so it isn't so bad, though the material component hurts a little; algid enhancement already has a 50GP component.

[Yahzi]

Why even bother playing a non-wizard, then?
The guys who created D&D agree with you. In their original game, you had cool spell-casting types, and you had mooks. Fighters were mooks with names.

Nowdays there are two possible answers:

1) Because you want to play a fighter-type, and your DM has agreed to bend the rules of the universe to help you out.

2) Because the game is 5th level or lower.

Also, there's this:


Now, as to why anyone would ever want to play something other than a weak groveler to insipid extraplanar spirits and wielders of profane arcanic energies is the question at hand.
:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

Why bother to play a non-Wizard?

Well sometimes you want to be a Cleric or Druid (or Archivist) instead so you can get your divine on. :smallwink:

[SiuiS]

It takes a ridiculous amount of stacking the deck to make a Rogue better than an Enchanter at social interaction. Sure, the situation is conceivable, but very unlikely.

I dunno. Guile goes a long way. The wizard with a buff or twa lacks the generic skill of a man who uses lies, truth, acid and honey, threats, warnings, Nd information. Yes, a wizard could do all that too, but it would be much more effort for the same end result, and given the implied low level (else why the hay talk to a king?) the wizard would blow days getting the needed blackmail info the rogue gets from "gather info. 14 + 11, what do they tell me? Hey bard, I have some stuff for you to Bardot knowledge about."

And for skill boosts, I'm surprised at the lack of circumstantial penalties. I'm pretty sure bluff specified a point where they won't believe you, not because they think you're lying but because it's not worth their arse. Diplomacy makes friends; I disagree with my friends all the time. Merlin waltzes in and I love him? So? Why the hay am I goin to abdicate for him, he doesn't know how to run a kingdom!

And on the low end, having to try tends to make you clever. Being a wizard tends to make you smug. The rogue is more likely to work his soft skills well, rather than blink hard and go back to the chalkboard when dominate doesn't achieve his ends.

And let's be fair, we are talking rogue versus wizard, which kinda precludes the wizard using a bard for info. Sure, you could charm or dominate, but brute-forcing friends?


There are so many ways to cast without people knowing that you are doing it, or if they know, without knowing that you are casting. And then there are long-duration buffs like Voice of the Dragon, the Aid Another bonus from your familiar...the list goes on. A really is better than X.

Bonus from... You'd better have a charismatic toad, for me to listen when he sits on yor shoulder and says "this guy's legit, you should listen to him". The toad could help you make up for pulling out a slimy beast in the throne room. Maybe.


As I said, this was not about fighting, but about a social encounter, where the king would be interested to be protected against enchantment and diplomancing. In a magic medieval fantasy setting, every king would have to think about defending against an NPC or PC with enchantment spells.

Are you kidding, mate? Violence is always a valid tactic in midieval politics. The threat of being stabbed by someone else is the only reason politics remain 'civil'. Sitting across from an assassin who could plunk out your kidneys through your rump at any moment, and having tea? That's what midieval politics are about from the player end. The wizard shouldn't be diplomancing kings- he should be diplomancing something that matters in his circle of interest, like an efreeti lord or a demon prince.


What does this all this arguing mean? Let's say the challenge is "talk to the king and convince him to help you"


The rogue and wizard go to the king. The rogue has ranks and CHA synergy in Diplomacy/Bluff, so he does the talking (the wizard's player can help him in whatever way he can). If he rolls high, he succeeds. If he's maxed his skill to the point that he auto-succeeds, you might as well not play this encounter.
The rogue goes to the king. He does the talking. He either succeeds or fails.
The wizard goes to the king. He mindrapes the king into being his slave. Congratulations, you own a kingdom. The wizard retires and you roll new characters.
The wizard goes to the king. Lots of protections prevent him from doing anything with magic, so he rolls a skill check. He might succeed, but he's likely to fail. Your 'social campaign' is reduced to a die roll the player has a small chance of succeeding. Why do we care about this scenario again?


If it's really a social game, than it will come down to roleplaying, which any class can do. If it still uses dice rolls heavily, there's nothing wrong for that, but D&D has so many ways to break skill checks, and not in an entertaining way.

Seriously, where is this going? What does this prove?

Thank you, that's very well put.


Mind Blank + Magic Aura on everything that glows; as far as anyone can prove you are just a normal muggle who made his will save to resist your mind reading attempt. Not magical at all. :smallwink:

And those guards who all have Arcane Sight made permanent on them while also being protected by the palaces Mind Blank trap? Yeah, we grabbed one when he went out for drinks the other day, dispelled his Mind Blank, hit him with a Mind Rape to turn him into our sleeper agent, created a permanent telepathic bond with him to deliver messages to him and receive his reports (it's existence kept hidden by the daily mind blank trap), cast mind blank on him, and sent him back to work.

Over a period of a week or so before the meeting with the king we systematically took over the minds of all his guards and servants. Then we used one of those guards to get a hair from the King and his family. A little work and our Ice Assassin's move in and remove the royal family before replacing them. The royal family is locked into a secure form of storage (I prefer Temporal Stasis before dropping them into a prismatic sphere in deep space) and then me and my Ice Assassin's move on to replace the court wizard with another such assassin.

In short order the entire leadership and advisory council are completely and utterly loyal to me with no one the wiser.

Ice Assassin, great spell or greatest spell?

So wait
You have the power to cast mind rape, mind blank, et al.
And you're wastin your talents putting a rogue out of a job?

Yes, at high level you can do something the rogue did almost as well ten levels ago. But why? go create your own reality and lord over it, don't be the shark in my kiddy pool. That's bringing a shotgun posse to a fist fight, and doesn't prove anything.

-

Tek robo, the answer is oenof characterization. PSt level seven or so, each class sort of has an implied niche. Yes, a full caster can be a warlord or master thief, but why? Since a level ago, thy have been peeling back layers of reality, and examining the cold hard lines beneath. One doesn't get a degree in phayics and engineering so he can make a better gun to rise up the ranks of the mob. One doesn't become the mouthpiece of the gods so that he can win in the squared circle.

Characters are people. They have reasons for being the class they are. The cognitive dissonance caused by being a group of wizards who on a metalevel all want to fulfill different roles just to see if they can is humongous.

And theoretically, learning magic is hard and tedious, though this hasn't had much backing except "starting wizards are slightly older than other characters".

[Eldariel]

The awesome part about 3.5 is that for experienced players, it supports multiple tiers of play. Tier system works pretty well; there's no need to play on the highest tiers when you don't feel like dealing with the universe-shattering power and the bookkeeping nightmare that is "knowing every spell on your class list" (Druids and Clerics deal with this clause) or even just maintaining Prayer/Spellbooks.

Tier 3-4 games are far simpler, still versatile and awesome, and quite interesting. The reason, then, to not play Tier 1 is because you might find Tier 3-4 more fun. And I guess someone somewhere might be into Tier 5-6 gaming only (of course, the occasional all-commoner campaign is certainly gold even if you aren't). The game is, after all, about playing what you want to play and D&D supports a great variety of stuff.

So no worries about "having to play Wizard", for instance; being the strongest option doesn't make it the best option for all games. And sometimes when you do want universe-shattering power, feel free to abuse the powah.

[Malachei]

Are you kidding, mate? Violence is always a valid tactic in midieval politics.

I wouldn’t agree that it’s always a valid tactic in medieval politics. In some campaigns, violence will get you killed. Flickerdart’s point was that even in a social situation, you never play the rogue, because the wizard’s enchantment is better in every situation. I pointed out this depends on the campaign.


Characters are people. They have reasons for being the class they are. The cognitive dissonance

To this I completely agree. And wizards already suffer from so much cognitive dissonance, because “hey, I am so powerful, but the prom queen is still in love with the bard”.


Why bother to play a non-Wizard?

Because (1) it may be more fun, (2) other classes can be better in a particular game style – the wizard can probably emulate and surpass them in high-level play, but not throughout his career, (3) it would be boring to play the same class over and over again and (4) because you don’t want to be seen going BWAAHAAAAAAHAAA all the time again until your friends are rolling eyes, go into the kitchen and chat about real life until you’ve solved the problem on your own.


The wizard retires and you roll new characters. (…) If it's really a social game, than it will come down to roleplaying, which any class can do. If it still uses dice rolls heavily, there's nothing wrong for that, but D&D has so many ways to break skill checks, and not in an entertaining way. Seriously, where is this going? What does this prove?

That’s a sweet point. Makes playing the same class over and over again even more boring ☺.
Seriously: That’s exactly the point. It is a roleplaying game. IMO, players should be roleplaying at the table, and not all challenges should be met with rolling dice. But as to the question: Flickerdart’s point is that the enchantment wizard is better than the rogue or bard, in every social situation, all the time. I don’t think so, exactly for the reasons you gave, and others, mainly being that I think there are situations when this does not apply, where it is perfectly feasible to play a rogue or bard.


Yeah, we grabbed one when he went out for drinks the other day, dispelled his Mind Blank, hit him with a Mind Rape to turn him into our sleeper agent, created a permanent telepathic bond

Mind Rape would not be available to players in my campaign. They would have difficulties acquiring and issues using [evil] spells. That’s why I strongly prefer to play with a party of predominantly good alignments. Second, the Book of Vile Darkness, IIRC, is 3.0 content, not updated for 3.5. But I totally concede that if you allow it, having a good-aligned party does not protect the king, because other power factions / NPCs will not be. So yes, that might be a good tactic.


1) It's too easy, so I don't feel like I'm accomplishing anything

I’d say your DM isn’t trying hard enough.


Those classes don't have instant win buttons, so it's fun to be creative (instead of game breaking).

Completely agree. And I would not want to play in an all-wizard campaign. For me, it would be fun for a session or two, but not much more. I'd also wouldn't want to play in an all-X campaign. I like class diversity.


Mind Blank + Magic Aura on everything that glows

Yes, but that assumes 8th level spells are readily available. Flickerdart’s point was that the enchantment wizard is superior to the rogue or bard in all social situations, all the time. And, I don’t think that is the case.

What would be a viable tactics against Mind Blank + Magic Aura?


use Magic Jar outside of the kings throne room.

It seems we have to put the king inside an AMF. What are other, better strategies to protect the king?

[vitkiraven]

Actually, Kingdoms of Kalamar had some specific things that helped rulers against this very thing, but I am AFB, so if anyone else has it... Other than that, you may want to go it a step further, and have it be a dead magic zone., rather than an anti-magic field. Harder to abuse on a caster's side (not impossible though).
If you can't do that, get a brazier of magic revealing, an engraved cop evil, and maybe a hall of friendship/ or secure chamber stronghold space enhancement. Then again, it is only 66k for an antimagic stronghold space. Or maybe have the antechamber to the room be a room of rending for 77k? The guy is a king, chump change for piece of mind, right?

[Flickerdart]

I dunno. Guile goes a long way. The wizard with a buff or twa lacks the generic skill of a man who uses lies, truth, acid and honey, threats, warnings, Nd information. Yes, a wizard could do all that too, but it would be much more effort for the same end result, and given the implied low level (else why the hay talk to a king?) the wizard would blow days getting the needed blackmail info the rogue gets from "gather info. 14 + 11, what do they tell me? Hey bard, I have some stuff for you to Bardot knowledge about."

And for skill boosts, I'm surprised at the lack of circumstantial penalties. I'm pretty sure bluff specified a point where they won't believe you, not because they think you're lying but because it's not worth their arse. Diplomacy makes friends; I disagree with my friends all the time. Merlin waltzes in and I love him? So? Why the hay am I goin to abdicate for him, he doesn't know how to run a kingdom!

And on the low end, having to try tends to make you clever. Being a wizard tends to make you smug. The rogue is more likely to work his soft skills well, rather than blink hard and go back to the chalkboard when dominate doesn't achieve his ends.

And let's be fair, we are talking rogue versus wizard, which kinda precludes the wizard using a bard for info. Sure, you could charm or dominate, but brute-forcing friends?

Why is there a Bard involved in this? Sod your Bard. I cast Contact Other Plane, or any other divination (Spontaneous Divination, you are the best ACF). Hey, greater deity, let's see what kind of dirt you have on this puny mortal king. As for Merlin's waltzing, Merlin's not using skills. He can, sure, if he has no other recourse (but he won't be asking the king to abdicate, that's rather inane on your part), but he's got spells to do better than skills. So you're arguing against the Rogue there. Also claiming Rogues are more clever is hilarious, what with their teeny tiny Intelligence scores compared to the average Wizard. So none of what you said has any relevance.




Bonus from... You'd better have a charismatic toad, for me to listen when he sits on yor shoulder and says "this guy's legit, you should listen to him". The toad could help you make up for pulling out a slimy beast in the throne room. Maybe.

Your familiar has all the skill ranks you do. Never heard of nanobots, have we? He Aid Anothers your check.

[vitkiraven]

Why is there a Bard involved in this? Sod your Bard. I cast Contact Other Plane, or any other divination (Spontaneous Divination, you are the best ACF). Hey, greater deity, let's see what kind of dirt you have on this puny mortal king. As for Merlin's waltzing, Merlin's not using skills. He can, sure, if he has no other recourse (but he won't be asking the king to abdicate, that's rather inane on your part), but he's got spells to do better than skills. So you're arguing against the Rogue there. Also claiming Rogues are more clever is hilarious, what with their teeny tiny Intelligence scores compared to the average Wizard. So none of what you said has any relevance.

And the king can discount you, a filthy necromancer as telling vicious lies? And furthermore have you labelled outlaw, and officially deny you the protection of the king, or even order you to death when you speak of it, and if you escape, inevitables start coming for you, for escaping judgement?
The king has entrenched power. Legal power. That is recognized. You are trying to upset that, and trying to do it by assuming that there is DM response on your side, but no DM protection on the King's side.



Your familiar has all the skill ranks you do. Never heard of nanobots, have we? He Aid Anothers your check.
Doesn't this require DM interaction, as it specifically references it in the listing?
Aid Another
You can help another character achieve success on his or her skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus to his or her check, as per the rule for favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.

In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone.


Combine that with a little blurb of bluff:

A bluff requires interaction between you and the target. Creatures unaware of you cannot be bluffed.

Means that your familiar, or nano-bot would have to have interaction with the king, and what king would deem himself low enough to talk to a filthy animal?
And while diplomacy doesn't specifically have that similar point to it, it does require at least a full round (rushed) to accomplish, and if the toad starts talking to the king, the king immediately has it removed from his court (and possibly bumps the attitude towards you down a notch, for bringing a filthy beast into his court).


I know that wizards are *oh fanboi dreamy, better than Jacob and Edward combined*, and that they are All Powerful. I think even the original poster posited that as his opening statement. Continuing to bring up loopholes to make the wizards superior is not helping your case. It's already been made, by the fanbois at WOTC. "There is a Spell for That", and for any other class to have an effect in a high level campaign, the DM needs to have read "The Prince", "The Art of War", and "The Book of Five Rings", along with "Metaphysics".

Disputing that wizards can do anything is like saying that Mike Tyson could (would?) knock out a grandmother in the ring or on the street. I don't think that ANYONE here, even myself, thinks that there is anything one can do to pry the position of top dog from the leprous hands of the wizards, and other spell casters by default.

WOTC screwed the pooch on this, and Wizards can do anything, even in situations where they shouldn't be able to do everything, they still can. The thing is, if you can do everything, why play the game? If you want to do that, just write fanfic. It's about the same mental masturbation as playing a high-op wizard when everyone else is playing tier 4's (or even low tier 3's).

[Flickerdart]

And the king can discount you, a filthy necromancer as telling vicious lies? And furthermore have you labelled outlaw, and officially deny you the protection of the king, or even order you to death when you speak of it, and if you escape, inevitables start coming for you, for escaping judgement?
The king has entrenched power. Legal power. That is recognized. You are trying to upset that, and trying to do it by assuming that there is DM response on your side, but no DM protection on the King's side.
So when the Rogue blackmails him that's fine, but when the Wizard does it, he becomes an outlaw? That is a very curious argument.

[vitkiraven]

So when the Rogue blackmails him that's fine, but when the Wizard does it, he becomes an outlaw? That is a very curious argument.

Actually, the rogue is already an outlaw, most likely. Just by being a rogue. And I didn't see that the rogue was specifically Blackmailing him. You referenced Blackmailing. Any hell, in an open field of combat, a King might feel he could take this knavish cur of a wispy rogue.
The foul nether-world influenced consorter with the lower planes is another manner altogether.

EDIT: And hell, everyone knows that rogues and thieves lie. It's like a class feature or something.

[Flickerdart]

Actually, the rogue is already an outlaw, most likely. Just by being a rogue. And I didn't see that the rogue was specifically Blackmailing him. You referenced Blackmailing. Any hell, in an open field of combat, a King might feel he could take this knavish cur of a wispy rogue.
The foul nether-world influenced consorter with the lower planes is another manner altogether.

EDIT: And hell, everyone knows that rogues and thieves lie. It's like a class feature or something.
Blaap! Classes as in-game constructs detected! Releasing neurotoxin gas.

[molten_dragon]

Here's the thing about wizards (well, really any Tier 1, since there are multiple classes that can keep up with, and in some cases surpass a wizard).

Mechanically speaking, they really are superior to pretty much anything else in the game. In a one-on-one fight, a tier one is going to beat a lower tier the majority of the time. In certain games, the wizard really will rule the roost and outshine every other character in the party.

But most games aren't like that. Most people who play wizards aren't interested in optimizing them that heavily (or at all) or simply don't have the system mastery necessary to do so. The all-powerful wizard that renders all other characters in the party useless is mostly theoretical, it doesn't actually show up in real games that often.

I've been playing 3rd edition D&D for more than 10 years now, and I've seen that kind of super-optimized wizard show up in 1 campaign. And that was because we specifically designed the campaign around it. Everyone was playing heavily optimized tier 1's. it was a blast too, but not the kind of thing you'd play every session. Playing that character is like playing a video game with the cheats on. Sure, it can be fun for awhile, but eventually it gets boring.

tl;dr version: Don't worry about it, wizards overpowering everything and taking over the party is not nearly as big a problem as people make it out to be.

[Calanon]

It seems we have to put the king inside an AMF. What are other, better strategies to protect the king?

Why does it sound like your letting the Rouge start at level 20 while the Wizard is level 1 with an int score of 10? Idk just sounds like your thinking of making a character for your players to be immune to Enchantments. The best and easiest Solution is to make the King into a Lich or hell make him a Wizard himself or just to be even funnier make the King a Lich Wizard. There. End of story the Players are now royally screwed because there is NOTHING they can do to talk or even convince the king of anything, he has a response to ever spell any Wizard would cast at him and can do even more then that.

They gain so many penalties to talking to the king that there is no chance in the 9 layers of the abyss they could speak with him.

EDIT: Btw, god forbid the Wizard detects the AMF (Greater) Arcane Sight would allow him to do so as to where he says "Oh **** that" and Flys up and uses Meteor Swarm on the castle, of course the Wizard would be considered a criminal after this but in the Wizards eyes he would be completely justified in such an act (An area of Anti-Magic is the greatest threat to a Wizards defenses, when a Wizard doesn't feel safe, The world can get re-written)

On a side note: Why do they even have to talk to this King? What does he have to offer that the Wizard cannot just make automatically :smallconfused:

[Malachei]

Why does it sound like your letting the Rouge start at level 20 while the Wizard is level 1 with an int score of 10? Idk just sounds like your thinking of making a character for your players to be immune to Enchantments. The best and easiest Solution is to make the King into a Lich or hell make him a Wizard himself or just to be even funnier make the King a Lich Wizard. There. End of story the Players are now royally screwed because there is NOTHING they can do to talk or even convince the king of anything, he has a response to ever spell any Wizard would cast at him and can do even more then that.

They gain so many penalties to talking to the king that there is no chance in the 9 layers of the abyss they could speak with him.

Well, I think it is obvious that if all the kings are all under the control of wizards, the game world becomes a bit flat. I like the occasional conspiracy theory, and the "power behind the throne" cliché is nice for a few adventures, but I prefer a campaign world in which a powerful ruler can actually be just that: a powerful ruler.

I want my campaign setting to make sense, so in the light of powerful magic, the king needs to be protected. Not all the kings, all the time, but also not vice versa.

As to how I exciting I find the idea of wizards ruling every kingdom in every campaign setting, I think the introduction to Being Batman: The Logicninja's Guide to Wizards (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002) says it all, with an unsurpassed wink.

IMO, it should be able for a wealthy, powerful individual to have adequate protection to remain a wealthy, powerful individual.

So no, my objective is not to favor the rogue. The point is that a king should be protected so not every random wizard on his sunday-morning walk can come around the corner and claim the kingdom.

So my question was: In what ways can the king protected?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Actually, the rogue is already an outlaw, most likely. Just by being a rogue. And I didn't see that the rogue was specifically Blackmailing him. You referenced Blackmailing. Any hell, in an open field of combat, a King might feel he could take this knavish cur of a wispy rogue.
The foul nether-world influenced consorter with the lower planes is another manner altogether.

EDIT: And hell, everyone knows that rogues and thieves lie. It's like a class feature or something.

Alright, so why don't rogues have inevitables constantly hunting them and bounties for their heads in every city?

And, ah, you might want to check your facts on making wizards traffic with fiends. That's not how D&D wizards work. At all. And I'd hate my DM if he said "everybody will think you traffic with fiends". Does the king's abjurer traffic with fiends? If nit, why would he suspect me of doing so?

[Calanon]

Well, I think it is obvious that if all the kings are all under the control of wizards, the game world becomes a bit flat. I like the occasional conspiracy theory, and the "power behind the throne" cliché is nice for a few adventures, but I prefer a campaign world in which a powerful ruler can actually be just that: a powerful ruler.

I want my campaign setting to make sense, so in the light of powerful magic, the king needs to be protected. Not all the kings, all the time, but also not vice versa.

As to how I exciting I find the idea of wizards ruling every kingdom in every campaign setting, I think the introduction to Being Batman: The Logicninja's Guide to Wizards (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002) says it all, with an unsurpassed wink.

IMO, it should be able for a wealthy, powerful individual to have adequate protection to remain a wealthy, powerful individual.

So no, my objective is not to favor the rogue. The point is that a king should be protected so not every random wizard on his sunday-morning walk can come around the corner and claim the kingdom.

So my question was: In what ways can the king protected?

The simple and easiest answer is by Another Wizard, but then it becomes a Wizard duel... How about you give us limits for ALL the factors (Levels for the Wizard, Rogue, King, and Court Wizard) because then we can just assume that everyone in the room is level 20 and the king is a level 20 Aristocrat

EDIT: thanks btw, I was looking for Logicninja's handbook :smallbiggrin:

[Malachei]

You're welcome.

Actually, this is not about a specific king.

Kings in a campaign world may have a variety of levels in different classes. There may even be low-level kings. But they have a lot of resources, so how should they protect themselves?

A side note on the issue

Pilo: If it is a political game type, bards and rogues may overpower a wizard.
Flickerdart: Wrong. Wizards have access to the best enchantment spells that make investing into skills useless. (emphasis mine).
Me: In a social campaign, a wizard may not be able to bring his spells to effect, because social targets, especially if high-ranking and powerful, are likely to be protected.

The protection is important for campaign world consistency and diversity. Unless you don't find it boring and a bit uniform if every king in all the world is just a puppet.

So the question is about the protection.

[Ardantis]

Wow, there is so much b***hurt about this topic, it is unbelievable.

To answer the OPs original question, 4th ed. "balances" magic and nonmagic classes by making all attacks, magical and nonmagical, operate through similar mechanics. It is more balanced as a combat game, akin to a character-based miniatures wargame.

However, the issues brought up by disparate power level between characters in 3.5 is interesting.

A Wizard is more powerful than a fighter. Why would anyone want to be a fighter?

That's like saying "engineers get paid more money than toll booth collectors. Why would anyone want to be a toll booth collector?"

Yet we still have toll booth collectors (and some who are happy about it, go figure). This raises questions about the game and about ourselves which mirror important questions and issues in the rest of life.

Plus, who wants to be a wizard whose friends are all the result of the Charm Person spell?

[vitkiraven]

Alright, so why don't rogues have inevitables constantly hunting them and bounties for their heads in every city?

And, ah, you might want to check your facts on making wizards traffic with fiends. That's not how D&D wizards work. At all. And I'd hate my DM if he said "everybody will think you traffic with fiends". Does the king's abjurer traffic with fiends? If nit, why would he suspect me of doing so?

The rogue could have inevitables hunting them as well. And a lot of rogues DO have bounties on their heads in traditional settings. Hell, in some settings it's a point of honor.

And on the subject of "How Wizards Work".
I have read the Player's Handbook, several times, as looking at it as a player, and as a DM, thank you very much. I've played Wizards before, and non-spellcasters. I've been playing since 2nd edition came out. I KNOW that is not how D&D wizards "work". I also know that people, in general, do not trust what they do not understand. Magic is well beyond the ken of the common folk. What the common folk might "know" about magic, is that wizards are mysterious people who have gotten world shattering powers somehow, and yet not everyone can do that? How else would one do that but with a pact with a netherworldly entity?
Actually, if one was keeping with a more historical view, I'd be ashamed as a DM to say that the common folk were just fine and dandy with this purveyor of the Dark Arts.
And the common folk probably don't trust the King's Vizier or Abjurer anyway,
honestly, hell trope represents that well enough in fantasy.

Really, the commoners of a town probably learn to hate adventurers, as they bring chaos and destruction in their wake, while they love them for the money that they spend (if they don't just ignore things like food, and inn stays, and everything).

And if the King has a Vizier, then the Vizier would most likely let the King "Know" that the other spell caster consorted with demons and devils, to ensure his own hold on the King was secure. Hell, it's in his best interest to do so, to make sure that the King can be prepared for anything this foreign power does.

[Flickerdart]

Plus, who wants to be a wizard whose friends are all the result of the Charm Person spell?
Not all of them. Some are other Wizards, they go dragon surfing on weekends. Others are creatures they've created for kicks. One will be a Sorcerer, so they can claim they're not biased towards prepared casters because look, they have a spontaneous caster friend.

Malachei: You still don't get it, do you? Anyone with many resources invested in magical protection is going to grab a few items to raise Sense Motive, precisely because it has now become the path of least resistance. And if they have access to magic and you don't, they can buff their scores higher than yours. Only magic beats magic.

[Calanon]

You're welcome.

Actually, this is not about a specific king.

Kings in a campaign world may have a variety of levels in different classes. There may even be low-level kings. But they have a lot of resources, so how should they protect themselves?

Alright, so why not just give us an example of the king YOU want to use :smallconfused:


A side note on the issue

Pilo: If it is a political game type, bards and rogues may overpower a wizard.
Flickerdart: Wrong. Wizards have access to the best enchantment spells that make investing into skills useless. (emphasis mine).
Me: In a social campaign, a wizard may not be able to bring his spells to effect, because social targets, especially if high-ranking and powerful, are likely to be protected.

The protection is important for campaign world consistency and diversity. Unless you don't find it boring and a bit uniform if every king in all the world is just a puppet.

So the question is about the protection.


For Christ sake just make the king a crown with continuous Mind Blank (Oh but that wouldn't work in an Anti-Magic field and then Magic Jar functions... how do you become immune to Necromancy effects?)

[Malachei]

I really find the question interesting how a king should protect, so that not every random wizard can come by and exercise mind control / etc. That's it.


A Wizard is more powerful than a fighter. Why would anyone want to be a fighter?

That's like saying "engineers get paid more money than toll booth collectors. Why would anyone want to be a toll booth collector?"

Yet we still have toll booth collectors (and some who are happy about it, go figure). This raises questions about the game and about ourselves which mirror important questions and issues in the rest of life.

Plus, who wants to be a wizard whose friends are all the result of the Charm Person spell?

:smallbiggrin:

Yes, that's a very good point. Personal preference. Roleplaying. It is one way to explain the use of other classes. Another is to say: on a normal road, a motorbike could be faster than many cars, but on a car will often be faster on a really winding road.

Of course, the 20th level motorbike will be the flying ghostform foresight celerity contingency shapechange stoneskin model, but not all life is at level 20.

[Ardantis]

Touche, Flickerdart, touche.

[Coidzor]

tell the wizard's player all the game information. And so on.

The game information is a big one for me. A wizard is only cool if they can cheat and know all the game information to optimize their actions. And too many DM's will just hand over the monster manual to a player and tell them everything about a monster. A lot of DM's like a 'low magic' type game. So the 15th level characters are still fighting orc bandits with sharp sticks. In this type of game, the wizard can dominate easy. But when you up the fantasy, so the bandits are Half-fiend Xill Warlocks and suddenly the wizard is not all that great.

D&D is not a game system predicated upon the assumption that the players not be allowed to know the rules. D&D 3.X is no longer a system quite ruled by assumptions and ideas from the bad old days where DMs were encouraged and expected to maintain god complexes and rule mightily from on high over their players. :smallannoyed:

I hear 4e is even further divorced from that paradigm.

Hell, unlike some systems, you're allowed to DM in one game and play in another. :smalltongue:

[Malachei]

Touche, Flickerdart, touche.

touché


Malachei: You still don't get it, do you?

Actually, Flickerdart there is nothing to "get".

You've made a point about wizards being able to solve every social situation better than a rogue, all the time. I am not interested in protecting rogues, and I am not interested in figuring out whether the king's sense motive would be higher than the rogue's. This has nothing to do with you or your posts. I think the point has been made and I have moved on:

Now I am interested in seeing my campaign world not messed up by the random wizard's bad day.

I am really, genuinely interested in knowing how a king would protect. We've came up with AMF. What else?

[vitkiraven]

I am really, genuinely interested in knowing how a king would protect. We've came up with AMF. What else?
Actually, a while ago, I pointed out there are benefits to being a ruler put out in the Kingdoms of Kalamar Setting, I can't remember which book in the set though. (I'm AFB) Some of those include protections against enchantments and what not.

[Malachei]

Actually, a while ago, I pointed out there are benefits to being a ruler put out in the Kingdoms of Kalamar Setting, I can't remember which book in the set though. (I'm AFB) Some of those include protections against enchantments and what not.

Yes, I saw this. Thanks. I also have access to the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting, on a dusty shelf somewhere.

But I was also looking for some more official 3.5 content.

[vitkiraven]

Yes, I saw this. Thanks. I also have access to the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting, on a dusty shelf somewhere.

But I was also looking for some more official 3.5 content.
Ah, then Stronghold Builders Guidebook won't be much of a help either then... I will have to look further.

Unless you just want to give them Plot Armor, I mean after all, "Why should Mages be the only ones to have good things?"

[JaronK]

Oh that poor wizard, what when the 30 Int Dragon decided to get Mantle of the Icy Soul cast on him a few decades back and thus became immune to Shivering Touch. And his little old Ring of Spell Battles counterspelled the wizards Celerity. Only to be even more damaged when the nifty old dragon used his standard action to activate his Weirdstone before dropping a quickened (what, you didn't think the Dragon took Automatic Quicken spell 3 times?) Disjunction on you and activating his permanent anti-magic aura.

Dragons (except Whites) are as smart as any Wizard and they have had hundreds (if not thousands) of years to plan what to do when faced with annoying adventurer's. And they also have access to Epic feats.

Dragons you'd be fighting at lower levels can't get Epic feats... they only get those when they've already got more than 20 HD (Kobolds are an exception because they don't get HD by getting older). What I was talking about can be done at level 7, so those contingencies shouldn't have been there.

And that's the thing... look at how you have to customize the dragon (who'se supposed to be a scary fight on his own) just to counter the Wizard. He's got to figure out how to be immune to cold (Mantle doesn't work, it's not Permanent anymore), he's got to have specific items standing by JUST to fight a Wizard, etc. None of that works of course (you need someone like a Wizard to spot his magical defenses and thus dispel them, and I could have just used a Belt of Battle if I used divination to figure out he was protected against Celerity). But that's the point... if I get creative at all with a Wizard, the DM has to warp his entire campaign just to deal with it, to the point where it makes no sense (why is the Dragon setting up these defenses when a Factotum could have done it too, without using Celerity, using Cunning Surge instead? He clearly customized his defenses for the Wizard!). And if he'd planned out all these defenses, he should have planned out similar defenses for the rest of the party... that many defenses would have absolutely destroyed a Rogue or Barbarian.

By comparison, when I get creative as a Rogue or something, the DM doesn't have to alter the campaign entirely. I figure out a way to land a sneak attack on the dragon to open the fight without getting killed in the process? Cool, that means I'm actually useful in the fight and knock off a chunk of his hp in the opening attack. I get that creative with a Fighter? Good, I get to make a full attack on the dragon with archery without exposing the party to a breath weapon attack, or something. The DM doesn't have to warp the entire campaign, and I can have fun. And it all feels a lot more realistic, because every enemy we fight isn't specifically designed just to fight us.

JaronK

[Ardantis]

JaronK, are you promoting a more realistic style of play?

[Psyren]

JaronK, are you promoting a more realistic style of play?

If this board taught me nothing else, it's that Tippy's standards of realistic diverge significantly from everyone else's. :smallwink:

[Emperor Tippy]

If this board taught me nothing else, it's that Tippy's standards of realistic diverge significantly from everyone else's. :smallwink:

My standard of realistic is taking what the capabilities and listed abilities of a creature or person are and playing those straight in an IC manner.

A Great Wyrm, even the Stupid White, is incredibly intelligent. Dragons do not like risking their necks. They are also natural casters, live hundreds (or thousands) of years, and have a ton of wealth. Of course a dragon is going to layer it's self and it's lair in protective magics.

Craft Contingent, Persistent spells, magic items, etc. It's all fair game for the Dragon.

---
PC's are the same. You are an adventurer, you have willingly entered a profession where you risk the total obliteration of your soul on a regular basis and death is a mere inconvenience. Any PC over about 3rd level could live a very nice existence without ever once going on an adventure, that means that any PC who chooses to adventure (and it is almost always a choice) is driven by some motivation that they consider sufficient to risk not just death but total obliteration for. Revenge, power, a cause; it doesn't matter, they are all highly driven.

As an adventurer, you survive the first 5 levels by either being blessed by the gods or incredible preparation and paranoia. One bad choice, one unlucky roll, and you are dead. That means anyone above that level either has the luck of the gods (this would be most PC's) or has planned for every contingency that they can imagine, never fights fair, is incredibly paranoid, etc.

Many monsters and creatures can get away with not being so paranoid because their natural abilities tend to stop random death and one unlucky roll offing them, but that depends as much on the creatures mind set as anything else (Dragons, for example, are paranoids if you read their fluff).

---
Race, class, natural abilities; these might be out of the hands of an individual but how they are used is entirely up to them.

And when you adventure, if you aren't the best then you are dead.

---
Sure, at the higher levels it takes proportionally more effort to permanently off someone and only the deities really can make that stick but that is only true because the characters are so very paranoid.

[Calanon]

If this board taught me nothing else, it's that Tippy's standards of realistic diverge significantly from everyone else's. :smallwink:

If this board has taught me nothing else, its that if you say Tippy's name you basically summon him into your thread :smalltongue:


My standard of realistic is taking what the capabilities and listed abilities of a creature or person are and playing those straight in an IC manner.

A Great Wyrm, even the Stupid White, is incredibly intelligent. Dragons do not like risking their necks. They are also natural casters, live hundreds (or thousands) of years, and have a ton of wealth. Of course a dragon is going to layer it's self and it's lair in protective magics.

Craft Contingent, Persistent spells, magic items, etc. It's all fair game for the Dragon.

---
PC's are the same. You are an adventurer, you have willingly entered a profession where you risk the total obliteration of your soul on a regular basis and death is a mere inconvenience. Any PC over about 3rd level could live a very nice existence without ever once going on an adventure, that means that any PC who chooses to adventure (and it is almost always a choice) is driven by some motivation that they consider sufficient to risk not just death but total obliteration for. Revenge, power, a cause; it doesn't matter, they are all highly driven.

As an adventurer, you survive the first 5 levels by either being blessed by the gods or incredible preparation and paranoia. One bad choice, one unlucky roll, and you are dead. That means anyone above that level either has the luck of the gods (this would be most PC's) or has planned for every contingency that they can imagine, never fights fair, is incredibly paranoid, etc.

Many monsters and creatures can get away with not being so paranoid because their natural abilities tend to stop random death and one unlucky roll offing them, but that depends as much on the creatures mind set as anything else (Dragons, for example, are paranoids if you read their fluff).

---
Race, class, natural abilities; these might be out of the hands of an individual but how they are used is entirely up to them.

And when you adventure, if you aren't the best then you are dead.

---
Sure, at the higher levels it takes proportionally more effort to permanently off someone and only the deities really can make that stick but that is only true because the characters are so very paranoid.

Case and point

[Emperor Tippy]

If this board has taught me nothing else, its that if you say Tippy's name you basically summon him into your thread :smalltongue:
I was already in this thread.

[Calanon]

I was already in this thread.

DON'T DENY PSYREN OF HIS SUMMONING POWAHS! :biggrin:

(I noticed you were in the thread, I was just beating a dead joke back to life)

[Rubik]

This. :smallcool: Flickerdart is a Genius and he probably didn't even know itWhy are you responding to people in posts before the message you're responding to? It's not like they're going to be able to read it, and frankly, if it's done on purpose, it's quite rude.

[Malachei]

No! We all need to know! Is it summoning or foresight? Is he scrying? Did somebody gate him?

NO!

He was already in this thread!

[Psyren]

My standard of realistic is taking what the capabilities and listed abilities of a creature or person are and playing those straight in an IC manner.

Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong for doing that at all. If that's how you and your players deepen the verisimilitude of high mental ability scores, that's fine.

It's just not that common a practice is all. The effort and mental speed chess required to truly roleplay beings with deific intellect can indeed be worthwhile for some, but for others it can simply turn what is meant to be a recreational activity into work.

[Malachei]

I'm convinced we can't adequately roleplay deific intelligence. Even if we can be in several threads at once. :smallbiggrin:

[Calanon]

Why are you responding to people in posts before the message you're responding to? It's not like they're going to be able to read it, and frankly, if it's done on purpose, it's quite rude.

Didn't do it on purpose, apologies if I insulted your sense of proper forum etiquette :smallfrown:

The best defense I can think of is a Greater Wall of Dispel Magic, followed by the Wizard surrendering his spellbook to the royal guard which will be returned upon his release followed by the Wizard performing certain tasks of arcane might to reach said king then resting for a day before meeting with the king while he is wearing a crown of Mind Blank with the Court Wizard Standing next to him

honestly best thing I can think of... the Wizard can't prepare spells anymore, his magic items are disabled and taken at the door. This is pushing it in my opinion but as Tippy said "The more paranoid you are the more likely you are to survive" (Not exactly in those words but that is what I got from it and personally I agree) There isn't even a solid chance that this would even work

[Emperor Tippy]

Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong for doing that at all. If that's how you and your players deepen the verisimilitude of high mental ability scores, that's fine.

It's just not that common a practice is all. The effort and mental speed chess required to truly roleplay beings with deific intellect can indeed be worthwhile for some, but for others it can simply turn what is meant to be a recreational activity into work.
*shrug*
I don't find it to take that much effort.

Oh, going to extremes takes a bit of work but relatively standard stuff doesn't.

I mean, take Telepathic Bond. Any party of adventurers should have those made permanent between each other as soon as possible. Instantaneous, secure (only 1 spell exists to intercept them and they require being within range and doesn't penetrate mind blank), silent, unlimited range. You should probably keep 1-2 of them with NPC's or retired allies so that you can let someone know if you are caught or the like as well. It's a simple, core only, trick but you would be amazed at how many parties don't do it.

There are tons of similar little tricks that are obvious and not difficult to imagine or implement that most people never use.

[Hirax]

What level a wizard are we talking about? Wizards aren't magic item dependent, and magic items are only suppressed for 1d4 round anyway Assuming an equal CL caster of the wall of greater dispel, there's a good chance you do nothing at all to the buffs the wizard has active, due to dispelling greatly favoring the defender. If it's a 20th level caster, greater dispel is going to be guaranteed to do nothing to any of their active buffs, because it's trivial to get the DC to dispel buffs north of 40, meaning they can never be affected by greater dispel, ever. The only way you're going to have a shot at affecting their buffs is disjunction.

[Calanon]

What level a wizard are we talking about? Wizards aren't magic item dependent, and magic items are only suppressed for 1d4 round anyway Assuming an equal CL caster of the wall of greater dispel, there's a good chance you do nothing at all to the buffs the wizard has active, due to dispelling greatly favoring the defender. If it's a 20th level caster, greater dispel is going to be guaranteed to do nothing to any of their active buffs, because it's trivial to get the DC to dispel buffs north of 40, meaning they can never be affected by greater dispel, ever. The only way you're going to have a shot at affecting their buffs is disjunction.

...Wall of Mage's Disjunction? :smallconfused: I'm wondering how broken a spell like such would be...

[Coidzor]

...Wall of Mage's Disjunction? :smallconfused: I'm wondering how broken a spell like such would be...

Pretty broken, since you get metagame concerns that crop up when you destroy magic items too often.

[Flickerdart]

...Wall of Mage's Disjunction? :smallconfused: I'm wondering how broken a spell like such would be...
Bring an artifact on a string, toss it through the wall and reel it back until the caster loses his spellcasting forever.

[Emperor Tippy]

Pretty broken, since you get metagame concerns that crop up when you destroy magic items too often.

That's what you have Wish abuse for.

Throw disjunctions around like candy and let the players use Wish abuse to bring them back up to WBL whenever they want (go over that level and the deities get annoyed at you for abusing their servants).

It works fine and has the added benefit of not having to explain Magic Mart.

Although the real fun is a Sculpt Spell, Mastery of Shaping, Disjunction. Disjoin up to 32 specific individuals in the area :smallwink:

[erikun]

I will be the first to admit I'm not good a D&D. Well, at least at knowing the rules inside and out. But one common thought I've seen echoed across this forum is the superiorty of spellcasters; wizards in particular.
One of the easiest comparisons of this is the Fighter vs Cleric. In other editions, the Fighter clearly has abilities that the Cleric cannot use, meaning that even with stat-buff magic, the Cleric still does not perform as well as a Fighter. In 3.5e, the Fighter only gets access to additional feats, most of which only provide a +1 or +2 to a roll. The Cleric can easily replicate these bonuses magically, and can even take most of those feats themselves, so there is much less reason to play a Fighter than, say, a high-STR Cleric.

This doesn't necessarily make the Fighter class completely invalid, but it does highlight the large problem with playing a non-spellcasting class.


From what I've seen, a wizard who knows what he's doing is so far and beyond better then any other class that he renders them all moot. Why even bother playing a non-wizard, then? (This is a serious question)
The biggest reason for this is how cheap and easy it is to gain new spells, scrolls, wands, and similar items. The first vastly improves the Wizard's spell options, while the other two give the Wizard a lot of effective extra "spell slots" for more options and more staying power.

Most don't say "no non-wizards" as much as no non-T1. Clerics, Druids, Artificers, and so on work well and complement the Wizard.


I hear that 3.5 puts more emphasis on roleplay then 4.0, but does 4.0 blance out the power discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters? Being able to make nigh-invincible builds like the ones that Tippy fellow always posts annoys me, and if 4.0 fixes that I'd have to give it a shot!
I have not seen anything in any version of D&D that promotes or emphasizes roleplay. For what it is worth, there isn't anything in 3.5e that inhibits roleplay... at least compared to the other versions.

4e has a lot "flatter" power curve, far less broken options, and far less overreaching abilities. It means that most characters of around the same level are playable together, although you can still get optimized characters that make the rest of the party look pathetic. It is, however, like a hawk making a dove look pathetic, rather than comparing a space shuttle to a popsicle stick airplane.

[drack]

One of the easiest comparisons of this is the Fighter vs Cleric. In other editions, the Fighter clearly has abilities that the Cleric cannot use, meaning that even with stat-buff magic, the Cleric still does not perform as well as a Fighter. In 3.5e, the Fighter only gets access to additional feats, most of which only provide a +1 or +2 to a roll. The Cleric can easily replicate these bonuses magically, and can even take most of those feats themselves, so there is much less reason to play a Fighter than, say, a high-STR Cleric.

This doesn't necessarily make the Fighter class completely invalid, but it does highlight the large problem with playing a non-spellcasting class.

great for meeting qualifications if I do say so myself. :smallbiggrin:

Anywho this is silliness, non-casters have perfectly good odds against casters. :smallbiggrin:

The king: magi don't like assassins, therefore the magi don't want to be king and subject to such things. Detect magic doesn't find them so easily, and detect magic is all the councilor needs to check out your party for magic. A hundred guards can likely take your party, and if your high epic a cuple thousand should do the trick. The court mage similarly can't match up against such odds, and your king himself likely 'was once' a warrior of great renown meaning he's a tough melee or ranged type himself. Personally I prefer clerics because of how many angles they can cover at once, and honestly because I like undeads, but I've certainly made fighters that could bash in a cleric's head. One should always consider that the enemy probably has a caster of some sort buffing troops because generally casters don't like making themselves easy targets. Personally I've found a way to kill about eery 'invincible' build I've come across, and most of the time destroy it's soul too (preventing revival), so killing a mage is plenty simple enough.

Personally I tend to play in higher level games where casters are more optimized, but so is everyone else. For example when DMing a high op epic I quickly slopped together a level 11 with saves that reached around 110, AC around 80, and +60 to hit. It wasn't a charger or the like, but it worked ell as a tank, and I think I'd rather have it than a level 11 wizard between my enemies and myself.

[Yuki Akuma]

great for meeting qualifications if I do say so myself. :smallbiggrin:

Anywho this is silliness, non-casters have perfectly good odds against casters. :smallbiggrin:

...No, they don't. They really, really don't.

[drack]

in what regard? :smallbiggrin: (how will your caster stop my... lets go with a swordsman):smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

in what regard? :smallbiggrin: (how will your caster stop my... lets go with a swordsman):smallbiggrin:

By casting a spell. Maybe even two, or three if he's feeling like showing off.

[drack]

such as? :smallconfused: after mettle, improved evasion, and some nice high saves many spells run out of juice, make it an undead/construct/death ward it and another chunk is gone, give it SR and you'll only get x% in, get a decent AC and spells like scorching ray without saves or SR have trouble hitting.

[Hiro Protagonest]

such as? :smallconfused: after mettle, improved evasion, and some nice high saves many spells run out of juice, make it an undead/construct/death ward it and another chunk is gone, give it SR and you'll only get x% in, get a decent AC and spells like scorching ray without saves or SR have trouble hitting.


Where are you getting all that?

[drack]

where am I getting evasion or where am I getting the idea that when you beat the save against turning into a newt you don't turn into a newt? :smallconfused:

[Emperor Tippy]

What rules were you breaking to get 110 to your saves at level 11?

And it's not like it matters, a Disintegrate to the ground underneath you+a quickened wall of stone to cage you in will work most of the time. You are only level 11 so you likely lack the methods to actually escape.

A level 20 wizard would just drop a quickened Disjunction+Time Stop+Resilient sphere cast on themselves while standing next to you at CL 21+Prismatic Sphere. Congrats, you are stuck with no way to escape.

No save, No SR, No AC, No chance for you to act.

[Hiro Protagonest]

where am I getting mettle or where am I getting the idea that when you beat the save against turning into a newt you don't turn into a newt? :smallconfused:

Mettle AND Improved Evasion AND SR AND high saving throws AND Death Ward AND a good touch AC.

[Yuki Akuma]

You are presenting an absurd and unrealistic 'mundane' character, who is relying on magic to get most of his defenses anyway.

And then the spellcaster ignores those defenses because there are plenty of spells that don't allow SR, and it's child's play to double your caster level (and quite easy to go even higher).

Would you like an absurdly unrealistic spellcaster? I've got a +30 CL Ur-Priest Mystic Theurge floating around somewhere.

[Daisuke1133]

You realize that there are spells that ignore SR, Saving Throws, & Armour Class, right? Anywho, Contingency Force Cage+Phantasmal Killer= One Dead Fighter.

And Fighters get none of those Saving Throw-related abilities.

[drack]

Mettle AND Improved Evasion AND SR AND high saving throws AND Death Ward AND a good touch AC.

:smalltongue: still puzzling that one out, but mettle can be snagged from a class, we can settle for normal evasion from the ring, saves from silliness, undead or construct from being an undead or construct, good AC from other silliness (I did say that I whipped this up for a high op epic I was running...), and SR would probably come from the level 11 wizard I was gonna put with him,

Disjunction does little beyond spoiling your loot, and it could just chill inside your sphere :smallconfused:

You realize that there are spells that ignore SR, Saving Throws, & Armour Class, right? Anywho, Contingency Force Cage+Phantasmal Killer= One Dead Fighter.

And Fighters get none of those Saving Throw-related abilities.
I tossed it out as an example since we are talking about optimized magi and your run of the mill fighter.

Yes they do, but few do decent damage, most that would do something are based on manipulating the terrain. Phantasmal Killer gives a save. :smallcool:

[Emperor Tippy]

You are presenting an absurd and unrealistic 'mundane' character, who is relying on magic to get most of his defenses anyway.

And then the spellcaster ignores those defenses because there are plenty of spells that don't allow SR, and it's child's play to double your caster level (and quite easy to go even higher).

Would you like an absurdly unrealistic spellcaster? I've got a +30 CL Ur-Priest Mystic Theurge floating around somewhere.

Just use Tainted Scholar. :smallwink:

[Hirax]

Puzzle it out and post it. I'll wager you 10 internets that multiple ways to defeat it would be posted within a few posts ;)

[Yuki Akuma]

Spell Resistance isn't on the Wizard spell list, you know.

And even if it was, a level 11 caster would only provide 23 SR - which is child's play to defeat. A level 11 Wizard can simply cast Assay Spell Resistance and beat it on a 1.

And saves from "silliness"?

...You're just going to ignore everything we say and take nothing from this conversation, aren't you?


Just use Tainted Scholar. :smallwink:

Come now, I'm not a monster.

[Emperor Tippy]

:smalltongue: still puzzling that one out, but mettle can be snagged from a class, we can settle for normal evasion from the ring, saves from silliness, undead or construct from being an undead or construct, good AC from other silliness (I did say that I whipped this up for a high op epic I was running...), and SR would probably come from the level 11 wizard I was gonna put with him,
You have yet to explain what your actual build is. It seems to be entirely ass pull.


Disjunction does little beyond spoiling your loot, and it could just chill inside your sphere :smallconfused:
Do you have flight? If not you fall into it. If so you have to be able to hover and never get tired.

Disjunction get's rid of annoying buffs and magic items. And so what, it's just loot. I have my Solar Simulacrum for my loot needs.

[Hirax]

Do you have flight? If not you fall into it. If so you have to be able to hover and never get tired.

Disjunction get's rid of annoying buffs and magic items. And so what, it's just loot. I have my Solar Simulacrum for my loot needs.

Column of ice creates a platform under them if need be, flight doesn't matter.

[Emperor Tippy]

Column of ice creates a platform under them if need be, flight doesn't matter.

Doesn't actually work. I left out "Cast Disintegrate on the ground under them" from the spell list. But Column of Ice creates a column from the ground, it can't penetrate a Prismatic Sphere.

He is also a fighter, where is he getting spell casting?

[drack]

Puzzle it out and post it. I'll wager you 10 internets that multiple ways to defeat it would be posted within a few posts ;)

I don't doubt it, the idea was just for me to get a feel for what they could do through a minor challenge, and similarly you puzzle together a wizard and post it I'm sure someone here could similarly find a way to kill it in ten minutes.
I'm not saying they're superior, just not inferior. :smallcool:


Spell Resistance isn't on the Wizard spell list, you know.

And even if it was, a level 11 caster would only provide 23 SR - which is child's play to defeat.

And saves from "silliness"?

...You're just going to ignore everything we say and take nothing from this conversation, aren't you?

Come now, I'm not a monster.
Are we comparing my level 11 figher to epic casters, or your optimized wizard of the same level which should have over good odds at defeating him? :smallconfused:

saves from 'silliness' as if it's kinda all over the place and would be a pain to type out, not to mention I mostly just tossed it up as a quick example of a level 11 that was built with the op of your wizard, if I'm not mistaken you weren't just talking about your run of the mill fireball+magic missile+light, but rather what 'some players' do which is so horribly broken, right? :smallconfused:

Will I take anything away from it? perhaps perhaps not, though it's kinda hard to debate one on one when by the time I've typed this up two more have commented :smallbiggrin:

Do you have flight? If not you fall into it. If so you have to be able to hover and never get tired.

Disjunction get's rid of annoying buffs and magic items. And so what, it's just loot. I have my Solar Simulacrum for my loot needs.
I said 'yes, oh no, I'm trapped in your sphere, and as an unaging race your sphere will most certainly keep me forever, what ever shall I do' :smalltongue:



Ah yes, most of the big numbers are simply from this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732
though admittedly it used a potion or two to help it's aim :smallbiggrin:

[Hirax]

I misread your post, in a totally incomprehensible way, having looked at it again. Don't mind me, nothing to see here >_> (@Tippy)



I'm not saying they're superior, just not inferior. :smallcool:


If I can always kill you and you can never kill me, assuming the same level of optimization, is your definition of not inferior, then sure.

[Yuki Akuma]

:smallsigh:

11th level Wizard. Orange ioun stone and a bead of karma (50,000 gp all together), granting a total of +5 to his caster level. Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration feats, each granting a +2 to overcome spell resistance.

Total modifier on the caster level check: +20. Required roll to beat 23 SR: 3.

Now cast Assay Spell Resistance, which gives a +10 bonus to CL checks for overcoming SR.

Total modifier: +30. Required roll to beat 23 SR: -7.

Spell resistance is pitifully easy to overcome, especially when it's the product of that awful spell resistance spell.

This isn't even particularly optimised. This is just a Wizard who plans on casting a lot of SR: Yes spells.

[Emperor Tippy]

I said 'yes, oh no, I'm trapped in your sphere, and as an unaging race your sphere will most certainly keep me forever, what ever shall I do' :smalltongue:
And I whip out my Solar Simulacrum and have him SLA Permanency on the Sphere. You can now sit there forever and ever, even surviving the local star going nova or the planet ceasing to exist.


Ah yes, most of the big numbers are simply from this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732
though admittedly it used a potion or two to help it's aim :smallbiggrin:

You have to be stacking stuff that doesn't stack.

[JaronK]

JaronK, are you promoting a more realistic style of play?

Well, a style of play that makes sense. If the DM is building his world by first saying "how do I make this actually challenge the Wizard" as opposed to "what makes sense as far as defenses go" then there's a big problem, I think. Because if the DM put in that much effort to challenge the Rogue he'd be a fine pink mist. I mean, you could just play super high powered (Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage, Wizard, Cleric, Druid as the party), but I find that extremely tiring to DM for (I have to be as smart as the dragon for every single encounter just to make a challenge, and it's just so much work to account for all the possible attack avenues). But it just makes no sense to prepare for the Wizard without doing so for the Barbarian or Rogue... yet something as simple as difficult terrain may shut down the charger Barbarian (at some levels). So putting real effort into means the Barbarian is either useless or dead.

And it's just not realistic to say that the Dragon was so smart that he figured out exactly how to counter the Wizard's attack plan (whether it was a metamagic'd Enervation or a Celerity + Shivering Touch + Spectral Hand or some other trick), but couldn't figure out how to paint smear a charging Barbarian or Sneak Attacking Rogue. And I really hate that. Of course, there's a reason I made the Tiers.

JaronK

[vitkiraven]

Drack,

I HATE spellcaster. It literally makes me sick at times to think of how much WOTC screwed the pooch on the concept of balance between the classes. Even the far superior Warblade is still difficult to deal with wizards, and I've only gotten as far as a Mind focused dragonforged with lots of component items to get anywhere near what one needs to be a proficient wizard hunter, and even they will not take out the absolute rotten Limburger that is a 3.5 caster. I mean, with wealth by level, a fighter can only do so much, but wizards cheat and somehow have a free demiplane of existence! What the hell should that cost WBL? (and don't gimme that spell crap, fighters making their own weapons have to account for it in WBL). You really are not going to do well against the Purveyor of Wizardly Gouda themselves, Tippy. I've scoured more books than many, and it is exceedingly difficult to find the things to beat a wizard properly, without going third party. Then you start to get into feats that make you large, and other great stuff. Maybe if you go warblade, and have a high enough knowledge Arcana or Spellcraft, and are on forgotten realms, you could IHS the weave itself (or the three moons in Dragonlance, etc...), but you have to realize you are dealing with entities that are not even on this plane of existence. As much as I feel that WOTC decided to service spellcaster fanboys as would a copper piece harlot in a seedy back ally, even I recognize that against an optimized spellcaster, Conan would fall. And he is an undisputed trope slayer of the foul spellcaster types that exist throughout d20 3.5.
Kudos to you if you have puzzled together from every WOTC book how.to find the one way to kill a Tippy-cheddar-saurus Rex, but I haven't seen it done. Me, I will wait for the build to manifest, and silently hope that WOTC goes under, like I did for a long time with Palladium.

[Yuki Akuma]

Wizards of the Coast is owned by Hasbro. They ain't going under.

[Psyren]

Not to mention M:TG is making more money than... well, certainly more than D&D is, at any rate.

[Malachei]

Wizards of the Coast is owned by Hasbro. They ain't going under.

But they'll have a hard time designing D&D 5E. They'll probably need to move into the direction of Pathfinder and 3.5 and take a step back from 4E.

[Calanon]

But they'll have a hard time designing D&D 5E. They'll probably need to move into the direction of Pathfinder and 3.5 and take a step back from 4E.

I hope they just scrap 4e and say the Spellplague never happened :smallannoyed: WORST THING THEY EVER DID TO MAGIC EVER! :smallfurious:

[Hiro Protagonest]

I hope they just scrap 4e and say the Spellplague never happened :smallannoyed: WORST THING THEY EVER DID TO MAGIC EVER! :smallfurious:

It was to show the change of editions.

Also, if they do, Mystra will be resurrected. Again.

So they probably will.

[Malachei]

It was to show the change of editions.

Also, if they do, Mystra will be resurrected. Again.

So they probably will.

Every edition, the Forgotten Realms has a cataclysm. It's like resetting the watch.


Well, a style of play that makes sense. If the DM is building his world by first saying "how do I make this actually challenge the Wizard" as opposed to "what makes sense as far as defenses go" then there's a big problem, I think. Because if the DM put in that much effort to challenge the Rogue he'd be a fine pink mist. I mean, you could just play super high powered (Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage, Wizard, Cleric, Druid as the party), but I find that extremely tiring to DM for (I have to be as smart as the dragon for every single encounter just to make a challenge, and it's just so much work to account for all the possible attack avenues). But it just makes no sense to prepare for the Wizard without doing so for the Barbarian or Rogue... yet something as simple as difficult terrain may shut down the charger Barbarian (at some levels). So putting real effort into means the Barbarian is either useless or dead.

Except a king doesn't sit there and thinks "how can I equally challenge the rogue and the wizard?" That's the DM's train of thought if he designs an encounter.

The king sits there and thinks "What poses a threat to the throne and how can I protect myself against it?"

Protecting the king is not about challenging the PC wizard. It is about a working campaign setting that makes sense. There are many more NPC wizards and rogues than PC wizards and rogues. Different from what players sometimes expect, the world doesn't stop when they go to sleep. PCs are not the center of the universe. NPCs have motivations and agendas, as well. Evil organizations, rival realms do.

Why should a rival realm start a war if it could just send a wizard of a reasonable level? If kings didn't protect, kingdoms would fall, all the time.

Let's say you're a mid-level non-caster PC. If your character would find himself crowned and given the responsibility to govern the realm... of course you would think about protection yourself, wouldn't you?

[olentu]

Every edition, the Forgotten Realms has a cataclysm. It's like resetting the watch.



Except a king doesn't sit there and thinks "how can I equally challenge the rogue and the wizard?" That's the DM's train of thought if he designs an encounter.

The king sits there and thinks "What poses a threat to the throne and how can I protect myself against it?"

Protecting the king is not about challenging the PC wizard. It is about a working campaign setting that makes sense. There are many more NPC wizards and rogues than PC wizards and rogues. Different from what players sometimes expect, the world doesn't stop when they go to sleep. PCs are not the center of the universe. NPCs have motivations and agendas, as well. Evil organizations, rival realms do.

Why should a rival realm start a war if it could just send a wizard of a reasonable level? If kings didn't protect, kingdoms would fall, all the time.

Let's say you're a mid-level non-caster PC. If your character would find himself crowned and given the responsibility to govern the realm... of course you would think about protection yourself, wouldn't you?

Assuming an equal spread of classes it seems more cost efficient to completely shut down all the mundane classes for a fraction of the cost of one caster and then having most of your resources available to try and handle the rest of the stuff.

This is of course because you are a mid-level non-caster and so even the other non-casting classes have a very good chance of killing you while the casters are probably going to kill you even if you spend all your resources on protecting yourself.

[Flickerdart]

Why should a rival realm start a war if it could just send a wizard of a reasonable level? If kings didn't protect, kingdoms would fall, all the time.
You're going about this from the wrong end. D&D is not a game about kings that just happens to include wizards, it's a game about wizards first and foremost. If fluff (kingdoms with mundane leaders) is inconsistent with crunch (wizards being more powerful than armies) then the fluff is not representing the crunch appropriately, not the other way around. As-is, in the D&D world, kingdoms would fall all the time, because a mid-to-high level adventuring party is more mobile than any organized military, and can hit and run before an army can respond. It would be impossible to defend an entire kingdom against that sort of onslaught by even a handful of parties, and so anything larger than a few cities would fall to the death by a thousand cuts. The only recourse of these kingdoms would be to hire their own adventuring parties (and yes, adventuring parties, not court wizards, because adventuring gets you both power and wealth much faster than serving some chump and casting Dispels on peasants all day) which is a tremendous strain on the treasury and still doesn't cover as much ground as you'd think.

Tippy's written quite a bit about what a logical D&D campaign setting would actually entail. Kings and kingdoms aren't on that menu.

[Calanon]

It was to show the change of editions.

Also, if they do, Mystra will be resurrected. Again.

So they probably will.

Better Idea. Make it so Karsus Avatar never happened :smallamused:
I wanna go back to using 10th+ Spells :smallbiggrin:


Every edition, the Forgotten Realms has a cataclysm. It's like resetting the watch.

Yes... each one taking its own toll on magic :smallannoyed:

Anyone able to tell me what happened in 1st edition that raped the magic of Toril? :smallannoyed:

[Daisuke1133]

Anyone able to tell me what happened in 1st edition that raped the magic of Toril? :smallannoyed:

That would be when Helm killed Mystra during the Time of Troubles.

[JaronK]

Except a king doesn't sit there and thinks "how can I equally challenge the rogue and the wizard?" That's the DM's train of thought if he designs an encounter.

But it makes no sense if the King doesn't think that way and yet still ends up with counters designed for the Wizard alone.


The king sits there and thinks "What poses a threat to the throne and how can I protect myself against it?"

Right. And if he has the resources to adequately defend against the Wizard, he's also going to put thought into stopping sneaky Assassins... and enough defenses to stop or even challenge a Wizard will likely vaporize the Rogue.


Protecting the king is not about challenging the PC wizard. It is about a working campaign setting that makes sense. There are many more NPC wizards and rogues than PC wizards and rogues. Different from what players sometimes expect, the world doesn't stop when they go to sleep. PCs are not the center of the universe. NPCs have motivations and agendas, as well. Evil organizations, rival realms do.

Exactly my point. They shouldn't be just sitting their customizing for the PCs. They should have logical defenses. But there's no way to make logical defenses that work against the Wizard and yet don't splatter the Rogue (at least at mid to high levels).


Why should a rival realm start a war if it could just send a wizard of a reasonable level? If kings didn't protect, kingdoms would fall, all the time.

Let's say you're a mid-level non-caster PC. If your character would find himself crowned and given the responsibility to govern the realm... of course you would think about protection yourself, wouldn't you?

Yup! And I'd do things like have pit traps with ghoul glyphs in them over water that instant kill anyone who falls in (bye bye, Barbarian), undead with lifesight supported by spell turrets (say goodnight, Rogue), and so on.

The problem here isn't that people defend themselves. They should. The problem is that defenses strong enough to challenge a Wizard should destroy the Barbarian and Rogue. The illogical defenses are ones that shut down magic and have contingencies against the myriad spell attack possibilities, yet somehow fail to account for a guy with a decent hide checks or a muscly dude who can break down walls.

JaronK

[Calanon]

That would be when Helm killed Mystra during the Time of Troubles.

Really? The Time of Troubles? I honestly wouldn't know... never played a 1st edition game longer then 3 days :smalltongue: 2nd edition and 3.5 however are two different stories (or the same story... idk :smallconfused:)

[erikun]

great for meeting qualifications if I do say so myself. :smallbiggrin:

Anywho this is silliness, non-casters have perfectly good odds against casters. :smallbiggrin:
Oh, the Fighter does have a (very few) advantages for themself. They get feats faster, and so can fill out combat trees at lower level. They can multiclass better. In fact, a Barbarian 1/Fighter 1 with Cleave would probably be far better at killing things off than most Cleric 2 builds.

However, the problem with that is that the only thing a Fighter gets is feats. Clerics can pick up feats as well, as can everyone else. That's the problem; there is nothing unique about the Fighter. Every other class can, literally, take the Fighter's unique abilities. Producing a Shock Trooper-charger Fighter looks impressive until you realize that the Cleric can do the exact same thing by 6th level.

What's more, the Fighter's non-feat advantage is pretty unimpressive. I think I worked out in another thread that the numeric difference between a Fighter 10 and a Cleric 10 could be made up with a single, 2nd-level buff. A high-STR Cleric could easily run around with Fighter-level stats for over 10 encounters a day, and still have spells remaining for healing or other tasks. This isn't using DMM-Persist-Nightstick stunts for full BAB all day either, or even Extent metamagic. This is just one spell before each encounter.

And the other thing is that the few tricks that a Fighter can do could easily be replicated by magic, often quite low level magic. Fighter 10 could easily have chain-tripping, Shock Trooper-charging, and Great Cleaving, while a Druid 10... has a 1st-level spell, Entangle, that works just as effectively as the Fighter's four-feat tripping expense. And has an animal companion + summoning spells that can produce as much damage as the three-feat Great Cleave expense. And could even take Shock Trooper themselves, assuming they didn't prefer Natural Spell to transform into something impressive and buff their stats.


Also note that the Fighter we are talking about (Combat Reflexes + EWP: Spiked Chain + Improved Trip + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper + Great Cleave, perhaps with Dungeoncrasher variant) is pretty well optimized, and we are comparing him to basic Cleric and Druids with a single good spell or two... and he is comparing poorly. If we want a similar level of optimization with them, we are likely looking at DMM Persist, Knowledge Devotion Cloistered Cleric and a Druid with Wilding Clasps and Augment Summoning - something that makes the Fighter look even less relevant, and could probably make melee mostly irrelevant by 10th level.

[drack]

I'll speak bold
However, the problem with that is that the only thing a Fighter gets is feats. Clerics can pick up feats as well, as can everyone else. That's the problem; there is nothing unique about the Fighter. Every other class can, literally, take the Fighter's unique abilities. Producing a Shock Trooper-charger Fighter looks impressive until you realize that the Cleric can do the exact same thing by 6th level. Yeah, I hear ya, but don't underestimate that multiclassing bit, they can be useful when you really need 'em, and what you get from multiclassing can likely challenge that cleric.

What's more, the Fighter's non-feat advantage is pretty unimpressive. I think I worked out in another thread that the numeric difference between a Fighter 10 and a Cleric 10 could be made up with a single, 2nd-level buff. A high-STR Cleric could easily run around with Fighter-level stats for over 10 encounters a day, and still have spells remaining for healing or other tasks. This isn't using DMM-Persist-Nightstick stunts for full BAB all day either, or even Extent metamagic. This is just one spell before each encounter. Ad the cleric's non-spell-casting advantages are equally unimpressive, it's nothing to be shammed of :smallbiggrin: Also trust me, drop the night sticks, their bad rep bout cancels out their advantage, you can get plenty of turn/rebuke attempts without them. :smallbiggrin:

And the other thing is that the few tricks that a Fighter can do could easily be replicated by magic, often quite low level magic. Fighter 10 could easily have chain-tripping, Shock Trooper-charging, and Great Cleaving, while a Druid 10... has a 1st-level spell, Entangle, that works just as effectively as the Fighter's four-feat tripping expense. And has an animal companion + summoning spells that can produce as much damage as the three-feat Great Cleave expense. And could even take Shock Trooper themselves, assuming they didn't prefer Natural Spell to transform into something impressive and buff their stats.
Well it really depends on the situation, if you're facing down an army great cleave will be much better that a companion in terms of attacks you get out of it, (especially if you have some form of dervish-like battle dancing), and the shock tripper can do a fare bit more than that in terms of damage, I once DMed two, around 70 damage/attack with quite a few attacks (level 16)

Also note that the Fighter we are talking about (Combat Reflexes + EWP: Spiked Chain + Improved Trip + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper + Great Cleave, perhaps with Dungeoncrasher variant) is pretty well optimized, and we are comparing him to basic Cleric and Druids with a single good spell or two... and he is comparing poorly. If we want a similar level of optimization with them, we are likely looking at DMM Persist, Knowledge Devotion Cloistered Cleric and a Druid with Wilding Clasps and Augment Summoning - something that makes the Fighter look even less relevant, and could probably make melee mostly irrelevant by 10th level.The thing with summoners, is that they're generally not that tough when you attack them instead of their summons. The other thing to note is that it's a little more restricting to multiclass with full casters since you loose that advantage if you don't pick something that advances casting, so their real op isn't so much in multiclassing as in spell choice


Drack,

I HATE spellcaster. It literally makes me sick at times to think of how much WOTC screwed the pooch on the concept of balance between the classes. Even the far superior Warblade is still difficult to deal with wizards, and I've only gotten as far as a Mind focused dragonforged with lots of component items to get anywhere near what one needs to be a proficient wizard hunter, and even they will not take out the absolute rotten Limburger that is a 3.5 caster. I mean, with wealth by level, a fighter can only do so much, but wizards cheat and somehow have a free demiplane of existence! What the hell should that cost WBL? (and don't gimme that spell crap, fighters making their own weapons have to account for it in WBL). You really are not going to do well against the Purveyor of Wizardly Gouda themselves, Tippy. I've scoured more books than many, and it is exceedingly difficult to find the things to beat a wizard properly, without going third party. Then you start to get into feats that make you large, and other great stuff. Maybe if you go warblade, and have a high enough knowledge Arcana or Spellcraft, and are on forgotten realms, you could IHS the weave itself (or the three moons in Dragonlance, etc...), but you have to realize you are dealing with entities that are not even on this plane of existence. As much as I feel that WOTC decided to service spellcaster fanboys as would a copper piece harlot in a seedy back ally, even I recognize that against an optimized spellcaster, Conan would fall. And he is an undisputed trope slayer of the foul spellcaster types that exist throughout d20 3.5.
Kudos to you if you have puzzled together from every WOTC book how.to find the one way to kill a Tippy-cheddar-saurus Rex, but I haven't seen it done. Me, I will wait for the build to manifest, and silently hope that WOTC goes under, like I did for a long time with Palladium. Yeah, I always find it funny how every wizard I DM thinks that because they could have made it somewhere along the line they should get it free :smalltongue: WBL=the total value of everything you've collected and have not yet lost in some manner, no infinite viles of pain, that demiplane is a 9th level spell look under the 'goods and services' section and I'm sure you'll find the cost :smalltongue:
Ahh, sounds like a pain, generally the best way to beat a wizard is an ambush with something to dispel their foresight/star mantle, but if wizards get such a bonus from magic items why not take a few antmagic items and stick it to them? :smallconfused: (I don't necessarily mean antimagic, mostly just stuff that negates magic in general) Similarly nothing saying a fighter can't have a contingent greater dispel on him... :smallcool:


:smallsigh:

11th level Wizard. Orange ioun stone and a bead of karma (50,000 gp all together), granting a total of +5 to his caster level. Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration feats, each granting a +2 to overcome spell resistance.

Total modifier on the caster level check: +20. Required roll to beat 23 SR: 3.

Now cast Assay Spell Resistance, which gives a +10 bonus to CL checks for overcoming SR.

Total modifier: +30. Required roll to beat 23 SR: -7.

Spell resistance is pitifully easy to overcome, especially when it's the product of that awful spell resistance spell.

This isn't even particularly optimised. This is just a Wizard who plans on casting a lot of SR: Yes spells.
agreed, but I has tossed up that list more in the abstract, this build didn't really have SR in mind, but rather it was the follower of an epic cleric-like-class which had given it greater spell immunity, I was kinda trying to sell it without the epic help though...


If I can always kill you and you can never kill me, assuming the same level of optimization, is your definition of not inferior, then sure.
and if we can both kill each other? :smallconfused:

[olentu]

I'll speak bold

Yeah you might want to put your responses outside of the quotes.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, I hear ya, but don't underestimate that multiclassing bit, they can be useful when you really need 'em, and what you get from multiclassing can likely challenge that cleric.

Only reason Fighter multiclasses "better" than Cleric is that Fighter gains nothing of substance from the Fighter-levels while Cleric gains a ton of value (spells) so Fighter loses nothing/very little by multiclassing while Cleric loses a lot; too much for it to be worth it for Clerics. I...think that alone says all that needs to be said.

For some reason, much of the stuff in this post reminds me of certain part in YGOTAS... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmiUw52uP7A#t=3m04s)

[drack]

Only reason Fighter multiclasses "better" than Cleric is that Fighter gains nothing of substance from the Fighter-levels while Cleric gains a ton of value (spells) so Fighter loses nothing/very little by multiclassing while Cleric loses a lot; too much for it to be worth it for Clerics. I...think that alone says all that needs to be said.

For some reason, much of the stuff in this post reminds me of certain part in YGOTAS... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmiUw52uP7A#t=3m04s)

Not really, the bonus feats make it easier to meet the requirements for more PRCs giving you more options.

[Daisuke1133]

Drack, while the Fighter does indeed have many options to choose from in regards to picking feats, you don't seem to grasp that a great dearth of those options are worth less than nothing at levels higher than fifth or sixth.

[drack]

I understad vary well, I do not suggest 20 levels in fighter by any means, but I've rarely seen the casters overshadow other combatants to the degree people say they do. Preferring clerics myself I can easily see how spells can boost you to be on par with fighters, but at those levels the fighters have enough WBL that they could just get items to do the same. Thus I still believe that neither overshadows the other to such a great extent.

[Daisuke1133]

Just because you and anyone you play with don't play the spellcasters to their full potential does not mean that spellcasters cannot overshadow non-spellcasters. And your magic item argument doesn't hold water if the Fighter is not allowed to utilize the rules for custom magic items.

[drack]

true, but I was just hearing how custom items help casters so much more :smallconfused:

Were that the case than it still remains true that each class has their roll and that it would be better to have one or two casters, which means that each relies on the other. Not to mention that in my experience the caster matches the 'fighter' at his game, he doesn't surpass him, and that's before feats like shock trooper which while casters can get it takes away from potential other things which would help them more further directing the issue to the point that they're each better in their own place, no? Not to mention that the "fighter's" strength isn't negated by antimagic and the like...

[Eldariel]

Not really, the bonus feats make it easier to meet the requirements for more PRCs giving you more options.

That'd be more relevant if Fighter had any good PRCs available. Besides, Clerics/Wizards/whatever still don't care; their base chassis is better than what the PRCs Fighter feats would qualify them for provide them with for Fighter could multiclass however many times with or without their Fighter levels and it still wouldn't make a difference.

Cleric doesn't multiclass 'cause their casting is too valuable to trade for whatever the PRC provides (with few exceptions). Fighter doesn't get anything strong enough to make multiclassing away painful; Fighter multiclasses 'cause the Fighter class doesn't give you jack ****.

[Daisuke1133]

Anti-Magic Fields are a threat to non-casters not casters. An AMF's purpose is to protect against magic items and magical effects, that's why the area of effect is so small. Additionally, there are spells that are explicitly unaffected by an AMF and Mordenkainen's Disjuction can destroy them.

[Eldariel]

Anti-Magic Fields are a threat to non-casters not casters. An AMF's purpose is to suppress magic items, that's why the area of effect is so small. Additionally, there are spells that are explicitly unaffected by an AMF and Mordenkainen's Disjuction can destroy them.

Eh, that's not entirely true. AMF is relevant to everyone but pimped out Initiates of Mystra and epic casters. The difference is, casters have more tools to defend against AMF and are more able to operate at a range, while especially melee warriors are forced to go into it to fight the source which totally bones them (like, a target flying with shaped AMF around them; a warrior needs magic items for flight outside few exceptions so they actually can't reach the target since the magical flight is suppressed and they fall if they try to approach).

[Daisuke1133]

I must be really unfamiliar with Shape Spell, but it can change an emanation that centers on the caster? :smallconfused:

Anyway that can be overcome slightly with a bit of cleverness: dive in from above and grab onto the caster on the way down.

[Eldariel]

I must be really unfamiliar with Shape Spell, but it can change an emanation that centers on the caster? :smallconfused:

Archmage's Mastery of Shaping and Extraordinary Spell Aim feat both can do it.


Anyway that can be overcome slightly with a bit of cleverness: dive in from above and grab onto the caster on the way down.

*chuckle* Fail the check or have the caster's Contingencies/readied actions/immediate actions fire and you won't be a happy camper. But yeah, given enough move speed you could attack from above and mayhap even reach the target (but not nearly as easy or direct as normal; can't easily be a charge for instance)

[drack]

Anti-Magic Fields are a threat to non-casters not casters. An AMF's purpose is to protect against magic items and magical effects, that's why the area of effect is so small. Additionally, there are spells that are explicitly unaffected by an AMF and Mordenkainen's Disjuction can destroy them.

True, though as I said before I'm referring to magic that counters magic in general, and a 10' radius when you close ground on a caster it's more than enough. :smallcool:

Also I've been saying 'fighter' meaning some class or another that's good at melee/ranged combat, not necessarily the fighter class, though I'd hardly call a feat/level for the first too levels "Jack ****"...


Eh, that's not entirely true. AMF is relevant to everyone but pimped out Initiates of Mystra and epic casters. The difference is, casters have more tools to defend against AMF and are more able to operate at a range, while especially melee warriors are forced to go into it to fight the source which totally bones them (like, a target flying with shaped AMF around them; a warrior needs magic items for flight outside few exceptions so they actually can't reach the target since the magical flight is suppressed and they fall if they try to approach).
Flying mount? If you're dealing with flying enemies it's not that unreasonable, and the fighter's SMF will overlap with the shaped one catching your flying caster and he'll still drop like a stone... :smallconfused: Not to mention most chargers I've seen can either teleport or fly...

Ediit: teleport chargers? And contingencies aren't exclusively for casters... The ones that you can get multiple of are just magic items...

[Eldariel]

True, though as I said before I'm referring to magic that counters magic in general, and a 10' radius when you close ground on a caster it's more than enough. :smallcool:

Also I've been saying 'fighter' meaning some class or another that's good at melee/ranged combat, not necessarily the fighter class, though I'd hardly call a feat/level for the first too levels "Jack ****"...

It's not comparable to spellcasting, is the point. Fighter list just doesn't have feats of such power and versatility.


Flying mount? If you're dealing with flying enemies it's not that unreasonable, and the fighter's SMF will overlap with the shaped one catching your flying caster and he'll still drop like a stone... :smallconfused: Not to mention most chargers I've seen can either teleport or fly...

Holy ****, way to miss the point. But I'll entertain your comments here. Mounts have the problem of tending to die in collateral damage real fast (you bought a Mount. A Dragon breathes. Buy a new mount. Very inconvenient in the long run which is why mounted characters aren't very popular). And sure, you could fly the AMF. It's not an impenetrable problem mobility-wise. It is, however, a problem in that regard too and one you have to deal with while casters just simply don't enter it. The problems of entering an AMF are far more far-reaching.

A warrior in an AMF can't penetrate any manners of force obstacles. One cannot affect a target with immunity to weapon damage for instance. One cannot dispel any defenses. One loses all save/AC/to hit boosters. Warriors are terrible enough in AMFs that they can't beat any level appropriate encounters there. They're practically as badly screwed as spellcasters who ended up in there.

The difference is, spellcasters have means to avoid AMFs and no real incentive to enter one while melee warriors have to enter AMFs to reach enemies using the spell.


Of course chargers can teleport or fly but that takes magic and actions. They can't do that with their class features. Teleports fall under Anticipate Teleport (Hour/Level level 3 spell; pretty eminently available) so they're largely irrelevant if we're actually talking about a fight between a Warrior and a Wizard (who in their right mind would suggest such a fight anyways? I was just bringing up the fact that AMF is a problem for PCs in general, not just spellcasters), and flying is generally magical so it's just as easily removed as it is gained (except gaining it costs gold while removing it doesn't, of course).

[drack]

It's not comparable to spellcasting, is the point. Fighter list just doesn't have feats of such power and versatility.



Holy ****, way to miss the point. But I'll entertain your comments here. Mounts have the problem of tending to die in collateral damage real fast (you bought a Mount. A Dragon breathes. Buy a new mount. Very inconvenient in the long run which is why mounted characters aren't very popular). And sure, you could fly the AMF. It's not an impenetrable problem mobility-wise. It is, however, a problem in that regard too and one you have to deal with while casters just simply don't enter it. The problems of entering an AMF are far more far-reaching.

A warrior in an AMF can't penetrate any manners of force obstacles. One cannot affect a target with immunity to weapon damage for instance. One cannot dispel any defenses. One loses all save/AC/to hit boosters. Warriors are terrible enough in AMFs that they can't beat any level appropriate encounters there. They're practically as badly screwed as spellcasters who ended up in there.

The difference is, spellcasters have means to avoid AMFs and no real incentive to enter one while melee warriors have to enter AMFs to reach enemies using the spell.


Of course chargers can teleport or fly but that takes magic and actions. They can't do that with their class features. Teleports fall under Anticipate Teleport (Hour/Level level 3 spell; pretty eminently available) so they're largely irrelevant if we're actually talking about a fight between a Warrior and a Wizard (who in their right mind would suggest such a fight anyways? I was just bringing up the fact that AMF is a problem for PCs in general, not just spellcasters), and flying is generally magical so it's just as easily removed as it is gained (except gaining it costs gold while removing it doesn't, of course).
It has some decent ones, but I do understand where your coming from, all the same some times you have feat intensive builds (not a fan of builds myself, but pulling them out of my hat doesn't change that sometimes you need feats.


Mounts: where's the dragon coming from I thought this was a wizard, and who in the right mind would bring a wimpy mount without alternative methods of flight? :smallconfused:

rod of cancellation works for those :smallcool: and as I said a good 'fighter' isn't a good fighter because of magic, they can get better, but without they should still be able to hit a mage well enough. :smallcool:

Wait a minute blocking out some magic doesn't affect the thing that relies solely on magic, but instead harms the thing that hardly relies on magic? :smallconfused: you've lost me...

Magic items aren't so hard to come by, D&D is a magic rich environment, if we're taking boots of teleportation or such items away than are we doing the same for the wizard's casting? :smallconfused: Warriors don't care much for antimagic, just teleport a bit higher up :smallbiggrin:

*checks if bonuses stack on the build* my bad, one overlap, -16 to saves and it's now level 9 with feats open for charging :smallcool: -16 to AC and saves after antimagic, that still leaves saves and AC around 70...

[Malachei]

You're going about this from the wrong end. D&D is not a game about kings that just happens to include wizards, it's a game about wizards first and foremost. If fluff (kingdoms with mundane leaders) is inconsistent with crunch (wizards being more powerful than armies) then the fluff is not representing the crunch appropriately, not the other way around. As-is, in the D&D world, kingdoms would fall all the time (emphasis mine)

But first of all, telling me what is wrong or right about my game will not benefit the discussion. Your understanding of D&D is not subject to true seeing. It is your opinion. Respect my opinion, as you want me to respect yours.

Second, if you'd design the fluff (a campaign setting, in this discussion) based on the crunch, without assuming that people with enough resources can protect themselves, then:

1) You don't have a medieval (high or low) fantasy campaign anymore. You might end up with a mechanically driven, metagame-reasoned power play with perhaps a bit of Shadowrun-like conspiracies. Could be fun for you, could even be fun for me (for a session or two), but not everybody wants to play this way. A number of people want to play in a medieval (high or low) fantasy setting.

2) All official campaign settings break apart. Throw Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Golarion and every other campaign setting out of the window. They're officially made to support play, so I'd say your understanding of how a world must work like is not in line with the game.

3) Every campaign setting based on an epic fantasy novel (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, etc.) will not work under this approach.

4) A lot of officially published material is directly contradicting your understanding of the game. It has low-level NPCs leading cities and countries without everybody being under an NPC's spell. Official material even suggests you build your settings that way.

IMO, it is not good to tell people what is right or wrong about their game. Let them play the game they want to play. It is their game, after all. If they want kingdoms, let them have kingdoms.


But it makes no sense if the King doesn't think that way and yet still ends up with counters designed for the Wizard alone.

I completely agree. The king would need to protect against many threats. Assassins. Usurpers. Poison.


Exactly my point. They shouldn't be just sitting their customizing for the PCs. They should have logical defenses. But there's no way to make logical defenses that work against the Wizard and yet don't splatter the Rogue (at least at mid to high levels).

Yes, absolutely.


The problem here isn't that people defend themselves. They should. The problem is that defenses strong enough to challenge a Wizard should destroy the Barbarian and Rogue. The illogical defenses are ones that shut down magic and have contingencies against the myriad spell attack possibilities, yet somehow fail to account for a guy with a decent hide checks or a muscly dude who can break down walls.

Yes, of course he needs to account for the barbarian and rogue, for assassin and poison and "et tu, Brute?" But I don't see anything bad in letting everybody (including the barbarian or rogue) know how hard it is to kill the king. Or mind control him. Obviously, the adequate level of protection is derived from the greatest threat level your enemies are likely to be able to bring against you. And the limit is defined by his resources. Shutting down magic can be a logical defense in light of this.

[erikun]

Yeah, I hear ya, but don't underestimate that multiclassing bit, they can be useful when you really need 'em, and what you get from multiclassing can likely challenge that cleric.
Not so much. While the abilities of a Rogue, Barbarian, or Hexblade (for Mettle) are not quite as easily replicated by a spell, the spells available to a caster are generally far more useful. Barbarian 1 gives a +2 hit/+3 damage for one combat; is that really a fair exchange all the additional spells a Cleric would get at any additional level?


Ad the cleric's non-spell-casting advantages are equally unimpressive, it's nothing to be shammed of :smallbiggrin:
Air Devotion: +6 AC, 50% miss chance to ranged attack
Knowledge Devotion: +5 to hit, +5 damage
Law Devotion: +7 AC or +7 to hit
Protection Devotion: +7 AC, +7 AC to all allies within 30'
Travel Devotion: Move your speed as a swift action
Trickery Devotion: Create an illusionary duplicate

These are quite a bit better than what the Fighter, or most other melee classes, offer for abilities. If you think that grabbing feats from some random sourcebook is the problem, though, then consider this:

The Magic Domain allows the Cleric to use Wizard/Sorcerer magical equipment, similar to Use Magic Device but without the required check. UMD is generally considered to be one of the best skills in the game.

The Travel Domain grants Freedom of Movement for a limited number of rounds/day. This basically makes the Cleric immune to grapples or hazardous terrain, as it can be turned on/off as a free action to pass through the problematic area as needed.

The Trickery Domain gives the Cleric Bluff, Disguise, and Hide, just in case you were worried about their skill selection.

All of these are available from the PHB.

[drack]

I apologize, I'm accustomed to higher power games, and as such tend to dismiss such things, truly I could not look and say any one thing is particularly good to multiclass into as it only works so well as it goes towards what you're making. For instance if I'm making a necromancer I wouldn't grab a class with a bonus on swordplay unless I were making a sword welding necromancer which would require entirely different other classes than a more spell focused necromancer or one who hides away while his/her minions fight, or any number of other sorts of necromancer. Domains I understand full well to be entirely useful, but that one depends more on the design of your character and on the power level of the game, after all eventually Freedom of Movement becomes much more common, and a +7AC just isn't standing well against their +120 to hit. It all depends. :smallcool:

[utherphoenyx]

yes spell casters are in their own way all powerful....but it also is based entirely what books are allowed by the dm i.e if it is only core books non of the completes no spell compendium then well lets be honest half of the power you are spewing on the threads right now are moot

[Volthawk]

yes spell casters are in their own way all powerful....but it also is based entirely what books are allowed by the dm i.e if it is only core books non of the completes no spell compendium then well lets be honest half of the power you are spewing on the threads right now are moot

Noncore benefits non-casters more than casters. Many of the ways casters have their power are in core.

[olentu]

I apologize, I'm accustomed to higher power games, and as such tend to dismiss such things, truly I could not look and say any one thing is particularly good to multiclass into as it only works so well as it goes towards what you're making. For instance if I'm making a necromancer I wouldn't grab a class with a bonus on swordplay unless I were making a sword welding necromancer which would require entirely different other classes than a more spell focused necromancer or one who hides away while his/her minions fight, or any number of other sorts of necromancer. Domains I understand full well to be entirely useful, but that one depends more on the design of your character and on the power level of the game, after all eventually Freedom of Movement becomes much more common, and a +7AC just isn't standing well against their +120 to hit. It all depends. :smallcool:

Jeez if we were talking about higher powered games then why are we even bothering to talk about mundane classes like they exist as anything but a way for one party member to waste the resources of the real classes. Or perhaps you are thinking of a "very" specificly powered level of game.

[drack]

Jeez if we were talking about higher powered games then why are we even bothering to talk about mundane classes like they exist as anything but a way for one party member to waste the resources of the real classes. Or perhaps you are thinking of a "very" specificly powered level of game.

OK, I was talking about high powered games without infinite loops since they're just silly, and without homebrew that just gives unrealistic state boosts. fare enough :smalltongue: (yes even meleers have their infinite loops, and when everyone dies from a prick on the finger the game gets...'silly') :smallsigh:

After all we were talking about at least semi-decent spell selections, if so than why not semi-decent class choices for your 'fighter'?

[utherphoenyx]

Noncore benefits non-casters more than casters. Many of the ways casters have their power are in core.
true but my games have never fallen apart cause of the cleric druid wiz/sorc cause of the simple fact even at epic lvls the magic users show non magic uses respect if it wasn't for the fighter holding off the magic hunter monster in a dead zone you wouldn't be alive sorta thing not to mention game breaking spells and what not happen most times in a game where the players want to conquer the realms but hears the thing....any realm has its epic casters and such....do you think that a city or 2 might have a favor to call in or some such how about outta control players is really what the thread is about and epic wizards are the biggest mental masturbation in the game and clerics although mechanicaly speaking can break the game don't cause of one reason their deity prohibits them from doing so or bye bye power second i would love to see a wizard attack the king in my city....having friends in high places i.e their are celetials in disguise....solars

[olentu]

OK, I was talking about high powered games without infinite loops since they're just silly, and without homebrew that just gives unrealistic state boosts. fare enough (yes even meleers have their infinite loops, and when everyone dies from a prick on the finger the game gets...'silly')

After all we were talking about at least semi-decent spell selections, if so than why not semi-decent class choices for your 'fighter'?

Well anyway the point I was trying to make with my hyperbole is that it might be a good idea to be really very specific as to the type of game you are talking about since they can range from "Level 1 commoner fun times. No chicken infested." to "Sorry Bob, I would stay and hang out but I've got to go light this guy's galaxy on pain. No I don't have time to explain how that works. Feel free to beat on Joe with your infinite damage combo while I'm, out I made you both immune to damage so no harm done."

Even semi-decent choices have a rather wide range depending on who is deciding what is decent.

[drack]

I apologize for the confusion I meant neither of those, (how is going to deal infinite damage while destroying the galaxy not an infinite loop? :smallconfused:) I meant more like the party of level 10s that are strong enough to be called dragon slayers, but not cocky enough to think that they hold real sway in global politics. Generally I've been looking at quite a few levels, but your high end is just silly, and your low end sounds like an OK thing for level ones.

Explanations are simple enough, I just thought that this was a thread on debating mechanical balance of casters versus non-casters, not a coarse on character generation and what builds work better when. :smallconfused:

[olentu]

I apologize for the confusion I meant neither of those, (how is going to deal infinite damage while destroying the galaxy not an infinite loop? :smallconfused:) I meant more like the party of level 10s that are strong enough to be called dragon slayers, but not cocky enough to think that they hold real sway in global politics. Generally I've been looking at quite a few levels, but your high end is just silly, and your low end sounds like an OK thing for level ones.

Explanations are simple enough, I just thought that this was a thread on debating mechanical balance of casters versus non-casters, not a coarse on character generation and what builds work better when. :smallconfused:

Is not the crux of mechanical balance between casters and non-casters what character builds work better when.

[drack]

Well for both casters and non-casters you may select different things for different occasions. For instance I would not build a fighter for archery and give them a sword, nor for positive energy healing and give them all inflict spells. This same comparison carries through into finer changes mattering slightly less all the way down, and yet without heeding such simple logic any character would fail in the mechanical sense, just as one would fail in the fluff sense without a personality or background. They both work better at their own things, but I'm not talking about 'which is better for getting us in that building', I'm talking abut the decisions between 'who can best break through that one door with a spear', 'who can best pick the lock and rig it to stay open for when we return', all these different character elements that you could choose to include. That is what I'm talking about :smallbiggrin: Makes it so hard to make one individual character no? I tend to do fluff first since it gives me more to work with in terms of where to take the character.

[Eldariel]

It has some decent ones, but I do understand where your coming from, all the same some times you have feat intensive builds (not a fan of builds myself, but pulling them out of my hat doesn't change that sometimes you need feats.

You don't need Fighter-feats tho. Those you can get with a single 2nd level spell; Heroics gives you a Fighter feat. Get as many as you need. It's 10 mins/level. Fighter-feats are literally worth **** to a caster. If you take Fighter-levels, it's invariably for something else.


Mounts: where's the dragon coming from I thought this was a wizard, and who in the right mind would bring a wimpy mount without alternative methods of flight? :smallconfused:

Ok, if you're in a campaign where you play melee and have a mount, you'll encounter a Dragon and the mount dies. That's it. Mounts are a waste of money because tons of opponents will just accidentally kill them (let alone those who might consider them tasty snacks and kill them intentionally).

Either you don't have a mount or you waste resources burning them. Which makes buying a mount a bad idea. Ergo, you don't have a mount facing the Wizard 'cause it's not a reasonable option for your average campaign. You don't get to handpick your equipment for a specific fight, you have to use largely the same set throughout it unless you have some way to generate it on the spot (like Gate-spell or something).


rod of cancellation works for those :smallcool: and as I said a good 'fighter' isn't a good fighter because of magic, they can get better, but without they should still be able to hit a mage well enough. :smallcool:

Rod of Cancellation is one-shot 11k item. Who gives a ****? It's much cheaper for a Wizard to recast the spell with a readied action and takes the same action (or less) than for Fighter to use Rod of Cancellation (using it is a standard action, plus move to retrieve it).

In general, Rod of Cancellation is just way too expensive to use as a reliable counter to anything. You carry one as an "Oh ****!"-button and that's it; anything more is a waste.


Wait a minute blocking out some magic doesn't affect the thing that relies solely on magic, but instead harms the thing that hardly relies on magic? :smallconfused: you've lost me...

Problem isn't stopping a spellcaster with an AMF, it's getting the spellcaster to AMF. Shrink item (e.g. the classic "shrunken adamantine hat" which expands and blocks line of effect when touched by AMF since AMF suppresses Shrink Item), or Contingency, or Celerity or what have you make it so getting an object affected by AMF next to spellcaster is next to impossible unless you're a spellcaster yourself. Also, spellcasters still have Invoke Magic, Initiate of Mystra, etc.

I'm curious. 'cause if you claim you can actually take on level-appropriate creatures while inside an anti-magic field, I'm pretty sure you're either just stacking templates or lying. PCs, warriors or spellcasters, are reliant on magic. Warriors need magic to get their To Hit, Saves, AC, Miss Chance, Flight, Teleportation, Plane Shifting, Anti-Magic, etc. Seriously, how does a warrior in an anti-magic field escape the Positive Energy Plane for example? Or strike a creature attacking him through Astral Projections? Or bloody incorporeals, how do you hurt those? Hell, flying without magic requires Feathered Wings Graft (for Warblades & Swordsages mostly), Raptoran/Dragonborn or stupid Templates. Mages need magic to do all that too. At least they have Invoke Magic/Initiate of Mystra to use magic in Anti-Magic Fields/Dead Magic Zones tho (and magic that functions in both, like Gated/Bound creatures and Simulacrums).

The difference is, mages do it all better since they have class features augmented by the items instead of having to rely on items for all that. Mage can Teleport with the spell. No money expended. They can use money to cast it more times per day (cheaper than Teleport items of course) or cast it better. They don't need to buy Boots of Teleportation. They also don't need Planeshifting, Invisibility, True Seeing or similar essentials from magic items. They can do all that normally. And PCs, warriors or mages, need those abilities to truly be relevant threats to their opponents.

Denied magic, Warriors can't ever reach truly relevant adversaries not hit them nor save against their abilities nor avoid their attacks. They rely on magic items which are much easier to remove than spellcaster's spellcasting ability. One single Chain Greater Dispel Magic is going to demolish all your items and you can't protect your items with e.g. Ring of Greater Counterspells as the spell doesn't target you. Protecting oneself from Dispels is much easier than protecting one's items for dispels.


In short, warriors are just as dependent on magic as mages but they have to invest more resources in gaining access to it, they have less options for protecting it and they have a more limited array of magical options even with the money invested. They also have far worse array of options for countering magic than spellcasters. Spellcaster's opponent Teleports? They can divine the location and follow. Warrior's opponent Teleports? Sucks, guess they got away. That's about all there is to say about this.


Magic items aren't so hard to come by, D&D is a magic rich environment, if we're taking boots of teleportation or such items away than are we doing the same for the wizard's casting? :smallconfused: Warriors don't care much for antimagic, just teleport a bit higher up :smallbiggrin:

*checks if bonuses stack on the build* my bad, one overlap, -16 to saves and it's now level 9 with feats open for charging :smallcool: -16 to AC and saves after antimagic, that still leaves saves and AC around 70...

You're either template stacking or doing something illegal. Casters can template stack just the same so that proves nothing. Either way, you're proving nothing about warriors, nothing about balance and your AC could be 10000 and it still wouldn't matter but at least it'd be impressive.

A turtle is useless; enemies have no reason to attack him and it's not like he can follow them after teleports, burrowing, flight, plane shifting or anything else anyways. And he'll still die if anyone just destroys all his magic items. Which he can't protect. Then stick him in any damage-over-time ability inside a cage. He'll die eventually.

There's a reason high optimization games are all about spellcasters. They simply bring the most to table. Killing a Neutronium Golem (http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x230/ExarKun4321/1210695483931.png) is doable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159082) for a level 20 spellcaster simply because all it is is big numbers (like all of Immortals Handbook).

Obviously a high end spellcaster is always immune to all damage. There's no reason not to be. How does a warrior beat a spellcaster that's immune to damage? He has to dispel his defenses somehow. And since Dispelling abilities are all capped, that's not gonna do it. He needs to become a spellcaster and maximize his caster level, or try to land Disjunction or AMF somehow.

[drack]

You don't need Fighter-feats tho. Those you can get with a single 2nd level spell; Heroics gives you a Fighter feat. Get as many as you need. It's 10 mins/level. Fighter-feats are literally worth **** to a caster. If you take Fighter-levels, it's invariably for something else.

yes, you get it for it's abilities, your first evel in wizard isn't that good either, you get it in anticipation of needing it later to get something better :smallbiggrin:


Ok, if you're in a campaign where you play melee and have a mount, you'll encounter a Dragon and the mount dies. That's it. Mounts are a waste of money because tons of opponents will just accidentally kill them (let alone those who might consider them tasty snacks and kill them intentionally).

Either you don't have a mount or you waste resources burning them. Which makes buying a mount a bad idea. Ergo, you don't have a mount facing the Wizard 'cause it's not a reasonable option for your average campaign. You don't get to handpick your equipment for a specific fight, you have to use largely the same set throughout it unless you have some way to generate it on the spot (like Gate-spell or something).
I fear the universe has no such law that dictates that a dragon must kill your mount in any campaign with a mount.

I waste resources by burning my mount? I suppose if it tasted good enough...

No, I favor either easily replaceable ones, or something durable, mount was one of the three options I tossed out. I could as easily say 'your character can't fly just because I'm playing a melee combatant', but instead I simply suggested that 'fighters' can still reach you.


Rod of Cancellation is one-shot 11k item. Who gives a ****? It's much cheaper for a Wizard to recast the spell with a readied action and takes the same action (or less) than for Fighter to use Rod of Cancellation (using it is a standard action, plus move to retrieve it).

In general, Rod of Cancellation is just way too expensive to use as a reliable counter to anything. You carry one as an "Oh ****!"-button and that's it; anything more is a waste.
cool? :smallconfused: I'm glad that you are so enthusiastic and are well antiquated with your '*' key, but it doesn't really help... 'twas
but an example, your wall of force and flight would hardly stop for instance a teleport charger. :smallsigh: yes magi have the ability to prepare for eventualities, but it's rather troublesome to prepare for every eventuality, and you could be facing any sort of opponent. 'fighters' in general fare just fine against a wizard.


Problem isn't stopping a spellcaster with an AMF, it's getting the spellcaster to AMF. Shrink item (e.g. the classic "shrunken adamantine hat" which expands and blocks line of effect when touched by AMF since AMF suppresses Shrink Item), or Contingency, or Celerity or what have you make it so getting an object affected by AMF next to spellcaster is next to impossible unless you're a spellcaster yourself. Also, spellcasters still have Invoke Magic, Initiate of Mystra, etc.

I'm curious. 'cause if you claim you can actually take on level-appropriate creatures while inside an anti-magic field, I'm pretty sure you're either just stacking templates or lying. PCs, warriors or spellcasters, are reliant on magic. Warriors need magic to get their To Hit, Saves, AC, Miss Chance, Flight, Teleportation, Plane Shifting, Anti-Magic, etc. Seriously, how does a warrior in an anti-magic field escape the Positive Energy Plane for example? Or strike a creature attacking him through Astral Projections? Or bloody incorporeals, how do you hurt those? Hell, flying without magic requires Feathered Wings Graft (for Warblades & Swordsages mostly), Raptoran/Dragonborn or stupid Templates. Mages need magic to do all that too. At least they have Invoke Magic/Initiate of Mystra to use magic in Anti-Magic Fields/Dead Magic Zones tho (and magic that functions in both, like Gated/Bound creatures and Simulacrums).

The difference is, mages do it all better since they have class features augmented by the items instead of having to rely on items for all that. Mage can Teleport with the spell. No money expended. They can use money to cast it more times per day (cheaper than Teleport items of course) or cast it better. They don't need to buy Boots of Teleportation. They also don't need Planeshifting, Invisibility, True Seeing or similar essentials from magic items. They can do all that normally. And PCs, warriors or mages, need those abilities to truly be relevant threats to their opponents.

Denied magic, Warriors can't ever reach truly relevant adversaries not hit them nor save against their abilities nor avoid their attacks. They rely on magic items which are much easier to remove than spellcaster's spellcasting ability. One single Chain Greater Dispel Magic is going to demolish all your items and you can't protect your items with e.g. Ring of Greater Counterspells as the spell doesn't target you. Protecting oneself from Dispels is much easier than protecting one's items for dispels.


In short, warriors are just as dependent on magic as mages but they have to invest more resources in gaining access to it, they have less options for protecting it and they have a more limited array of magical options even with the money invested. They also have far worse array of options for countering magic than spellcasters. Spellcaster's opponent Teleports? They can divine the location and follow. Warrior's opponent Teleports? Sucks, guess they got away. That's about all there is to say about this.
What great tactical brilliance, he is going to hit me from above, so as soon as my flight cancels I'll have a giant chunk of metal appear over my head and plummet with me into the ground before hitting me at the bottom with the added force of his blows which it so easily absorbed, bravo good sir.

well the example I mentioned earlier was reliant on non-magical bonuses such as sacred and profane, I'm rather sure that those function within antimagic, Also fighting in antimagic, I'd probably make it a contingent spell item that triggers when I'm near a spellcaster and X, x being something like 'out of my bag' or the like that allows it to not antimagic random magi in the marketplace. I suppose permanent antimagic is possible, but when combating magi over trusting your permanency spell can be silly.

Lets see, ghost touch, portal through the astral (you know, like all the other commuters :smallwink:) A winged race can fly easily enough :smallconfused: ... if you buy all this please tell me how bankrupt your caster is, or if you cast it all how many minutes of game play it is before you rest :smallconfused: 'cuz this is just getting silly.

So while they're doing their chain of teleports with nondetection (mind blank ect) you're able to follow them with magic? :smallconfused: pretty impressive :smallbiggrin:


You're either template stacking or doing something illegal. Casters can template stack just the same so that proves nothing. Either way, you're proving nothing about warriors, nothing about balance and your AC could be 10000 and it still wouldn't matter but at least it'd be impressive.

A turtle is useless; enemies have no reason to attack him and it's not like he can follow them after teleports, burrowing, flight, plane shifting or anything else anyways. And he'll still die if anyone just destroys all his magic items. Which he can't protect. Then stick him in any damage-over-time ability inside a cage. He'll die eventually.

There's a reason high optimization games are all about spellcasters. They simply bring the most to table. Killing a Neutronium Golem (http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x230/ExarKun4321/1210695483931.png) is doable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159082) for a level 20 spellcaster simply because all it is is big numbers (like all of Immortals Handbook).

Obviously a high end spellcaster is always immune to all damage. There's no reason not to be. How does a warrior beat a spellcaster that's immune to damage? He has to dispel his defenses somehow. And since Dispelling abilities are all capped, that's not gonna do it. He needs to become a spellcaster and maximize his caster level, or try to land Disjunction or AMF somehow.
Only template is necropolitan, feel free :smallcool: Nope, I didn't break any laws of the multivesse, use infinite loops or anything else silly like that (kinda having trouble seeing the improbability...).

AC 1000 is well beyond me, you have me beat... than again a simple charger infinite loop could fix that if you wanna go to trippyverse... nope, this is just a warrior.

uh... huh... well yes but than we're back to a whoever goes first wins scenario... great job at demonstrating your superiority :smallsigh:

I've played my fare share, I've never seen it all be about spell casters...

Or get an item to do it for him, not to mention the huge gaps most epic casters leave in their wards... well than again I'll go out on a limb and assume I have more than a level 9 now that you have a 'high end' caster? :smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

I fear the universe has no such law that dictates that a dragon must kill your mount in any campaign with a mount.

I waste resources by burning my mount? I suppose if it tasted good enough...

A dragon tends to use breath weapon when you fight one. That tends to kill your mount. It isn't the only AOE either. Many random spells also do it. Many Outsiders use those by default. Mounts aren't good at surviving random AOE. What else needs to be said?

You play any normal campaign, your mount is going to die unless it has serious resources invested in its defenses. This means it's a lot of money invested in the mount and buying it over and over again, which tends to be far less profitable than good options for flight.


No, I favor either easily replaceable ones, or something durable, mount was one of the three options I tossed out. I could as easily say 'your character can't fly just because I'm playing a melee combatant', but instead I simply suggested that 'fighters' can still reach you.

No, you couldn't. That would be nonsensical. A mage is flying by default starting level 9 with Overland Flight. How do you prevent someone who's already airborne from flying?


cool? :smallconfused: I'm glad that you are so enthusiastic and are well antiquated with your '*' key, but it doesn't really help... 'twas
but an example, your wall of force and flight would hardly stop for instance a teleport charger. :smallsigh: yes magi have the ability to prepare for eventualities, but it's rather troublesome to prepare for every eventuality, and you could be facing any sort of opponent. 'fighters' in general fare just fine against a wizard.

They aren't as useful as a Wizard in an adventuring party though. They don't fare just fine against Wizards either but that's another matter. Over the course of a campaign, it's not sustainable to buy Rod of Cancellation for every time you face a spellcaster. You don't have the funds for it. You're proposing answers that only work in one-shots instead of real games. What's up with that?


What great tactical brilliance, he is going to hit me from above, so as soon as my flight cancels I'll have a giant chunk of metal appear over my head and plummet with me into the ground before hitting me at the bottom with the added force of his blows which it so easily absorbed, bravo good sir.

As soon as he the Cone spreads he can use magic. The whole purpose of the Cone is to simply block line of effect. Which it does. As long as he's subjected to an AMF, it's not affecting him. And frankly, I don't see anyone worried about taking maybe 15d6 falling damage. That's what, max. 90? Average 45. Hurts but won't kill a level 10 Mage.


well the example I mentioned earlier was reliant on non-magical bonuses such as sacred and profane, I'm rather sure that those function within antimagic, Also fighting in antimagic, I'd probably make it a contingent spell item that triggers when I'm near a spellcaster and X, x being something like 'out of my bag' or the like that allows it to not antimagic random magi in the marketplace. I suppose permanent antimagic is possible, but when combating magi over trusting your permanency spell can be silly.

Lets see, ghost touch, portal through the astral (you know, like all the other commuters :smallwink:) A winged race can fly easily enough :smallconfused: ... if you buy all this please tell me how bankrupt your caster is, or if you cast it all how many minutes of game play it is before you rest :smallconfused: 'cuz this is just getting silly.

So while they're doing their chain of teleports with nondetection (mind blank ect) you're able to follow them with magic? :smallconfused: pretty impressive :smallbiggrin:

Profane and sacred bonuses don't stack with themselves. Only highest Profane/Sacred bonus is applied at any given time. And they're practically invariably from magical sources (e.g. Devotion feats are Sp).

You actually take the time to walk over to a Portal the second someone Plane Shifts? Yeah, I'm sure you're gonna find 'em. Good luck.

Yeah, it's possible to follow someone with magic (generally COP/Commune subsumed into 1 turn to find the coordinates followed by teleport) if they're under Nondetection/Mind Blank. It's not possible to do so for mundanes.


Only template is necropolitan, feel free :smallcool: Nope, I didn't break any laws of the multivesse, use infinite loops or anything else silly like that (kinda having trouble seeing the improbability...).

AC 1000 is well beyond me, you have me beat... than again a simple charger infinite loop could fix that if you wanna go to trippyverse... nope, this is just a warrior.

So you're breaking rules. Because the game doesn't have enough numeric boosters to get 70 AC without any loops, spells or templates/races on level 9. That's fine for your games but it's not exactly something to use in an argument at an online forum since these discussions are about the game played by its rules, not about D&D as freeform.

[DiBastet]

*whispers* whenever i see this kind of thing I'm glad I revised the whole magic system, magic item system and even skill system, granting many abilities that in vanilla only spells grant. That teaches a good lesson.

Please, keep on fighting guys.

[olentu]

Well for both casters and non-casters you may select different things for different occasions. For instance I would not build a fighter for archery and give them a sword, nor for positive energy healing and give them all inflict spells. This same comparison carries through into finer changes mattering slightly less all the way down, and yet without heeding such simple logic any character would fail in the mechanical sense, just as one would fail in the fluff sense without a personality or background. They both work better at their own things, but I'm not talking about 'which is better for getting us in that building', I'm talking abut the decisions between 'who can best break through that one door with a spear', 'who can best pick the lock and rig it to stay open for when we return', all these different character elements that you could choose to include. That is what I'm talking about :smallbiggrin: Makes it so hard to make one individual character no? I tend to do fluff first since it gives me more to work with in terms of where to take the character.

How difficult it is to do everything for a particular class does depend on the level of power in the game so that is why it is important to get just which one is being talked about well defined.

[drack]

I'll speak bold
A dragon tends to use breath weapon when you fight one. That tends to kill your mount. It isn't the only AOE either. Many random spells also do it. Many Outsiders use those by default. Mounts aren't good at surviving random AOE. What else needs to be said?

You play any normal campaign, your mount is going to die unless it has serious resources invested in its defenses. This means it's a lot of money invested in the mount and buying it over and over again, which tends to be far less profitable than good options for flight.
No, mounts can be durable and rather useful. True it does requite some investment, but why even bother if you're just tossing 100gold on a horse? (assuming you intend it for combat)


No, you couldn't. That would be nonsensical. A mage is flying by default starting level 9 with Overland Flight. How do you prevent someone who's already airborne from flying?
Yes, everyone can fly if they choose to be able to, I fail to see why a flying mount/flying race/teleporting item makes it so impossible for anyone else to fly.


They aren't as useful as a Wizard in an adventuring party though. They don't fare just fine against Wizards either but that's another matter. Over the course of a campaign, it's not sustainable to buy Rod of Cancellation for every time you face a spellcaster. You don't have the funds for it. You're proposing answers that only work in one-shots instead of real games. What's up with that?
Mostly because I'm too lazy to look up a decent way to deal with them. There are plenty of other ways to disrupt or absorb spells, I'm just saying rod of cancellation as one example. And yes 'warriors' are plenty useful and capable against or with a wizard. As I said before it depends what you build them for


As soon as he the Cone spreads he can use magic. The whole purpose of the Cone is to simply block line of effect. Which it does. As long as he's subjected to an AMF, it's not affecting him. And frankly, I don't see anyone worried about taking maybe 15d6 falling damage. That's what, max. 90? Average 45. Hurts but won't kill a level 10 Mage. actually caps out at 20d6, and I can't really see it not inconveniencing you...



Profane and sacred bonuses don't stack with themselves. Only highest Profane/Sacred bonus is applied at any given time. And they're practically invariably from magical sources (e.g. Devotion feats are Sp). I know this, hence why i dropped the 16 to saves and made it level 9, quick fix :smallcool:

You actually take the time to walk over to a Portal the second someone Plane Shifts? Yeah, I'm sure you're gonna find 'em. Good luck. :smallconfused: why do I need it for that? I go to the portal when I need to go back and forth. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, it's possible to follow someone with magic (generally COP/Commune subsumed into 1 turn to find the coordinates followed by teleport) if they're under Nondetection/Mind Blank. It's not possible to do so for mundanes. Yup, and which competent person are you trying to teleport after when you have no idea where they are? If they escape they escape weather your caster or 'fighter', it's easier just to stop their escaping. :smallwink:


So you're breaking rules. Because the game doesn't have enough numeric boosters to get 70 AC without any loops, spells or templates/races on level 9. That's fine for your games but it's not exactly something to use in an argument at an online forum since these discussions are about the game played by its rules, not about D&D as freeform.
Well I was actually following the rules, but I see that you clearly won't believe me, so I confess, it's probably impossible if you're also going for full casting. All the same without full casting it's plenty possible... or is it just that every 'fighter' able to best a mage is 'breaking the rules'? After all this one wasn't really mage for that, he's more generic...

[Psyren]

That would be when Helm killed Mystra during the Time of Troubles.

Mystra: "omg let me back in, I left my keys"
Helm: "gtfo nooblet"
Mystra: "no u!!"
Helm crits Mystra for over 9000 damage. Magic dies.
Helm: "OH SHI-"
Ao: "lololol"

[Tyndmyr]

I will be the first to admit I'm not good a D&D. Well, at least at knowing the rules inside and out. But one common thought I've seen echoed across this forum is the superiorty of spellcasters; wizards in particular.

From what I've seen, a wizard who knows what he's doing is so far and beyond better then any other class that he renders them all moot. Why even bother playing a non-wizard, then? (This is a serious question)

See also, the tiers. There are differences between classes, but this makes it seem rather more severe than it is. Also, there are a large number of reasons to play classes other than wizard.


I hear that 3.5 puts more emphasis on roleplay then 4.0, but does 4.0 blance out the power discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters? Being able to make nigh-invincible builds like the ones that Tippy fellow always posts annoys me, and if 4.0 fixes that I'd have to give it a shot!

Sort of. I believe the first infinite combo in 4e was discovered in beta. There is rather less space between the different tiers of classes than there is in 3.5, but system mastery is still a thing.

As for the nigh-invincible builds...if they annoy you, don't play with them?

Extremely high-op builds generally only see actual use in extremely high op games. These are a small minority of games, in my opinion.

[Eldariel]

*snip*

I'll believe you once you post a build that does what you claim. Otherwise I'm going to assume you're misreading rules or forgetting some limitations; it's frighteningly common.

As for why you'd want to Plane Shift or Teleport, the question was about facing creatures with those abilities. You can't catch 'em if they can just Plane Shift away and you have no means of chasing.

[drack]

I'll believe you once you post a build that does what you claim. Otherwise I'm going to assume you're misreading rules or forgetting some limitations; it's frighteningly common.

As for why you'd want to Plane Shift or Teleport, the question was about facing creatures with those abilities. You can't catch 'em if they can just Plane Shift away and you have no means of chasing.

Guess you'll believe as you will :smallcool:

The question than is whether or not that alone lets you catch them. If you can run at the same speed as someone, true you're better off than someone who can walk, but not better off than one who can trip the other :smalltongue: (metaphorically speaking)

[Malachei]

Arena Fight?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Guess you'll believe as you will :smallcool:

You won't get any cred until you post a build that does everything you claim.

[Coidzor]

*whispers* whenever i see this kind of thing I'm glad I revised the whole magic system, magic item system and even skill system, granting many abilities that in vanilla only spells grant. That teaches a good lesson.

Please, keep on fighting guys.

Lotta work, but you get what you put into it, that's for sure.

[drack]

You won't get any cred until you post a build that does everything you claim.

good, I don't care for credit :smalltongue: though more to the point I'm lazy, and not good at sharing, but all the same my point being not that any one specific build exists that can beat a caster so much as that in general the strength between the two levels out a bit. That is not to say that all good characters are casters or not, in fact many are a blend of the two. For this discussion which way are we counting partial casters, and those that take just enough to have level one and two spell slots to sacrifice for power, where are we placing classes with abilities that equivocate to something akin to spells, ect? (I've admittedly been considering such things as not 'full casters'...)

[olentu]

good, I don't care for credit :smalltongue: though more to the point I'm lazy, and not good at sharing, but all the same my point being not that any one specific build exists that can beat a caster so much as that in general the strength between the two levels out a bit. That is not to say that all good characters are casters or not, in fact many are a blend of the two. For this discussion which way are we counting partial casters, and those that take just enough to have level one and two spell slots to sacrifice for power, where are we placing classes with abilities that equivocate to something akin to spells, ect? (I've admittedly been considering such things as not 'full casters'...)

See the thing is you're basing your argument completely on these theoretical abilities that noncasters have without actually bothering to show that they have them at the particular level of power that you are talking about (note that while the abilities described are reasonable at a particular level of power the same amount of work, or quite possibly less, put into casters makes it rather completely irrelevant). It is rather reasonable to ask that you demonstrate the thing that your entire argument rests upon.

[Calanon]

Mystra: "omg let me back in, I left my keys"
Helm: "gtfo nooblet"
Mystra: "no u!!"
Helm crits Mystra for over 9000 damage. Magic dies.
Helm: "OH SHI-"
Ao: "lololol"

MUST. RESIST. URGE. TO SIG!!!

(Damn failed my saving throw :smallfrown:)

Do you mind If I do so? :smallbiggrin:

[drack]

See the thing is you're basing your argument completely on these theoretical abilities that noncasters have without actually bothering to show that they have them at the particular level of power that you are talking about (note that while the abilities described are reasonable at a particular level of power the same amount of work, or quite possibly less, put into casters makes it rather completely irrelevant). It is rather reasonable to ask that you demonstrate the thing that your entire argument rests upon.

My argument does not rest upon any one set of numbers, it rests upon the point that overall it's easier to get decent class features that can match up against spells when not worrying about maintaining full casting. :smallbiggrin:

[Zale]

Can we see this build?

Pretty Please? :smallsmile:

[Flickerdart]

My argument does not rest upon any one set of numbers, it rests upon the point that overall it's easier to get decent class features that can match up against spells when not worrying about maintaining full casting. :smallbiggrin:
So your argument has no evidence backing it. That's curious.

[olentu]

My argument does not rest upon any one set of numbers, it rests upon the point that overall it's easier to get decent class features that can match up against spells when not worrying about maintaining full casting. :smallbiggrin:

That is just a larger set of numbers. It still relies on this theoretical ability of non-casters that you have not demonstrated. If it really was as easy as you say to get these class features that match up favorably to spells then it should be a simple task to show how one would go about doing so.

[drack]

mostly it's allot of typing and back checking, namely more than I consider this argument to be worth, but I did post a link to like things, paladin 2 would get you +cha to saves, blackguard gets you +cha, and toss in bone knight 1 you get to keep them both, mystic wander 1 gives +cha to AC, and so on. true this is much simpler than that character, and deals less with feats, doesn't deal with how an epic's subordinates could get high abilities, but honestly I don't play 'fighters' often enough to make a decent one. This one just has big chunky numbers and as such should be easy to out maneuver. :smallcool:

So your argument has no evidence backing it. That's curious.

Well I tossed up this earlier http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732 which is where I got most of the bonuses for that, but there are tens of like lists floating about with different foci such as good charger abilities, good ones for mounted 'fighters' and so on, I wouldn't say that's no evidence, I'd say it's non-concrete evidence :smallbiggrin:

[Garwain]

The first problem is how the DM runs the game. A lot of DM's are quite soft to wizards.
True. While it is perfectly acceptable to beat the melee types on their weak spot, the wizard is seldom targeted on his.

example: A rust monster can eat a fighter's sword, but a wizard spellbook cannot be stolen. You know why? Because a fighter without a sword is still a fighter, but a wizard without his spells is just a fragile robe. And it would be 'unfair' to nerf a wizard like that.

Now that I think about it, it's just like an item familiar. There is an expensive risk in loosing the familiar, but it's 'unfair' if it actually happens.

[Elric VIII]

True. While it is perfectly acceptable to beat the melee types on their weak spot, the wizard is seldom targeted on his.

example: A rust monster can eat a fighter's sword, but a wizard spellbook cannot be stolen. You know why? Because a fighter without a sword is still a fighter, but a wizard without his spells is just a fragile robe. And it would be 'unfair' to nerf a wizard like that.

Now that I think about it, it's just like an item familiar. There is an expensive risk in loosing the familiar, but it's 'unfair' if it actually happens.

The problem with this is that it's easy, yet time consuming to protect the spellbook. The weapon is a bit harder to protect to that extent.

Most people don't go for a spellbook because the resulting backlash of protective measures will end up boing down the game.

[olentu]

mostly it's allot of typing and back checking, namely more than I consider this argument to be worth, but I did post a link to like things, paladin 2 would get you +cha to saves, blackguard gets you +cha, and toss in bone knight 1 you get to keep them both, mystic wander 1 gives +cha to AC, and so on. true this is much simpler than that character, and deals less with feats, doesn't deal with how an epic's subordinates could get high abilities, but honestly I don't play 'fighters' often enough to make a decent one. This one just has big chunky numbers and as such should be easy to out maneuver. :smallcool:


Well I tossed up this earlier http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732 which is where I got most of the bonuses for that, but there are tens of like lists floating about with different foci such as good charger abilities, good ones for mounted 'fighters' and so on, I wouldn't say that's no evidence, I'd say it's non-concrete evidence :smallbiggrin:

Yeah without a build that looks like no evidence. I mean sure one can stack a whole bunch of stuff but that does not mean the character will be worth anything at all. Depending on what you stack the character may even be worse off in the end.

[drack]

OK, no evidence than. :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

mostly it's allot of typing and back checking, namely more than I consider this argument to be worth, but I did post a link to like things, paladin 2 would get you +cha to saves, blackguard gets you +cha, and toss in bone knight 1 you get to keep them both, mystic wander 1 gives +cha to AC, and so on. true this is much simpler than that character, and deals less with feats, doesn't deal with how an epic's subordinates could get high abilities, but honestly I don't play 'fighters' often enough to make a decent one. This one just has big chunky numbers and as such should be easy to out maneuver. :smallcool:


Well I tossed up this earlier http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732 which is where I got most of the bonuses for that, but there are tens of like lists floating about with different foci such as good charger abilities, good ones for mounted 'fighters' and so on, I wouldn't say that's no evidence, I'd say it's non-concrete evidence :smallbiggrin:
If you'd actually read the sources you're citing, you'd see that Mystic Wanderer requires spellcasting to enter. Even if it didn't, you just wasted a third of your character's levels and have no offensive capability to show for it. You can't win if you can't hurt your opponent, and casters are very difficult to hurt.

[olentu]

OK, no evidence than. :smallbiggrin:

Joking aside, that would be why people are asking for you to present anything that backs up your claims. I mean by your standard of proof I can just link to a listing of all 3.5 books and say that proves anything about the system.

[Zale]

OK, no evidence than. :smallbiggrin:

Ok, no argument then.

:smallbiggrin: