Power Levels of Classes By Level [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Ernir

2012-08-31, 06:37 PM

Yeah, the tier system linked above is kind of on the required reading (and understanding) list...

Level 1: Fighter>Rogue>Druid>Cleric>Wizard

Level 20: Wizard>Druid>Cleric>Fighter=Rogue
Hmm. On those particular classes and rankings, I'd put it more like

Level 1:
Druid > Wizard > Fighter = Cleric > Rogue.

Druid first because of Animal Companion being a friggin' cheat, and useful spells. Wizards because of useful spells that can end a ridiculous myriad of encounters (with a saving throw). Fighter = Cleric because I'm not very impressed by the first-level Cleric spell list at CL 1, this should change depending on how good you are at picking Fighter feats vs. picking Cleric domains. Rogue last due to hit points and its bonus damage not being very significant (most things die in one hit anyway).

Level 20:
Wizard = Cleric = Druid > Rogue > Fighter

The fullcasters equal because they are stealing from each others' spell lists and breaking things to hell anyway. Perhaps the Druid is a bit weaker, but meh. Rogue because skills, and ability to kill anything on a full attack. Fighter last because of his inability to do anything but kill things with a (full) attack.

Thrice Dead Cat

2012-08-31, 06:38 PM

Usefulish, but the tier system is much more centered on high level play. While it's true that, by level 20, a wizard far outstrips a fighter in terms of usefulness, at level 1, the reverse is true. I guess I'm trying to get a feeling for when that balance shifts.

Thank you for the link, though :)

Even a level one wizard has tools like grease, color spray, and sleep that can shut down an encounter at first level.

eggs

2012-08-31, 06:41 PM

If you want to balance class features against one another, do it directly, not based on who gets those class features. The Paladin's mount, for instance, is a very powerful feature which would likely be devalued through this sort of comparison.

But to respond to your question, I'd probably rank it Fighter<Rogue<[Cleric/Wizard until level 9; Druid after level 9]<[Druid until level 9; Cleric/Wizard after level 9], with the greater-than sign between Rogue and the casters growing larger and larger past ECL 7.

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 06:52 PM

Usefulish, but the tier system is much more centered on high level play. While it's true that, by level 20, a wizard far outstrips a fighter in terms of usefulness, at level 1, the reverse is true. I guess I'm trying to get a feeling for when that balance shifts.

Thank you for the link, though :)

I was thinking of the point buy solution offered
wizard, druid & cleric get 24 (give um 25 says me)
rogue gets 36
fighter gets 40

let the fighter (& rogue) rule the roost at start, their days are numbered, as you well know.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 07:41 PM

Play Mutants & Masterminds, it's point-based d20.

Coidzor

2012-08-31, 11:13 PM

Even a level one wizard has tools like grease, color spray, and sleep that can shut down an encounter at first level.

Didn't we have a thread earlier this year where a first level wizard was actually consistently taking out a party of 3rd level characters with only his animal companion(UA substitution for familiar) for backup?

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-08-31, 11:25 PM

I don't get why people mention grease at first level. The duration is rounds/level, meaning it only comes into its own a few levels later.

Anyway, I find that at the table, player optimization levels are much more important than base class. If you're "rewarding" the optimizer with higher point buys for taking a fighter and "penalizing" the noob for taking a Cleric, the optimizer's Dungeoncrashing Zhentarim Soldier will tear everything up even more while the Cleric still mostly throws cures around. Of course, correcting for optimization level has its own problems; putting the optimizer on an uneven playing field is a hard sell. It's better to do group character creation where people can make characters that naturally complement each other and give everyone a time to shine.

Randomguy

2012-08-31, 11:33 PM

I was thinking of the point buy solution offered
wizard, druid & cleric get 24 (give um 25 says me)
rogue gets 36
fighter gets 40

let the fighter (& rogue) rule the roost at start, their days are numbered, as you well know.

Wouldn't every decent optimizer just be a fighter 1/Wizard 19, then? Or a gish, even?

Anyway this is leaning into "you guys can't have fun just yet" territory.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-08-31, 11:41 PM

Didn't we have a thread earlier this year where a first level wizard was actually consistently taking out a party of 3rd level characters with only his animal companion(UA substitution for familiar) for backup?

Yes; I remember that thread (I was the "other" contestant). dextercorvia won three times out of three with a first-level Wizard casting nothing but Color Spray and Grease (and other SRD material) against a party of four third-level adventurers.

I, on the other hand, went one out of three (with three "technical wins", where the Barbarian would have won had he been a Boar Totem instead) with a SRD-only Barbarian optimized to become large and Cleave.

I actually did a level-by-level with detailed analysis, reasoned explanations, and backed up by a set of well-researched, point-for-point arguments explaining why the Barbarian was second only to the Druid at first level, and the Wizard was among the weakest at this level.

And then I was proven wrong.

Oh boy, was I proven wrong.

TuggyNE

2012-08-31, 11:41 PM

Didn't we have a thread earlier this year where a first level wizard was actually consistently taking out a party of 3rd level characters with only his animal companion(UA substitution for familiar) for backup?

Yes. He actually did better than a level 1 Barbarian. (3/3 fights as opposed to 1/3 fights.) It was ... enlightening.

Edit: neatly Abrupt Jaunted by the man himself!

HunterOfJello

2012-08-31, 11:49 PM

Totemist should be near the front for level 2. Damn they're strong.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-08-31, 11:55 PM

Yes. He actually did better than a level 1 Barbarian. (3/3 fights as opposed to 1/3 fights.) It was ... enlightening.

Edit: neatly Abrupt Jaunted by the man himself!

The words "the wizard is making little gun movements with his hands at you" will haunt me until death.

ori_natic

2012-09-01, 12:00 AM

Can I get a link to this thread?

Lonely Tylenol

2012-09-01, 12:25 AM

Can I get a link to this thread?

The Power Challenge thread can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-229753.html) (it's archived).

The discussion that inspired it, between dextercorvia, Phaederkiel, and myself, begins in the third page of the Class Power by Level thread, which can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12543740). (My analysis is, I believe, at the end of the second page.)

ori_natic

2012-09-01, 01:53 AM

Ah. That was just what I was looking for. Thank you :)

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 11:45 AM

Didn't we have a thread earlier this year where a first level wizard was actually consistently taking out a party of 3rd level characters with only his animal companion(UA substitution for familiar) for backup?

PvP means next to nothing when it comes to actual game play. Your wizard survived a hard encounter. Nice.
Now how will he deal with the other 3 encounters in the day without any spells to cast?
Try putting a level 1 wizard alone versus 8 kobolds (CR 3) and let's see how it goes.

Randomguy

2012-09-01, 12:33 PM

PvP means next to nothing when it comes to actual game play. Your wizard survived a hard encounter. Nice.
Now how will he deal with the other 3 encounters in the day without any spells to cast?
Try putting a level 1 wizard alone versus 8 kobolds (CR 3) and let's see how it goes.

You mean the run of the mill kobold warriors in the monster manual? The ones with an 80% chance of failing their saves against a dc 16 color spray? The ones that can have a 96% chance of being killed by a fiery burst? Those kobolds?

EDIT: Actually my math is off a bit for the fiery burst, since it has a saving throw. Let's see...
It's a DC 17 saving throw, (i'm assuming 20 int at level 1 from a race with an int bonus) so a kobold with +1 reflex passes 5/20 or 25% of the time. Fiery burst (obtained through precocious apprentice) does 2d6 damage, which has a 33/36 chance of dealing 4 or more damage, which is a kill on a failed save, and a 15/36 chance of dealing 8 or more damage, which is a kill on a successful save.
So that's 33/36*0.75+15/36*0.25 = 79.2% chance of killing a kobold with a fiery burst. Which are slightly less cool looking odds, but still more likely than not.

zlefin

2012-09-01, 02:03 PM

you should check out this guy's class building system:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251994

Hand_of_Vecna

2012-09-01, 02:04 PM

PvP means next to nothing when it comes to actual game play. Your wizard survived a hard encounter. Nice.
Now how will he deal with the other 3 encounters in the day without any spells to cast?

As a rule, wouldn't the "encounter" in the above thread be a super ultra mega boss? Trying to force a typical 4 encounter day on top of that would be beyond sadistic. Also if we assumed he's in a party and just "virtually" solo'd the "boss fight" while conserving spells the rest of the day or being "burned out" afterwards (though he could have a few scrolls for emergencies, level one scrolls are cheap, even at level 1) he'd definatly be the party MVP.

Try putting a level 1 wizard alone versus 8 kobolds (CR 3) and let's see how it goes.

A wizard built to solo? If so, Walking around with Mage armor on himself and his wolf companion via share spells. He has Imp Initiative (via martial Wizard) so he probably get's initiative, if not he'll need a little luck to survive the kobolds each have about a 1 in 4 (1 in 3 on a charge) chance to it in melee if they can reach him and do 2.66 points of damage on a hit, ranged they have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting for an average of 1.3. Better than I thought before I crunched the numbers assuming AC 16 (mage armor, 14 dex) he'd survive a round of all out assault from the kobolds with average rolls, I was spit balling him around a 40% chance of survival. He does even better if the kobolds split attacks or focus on the wolf who will look like the bigger/immediate threat.

Anyway he probably wins Initiative and casts shield off a scroll raising his AC to 20 and his wolf's to 22. He shouts "Sic Balls" and the wolf charges the largest grouping while the wizard uses his move action to try get partial cover. The kobolds honestly have no chance against an AC 22 wolf and on round 2 the Wizard starts using a ranged weapon to back up his companion, starting with whichever kobold (if any) appears to be the leader in hopes of maximizing the loot left behind when the outmatched kobolds flee.

Expendature:
1 scroll gp value (12.5 gp)
an indeterminant number of crossbow bolts (trivial)
quite possibly 0 hp
no spells (priceless)

Coidzor

2012-09-01, 02:25 PM

PvP means next to nothing when it comes to actual game play. Your wizard survived a hard encounter. Nice.
Now how will he deal with the other 3 encounters in the day without any spells to cast?
Try putting a level 1 wizard alone versus 8 kobolds (CR 3) and let's see how it goes.

You do know that due to the way 3rd edition is constructed, most encounters would fail your "PvP" test, right?

And that you're willfully ignoring a component of relative class power by being so caustic in your denigration of the scenario.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 02:26 PM

You mean the run of the mill kobold warriors in the monster manual? The ones with an 80% chance of failing their saves against a dc 16 color spray? The ones that can have a 96% chance of being killed by a fiery burst? Those kobolds?

Yeah, those guys that guard caves, stay at range, build traps and wouldn't ever be grouped together to be caught by a single spell. Those kobolds.

As a rule, wouldn't the "encounter" in the above thread be a super ultra mega boss? Trying to force a typical 4 encounter day on top of that would be beyond sadistic. Also if we assumed he's in a party and just "virtually" solo'd the "boss fight" while conserving spells the rest of the day or being "burned out" afterwards (though he could have a few scrolls for emergencies, level one scrolls are cheap, even at level 1) he'd definatly be the party MVP.
Wait, when did wizards start getting more than 100 gp at level 1? You're already spending 100 gp on the familiar.

A wizard built to solo? If so, Walking around with Mage armor on himself and his wolf companion via share spells. He has Imp Initiative (via martial Wizard) so he probably get's initiative, if not he'll need a little luck to survive the kobolds each have about a 1 in 4 (1 in 3 on a charge) chance to it in melee if they can reach him and do 2.66 points of damage on a hit, ranged they have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting for an average of 1.3. Better than I thought before I crunched the numbers assuming AC 16 (mage armor, 14 dex) he'd survive a round of all out assault from the kobolds with average rolls, I was spit balling him around a 40% chance of survival. He does even better if the kobolds split attacks or focus on the wolf. 1.3
Why would the kobolds engage him in melee? :smallconfused:
They should stay ranged, separated, avoiding his area spells and attacking with the slings.

Anyway he probably wins Initiative and casts shield off a scroll raising his AC to 20 and his wolf's to 22.
And one kobold throws a tanglefoot bag at him (they get treasure as normal). And the others pelt him with bullets. And he dies.

He shouts "Sic Balls" and the wolf charges the largest grouping while the wizard uses his move action to try get partial cover.
As soon as the wolf charges, the effect of Mage Armor and Shield ends. The wolf kills one kobold, the other kobolds pelt it to death.

The kobolds honestly have no chance against an AC 22 wolf
It's a good thing his AC is 14 then. ". The animal companion must be within 5 feet of her at the time of casting to receive the benefit. If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the animal companion if the companion moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the animal again, even if it returns to the druid before the duration expires."

and on round 2 the Wizard starts using a ranged weapon to back up his companion, starting with whichever kobold (if any) appears to be the leader in hopes of maximizing the loot left behind when the outmatched kobolds flee.
Basically, your optimized wizard can only do so if the kobolds are played a lot below his optimizaiton level. That says nothing about the wizard.

You do know that due to the way 3rd edition is constructed, most encounters would fail your "PvP" test, right?
What do you mean? Care to elaborate?

And that you're willfully ignoring a component of relative class power by being so caustic in your denigration of the scenario.
If you mean how classes fair against each other is relevant to how much their abilities should cost, yes, I'm ignoring it. D&D is not about fighting other players. And if you excuse me, I don't think I was caustic at all.

Hand_of_Vecna

2012-09-01, 02:54 PM

The wolf is via a ACF in the SRD.

You know what, I've been using share spells wrong forever, Toche. Ok, the wizard is small size and is riding the wolf.

Tanglefoot bag. So they aren't run of the mill kobold's anymore? Now they have optimized gear. The wolf could make his save, or the kobold could miss or are they all throwing bags? Even with -2 AC, it will take several rounds to kill the wolf (hit on a 17, avg damage 1.3) during which the wizard will be plinking back at them with his missile weapon.

End result, you've, maybe, killed a wizard that has no spells, with 8 kobolds and with optimized gear. I won't bother theorizing on pulling out another common scroll of an srd spell or declaring what this level one wizard's 2 feats could be (probably DC boosters or Prereqs anyway) because you've decided these are Schrödinger's kobolds and have optimal gear to deal with a melee threat, despite being terrified of the dreaded Batman wizard and spreading out to avoid the aoe save or lose effects.

Big Fau

2012-09-01, 03:16 PM

Usefulish, but the tier system is much more centered on high level play.

Incorrect. JaronK's Tier system states in the very beginning that it focuses more on the mid-levels than on low or high level play.

Hand_of_Vecna

2012-09-01, 03:18 PM

I actually got a lot further into number crunching than I'd wanted to with that wizard scenario, I'd wanted to say that at level one Divine is king.

Good HD, two high saves, good armor (no metal won't really start hurting Druid till level 2 or 3), and class abilities.

Basically Divine vs. Fighter at level one is giving up 2 hp, a feat, and +1 BAB for a class feature and spells.

Animal Companion is completely broken at level 1 and turn undead though generally traded away or ignored at high levels (due to poor scaling) is often an I win button for an encounter or two at level 1.

Randomguy

2012-09-01, 03:26 PM

Yeah, those guys that guard caves, stay at range, build traps and wouldn't ever be grouped together to be caught by a single spell. Those kobolds.

Oh, you mean tuckers Kobolds. Yeah, that's a big difference. Of course, it's not like a wizard will just walk into a cave and start triggering traps. More likely he'd just use fiery burst to collapse or melt every possible entrance.

But in any case: if you add traps, that raises the CR of the encounter anyway.

Wait, when did wizards start getting more than 100 gp at level 1? You're already spending 100 gp on the familiar.

From SRD:

A wizard begins play with a spellbook
containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those
from her prohibited school or schools, if any;
see School Specialization, page 57) plus three
1st-level spells of your choice. For each
point of Intelligence bonus the wizard has
(see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and
Bonus Spells, page 8), the spellbook
holds one additional 1st-level spell
of your choice.

Captured spellbooks can be sold for a gp amount equal to one-half
the cost of purchasing and inscribing the spells within (that is, one-
half of 100 gp per page of spells)

In core only, there are 19 level 0 spells. A grey elf with 20 int starts off with 8 extra first level spells. Spell compedium has another 9 spells. That's 36 spells in total. (I'm sure that someone could find enough cantrips to fill an entire spellbook, but I can't). That's 1800 extra gp. Of course, you'd need to use some of that money to buy a new spellbook (or scribe new spells into a new spellbook), but if you just take one or two cantrips you could only spend, lets say 1000 gp, leaving you with 800 extra gp.
(The amount of money you make this way varies, since specialists lose a few cantrips.)
It's cheesy as hell, but it's RAW.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 03:36 PM

The wolf is via a ACF in the SRD.
And...?

You know what, I've been using share spells wrong forever, Toche. Ok, the wizard is small size and is riding the wolf.
Hope he gets a lot of cross-class skill ranks in Ride to have any chance to cast his spells, then.

Tanglefoot bag. So they aren't run of the mill kobold's anymore? Now they have optimized gear. The wolf could make his save, or the kobold could miss or are they all throwing bags? Even with -2 AC, it will take several rounds to kill the wolf (hit on a 17, avg damage 1.3) during which the wizard will be plinking back at them with his missile weapon.
Tanglefoot bag causes -2 Dex and -4 to attack rolls on a hit. The Reflex save is only to avoid being glued to the ground. Even on a successful save, your wolf now moves at half speed and his movement is hindered, so it cannot charge. The kobolds need only ignore the kobold and attack you.
And really, a single tanglefoot bag is miles away from optimized gear. Kobolds get standard treasure, after all.

End result, you've, maybe, killed a wizard that has no spells, with 8 kobolds and with optimized gear. I won't bother theorizing on pulling out another common scroll of an srd spell or declaring what this level one wizard's 2 feats could be (probably DC boosters or Prereqs anyway) because you've decided these are Schrödinger's kobolds and have optimal gear to deal with a melee threat, despite being terrified of the dreaded Batman wizard and spreading out to avoid the aoe save or lose effects.
Dude, just read anything about kobolds ever. Spreading out, ranged attacks and tanglefoot bags are simply what they do. It's standard tactics.
"Kobolds like to attack with overwhelming odds—at least two to
one—or trickery; (...) They begin a fight by slinging bullets,
closing only when they can see that their foes have been weakened. Whenever they can, kobolds set up ambushes near trapped areas. They aim to drive enemies into the traps, where other kobolds wait to pour flaming oil over them, shoot them, or drop poisonous vermin onto them." (Monster Manual I)

Sincerely, man, there is no need to start personal attacks. I'm treating you with respect, if you can't do the same, we should just end this discussion. I don't care enough for this subject to endure veiled insults.

It's cheesy as hell, but it's RAW.
And it makes no difference when it comes to comparing power levels in actual play, because any wizard that sells his spellbook at level 1 is pretty much screwed until he can get a new one, and that will take forever.

Randomguy

2012-09-01, 03:58 PM

And...?

And it's not actually a familiar. It's an animal companion. It doesn't cost any money to get an animal companion. You also don't lose xp when it dies and you can replace it for free.

Hope he gets a lot of cross-class skill ranks in Ride to have any chance to cast his spells, then.
You don't need ranks in ride to cast a spell while mounted, you need ranks in concentration. Which every single wizard ever has max ranks in. Anyway, it's a DC of 10, so it's hard to fail anyway, and I'm not even sure you need to make a check, since you can always cast before or after the mount finishes moving.

Tanglefoot bag causes -2 Dex and -4 to attack rolls on a hit.
No, it doesn't. It causes a -2 to attack rolls and a -4 to dexterity.

And it makes no difference when it comes to comparing power levels in actual play, because any wizard that sells his spellbook at level 1 is pretty much screwed until he can get a new one, and that will take forever.
It's not like a wizard needs to go out into the wild the day he decides to become an adventurer. You can stay in town a while and wait. Scribing 10 spells will only take 10 days. And since we're talking about a solo wizard anyway, it's not like he has any party members that will get annoyed of waiting so long.

Anyway, since you're talking about "actual play", wouldn't it be better to check who contributes more to the party, rather than who's best at fighting solo?

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 04:09 PM

You don't need ranks in ride to cast a spell while mounted, you need ranks in concentration. Which every single wizard ever has max ranks in. Anyway, it's a DC of 10, so it's hard to fail anyway, and I'm not even sure you need to make a check, since you can always cast before or after the mount finishes moving.

From the SRD:
"Control Mount in Battle
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies."

No, it doesn't. It causes a -2 to attack rolls and a -4 to dexterity.
Sorry for the mix up.

It's not like a wizard needs to go out into the wild the day he decides to become an adventurer. You can stay in town a while and wait. Scribing 10 spells will only take 10 days. And since we're talking about a solo wizard anyway, it's not like he has any party members that will get annoyed of waiting so long.
Fair enough.

Anyway, since you're talking about "actual play", wouldn't it be better to check who contributes more to the party, rather than who's best at fighting solo?
Yeah, that's my whole point. :smallconfused:

Answerer

2012-09-01, 04:40 PM

From the SRD:
"Control Mount in Battle
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies."
What makes you think the wizard's Animal Companion isn't trained for combat?

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 04:42 PM

What makes you think the wizard's Animal Companion isn't trained for combat?
The fact that it is a wolf, basically.

Answerer

2012-09-01, 04:48 PM

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 04:58 PM

Cross-class ranks in Handle Animal, a masterwork tool, and non-negative Charisma should allow the Wizard to complete that training. It doesn't cost anything but time to try to train it, and the DC is only 20. You could trivially have between +8 and +10 on the check (+2 ranks, +4 for Animal Companion, +2 for tool, +0 to +2 for 10 to 14 Cha); if you get the +10, you could just take 10 to do it.
OK, so it gets cross-class Handle Animal instead of cross-class Ride and sinks more resources into it. This is getting really expensive and really optimized, though, isn't it? At that point you might as well have DWKs at the other side, with a bunch of flaws and abusing acid spittle.
I was trying to make two points here, but all the nitpicking has blurred them.
1- How well a class performs in PvP makes little to no difference on how well it should perform in actual play.
2- Putting highly optimized characters against monsters straight out of the monster manual only proves that optimization is effective. Relative power can only be measured with equal levels of optimization, hard as it is to achieve that.

dextercorvia

2012-09-01, 05:24 PM

My portfolio sense was tingling.

PvP means next to nothing when it comes to actual game play. Your wizard survived a hard encounter. Nice.
Now how will he deal with the other 3 encounters in the day without any spells to cast?
Try putting a level 1 wizard alone versus 8 kobolds (CR 3) and let's see how it goes.

The one that I faced was ECL 7. I had spells left in each battle actually. I don't know if I could have taken on another 3 encounters by myself that day, but I could have taken down, or contributed to a couple more level appropriate encounters.

The fact that it is a wolf, basically.

It was a riding dog actually. Those are trained for war. I actually considered doing the small wizard riding the dog, but I'm happy with the way Spells turned out.

Answerer

2012-09-01, 05:25 PM

Wait, ranks in Handle Animal is equivalent to Acid Spittle Dragonwrought Kobolds... for someone who has an Animal Companion? You've lost me.

This is a stupid argument. We're never going to agree on two things having "equal" amounts of optimization.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-01, 05:30 PM

Stuff
I wasn't talking about your example, I was talking about the example RandomGuy used.

Wait, ranks in Handle Animal is equivalent to Acid Spittle Dragonwrought Kobolds... for someone who has an Animal Companion? You've lost me.
The example provided by RandomGuy is a Wizard that uses two ACFs, sells his spellbook then spends two weeks redoing it, then spends 6 weeks training a wolf to be combat ready, and only then decides to go adventuring. There are few things as cheesy as selling a spellbook.

This is a stupid argument. We're never going to agree on two things having "equal" amounts of optimization.
Exactly, which makes all such exercises meaningless. That's my point.

TuggyNE

2012-09-01, 05:45 PM

I wasn't talking about your example, I was talking about the example RandomGuy used.

I would strongly recommend going back to the dextercorvia/Lonely Tylenol example, given the fairly straightforward nature of the optimization used. (And, of course, the fact that soloing an EL 7 encounter at level 1 is pretty much enough for a given day, or maybe a given week. :smalltongue: After all, soloing EL 1 should be 50% chance of death, and each +2 EL doubles difficulty....)

dextercorvia

2012-09-01, 06:14 PM

I want to say that LT built a fine barbarian and played a good game. I would play with him any time. The thing that killed him (besides hp damage) was action economy. Spellcasters are just about the only thing that can answer the action economy disparity at level 1. The only other thing that comes close from coreish sources is an AoO monkey/lockdown build. Spells was both by himself -- then he had the Animal Companion.

That just isn't doable with a mundane class.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-09-01, 06:33 PM

I would strongly recommend going back to the dextercorvia/Lonely Tylenol example, given the fairly straightforward nature of the optimization used. (And, of course, the fact that soloing an EL 7 encounter at level 1 is pretty much enough for a given day, or maybe a given week. :smalltongue: After all, soloing EL 1 should be 50% chance of death, and each +2 EL doubles difficulty....)

More than that, soloing an EL 7 encounter at level 1 is enough to bring you to level 3 on its own (but you can never level up more than once at a time, so you instead become 1 xp shy of level 3). Dextercorvia's Wizard (and Phaederkiel's Barbarian, 2/3 times, and my Barbarian, 1/3 times, or 3/3 times were he a Boar Totem) finish this encounter, go home and rest for a day, wake up, kill themselves breakfast (a CR 1/8 rat will do), rest for two more days, and pow, level 3.

At that point, why would you *want* a day with more than one adventure? You're a rat away from level 3... And longevity in both cases (Barbarians get +2 to hit, another feat, and two more of the best Hit Dice in the game, plus totem benefits if he has one and uncanny dodge/trap sense if he doesn't, and Wizards get second-level spells, with enough spells now to last at least a few encounters, and a feat).

Randomguy

2012-09-01, 06:37 PM

I would strongly recommend going back to the dextercorvia/Lonely Tylenol example, given the fairly straightforward nature of the optimization used.

So would I, actually. Dextercovia's the one with the divine ranks. :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor

2012-09-01, 10:40 PM

What do you mean? Care to elaborate?
Those 8 kobolds you were mentioning? You don't just have kobolds. You don't just have goblins. Hell, after the lowest levels you don't just have ogres. They've got classes too, and the interesting ones have PC classes. Mirror matches have been a thing since the drow were introduced, the most threatening monsters typically replicate the abilities of casters or are just casters with a tweaked chassis. 3rd edition encouraged use of the classes in constructing NPCs either as a supplement to existing monsters or taking a PC-race as tabula rasa to build from to be run by the DM against the party of players.

Saying a challenge doesn't and can't matter in any way because the challenge involved creatures with PC levels is... silly to say the least.

If you mean how classes fair against each other is relevant to how much their abilities should cost, yes, I'm ignoring it. D&D is not about fighting other players. And if you excuse me, I don't think I was caustic at all.

Ignoring how well different classes can go up against different challenges because you don't like the kind of challenge is... silly. Refusing to accept that it's possibly valid ever at all to anyone in any way like you did, while I suppose, not actually caustic, is still not very... good for you or the tenor of the conversation.

If I've gravely mistaken you, I apologize, but this definitely seems to be your position on the matter.

demigodus

2012-09-02, 03:40 AM

Why is whether a wizard can even solo encounters after taking out 8 kobolds (CR 3) at level 1 by himself a question? That is a challenge that two lvl 1 characters, together, should be facing in an adventuring day, if they come across no other problems. A party of 4 should be only having 2 such fights at lvl 1. If the wizard solo's the entire encounter, and does nothing else for the rest of the day, in an appropriately challenging adventuring day he is still contributing as much as the 3 other members of the party combined, because he only leaves them 50% of their problems for the day.

Honestly, after the ECL 7 fight, the (now lvl 2) wizard's 3 encounters for the rest of the day should involve:
1) carrying all the loot to the nearest town
2) turning loot into gold, and gold into items
3) renting a room, buying dinner, and going to sleep

Maybe have the animal companion kill something utterly trivial, so he wakes up with lvl 2 spells the next day.

If the DM throws any other problems at him during the day, his approach should be to turn around, and walk away, because honestly, he is an adventurer with a lot of potential. That potential shouldn't be wasted suicidally like that.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-09-02, 04:08 AM

I'll echo the sentiment that the animal companion ACF should be mentioned more in low level wizard optimization/survival techniques. Sure, it doesn't scale well, but the most it costs non-conjurers is a feat, and only if you really want the familiar back.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 11:02 AM

Those 8 kobolds you were mentioning? You don't just have kobolds. You don't just have goblins. Hell, after the lowest levels you don't just have ogres. They've got classes too, and the interesting ones have PC classes. Mirror matches have been a thing since the drow were introduced, the most threatening monsters typically replicate the abilities of casters or are just casters with a tweaked chassis. 3rd edition encouraged use of the classes in constructing NPCs either as a supplement to existing monsters or taking a PC-race as tabula rasa to build from to be run by the DM against the party of players.
And so what? Monsters are monsters, PCs are PCs. They use different rules, from stat generation to treasure. PCs against PCs is one thing, PCs against NPCs is a different thing.

Saying a challenge doesn't and can't matter in any way because the challenge involved creatures with PC levels is... silly to say the least.
Hello, mr veiled insult!

Ignoring how well different classes can go up against different challenges because you don't like the kind of challenge is... silly.
And the insults keep piling up!

Refusing to accept that it's possibly valid ever at all to anyone in any way like you did, while I suppose, not actually caustic, is still not very... good for you or the tenor of the conversation.
I don't claim speak for anyone, mind you. I just said that in my opinion it's pointless. You're free to disagree, man. Everyone is. But please try to do that without throwing insults around.

If I've gravely mistaken you, I apologize, but this definitely seems to be your position on the matter.
I've already clarified my position in two points a few posts before. You could look for them.

dextercorvia

2012-09-02, 11:17 AM

@Thiago

Stipulating for the moment that a solo Wizard 1 might have difficulty with your 8 Tucker Kobolds (spread out, hidden attacking at range from an ambush), I ask, "What does that prove?" Can you illustrate that another solo ECL1 character would fare better in those circumstances?

The point of my competition with LT was to demonstrate that a Wizard was more powerful than a mundane beginning at level 1. Giving an encounter you don't think the Wizard would ace doesn't prove anything, unless you can demonstrate that the Barbarian or Fighter or whatever would do better.

Coidzor

2012-09-02, 11:40 AM

And so what? Monsters are monsters, PCs are PCs. They use different rules, from stat generation to treasure. PCs against PCs is one thing, PCs against NPCs is a different thing.

Umm... No, it's not quite so clear-cut as all that.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 11:41 AM

Coidzor

2012-09-02, 11:43 AM

Hello, mr veiled insult!

No, that's expressing disapproval of a position that I found to be rude and without good reason from your posts defending it.

And the insults keep piling up!

Again, an insult would be a personal attack on you. As you have not actually disagreed with my analysis of your posts, then you're actually admitting to this extreme position that I reacted to and then asked for confirmation if I was reading you correctly.

I don't claim speak for anyone, mind you. I just said that in my opinion it's pointless. You're free to disagree, man. Everyone is. But please try to do that without throwing insults around.

Then why were you so adamantly dismissive of the validity of anyone daring to mention it in the first place?

I've already clarified my position in two points a few posts before. You could look for them.

Obviously I felt that you had not clarified things enough and wanted to afford you the polite opportunity to confirm or deny my reading of your words directly.

:smallsigh:
My whole point is that it proves nothing.

Didn't you just claim to not speak for everyone? :smallconfused:

dextercorvia

2012-09-02, 11:58 AM

:smallsigh:
My whole point is that it proves nothing.

But, your evidence supporting your argument (that the power challenge proves nothing), in turn proves nothing. You have not demonstrated that different circumstances would have resulted in the opposite result.

We ran a same game test, which is the gold standard for these things. It wasn't Wizard vs. Barbarian, but Wizard or Barbarian vs. a common challenge. If you feel another challenge would have proved more, that is fine. Please share it.

I will say that the conditions of the fight were not ones that Wizard advocates are usually asking for: featureless plain, beginning within charging distance, etc. The only one that benefited me (clumped together) benefited my Cleaving opponents as well.

Gwendol

2012-09-02, 01:05 PM

It was a fair and very well run test / demonstration. Could be used for teaching classes, really.

TuggyNE

2012-09-02, 04:29 PM

And so what? Monsters are monsters, PCs are PCs. They use different rules, from stat generation to treasure. PCs against PCs is one thing, PCs against NPCs is a different thing.

We are talking about 3.5, not 4e, right? :smallconfused: According to standard CR rules, a creature with PC class levels adds them to its base CR straight, and automatically gets the elite array. So an Elf Fighter 3 is CR 3. The opponents in the same game test were built with unusually high stats, but I believe they used standard equipment; in any case, discounting the validity of a test because it was too hard and yet still was defeated seems ... bizarre.

In short: NPCs with PC class levels are perfectly legal and explicitly expected opponents in standard 3.5 encounters; PC classes, especially in varied groups, tend to exhibit most of the potential abilities of monsters, especially at low levels; the ability to defeat PC classes can therefore be highly indicative of general performance in standard 3.5 combat.

1
Now to be clear, there is a fairly common case where PvP comparisons are inappropriate. If you're comparing the overall utility and power of Wizard with the overall utility and power of Fighter, a straight duel between a Wizard and a Fighter is a terrible demonstration, because it plays more to the strengths of the Fighter and ignores a large chunk of what makes Wizard useful; further, the builds tend to be tailored toward each other's unique weaknesses, rather than more generally useful tactics. And that's something I've always warned against. However, that's not what's going on here at all; instead, this is a more limited comparison of combat strength under very similar circumstances, with no counter-tailoring going on.

Coidzor

2012-09-02, 04:47 PM

Thank you tuggyne. Pretty much said what I'd wanted to express from the beginning of this sub-discussion.

demigodus

2012-09-02, 04:54 PM

:smallsigh:
My whole point is that it proves nothing.

Your point is that the example you gave probes nothing? In that case why present that example?

Or do you mean, your point is that the controlled test run they did proves nothing, because you can come up with a counter example that, when not test run, appears to provide inconclusive results? Because if so, you still have not debunked the other example, where a wizard does outperform a barbarian. In fact, given that this thread about comparative class powers, and your example only contains one class, I can't really see what it has to do with the topic.

You can't use "it" to refer to an example when quoting someone mentioning 2 examples, and expect people to guess which example you are referring to.

dextercorvia

2012-09-02, 07:09 PM

Your point is that the example you gave probes nothing? In that case why present that example?

Or do you mean, your point is that the controlled test run they did proves nothing, because you can come up with a counter example that, when not test run, appears to provide inconclusive results? Because if so, you still have not debunked the other example, where a wizard does outperform a barbarian. In fact, given that this thread about comparative class powers, and your example only contains one class, I can't really see what it has to do with the topic.

You can't use "it" to refer to an example when quoting someone mentioning 2 examples, and expect people to guess which example you are referring to.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this.

@Thiago: What, in your mind, would prove relative class power at level 1?

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 08:03 PM

@Thiago: What, in your mind, would prove relative class power at level 1?

Playing D&D and reaching your own conclusions. Unless you run through several events, with different creatures, different environments and different situations, any exercise is futile.
An encounter that does not change light conditions does not take darkvision/low-light vision into account. An encounter that begins fairly close does not take into account maximum range or Spot checks. An encounter that does not use rain or other weather conditions also fails to take that into account. Unless all characters are at exactly the same optimization level, the whole exercise is already pointless, and reaching this point of "same optimization level" is pretty much impossible anyway.

Basically, I think that for this exercise to be valid you would have to run the character/party through all CR apropriate encounters, in all possible starting positions, in all possible lightning situations, in all possible environments.

@Coidzor: You keep missing my point and not even apologizing for insulting me, I'll excuse myself from discussing with you.
@demigodus, @dextercorvia: I hope you have understood my point by now
@tuggyne: NPCs use different rules than PCs, as I mentioned before. They don't roll stats, they don't use PC wealth by level.

dextercorvia

2012-09-02, 08:13 PM

Basically, I think that for this exercise to be valid you would have to run the character/party through all CR apropriate encounters, in all possible starting positions, in all possible lightning situations, in all possible environments.

That seems a little extreme. It is akin to saying that the only way to see if a drug is effective is to give it to everyone in the population and see what happens.

Surely there is some finite subset of options that would demonstrate the trend.

sdream

2012-09-02, 08:22 PM

Basically, I think that for this exercise to be valid you would have to run the character/party through all CR apropriate encounters, in all possible starting positions, in all possible lightning situations, in all possible environments.

That would not be a test, that would be a mathematical proof.

A valid scientific test (the gold standard method of gaining useful knowledge in a complicated world) simply requires a hypothesis and a means of testing this hypothesis.

The hypothesis put forward was that wizards could be stronger than barbarians at level 1.

It was tested by running a wizard through the same test several barbarians were run through, and it did better than the barbarians.

It is not a proof, so it does not prove anything. But it is a meaningful and valid test.

Randomguy

2012-09-02, 08:26 PM

That seems a little extreme. It is akin to saying that the only way to see if a drug is effective is to give it to everyone in the population and see what happens.

Surely there is some finite subset of options that would demonstrate the trend.

This. If there is no build that can do absolutely everything (except pun pun). If you're comparing two classes and one of them is better in every possible situation except one or two rare ones, then that class is better overall.

(Swordsage'd by sdream, who said it much better).

TuggyNE

2012-09-02, 08:31 PM

Playing D&D and reaching your own conclusions. Unless you run through several events, with different creatures, different environments and different situations, any exercise is futile.
An encounter that does not change light conditions does not take darkvision/low-light vision into account. An encounter that begins fairly close does not take into account maximum range or Spot checks. An encounter that does not use rain or other weather conditions also fails to take that into account. Unless all characters are at exactly the same optimization level, the whole exercise is already pointless, and reaching this point of "same optimization level" is pretty much impossible anyway.

Basically, I think that for this exercise to be valid you would have to run the character/party through all CR apropriate encounters, in all possible starting positions, in all possible lightning situations, in all possible environments.

While, in a sense, this may be true, I don't think it's necessary to be quite so precise to be able to draw some rough conclusions. For example, if in several plain encounters with an impartial DM a wizard is capable of fighting vastly superior foes as well as a barbarian, you can reasonably assume that in plain encounters a wizard's contribution is not limited to pure luck or DM pity. Similarly (albeit hypothetically), if in several attempts to discover a hidden foe's base a psion always seems to do better than a fighter, you can extrapolate that discovering information about an enemy that wishes to conceal it is easier for a psion than a fighter.

@tuggyne: NPCs use different rules than PCs, as I mentioned before. They don't roll stats, they don't use PC wealth by level.

True (for the most part), and already noted. However, it is fairly common for major villains, or sometimes major friendly NPCs, to have rolled or point-buy stats. Does that somehow completely transform them into an utterly different and incomparably more (or less) powerful creature that must be evaluated in all possible ways by different rules? Or does the difference in wealth between standard monster treasure, NPC gear, and PC gear create a vast and unbridgeable divide that makes all possible comparison suddenly moot?

No in both cases, because the difference is quantitative, not qualitative, and because the ability to beat a given foe also implies the ability to beat a similar foe that is strictly inferior. So if a given character can beat an enemy with PC classes, PC amounts of gear, and PC stats, how much more effective are they going to be against enemies with NPC classes, NPC gear, and NPC stats?

If the argument had been, "Look how weak the Barbarian is! It can't even fight simple enemies in an arena, its strong point" then your objections would be quite valid. However, the thrust of the argument has been almost entirely to emphasize how surprisingly strong a Wizard can be against even greatly superior forces, even at very low levels. (The Barbarian, to be honest, also gets a bit of a boost, in that I was frankly impressed by how close LT came to winning all three fights.)

Thank you tuggyne. Pretty much said what I'd wanted to express from the beginning of this sub-discussion.

Thanky! :smallredface: Mind if I sig this? :smallcool:

Fake edit: dextercorvia says much the same thing, but far more simply, so this makes for a good TL/DR:

That seems a little extreme. It is akin to saying that the only way to see if a drug is effective is to give it to everyone in the population and see what happens.

Surely there is some finite subset of options that would demonstrate the trend.

demigodus

2012-09-02, 08:33 PM

Basically, I think that for this exercise to be valid you would have to run the character/party through all CR apropriate encounters, in all possible starting positions, in all possible lightning situations, in all possible environments.

See, scientists at one point faced the same problem; having to draw conclusion about a massive group, when they could only sample a small portion. So they developed a method to use that small portion to make predictions about the group at large. They called it Inferential Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferential_statistics)

Your argument is great for trying to shut down all intellectual discussion, so that you can than claim everyone's opinion is equally valid; including the guy who used vigorously designed studies to analyze various situations, and the guy who played in one game with a few house rules, and is commenting on the trend he kinda sorta noticed, by taking it as law.

If your argument were valid, it would be valid to declare that you can't comment on the power balance between a lvl 20 human monk and a lvl 20 wizards at around mid-level optimization.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 08:50 PM

See, scientists at one point faced the same problem; having to draw conclusion about a massive group, when they could only sample a small portion. So they developed a method to use that small portion to make predictions about the group at large. They called it Inferential Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferential_statistics)

Your argument is great for trying to shut down all intellectual discussion, so that you can than claim everyone's opinion is equally valid; including the guy who used vigorously designed studies to analyze various situations, and the guy who played in one game with a few house rules, and is commenting on the trend he kinda sorta noticed, by taking it as law.

If your argument were valid, it would be valid to declare that you can't comment on the power balance between a lvl 20 human monk and a lvl 20 wizards at around mid-level optimization.

You ignored the other half of my post that says you should arrive at your conclusions by, you know, playing the game.
Anyway, I tire of this discussion. If the test works for you guys, that's great. It doesn't work for me.

dextercorvia

2012-09-02, 09:03 PM

You ignored the other half of my post that says you should arrive at your conclusions by, you know, playing the game.
Anyway, I tire of this discussion. If the test works for you guys, that's great. It doesn't work for me.

You see, I don't think you understand. I'm not standing by my test and claiming that it proves Wizard superiority. I think it demonstrated it, but I'm all for demonstrating it in a variety of ways.

Do you have a hypothesis on the matter? I haven't been able to figure out if you think that mundanes are more powerful than wizards at level 1, or if you just like arguing that we didn't test it enough.

I'd be happy to put my money where my mouth is another time, if that would help convince you.