Are spellcasters balanced?

[rockdeworld]

Specifically, are they balanced against encounters?

Ignoring fighters and other martial characters for a minute, I want to know if the tier 1 classes are balanced against equal CR encounters. To refine even further: at each level (say for example, levels 1, 6, 10, 14, and 18), does a tier 1 class have:
1. A 50% chance of winning/dying (or whatever) against an equal CR encounter?
2. The ability to contribute to exactly 4 encounters per day, either by completely winning 1 of them with up to 80% of their resources, or by providing a non-negligible bonus against all of them (eg. at level 1 providing a +1 bonus to melee is negligible, providing a +1 bonus to melee and also dealing ~3 damage each round is not) using 20% of their resources per encounter?

Or, on the other hand, do the tier 1 classes do less than the above (eg. do they have a 25% chance against =CR encounters, or #2 but only for 2 encounters), or more (eg. a 75% chance against =CR, or #2 for 5+ encounters a day)?

By "encounters" I mean monsters, traps, skill challenges ("The bridge is out! We have to jump." "We have to track down [X]" "Diplomacy plz"), and whatever else you encounter in a regular game of D&D.

I suspect the tier 1 classes might actually go over the requirement. I'm not sure, so I ask the playground for your knowledge and experience.

Edit: And also, if it turns out I'm right, then at about what tier (or set of classes) do #1 and 2 apply?

[Courier6]

It depends, a average level 1 wizard (using rolls) may only have 15 Int, if so you will have a hard time contributing to encounters, however by level 5 or so you can fulfill these criteria with even mediocre stats and by level 10 or so you will dominate almost every encounter. If you start with 20 Int you will begin fulfilling these criteria and by level 5 you will be dominating every encounter. As to what tier you have to be to contribute to an encounter? It seems to me that the game was balanced around tier 4, at that level of play an encounter should fulfill their roles as the DMG, that is solve 4 encounters per day using 20% of their resources per encounter. Though poor tier 3 or good tier 5 fits this just as well.
TL;DR any but the worst casters exceed expectations, and encounters are balanced around tier 4.
EDIT; Teir to tier.

[mucco]

For most printed monsters and most levels, an efficiently played T1 will have:
1) A 100% chance of winning an equal CR encounter
2) The ability to completely solve many encounters per day, by using the right spell. Potentially, they can win as many encounters as spells they have available, since they have access to a huge amount of win-buttons. Some of them (druid) could go on for dozens and dozens of encounters before they are out of hp.

With the premise that the CR system is very broken and malfunctioning, you want to look at T4-5 for that kind of performance. That is the power level the 3.5 testers played at, so it is balanced there.

[rockdeworld]

solve 4 encounters per day usiong 20% of their resources per encounter..
Thanks for that, I forgot what it was exactly, and that's what I really meant for #2, so I'll edit that.

Does your analysis apply to high levels (11+) as well? Can a level 13 wizard dominate an Beholder, or a level 15 wizard dominate a Marut? What about CoDzilla or an artificer?

[TuggyNE]

Thanks for that, I forgot what it was exactly, and that's what I really meant for #2, so I'll edit that.

Does your analysis apply to high levels (11+) as well? Can a level 13 wizard dominate an Beholder, or a level 15 wizard dominate a Marut?

The tendency generally increases at higher levels; it's only visible at low levels with careful play and moderate to high optimization. Eventually, a reasonably-played wizard (say) will likely be able to take on creatures 5, 10, 15, or even more CRs above them, and that's before epic spellcasting.

[JKTrickster]

However I think everyone above is assuming that the encounters are relatively simple in nature. I am not denying what anyone said above - Tier 1 will dominate the game from (almost) any level and the designers probably tested the game with a Tier 4 mindset.

However, most tactically interesting and complex encounters probably are more Tier 3. I don't think this is "high op" encounters - merely encounters that require multiple steps amd/or tactical abilities to solve - that Tier 3s are more likely to accomplish than Tier 4.

So if you want to play a simple game where all the monsters are beatsticks and all the skill challenges are "Roll a Skill check and compare it to a number", yeah it would be Tier 4.

But most games I play are slightly more complex than that, and I would argue Tier 3 is a better benchmark in those cases.

Either way, I agree that it is possible for a Tier 1 to start ruling the game from the start. But do note: it is extremely hard for them to do so at level 1, especially if they have below 18 in their casting stat. Case in point: played a level 1 dungeon with a Tier 1 party and couldn't finish it because two members died. We had bad tactics and just one monster killed both of us at the same time. You have to almost play perfectly in order to survive.

So at level 1-3 it's harder - so much so that I feel that level 1s are the most frustrating interesting levels to play at - but I digress.

[nedz]

Your question is problematic because encounters of the same CR are not necessarily balanced against each other. MM2 is possibly the worst culprit here though there is that crab thing also.
This means that your yardstick is bent.

[gkathellar]

No, they're not balanced. A reasonably optimized and/or well-played Tier 1 caster gets very high numbers and can do pretty much anything at any time, and so the answer there is, "no, casters are not balanced." They will blow past any monster that lacks spellcasting or SLAs of its own, and in many cases will be able to blow past those, too. The fact that spells are by far the game's best non-combat abilities and are consistently more useful than skill checks from about 3rd-5th level on only aggravates the problem.


Your question is problematic because encounters of the same CR are not necessarily balanced against each other. MM2 is possibly the worst culprit here though there is that crab thing also.
This means that your yardstick is bent.

This is also relevant. CR is a borderline useless guideline, especially because it's afflicted with the same (casting monster > non-casting monster) issues that the classes are.

[rockdeworld]

Your question is problematic because encounters of the same CR are not necessarily balanced against each other. MM2 is possibly the worst culprit here though there is that crab thing also.
This means that your yardstick is bent.
Ah, I had (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/allip.htm) suspicions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lion.htm). Is there a more effective way to calculate an encounter rating?

[awa]

also keep in mind having the right abilities makes a huge difference.
a wizard with no sr none spells prepared may have a very hard time with a golem. and one with no get out of grapple free abilities may find an ambush grappler a very rough foe.

even something a simple as smoke can potential make a fight much harder on a tier one character.

one the other hand many monsters have no good answer to flight and ranged attack. even a ranger on a dire bat can kill monsters cr 10+ in that situation not to mention a wizard

edit cr is a broken concept becuase not only are the crs often widely wrong what their trying to do is different. undead are less dangerous to clerics and more dangerous to beguilers and percison damge users.

[nedz]

Yes, an Allip is not much of a threat if you are a cleric who can turn it, but to a rogue who dumped wis Tarrasque its quite lethal

[Eldan]

Ah, I had (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/allip.htm) suspicions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lion.htm). Is there a more effective way to calculate an encounter rating?

There's a thread somewhere, a bit burried on the boards now called "Let's read the Monster Manual X" where someone had a look through the monster manual, I think II, and applied some kind of formula to finding challenge ratings that were more appropriate. You can probably find it with some creative googling, and the calculations seemed relatively solid.

[Madara]

Ah, I had (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/allip.htm) suspicions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lion.htm). Is there a more effective way to calculate an encounter rating?

I always break it down to attacks, defense, and special.

Take note how many attacks a single player would survive on an average roll, take note of how many attacks the monster would surive from your party's normal strategy, and take into account any special circumstances, such as if your party can fly but the monster can't.
Figure out how many rounds you want the encounter to last, and then determine the proper enemy. At the very least, throwing on an extra HD or two is a nice way to make small adjustments.

[Emperor Tippy]

It depends. If you play the monsters to their stats (take Dragons, they are tier 2 casters with hundreds to thousands of years of experience and very good stats, they should be played as optimized and intelligent enemies with plans for their plans) then spellcasters are reasonably balanced compared to CR. If you play them like the MM seems to want them to be played then I can solo most of the epic monsters with a level 17 wizard without any difficulty or extreme cheese.

[ThiagoMartell]

No, they are not.