For the love of Wizards

[willpell]

I want to like the Wizard, from a conceptual basis, really I do. But I have a hard time overlooking its Tier 1 status and the fact that it was obviously the darling of Wotco (being in their name and everything), with probably more variants and supplements than all other classes put together, all making it absurdly easy to add both power and variety to an already powerful and versatile class. So I have a sort of inherent tendency toward being prejudiced against them on the basis of my egalitarian attitudes, and am working to figure out ways of moderating it, both by learning to love the Wizard and by finding ways to cut it down to size.

Here's the first of several issues I plan to discuss. I like balance when I'm worldbuilding; I try to have roughly equal numbers of all classes, roughly equal numbers of clerics for all gods, roughly equal representation of all a deity's domains among its clerics, and so forth. The way I figure it, if the world is holistic, things should even themselves out over time, unless they're fundamentally unbalanced, in which case the weaker component should eventually snuff itself out due to inability to compete. So for the most part, I figure that things should line up neatly, and that brings me to the relevant issue with regard to Wizards, school specialization.

The last thing I want to do is do any favors for the already overpowered Wizard class. But I find that I simply cannot make myself ban Transmutation or Conjuration as one of two schools, given how many of the "must-have" spells are concentrated therein. I rather liked the 3.0 version of school specialization, where different schools were "worth" more or less, and so specializing in Conjuration or Transmutation (or Evocation, but I see why thsi was a goof on their part) "cost" you more than other schools, while barring it gave you more "credit". But I assume this rule was changed for a reason, so I'm not to the point of wanting to revert to it altogether; I don't know just how many Necromancy spells were added in post-core books, so perhaps instituting the 3.0 rules would make Necromancers absurd (while screwing Evokers, unless I changed that part of the rule, and again I don't know how interconnected the various moving parts are).

So, the $64 question: how much of a favor am I doing the Wizard by letting him specialize in any other school by banning only Conjuration or Transmutation? The alternative seems to be that I'll just keep building Diviners and non-Necromancers and the occasional non-Enchanter, as it's just very difficult to give up any of the "good" schools (Abjuration, Evocation and Illusion are "medium", so I can stand to ban one of them along with one of the two "gimmes", but banning a "medium" along with Conj or Trans seems unbearable, and even a "gimme" plus one of those feels pretty crippling).

[Fouredged Sword]

WIzards are still going to be tier one world breakers with their olny relevent class feature advanced by most of their PRC's.

[Amphetryon]

A Wizard with access to only Conjuration and Necromancy can still curbstomp any encounter that isn't specifically set up to foil her. The same goes for a Wizard with access to only Transmutation and Enchantment (though - to my style of play - that's a mite harder).

[Glimbur]

The approach I often see for having people that cast arcane spells without breaking the game is the specialized casters. Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and to a lesser extent Warmages all cast spells but don't have the obscene versatility that wizards possess. There are homebrewed classes for other schools like transmutation and conjuration, but I don't have links for them.

This is a bit more work than your proposed fix, but I feel that it fixes the game and is easier than paring down the wizard list piecemeal.

[willpell]

I should add that I am mostly only familiar with core spells and only at low levels (a handful of 4ths and 5ths, and you could count on both hands the higher-level spells I've read). Close to a third of the 1st and 2nd level spells are Transmutations, and Conjuration isn't far behind. It seems extremely difficult to really round out a wizard character without access to those, and I suspect that the brokenness of wizards is far lesser when you don't have the Spell Compendium or Complete Mage or anything in the mix.

[TopCheese]

A good way to fix all this?

Have 2 core books, one for "epic heros/villians" and the other for "heroes/villians"

Take some tier 3 and all of the tier 2 and 1 classes and put them in the "epic heroes/villians book"

Take some tier 3 and all the tier 4, 5, and 6 classes and put them in the "heroes/villians" book.

You aren't allowed to mix these two books. Ever. And even when you can... You don't.

Any class in a different "core" book are NPCs and maybe DMNPCs. No multiclassing between them.

On a case by case.basis maybe allow the feats that give class features (UA varient generic varient classes).

[Amphetryon]

I should add that I am mostly only familiar with core spells and only at low levels (a handful of 4ths and 5ths, and you could count on both hands the higher-level spells I've read). Close to a third of the 1st and 2nd level spells are Transmutations, and Conjuration isn't far behind. It seems extremely difficult to really round out a wizard character without access to those, and I suspect that the brokenness of wizards is far lesser when you don't have the Spell Compendium or Complete Mage or anything in the mix.

It has been stated over and over on these and other boards that the most broken spells in 3.5 are in Core; it's a position I agree with.

[Psyren]

The best way I've seen to fix wizards is to get rid of the wizard. Replace them with T3-equivalent focused casters like the Beguiler (Enchantment/Illusion), PF Summoner (minus Synthesist), Saph's Teleporter, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage (+ Abjuration) for instance.

[Arbane]

It has been stated over and over on these and other boards that the most broken spells in 3.5 are in Core; it's a position I agree with.

Plus Mindrape, aka "whoever gets this spell first rules the universe forever". :smallyuk:

[morkendi]

Get rid of eschew components. Get rid of spell component pouch. Make them invest time and money. They want web, they look for it. Dm says," you found enough for 3 web spells". All the spells have components that are needed. Set a limit on how much a spell pouch or pocket can hold. Wizards will tone down if resorces are limited.

[Psyren]

Get rid of eschew components. Get rid of spell component pouch. Make them invest time and money. They want web, they look for it. Dm says," you found enough for 3 web spells". All the spells have components that are needed. Set a limit on how much a spell pouch or pocket can hold. Wizards will tone down if resorces are limited.

That route results in Spreadsheets: The Game. Also, it makes wizards hoard their spells even more; if I have to actually go out and find cow dung and powdered iron, I'm not going to be buffing the Fighter's strength or size.

[morkendi]

Yes it does, but it tones them down and pulls them farther back in line. I have played this way and had fun doing it. Some towns have merchants that deal in components. A wizard with unlimited resources is going to be overpowering. The original poster is trying to bring down their power lvl.

[Morty]

Quite. Cutting down on material components is something that might work in theory, but would lead to a book-keeping nightmare in practice. Something like that might work fine for a lot of games... but definetly not D&D. And really, it's not like the Wizard class doesn't involve enough book-keeping as it is.

[Amphetryon]

Yes it does, but it tones them down and pulls them farther back in line. I have played this way and had fun doing it. Some towns have merchants that deal in components. A wizard with unlimited resources is going to be overpowering. The original poster is trying to bring down their power lvl.

This method appears unlikely to bring down the Wizard's power level, and very likely to make the Wizard unwilling to help bolster the Fighter's.

[morkendi]

The way i did it. I had my spell list. I had my memorization slot and my component slot. I didn't keep track of the actual component itself, just how many times i could cast the spell. Spell pouches held enough for 20 spells. I kept extra pouches in my backpack. You get low on a component slot, you go buy or find it. I think the belt held 10 pouches.

[Icewraith]

Nothing says fun like being completely reliant on the dm to supply you with the means to use all of your class features.

The fighter at least can break off a tree branch or a piece of furniture and use it as a club if the DM isn't handing out weapons, but if you're required to keep track of ALL your spell components and those are only available when the DM says they are, either you can't count on being able to get off even the simplest spell when you really need it or you've just invented the tabletop rpg incarnation of "hoarders."

Plus it's a lot less work for the dm to get the wizard nerfs out of the way at the beginning of the game and having a rules baseline the player can expect. Don't ever change access to class features or the interpretation of how a player ability works in the middle of a game unless the ability is going to trash the entire session for the night - and if this happens, why did you let that player have that ability?

Also remember that the most overpowered spells are generally found in core.

Furthermore, if you're not going to be playing at the higher levels, your wizards will be fighting to overcome their meager spells per day and negligible hit point total as long as you're making them face more than a couple encounters between rests. There's something about a freshly prepared set of spells and an encounter with weak opponents that causes only the most restrained players to not fire off the nastiest (appropriate) spells in their repertoire. They can't help but fireball, black tentacles, cloudkill, or similar a bunch of CR irrelevant monsters if they're grouped up nicely.

You shouldn't really expect power issues with wizards untill one or two third or fourth level spells no longer comprise a significant portion of the characters' resources.

[Psyren]

Spell pouches held enough for 20 spells.

If I can only cast 20 spells before needing to refill my pouch, I'm not going to waste any on helping the fighter do his job. I'm not. It's really that simple.

Also, what about componentless spells, like the entire summon monster line? Instead of playing spreadsheets, I can buy one candle and one bag, and cast every spell I'll ever need to contribute to a fight.

[Myrddin0001]

What I think everyone is forgetting is that The wizard is balanced by a) reliance on his spellbook b) his severe frailty and c) his extreme need to anticipate whatever the day may bring and prepare accordingly. Think about this; if you drop an optimized wizard in an arena with an average barbarian the wizard will be diced to tiny pieces in the second or third round. Wizards can solo, especially at higher levels, but their real strength is in a party. Having meat shields the to buff and stand behind and sling spells or doing some scrying so the rouge can get into the enemy camp safely is what their all about. They were designed to be the brains not the powerhouse. If they are too overpowered in a game it is the fault on an unprepared DM who is not properly applying the rules. You dont have to stand on a wizard's nuts to balance him, just be smart and understand the game.

[Lord_Gareth]

What I think everyone is forgetting is that The wizard is balanced by a) reliance on his spellbook b) his severe frailty and c) his extreme need to anticipate whatever the day may bring and prepare accordingly. Think about this; if you drop an optimized wizard in an arena with an average barbarian the wizard will be diced to tiny pieces in the second or third round. Wizards can solo, especially at higher levels, but their real strength is in a party. Having meat shields the to buff and stand behind and sling spells or doing some scrying so the rouge can get into the enemy camp safely is what their all about. They were designed to be the brains not the powerhouse. If they are too overpowered in a game it is the fault on an unprepared DM who is not properly applying the rules. You dont have to stand on a wizard's nuts to balance him, just be smart and understand the game.

I....honestly don't know where to even begin on how hideously wrong this statement is. There's nothing in this paragraph that's correct or at least definably correct (given that designer intention is something we can only guess at). You are aware of the numerous spells in Core that you can apply to almost every encounter, at all levels?

[Myrddin0001]

Nothing says fun like being completely reliant on the dm to supply you with the means to use all of your class features.

The fighter at least can break off a tree branch or a piece of furniture and use it as a club if the DM isn't handing out weapons, but if you're required to keep track of ALL your spell components and those are only available when the DM says they are, either you can't count on being able to get off even the simplest spell when you really need it or you've just invented the tabletop rpg incarnation of "hoarders."

Plus it's a lot less work for the dm to get the wizard nerfs out of the way at the beginning of the game and having a rules baseline the player can expect. Don't ever change access to class features or the interpretation of how a player ability works in the middle of a game unless the ability is going to trash the entire session for the night - and if this happens, why did you let that player have that ability?

Also remember that the most overpowered spells are generally found in core.

Furthermore, if you're not going to be playing at the higher levels, your wizards will be fighting to overcome their meager spells per day and negligible hit point total as long as you're making them face more than a couple encounters between rests. There's something about a freshly prepared set of spells and an encounter with weak opponents that causes only the most restrained players to not fire off the nastiest (appropriate) spells in their repertoire. They can't help but fireball, black tentacles, cloudkill, or similar a bunch of CR irrelevant monsters if they're grouped up nicely.

You shouldn't really expect power issues with wizards untill one or two third or fourth level spells no longer comprise a significant portion of the characters' resources.

I absolutely agree.

[Amphetryon]

What I think everyone is forgetting is that The wizard is balanced by a) reliance on his spellbook b) his severe frailty and c) his extreme need to anticipate whatever the day may bring and prepare accordingly. Think about this; if you drop an optimized wizard in an arena with an average barbarian the wizard will be diced to tiny pieces in the second or third round. Wizards can solo, especially at higher levels, but their real strength is in a party. Having meat shields the to buff and stand behind and sling spells or doing some scrying so the rouge can get into the enemy camp safely is what their all about. They were designed to be the brains not the powerhouse. If they are too overpowered in a game it is the fault on an unprepared DM who is not properly applying the rules. You dont have to stand on a wizard's nuts to balance him, just be smart and understand the game.

Countless arena battles here and elsewhere show otherwise. Don't believe me? Use google, or make a Barb.

[Lord_Gareth]

Countless arena battles here and elsewhere show otherwise. Don't believe me? Use google, or make a Barb.

No, take a step further. Make ANYTHING YOU WANT, and we'll find a DM for you to PM the sheet to so that no one else sees it.

[elvengunner69]

I just find the words balance and wizards to not mesh well in 3.5 -- In our current campaign (we are all lvl 8 or 9) and the Wizard is often stealing the show already (our Ranger and Samurai often have little to do once he finishes) -- hopefully now that I can wildshape into Large animals I might steal some of his spotlight (I'm an 8th lvl Druid) but in my experience it only gets more out of balanced the higher we get with a wizard.

I do like the idea of limiting to classes like Beguiler/Warlock/Warmage -- would probably achieve some balance but then again lvl 20 Druids and Clerics are also a bit over balanced too....A good DM can counter this I'm sure

[Lord_Gareth]

I just find the words balance and wizards to not mesh well in 3.5 -- In our current campaign (we are all lvl 8 or 9) and the Wizard is often stealing the show already (our Ranger and Samurai often have little to do once he finishes) -- hopefully now that I can wildshape into Large animals I might steal some of his spotlight (I'm an 8th lvl Druid) but in my experience it only gets more out of balanced the higher we get with a wizard.

I do like the idea of limiting to classes like Beguiler/Warlock/Warmage -- would probably achieve some balance but then again lvl 20 Druids and Clerics are also a bit over balanced too....A good DM can counter this I'm sure

Wizards, druids, clerics, artificers, and archivists are the hands-down strongest classes in the game, with Wizard ruling the roost and Druid being slightly ont he bottom of that list. It takes a bit more than 'a good DM' to counter this, though many tables have enjoyed great success with a mature gentleman's agreement on both sides to neither rape the game, nor run the game in such a manner that encourages aforementioned rape.

[Myrddin0001]

I....honestly don't know where to even begin on how hideously wrong this statement is. There's nothing in this paragraph that's correct or at least definably correct (given that designer intention is something we can only guess at). You are aware of the numerous spells in Core that you can apply to almost every encounter, at all levels?

Oh absolutely. I see where my statement has been misinterpreted. All I meant is that the wizard is not inherently overpowered, powerful yes, not brokenly so. It is the skill level of the player in relation to every one else, what the player does with the class and what the DM allows within the written rules the define the brokenness. You are correct that the designers true intentions are subject to speculation and it is also true that wizards get more love than anyone else, however, you dont have to nerf or strangle them to tone them down. That just pisses off the player.

[Darius Kane]

Countless arena battles here and elsewhere show otherwise. Don't believe me? Use google, or make a Barb.
You mean battles where the caster can nova?

[TopCheese]

What I think everyone is forgetting is that The wizard is balanced by a) reliance on his spellbook b) his severe frailty and c) his extreme need to anticipate whatever the day may bring and prepare accordingly. Think about this; if you drop an optimized wizard in an arena with an average barbarian the wizard will be diced to tiny pieces in the second or third round. Wizards can solo, especially at higher levels, but their real strength is in a party. Having meat shields the to buff and stand behind and sling spells or doing some scrying so the rouge can get into the enemy camp safely is what their all about. They were designed to be the brains not the powerhouse. If they are too overpowered in a game it is the fault on an unprepared DM who is not properly applying the rules. You dont have to stand on a wizard's nuts to balance him, just be smart and understand the game.

I...wow..

That should be some shade of blue .. Right?

[Myrddin0001]

wow. ok every one I see now I have different views on my beloved wizards. I see where incorrectly stated my opinion.

[morkendi]

If I can only cast 20 spells before needing to refill my pouch, I'm not going to waste any on helping the fighter do his job. I'm not. It's really that simple.

Also, what about componentless spells, like the entire summon monster line? Instead of playing spreadsheets, I can buy one candle and one bag, and cast every spell I'll ever need to contribute to a fight.

I played a wizard in a game like this. It was the most fun. Paying kids to collect bat poop and such. The dm had the idea that components are in the book for a reason. Like i said, belt could hold 10 pouches and you could anticipate what spells you cast most and bring extra pouches. 10 pouches with 20 cast is 200 spells. Not helpless at all, but not unlimited resources either.

I have seen games where the wizard buys 1 book and 1 component pouch at 1st lvl, and never takes the time to refill the pouch or buy another book. They are never ending apparently . Same thing goes for your 1 candle. It never burns down? This brings down power lvl a little, but wizard can still do anything he was designed to do. Nerfing by taking away schools and such is playing with rules even more.

[Psyren]

Don't get us wrong, what you stated is the way things should be. But it rarely works out that way.

Drop the wizard into the arena with the barb if you want, but you'll have a much harder time once he uses nerveskitter/celerity to go first, then time stop and a host of buffs like mirror image and fly to become untouchable. And it's not even the barb's turn yet. The best/worst part is that none of these are situational or contrived spells - they work against almost any melee monster, not just barbarians.


Same thing goes for your 1 candle. It never burns down?

By RAW - no, no it doesn't. It's a focus, and therefore it is reusable. In fact, the spell doesn't say a thing about me lighting the candle.

And even if I did, lighting a candle for less than 6 seconds and then blowing it out each time is going to stretch it a lot.

[Amphetryon]

You mean battles where the caster can nova?

No need to nova, simply cast intelligently as if your companions were not available for that combat - pick whatever in-game justification for that you like. There's at least one example I can recall where an optimized Fighter was essentially stalemated against a Druid's Animal Companion.

[Darius Kane]

Maybe there's no need to nova, but he still can nova, which completely removes the "balancing" weakness of a caster. An arena battle is stacked against the non-caster, not to mention that it's a really bad way to compare classes.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

No need to nova, simply cast intelligently as if your companions were not available for that combat - pick whatever in-game justification for that you like. There's at least one example I can recall where an optimized Fighter was essentially stalemated against a Druid's Animal Companion.

Are you referring to one of the numerous Giacomo Monk/Fighter battles against Pharaoh's Fist? If so, I thought that arena battle stalled over a dispute about dropping boulders.

[elvengunner69]

Wizards, druids, clerics, artificers, and archivists are the hands-down strongest classes in the game, with Wizard ruling the roost and Druid being slightly ont he bottom of that list. It takes a bit more than 'a good DM' to counter this, though many tables have enjoyed great success with a mature gentleman's agreement on both sides to neither rape the game, nor run the game in such a manner that encourages aforementioned rape.

Good thing then that I never said it was the only way. :biggrin:

[Coidzor]

I played a wizard in a game like this. It was the most fun. Paying kids to collect bat poop and such. The dm had the idea that components are in the book for a reason.

They are. Of course the reason is that they're legacy holdovers of really bad and corny jokes from the Gygaxian era.

[morkendi]

I am thinking of running a game soon. My wizards will run something like this. What I am doing is wizards must be specialist using rules. Eschew components is available to their specialty school as they have mastered that type of magic enough to no longer need them as a focus.

[killem2]

Yes it does, but it tones them down and pulls them farther back in line. I have played this way and had fun doing it. Some towns have merchants that deal in components. A wizard with unlimited resources is going to be overpowering. The original poster is trying to bring down their power lvl.

If I found wizards to be a problem, I agree with this method 100%

[Icewraith]

I ran a very spellcaster heavy campaign at high level, and I discovered that the best way to get your casters balanced is to

1: Give them opportunities to use resources. Knock, divinations, spells, passwall, teleport, charm just to bypass physical obstacles are all good. Force the characters to use resources just to get INTO trouble, and then force them to use more to get out. Never have the BBEG find the players, make the players expend resources to even have a hope of chasing after the BBEG. If all the wizard does is waltz into 30' square rooms and neuter opponents then that player will never prepare spells that do anything else.

2: Don't let anything you want to be difficult be the first or second challenge of the day. Also, force the party to use magic and then have the monsters run away. Sufficiently intelligent and rich oppoenents will have command-word triggered traps of area dispel magic and th elike to deal with buff-and-charge parties that aren't sufficiently cautious.

3: Never use solo monsters. Anything sufficiently powerful to bother the pcs should have minions, lackeys, and hangers-on dedicated to serving it.

4: Make sure your opponents are also using magic. This forces your casters to pack multiple dispels - but that's ok, because they get to use them! Also, make sure smart opponents are dispelling your players.

5: Anything you want to survive needs to have a few different escape mechanisms and should be in place to use them BEFORE they get down to about 40% hp. Usually the terrain should NOT favor the players.

6: Variety is the spice of life. Instead of twelve orc warriors in the warband, send four warriors and one bard, one barbarian and two clerics of higher level.

Challenging spellcasters is more about varying your encounter design and forcing them to prepare for and deal with surprises. If you let them nova or just load up on save-or-suck, there won't be anything left for anyone else to fight. Your players will start to be a lot more cautious once you trick them into going nova and then force them to go through the rest of the session conserving whatever spells they have left, or else they run out of time.

Keeping track of individual rounds can be a pain and I don't reccommend it, but if the players understand that if they take 8 hours to rest the thing they are after will be gone (or once it happens to them often enough) they'll play more conservatively.

[Kelb_Panthera]

3 of the big 5 casters (wizard, archivist, and artificer out of those plus cleric and druid) have built in limiting factors that were intended to help balance them.
Specifically; the archivist and wizard are both dependent on the GM to allow them access to spells beyond the few they get at level up and dependence on a material item that can be eliminated. The artificer is horrifically subject to a time-crunch and all 3 -are- reliant on predicting the upcoming challenges with some modicum of accuracy.

The problem is that a DM that actually uses these limiting factors is called an asshat who doesn't deserve to sit in the DM's chair by the greater portion of the community. These limitations can be mitigated or even circumvented, but the level of op-fu required to do so makes the problem into one of conflicting expectations and the dreaded DM-Player arms race, rather than an issue of balance.

The cleric and druid were intended to be balanced by the RP requirements of playing a pious character, but such a "balancing technique" is flawed in conception by being horribly ill-defined and dependent on the DM making judgement calls rather than relying on printed rules. In short, it's bad game design.

[barna10]

I ran a very spellcaster heavy campaign at high level, and I discovered that the best way to get your casters balanced is to

1: Give them opportunities to use resources. Knock, divinations, spells, passwall, teleport, charm just to bypass physical obstacles are all good. Force the characters to use resources just to get INTO trouble, and then force them to use more to get out. Never have the BBEG find the players, make the players expend resources to even have a hope of chasing after the BBEG. If all the wizard does is waltz into 30' square rooms and neuter opponents then that player will never prepare spells that do anything else.

2: Don't let anything you want to be difficult be the first or second challenge of the day. Also, force the party to use magic and then have the monsters run away. Sufficiently intelligent and rich oppoenents will have command-word triggered traps of area dispel magic and th elike to deal with buff-and-charge parties that aren't sufficiently cautious.

3: Never use solo monsters. Anything sufficiently powerful to bother the pcs should have minions, lackeys, and hangers-on dedicated to serving it.

4: Make sure your opponents are also using magic. This forces your casters to pack multiple dispels - but that's ok, because they get to use them! Also, make sure smart opponents are dispelling your players.

5: Anything you want to survive needs to have a few different escape mechanisms and should be in place to use them BEFORE they get down to about 40% hp. Usually the terrain should NOT favor the players.

6: Variety is the spice of life. Instead of twelve orc warriors in the warband, send four warriors and one bard, one barbarian and two clerics of higher level.

Challenging spellcasters is more about varying your encounter design and forcing them to prepare for and deal with surprises. If you let them nova or just load up on save-or-suck, there won't be anything left for anyone else to fight. Your players will start to be a lot more cautious once you trick them into going nova and then force them to go through the rest of the session conserving whatever spells they have left, or else they run out of time.

Keeping track of individual rounds can be a pain and I don't reccommend it, but if the players understand that if they take 8 hours to rest the thing they are after will be gone (or once it happens to them often enough) they'll play more conservatively.

What he said and more so.

Wizards are not unbalanced or overpowered at all. They can be difficult to challenge, but not impossible.

The Wizards #1 enemy is resource management. Any mid to high level Wizard worth his weight is going to own 1 or 2 fights, but what about the 10th, 11th, or 12th?

Also, don't count out roleplaying and story hazards. Remember all those stories about the brave adventurers sneaking into the Wizard's tower to pilfer his magic? Well now that uber-Wizard in the party is that Wizard in the tower and somewhere there is somebody stupid or brave enough to come looking for his stuff!

Also, PC wizards aren't the only horse in town. Big bad (or good) wizards may come calling to prove themselves, rid the world of evil (good), or just to take his items.

I've been playing this game since 1986 and the same argument has always been made that Wizards get too powerful at high levels. Tell that to all my players over the years that have had their-pet high level wizard killed by an assassin or swarmed in battle.

I respectfully disagree that Wizards are unbalanced or overpowered. I absolutely think if a Wizard PC is "too powerful" it is 100% the fault of the DM for not knowing how to challenge the player/character, but that's just been my experience from the last 27 years. What do I know?

[Amphetryon]

What he said and more so.

Wizards are not unbalanced or overpowered at all. They can be difficult to challenge, but not impossible.

The Wizards #1 enemy is resource management. Any mid to high level Wizard worth his weight is going to own 1 or 2 fights, but what about the 10th, 11th, or 12th?

Also, don't count out roleplaying and story hazards. Remember all those stories about the brave adventurers sneaking into the Wizard's tower to pilfer his magic? Well now that uber-Wizard in the party is that Wizard in the tower and somewhere there is somebody stupid or brave enough to come looking for his stuff!

Also, PC wizards aren't the only horse in town. Big bad (or good) wizards may come calling to prove themselves, rid the world of evil (good), or just to take his items.

I've been playing this game since 1986 and the same argument has always been made that Wizards get too powerful at high levels. Tell that to all my players over the years that have had their-pet high level wizard killed by an assassin or swarmed in battle.

I respectfully disagree that Wizards are unbalanced or overpowered. I absolutely think if a Wizard PC is "too powerful" it is 100% the fault of the DM for not knowing how to challenge the player/character, but that's just been my experience from the last 27 years. What do I know?If you're throwing 10 or more fights a day at a party, you've gone well beyond what 3.5 assumes for its RNG. With that many fights, aren't the Characters leveling up almost daily (given an average 13.33 "appropriate" encounters to level by the charts)?

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ barna:

I don't think balance means what you think it means.

A wizard isn't unbalanced because he can't be challenged, that's categorically untrue. He's unbalanced because challenging a wizard is a dramatically more difficult and involved prospect than challenging an equal level mundane character or partial caster. Spontaneous casters keep up better than they're generally given credit for, but even they are more easily challenged than a T1 operating at near-full potential.

It's this difference in what constitutes an appropriately difficult challenge that makes the various classes unbalanced.

[Venusaur]

The Wizards #1 enemy is resource management. Any mid to high level Wizard worth his weight is going to own 1 or 2 fights, but what about the 10th, 11th, or 12th?

The fighter will usually run out of hit points before the wizard runs out of spells.

[Coidzor]

I've been playing this game since 1986 and the same argument has always been made that Wizards get too powerful at high levels. Tell that to all my players over the years that have had their-pet high level wizard killed by an assassin or swarmed in battle.

The DM can always engineer a rocks fall situation, that's not at issue here nor has it ever been at issue from what I've gathered from grognards and articles alike.

[Deophaun]

The Wizards #1 enemy is resource management. Any mid to high level Wizard worth his weight is going to own 1 or 2 fights, but what about the 10th, 11th, or 12th?
Every time I've played a wizard, I've been the last person in the party to ask for a rest. The. Last. The fighter's bleeding out, the cleric's out of spells, and my wizard still has effective spells left, and still enough to bug out to safety if need be. You want to keep trying to challenge me? Go ahead. The rest of the group will be rolling up new characters well before me (not really, I'll just pay to true rez them later with my infinite wealth).

[Randomguy]

Getting back to the original question:

It kind of depends. A necromancer without transmutation and a conjurer (forced to ban transmutation) would have a lot of the same spell options, and necromancy has enough good spells for one worthwhile memorization a day (more or less). So while wizards will still be staff and pointed hat above most other classes, the different types of wizards would be on mostly level ground.

What about diviners and focused specialists, though? If any wizard only needs to ban one school, then that kind of leaves diviners at a disadvantage, since they only needed to ban one school in the first place. And while even the worse schools have one good spells for most levels, not all of them have three, so a focused specialist necromancer would be way behind a focused specialist conjurer.

[awa]

the trick to 10+ encounters is not that each one is level appropriate but that it's just strong enough to threaten the party and spread out enough over the day to prevent the wizard from just buffing the party and steam rolling the encounter.

now depending on your optimization level this will eventually stop working as the tier one caster get to strong but for the mid level i find it works well.
(to well for players not use to the style ive had a couple times wizards and clerics wasted all their good spells steam rolling the first couple fights only to realize they need to either let the evil wizard complete his evil ritual or finish the adventure by hitting targets with sticks.)

[Darius Kane]

The fighter will usually run out of hit points before the wizard runs out of spells.
But the Fighter can more easily replenish his hit points than the caster his spells. And a Fighter on low hit points is still fully functional (but will go down very quickly), meanwhile the caster not so much, depending what spells he has left or if he's a spontaneous caster. And a caster has spells AND hit points to worry about.

[Psyren]

I ran a very spellcaster heavy campaign at high level, and I discovered that the best way to get your casters balanced is to

1: Give them opportunities to use resources. Knock, divinations, spells, passwall, teleport, charm just to bypass physical obstacles are all good. Force the characters to use resources just to get INTO trouble, and then force them to use more to get out. Never have the BBEG find the players, make the players expend resources to even have a hope of chasing after the BBEG. If all the wizard does is waltz into 30' square rooms and neuter opponents then that player will never prepare spells that do anything else.

2: Don't let anything you want to be difficult be the first or second challenge of the day. Also, force the party to use magic and then have the monsters run away. Sufficiently intelligent and rich oppoenents will have command-word triggered traps of area dispel magic and th elike to deal with buff-and-charge parties that aren't sufficiently cautious.

3: Never use solo monsters. Anything sufficiently powerful to bother the pcs should have minions, lackeys, and hangers-on dedicated to serving it.

4: Make sure your opponents are also using magic. This forces your casters to pack multiple dispels - but that's ok, because they get to use them! Also, make sure smart opponents are dispelling your players.

5: Anything you want to survive needs to have a few different escape mechanisms and should be in place to use them BEFORE they get down to about 40% hp. Usually the terrain should NOT favor the players.

6: Variety is the spice of life. Instead of twelve orc warriors in the warband, send four warriors and one bard, one barbarian and two clerics of higher level.

Challenging spellcasters is more about varying your encounter design and forcing them to prepare for and deal with surprises. If you let them nova or just load up on save-or-suck, there won't be anything left for anyone else to fight. Your players will start to be a lot more cautious once you trick them into going nova and then force them to go through the rest of the session conserving whatever spells they have left, or else they run out of time.

Keeping track of individual rounds can be a pain and I don't reccommend it, but if the players understand that if they take 8 hours to rest the thing they are after will be gone (or once it happens to them often enough) they'll play more conservatively.

This.



Wizards are not unbalanced or overpowered at all. They can be difficult to challenge, but not impossible.

"Unbalanced and overpowered" does not mean "impossible to challenge." I remember a quote from Saph that resonated with me: "I'm the DM, I can challenge any class." The difference is the level of effort needed to challenge one class vs. another.

[Coidzor]

But the Fighter can more easily replenish his hit points than the caster his spells. And a Fighter on low hit points is still fully functional (but will go down very quickly), meanwhile the caster not so much, depending what spells he has left or if he's a spontaneous caster. And a caster has spells AND hit points to worry about.

And where, pray tell, is the Fighter getting this healing from? :smallamused:

[barna10]

the trick to 10+ encounters is not that each one is level appropriate but that it's just strong enough to threaten the party and spread out enough over the day to prevent the wizard from just buffing the party and steam rolling the encounter.

now depending on your optimization level this will eventually stop working as the tier one caster get to strong but for the mid level i find it works well.
(to well for players not use to the style ive had a couple times wizards and clerics wasted all their good spells steam rolling the first couple fights only to realize they need to either let the evil wizard complete his evil ritual or finish the adventure by hitting targets with sticks.)

Exactly.

Also, are you telling me those enemies with at least a 10+ Intelligence don't just bypass the fighters and send everything they have at the real threat, the guy buffing every one or sending fireballs at them? That's the problem. Intelligent enemies should target the spellcasters first. That's when their resources really get depleted, and quickly.

Even enemies 6 or more CRs below the party's level can really make for a bad day for the Wizard when they ignore the front line and starting raining hell down on the squishy wizard. Especially if they have snipers the wizard can't find...Oh, and obscuring mist is a wonderful spell for neutralizing the wizard; can't use all those great spells on what you can't see.

[barna10]

@ barna:

I don't think balance means what you think it means.

A wizard isn't unbalanced because he can't be challenged, that's categorically untrue. He's unbalanced because challenging a wizard is a dramatically more difficult and involved prospect than challenging an equal level mundane character or partial caster. Spontaneous casters keep up better than they're generally given credit for, but even they are more easily challenged than a T1 operating at near-full potential.

It's this difference in what constitutes an appropriately difficult challenge that makes the various classes unbalanced.

No, balance isn't in the numbers, it's in everyone having fun. Anything else is a myth.

That being said, the numbers are simple enough to manipulate to ensure balance is maintained.

[Coidzor]

Also, are you telling me those enemies with at least a 10+ Intelligence don't just bypass the fighters and send everything they have at the real threat, the guy buffing every one or sending fireballs at them? That's the problem. Intelligent enemies should target the spellcasters first. That's when their resources really get depleted, and quickly.

Well, you've kind of hit the nail on the head of how wizards are unbalanced then, haven't you? Wizards, or any other well-played T1, are the "real threat." While Fighters can't actually do the job that they're so often thought of as supposedly doing and that they repeatedly get sold as doing. :smallamused:

[barna10]

If you're throwing 10 or more fights a day at a party, you've gone well beyond what 3.5 assumes for its RNG. With that many fights, aren't the Characters leveling up almost daily (given an average 13.33 "appropriate" encounters to level by the charts)?

There's nothing saying every encounter needs to be level appropriate. Throwing a bunch of CR 5 dudes against a 12th level party, over and over again, will still wear them down eventually. Also, having the CR12-13 bad guy pop in, shoot a few arrows or spells, and pop back out will also help wear them down. Not every fight needs to be to the death, nor does every fight need to be of a certain level.

All you have to do is be creative. Granted, you still throw in an encounter where the Wizard can blast things and win the day, but not every encounter needs to be easily won with a few fireballs.

[Coidzor]

No, balance isn't in the numbers, it's in everyone having fun. Anything else is a myth.

Ah, you've almost got the quote down. The point of the game is to have fun and anything else is a myth.

It just so happens that the nature of the game as it went to market leaves something to be desired vis a vis fun, or, rather, some things, and one of these is balance.


That being said, the numbers are simple enough to manipulate to ensure balance is maintained.

If that were so, experience would bear it out rather than the occasional voice lost in the darkness rather than the balance of the game and challenging the competent wizard and the inept fighter or even the competent wizard and competent rogue in the same party being such endemic and thorny issues.

If it were a solved problem there'd be a handbook to refer people to.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, balance isn't in the numbers, it's in everyone having fun. Anything else is a myth.

That being said, the numbers are simple enough to manipulate to ensure balance is maintained.

Now I'm certain balance doesn't mean what you think it means.

Game balance very much -is- in the numbers.

What you're talking about is satisfaction. It's entirely subjective and has nothing at all to do with balance.

How in the world did you come to this idea of what the word "balance" means? (not sarcastic or rhetorical. I'm genuinely confused.)

[barna10]

Well, you've kind of hit the nail on the head of how wizards are unbalanced then, haven't you? Wizards, or any other well-played T1, are the "real threat." While Fighters can't actually do the job that they're so often thought of as supposedly doing and that they repeatedly get sold as doing. :smallamused:

No, the unbalanced part is how the wizard survives to be so powerful when the fighter concentrates on killings things and not on protecting the wizard.

Every party needs to be challenged based on the make-up of the party. If the Wizard is the most powerful character, then he gets the greatest challenge, but it is the DM's job to make sure EVERY character and player is challenged. If he's just going to let every challenge be solved by the wizard, then he failed.

[Archmage1]

You mean cannon fodder, right?

The wizard carries a catapult around, loads the dominated fighter into it, and launches him at the enemies. if the fighter loses, get a new one.

[Darius Kane]

And where, pray tell, is the Fighter getting this healing from? :smallamused:
Clerics, potions, item of Regeneration/Fast Healing, etc. If you're implying that the Fighter needs a caster then sure, he does, although not necessarily a team member. That doesn't change the fact that he can get all or most of his HPs back and fairly cheap.

[barna10]

Now I'm certain balance doesn't mean what you think it means.

Game balance very much -is- in the numbers.

What you're talking about is satisfaction. It's entirely subjective and has nothing at all to do with balance.

How in the world did you come to this idea of what the word "balance" means? (not sarcastic or rhetorical. I'm genuinely confused.)

It's a definition that makes more sense the more you play. Sure, combat balance is very much all about the numbers, but "play" balance is a macro concept much bigger than just combat effectiveness.

Take just about any story you've read or movie you've seen,, is the hero always the most powerful? The most attractive? The strongest, fastest, or most obvious? Probably not. Take the genesis of all of this, The Lord of the Rings. The hero is the most unlikely of the group, the Hobbit. Not the Ranger, or the Godlike Wizard, but the short, no shoes wearing Hobbit that eats too much. Is he somehow balanced with Gandalf? Can he make armies stop by merely holding up his staff? Can he go toe-to-toe with a Balrog? No, but he is still THE hero of the whole saga.

You may call it player satisfaction if you like, but I believe using that as play balance instead of worrying about who can deal or take the most damage leads to a much more enjoyable game. Add on top of that a good DM that still figures how to challenge everyone given vastly differing power levels, and you have a masterpiece.

It took me at least 15 years of roleplaying to start to get it, but then everything started making sense.

[barna10]

You mean cannon fodder, right?

The wizard carries a catapult around, loads the dominated fighter into it, and launches him at the enemies. if the fighter loses, get a new one.

This why you should probably adventure with someone that gives a crap whether you make it back alive or not...

[barna10]

Ah, you've almost got the quote down. The point of the game is to have fun and anything else is a myth.

It just so happens that the nature of the game as it went to market leaves something to be desired vis a vis fun, or, rather, some things, and one of these is balance.



If that were so, experience would bear it out rather than the occasional voice lost in the darkness rather than the balance of the game and challenging the competent wizard and the inept fighter or even the competent wizard and competent rogue in the same party being such endemic and thorny issues.

If it were a solved problem there'd be a handbook to refer people to.

There doesn't need to be a handbook. Just creativity.

Also, the nature of the game is a fantasy role playing game, objective achieved. How everyone executes the game is up to them. If a group chooses to make it all about the numbers, that's all it will be. Everything one needs to make it more is already there.

[willpell]

It has been stated over and over on these and other boards that the most broken spells in 3.5 are in Core; it's a position I agree with.

A lot of them are only broken because they're minimalistically written, and can be fixed by taking some time to rewrite them to have sensible functional limitations comparable to those of other spells.


Get rid of eschew components. Get rid of spell component pouch. Make them invest time and money. They want web, they look for it. Dm says," you found enough for 3 web spells". All the spells have components that are needed. Set a limit on how much a spell pouch or pocket can hold. Wizards will tone down if resorces are limited.

I like this idea in theory, but in practice it's far too much work, and encourages degenerate behavior on the player's part. It's the sort of thing I'd love to see implemented in a video game, or by the DM of a game in which I'm a player (I would not behave in the aforementioned degenerate fashion), but not something I'd ever be up to the work of implementing myself, unless some books were created for me which exactly fit my specifications and did all the work.


Drop the wizard into the arena with the barb if you want, but you'll have a much harder time once he uses nerveskitter/celerity to go first

Why are you assuming he doesn't fail his spot check and die in the surprise round? Surprising a wizard so he doesn't have even a split-second of warning to buff himself seems like the obvious method of defeating him.

[Venusaur]

Clerics, potions, item of Regeneration/Fast Healing, etc. If you're implying that the Fighter needs a caster then sure, he does, although not necessarily a team member. That doesn't change the fact that he can get all or most of his HPs back and fairly cheap.

Wizards have wands, scrolls, staves, and other ways of casting spells after they run out. Plus, they can just teleport away if they need to take a break



Even enemies 6 or more CRs below the party's level can really make for a bad day for the Wizard when they ignore the front line and starting raining hell down on the squishy wizard. Especially if they have snipers the wizard can't find...Oh, and obscuring mist is a wonderful spell for neutralizing the wizard; can't use all those great spells on what you can't see.

Protection from arrows, wind wall, invisibility, mirror image, and obscuring mist
are all core ways for the wizard to make archers irrelevant or mostly irrelevant, all at a fairly low level. Outside of core we have silliness like friendly fire that lets the wizard destroy them almost effortlessly.

Obscuring mist would hardly stop a wizard. Stinking Cloud, Evard's Black tentacles, and any other large AOE lets you deal with it. Obscuring mist goes both ways too, and it is hard to attack the wizard back from inside it.

[barna10]

A lot of them are only broken because they're minimalistically written, and can be fixed by taking some time to rewrite them to have sensible functional limitations comparable to those of other spells.


You could always make spellcasting have an RP consequence. Make it a burden to have the power in some way. Maybe require all wizards to join a guild and have the guild set rules regarding which uses of magic/spells is ok and which are not. This would prevent you having to rewrite any rules, forbid classes, etc. The guild could police infractions, even kill PCs if they screw up badly enough. It would still allow the PCs to have all the grand power but risk angering the guild if they break the rules. It could lead to some interesting decision making when the groups life is on the line:

"If I use Wish to [X] we'll kill the [Y] and get his treasure, but that would be against guild rules and they may hunt me down and kill me. I'll just cast another Magic Missile."

In my book, anything that leads to more story and roleplaying opportunities without having to outright forbid something is better.

[barna10]

Wizards have wands, scrolls, staves, and other ways of casting spells after they run out. Plus, they can just teleport away if they need to take a break



Protection from arrows, wind wall, invisibility, mirror image, and obscuring mist
are all core ways for the wizard to make archers irrelevant or mostly irrelevant, all at a fairly low level. Outside of core we have silliness like friendly fire that lets the wizard destroy them almost effortlessly.

Obscuring mist would hardly stop a wizard. Stinking Cloud, Evard's Black tentacles, and any other large AOE lets you deal with it. Obscuring mist goes both ways too, and it is hard to attack the wizard back from inside it.

True, but all of those protection spells take slots. How many is the Wizard going to prepare in a given day? If he is preparing a lot of these spells, sin't his effectiveness reduced?

And yes, obscuring mist is easily dealt with, by casting another spell. Again, this diverts resources and actions away from the Wizard making him less effective. The enemy would be throwing up the mist to keep the Wizard from killing them, not to try and kill the Wizard while he's in it. They can deal with him after they kill all the beefy dudes. Divide and Conquer!

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's a definition that makes more sense the more you play. Sure, combat balance is very much all about the numbers, but "play" balance is a macro concept much bigger than just combat effectiveness.

Take just about any story you've read or movie you've seen,, is the hero always the most powerful? The most attractive? The strongest, fastest, or most obvious? Probably not. Take the genesis of all of this, The Lord of the Rings. The hero is the most unlikely of the group, the Hobbit. Not the Ranger, or the Godlike Wizard, but the short, no shoes wearing Hobbit that eats too much. Is he somehow balanced with Gandalf? Can he make armies stop by merely holding up his staff? Can he go toe-to-toe with a Balrog? No, but he is still THE hero of the whole saga.

You may call it player satisfaction if you like, but I believe using that as play balance instead of worrying about who can deal or take the most damage leads to a much more enjoyable game. Add on top of that a good DM that still figures how to challenge everyone given vastly differing power levels, and you have a masterpiece.

It took me at least 15 years of roleplaying to start to get it, but then everything started making sense.

"Play balance" as you call it, is too subjective to have any meaning in forum discussions.

It's important, to be sure, but it's not what most of anyone here is talking about when they talk about balance. It's also deuced difficult to accomplish if the power discrepency between two unbalanced (in the game balance sense) classes is noticeable, much less when there's a significant discrepancy between four.

Looking at the LotR example you brought up (which is flawed by virtue of being a narrative, not a game), I can't help noticing that the hobits contributed very little in combat and eventually became seperated from the group. The fellowship of the ring was several parties of differing levels of optimization and general power working in the same campaign, not a single, balanced (in any sense of the word) party.

Nevermind that sinking the ring in -any- volcano would've made it irrecoverable and made its destruction largely unnecessary. They took the trip to Mt. Doom because the author said so, not because it was the most logical and swiftest means of ending the threat. Hell, they could've saved a crap-ton of time by just getting some kind of flying mounts (giant eagles anyone?) to fly them from the meeting in the elven homeland to as-close-to-Mt. Doom-as-possible.

LotR is a great example for story-telling but it's a terrible example for gaming, especially in D&D.

Completely unrelated note: that little quote marks looking button next to the quote button at the bottom of each post is the multiquote button. If you click that button for each post you want to address, then click post reply, all of the marked posts will be quoted in a single response. That way you won't have to post 4-5 times in a row to address everyone you want to address. Just FYI.

[TuggyNE]

What I think everyone is forgetting is that The wizard is balanced by a) reliance on his spellbook b) his severe frailty and c) his extreme need to anticipate whatever the day may bring and prepare accordingly. Think about this; if you drop an optimized wizard in an arena with an average barbarian the wizard will be diced to tiny pieces in the second or third round. Wizards can solo, especially at higher levels, but their real strength is in a party. Having meat shields the to buff and stand behind and sling spells or doing some scrying so the rouge can get into the enemy camp safely is what their all about. They were designed to be the brains not the powerhouse. If they are too overpowered in a game it is the fault on an unprepared DM who is not properly applying the rules. You dont have to stand on a wizard's nuts to balance him, just be smart and understand the game.

This has already been backlashed quite a bit, but ... let's just say there was a very interesting experiment a while back with a level 1 Wizard competing with a level 1 Barbarian by facing identical level 3 Rogue/Cleric/Wizard/Fighter parties (i.e., an EL 7 challenge at APL 0.3: officially, "Unbeatable"). The terms were to start in an arena maybe 40-50' from the opposing party, 3 matches each. Guess who won 3/3 matches, and who won 1/3.

Yeah.

[willpell]

Take just about any story you've read or movie you've seen,, is the hero always the most powerful? The most attractive? The strongest, fastest, or most obvious? Probably not. Take the genesis of all of this, The Lord of the Rings. The hero is the most unlikely of the group, the Hobbit. Not the Ranger, or the Godlike Wizard, but the short, no shoes wearing Hobbit that eats too much. Is he somehow balanced with Gandalf? Can he make armies stop by merely holding up his staff? Can he go toe-to-toe with a Balrog? No, but he is still THE hero of the whole saga.

This is almost impossible to implement in a play situation, however. The way this is most likely to happen at a game table is if the Hobbit's player is the DM's girlfriend or something, and the players are going to be fairly justified in complaining that they're doing all the heavy lifting while a player who does nothing but get into trouble receives all sorts of undeserved breaks. Doing something like this in a way that doesn't foster player resentment is a tall order, though not impossible. In theory it could be a way to reward the player for engaging the game and roleplaying well rather than being meta and video-gamey about it, but in practice it's very difficult to pull this off except with a very close-knit group and a lot of advance negotiation and trust-building. Which are always things you *should* have, but logistics may dictate that they're unavailable; sometimes you've just got your roommates at college or something, and need to find a way to kill four hours without everyone ending up hating your guts.


They are. Of course the reason is that they're legacy holdovers of really bad and corny jokes from the Gygaxian era.

Some of them are bad, yeah, but others I like. I've invented a few of my own that I'm immensely proud of...for instance, Protection from Energy requires you to give the target a white clay tile painted with a symbol of the element it resists, and the tile cracks and crumbles as it absorbs damage, giving you an in-character metric for the amount of protection that's been discharged. (Resist Energy uses the same tiles but they don't decay over the duration.)

[barna10]

"Play balance" as you call it, is too subjective to have any meaning in forum discussions.

It's important, to be sure, but it's not what most of anyone here is talking about when they talk about balance. It's also deuced difficult to accomplish if the power discrepency between two unbalanced (in the game balance sense) classes is noticeable, much less when there's a significant discrepancy between four.

Looking at the LotR example you brought up (which is flawed by virtue of being a narrative, not a game), I can't help noticing that the hobits contributed very little in combat and eventually became seperated from the group. The fellowship of the ring was several parties of differing levels of optimization and general power working in the same campaign, not a single, balanced (in any sense of the word) party.

LotR is a great example for story-telling but it's a terrible example for gaming, especially in D&D.

Completely unrelated note: that little quote marks looking button next to the quote button at the bottom of each post is the multiquote button. If you click that button for each post you want to address, then click post reply, all of the marked posts will be quoted in a single response. That way you won't have to post 4-5 times in a row to address everyone you want to address. Just FYI.

First, thanks, didn't know about multiquote

Secondly, D&D is an attempt to allow us to live through our favorite stories. So yes, a LOTR analogy is completely relevant.

Here's where balance comes into play. Every player has the choice of what to play before the game begins. If one player plays a Rogue and One Plays a fighter, they are immediately unbalanced, by your definition of the word. They are near equivalent, but the fighter wins most fights. The only way to ensure balance, again by your definition, is to have everyone play carbon copy characters that are actually identical, but even then they aren't truly balanced since a smarter player is going to be more effective.

The only way to ensure balance is to focus on the immaterial aspects, not the numbers.

[barna10]

This is almost impossible to implement in a play situation, however. The way this is most likely to happen at a game table is if the Hobbit's player is the DM's girlfriend or something, and the players are going to be fairly justified in complaining that they're doing all the heavy lifting while a player who does nothing but get into trouble receives all sorts of undeserved breaks. Doing something like this in a way that doesn't foster player resentment is a tall order, though not impossible. In theory it could be a way to reward the player for engaging the game and roleplaying well rather than being meta and video-gamey about it, but in practice it's very difficult to pull this off except with a very close-knit group and a lot of advance negotiation and trust-building. Which are always things you *should* have, but logistics may dictate that they're unavailable; sometimes you've just got your roommates at college or something, and need to find a way to kill four hours without everyone ending up hating your guts.


Granted, it does take a certain amount of maturity to pull off a game where everyone can truly play whatever character they want, but it is great when it does happen. It all depends on the group. I can say I've played both ways and had infinitely more fun when everyone got a chance to play their character however they wanted and combat effectiveness took a backseat. That being said, I suffered through over a decade of not so great games to get a game like that.

[Darius Kane]

Wizards have wands, scrolls, staves, and other ways of casting spells after they run out. Plus, they can just teleport away if they need to take a break
Lol, am I an idiot. :smallredface: A few weeks ago I was thinking the same exact thing but back then I actually did remember about wands and stuff, so I didn't post what I posted earlier. I feel silly.


Nevermind that sinking the ring in -any- volcano would've made it irrecoverable and made its destruction largely unnecessary.
Um, no.
Firstly - were there any volcano's other than Mt. Doom near enough?
Secondly - Sauron was actually winning. Without destroying the Ring he would take over Middlearth sooner or later and the heroes who fought at Mordor's Gates would be killed then and there.

[Venusaur]

True, but all of those protection spells take slots. How many is the Wizard going to prepare in a given day? If he is preparing a lot of these spells, sin't his effectiveness reduced?

Scrolls of low level spells are pretty cheap. I always grab a couple of niche spells when I play a wizard. Divinations are another good way. I high level wizard is never unprepared because he knows exactly what is coming.

[Kelb_Panthera]

First, thanks, didn't know about multiquote

Secondly, D&D is an attempt to allow us to live through our favorite stories. So yes, a LOTR analogy is completely relevant.

Here's where balance comes into play. Every player has the choice of what to play before the game begins. If one player plays a Rogue and One Plays a fighter, they are immediately unbalanced, by your definition of the word. They are near equivalent, but the fighter wins most fights. The only way to ensure balance, again by your definition, is to have everyone play carbon copy characters that are actually identical, but even then they aren't truly balanced since a smarter player is going to be more effective.

The only way to ensure balance is to focus on the immaterial aspects, not the numbers.

This is true if you're shooting for absolutely perfect balance, but that's not what we're getting at either. A rogue and a fighter, if built with the same level of op-fu, will be approximately balanced with one another. The rogue can hit nearly as hard in combat, but only situationally. The major point of imbalance between the two is in social settings and trap-finding.

Comparing either to a wizard, however, shows a markedly greater degree of imbalance. There's nothing the fighter or rogue can do that the wizard can't do just as well. In a minimal optimization setting the wizard won't be able to do the other classes' schtick quite as often in a given in-game day but, the few times he can, he can do it immensely faster and more easily. In a high-op setting he can do the others' things better, faster, and just as often. They simply have far greater potential than virtually any other class that's not another T1.

I must respectfully disagree with your belief that existing stories are relevant to gaming as anything other than inspiration. The difference in the needs of playing a good game and writing a good story preclude using almost any situation from a literary source as a good example for gaming.

The ring needing to be plunged into the fires of Mt. Doom to be destroyed and the way the fellowship met are the only two pieces of that narrative that can seamlessly translate into a gaming situation.

I play as much for character and plot-development as anyone, but I can't agree with the notion that good storytelling is all there is to good gaming.

[willpell]

Secondly, D&D is an attempt to allow us to live through our favorite stories.

Debatable at best. D&D can also be a way to play out entirely new stories with yourself as the relatively original hero, rather than an Expy of Bilbo or Frodo or whoever; it can also be more a mechanical amusement, a sort of ultracomplex puzzle where storytelling takes a backseat to the ability to figure out how best to defeat a specified combat challenge (in fact the latter is what the rules try hardest to achieve, though it's poorly done because a lot of critically important factors aren't well fleshed out). To the best of my knowledge D&D has never published anything that specifically attempted to mimic LOTR or Conan or Elric as closely as possible; it takes loose conceptual inspiration but is nowhere near the same thing. Probably the closest to a "literary" campaign setting, Dragonlance, which revolves largely around a single epic storyline whose key players (Everman vs. Takhisis etc.) are more or less the "main characters"...but either you play those characters and you have to act out the story as it was written, or you play low-level flunkies of them and are largely irrelevant. Either way it's not great, and there's a reason Dragonlance is not one of the better-respected settings. Greyhawk, Faerun, Planescape and Eberron have all been wildly more successful, largely because they encourage a sandbox approach which gives the players more agency.

TLDR: Telling an epic story is great if you want to sell a book, but is at most part of the picture when playing a game. And sometimes trying to tell a story actively gets in the way of playing a game.


Here's where balance comes into play. Every player has the choice of what to play before the game begins. If one player plays a Rogue and One Plays a fighter, they are immediately unbalanced, by your definition of the word.

Not very...Rogue and Fighter are only a couple tiers apart, and they function best in different arenas. Fighter vs. Cleric of War is a more apt comparison.

Digression: One problem with Fighter vs. Rogue is that the rules of the game are much better at spelling out exactly what challenges a fighter faces, while a lot of the information relevant to challenging a Rogue is left up to DM fiat unless you're running a module. Every monster's combat abilities are right there in its statblock, so the Fighter knows everything he needs to (and this is one of the reasons I tend to look at the Fighter as the game's baseline). But whether someone's Spot check beats the Rogue's Hide check is a harder question to answer, because there are a thousand situational modifiers that might apply - how dark is the night? is it misty? how much cover is there from the buildings and from random objects around the buildings? Is the guard distracted by the sight of a pretty girl in a window across the street? Has he been drinking that night? Did the rogue have an opportunity to spike his drink, and with what? Is the guard dumb enough to fall for the old "throw a rock at where you aren't" trick? The Rogue also does social roleplay, and the rules on whether you can con the Princess's personal valet into mentioning which tower she keeps her spare jewelry in is even harder to get crunch data for. Ultimately the DM pretty much has to make all this stuff up on the spot, with only vague guidelines as to what makes a fitting DC or what the terrain of a given battlefield should look like (which matters a lot more for the Rogue than the Fighter).


They are near equivalent, but the fighter wins most fights.

The Rogue would say that he "wins" most fights by not being there when they happen. Which might be a tad lame from a gamey perspective, but is a very logical attitude in-character. The Rogue figures the Fighter is a chump who goes out and picks a fight with people who wouldn't even have known he was there if he would have just shut up. As long as the Rogue is being sneaky and saving his own hide, he's playing his character and should be getting some XP for the battles he intentionally doesn't fight. (Again, the game doesn't clarify exactly how much XP you deserve when you do anything other than kill a monster of challenge rating N. The rules are very much not ideal for non-combat challenges, but that doesn't mean they don't matter, only that they require more effort.)


The only way to ensure balance is to focus on the immaterial aspects, not the numbers.

You might have a point in theory, but in practice this is not so much "ensuring" balance as "not even thinking about" it.

[awa]

"Protection from arrows, wind wall, invisibility, mirror image, and obscuring mist
are all core ways for the wizard to make archers irrelevant or mostly irrelevant, all at a fairly low level. Outside of core we have silliness like friendly fire that lets the wizard destroy them almost effortlessly."

yes but if you spread out the fight say with 10min to a hour between fights he has just wasted several spells first to protect himself and second to do anything in the fight where as the fighter has been fighting from the first round. (make sure to spread out the weak monster to prevent him destroying them all with one spell)
if he tries to keep himself constantly buffed then he will not have any spells to actually fight and if he plans on buffing at the beginning of battle the fighter will have just dealt with it by then.

now of course eventually this falls apart becuase eventual the wizard get strong enough and rich enough that he has more or less as many spells as he needs and more importantly the ability to deny most foes an ambush.

[TopCheese]

The Rogue would say that he "wins" most fights by not being there when they happen. Which might be a tad lame from a gamey perspective, but is a very logical attitude in-character. The Rogue figures the Fighter is a chump who goes out and picks a fight with people who wouldn't even have known he was there if he would have just shut up. As long as the Rogue is being sneaky and saving his own hide, he's playing his character and should be getting some XP for the battles he intentionally doesn't fight. (Again, the game doesn't clarify exactly how much XP you deserve when you do anything other than kill a monster of challenge rating N. The rules are very much not ideal for non-combat challenges, but that doesn't mean they don't matter, only that they require more effort.)

.

Reminds me of Ultimate Warrior.. Spartan versus Ninja. At the end the guy representing a ninja said the ninja would take one look at the spartan and leave... Only to come back and poison the spartan later.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Get rid of eschew components. Get rid of spell component pouch. Make them invest time and money. They want web, they look for it. Dm says," you found enough for 3 web spells". All the spells have components that are needed. Set a limit on how much a spell pouch or pocket can hold. Wizards will tone down if resorces are limited.
This causes several major problems.
1. It's a pain.
2. Wizard balance depends on how much DMs enforce this rule. "I want to cast Web. How many castings of Web can I get from this spiderweb?" Depending on the DM, it could be anthing from "100, I guess" to "Roll to avoid damaging the webs."
3. As mentioned, it doesn't really reduce wizard power. It just reduces wizard contribution.


I....honestly don't know where to even begin on how hideously wrong this statement is. There's nothing in this paragraph that's correct or at least definably correct (given that designer intention is something we can only guess at). You are aware of the numerous spells in Core that you can apply to almost every encounter, at all levels?
I'll help.
Spell Mastery lets you lose reliance on your spellbook, as long as nothing too unexpectable comes up; large explosions, certain transmutions, etc, can solve just about everything; and spells, magic items, and other party members can reduce or even eliminate the need to worry about HP, especially since many monsters' biggest Scary Damage factor is things like ability damage or negative levels that doesn't care about HP.


Maybe there's no need to nova, but he still can nova, which completely removes the "balancing" weakness of a caster. An arena battle is stacked against the non-caster, not to mention that it's a really bad way to compare classes.
Wait, the fact that he can "nova" means that it doesn't matter that he doesn't need to nova to win? What.
If you ask me, arena battles are stacked against the squishy wizard bereft of a friendly meatshield. I could see an argument about the spells/day thing, but still...



3 of the big 5 casters (wizard, archivist, and artificer out of those plus cleric and druid) have built in limiting factors that were intended to help balance them.
Specifically; the archivist and wizard are both dependent on the GM to allow them access to spells beyond the few they get at level up and dependence on a material item that can be eliminated. The artificer is horrifically subject to a time-crunch and all 3 -are- reliant on predicting the upcoming challenges with some modicum of accuracy.
The problem is that a DM that actually uses these limiting factors is called an asshat who doesn't deserve to sit in the DM's chair by the greater portion of the community. These limitations can be mitigated or even circumvented, but the level of op-fu required to do so makes the problem into one of conflicting expectations and the dreaded DM-Player arms race, rather than an issue of balance.

The problem is, if you're just doing it to balance the classes, that assessment isn't entirely wrong...



The cleric and druid were intended to be balanced by the RP requirements of playing a pious character, but such a "balancing technique" is flawed in conception by being horribly ill-defined and dependent on the DM making judgement calls rather than relying on printed rules. In short, it's bad game design.
I think another intended hamstring was the idea that most of their spells would be used, y'know, healing. Not once have I seen a post explaining a CoDzilla which focused on healing.


If you're throwing 10 or more fights a day at a party, you've gone well beyond what 3.5 assumes for its RNG. With that many fights, aren't the Characters leveling up almost daily (given an average 13.33 "appropriate" encounters to level by the charts)?
Not to mention that other things you mention either could and should apply to nonwizards (challengers, thieves trying to steal magic items, etc)--possibly harming them more than the wizard--or really make you look like a jerk (assassins slitting throats in the middle of the night).


Getting back to the original question:
The what?
On a serious note, I suck at guessing balance; until I had it explained to me here, I hadn't realized that druids were significantly more powerful than monks. So I'll just sit here at the sidelines, sniping with bits of logic and recalled lore. I really do find these discussions fascinating.


But the Fighter can more easily replenish his hit points than the caster his spells. And a Fighter on low hit points is still fully functional (but will go down very quickly), meanwhile the caster not so much, depending what spells he has left or if he's a spontaneous caster. And a caster has spells AND hit points to worry about.
How can a fighter replenish his own hit points? He has to ask the healer, usually. And the guy mentioned that the cleric always ran out of spells before him, too. So...not so easy, unless you're spending a substantial fraction of your gold on healing potions.


Exactly.

Also, are you telling me those enemies with at least a 10+ Intelligence don't just bypass the fighters and send everything they have at the real threat, the guy buffing every one or sending fireballs at them? That's the problem. Intelligent enemies should target the spellcasters first. That's when their resources really get depleted, and quickly.

Even enemies 6 or more CRs below the party's level can really make for a bad day for the Wizard when they ignore the front line and starting raining hell down on the squishy wizard. Especially if they have snipers the wizard can't find...Oh, and obscuring mist is a wonderful spell for neutralizing the wizard; can't use all those great spells on what you can't see.
Problem is, lots of enemies are melee-only, or dumb, or lack free will, or will get defeated by soft cover (from their meatshields), or if they lack meatshields will want to avoid attacks of opportunity. So...it looks good on paper, but isn't so practical.


No, balance isn't in the numbers, it's in everyone having fun. Anything else is a myth.

That being said, the numbers are simple enough to manipulate to ensure balance is maintained.
An important bit of numbers is making sure that everyone contributes. Because if you lack that, it's a lot less fun. If sending the cleric and three NPC meatshields is as effective as sending the party, why are the other three PCs even there?

Anyways, by two cents on the central issue of balance. The devs at WotC overestimated the skills of the GMs and underestimated the skills of the players.
If wizards mostly just blast and clerics mostly just heal, with both throwing in a little buffing, it's not too bad. On the other hand, if all players take their power to the (min-?)max, the fighters, rogues, etc, don't gain a lot of effectiveness while the power and utility of the cleric and wizard shoot though the roof. This isn't helped by sourcebooks' tendencies to give only some feats and perhaps equipment or prestige classes to mundane classes while the spellcasters got that plus new spells, summonable creatures, etc, nor by the fact that at least 80% of spellcasting-based prestige classes grant extra spellcasting most if not all levels. Probably more important is GM skill. A good GM can make a game fun even if one player is much better at combat or whatever, challenging everyone, and apply appropriate penalties to players who abuse the rules. Most GMs run monsters out of the book, probably picked randomly or else by a "theme," which leads to predictability. They don't provide many (or at least not enough) non-combat challenges, a problem made worse by the fact that the commonest challenges, such as locks and pits, can be easily circumvented by spells. So, in short, skilled players (or ones trying harder to make powerful characters) plus unskilled (or underskilled) DMs leads to balance issues.

[Flickerdart]

No, the unbalanced part is how the wizard survives to be so powerful when the fighter concentrates on killings things and not on protecting the wizard.

Every party needs to be challenged based on the make-up of the party. If the Wizard is the most powerful character, then he gets the greatest challenge, but it is the DM's job to make sure EVERY character and player is challenged. If he's just going to let every challenge be solved by the wizard, then he failed.
Why does the wizard need protection? Even at the early levels, spells like Colour Spray and Sleep take out multiple monsters in one casting, and with Mage Armor and Shield it's possible to get an AC that meets or exceeds the Fighter's. At later levels, more powerful spells and abilities like Persist only further the Wizard's destructive power.

More importantly, what can the Fighter do to "protect" anyone, exactly? Unless he specs himself for tripping and never encounters very strong monsters or flying ones, all he can do is hope that enemies attack him and not someone else.

The problem with challenging a party that contains man who hits things with sticks and man who binds angels to his will is a significant one, too - anything that strains the Wizard's power will straight up kill the Fighter, and anything appropriate for the Fighter is a joke for the Wizard. Of course, you can send a dragon with an ogre buddy at them, but it's pretty obvious who's actually accomplishing anything in that situation. Add to that non-combat encounters, where the skill set of "kill thing with sword" is almost entirely useless and the skill set of "bend universe to will" is extremely so, and you'll get the idea.

[barna10]

More importantly, what can the Fighter do to "protect" anyone, exactly? Unless he specs himself for tripping and never encounters very strong monsters or flying ones, all he can do is hope that enemies attack him and not someone else.


Ever hear of a bodyguard? Who wants to HAVE to fight everyone? Even prize fighters and martial arts masters have bodyguards.

And for all my critics, from the PHB :
"Your characters star in the adventures you play, just like the heroes of a book or movie."

The last I have to say on this issue is that if you have heroes that can "bend the universe to their will", why are they fighting dumb brutes who aren't capable of doing the same? Keep the Wizard busy and he becomes irrelevant.

[Flickerdart]

Ever hear of a bodyguard? Who wants to HAVE to fight everyone? Even prize fighters and martial arts masters have bodyguards.

So the use of the fighter is doing all the work that better people don't want to do? Nice balance there, buddy.


The last I have to say on this issue is that if you have heroes that can "bend the universe to their will", why are they fighting dumb brutes who aren't capable of doing the same? Keep the Wizard busy and he becomes irrelevant.
According to the book, a level X Fighter and a level X Wizard should be capable of facing the same challenges, and a CR X challenge should be equally threatening to the Fighter as it is to the Wizard. This is eminently not true. Therefore the classes are unbalanced. The DM being able to use more powerful enemies does not make the classes more balanced against one another, it just makes the weaker class irrelevant.

[barna10]

So the use of the fighter is doing all the work that better people don't want to do? Nice balance there, buddy.

According to the book, a level X Fighter and a level X Wizard should be capable of facing the same challenges, and a CR X challenge should be equally threatening to the Fighter as it is to the Wizard. This is eminently not true. Therefore the classes are unbalanced. The DM being able to use more powerful enemies does not make the classes more balanced against one another, it just makes the weaker class irrelevant.

First, everyone on a team should fill their role. No different than a football team, not everyone can be the QB, but he's nothing without his Offensive line or people to give the ball to.

An you are almost right on CR. CR is defined as challenging to a party of that level, not a single character.

[Story]

This has already been backlashed quite a bit, but ... let's just say there was a very interesting experiment a while back with a level 1 Wizard competing with a level 1 Barbarian by facing identical level 3 Rogue/Cleric/Wizard/Fighter parties (i.e., an EL 7 challenge at APL 0.3: officially, "Unbeatable"). The terms were to start in an arena maybe 40-50' from the opposing party, 3 matches each. Guess who won 3/3 matches, and who won 1/3.

Yeah.

Do you have a link?



First, everyone on a team should fill their role. No different than a football team, not everyone can be the QB, but he's nothing without his Offensive line or people to give the ball to.

An you are almost right on CR. CR is defined as challenging to a party of that level, not a single character.

That'd be nice if the Fighter's role wasn't "Carry the Wizard's loot around when the mule dies"

[Flickerdart]

First, everyone on a team should fill their role. No different than a football team, not everyone can be the QB, but he's nothing without his Offensive line or people to give the ball to.
The Wizard, on the other hand, is everything even without a Fighter (quite literally, by the later levels). So your analogy collapses.



An you are almost right on CR. CR is defined as challenging to a party of that level, not a single character.
And a party of fighters is pretty much useless, while a party of wizards is incredible in every respect. In a mixed party, the fighter is riding on the wizard's coattails, and brings nothing to the table except cleanup duty. if you don't see a problem with that, then you shall never find common ground with the majority of these forums, and it would be advisable to end this line of discussion.

[Story]

I think it's telling that the Druid's animal companion alone is competitive with, if not outright better than, a fighter.

[Darthteej]

Flickerdart, out of curiosity, how many high level campaigns have you played in or heard second hand? I've heard stories of some pretty badass fighters at epic levels, and also ones where they just get sidelined by the casters.

I personally suspect the reason that many people don't realize the game is unbalanced is because not a lot of people get to higher levels in the first place.

[willpell]

with Mage Armor and Shield it's possible to get an AC that meets or exceeds the Fighter's.

Mage Armor and Shield together are +8 AC; the Fighter can get +11 even without enchantments on his armor, and the Wizard has nowhere to put those enchantments because even padded armor imposes a 5% spell failure chance and a shield adds more on top of that. There ways of mitigating that, such as the Ring of Shielding and Twilight armor, but most of these options are not core. It should be very difficult for a wizard to match a fighter's AC, and he's probably paying more for the privilege and/or doing it for only a few minutes or hours at a time.


More importantly, what can the Fighter do to "protect" anyone, exactly? Unless he specs himself for tripping and never encounters very strong monsters or flying ones, all he can do is hope that enemies attack him and not someone else.

This part is true; the Knight class was an attempt at fixing the problem, though not a good one. Really, what's necessary to make the fighter good as a tank and BFCer is to give him tactical maneuvers that explicitly affect the game much the way spells do, which is pretty much exactly why Tome of Battle was created, and why 4E and it looks like probably also 5E are following in its footsteps. But IMO they went way too far and made those classes too "wizard-like", as if to admit that you have to be a wizard to succeed in the game. A simpler, broad-based solution would have been better.


anything that strains the Wizard's power will straight up kill the Fighter,

Except a silence field.


and anything appropriate for the Fighter is a joke for the Wizard.

Except something that deals X amount of damage with no save, where X is more hit points than the wizard has but fewer than the fighter has. This needn't be an SLA or anything; it could just be having a large pile of rocks fall on the wizard's head, just because he was standing under an unstable cliffside. The wizard has to waste spells keeping such a thing from happening, and when he doesn't cast such a spell and the DM does drop rocks on him, he tends to complain that he's being unfairly discriminated against. That D4 hit die is supposed to make you squishy; you accepted that risk when you decided to play a wizard, and have no one but yourself to blame if you fail to protect yourself adequately, even if it means nerfing your own ability to nova out.


if you don't see a problem with that, then you shall never find common ground with the majority of these forums, and it would be advisable to end this line of discussion.

Flickerdart, please refrain from trying to silence the unique voices of others who wish to participate in a discussion, even if you believe they are wrong. Bama, please do not allow yourself to be dissuaded from representing your opinion. While I would like it if more people would actually address my OP question, I am also a firm believer that discussions are organic and that their growth should never be restrained unless it has become unquestionably cancerous.

[Darius Kane]

Wait, the fact that he can "nova" means that it doesn't matter that he doesn't need to nova to win? What.
What indeed, because I'm not getting what your problem is.
A caster played smart doesn't have to nova, but in an arena battle he can. Not everyone plays smart or the caster's opponent might turn out to be a threat, for example a highly optimized Fighter or Warblade, then he has to nova or he'll risk losing. Doing a Caster vs. Mundane/Melee/whatever arena battle removes that last illusion of "balance" that there is, which is "limited spells". In an arena battle with a caster you could give the caster spells at-will and it wouldn't even matter.


If you ask me, arena battles are stacked against the squishy wizard bereft of a friendly meatshield. I could see an argument about the spells/day thing, but still...
Lol, no. Any competent caster optimizer will tell you that a beatstick is just a waste of party space and resources. Fighters aren't called mules for no reason.


How can a fighter replenish his own hit points? He has to ask the healer, usually. And the guy mentioned that the cleric always ran out of spells before him, too. So...not so easy, unless you're spending a substantial fraction of your gold on healing potions.
Just like a caster can get more spells, with money. I already conceded the point, because I simply forgot about wands and stuff, but still, a Fighter has ways to replenish or prevent HP loss. A caster unfortunately has to use his spells to be of any use, so sooner or later he'll run out. Meanwhile a properly build Fighter can last countless encounters.

[Flickerdart]

Flickerdart, out of curiosity, how many high level campaigns have you played in or heard second hand? I've heard stories of some pretty badass fighters at epic levels, and also ones where they just get sidelined by the casters.

I personally suspect the reason that many people don't realize the game is unbalanced is because not a lot of people get to higher levels in the first place.
I've never played Epic, because those rules are a joke, but I've played and DMed between levels 15 and 20 a number of times. It is my observation that one who is without magic at that level is unable to contribute without high-level casters stooping to bestow their spells and crafted equipment upon them. Closer to the high end, immunities make much spellcasting difficult, it is true, but those who chose to focus on no-SR no-save blasting made short work of many opponents, and summoners performed quite valiantly as well.



Flickerdart, please refrain from trying to silence the unique voices of others who wish to participate in a discussion, even if you believe they are wrong. Bama, please do not allow yourself to be dissuaded from representing your opinion. While I would like it if more people would actually address my OP question, I am also a firm believer that discussions are organic and that their growth should never be restrained unless it has become unquestionably cancerous.
You misrepresent my stance, unsurprisingly. I am merely saying that a discussion cannot result in fruitful reconciliation unless both parties hold the same values at heart, and if his values are radically opposed to mine, then we can do naught but agree to disagree. You are also free to hold whatever opinions you choose, but I will not argue against them for the same reason - it would be fruitless expenditure of effort.

[barna10]

I personally suspect the reason that many people don't realize the game is unbalanced is because not a lot of people get to higher levels in the first place.

I've played a pre-Archivist Mystic Theurge (Wizard/Ur Priest) up to 30th level, a 3rd edition Shifter to 42nd level, and a Fighter/Rogue to 32nd level. Of the three, the Fighter/Rogue was the most fun to play, and the hardest for any of the multiple DMs to deal with. I was always able to come up with creative solutions to the problems confounding the mages. Plus, he had Bluff skill at an outrageous level which gave him (non-magical) Suggestion ability. Fun times.

[barna10]

I've never played Epic, because those rules are a joke, but I've played and DMed between levels 15 and 20 a number of times. It is my observation that one who is without magic at that level is unable to contribute without high-level casters stooping to bestow their spells and crafted equipment upon them. Closer to the high end, immunities make much spellcasting difficult, it is true, but those who chose to focus on no-SR no-save blasting made short work of many opponents, and summoners performed quite valiantly as well.

Really not surprised that we disagree about high level campaigns. IMO having fun at epic really means focusing on the story and finding ways to let every character shine.

[TuggyNE]

Do you have a link?

I do. Two of them, as a matter of fact: the actual PbP arena thread, and the discussion starting roughly here (though the whole thread is worth reading, really).

[Darthteej]

That's not wholly unsurprising that we have two very different accounts of high level play. Barna's observation about the fighter/rogue is also eminently non-shocking. It's the "Roy situation"- the character playing the 18 intelligence wizard isn't necessarily the smartest one at the table.

I find myself wondering about the nature of these campaigns. Flickerdart, when you were DMing these high-level games, what kind of challenges did you throw at the party? And what kind of challenges did Barna go up against that were apparently more story focused?

Also-to Flicker's observation that fighters often needed buffs from spellcasters-this actually seems like the kind of relationship Barna alluded to earlier in the thread. Namely, that spellcasters were enablers and supporters of victory. Even if a monster has been smacked by a save or suck and is trapped between two walls of lava, it's still up to the fighter to walk up and smack him till he's dead. That's my two scents anyways.

[barna10]

That's not wholly unsurprising that we have two very different accounts of high level play. Barna's observation about the fighter/rogue is also eminently non-shocking. It's the "Roy situation"- the character playing the 18 intelligence wizard isn't necessarily the smartest one at the table.

I find myself wondering about the nature of these campaigns. Flickerdart, when you were DMing these high-level games, what kind of challenges did you throw at the party? And what kind of challenges did Barna go up against that were apparently more story focused?

Also-to Flicker's observation that fighters often needed buffs from spellcasters-this actually seems like the kind of relationship Barna alluded to earlier in the thread. Namely, that spellcasters were enablers and supporters of victory. Even if a monster has been smacked by a save or suck and is trapped between two walls of lava, it's still up to the fighter to walk up and smack him till he's dead. That's my two scents anyways.

We had many storylines, and many epic battles. Like once when we were fighting a lord of hell, his legions and his pet beholder that shut down the groups magic it was up to Roste (the F/T) to sneak up on and blind the beast. Then, when we were in the lair of some puzzle obsessed God-wannabe, we fought these enhanced Sirrushes with something like SR 60 and he was able to defeat them by pulling The Rod of the Wyrm (Ancient White Wyrm) that everyone had wanted to sell (the party was all goody 2-shoes) and rode the Wyrm to victory as he tossed the hounds into a bottomless pit that surrounded this puzzle board.

Funny thing is, the character was cursed, couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, seriously. Not a game mechanic, just always rolled bad. So I started getting creative and having fun.

[Flickerdart]

That's not wholly unsurprising that we have two very different accounts of high level play. Barna's observation about the fighter/rogue is also eminently non-shocking. It's the "Roy situation"- the character playing the 18 intelligence wizard isn't necessarily the smartest one at the table.

I find myself wondering about the nature of these campaigns. Flickerdart, when you were DMing these high-level games, what kind of challenges did you throw at the party? And what kind of challenges did Barna go up against that were apparently more story focused?
Dragons and summoners, mostly - I'm an extremely lazy DM, so when anything gives me an option to move a slider to my party's level and then just use the stats of whatever it falls on after some tweaking, I take that opportunity! In my last high-level game (which ended at level 17), I threw around Astral Constructs as the rank and file enemy. Their resistances made them very good at telling casters to shut up and sit down, but casters were still the ones that ended up carrying the day thanks to the aforementioned blasting. Other memorable enemies in that game included a vampire lord barbarian that the party's Artificer scared off by exploiting the few weaknesses it possessed, an invisible flying Evoker that kicked the party around with rays (taken down after the party tanked his attacks thanks to tons of buffs and then dispelled him), a tag team of a blackguard optimized to tank the saves of whatever was nearby and a blaster that then toasted the debuffed foes (defeated when the blaster got counter-blasted), and a titanic vampiric dire weasel that would have drained tons of Constitution per round if not for some quick debuffs that forced it to sit there and take punishment from explosions. Non-combat challenges involved things like investigating various plots and intrigues of more powerful beings, which the casters engaged with using various spells capable of actually analyzing this stuff.



Also-to Flicker's observation that fighters often needed buffs from spellcasters-this actually seems like the kind of relationship Barna alluded to earlier in the thread. Namely, that spellcasters were enablers and supporters of victory. Even if a monster has been smacked by a save or suck and is trapped between two walls of lava, it's still up to the fighter to walk up and smack him till he's dead. That's my two scents anyways.
This is why summoners work well - they create as many disposable fighters as the situation demands, instantly tailored to the situation, and these fighters don't take up any XP or loot for themselves. Blasters are great for this reason, too, when properly kitted out.

To me, the Druid's SNAs and animal companion are what the Cleric's spontaneous heals are - a patch on an outdated mode of thinking that required that there be these specific roles in a party which nobody actually wanted to play. Just like the Cleric was able to build his character however he wanted with the knowledge that he could still perform the healbot duty when necessary, the Druid allows everyone in the party to make cool characters without worrying about who has to fill the role of the guy that just takes the hits while other people get to accomplish things.

[Amphetryon]

A lot of them are only broken because they're minimalistically written, and can be fixed by taking some time to rewrite them to have sensible functional limitations comparable to those of other spells.That's called "houseruling," and you are correct if you are intending to imply that it is required to help prevent the most broken of spells (Polymorph, for example) from trashing most games in which it appears.

[Story]

I do. Two of them, as a matter of fact: the actual PbP arena thread, and the discussion starting roughly here (though the whole thread is worth reading, really).

To be fair, the Barbarian would have technically won all 3 rounds too if it were using the Boar Totem. Of course, the Boar Totem Barbarian was left disabled at the end in two of the rounds, while the Wizard won two of the rounds without the opponents even getting an action.

[TuggyNE]

To be fair, the Barbarian would have technically won all 3 rounds too if it were using the Boar Totem. Of course, the Boar Totem Barbarian was left disabled at the end in two of the rounds, while the Wizard won two of the rounds without the opponents even getting an action.

Indeed. A subsequent test should probably be made at an even higher level. :smallwink:

[barna10]

Dragons and summoners, mostly - I'm an extremely lazy DM, so when anything gives me an option to move a slider to my party's level and then just use the stats of whatever it falls on after some tweaking, I take that opportunity! ...

This in part proves my point.

[Flickerdart]

This in part proves my point.
Are you going to elaborate, or just look smug?

[Coidzor]

Some of them are bad, yeah, but others I like. I've invented a few of my own that I'm immensely proud of...for instance, Protection from Energy requires you to give the target a white clay tile painted with a symbol of the element it resists, and the tile cracks and crumbles as it absorbs damage, giving you an in-character metric for the amount of protection that's been discharged. (Resist Energy uses the same tiles but they don't decay over the duration.)

If you have to explain the joke, then there is no joke, and I don't see one here. :smallconfused:

There's a rather nice article that touches on the subject that I've been having some difficulty digging up again, I think it was one of the myriad of bad monster manual entries... But things like actually making a crystal radio transistor and a television screen in order to scry in one of the various editions. Making bat-poop-based gunpowder in order to ignite it into fireballs. That kind of bad joke.


Ever hear of a bodyguard? Who wants to HAVE to fight everyone? Even prize fighters and martial arts masters have bodyguards.


...You just said that fighters aren't even meant to be bodyguards when you were pshawing at me earlier. Now you're saying that the fighter's role and job is bodyguard and he can actually do this.

:smallannoyed:


No, the unbalanced part is how the wizard survives to be so powerful when the fighter concentrates on killings things and not on protecting the wizard.

[willpell]

If you have to explain the joke, then there is no joke, and I don't see one here. :smallconfused:

I do not try to make them jokes. I suspect some of them were originally played straight (eg powdered iron for Enlarged Person, that one seems more like alchemy than humor to me), and I aim to make mine awesome.

[barna10]

Are you going to elaborate, or just look smug?

Earlier on I stated it was the DM's fault if Wizards seemed unbalanced. You think Wizards are unbalanced and you admitted you are a lazy DM. I'm not trying to be smug, but it's what I've been saying all along.


...You just said that fighters aren't even meant to be bodyguards when you were pshawing at me earlier. Now you're saying that the fighter's role and job is bodyguard and he can actually do this.

:smallannoyed:

I don't recall saying "pshawing" you for anything, and I don't recall saying fighters aren't meant to be bodyguards. Let me look back...

[Flickerdart]

Earlier on I stated it was the DM's fault if Wizards seemed unbalanced. You think Wizards are unbalanced and you admitted you are a lazy DM. I'm not trying to be smug, but it's what I've been saying all along.
That's incredibly backwards thinking. It's not that wizards "seem unbalanced" with a DM that doesn't spend every waking hour tweaking encounters. It's that wizards are unbalanced, and only extensive DM intervention and coddling prevents this imbalance from manifesting in its full splendour. Placing the entire burden of balancing character classes on the guy that's already running an entire game world is massively disingenuous, and the reason there's a system in the first place is to make the DM's job of simulating a world easier. The DM is not the system's servant, spinning wheels and flipping switches to keep it working smoothly. The system serves the DM, or ought to, and when it creates extra work for the DM, then the system is broken.

Don't try to make D&D out to be some sort of legendary Excalibur that only the most skilled of Dungeon Masters can wield in perfect harmony. Any system that places such a burden upon its user is a lousy system, and 3.5 is not a lousy system. It's just one that doesn't play to your assumptions.

[barna10]

That's incredibly backwards thinking. It's not that wizards "seem unbalanced" with a DM that doesn't spend every waking hour tweaking encounters. It's that wizards are unbalanced, and only extensive DM intervention and coddling prevents this imbalance from manifesting in its full splendour. Placing the entire burden of balancing character classes on the guy that's already running an entire game world is massively disingenuous, and the reason there's a system in the first place is to make the DM's job of simulating a world easier. The DM is not the system's servant, spinning wheels and flipping switches to keep it working smoothly. The system serves the DM, or ought to, and when it creates extra work for the DM, then the system is broken.

Whether Wizards are unbalanced is an opinion, not a fact. IMO, they are not. In you opinion, they are. That's fine. And yes, the system should serve the DM, not the other way around, BUT within that toolbox that is a system are all the tools a DM needs to prevent the Wizard from being unbalanced. If people do not see that, or are unwilling to make it work, who's fault is it? The system or the players/DMs?

[Flickerdart]

Whether Wizards are unbalanced is an opinion, not a fact. IMO, they are not. In you opinion, they are. That's fine. And yes, the system should serve the DM, not the other way around, BUT within that toolbox that is a system are all the tools a DM needs to prevent the Wizard from being unbalanced. If people do not see that, or are unwilling to make it work, who's fault is it? The system or the players/DMs?
If my car explodes at random, but comes with a toolbox that contains the tools I need to overhaul the engine until it doesn't explode, is it my fault that I don't want to have to put in that effort, or the car's fault for being a horrible car?

On the other hand, if I recognize the car for what it is (a bomb), then I can actually use it for a purpose it is suited to. You're allowed to claim that it's still a car, but there are so many other non-exploding cars out there that I'm not sure why you would go through all that trouble of trying to make it run while nursing 1d4 broken limbs.

[barna10]

Don't try to make D&D out to be some sort of legendary Excalibur that only the most skilled of Dungeon Masters can wield in perfect harmony. Any system that places such a burden upon its user is a lousy system, and 3.5 is not a lousy system. It's just one that doesn't play to your assumptions.

It's not, not even close. In fact, I stopped playing for the last couple of years because I got frustrated with the players I was playing with. But 3.5 (and D&D in general) is not just a board game or video game that runs itself or that one can only play/run a certain way. There are many variables that can be manipulated, and when they are, the game is entirely different.

For instance, a game where the "high-level" PCs fight mostly Dragons and Summoners is going to be greatly different than a game where the PCs fight entire armies, or enchanters that screw with their brains, or manipulative demons, doppleganger necromancers, etc. The game is what you make it. The more effort you put into it, the more you will get out.

It's like golf. Anyone can pick up a set of clubs and walk on to the golf course and hit a few balls, but not everyone is going to play in the PGA. Is golf broken? Is Tiger Woods unbalanced?

[barna10]

If my car explodes at random, but comes with a toolbox that contains the tools I need to overhaul the engine until it doesn't explode, is it my fault that I don't want to have to put in that effort, or the car's fault for being a horrible car?

On the other hand, if I recognize the car for what it is (a bomb), then I can actually use it for a purpose it is suited to. You're allowed to claim that it's still a car, but there are so many other non-exploding cars out there that I'm not sure why you would go through all that trouble of trying to make it run while nursing 1d4 broken limbs.

How about this: If my engine seizes up one day because I was to lazy to check the oil, is it my fault or the car's?

[olentu]

Whether Wizards are unbalanced is an opinion, not a fact. IMO, they are not. In you opinion, they are. That's fine. And yes, the system should serve the DM, not the other way around, BUT within that toolbox that is a system are all the tools a DM needs to prevent the Wizard from being unbalanced. If people do not see that, or are unwilling to make it work, who's fault is it? The system or the players/DMs?

So are you saying that wizards are not unbalanced because the DM can put in some work to balance the game.

[Flickerdart]

It's not, not even close. In fact, I stopped playing for the last couple of years because I got frustrated with the players I was playing with. But 3.5 (and D&D in general) is not just a board game or video game that runs itself or that one can only play/run a certain way. There are many variables that can be manipulated, and when they are, the game is entirely different.

For instance, a game where the "high-level" PCs fight mostly Dragons and Summoners is going to be greatly different than a game where the PCs fight entire armies, or enchanters that screw with their brains, or manipulative demons, doppleganger necromancers, etc. The game is what you make it. The more effort you put into it, the more you will get out.
I get tons out of my games, and am insulted at the insinuation that my way of playing is somehow not fun or fulfilling, so curb your patronizing tone. I am also aware that games can have different challenges in them, and had listed many of those different challenges in my post above. The reason that I am able to get a lot out of the game without a lot of effort being put in is because I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking the game plays out in a certain way and then spending time and effort trying to warp it into that game. Instead, I play the game that it already is, and have a grand old time doing it.


It's like golf. Anyone can pick up a set of clubs and walk on to the golf course and hit a few balls, but not everyone is going to play in the PGA. Is golf broken? Is Tiger Woods unbalanced?
Golf is a competitive sport. D&D is a cooperative game. Your comparison is massively flawed.


How about this: If my engine seizes up one day because I was to lazy to check the oil, is it my fault or the car's?
Wrong comparison again. D&D starts out imbalanced, and drastic action, by your own admission, needs to be taken before balance can be achieved. A car, however, starts out in working order, with explicit instructions provided for how to keep it that way. 3.5, on the other hand, is like a car that claims in its manual that it doesn't need oil changes, because cars that have oil are just as useful as cars that don't.

[barna10]

So are you saying that wizards are not unbalanced because the DM can put in some work to balance the game.

Yes. It's no different than if the group only fought beholders. Then the fighter is much more powerful than the Wizard and you could claim they weren't balanced. It's all relative, and if you are not going to challenge the Wizard, he is going to seem unbalanced.

[Flickerdart]

Yes. It's no different than if the group only fought beholders. Then the fighter is much more powerful than the Wizard and you could claim they weren't balanced. It's all relative, and if you are not going to challenge the Wizard, he is going to seem unbalanced.
Are you familiar with the concept of the Same Game Test, perhaps?

[barna10]

I get tons out of my games, and am insulted at the insinuation that my way of playing is somehow not fun or fulfilling, so curb your patronizing tone. I am also aware that games can have different challenges in them, and had listed many of those different challenges in my post above. The reason that I am able to get a lot out of the game without a lot of effort being put in is because I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking the game plays out in a certain way and then spending time and effort trying to warp it into that game. Instead, I play the game that it already is, and have a grand old time doing it.


Golf is a competitive sport. D&D is a cooperative game. Your comparison is massively flawed.

I never insinuated anything close to that so your outrage is misplaced. I don't think we ever addressed whether my way of playing or yours was more fun, and I wouldn't even begin to argue that because it is a purely subjective argument.

The argument was whether or not a Wizard is unbalanced, and it is always presented as fact that they are. I am arguing that idea is incorrect, not anyone's play style. I am merely pointing out that the perception of being unbalanced is a result of people's play styles and not an inherent flaw in the system.

Lastly, if D&D is not competitive, why worry about balance?

[barna10]

Are you familiar with the concept of the Same Game Test, perhaps?

No. What is the same game test?

[Flickerdart]

Lastly, if D&D is not competitive, why worry about balance?
Because the lack of balance turns the game from a cooperative endeavour where everyone is useful into one where some people are more useful than others through no fault of their own, contribute less to the game as a result, and have less fun.

[olentu]

Yes. It's no different than if the group only fought beholders. Then the fighter is much more powerful than the Wizard and you could claim they weren't balanced. It's all relative, and if you are not going to challenge the Wizard, he is going to seem unbalanced.

Thanks for the clarification of your position.

[Flickerdart]

No. What is the same game test?


The Same Game Test is used to test non-numeric balance of classes. It presents a number of varied situations that can be solved in a variety of ways, and then asks what the member of that class would be able to contribute to that situation that is unique to that class. For instance, consider the following situations:

A mighty white dragon has captured a princess and is holding her captive in his ice palace on top of the world's tallest mountain until the king gives up the country's entire treasury. Rescue the princess within three days, before she freezes to death.

An orc warlord has caught the kingdom unaware during a time of peace, and now threatens to overrun a border town in two days. Turn the warlord and his army back at any cost.

A disease has struck the city, and is spreading like wildfire; some believe it may be a curse. Find out where it came from and how to stop it.

Four emissaries have come to the court. The problem is that each claims he is the real one, and all the others are imposters! Find out who is telling the truth, and get to the bottom of the predicament.

The wizard has spells that can solve all of these situations. How could a fighter manage to solve any of them using tools that are not accessible to, say, a Warrior or Expert or Commoner who has the same number of class levels and gold coins?

[barna10]

Because the lack of balance turns the game from a cooperative endeavour where everyone is useful into one where some people are more useful than others through no fault of their own, contribute less to the game as a result, and have less fun.

I can see that point of view, but I don't agree with it. The game does not need to be results driven. It doesn't always have to be about who is the most effective or who can do the most whiz-bang stuff. I've played int games where the people that had the most fun were the guys playing the most useless characters ever, and we all had a ton of fun because of it. I've also played in games where the team was a well-oiled machine where everyone did their job and they were all equally powerful, and that was also fun.

IMO "contributing" to the fun of the game does not equal being uber effective.

[Flickerdart]

I can see that point of view, but I don't agree with it. The game does not need to be results driven. It doesn't always have to be about who is the most effective or who can do the most whiz-bang stuff. I've played int games where the people that had the most fun were the guys playing the most useless characters ever, and we all had a ton of fun because of it. I've also played in games where the team was a well-oiled machine where everyone did their job and they were all equally powerful, and that was also fun.

IMO "contributing" to the fun of the game does not equal being uber effective.
If having fun playing D&D has nothing to do with the system of D&D, then why do you need D&D?

Hell, earlier you were claiming that everyone does do the same amount of whiz-bang stuff (because wizards were balanced with fighters). Whatever happened to that?

[barna10]

The Same Game Test is used to test non-numeric balance of classes. It presents a number of varied situations that can be solved in a variety of ways, and then asks what the member of that class would be able to contribute to that situation that is unique to that class. For instance, consider the following situations:

A mighty white dragon has captured a princess and is holding her captive in his ice palace on top of the world's tallest mountain until the king gives up the country's entire treasury. Rescue the princess within three days, before she freezes to death.

An orc warlord has caught the kingdom unaware during a time of peace, and now threatens to overrun a border town in two days. Turn the warlord and his army back at any cost.

A disease has struck the city, and is spreading like wildfire; some believe it may be a curse. Find out where it came from and how to stop it.

Four emissaries have come to the court. The problem is that each claims he is the real one, and all the others are imposters! Find out who is telling the truth, and get to the bottom of the predicament.

The wizard has spells that can solve all of these situations. How could a fighter manage to solve any of them using tools that are not accessible to, say, a Warrior or Expert or Commoner who has the same number of class levels and gold coins?

Ok, knew this by a different name, but here we go: My answer is if you want to solve problems as a fighter, play a fighter. If you want solve problems as a Wizard, play a Wizard. Either way, don't play a fighter and then whine that it can't do what a Wizard can do.

[barna10]

If having fun playing D&D has nothing to do with the system of D&D, then why do you need D&D?

You don't. The system gives you a framework within which to have fun, plain and simple. For me, the mechanics are just as important as the story. How things get done means as much as what gets done. I like many of the mechanics of the system, it's why I keep coming back.

[Flickerdart]

Ok, knew this by a different name, but here we go: My answer is if you want to solve problems as a fighter, play a fighter. If you want solve problems as a Wizard, play a Wizard. Either way, don't play a fighter and then whine that it can't do what a Wizard can do.
I'm not asking you to solve those problems as a wizard. I'm asking you to solve those problems, period. They're not Wizard problems, there's nothing uniquely Wizardly about them. Defending a keep against a horde? Rescuing a fair maiden from a monster? Why, those are stereotypical feats performed by the man in shining armour with a strong sword arm!

[barna10]

Hell, earlier you were claiming that everyone does do the same amount of whiz-bang stuff (because wizards were balanced with fighters). Whatever happened to that?

I never said Fighters could do as many things as a Wizard. That being said, being able to do the same amount of stuff does not equal balance.

[Flickerdart]

I never said Fighters could do as many things as a Wizard. That being said, being able to do the same amount of stuff does not equal balance.
The same amount of stuff? No. But fighters don't have any stuff that is unique to them. All of their abilities revolve around combat, and a wizard can just turn himself into a dragon and be just as good, if not better, in a straight-up melee slugfest. In every situation, the wizard player is going to have something to do. But until the party needs something to be hit with a sword, the fighter player has nothing to contribute, and that's where the imbalance lies. All of that heroic rescue the maiden, lead an army stuff? The fighter represents itself as the class for that, but it can't do them. That is the definition of broken. Yes, it can be fixed, but that doesn't mean that it was never broken to begin with.

[barna10]

I'm not asking you to solve those problems as a wizard. I'm asking you to solve those problems, period. They're not Wizard problems, there's nothing uniquely Wizardly about them. Defending a keep against a horde? Rescuing a fair maiden from a monster? Why, those are stereotypical feats performed by the man in shining armour with a strong sword arm!

Ok, we have no Wizards in the real world, how do we ever survive without them?

The unique thing about the game (or any RPG) is you get to choose ahead of time how you are going to confront challenges in the game. IF you want to confront everything with a sword (and accept you won't be able to solve everything with a flick of a wand), you play a fighter. If you want to steal crap, you play a rogue. If you want to be able to bend reality, you play a Wizard.

The question I have is why do any people that think Wizards are so uber ever play anything but a Wizard? If they can solve every problem, why are their other classes?

[barna10]

The same amount of stuff? No. But fighters don't have any stuff that is unique to them. All of their abilities revolve around combat, and a wizard can just turn himself into a dragon and be just as good, if not better, in a straight-up melee slugfest. In every situation, the wizard player is going to have something to do. But until the party needs something to be hit with a sword, the fighter player has nothing to contribute, and that's where the imbalance lies. All of that heroic rescue the maiden, lead an army stuff? The fighter represents itself as the class for that, but it can't do them. That is the definition of broken. Yes, it can be fixed, but that doesn't mean that it was never broken to begin with.

This is where the DM steps in and creates situation where the Fighter can do these things BECAUSE his player chose to play a fighter. The flip side is also true, BECAUSE his player chose to play a Wizard he needs to present challenges that challenge a Wizard.

[Flickerdart]

This is where the DM steps in and creates situation where the Fighter can do these things BECAUSE his player chose to play a fighter. The flip side is also true, BECAUSE his player chose to play a Wizard he needs to present challenges that challenge a Wizard.
So your D&D is a game where only one player in the party is playing at any given time? Interesting. My D&D is a game where everyone is contributing at the same time, all the time.

[Slayah]

"Ok guys, the party is up against the King of Demons, his retinue and twelve hunger starved Kobolds for Frank's fighter."

Frank: "Thanks for letting me play my class man."

[Mephit]

The question I have is why do any people that think Wizards are so uber ever play anything but a Wizard? If they can solve every problem, why are their other classes?

Because people don't always want to play a wizard. I don't think anyone's defending that other classes shouldn't exist and a party full of wizards is the ideal way to play the game.

The fact remains, though, that tier 1 classes like the wizard have a very big potential to outshine a fighter character if you simply throw standard encounters at the party, or a printed adventure/module.

There are certainly ways for a DM to challenge a wizard while also giving other players something to contribute - provided the wizard doesn't go overboard, the fighter* is at least somewhat optimized and the DM has experience with it. What a lot of other posters are saying is that shouldn't be necessary and it's evident of bad design in 3.5.

*I keep mentioning the wizard and fighter, but they're of course not the only problem. I'm just using them as an analogy for the imbalance between the big tier 1 classes and the tier 4 and below ones.

[barna10]

So your D&D is a game where only one player in the party is playing at any given time? Interesting. My D&D is a game where everyone is contributing at the same time, all the time.

No, in my game, not every encounter is intended to challenge ever player in the group. There are times when each player's character get's a chance to be highlighted. I take it upon my shoulders, as DM, to make the game enjoyable and challenging for everyone. This doesn't mean that everyone contributes or receives equally at every instant of the game, that seems 100% unattainable.

For instance, this last week the group (all 12th-13th lvl) headed up a snowy mountain pass in a caravan. The caravan got ambushed by Frost Giants. The Frost Giants had support that was out of sight casting Sleet Storms on the area. Because there had been a blizzard all day, no one suspected these were magical storms.

Now, when the boulders started flying, the no one had a clue where the boulders were coming from or what to attack. The Fighter charged into the storm, closely followed by the Warblade. The two encountered the Giants and proceeded to do what they do best. The 3 other members of the group, all casters of various flavors, tried to stay with the wagon or "behind" trees for cover.

(to understand the following it's important to note I allowed the Frost Giants to see through the storms unimpeded because it seems like a cool ability to add to them) The frost giant commander ordered the Frost Giants that weren't being engaged by the fighters to toss boulders at the others (to continue benefiting from the cover of the spells).

So, as the mages were being pummeled, one got the idea to detect magic, realized the storms were magical, and began dispelling them. The battle quickly turned in the PCs favor, or so they thought. Once 2 of the storms dropped, the Frost Giant commander entered the fray, charging the Dread Necro that had just cast Inflict Moderate Wounds at his legions, dropping him quickly. The Commander then turned on the Warblade and dropped him the next round.

Now, with visibility, the fighter charged the commander and dropped him with one critical hit (great axe - massive damage - giant rolled a 1 on Fort save) and the two standing mages finished the rest with a fireball and some magic missiles.

Could the mages have handled this alone? Maybe. Did it make it easier for the mages having the fighters engaging the giants? Absolutely. Did it take a lot of effort for me to challenge the group in a way that everyone was ensured the chance to shine in battle? No. All it took was me turning to the Frost Giant description, whipping up some sleet, and letting the boulders fly.

[barna10]

What a lot of other posters are saying is that shouldn't be necessary and it's evident of bad design in 3.5.

By this reasoning, every character in a superhero game should be Superman. There obviously shouldn't be any Jimmie Olsons because then the game would be unbalanced. Obviously the game is broken since such a power gap exists.

I strongly disagree.

[Mephit]

By this reasoning, every character in a superhero game should be Superman. There obviously shouldn't be any Jimmie Olsons because then the game would be unbalanced.

If you mean that every superhero game tries to place the broad character options on equal footing in terms of overall power, then yeah, by my knowledge that's the goal of most superhero games. :smallconfused:

[Flickerdart]

No, in my game, not every encounter is intended to challenge ever player in the group. There are times when each player's character get's a chance to be highlighted. I take it upon my shoulders, as DM, to make the game enjoyable and challenging for everyone. This doesn't mean that everyone contributes or receives equally at every instant of the game, that seems 100% unattainable.
And yet it is the case in my games. Could it be that it is easy for me because my players all understand that playing characters that are balanced against one another means that everyone gets to have fun all of the time instead of some people some of the time?

[Amphetryon]

Ok, knew this by a different name, but here we go: My answer is if you want to solve problems as a fighter, play a fighter. If you want solve problems as a Wizard, play a Wizard. Either way, don't play a fighter and then whine that it can't do what a Wizard can do.

And if the DM puts challenges out that the Fighter simply cannot solve on his own because his (lack of) Class features denies him access to appropriate tools? Whine at the DM because he's chosen to provide challenges that the party's Wizard, Cleric, and Bard can all handle individually?

[TuggyNE]

By this reasoning, every character in a superhero game should be Superman. There obviously shouldn't be any Jimmie Olsons because then the game would be unbalanced. Obviously the game is broken since such a power gap exists.

Two counter-points: first, playing Jimmie Olson (or Aquaman) is likely in many cases to be less fun if Superman is over there showing you up all the time. In point of fact, this is even noticeable within the comic genre (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman), never mind RPGs.

Secondly, in the cases where a player genuinely doesn't mind being Aquaman, the difference should be clearly labeled. In 3.5, it isn't; it requires a fair amount of optimization knowledge to fully grasp the extent of the problem, and in fact the books strongly imply that Fighters and Wizards are of comparable strength, especially given the existence of weaker NPC classes. If, however, Fighter replaced the existing Warrior NPC class and one or more PC-quality classes replaced Fighter, the problem would no longer exist. (Anyone playing an NPC class knows what they're getting into and has accepted their sidekick status.)

[willpell]

But fighters don't have any stuff that is unique to them. All of their abilities revolve around combat, and a wizard can just turn himself into a dragon and be just as good, if not better, in a straight-up melee slugfest.

IMO this is a fault in the system, but not at the fighter's expense. A Wizard who turns himself into a dragon should not be any better at fighting in his dragon body than he normally is in his human body; the body itself might be vastly deadlier, but he should be incredibly awkward and feeble at manipulating it because he has no inherent talent or training for combat. The fact that Polymorph gives you the BAB of whatever you turn into, and lets you use all of that body's skills without any penalties for when they exceed your own, is a serious oversight in implementing the lore of shapeshifting powers.

[barna10]

IMO this is a fault in the system, but not at the fighter's expense. A Wizard who turns himself into a dragon should not be any better at fighting in his dragon body than he normally is in his human body; the body itself might be vastly deadlier, but he should be incredibly awkward and feeble at manipulating it because he has no inherent talent or training for combat. The fact that Polymorph gives you the BAB of whatever you turn into, and lets you use all of that body's skills without any penalties for when they exceed your own, is a serious oversight in implementing the lore of shapeshifting powers.

But the wizard DOESN'T gain the BAB, he uses his own.

[willpell]

Oh. Well, good.

There are still issues, though. The Wizard has no trouble figuring out how to wield the dragon's breath weapon effectively and accurately; I would imagine that takes some practice.

[Kelb_Panthera]

IMO this is a fault in the system, but not at the fighter's expense. A Wizard who turns himself into a dragon should not be any better at fighting in his dragon body than he normally is in his human body; the body itself might be vastly deadlier, but he should be incredibly awkward and feeble at manipulating it because he has no inherent talent or training for combat. The fact that Polymorph gives you the BAB of whatever you turn into, and lets you use all of that body's skills without any penalties for when they exceed your own, is a serious oversight in implementing the lore of shapeshifting powers.

Except he doesn't.

A wizard that polymorphs into a dragon only gets the dragon's offenseive EX abilities (crush, tail sweep, frightful presence and one other minor ability) and physical ability scores. He doesn't change his BAB, his Base saves, or even his base line HP's; though the modifiers applied to these will change based on the new ability scores. He doesn't get the dragon's breath, he doesn't get the spellcasting, he doesn't even get DR.

The pure physicallity of the dragon is so much greater than what a fighter can match that the wizard completely overwhelms, in-spite of being a piss-poor mockery of a dragon. The reach, natural attack array, and physical abilities of the dragon completely outshine any but the most high-op fighters. Meanwhile the wizard hasn't given up anything but a single spell-slot. He can still use all of his spell-casting ability and any feats he has.

@barna: I'm sorry, dude, but the fact that there is an immense imbalance between the classes in the PHB is not opinion. The simple fact of the matter is that wizards, clerics, and druids can solve immensely more problems than a monk, fighter, or rogue of the same level in addition to solving the same problems those lesser classes were designed to solve. This is a quantifiable fact that is very well documented on this and many other boards.

The idea that it's not broken because the DM can fix it is known as the oberroni fallacy.

You're right that a good DM can, and should, arrange the game such that the imbalance is immaterial to everyone having a good time, but that doesn't mean the imbalance isn't there.

Balancing a party and encounters isn't the same as balancing the system they're drawn from.

[willpell]

I guess I was thinking of Shapechange rather than Polymorph; pretty sure you do get the breath weapon with that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I guess I was thinking of Shapechange rather than Polymorph; pretty sure you do get the breath weapon with that.

That's probably it. Shapechange does indeed get you the SU's of the chosen form. It's a 9th level spell, though, so what do you expect?

[artofregicide]

I have a love/hate relationship with Wizards.

On one side of the coin, I find them incredibly fun to play. On the other side, I've found them in my experience to be incredibly overpowering even when the DM is trying his hardest to counteract them (And as a very, very evil DM, I have been repeatedly foiled.) Even whilst intentionally trying to tone down my wizard character, I out-shown the rest of the party. Every single character.

As a necromancer specialist, at 13th level, I was a better rogue, better blaster, better fighter (thanks to the minions), and better control and utility caster. I really didn't need the Party but for the action economy.

The worst thing was, I was barely optimized at all.

Interestingly, I've seen the opposite: a player with no idea how to play a wizard is one of the least effective members of the party. Admittedly, I wasn't very good at helping said player play his character, because I didn't know how to play a wizard either at that time. But I have to say that it takes some degree of skill to make a wizard effective, albeit incredibly much of a degree.

That's my two copper pieces, anyway.

[TuggyNE]

I guess I was thinking of Shapechange rather than Polymorph; pretty sure you do get the breath weapon with that.

You do. However, you still don't get BAB.

[Rogue Shadows]

In my experience the only way to fix wizards is to completely re-examine and overhaul everything about them. I eliminated 8th and 9th level spells entirely, slowed their spell progression so that they gain new spell levels at 3rd and every 3 levels thereafter (though I also upped their spells per day to counterbalance; fair's fair, after all); restricted them to only one school of magic at 1st level (specialization is required; there are no generalists), with the option of taking feats starting at 4th level to gain additional schools; pre-set which schools ban which other schools (for example: Transmutation bans Conjuration and vice-versa. You don't get to choose), and last but not least, overhauled every single God-damned remaining spell by examining them on an individual basis, scouring the Web for suggested fixes and changes.

I did go the Pathfinder route of eliminating XP costs and replacing them with material component costs equal to the former XP cost x5 gp, though. That's about the only favor I did the class.

I am well pleased with the result, but Christ was it a lot of effort. And I was simultaneously fixing everything else in Core at the same time! I still haven't gotten around to skills, either...

I don't recommend the effort. I do recommend the linkies in my sig, though.

[willpell]

I wouldn't rip out the 9ths entirely; Shapechange is too cool a concept of a spell to give up. It might need to be toned down a little, but it should be powerful, being the peak of wizardly power pre-epic. However Polymorph at 4th, even with its limitations, is probably a good bit too powerful.

[Twilightwyrm]

That route results in Spreadsheets: The Game. Also, it makes wizards hoard their spells even more; if I have to actually go out and find cow dung and powdered iron, I'm not going to be buffing the Fighter's strength or size.

Wouldn't that, in turn, make you rather useless? I mean, you say "that will just make wizards hoard spells more" as it wizards are inherently more powerful most everyone else, which really isn't true. A wizard is only valuable, is only the god-king of everyone, if they are willing and able to use their spells. Otherwise, you are a glorified Truenamer.

[TuggyNE]

Wouldn't that, in turn, make you rather useless? I mean, you say "that will just make wizards hoard spells more" as it wizards are inherently more powerful most everyone else, which really isn't true. A wizard is only valuable, is only the god-king of everyone, if they are willing and able to use their spells. Otherwise, you are a glorified Truenamer.

It would probably reduce overall effectiveness, certainly, but a wizard that only buffs himself, even with fewer spells to burn, is still going to be a force to reckon with. Meanwhile, the party as a whole, and especially the Fighter, are weakened much more.

[Fable Wright]

Personally, I think that the best way to handle Wizards in 3.5 is just to replace them with Factotums. At low levels, they have little in the way of magic except a cantrip and their wiles, and at high levels, they have a large number of varied, potent effects they can bring to bear, though not as world-shattering as 9th level spells. I also think that it fits in better with the traditional fantasy Wizard: Not using magic except when there is no mundane solution, knowledgeable and highly skilled, and able to contribute to combat in ways other than throwing spell after spell. It also fits the actual spellcasters in Vance's books better than the Wizard does, as well as represent characters like Gandalf (or his movie adaptation, at least; I couldn't get through the books) extremely well. Of course, this wouldn't work as well in a setting with Clerics and Druids, but replacing them with (Eberron) Adepts and Savage (Divine) Bards tones down the magic level of the setting a lot and adds much more balance to the game. Of course, when you cut out all the Tier 1s and 2s, Factotums pretty quickly become the new tier 1, but c'est la vie.

[Twilightwyrm]

It would probably reduce overall effectiveness, certainly, but a wizard that only buffs himself, even with fewer spells to burn, is still going to be a force to reckon with. Meanwhile, the party as a whole, and especially the Fighter, are weakened much more.

Is he really though? Ignoring for a moment the fact that doing so is a huge waste of potential, how exactly would that work? Because it seems to me that the problem with a wizard who is hoarding their spells is their unwillingness to use those buffing spells in the first place. So if they are combat buff spells, you aren't actually using the spell any less if you employ it to buff the fighter rather than yourself, you're just being a jerk. And if you are basically just using the spells that are necessary to keep you from harm, than you are about as much of a "force to be reckoned with" as a dwarven defender, probably less since you don't even have the requisite combat proficiency to make decent use of a standard attack. So how would such a spell hoarding wizard be viable? Saving their spells for disabling the final encounters of the day? A bard can do that as well as the wizard, and still have their bardic music to help the party with the other encounters. The fighter has the luxury of enough feats that they can debuff the enemy forces, for free, and potentially provide at least minor bonuses to their allies. Even if the wizard is still employing one spell per encounter, enemies are generally varied, and spread out, enough that all it really amounts to is a change as disabling some of the enemy forces. Plenty of other classes can do that for free. So if you are a wizard, and you hoard your spells, how much use are you, really, in relation to the many other classes that might make up an adventuring party? You know, other than making the druid look even better than they already did (who, even if they are hoarding spells like you, can still turn into a bear)?

[Kelb_Panthera]

@TwilightWyrm:

It's simple really. There're a number of good spells that have no material components. By focusing his repetoire on such spells he bypasses the proposed restriction entirely. There's also the possiblity of hoarding just enough of a material component of a good spell to craft a 1/day item that produces that effect. Schemas (magic of eberron) in particular would be great for this.

Such a restriction also encourages the wizard to end encounters with as few spells as possible forcing them to abandon any less optimal MO's. This creates a dichotomy where there are only high-op wizards and dead wizards. Noone wants that. The wizards you've described are the latter type.

Now that I think on it, the necromancer minion-master now rules the roost. The spells that craft his minions already had an expensive component (onyx gems) that had to be tracked. To a lesser extent, other minon-master archetypes (summoners, enchanters, etc) would also still be quite strong. Since many minions also have SLA's or even their own casting ability, the wizard still has a myriad of options.

The wizard is pigeonholed into a high-op only minionmancer by this proposed "fix," he's not brought down to the same level as a fighter or barbarian.

[PersonMan]

By this reasoning, every character in a superhero game should be Superman. There obviously shouldn't be any Jimmie Olsons because then the game would be unbalanced. Obviously the game is broken since such a power gap exists.

I strongly disagree.

This may be how the argument is coming across to you, but imagine this:

I have a gaming group of five, including me (the DM). Our Group is Bob, John, Shayna and Eric.

Bob wants to be a powerful knight, slicing apart monsters and doing things only possible to men of lesser skill with magic. Wrestle a dragon? Sure, no problem, he's Bob the Knight! That's the kind of thing he wants to do.

John wants to be a mage, diving through esoteric knowledge to find the bits and pieces that just fit, allowing him to combine them to devastating effect, unleashing blasts of flame or turning a rampaging beast to stone. Inspired by some books about similar things, he's also going for a very "master of his environment" type caster, who can raise walls of earth and carve keeps from stone with his magic.

Shayna wants to be a priestess of a near-forgotten deity, showing the world the divine power her patron still possesses by wiping out undead hordes and wading through combat, shining with holy light.

Eric wants to be a man who can sneak into any fortress, bypass any trap and fell their guardians with a single, well-placed blow from the darkness.

The problem arises if John's mage begins to outshine Bob in battle. Bob doesn't want to be "a fighter, who does fighter things" he wants to be his character, someone who slices beasts in two and saves innocents from monsters. Yet he continually falls short of his expectations without assistance from others, while John and Shayna are able to do what he wanted to do, but better.

Sure, early on they can't, but if Bob wants to be the legendary swordsman who can rescue the princess in the ice castle, he's not going to be happy if he can't do that.

Basically, the argument is "it's better to be aware of these things, so that players can make an educated choice on what they play and the DM knows what they may have to do to keep everyone having fun". It's like a website for comparing cars. Car A looks fast and cool, but if trusted sources say that it falls short compared to B and C, it's better to know that so you can make your decision on which to buy. If Car A still suits you, fine, no problem! But if you look at Car C and say "man, with a different coat of paint that is exactly what I want!" then you just saved yourself a big disappointment.

It's about making sure the guy using a tool that can only do one thing doesn't think the tool can do five, so he can change his choice if he doesn't want to be stuck with one thing.

Now, DM intervention can do a lot to help balance these things, but some people would hate that. They want to earn their victories and for them that means going up against whatever challenges they face without the DM having to add in something so they can shine. For people like this, "I added that just to give your character a time in the spotlight" is the same as "you couldn't have done anything dramatic and cool on your own, so I basically did it for you".

I'm not really invested in the argument itself, but I think there's a fundamental problem in communication here. It's not about everyone being Superman all the time, it's about wanting to play Batman and getting stuck with someone who has a lot of options...that all suck.

[Twilightwyrm]

@TwilightWyrm:

It's simple really. There're a number of good spells that have no material components. By focusing his repetoire on such spells he bypasses the proposed restriction entirely. There's also the possiblity of hoarding just enough of a material component of a good spell to craft a 1/day item that produces that effect. Schemas (magic of eberron) in particular would be great for this.

Such a restriction also encourages the wizard to end encounters with as few spells as possible forcing them to abandon any less optimal MO's. This creates a dichotomy where there are only high-op wizards and dead wizards. Noone wants that. The wizards you've described are the latter type.

Now that I think on it, the necromancer minion-master now rules the roost. The spells that craft his minions already had an expensive component (onyx gems) that had to be tracked. To a lesser extent, other minon-master archetypes (summoners, enchanters, etc) would also still be quite strong. Since many minions also have SLA's or even their own casting ability, the wizard still has a myriad of options.

The wizard is pigeonholed into a high-op only minionmancer by this proposed "fix," he's not brought down to the same level as a fighter or barbarian.

So if this is the case, the wizard basically becomes either a pseudo-artificer (because, where the magic items are concerned, the actual making of them is the only part that makes the wizard special. Other characters can use them just as well), or a minionmancer. Since it seems a beguiler or a dread necromancer could do enchantment and necromancy better, respectively, that leaves the wizard with either the niche of conjuration (which I'd imagine, even with Material Component issues, a sorcerer or warmage (w/ eclectic learning) could be strictly better at) or a mixed bag of minions (the only real niche I can see, assuming we ignore divine casters entirely). Hell, if it is a minion arms race you are after, any non-casting class (and many alternative casting ones) can ape enchantment minion generation with an ample Diplomacy score, including fighters and barbarians, while still having their other talents to fall back on. Granted, probably not as well as the wizard, but then again the wizard would have the distinct disadvantage of not being about to smash a stone wall to pieces, teleport, or debuff enemy groups at will, so fairs fair I suppose.
You could always go with your other approach of subverting the intent of the rules change with the letter of it, (by using all non-material spells) but unlike with RAW, this doesn't really work with DM enforced home brew (since all such a DM needs to do is add material components to all spells, and you're in the same position).

[DMVerdandi]

Personally, here is how I would do it.

I think the Erudite class has the best ideas for a caster, and honestly in DNDnext, wizards play like them, so why not completely change the casting mechanic to play like that? Here is what I would do. Make the wizard into a Replacement for erudite variant class.

Here are the steps.

1. Get rid of most spell/power trigger magic items. Only keep scrolls.
One of the reasons that wizards/sorcerers are so damn strong is because their spell slots don't actually reflect how often they can cast.


2. Take erudite class as base, and have them Manifest off the Sorcerer spell list, and instead of discipline powers give them spell to power they can learn spells off of any arcane and divine spell list at one level below what they can cast.

3. Have them start with 2 unique powers per day, and increase them by 1 per level(Max 16). As an alternative, the wizard can trade the unique power per day with two free spells from the wizard spell list.

5. Replace psicrystal with craft power stone.

6. Give them an ability to make scrolls with Power points instead of experience.

7. Get rid of bonus feats.

For the rest, keep erudite features as is.



Now, in the end, that means that every day, they can cast 2+1/level Unique spells. That is 16 different spells per day, minus those they trade for free spells.


This forces the wizard to either gain new spells through leveling up and sacrificing a unique spell per day, purchasing expanded knowledge, or by spending experience points and money to get them from buying scrolls.
Crafting power stones gives them utility in some of the things they can do.

This also gets rid of the shenanigans created by having to rely on a spell book and preparing a spell.

Having to use the more balanced metapsionic feats also takes away from some of the metamagic problems.


Some would call that an empowerment of the wizard, but in a way it increases the cost and time to learning spells, and forces them to rely on only 16 spells usable per day at best, rather than the 36 different spells they can cast per day.

It also creates a wizard doesn't rely on such insane book keeping and resting, and won't drag the rest of the players down with it.

[barna10]

This may be how the argument is coming across to you, but imagine this:

I have a gaming group of five, including me (the DM). Our Group is Bob, John, Shayna and Eric.

Bob wants to be a powerful knight, slicing apart monsters and doing things only possible to men of lesser skill with magic. Wrestle a dragon? Sure, no problem, he's Bob the Knight! That's the kind of thing he wants to do.

John wants to be a mage, diving through esoteric knowledge to find the bits and pieces that just fit, allowing him to combine them to devastating effect, unleashing blasts of flame or turning a rampaging beast to stone. Inspired by some books about similar things, he's also going for a very "master of his environment" type caster, who can raise walls of earth and carve keeps from stone with his magic.

Shayna wants to be a priestess of a near-forgotten deity, showing the world the divine power her patron still possesses by wiping out undead hordes and wading through combat, shining with holy light.

Eric wants to be a man who can sneak into any fortress, bypass any trap and fell their guardians with a single, well-placed blow from the darkness.

The problem arises if John's mage begins to outshine Bob in battle. Bob doesn't want to be "a fighter, who does fighter things" he wants to be his character, someone who slices beasts in two and saves innocents from monsters. Yet he continually falls short of his expectations without assistance from others, while John and Shayna are able to do what he wanted to do, but better.

Sure, early on they can't, but if Bob wants to be the legendary swordsman who can rescue the princess in the ice castle, he's not going to be happy if he can't do that.

Basically, the argument is "it's better to be aware of these things, so that players can make an educated choice on what they play and the DM knows what they may have to do to keep everyone having fun". It's like a website for comparing cars. Car A looks fast and cool, but if trusted sources say that it falls short compared to B and C, it's better to know that so you can make your decision on which to buy. If Car A still suits you, fine, no problem! But if you look at Car C and say "man, with a different coat of paint that is exactly what I want!" then you just saved yourself a big disappointment.

It's about making sure the guy using a tool that can only do one thing doesn't think the tool can do five, so he can change his choice if he doesn't want to be stuck with one thing.

Now, DM intervention can do a lot to help balance these things, but some people would hate that. They want to earn their victories and for them that means going up against whatever challenges they face without the DM having to add in something so they can shine. For people like this, "I added that just to give your character a time in the spotlight" is the same as "you couldn't have done anything dramatic and cool on your own, so I basically did it for you".

I'm not really invested in the argument itself, but I think there's a fundamental problem in communication here. It's not about everyone being Superman all the time, it's about wanting to play Batman and getting stuck with someone who has a lot of options...that all suck.

And yet Batman and Superman often do fight evil together...

Ok, Bob gets a PhD in Engineering and Steve goes and works at factory right out of High School. Steve learns to do a ton of stuff. He is good with his hands, good in a fight, makes a decent living. Bob can do everything Steve can do, plus he knows how to build rocket ships, super-weapons, power factories, and can make a ton of money. Obviously Bob is too powerful and shouldn't have been allowed to go to college because he makes Steve feel inadequate.

[Amphetryon]

And yet Batman and Superman often do fight evil together..Because Batman is able to provide relevant contributions, without Superman having to take a nap for Batman to help.

[barna10]

Because Batman is able to provide relevant contributions, without Superman having to take a nap for Batman to help.

I think Batman is only able to "provide relevant contributions" because the writers make it that way. How often is Batman going to sneak around and beat the world smashing bad guy before the world smashing bad guy decides to take out squishy Batman first? Seriously, he's been able to sneak up on and smash Darkseid in the face!

It's no different in D&D. Each PC is ONLY relevant because of the scenario the DM chooses to run. If one character or character type is over powering the others it all falls back on the DM.

[JoshuaZ]

Ok, Bob gets a PhD in Engineering and Steve goes and works at factory right out of High School. Steve learns to do a ton of stuff. He is good with his hands, good in a fight, makes a decent living. Bob can do everything Steve can do, plus he knows how to build rocket ships, super-weapons, power factories, and can make a ton of money. Obviously Bob is too powerful and shouldn't have been allowed to go to college because he makes Steve feel inadequate.

Actually, this underestimates how much practical knowledge one will pick up in a factory setting. But that's a minor detail. This misses the major point: life isn't fair, and real-life roles aren't very balanced. But that's not what people want to have in a game generally.




I think Batman is only able to "provide relevant contributions" because the writers make it that way. How often is Batman going to sneak around and beat the world smashing bad guy before the world smashing bad guy decides to take out squishy Batman first? Seriously, he's been able to sneak up on and smash Darkseid in the face!

It's no different in D&D. Each PC is ONLY relevant because of the scenario the DM chooses to run. If one character or character type is over powering the others it all falls back on the DM.

This misses the point. How much intervention and how blatant does that intervention need to be to make everyone feel like they are contributing? In D&D 3.5, a DM needs to do a lot of intervention to make a fighter feel like he's contributing that much, and it often needs to occur in a way that people don't like and breaks the feeling that the player has earned what they are doing. In contrast, more often than not, a DM needs to react to the wizard figuring out how not to make whatever the wizard does completely solve everything. In contrast for example, if one is in a campaign where one has all T3 and T4 classes, things will be pretty different.

[PersonMan]

And yet Batman and Superman often do fight evil together...

Ok, Bob gets a PhD in Engineering and Steve goes and works at factory right out of High School. Steve learns to do a ton of stuff. He is good with his hands, good in a fight, makes a decent living. Bob can do everything Steve can do, plus he knows how to build rocket ships, super-weapons, power factories, and can make a ton of money. Obviously Bob is too powerful and shouldn't have been allowed to go to college because he makes Steve feel inadequate.

I feel like you missed my point entirely.

If Steve wants to be like Bob, and joins a program that says "we will educate you to get a PhD in Engineering!" but in the end he can still only do factory work things, this is not working as advertised. This is the problem.

The issue is more that Steve and Bob both do the same things, do the same work, but Steve gets his factory skills while Bob gets all of his PhD skills. If you tell Bob beforehand that he needs to do certain things or he will only have factory skills, even if the program says he doesn't need to, then he can make an informed decision.

EDIT: Not in this example, but in the example for Fighter v Wizard they do essentially the same things, but have wildly different levels of competence.

[barna10]

I feel like you missed my point entirely.

If Steve wants to be like Bob, and joins a program that says "we will educate you to get a PhD in Engineering!" but in the end he can still only do factory work things, this is not working as advertised. This is the problem.

The issue is more that Steve and Bob both do the same things, do the same work, but Steve gets his factory skills while Bob gets all of his PhD skills. If you tell Bob beforehand that he needs to do certain things or he will only have factory skills, even if the program says he doesn't need to, then he can make an informed decision.

EDIT: Not in this example, but in the example for Fighter v Wizard they do essentially the same things, but have wildly different levels of competence.

Interesting. No comment on the first part as this is all sorts of Crazy.

Regarding Fighter v Wizard, way off base. Fighters and Wizards do not do the same thing, but do have the same level of competence IN THEIR AREA OF EXPERITSE. In an anti-magic field, the fighter is much better than the Wizard. On an open battle battle field, the Wizard rules. The problem is everyone wants the fighter and wizard to be equally relevant in all situations. It doesn't work that way, nor should it.

[JoshuaZ]

Interesting. No comment on the first part as this is all sorts of Crazy.

Regarding Fighter v Wizard, way off base. Fighters and Wizards do not do the same thing, but do have the same level of competence IN THEIR AREA OF EXPERITSE. In an anti-magic field, the fighter is much better than the Wizard. On an open battle battle field, the Wizard rules. The problem is everyone wants the fighter and wizard to be equally relevant in all situations. It doesn't work that way, nor should it.

No. This misses the point. The problem isn't that the fighter and wizard aren't equally relevant. The problem is that the number of situations where the wizard is relevant is much much higher, and that even in situations where they are both relevant, the wizard often is much more relevant. See the difference?

[barna10]

No. This misses the point. The problem isn't that the fighter and wizard aren't equally relevant. The problem is that the number of situations where the wizard is relevant is much much higher, and that even in situations where they are both relevant, the wizard often is much more relevant. See the difference?

I understand that point, but don't understand why everyone focuses on that. If you don't like that a fighter gets outshined by a Wizard, be a Wizard. Don't screw the Wizard over just because you wanted to play a fighter.

[Story]

I think adding an AMF to every other battle is pretty blatant. This falls under the fighter can only be relevant when the DM is clearly setting them up.

[Arbane]

Has anyone posted the link to how this power-disparity works out yet?

Because, if not, here's BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) to explain the tier system to you.

[barna10]

I think adding an AMF to every other battle is pretty blatant. This falls under the fighter can only be relevant when the DM is clearly setting them up.


Has anyone posted the link to how this power-disparity works out yet?

Because, if not, here's BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) to explain the tier system to you.

First, adding an AMF every other battle is not uncalled for if the NPCs are capable of casting 6th level spells and are constantly getting slaughtered by pesky Mages.

Second, I think we all know how the premise of the tier system. Understanding it and agreeing with it are two different animals.

I'm tired of being the grumpy old man, and I'm sure most of you are tired of me preaching like one, but I think most of you don't share my experience. I, like some of the designers of this game, have been playing RPGs for longer than most of you have been alive or even able to read. The more you play and run games, the more you realize how those things you thought were problems with the game were really problems with you and how you played or ran it.

If you play D&D expecting something like a computer game, you'll be disappointed most of the time. However, if play with the idea of creating an epic story, you'll be rewarded most of the time. If you make the game all about the numbers, I feel sorry for you. You have every right to play that way, but IMO there are better, more fulfilling ways to play.

In my games I put very few limitations on the players. They are allowed to chose any class that makes sense with the world/story and can pick any equipment that is level appropriate.

I haven't fielded a complaint about a character being overpowered or unbalanced since 2007. That complaint was about a Warblade what was optimized for tripping. We had several Wizards in that group of 8-10. No one complained about them. Personally, I didn't even have a problem with the Warblade besides thinking it would be a boring way to play.

So, if you want to think Wizards are so unbalanced, great. I think it could easily be handled in game while still continuing the game. I think nerfing the class or propping up other classes to equal them out are both weak approaches to the problem, but to each his own.

[PersonMan]

I understand that point, but don't understand why everyone focuses on that. If you don't like that a fighter gets outshined by a Wizard, be a Wizard. Don't screw the Wizard over just because you wanted to play a fighter.

The problem with this, and the core of my point, is that some people don't know about this problem until they're sitting at the table with their fighter, being outshined.

This is my point. People should know, so that they can decide whether or not this is ok with them.

[Flickerdart]

First, adding an AMF every other battle is not uncalled for if the NPCs are capable of casting 6th level spells and are constantly getting slaughtered by pesky Mages.

Oh so wrong. A spellcaster is a formidable foe. A spellcaster sitting inside an AMF he cast is a squishy idiot who's going to get eaten.

[Rogue Shadows]

I understand that point, but don't understand why everyone focuses on that. If you don't like that a fighter gets outshined by a Wizard, be a Wizard. Don't screw the Wizard over just because you wanted to play a fighter.

"D&D? What's that?"

"Oh, it's this game, been around since '77."

"What's it like?"

"It's totally awesome. You can build any character you want and do pretty much anything you like. It's like the most immersive and player-driven computer game ever, except without the computer. Your options are limited only by your imagination."

"So, like, in WoW, whenever I start a conversation I have a list of pre-chosen responses..."

"...but in D&D, you can have any response!"

"That's awesome!"

"Hell yeah it's awesome!"

"And I can make any character?"

"There's hundreds of splatbooks! You can make anything!"

"Sweet! I've always wanted to play this character concept of mine, this warrior who's family was killed by wizards so he's hated them, and so he's become an expert at killing them and - "

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No. No, that doesn't work."

"What?"

"There is no way you could make a warrior that could actually beat a wizard. Stop being stupid."

"But I thought I could build anything!"

"Dude, if you want to kill a wizard, you have to be a wizard."

"But I don't want to be a wizard, I want to be a fighter!"

"And if you're okay with sucking, then you can be a fighter."

"So let me get this straight. I can build any character I want, but there's a narrow field of character builds which are actually viable."

"Yup. Unless you want to focus just on the roleplaying, which is cool, but from a mechanical standpoint, you're Tier-1, you're Tier-2, or you don't matter. And all the Tier-1s and Tier-2s are spellcasters or some variation thereof."

"That's not fair."

"Life isn't fair."

"But this isn't life, it's a game."

"Well, games aren't fair either. Suck it up."

[DeltaEmil]

An Antimagic field hurts fighters far far more than it will ever hurt a spellcaster.

[barna10]

The problem with this, and the core of my point, is that some people don't know about this problem until they're sitting at the table with their fighter, being outshined.

This is my point. People should know, so that they can decide whether or not this is ok with them.

No one knows what they are getting into until they play and if you can't realize that a Wizard can do more than a Fighter, how long have you lived in a closet with the total absence of pop culture?


Oh so wrong. A spellcaster is a formidable foe. A spellcaster sitting inside an AMF he cast is a squishy idiot who's going to get eaten.

Yes and this is why Spellcasters have minions, some of which are big powerful fighters that like to slaughter things inside AMFs.


"D&D? What's that?"

"Oh, it's this game, been around since '77."

"What's it like?"

"It's totally awesome. You can build any character you want and do pretty much anything you like. It's like the most immersive and player-driven computer game ever, except without the computer. Your options are limited only by your imagination."

"So, like, in WoW, whenever I start a conversation I have a list of pre-chosen responses..."

"...but in D&D, you can have any response!"

"That's awesome!"

"Hell yeah it's awesome!"

"And I can make any character?"

"There's hundreds of splatbooks! You can make anything!"

"Sweet! I've always wanted to play this character concept of mine, this warrior who's family was killed by wizards so he's hated them, and so he's become an expert at killing them and - "

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No. No, that doesn't work."

"What?"

"There is no way you could make a warrior that could actually beat a wizard. Stop being stupid."

"But I thought I could build anything!"

"Dude, if you want to kill a wizard, you have to be a wizard."

"But I don't want to be a wizard, I want to be a fighter!"

"And if you're okay with sucking, then you can be a fighter."

"So let me get this straight. I can build any character I want, but there's a narrow field of character builds which are actually viable."

"Yup. Unless you want to focus just on the roleplaying, which is cool, but from a mechanical standpoint, you're Tier-1, you're Tier-2, or you don't matter. And all the Tier-1s and Tier-2s are spellcasters or some variation thereof."

"That's not fair."

"Life isn't fair."

"But this isn't life, it's a game."

"Well, games aren't fair either. Suck it up."

And then Conan cried. You should have included the lines "You better get used to it. The only way to have fun is to be the most effective character at the table. Roleplaying has nothing to do with this ROLE PLAYING GAME. Go play chess if you want to do anything other than be a Wizard."

[barna10]

An Antimagic field hurts fighters far far more than it will ever hurt a spellcaster.

Er..what? Do swords stop swinging? Do things refuse to bleed?

[Flickerdart]

Yes and this is why Spellcasters have minions, some of which are big powerful fighters that like to slaughter things inside AMFs.

Except they can't - all of their magic weapons don't work, and suddenly they're just guys with sticks. And then they get eaten by a bear, because the bear's strength doesn't turn off in an AMF.



And then Conan cried. You should have included the lines "You better get used to it. The only way to have fun is to be the most effective character at the table. Roleplaying has nothing to do with this ROLE PLAYING GAME. Go play chess if you want to do anything other than be a Wizard."
No amount of roleplaying is going to make "fighter that fights spellcasters and wins" a workable character concept in 3.5. And, y'know, Conan was exactly that, so it's not like it's a non-existent thing in pop culture.


Er..what? Do swords stop swinging? Do things refuse to bleed?
Swords stop swinging at their +5 bonus to attack and damage, while monsters still keep all of their stats, so by casting AMF you just made your Fighter miss 25% more. Oh, except his +6 Belt of Strength turns off too, so that's actually 40%. Assuming that the baseline hit rate is around 50%, you just made it 10%. Good job.

[Mephit]

An Antimagic field hurts fighters far far more than it will ever hurt a spellcaster.

:smallconfused:
AMFs are horribly ineffectual ways to take down a poperly prepared spellcaster, but I don't really see how they're better off in a situation where they really have to go -inside- the AMF for plot reasons.


No one knows what they are getting into until they play and if you can't realize that a Wizard can do more than a Fighter, how long have you lived in a closet with the total absence of pop culture?


A lot of popular video games, board games and even table-top games are all about a semblance of balance between character options. Heck, D&D 4e has this - wizards are still the most powerful class, IIRC, but by an incredibly smaller margin. It's not unreasonable for people to expect 3.5 to have that.


Except they can't - all of their magic weapons don't work, and suddenly they're just guys with sticks. And then they get eaten by a bear, because the bear's strength doesn't turn off in an AMF.

So basically, Druids rule suppreme!

[Rogue Shadows]

No amount of roleplaying is going to make "fighter that fights spellcasters and wins" a workable character concept in 3.5. And, y'know, Conan was exactly that, so it's not like it's a non-existent thing in pop culture.

And that's the thing: a Xth-level fighter should be able to get into a fight with a Xth-level wizard and have a reasonable chance at winning - maybe not a 50-50 split, but I'd call it fair if it was 60-40 in favor of the wizard. As it stands, starting at level 5 or so it's 90-10 wizard's favor, and only gets worse from there.

This is the problem that needs to be fixed, not simply acknowledged and worked around, but actually fixed. I have limited respect for people who acknowledge the problem and don't take any effort to do anything about it, even something as simple as going online and finding other people's efforts.

[Flickerdart]

:smallconfused:
AMFs are horribly ineffectual ways to take down a poperly prepared spellcaster, but I don't really see how they're better off in a situation where they really have to go -inside- the AMF for plot reasons.
An AMF is a 10ft radius effect. Anyone inside one won't have to be there for long.




A lot of popular video games, board games and even table-top games are all about a semblance of balance between character options. Heck, D&D 4e has this - wizards are still the most powerful class, IIRC, but by an incredibly smaller margin. It's not unreasonable for people to expect 3.5 to have that.
It's actually Rangers, because two-weapon fighting is incredibly powerful when everyone else gets only one attack.

[barna10]

Except they can't - all of their magic weapons don't work, and suddenly they're just guys with sticks. And then they get eaten by a bear, because the bear's strength doesn't turn off in an AMF.


No amount of roleplaying is going to make "fighter that fights spellcasters and wins" a workable character concept in 3.5. And, y'know, Conan was exactly that, so it's not like it's a non-existent thing in pop culture.


Swords stop swinging at their +5 bonus to attack and damage, while monsters still keep all of their stats, so by casting AMF you just made your Fighter miss 25% more. Oh, except his +6 Belt of Strength turns off too, so that's actually 40%. Assuming that the baseline hit rate is around 50%, you just made it 10%. Good job.

I'm sure the AMF made the fighter's intelligence drop as well so he can no longer think like a human. I must be forgetting what a 2 dimensional game this is.

[Rogue Shadows]

I'm sure the AMF made the fighter's intelligence drop as well so he can no longer think like a human. I must be forgetting what a 2 dimensional game this is.

The point is that an AMF doesn't actually significantly hurt a wizard nor significantly help a fighter.

[barna10]

This is the problem that needs to be fixed, not simply acknowledged and worked around, but actually fixed. I have limited respect for people who acknowledge the problem and don't take any effort to do anything about it, even something as simple as going online and finding other people's efforts.

Lol, and what of the idiots like me that don't think it's a problem at all?

[barna10]

I would love to sit down at a table with all of you an DM for you one day. I'll use just core books and you guys make up whatever crazy crap Wizards you want. It would be fun, for me at least.

[Flickerdart]

I'm sure the AMF made the fighter's intelligence drop as well so he can no longer think like a human. I must be forgetting what a 2 dimensional game this is.
What does that even mean? What is "thinking like a human" have to do with your party member just turning off your magic items?


I would love to sit down at a table with all of you an DM for you one day. I'll use just core books and you guys make up whatever crazy crap Wizards you want. It would be fun, for me at least.
The ability of the DM to make rocks fall has nothing to do with class balance.

[Rogue Shadows]

Lol, and what of the idiots like me that don't think it's a problem at all?

...just about every response I can think of to this begins with me bold'ing certain words in this quote and then getting banned at best, so I'm just gonna settle on saying that the on saying that the majority seems to be against you here.

If it's not the case in your games, that's great, but we're not talking about your games, we're talking about the purely mechanical averages of every game.

Put another way, roll up a 20th level Fighter, you can use every officially-published WotC book when creating him and even design him to specifically kill wizards. Any race, any feats, any equipment, etc. Your only restriction is you have to be a 20th level Fighter.

Someone else, roll up a 20th level wizard. You'll be restricted to PHB, DMG, and MM only, you have to specialize (your choice of specialty), and further can only be a Human. You don't begin with any buffs or contingencies in place.

You shall begin at opposite ends of this map (http://myminiaturesite.altervista.org/immagini/Tiles%20and%20Maps/Map-broken-daemongate.gif).

And now...takin' all bets!

[Story]

I think you should add a restriction that the fighter can't rely on high level magic to win. Otherwise you get the endless "Lvl20 CommonerFighter paid some wizards to mind switch him into a Protean" nonsense.

Also Barna, you could always do a Pbp game here.

[Lord_Gareth]

Lol, and what of the idiots like me that don't think it's a problem at all?

We've got hard evidence that it's a problem. You've got wishful platitudes. I believe, in debate, this is known as a problem with your argument.

If your table operates okay, then that's fine. But that doesn't remove the problem with the system, it just means you've found a way to work around it. If I detour traffic around a broken road, the road is still broken.

[Rogue Shadows]

I think you should add a restriction that the fighter can't rely on high level magic to win. Otherwise you get the endless "Lvl20 CommonerFighter paid some wizards to mind switch him into a Protean" nonsense.

It was a rhetorical challenge: we all know that the only way to beat a wizard is to be a wizard or to ape what the wizard does, the point being that in 3.5 it's impossible to challenge a wizard as a fighter acting like a fighter.

[Glimbur]

Put another way, roll up a 20th level Fighter, you can use every officially-published WotC book when creating him and even design him to specifically kill wizards. Any race, any feats, any equipment, etc. Your only restriction is you have to be a 20th level Fighter....

I hate to rain on your parade, but this is a distraction this sort of thread often ends up in. Yes, it's quite possible to build a wizard that can kill a fighter. We actually proved this in a previous similar thread. I think the fighter even had a level advantage on the wizard. But D&D is not always about 1 v 1 fights.

The problem, as has been stated previously, is that wizards are more helpful in more situations than fighters are. Unless players are aware of this and act so that everyone can make difference, you can get the angel summoner and the BMX bandit. And it's not just that better roleplaying would solve the issue: PCs risk death every time they go adventuring. They will pay attention to who does what, and between the high Int wizard and the high Wis druid or cleric they will figure out by mid-levels that they would be better off with another spellcaster than the fighter. That might be optimization, but it's something actual characters in the real game could notice.

[Norin]

Oh my, this thread goes on forever.

Anyone see a pattern in threads barna replies in? :smallbiggrin: (No offends intended)

Anyways, if you want to excel at both melee and arcane, why not make a gish?

Most good gish builds end up with 16 or more bab and 9th lvl arcane spell(s). Using a wizard as base, you can still have the extreme arcane versatility that makes (breaks?) the wizard class, and with some decent feat choise you can dish out some serious "none-magic" melee (or even ranged) damage.

There, problem solved, if you can not be "best" as either fighter or Wiz, be both?

[PersonMan]

No one knows what they are getting into until they play and if you can't realize that a Wizard can do more than a Fighter, how long have you lived in a closet with the total absence of pop culture?

Oh, I've seen plenty of games/movies/shows where the mages have great magical power, but can still be taken down by the sheer skill and force of a good enough warrior.

If I want to play someone who can beat dragons, save captured royalty, chop mountains in half and similar things, without being a spellcaster, and the books say "you can!" then why shouldn't I? At the very least, the books should tell me if I'm going to be nothing but a loot-carrier instead of an epic hero.

Part of the issue is that you, as a fighter, you can't even do some typical high fantasy things like slaying a rampaging dragon. Now, how long would you need to have "lived in a closet with the total absence of pop culture" for so long that such a thing to not be what you'd expect to see from a fighter?

[Malroth]

The problem isn't the Tier 1's being too powerful its the guy with the sword being too idioticaly useless. Give the buggers a use for mental stats and class features that provide intresting options in and out of combat.

[Seer_of_Heart]

I'd put 2cp on the wizard :smallbiggrin:

Wizards aren't useless in AMFs, a simple way is contingencies to use dimension door away from the creature protruding the AMF when the wizard is about to enter the AMF, and there are more this just was a simple one.

[barna10]

I'd take the challenge just for the fun of it. I like to hear people whine when the character they thought was so amazing gets killed.

We can even knock the dust off of my forum to do so.

Regarding everything else, the entire system is subjective. Most of you have the opinion that Wizards are broken, fine. My question is what are you playing such a broken game for? There are other systems with far less powerful Wizards. Why not play the other systems if it is such a problem? GURPS does a great job of equaling everything out.

[Gnorman]

Regarding everything else, the entire system is subjective. Most of you have the opinion that Wizards are broken, fine. My question is what are you playing such a broken game for? There are other systems with far less powerful Wizards. Why not play the other systems if it is such a problem? GURPS does a great job of equaling everything out.

For the same reason that I don't move to Canada every time a president I don't agree with gets elected.

Just because the system is broken in some way or produces results we don't like doesn't mean that we can't fix it (or at least try to) or that the whole thing should be abandoned.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'd take the challenge just for the fun of it. I like to hear people whine when the character they thought was so amazing gets killed.

Good luck.


Regarding everything else, the entire system is subjective. Most of you have the opinion that Wizards are broken, fine. My question is what are you playing such a broken game for? There are other systems with far less powerful Wizards. Why not play the other systems if it is such a problem? GURPS does a great job of equaling everything out.

There's numerous reasons to play a broken system, the chief one being that it's better to face the broken you know than the broken you don't. GURPS isn't op-free and it's certainly not a perfect system; in sheer fiddly bits, D20 can only sit back and stare in shocked awe. GURPS has incredibly lethal combat; D&D generally doesn't, or at least doesn't have to. The list of reasons goes on, and then goes on further.

[Flickerdart]

I'd take the challenge just for the fun of it. I like to hear people whine when the character they thought was so amazing gets killed.

We can even knock the dust off of my forum to do so.

Regarding everything else, the entire system is subjective. Most of you have the opinion that Wizards are broken, fine. My question is what are you playing such a broken game for? There are other systems with far less powerful Wizards. Why not play the other systems if it is such a problem? GURPS does a great job of equaling everything out.
Because 3.5 is a great system for simulating a bunch of magic-powered adventurers running around doing cool things. Anyone who's already familiar with the system can avoid the pitfalls that it's not honest about, and have a grand old time, and because so many people know how to play it, it's really easy to get a group together.

[DMVerdandi]

"D&D? What's that?"

"Oh, it's this game, been around since '77."

"What's it like?"

"It's totally awesome. You can build any character you want and do pretty much anything you like. It's like the most immersive and player-driven computer game ever, except without the computer. Your options are limited only by your imagination."

"So, like, in WoW, whenever I start a conversation I have a list of pre-chosen responses..."

"...but in D&D, you can have any response!"

"That's awesome!"

"Hell yeah it's awesome!"

"And I can make any character?"

"There's hundreds of splatbooks! You can make anything!"

"Sweet! I've always wanted to play this character concept of mine, this warrior who's family was killed by wizards so he's hated them, and so he's become an expert at killing them and - "

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No. No, that doesn't work."

"What?"

"There is no way you could make a warrior that could actually beat a wizard. Stop being stupid."

"But I thought I could build anything!"

"Dude, if you want to kill a wizard, you have to be a wizard."

"But I don't want to be a wizard, I want to be a fighter!"

"And if you're okay with sucking, then you can be a fighter."

"So let me get this straight. I can build any character I want, but there's a narrow field of character builds which are actually viable."

"Yup. Unless you want to focus just on the roleplaying, which is cool, but from a mechanical standpoint, you're Tier-1, you're Tier-2, or you don't matter. And all the Tier-1s and Tier-2s are spellcasters or some variation thereof."

"That's not fair."

"Life isn't fair."

"But this isn't life, it's a game."

"Well, games aren't fair either. Suck it up."

I find this to be a flawed and silly argument.
Honestly, It's like someone saying,

"I want to punch a cannon-ball!"
"okay, I will go get you one"
"Don't forget to fire it at me with the cannon!"
:smallfurious: FULL RETARD.


I mean sure, theoretically an unprepared spellcaster can be beaten, if he makes poor decisions, but that fighter is in a different dimension. He is limited by what his body allows him to do. Spellcaster, is limited by what magic allows him to do, and it allows quite a bit.

Now, that isn't to say that other sources of power can't compete.
One could be a psionic character, or even a binder or a soul-melder, and they would have a better chance. Maybe a lucky initiator, or an artificer.

It is the character being stupid by picking such an horribly viable option.
A pocket knife is not as deadly as a sword. Is there any reason to complain about that? No. Can someone go to a swordfight using a pocket knife? Yes.
Should they complain about loosing? No.
Some things are better than others. Rule of Cool be damned.


And that isn't to say that the guy saying what he is couldn't be a swordsman or an axeman while using a different mechanic.

He could be a swordsman and a cleric, and his soul calling towards battle itself could enpower him.

He could be a swordsman and a psychic warrior, with his mind rather than soul steeling his blade.

He could be a swordsman duskblade, and have cosmic power strengthen his blade.

He could be a swordsman and warblade, and learn powerful martial arts that allow him to strike true.

He could be an swordsman and artificer, arming himself with a legendary blade of his own making.

He could be a swordsman and an Incarnate, having the souls of alignments becoming his very own regalia.


All of those options, and he thinks that a fighter has to be a FIGHTER.
What if he wanted to play a warrior, would he need to choose a WARRIOR?
no, because all these classes can be re-fluffed, and if he thinks that FEATS [minor tricks that everyone can learn] should be on par with SPELLS, then he deserves that.

All of those classes could hold a blade, and strike, and use melee to take down opponents, but they are supplemented by great powers, and the FIGHTER is supplemented only by feats.

All of those classes fight, are fighters and CAN fight, but a FIGHTER isn't much of a fighter at all. Should the game be reformatted because the SAMURAI sucks? No. There are classes that do it better, so there is no need to worry.
And In game, all of these PC's can learn how to do it easily, and sometimes by themselves.


Want to beat an Arcanist? Use divine,psionic,martial,incarnum,artifice, or binding powers. You have six choices that are all thematically different.
Feats don't cut it in that world.

Fighter should be called feat user, just to shut people up.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd take the challenge just for the fun of it. I like to hear people whine when the character they thought was so amazing gets killed. Given the fact that polymorph and tenser's transformation alone can turn the wizard into a fighter of exactly the same competence level as your fighter in a single round, giving him even odds despite how ridiculously poor a tactical choice that would be (the latter takes spellcasting away for the duration), I rather strongly suspect you'd be sorely disappointed if the caster rubbed two brain-cells together and did something that's actually efficient; like cast black tentacles to pin your fighter down for a few rounds while he makes himself nigh-untouchable.


Regarding everything else, the entire system is subjective. Most of you have the opinion that Wizards are broken, fine. My question is what are you playing such a broken game for? There are other systems with far less powerful Wizards. Why not play the other systems if it is such a problem? GURPS does a great job of equaling everything out.

The system is not subjective. The system is what it is. People's experiences with the system are subjective. People's skill with using the system is subjective. The system itself is objective. It's the exact same no matter who's looking at it.

I actually agree with you, to a certain extent, about the imbalance not being a guaranteed problem but there is simply no rational argument that leads to the idea that the imbalance doesn't exist.

The imbalance can be rendered completely irrelevant by a skillful DM and it can even be fixed if you're willing to put in a ridiculous amount of effort into fixing it (though if you feel the need for balance that keenly, 3.5 probably isn't the system for you. Much as I dislike it 4E is much closer to properly balanced) but this doesn't change the fact that the imbalance is there.

Like it or not, you're dead wrong about the fighter being more capable of defeating foes in combat than a wizard. A wizard has myriad more ways of avoiding damage than a fighter and he's got a metric crap-ton more ways to kill or otherwise incapacitate an enemy. Thanks to complete mage and complete champion's reserve feats the wizard doesn't even have to use his spells to be able to contribute to combat all day, every day. The one thing that the fighter (arguably) had over the wizard, staying power, is gone.

I say this as someone who thoroughly enjoys playing fighters and even monks. The mechanics of the system create an inherent advantage for spell-casters in every aspect of the game. The few limitations they're theoretically supposed to have can be mitigated into non-existence. These are quantifiable and well-documented facts, not just opinion. To deny that the imbalance exists is nothing short of willful ignorance or self-delusion.

[Flickerdart]

I mean sure, theoretically an unprepared spellcaster can be beaten, if he makes poor decisions, but that fighter is in a different dimension. He is limited by what his body allows him to do. Spellcaster, is limited by what magic allows him to do, and it allows quite a bit.
This is the case in D&D 3.5. In many other media, the limits of one's body can be pushed to be a match for magic (or has a strength where magic has a weakness, such as preparation or difficulty in picking the right course of action), and the difference can be made up with guile. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play Conan the Barbarian, it's just something that 3.5 can't support despite pretending that it can.

[awa]

but that's the problem people have been talking about. In pop culture their are plenty of non magical warriors who can kill wizards. d&d claims you can be a non magical warrior who can kill wizards. but when you actually start rolling dice the wizard wins. A highly skilled warrior should be able to shrug off or dodge any kind of magical effect the wizard can throw at him but in general they cant. A mighty warrior should be able to cut down anything the wizard can summon or turn into but in general he cant.

The problem isnt that a fighter cant beat a properly prepared wizards its that the system says both choices are equal when in fact one is clearly Superior then the other in most situations.

(now a dm can set up encounters to equalize a fighter and a wizard no question but if you need to fix something it is by definition broken.)

[barna10]

Like it or not, you're dead wrong about the fighter being more capable of defeating foes in combat than a wizard.

{scrubbed}

[Rogue Shadows]

I mean sure, theoretically an unprepared spellcaster can be beaten, if he makes poor decisions, but that fighter is in a different dimension. He is limited by what his body allows him to do. Spellcaster, is limited by what magic allows him to do, and it allows quite a bit.

Sounds like someone needs to recalibrate their expectations (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2).

Remember that everything that any human who has ever historically lived on Earth, can be accurately represented by a character who is, at most, level 5. This means that any character at level 6 is already superhuman. A level 20 character is one step short of a god.

Any class with a progression to at least level 6, should take this into account. A high-level fighter should be able to do patently impossible things just as a wizard can, not in the same way (he's no spellcaster), but he should still be able to wrestle dragons, sunder castles with his bare hands, and do all sorts of things that we'd normally describe as deific. He should be able to challenge wizards in one-on-one because he's a demigod.

Superman. A high-level fighter should be Superman. Maybe without the flying, but that's what magic items are for. He should be faster than a locomotive, laugh off bullets, leap tall buildings in a single bound, go toe-to-toe with friggin' gods and come out the other side...

(oh, hey, as long as I'm here: Superman's maximum load is, according to the Death Battle guys, about 66.6 quintillion tons. What's that in Strength?)

[DMVerdandi]

This is the case in D&D 3.5. In many other media, the limits of one's body can be pushed to be a match for magic (or has a strength where magic has a weakness, such as preparation or difficulty in picking the right course of action), and the difference can be made up with guile. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play Conan the Barbarian, it's just something that 3.5 can't support despite pretending that it can.

Conan the barbarian is very succeptable to magic.
Thing is, most of the time, he won with guile and sneaking.
That and those spellcasters were often Hubristic and Made mistakes.
DM Fiat is what caused his winning. That and the magic level in conan is different. But that doesn't change the fact that he could be foiled by it.

Often times he got captured, and chained up, and hot babe #3 just couldn't resist helping the cimmerian from being chained up cause she wanted the D.
THAT is how conan works. Anything else is not remembering the comics, books, or movies.

Also, casting time is prepared ahead of time in Vancian spellcasting.
Keep a wizard from sleeping and he is done for. Cut off his hands, and cut out his tongue and he can no longer cast. Getting close enough to do that is hard as ****, but that is what poisoning his cup is for.


And yes, some fiction does have strong characters, but very rarely does it have them beating magic straight up. Most of the time when it looks like they do, they are getting it from somewhere else.

Spirits(Incarnum), Divinity(divine), Ki(Can be divine,psionic,or even arcane too.), Mystic Power(Arcane), Magic Items (Artifice), Pacts with demons (Invocations/Binding), Mind over matter(Psionics) But just being like... IMMA MUSCLE WIZARD is tacky and in bad taste.

In fact, without those sources, I rarely if ever see anyone doing such a thing in a high magic setting.

If what you wish is low magic in the first place, Don't use PHB magic.
Use Beguilers, or hell Adepts. Wizards in DND are UNLIMITED POWAH mages, not low powered ones.

But my point is, more often than not, fighters of legend gain legendary power from a legendary power source.
DND itself thinks it's tacky, and reflects that by having a limit of how strong mundane power can get.

TOB reflects the highest end of physical power, in using martial art school tecniques.
Fighter is low end in DND. He isn't touching a TOB character, because what he learns is little tricks. They learn whole combat systems, while the fighter learns a very basic and crude way of fighting.

Fighters aren't martial arts masters, they are warriors that pick up a few extra knacks to supplement their general form of fighting.

[Flickerdart]

Conan the barbarian is very succeptable to magic.
Thing is, most of the time, he won with guile and sneaking.
That and those spellcasters were often Hubristic and Made mistakes.
DM Fiat is what caused his winning. That and the magic level in conan is different. But that doesn't change the fact that he could be foiled by it.

Often times he got captured, and chained up, and hot babe #3 just couldn't resist helping the cimmerian from being chained up cause she wanted the D.
THAT is how conan works. Anything else is not remembering the comics, books, or movies.

Guile and sneaking are modelled in 3.5 with skills. Seducing hot babes? Also skills. Conan had these skills in spades. Fighters don't even have them on their list.

[DMVerdandi]

Sounds like someone needs to recalibrate their expectations (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2).

Remember that everything that any human who has ever historically lived on Earth, can be accurately represented by a character who is, at most, level 5. This means that any character at level 6 is already superhuman. A level 20 character is one step short of a god.

Any class with a progression to at least level 6, should take this into account. A high-level fighter should be able to do patently impossible things just as a wizard can, not in the same way (he's no spellcaster), but he should still be able to wrestle dragons, sunder castles with his bare hands, and do all sorts of things that we'd normally describe as deific. He should be able to challenge wizards in one-on-one because he's a demigod.

Superman. A high-level fighter should be Superman. Maybe without the flying, but that's what magic items are for. He should be faster than a locomotive, laugh off bullets, leap tall buildings in a single bound, go toe-to-toe with friggin' gods and come out the other side...

(oh, hey, as long as I'm here: Superman's maximum load is, according to the Death Battle guys, about 66.6 quintillion tons. What's that in Strength?)

Absolutely wrong.
The natural max stat for any human being is 22.
That is about 700 pounds in real life.
Superhuman, yes. but not a god.

Natural max skills are 26.
So yeah a 20th level commoner with maxed strength can do some damage, but are generally at captain america levels of power. That is where they stop.
They aren't unlimited by any stretch of the imagination however.

And you misunderstand me. I didn't say that they couldn't be superhuman. Not at all.

But Captain America's powers are nothing compared to the silver surfer (Whom mages would further exemplify).

The power cosmic is just better than the super soldier serum, amirite?
Absolutely.


While we are on the topic of divinity,
Divine rank 0 is worth 20 levels of classes alone.
It is so far above just being regular that it is insane, and the more divine rank you get, the easier it is to say **** it all.

You automatically get bonuses to every role you will ever perform.

So hercules isn't exemplifed by a fighter.
He is infact in Deities and Demigods, and has QUITE the set up going on, but he has at least 40 levels ON TOP of being born with divine rank.

He is exemplifed by demi-god status, and demi-god status without doing a single thing is worth 20 levels alone.



So no, he shouldn't.
Feats are mundane tricks that people can learn.
They can be put to great use in combination with a great class, but fighters aren't great classes.

Want to smash through rock? Wrestle Dragons?
TOB allows for that, as it is the highest form of martial training in the world.
Techniques that allow for the greatest form of physical combat.

Feats are just things you learn to do other things. They aren't the greatest combat techniques, they are basic techniques. Fighter feats are only designated as such because they are feats for combat, but they aren't maneuvers.

They are cantrips to 9th level spells. The most basic of basic.


But don't let fluff go to your head. It's about mechanics.
Divine Salent Abilities are so far ahead of the game itself that they actually ARE godly.

There are godly abilities in this game, and they make level 20 mages look like amoebas.

Want to beat a god as a level 20 mage, you can't. Die...now.
See? There are tiers of power in DND, which has it's own setting attached to the main game's mechanics.

[DMVerdandi]

Guile and sneaking are modelled in 3.5 with skills. Seducing hot babes? Also skills. Conan had these skills in spades. Fighters don't even have them on their list.

And that is why he is best exemplified as maybe a High STR-CON Factotum/rogue.
He isn't the best fighter per say, but through being a very skilled individual and thief, he kicked some ass.

[Flickerdart]

Absolutely wrong.
The natural max stat for any human being is 22.
18 natural, +5 from levels, +3 from age. 26.



Natural max skills are 26.

23 ranks, +2 synergy, +3 skill focus, +2 from the feats that give +2 to two skills. 30.

Neither of this is counting items, which are required by the system.




While we are on the topic of divinity,
Divine rank 0 is worth 20 levels of classes alone.

No it isn't. It actually doesn't give you all that much.



So hercules isn't exemplifed by a fighter.
He is infact in Deities and Demigods, and has QUITE the set up going on, but he has at least 40 levels ON TOP of being born with divine rank.
No he doesn't.


He is exemplifed by demi-god status, and demi-god status without doing a single thing is worth 20 levels alone.
No it's not (see above).

You are vastly over-estimating Hercules, apparently because you believe that a being called a demigod in myth must be statted out as a god in D&D, which is patently untrue.


And that is why he is best exemplified as maybe a High STR-CON Factotum/rogue.
He isn't the best fighter per say, but through being a very skilled individual and thief, he kicked some ass.
Remember how the problem is that D&D misrepresents things? Requiring someone to emulate a man with "barbarian" as part of his title by playing something that isn't the barbarian class is exactly what I'm talking about.

[DMVerdandi]

18 natural, +5 from levels, +3 from age. 26.


23 ranks, +2 synergy, +3 skill focus, +2 from the feats that give +2 to two skills. 30.[
Excuse me... Physical stat.
Those are mental stats. Physical ones have a lower threshold.
And if I recall correctly, one only gets 4 bonuses to ability scores.
I may be wrong though.

Also, synergy and skill focus are not "natural".
Those are situational and learned respectively.
Everyone doesn't get those, thus it isn't natural.



No it isn't. It actually doesn't give you all that much.
Divine rank 0 is 20 hit dice of outsider.
Not to mention the divine qualities which are better than almost all classes alone. Free domain casting at will, Immortality, Immunity to like everything, 160 hit points, Best Weapon and armor proficiency, High speed, AND MORE at DR0.
You smokin something,son.



No he doesn't.
Hercules/Divine Rank 5
Barbarian20/Figher 20

Divine rank changes all hit points to MAX hit die.


No it's not (see above).

You are vastly over-estimating Hercules, apparently because you believe that a being called a demigod in myth must be statted out as a god in D&D, which is patently untrue.
But we aren't talking about myths alone.
We are talking about a game with a universe and with rules.
It's got RULES. And you can't just go against the rules and call yourself playing the game.

You are playing a homebrew if you diverge from the rules.
And that is cool and all, but it isn't the game intended.



Remember how the problem is that D&D misrepresents things? Requiring someone to emulate a man with "barbarian" as part of his title by playing something that isn't the barbarian class is exactly what I'm talking about.
He also was called the destroyer.
Where is the destroyer class.

Fact is, this is a game that revolves around mechanics, and some mechanics are better than others.
Accepting that and understanding that the mechanics are more important than the fluff allows for less cognative dissonance.

The fighter feat system is a weak mechanic, but there are others that can be played and play better.
Play those. That simple.

[Flickerdart]

Excuse me... Physical stat.
Those are mental stats. Physical ones have a lower threshold.
And if I recall correctly, one only gets 4 bonuses to ability scores.
I may be wrong though.
You are. Every 4 levels - 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.



Also, synergy and skill focus are not "natural".
Those are situational and learned respectively.
Everyone doesn't get those, thus it isn't natural.

Everyone also doesn't have black skin, does that mean black skin isn't natural? You gain those things without any external influence, they develop naturally.



Divine rank 0 is 20 hit dice of outsider.

Not unless you can cite me an actual rule.



Not to mention the divine qualities which are better than almost all classes alone. Free domain casting at will, Immortality, Immunity to like everything, 400 hit points, Best Weapon and armor proficiency, High speed, AND MORE at DR0.

You need DR1 before you can have even a single Salient Divine Ability, and most of them have more DRs than that as a prerequisite.



You smokin something,son.

I smoke rolled-up rulebooks.




Divine rank changes all hit points to MAX hit die.

HP alone isn't that big a deal.



But we aren't talking about myths alone.
We are talking about a game with a universe and with rules.
It's got RULES. And you can't just go against the rules and call yourself playing the game.

You are playing a homebrew if you diverge from the rules.
And that is cool and all, but it isn't the game intended.

Did I say anything about homebrew?



He also was called the destroyer.
Where is the destroyer class.


There is none, so that title is irrelevant.



Fact is, this is a game that revolves around mechanics, and some mechanics are better than others.
Accepting that and understanding that the mechanics are more important than the fluff allows for less cognative dissonance.

The fighter feat system is a weak mechanic, but there are others that can be played and play better.
Play those. That simple.
I'm not saying that Fighter is not a weak class; it is. I'm saying that a class based around physical skill doesn't NEED to be weak.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is an inane comment since I never said one was more capable than the other.

In post 159 of this very thread, you said that they were equally capable in their respective areas of expertise.

The fighter's area of expertise is combat. As such, he should be the more capable combatant. He's not. The wizard can outperform him in every concievable way in combat.

What exactly is it you believe the wizard's area of expertise to be? By your own words it can't be combat otherwise he should be equal to a fighter in that field, not greater in every possible way. Problem solving's too generic and includes defeating enemies in combat, so that's out.

It can't be anything to do with traps or stealth, that's the rogue's thing, though the wizard is better at that too.

Social interactions? but no. If that was his intended field then why are 90% of all spells geared to do something else? Besides, that's the bard's thing and he can do it almost as well as a wizard.

Healing's the cleric's schtick, right? A wizard can't do that..... unless he summons something with a cure spell SLA... or takes a single feat (arcane disciple).

I suppose that leaves scouting. The wizard's divinations can make finding anyone and anything a breeze, unless they take significant measures to prevent it. But wait.... what's the ranger's field then? The ranger is supposed to be the one who tracks things down.

What exactly is the wizard's field of expertise, Barna. I'm having trouble pinning it down.

It kind of looks to me like the wizard has no single specific area of expertise. If that's the case, however, then you're argument that each class is equally capable in its field of expertise falls apart, unless you're saying the wizard has no place in the game. I don't think you're saying that.

[DMVerdandi]

You are. Every 4 levels - 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.


Everyone also doesn't have black skin, does that mean black skin isn't natural? You gain those things without any external influence, they develop naturally.
Bad Analogy. That feat has to be purchased.
Just by leveling up is what I meant by "natural".
Just by leveling up, your totals were wrong as well.

And thank you for the clarification.



Not unless you can cite me an actual rule.
"DIVINE CHARACTERISTICS
Most deities are creatures of the outsider type (usually with 20
outsider Hit Dice). Unlike other outsiders, they have no darkvision unless noted in the deity description. Deities’ physical
characteristics vary from deity to deity and are noted in their
individual descriptions.
A deity’s outsider type, along with its class or classes, determines
its weapon proficiencies, feats, and skills.
Deities have some or all of the following additional qualities,
depending on their divine rank"

Deities and Demigods.
Do you not have the book?


You need DR1 before you can have even a single Salient Divine Ability, and most of them have more DRs than that as a prerequisite.

I was not talking about DR0 at that point, but divinity itself.
DR1 allows for salent divine abilities. I later started talking about DR0 to further emphasize how much harder it rocks than even being a spellcaster at times (As they are immune to most save or suck/die mechanics.), and to show that there is a Caste system inherently built into DND.



I smoke rolled-up rulebooks.
You should have looked at Deities and Demigods before you smoked it.
BURN:smallyuk:



HP alone isn't that big a deal.
It is.


Did I say anything about homebrew?
No, but that is where you were going.
Without homebrew, 3.5 stays as it is. As it is, even with all that "level 20 characters are already demigods" fapping, that is not true. Purely Physical fighters can only manipulate one dimension of reality, and that is the physical plane and only manipulate it in their territory of influence.

Supernatural effects allow you to manipulate the physical plane outside of your own personal sphere of influence. You aren't limited to what your hands and feet can do anymore, but what your imagination can do.

Divinity is mastery of one's own personal sphere of influence so that you yourself are no longer limited by conventional effects of the world around you. At DR1, you make a world around yourself and it extends further than even magic can reach.



There is none, so that title is irrelevant.
Aye



I'm not saying that Fighter is not a weak class; it is. I'm saying that a class based around physical skill doesn't NEED to be weak.
They aren't weak in their own right.
Martial Adepts are at the height of combat strength.
The thing is, as I said, they are limited by their limbs. The strength of their own arm only goes as far as they can reach. Their feet only travel as fast as physically possible, and I acknowledge that there is a higher limit than in our world, but that wasn't an argument in the first place. I knew that.

What I was saying was that really doesn't matter either, because magic transcends those limits. It manipulates time,space,force,and energy and in some ways re-writes it at will.

So when someone depends on those factors MORE, then they are behind.

It's a guy on foot trying to beat a guy in a car.

[Amphetryon]

"DIVINE CHARACTERISTICS
Most deities are creatures of the outsider type (usually with 20
outsider Hit Dice). Unlike other outsiders, they have no darkvision unless noted in the deity description. Deities’ physical
characteristics vary from deity to deity and are noted in their
individual descriptions.
A deity’s outsider type, along with its class or classes, determines
its weapon proficiencies, feats, and skills.
Deities have some or all of the following additional qualities,
depending on their divine rank"

Deities and Demigods.See that word "usually" at the start of the parenthetical aside? It's important.

[DMVerdandi]

In post 159 of this very thread, you said that they were equally capable in their respective areas of expertise.

The fighter's area of expertise is combat. As such, he should be the more capable combatant. He's not. The wizard can outperform him in every concievable way in combat.

What exactly is it you believe the wizard's area of expertise to be? By your own words it can't be combat otherwise he should be equal to a fighter in that field, not greater in every possible way. Problem solving's too generic and includes defeating enemies in combat, so that's out.

It can't be anything to do with traps or stealth, that's the rogue's thing, though the wizard is better at that too.

Social interactions? but no. If that was his intended field then why are 90% of all spells geared to do something else? Besides, that's the bard's thing and he can do it almost as well as a wizard.

Healing's the cleric's schtick, right? A wizard can't do that..... unless he summons something with a cure spell SLA... or takes a single feat (arcane disciple).

I suppose that leaves scouting. The wizard's divinations can make finding anyone and anything a breeze, unless they take significant measures to prevent it. But wait.... what's the ranger's field then? The ranger is supposed to be the one who tracks things down.

What exactly is the wizard's field of expertise, Barna. I'm having trouble pinning it down.

It kind of looks to me like the wizard has no single specific area of expertise. If that's the case, however, then you're argument that each class is equally capable in its field of expertise falls apart, unless you're saying the wizard has no place in the game. I don't think you're saying that.

Long and short, The wizard's role is to be a wizard. A man that can make the impossible possible by studying mystic rites.

A wizard who works at a burger joint is a wizard no less. He is just working at a burger joint.Just like a fighter would be.

The thing is the wizard as a concept is higher than a fighter. A king is higher than a farmer with a pitchfork. A king can both farm and carry a pitch fork, but a farmer with a pitchfork cannot be king.

UNDASTAND?

Trying to typecast full casters as hedge wizards is folly.
They are MUCH more.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@DMVerdandi:

I do have a physical copy of deities and demigods. You'll note that the very text you quoted says that gods are usually 20HD outsiders. They're not always 20HD outsiders and D&DG has example gods that are, in fact, not 20HD outsiders. Amongst the egyptian pantheon is a god that has only 20 levels of expert and no other HD at all, and in all three pantheons are gods who have nothing but dragon HD.

Divine rank and HD have no inherent link between them.

[DMVerdandi]

See that word "usually" at the start of the parenthetical aside? It's important.
No, it isn't.
Every deity in the book has 20 hit die.
It is a... literary foux-pas.
That is but one exerpt.

They are given 20 as the standard.

[Amphetryon]

No, it isn't.
Every deity in the book has 20 hit die.
It is a... literary foux-pas.
That is but one exerpt.

They are given 20 as the standard.

And they indicate that there are potential other ways outside the relative few examples within the book BESIDES having 20 HD as an Outsider. They do this by including the word "usually," unless you're saying that "usually" has some specific, secret meaning in this context? Or are you intimating that you have specific insider knowledge as to the thought process of how they wrote that passage?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Long and short, The wizard's role is to be a wizard. A man that can make the impossible possible by studying mystic rites.

A wizard who works at a burger joint is a wizard no less. He is just working at a burger joint.Just like a fighter would be.

The thing is the wizard as a concept is higher than a fighter. A king is higher than a farmer with a pitchfork. A king can both farm and carry a pitch fork, but a farmer with a pitchfork cannot be king.

UNDASTAND?

Trying to typecast full casters as hedge wizards is folly.
They are MUCH more.

I do "undastand." What you've said is entirely my point.

The argument that the fighter and the wizard are equal in their fields of expertise doesn't hold water because wizards don't have a set area of expertise.

If Barna agrees that the wizard has no area of expertise, then the fighter's ability in his field of expertise is equal to nothing, and his argument fails. If he specifies a field of expertise other than combat the wizard can be shown to be immensely better at that thing than a fighter is in combat, and his argument fails.

[DMVerdandi]

And they indicate that there are potential other ways outside the relative few examples within the book BESIDES having 20 HD as an Outsider. They do this by including the word "usually," unless you're saying that "usually" has some specific, secret meaning in this context? Or are you intimating that you have specific insider knowledge as to the thought process of how they wrote that passage?

Will you conceed to the fact that the example presented 99% out of 100% Means they get 20HD, and only for the sake of DM flexibility did only one passage express in the whole book ever so slightly otherwise?

That the possibility for an alternative rule exists, but the hard and fast example and state of divinity is 20hd, as even Einherjar get 20hd?

If not. We really have little to talk about as you are caught up on semantics and not applying the spirit of the book at all.
I have no need for anyone trying to make a fool of me with double-speak.
Just saying.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Locked for Review.