Why play anything else? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Norin

2013-01-08, 01:49 PM

Hey Playgrounders.

After taking up D&D 3.5 again after a few years break and checking out what's what in the optimizing\builds game nowdays it seems to me that the be-all-end all for any char idea or concept is:

"Wizard does that better"
"Why not just go [Tier 1 caster] instead and do all that with less hassle?"

So on and so forth.

Say i want to sneak or scout, why not use a wizard and cast invis, etherealness, etc and do it better than a skill monkey?

Say i want to fight in melee, why not use a polymorphed, shapechanged, or even altered self wiz with tenser's transformation, etc and do it better than the melee chars? Not even mentioning the amazing fighting capabilities of the cleric or druid.

Say i want to trapfind... why not use summoned critters to spring the traps for you.

Say i want to... Yeah, you all know how this goes.

So, really, why would anyone want to play something else than wizard (or Tier 1, at least) with some possible variations in ACF, PrC'ing, etc?

Most if not all classes are redundant, right? What class can you not say "[Insert tier 1 caster class] does that better!!!"?

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 01:52 PM

Wizard is easy mode. Real optimizers use Samurai.

TheWombatOfDoom

2013-01-08, 01:52 PM

Before I get into a long tangent, I'll rebuttal with this:

How about turning undead?

Juntao112

2013-01-08, 01:52 PM

Say i want to sneak or scout, why not use a wizard and cast invis, etherealness, etc and do it better than a skill monkey?

Style, my friend. Style. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?327699-Shiver-Me-Timbers-It-s-Black-Jack-Wellesley!)

Amphetryon

2013-01-08, 01:53 PM

Before I get into a long tangent, I'll rebuttal with this:

How about turning undead?

Doesn't rebut his "insert Tier 1 casting class" proviso, as I see it.

Talionis

2013-01-08, 01:54 PM

Before I get into a long tangent, I'll rebuttal with this:

How about turning undead?

Why turn Undead when they have spells that let them Control Undead?

Grinner

2013-01-08, 01:54 PM

Because the DM banned all of the Tier 1 and 2 classes for this very reason.

Norin

2013-01-08, 01:56 PM

Wizard is easy mode. Real optimizers use Samurai.

:smallbiggrin:

Before I get into a long tangent, I'll rebuttal with this:

How about turning undead?

Cleric is Tier 1 "WHY NOT PLAY CLERIC!?" fits in here too like in some of my examples.

tyckspoon

2013-01-08, 02:01 PM

Why not play Pun-Pun? Why not have everybody be Illithid Savants that have eaten Beholder Mages? Dweomerkeepers with Supernatural Wishes/Miracles? If you have reasons not to do these, the same reasons apply to 'normal' Tier 1 characters; it's largely a matter of personal taste as to what degree of "I win everything" you want to play with.

CoffeeIncluded

2013-01-08, 02:03 PM

Because they're missing the point. It can be more fun to play a rogue, or a barbarian, or whatever, even if they're not the best at everything. The point of DnD is to have a good time.

Andreaz

2013-01-08, 02:03 PM

"Wizard does that better"
"Why not just go [Tier 1 caster] instead and do all that with less hassle?"Mostly for flavor or laziness. Flavor because some tricks are really iconic to other classes (like Spell Combat, soulmelds, maneuvers, Paths and freeform metamorphosis) while also being effective (dungeoncrashing and shields!). Sometimes the spell solution bores me too. I favor long term buffs and potent debuffs..short term buffs seldom please me.

Edge of Dreams

2013-01-08, 02:04 PM

TheWombatOfDoom

2013-01-08, 02:04 PM

:smallbiggrin:

Cleric is Tier 1 "WHY NOT PLAY CLERIC!?" fits in here too like in some of my examples.

oops. didn't realize cleric was tier one.

mattie_p

2013-01-08, 02:05 PM

I find I don't have the time to play a caster - I get too tied up in real life to study every single spell for the best combos.

shadow_archmagi

2013-01-08, 02:06 PM

Because what I find enjoyable about D&D versus other social mediums is the application of unusual resources to unusual problems. That's something that can be achieved with a wide variety of classes.

Admittedly playing a fighter just isn't fun to me because I can't cram enough bells and whistles on him. But between Wizard, Sorcerer, Artificer, Psion, Swordsage, etc. etc. there are plenty of classes that have the versatility I enjoy.

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-08, 02:08 PM

Most of my concepts don't involve casting spells.

Norin

2013-01-08, 02:08 PM

Because the DM banned all of the Tier 1 and 2 classes for this very reason.

Banning the classic classes is not cool.

Why not play Pun-Pun? Why not have everybody be Illithid Savants that have eaten Beholder Mages? Dweomerkeepers with Supernatural Wishes/Miracles? If you have reasons not to do these, the same reasons apply to 'normal' Tier 1 characters; it's largely a matter of personal taste as to what degree of "I win everything" you want to play with.

Well Pun pun... ewww. ;) "A wizard" could be as little cheese as a human with a 100% core single class. Pun pun is just silly.

I see your point though. It's all a matter of how you decide to use the tools you have available. How much cheese do you want to produce.

Because they're missing the point. It can be more fun to play a rogue, or a barbarian, or whatever, even if they're not the best at everything. The point of DnD is to have a good time.

I agree here too. But even if me or most of the group knows this and apreciate the playing style, it will always be a matter of "Why do you bother with [some build] when you can just go wiz and own faces?" You can counter all you want with flavour, fluff and rp - but it's quite easy to fluff a character to be a rogue or a savage barbarian even with wizard class.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 02:08 PM

oops. didn't realize cleric was tier one.
The acid test for the top tiers is "do you have 9 levels of spells", "is your spell list really big", and "can you access most or all of your spells with minimal effort". If you hit one, you're probably at least Tier 3, two is T2, and all three puts you at T1.

Draz74

2013-01-08, 02:12 PM

I find I don't have the time to play a caster - I get too tied up in real life to study every single spell for the best combos.

QFT. To use an extreme example, Artificer might be far, far more powerful than Dragonfire Adept (potentially), but DFA is far easier to actually play effectively than Artificer.

Although Flickerdart's "enjoying the challenge", Juntao's "style," and Andreaz "flavor of playing the class that was actually intended" answers are all part of the issue too.

For the first 5 or so levels, wizards and other Tier 1s don't have every single one of those tricks available to them. They're still strong, but they don't do everything all at once. So, in low-level games, other classes are still very relevant. It actually really bothers me just how much of the discussion around here revolves around what is possible at high levels, while ignoring the fact that a lot of campaigns still start at level 1.

This reasoning actually falls apart with enough Theoretical Optimization. Even at Level 1, Wizard and Druid are some of the most powerful classes. (Wizard mostly because it has a class feature -- a spellbook -- that totally breaks WBL at early levels.)

Andreaz

2013-01-08, 02:12 PM

Banning the classic classes is not cool.Pretty much. As any decent web search will tell you, you can produce inane amounts of cheese out of any class. It's simple to make a melee character that can do thousands of damage without casting a single spell!

The best way to avoid cheese is not banning and restricting. It's telling your players to watch this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5iFe2NhBA

Norin

2013-01-08, 02:14 PM

For the first 5 or so levels, wizards and other Tier 1s don't have every single one of those tricks available to them. They're still strong, but they don't do everything all at once. So, in low-level games, other classes are still very relevant. It actually really bothers me just how much of the discussion around here revolves around what is possible at high levels, while ignoring the fact that a lot of campaigns still start at level 1.

Also, you're assuming that the only reason to build a character is to accomplish mechanical goal X. What if you want to build a character based on a non-wizard roleplay concept, then optimize that? The Tier 3 classes can still contribute very effectively against most of the level-appropriate challenges this game can offer you, especially if built well.

Yeah, low levels are quite lame for the wizard at times.

assumptions: No not really, but any fluff can be applied to a char that can accomplish mechanical goal x or solve anything the gm throws at it. And i love alot of classes unrelated to tiers. I do not agree with only playing tier 1, i just figured i wanted to make a thread about the topic and maybe get some feedback on the reasons for making a good tier 5-3 char instead of just gunning for the top.

I find I don't have the time to play a caster - I get too tied up in real life to study every single spell for the best combos.

Good point. ;)

Answerer

2013-01-08, 02:16 PM

Pretty much. As any decent web search will tell you, you can produce inane amounts of cheese out of any class. It's simple to make a melee character that can do thousands of damage without casting a single spell!
And yet despite that the magic-types are almost-universally regarded as more powerful.

Core is badly designed. No, it is atrociously designed. Clinging to those classes because they have the classic names strikes me as unwise.

toapat

2013-01-08, 02:27 PM

And yet despite that the magic-types are almost-universally regarded as more powerful.

Core is badly designed. No, it is atrociously designed. Clinging to those classes because they have the classic names strikes me as unwise.

Core 3rd/3.5 was designed at the low point in the era of WotC. If you trace the MTG release schedule back to figure out what were the 1999-2000 blocks, you have 3 of the least balanced MTG blocks right there.

basically, anything WotC did from that time period is extremely bad.

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-08, 02:47 PM

Most of my concepts don't involve casting spells.

Also I worship Crom irl.

NotScaryBats

2013-01-08, 02:56 PM

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 03:00 PM

In many cases, a level 2 wizard won't be as effective as, say, a level 2 paladin or crusader. The wizard has, like 7 spells at her disposal, and potentially will be running on empty after a couple encounters. Not "omg better" than an 18 str greatsword that kills anything it hits.
The paladin would be running low on hit points before the wizard runs out of encounter-ending spells. Crusader, though, rocks a couple of tools that make it possibly the best endurance class at the ultra-low levels levels.

Curmudgeon

2013-01-08, 03:00 PM

Say i want to sneak or scout, why not use a wizard and cast invis, etherealness, etc and do it better than a skill monkey?
Because the Wizard is only going to be good for a 15 minute adventuring day. In "Tomb of Horrors" an all-Wizard party dies really fast. A Rogue can find traps, and disable them. A Wizard can summon creatures to blunder into traps, but won't be able to find any of them. That means traps triggered by 2 or 3 bodies won't go off until the clueless Wizards hit the multi-stage trigger the second or third time. (A Cleric at least can cast Find Traps and (if they also use enough magic to boost their Search skill) temporarily locate traps.) The Wizard can only open locks as many times as they have Knock prepared.

You play a Wizard if you think the spells you've prepared for the day will be adequate for all eventualities. After that you rely on your non-Wizard companions when your preparations turn out to be inadequate.

A class without daily use limits will have reliable, non-bursty performance. A Wizard who runs out of spells suitable for the job just leaves Teleport as their last spell and admits defeat for the day after their 15 minutes of adventuring.

I like playing Rogues because:

The class can always contribute, whether it's a social situation, exploration, or combat. If your character is only good for one of those (a combat specialist, for instance) you'll be bored the rest of the time.
I'm really good at optimization (not the kind requiring DM acceptance of dodgy rules interpretations, mind), and starting with a Tier 4 base means I won't consistently outshine Tier 1-2 characters.
I believe the Rogue class is the most difficult to build effectively because the base class has many flaws and WotC addressed them only piecemeal, in many different supplements. I like the challenge involved. If I didn't I'd simply play a Druid with Natural Spell -- http://www.theshaunsays.com/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/easy-button-51462_40x40.png.

Lord Il Palazzo

2013-01-08, 03:07 PM

Roleplaying is a big part of it. From a strictly optimization perspective, a tier 1 classes can do pretty much anything, however if youhave a specific character concept you want to play, it often won't make sense for them to have levels in those tier 1 classes. If you come into a game with visions of Conan dancing in your head, it just doesn't feel right to build a cleric who persists buffs to become a powerhouse or a wizard who polymorphs into a massive troll when the fighting starts. It might be mechanically stronger, but it just doesn't have the same feeling as being a barbarian with hulking muscles and a sword so big it demands a share of the loot.

(Before people start calling foul, I'm not saying that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive or that one must come at the expense of the other or any of that. I'm just saying that they're separate things and that what's bestfor one isn't necessarily best for the other.)

LordHavelock

2013-01-08, 03:24 PM

Because the Wizard is only going to be good for a 15 minute adventuring day. In "Tomb of Horrors" an all-Wizard party dies really fast. A Rogue can find traps, and disable them. A Wizard can summon creatures to blunder into traps, but won't be able to find any of them. That means traps triggered by 2 or 3 bodies won't go off until the clueless Wizards hit the multi-stage trigger the second or third time. (A Cleric at least can cast Find Traps and (if they also use enough magic to boost their Search skill) temporarily locate traps.) The Wizard can only open locks as many times as they have Knock prepared.

You play a Wizard if you think the spells you've prepared for the day will be adequate for all eventualities. After that you rely on your non-Wizard companions when your preparations turn out to be inadequate.

A class without daily use limits will have reliable, non-bursty performance. A Wizard who runs out of spells suitable for the job just leaves Teleport as their last spell and admits defeat for the day after their 15 minutes of adventuring.

I like playing Rogues because:

The class can always contribute, whether it's a social situation, exploration, or combat. If your character is only good for one of those (a combat specialist, for instance) you'll be bored the rest of the time.
I'm really good at optimization (not the kind requiring DM acceptance of dodgy rules interpretations, mind), and starting with a Tier 4 base means I won't consistently outshine Tier 1-2 characters.
I believe the Rogue class is the most difficult to build effectively because the base class has many flaws and WotC addressed them only piecemeal, in many different supplements. I like the challenge involved. If I didn't I'd simply play a Druid with Natural Spell -- http://www.theshaunsays.com/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/easy-button-51462_40x40.png.

Best explanation I've heard yet, and gives a compelling reason not to play a Wizard from the player's side, but what about the GM? Surely in the creation of various dungeons and adventures the game master should be able to come up with some unique challenges that a wizard alone cannot face down. First and foremost amongst them being, a more powerful wizard. What is your wizard character going to do when facing down the nasty lich or whatever other magically endowed Big Bad comes at the end of the dungeon? Especially if his lair is warded against the use of other arcane magic? Or Doesn't allow one to teleport away? Even if the Wizard can do everything, there's no way for them to do everything at once, especially if his spellslinging is being hampered or prevented by another arcane caster countering or dispelling his effects.

What's the Wizard to do on an extended wilderness campaign where a full night's rest is a rare commodity for fear of ambush in the night? Think of it in terms of cars the tier 3s and 4s are the workhorses, low maintenance, high efficiency, ruggedly effective who make it possible for the tier 1 spell casters to be the finicky, finely tuned, powerhouse hotrods they are, even if they're only like that on a straight, well maintained road, with the most expensive gas and the finest of care in between Sunday drives.

Seriously, I think the biggest issue with the Tier 1s is the necessity for that 8 hours of sleep, rest, whatever. Too often do GMs take for granted that the party can take a full rest anywhere, any time because it is convenient at the end or beginning of the session, and most often, I've found it's because the Tier 1 spellcasters are very likely to start bitching if they can't replenish their spells that fast.

Grinner

2013-01-08, 03:31 PM

Banning the classic classes is not cool.

You know what's not cool? Having the options of:
A) play a Wizard or
B) not contribute meaningfully, not have fun, and realize that I may as well not even show up to the meeting.

Toy Killer

2013-01-08, 03:33 PM

(Before people start calling foul, I'm not saying that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive or that one must come at the expense of the other or any of that. I'm just saying that they're separate things and that what's bestfor one isn't necessarily best for the other.)

I will admit, that I have rolled a paladin that was technically classed Cleric so I could at least keep my head above water with the rest of the party. By happenstance, this is when I really learned that healing should take place post combat...

The Glyphstone

2013-01-08, 03:33 PM

Best explanation I've heard yet, and gives a compelling reason not to play a Wizard from the player's side, but what about the GM? Surely in the creation of various dungeons and adventures the game master should be able to come up with some unique challenges that a wizard alone cannot face down. First and foremost amongst them being, a more powerful wizard. What is your wizard character going to do when facing down the nasty lich or whatever other magically endowed Big Bad comes at the end of the dungeon? Especially if his lair is warded against the use of other arcane magic? Or Doesn't allow one to teleport away? Even if the Wizard can do everything, there's no way for them to do everything at once, especially if his spellslinging is being hampered or prevented by another arcane caster countering or dispelling his effects.
It sounds like the Wizard is an absolutely crucial member of the team there, because he is occupying the enemy caster's attention and actions - if he was a fighter or rogue or barbarian, there would be no one to keep the lich from using his magically endowed abilities to decimate the poor mundane opposition.

What's the Wizard to do on an extended wilderness campaign where a full night's rest is a rare commodity for fear of ambush in the night? Think of it in terms of cars the tier 3s and 4s are the workhorses, low maintenance, high efficiency, ruggedly effective who make it possible for the tier 1 spell casters to be the finicky, finely tuned, powerhouse hotrods they are, even if they're only like that on a straight, well maintained road, with the most expensive gas and the finest of care in between Sunday drives.

Be level 3+ and cast Rope Trick? The mundanes can stand watch if they don't want to join him in his impenetrable, invisible safe sleeping compartment. It is very, very hard to deny a wizard the ability to regain his spell slots via any means other than time-pressure (which can still be gotten around, but it is much harder).

Seriously, I think the biggest issue with the Tier 1s is the necessity for that 8 hours of sleep, rest, whatever. Too often do GMs take for granted that the party can take a full rest anywhere, any time because it is convenient at the end or beginning of the session, and most often, I've found it's because the Tier 1 spellcasters are very likely to start bitching if they can't replenish their spells that fast.
As above, it's because the DM can't stop them from regaining their spells via any method other than fiat, or in-character time pressure.

Norin

2013-01-08, 03:33 PM

{snip, spnip snip}

I love Rogues too and they have had a special place in my heart since AD&D 2ed where my first char was a thief.

Thanks for a good post.

Immabozo

2013-01-08, 03:36 PM

This reasoning actually falls apart with enough Theoretical Optimization. Even at Level 1, Wizard and Druid are some of the most powerful classes. (Wizard mostly because it has a class feature -- a spellbook -- that totally breaks WBL at early levels.)

I am working on a wizard build with +4 ECL at level 1, +5 at 2, +6 at 3 and up to +10 at 15, with another +4 (at least) depending on when items can be afforded.

Talionis

2013-01-08, 03:37 PM

I like playing Rogues because:

The class can always contribute, whether it's a social situation, exploration, or combat. If your character is only good for one of those (a combat specialist, for instance) you'll be bored the rest of the time.
I'm really good at optimization (not the kind requiring DM acceptance of dodgy rules interpretations, mind), and starting with a Tier 4 base means I won't consistently outshine Tier 1-2 characters.
I believe the Rogue class is the most difficult to build effectively because the base class has many flaws and WotC addressed them only piecemeal, in many different supplements. I like the challenge involved. If I didn't I'd simply play a Druid with Natural Spell -- http://www.theshaunsays.com/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/easy-button-51462_40x40.png.

Curmudgeon,

I like the way you think. I too, try to play tier 3 or lower in order to be able to optimize without destroying the game I am in.

It doesn't change the fact that it doesn't take too many levels for Casters to get so many spells that they can do some really unfair things. If you don't know how to really optimize you will not be competitive playing a non-Tier 1 or 2 with other Tier 1 and 2 PCs.

This is the reason that E6 was developed. Roughly at level six everything is pretty equal. Pun Pun exists so no rational DM allows it.

It also does not change the fact that Tier 1 characters are a sign of design imbalance. Of course the fact that I stay in this forum and out of the supposedly balanced 4th Edition, shows that new is not always better.

As a whole this community has given DMs some really great tools to balance their games. The tier system and E6 help enormously to make fun games that are fairly balanced. Plus, the boards are a great sounding board for House Rules to balance or change a character experience.

Norin

2013-01-08, 03:41 PM

{snip}

Seriously, I think the biggest issue with the Tier 1s is the necessity for that 8 hours of sleep, rest, whatever. Too often do GMs take for granted that the party can take a full rest anywhere, any time because it is convenient at the end or beginning of the session, and most often, I've found it's because the Tier 1 spellcasters are very likely to start bitching if they can't replenish their spells that fast.

Very good point, thanks for another good post.

You know what's not cool? Having the options of:
A) play a Wizard or
B) not contribute meaningfully, not have fun, and realize that I may as well not even show up to the meeting.

Yeah, this is my point. If you are always "outcontributed" or "outshined" by the 2-3 tier 1's in your party, where is the fun? You become redundant.

The traps vs rogue (or beguiler or factotum) is a good example of how you can be valuable without being a tier 1 caster. But the day your DM finds out he's fed up with making traps and just want to throw monsters on you, you are back to being the poor fella that cant do much except scouting a bit (if the casters "let" you) and trying to get in some SA damage now and then.

The Glyphstone

2013-01-08, 03:42 PM

Curmudgeon,

I like the way you think. I too, try to play tier 3 or lower in order to be able to optimize without destroying the game I am in.

It doesn't change the fact that it doesn't take too many levels for Casters to get so many spells that they can do some really unfair things. If you don't know how to really optimize you will not be competitive playing a non-Tier 1 or 2 with other Tier 1 and 2 PCs.

This is the reason that E6 was developed. Roughly at level six everything is pretty equal. Pun Pun exists so no rational DM allows it.

It also does not change the fact that Tier 1 characters are a sign of design imbalance. Of course the fact that I stay in this forum and out of the supposedly balanced 4th Edition, shows that new is not always better.

As a whole this community has given DMs some really great tools to balance their games. The tier system and E6 help enormously to make fun games that are fairly balanced. Plus, the boards are a great sounding board for House Rules to balance or change a character experience.

And on-topic...this pretty much sums up my feelings. It's why I play Factotums when I want to be a skillmonkey, Beguilers when I want to be a sneak/social manipulator, and Duskblades or Warblades when I want to be a frontline facemasher. I don't like playing Wizards unless I'm aiming at War Weaver - if I'm going to be God, I might as well make all my friends God as well.

Immabozo

2013-01-08, 03:42 PM

Core 3rd/3.5 was designed at the low point in the era of WotC. If you trace the MTG release schedule back to figure out what were the 1999-2000 blocks, you have 3 of the least balanced MTG blocks right there.

Which editions were these? I need to exploit them to win at my tables...

But Alpha and Beta were more unbalanced, I think. All 9 of the most powerful cards in magic come from there. Granted they all depend on what ELSE your deck plays.

tyckspoon

2013-01-08, 03:57 PM

Which editions were these? I need to exploit them to win at my tables...

But Alpha and Beta were more unbalanced, I think. All 9 of the most powerful cards in magic come from there. Granted they all depend on what ELSE your deck plays.

That would be the Urza's and Masques expansion blocks with the Sixth Edition base set. Incidentally also about the time I stopped paying any real attention to Magic, so I couldn't tell you what the degenerate parts of those sets were..

Alpha/Beta and the Core books are unbalanced for basically the same reasons, IMO- the developers of the games hadn't yet actually figured out how everything in their new game worked. They needed a full market release and the accompanying *massive* amount of feedback on live play experience before they were able to really get a grip on what new material should do.. and once they figured that out, the older stuff was already wild in the market and couldn't be recalled. (Although Magic's format rules do ensure that older busted stuff eventually cycles out of the 'Standard' game, so if you agree to play any other sort of Magic you implicitly accept that you just might get yourself run over by a Black Lotus Necropotence deck.)

Vorr

2013-01-08, 03:58 PM

You know what's not cool? Having the options of:
A) play a Wizard or
B) not contribute meaningfully, not have fun, and realize that I may as well not even show up to the meeting.

Well, I have never seen the Awesome Teir One Wizard ruin any game. And really the only way possible is if the DM lets it happen. Any DM can stop a wizard from being 'so great' in like .000001 seconds. If they wanted too.

Top offenders:

1.The by-the-book know it all knowledge. Where the DM simply tells the wizard's player all the game information. Try playing the game where the wizard's player (and none of the players) know the game information about any foe, object or effect. So when some creatures come out of the woods, the wizard might cast a spell that has absolutely no effect on them.

2.The low magic game. If your whole world is just now learning the wonders of fire, then any 1st level wizard is a god. But not so amazingly, if you crank the magic up to 11, wizards are far less useful/important/deadly/etc.

.3Fairness. This is the big, big one. If the DM bends over backward to be overly fair to the wizard players as in ''I'm going to serve you the game on a plate''. Take familiars for example. Anyone with an an intelligence of above 5 can see that the owl on the wizards shoulder must be 'special'. And that an owl is a weak and easy target. So this makes the said owl an obvious target. Yet, most DM would say ''it not fair'' to target a familiar and they don't do it. It's the same with spellbooks.

Juntao112

2013-01-08, 03:58 PM

Which editions were these? I need to exploit them to win at my tables...
NO! You must trust in the heart of the cards!

jaybird

2013-01-08, 03:59 PM

Which editions were these? I need to exploit them to win at my tables...

But Alpha and Beta were more unbalanced, I think. All 9 of the most powerful cards in magic come from there. Granted they all depend on what ELSE your deck plays.

Alpha and Beta were the original sets, when they didn't have much experience at it, in all fairness...

And off the top of my head, Invasion and Odyssey, maybe Onslaught?

Norin

2013-01-08, 04:03 PM

Can you "Just play a wizard, druid or cleric" in MTG too and break the game, or are we a bit OT here? :smallbiggrin:

Grinner

2013-01-08, 04:08 PM

Well, I have never seen the Awesome Teir One Wizard ruin any game. And really the only way possible is if the DM lets it happen. Any DM can stop a wizard from being 'so great' in like .000001 seconds. If they wanted too.

I've been thinking about that too, and I have to agree. The heart of a good game is the group. The problem is that different systems have different degrees of ease. While one group may be able to put together a really good game of D&D, other groups will struggle.

Talionis

2013-01-08, 04:09 PM

Alpha and Beta were the original sets, when they didn't have much experience at it, in all fairness...

And off the top of my head, Invasion and Odyssey, maybe Onslaught?

Well to be fair, we are talking about 3.5 edition of D&D. Its not that different from 3.0. There were at least a couple version before 3.0 and D&D has been around for well over 30 years now.

It took them almost all of 3.5 to figure out that Paladins and Hexblades were pretty gimp and they finally made the Duskblade. Full BAB was highly overrated in 3.5 for some reason. (I still think Monks should have full BAB).

Towards the end they started to figure out that mundane classes needed a boost and printed Book of the Nine Swords.

If you'll notice as they got better at printing less strong casters throughout 3.5.

But WoTC and D&D have been around a long time, I'm surprised it wasn't better balanced and I'm surprised that 4th Edition was their answer to try to balance it.

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-08, 04:10 PM

There have been formats with dominating decks vs decks designed to beat that one deck like type 2 affinity vs tooth and nail and not too long ago any deck that wasn't caw blade was the wrong choice for a tournament.

Answerer

2013-01-08, 04:11 PM

TopCheese

2013-01-08, 04:12 PM

Answerer

2013-01-08, 04:16 PM

Because the Wizard doesn't get "Body Bludgeon" that works in a dead magic zone or AMF...

:smallbiggrin:

I played a one shot game where we ended up in a dead magic zone so I took the BBEG's right hand man and beat him to death... The right hand man had high DR and Fast Healing (ex) (no clue how) so he lasted a while as a weapon

Fun times...
For you, perhaps, but I'm sure anyone who showed up to that game expecting to play a spellcaster didn't have much fun at all. Unless you were forewarned about that, that sounds like awful DMing.

Norin

2013-01-08, 04:16 PM

Because the Wizard doesn't get "Body Bludgeon" that works in a dead magic zone or AMF...

:smallbiggrin:

I played a one shot game where we ended up in a dead magic zone so I took the BBEG's right hand man and beat him to death... The right hand man had high DR and Fast Healing (ex) (no clue how) so he lasted a while as a weapon

Fun times...

Most annoying people would tell me "Then make a gish wiz and chop whatever to death!!!" if I brought the AMF card to the table in this discussion. :smallwink:

Answerer

2013-01-08, 04:19 PM

Antimagic field hurts almost all characters pretty close to equally. It ends up being the case that for the most part, casters are left with some options, while mundanes are left without any magic items that they need. The Wizard loses more, but still winds up with more than the Fighter.

Plus, honestly? Antimagic field's got a 10 foot radius centered on the caster. The Wizard can just leave most of the time.

Larkas

2013-01-08, 04:20 PM

JaronK

2013-01-08, 04:23 PM

The simple answer for me is "because I don't always want to play in god mode." The campaign I ran that my players loved the most was an all Commoners game. Wizards wouldn't have fit in that campaign... a single Wizard could have solved everything for them every time. The fun was in the challenges they had to face that they knew PC classes could solve easily.

I mean, Exalted is a fun game. So is A|State. In one you're basically gods, in the other a rock in a sock is a pretty powerful weapon. Not all of us just want to be powerful. Often, it's fun to play the underdog!

JaronK

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 04:25 PM

1.The by-the-book know it all knowledge. Where the DM simply tells the wizard's player all the game information. Try playing the game where the wizard's player (and none of the players) know the game information about any foe, object or effect. So when some creatures come out of the woods, the wizard might cast a spell that has absolutely no effect on them.
Wrong. Wizards get all Knowledges in-class and have Intelligence as their primary stat, plus can't ban Divination. Wizards are masters of knowing things.

2.The low magic game. If your whole world is just now learning the wonders of fire, then any 1st level wizard is a god. But not so amazingly, if you crank the magic up to 11, wizards are far less useful/important/deadly/etc.
Wrong. The only way to beat magic is magic, so if you crank magic up to 11, everyone is wizards or dead.

.3Fairness. This is the big, big one. If the DM bends over backward to be overly fair to the wizard players as in ''I'm going to serve you the game on a plate''. Take familiars for example. Anyone with an an intelligence of above 5 can see that the owl on the wizards shoulder must be 'special'. And that an owl is a weak and easy target. So this makes the said owl an obvious target. Yet, most DM would say ''it not fair'' to target a familiar and they don't do it. It's the same with spellbooks.
Most wizards trade their familiars for precisely that reason. As for spellbooks, it's trivial to guard against it, so you might as well just tell the wizard "yeah, I'm going to be a **** and try to reduce you to a commoner" and then he expends the few resources necessary to make that impossible and is still awesome. Or goes Eidetic Wizard/scribes spells as tattoos/takes Spell Mastery or Magelord/spellstitches himself and just doesn't much care if anything happens to that book. Plus, encouraging wizard characters to be more paranoid just results in more unbeatable wizards.

The way to have a balanced wizard is either to ban them or ask the player to pace himself. Antagonism is not the way.

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 04:26 PM

Pretty sure every player in MtG is a Wizard. Different specialties, perhaps, and maybe some of them (undead-favoring Black player, angel-favoring White player, perhaps) might be Clerics or (animal/fey/plant-favoring Green player, which is... most Green players, probably) might be Druids, but yeah.

NOPE! Planeswalkers. Not everyone is a Wizard (Tezzeret is an Artificer, Elspeth is a Paladin (or something) and Gideon is Soldier). BUT! Yes, more or less everyone fights like a Wizard in MtG :smalltongue:

JaronK

2013-01-08, 04:27 PM

Planeswalkers are all either Wizards or Archivists or Artificers. It's close enough, really. Elspeth is I guess an Archivist/PrC Paladin or something.

JaronK

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 04:30 PM

Planeswalkers are all either Wizards or Archivists or Artificers. It's close enough, really. Elspeth is I guess an Archivist/PrC Paladin or something.

JaronK

Quite. Honestly, for the more martially inclined Planeswalkers you can just make them Gishes.

Answerer

2013-01-08, 04:34 PM

And now the Wizard knows how the Fighter feels when his enemies are all flying or teleporting around.
See, a character, the Fighter included, can handle those things. Dead Magic Zones are pure DM-fiat. Your comparison therefore fails utterly, and it remains awful DMing.

Not that throwing flying/teleporting/incorporeal foes at mundane characters is much better.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 04:41 PM

Wrong. Wizards get all Knowledges in-class and have Intelligence as their primary stat, plus can't ban Divination. Wizards are masters of knowing things.

All you need do is not tell the wizard player game breaking details, no matter what the rules say. For example, just not telling a player a creatures type is huge. Making both knowledge and divination more like ''vague information'' and less like ''absolute Word of God'' is also a huge nerf to wizards.

Wrong. The only way to beat magic is magic, so if you crank magic up to 11, everyone is wizards or dead.

This is so not true. An anti magic field stops knock, but does not stop lock picks or just smashing the door, for example.

Most wizards trade their familiars for precisely that reason. As for spellbooks, it's trivial to guard against it, so you might as well just tell the wizard "yeah, I'm going to be a **** and try to reduce you to a commoner" and then he expends the few resources necessary to make that impossible and is still awesome.

It's odd you say that. Why is it ok, for say a wizard to blind foes with a spell, but 'unfair' for a foe to sunder a wizards wand? Why can the wizard do battle field control, yet foes can't attack the wizards weak points directly?

And the class/feat/spell/magic item to infinity is always a fun one. But I just don't get why people use it. It's just ''Theoretical''. A wizard only gets like a dozen feats, maybe two dozen items, and can really only take a couple classes. So you could take a couple feats/whatevers to be 'a walking spellbook', but that is at the price of other things.

Talionis

2013-01-08, 04:43 PM

Planeswalkers are all either Wizards or Archivists or Artificers. It's close enough, really. Elspeth is I guess an Archivist/PrC Paladin or something.

JaronK

Planeswalker = Whatever class you think they are /Gestalt Wizard.

toapat

2013-01-08, 04:43 PM

NO! You must trust in the heart of the cards!

that isnt a MTG thing, and its pretty much the opposite of how you want to play

Anyway, you cant really exploit any of the broken stuff printed in Urza block, Masques block, or Invasion block without a significant investment.

Although the Power 9 was all printed in Alpha, Beta, and Unlimited (which makes there total numbers fewer then any card printed in only one set total nowadays combined), only 2 of them are actually alone useful (Timetwister and Ancestral Recall). Black Lotus and the Moxes are simply free lands, while Time Walk is entirely reliant on the predisignation of your turn at the time of casting.

As far as numerical cards banned/cheesable, more cards were printed in the blocks between 98-00 then any other, IIRC

As far as Planeswalkers: Planeswalkers dont have any real correlation to DnD classes, just like the MTG colors have no correlation to DnD alignment. The most accurate description of Planeswalker would be, 1 Level in planeswalker is equivalent to 20 levels in STP Erudite

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-01-08, 04:50 PM

T1s have the potential to be game shattering, which means the player and the DM have to be mindful to avoid those pratfalls. They are, however, avoidable.

I currently play in a pretty high-op group, and I'm the only T1 (a cleric). I use my spells to buff everyone, use those buffs to go melee in combat, and use the rest of my spells for support, utility, and emergency measures. Instead of trying to outshine everyone in everything they do, I just make everyone better and fill in the gaps where I can for a cohesive unit.

This is why I like TLN's and Treantmonk's wizard guides. More or less explicitly they focus on optimizing your wizard for the group. Outside of TO shenanigans, building your wizard to trivialize everything by himself is often less efficient than empowering your partymates to help you.

Edit: The question was why a group would play anything else, and I admit a party full of T1s is probably a more effective unit than a party with some T1s and some lower tiers. I think one good answer is simplicity and bookkeeping. You can build a mid-level T4 that's very, very good at what it does in 20 minutes. You can't say the same about a wizard.

TopCheese

2013-01-08, 04:54 PM

For you, perhaps, but I'm sure anyone who showed up to that game expecting to play a spellcaster didn't have much fun at all. Unless you were forewarned about that, that sounds like awful DMing.

So awful DMing means pushing tier 1 casters? Wow I better go tell the group that we all didn't have fun and that the DM did a bad job.

The little guy was the source of the AMF, the wizard pointed it out using spell craft and my tier 4 class took care of it (Wizard: I want to cast a blasty spell.. Take care of the little guy... Send an example ...)

Most annoying people would tell me "Then make a gish wiz and chop whatever to death!!!" if I brought the AMF card to the table in this discussion. :smallwink:

I had the option of using my greatsword but beating the end boss half to death with his right hand man is just awesome and fun.

Besides the duskblade kept delaying his turn due to laughing to much from the stuff that was being said around the table (literally hit the floor once or twice).

Immabozo

2013-01-08, 04:57 PM

Planeswalker = Whatever class you think they are /Gestalt Wizard.

QFT. And Jace the Mind Sculptor is a tier 1 BAMF. Low level, or loyalty counters, he is very powerful. Get him to high loyalty counters, and it is game over for target player.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 04:57 PM

All you need do is not tell the wizard player game breaking details, no matter what the rules say. For example, just not telling a player a creatures type is huge. Making both knowledge and divination more like ''vague information'' and less like ''absolute Word of God'' is also a huge nerf to wizards.
Game-breaking details like what? "Red dragons are immune to fire"? "Big dumb monsters are usually susceptible to attacks against the mind"? Because that's all you need.

This is so not true. An anti magic field stops knock, but does not stop lock picks or just smashing the door, for example.
AMFs are centered on the caster. Does every spellcaster in your world hire someone to stand on both sides of their doors (since AMF is blocked by walls)? Is every door in your game a spellcaster?

It's odd you say that. Why is it ok, for say a wizard to blind foes with a spell, but 'unfair' for a foe to sunder a wizards wand? Why can the wizard do battle field control, yet foes can't attack the wizards weak points directly?

I didn't say anything about unfairness. Don't put words in my mouth. Also, if you think that anyone uses sunder or can just walk up to a wizard, then you're clearly not up to date on this whole wizard thing.
This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything with futility.

And the class/feat/spell/magic item to infinity is always a fun one. But I just don't get why people use it. It's just ''Theoretical''. A wizard only gets like a dozen feats, maybe two dozen items, and can really only take a couple classes. So you could take a couple feats/whatevers to be 'a walking spellbook', but that is at the price of other things.
Eidetic Wizard trades familiars (according to you, a weakness) away and bam, no more spellbook. Tattoos don't even need a feat, they just cost a little more coin.

Again, the solution is not to be passive-aggressive with wizard players. The solution is to make sure that they are playing at the same level as the party. If you try to clumsily hobble the wizard player like this, you're just going to annoy everybody.

Answerer

2013-01-08, 04:58 PM

So awful DMing means pushing tier 1 casters? Wow I better go tell the group that we all didn't have fun and that the DM did a bad job.

The little guy was the source of the AMF, the wizard pointed it out using spell craft and my tier 4 class took care of it (Wizard: I want to cast a blasty spell.. Take care of the little guy... Send an example ...)
You said Dead Magic Zone, not Antimagic Field. There is a huge difference between them.

And no, it has nothing to do with pushing tier 1 casters. Leave the strawmen at the door please.

The goal of the game, for the players, is to play. Being told that they are not allowed to contribute during a boss fight because of DM fiat (read: a Dead Magic Zone) is awful DMing, yes. So is having a party where some can fly and some cannot, and throwing a ton of flying enemies at them -- you're telling those who cannot fly that they don't get to play. Not good. The DMZ is the same deal.

A DM who sidelines a player for any significant length of time for arbitrary reasons is, IMO, disrespectful towards that player. I did not commit my free time and go out of my way to sit and watch others' play.

ericgrau

2013-01-08, 05:05 PM

Invis the rogue instead because he has move silently.
Polymorph the fighter instead because he has way more BAB and hp than you.
And the rogue can find traps all day long in every square of every room w/o running out and perform 7 other skills as well.

In high op you can break the game, but in most gaming groups not so much. And then the most powerful thing a caster can do is support the other characters in the party: battlefield control the enemies into more easily manageable groups for the party damage dealers to kill, haste the party, greater invis the rogue for sneak attacks, etc. Whereas single target kill spells (save/SR/immunity) and damaging spells (less damage than a fighter) are the caster's worst options. Then the most powerful wizard is an overglorified support role.

But on the topic of what is actually common in real games, arbitrary nerfs to skills are a common problem that make people switch to other options including both spells and brute force stabbing. When the DM arbitrarily decides you only get 1 check instead of 300 checks, when he decides you can't take a 20 to easily pass it (when the rules allow), when he decides a nat 1 is an auto-failure potentially killing your fragile rogue on 1 in 20 attempts, when he decides you can't take a 10 because that failure might kill you even though you're not in combat or otherwise occupied, then a skillmonkey simply isn't worth playing. After not too long you will roll low and it will suck so hard that your entire character will suck. Or you could play something else that doesn't risk death with every little action it takes. These nerfs may seem minor ("it's only 1 in 20") or logical ("why should anyone auto-succeed or retry, that's so OP") but they are horrendously bad and tremendous nerfs that no DM should ever ever do.

You can still create interesting traps and skill challenges using time pressure, because retries take time. But the rogue should at least have the option to say "That looks dangerous, let's kill these things first so I have plenty of time to clear it." Not "You only get 1 chance regardless, fail and you die."

Amphetryon

2013-01-08, 05:09 PM

A DM who sidelines a player for any significant length of time for arbitrary reasons is, IMO, disrespectful towards that player. I did not commit my free time and go out of my way to sit and watch others' play. At the risk of wandering well off-topic, may I ask if this statement has any significant qualifiers to your mind? I ask because, as written, a PC who gained flight via a dispel-able method who was hit by a Dispel Magic in the session's longest battle (for example, against the flying BBEG) is being disrespected. Travel down this road and it appears from here that we have Player entitlement issues.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 05:11 PM

Game-breaking details like what? "Red dragons are immune to fire"? "Big dumb monsters are usually susceptible to attacks against the mind"? Because that's all you need.

If a player needs such 'details', they are doomed. Creature types are a good game breaking detail. A wizard can't be awesome if they don't know what spell to cast.

AMFs are centered on the caster. Does every spellcaster in your world hire someone to stand on both sides of their doors (since AMF is blocked by walls)? Is every door in your game a spellcaster?

Sorry, I'm a 2E type guy. What I meant to say was: a strange unknown and unknowable effect that completely and utterly negates all magic but is not listed in the rule or on any page of any book for you to read.

I didn't say anything about unfairness. Don't put words in my mouth. Also, if you think that anyone uses sunder or can just walk up to a wizard, then you're clearly not up to date on this whole wizard thing.
This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything with futility.

If you try to clumsily hobble the wizard player like this, you're just going to annoy everybody.

It works great in my games. Every so often I get an annoying wizard/cleric/whatever player. They don't last very long. They just can't accept a game where they must play and not auto win everything.

Juntao112

2013-01-08, 05:12 PM

Sorry, I'm a 2E type guy. What I meant to say was: a strange unknown and unknowable effect that completely and utterly negates all magic but is not listed in the rule or on any page of any book for you to read.
The mystical force of DMF?

Story

2013-01-08, 05:14 PM

Vorr

2013-01-08, 05:17 PM

The mystical force of DMF?

What is a DMF?

I mean a force/effect/entity/whatever that is not spelled out on page 66 of the rule book.

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 05:19 PM

I didn't say anything about unfairness. Don't put words in my mouth. Also, if you think that anyone uses sunder or can just walk up to a wizard, then you're clearly not up to date on this whole wizard thing.
This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything with futility.

If every Wizard in your campaigns hang out in Demiplanes and just pops on down with the occasional Astral Projection then that is a little boring, don't you think? :smallsmile: Not the point of this comment though.

The point remains, if you can take away the Fighters weapon and armor and the Rogues tools and call it fair, why can't you take away the Wizard's Spellbook? It's a little (understatement) hypocritical to believe something like this. You can't say one thing is fair for something and then turn around and say it is unfair for another thing. :smallsmile:

The Glyphstone

2013-01-08, 05:20 PM

Rope Trick? Anyway, if you really don't have an opportunity to rest, the other classic classes will do even worse. For true 24/7 endurance, you want Crusader and Warlock.

Warforged Crusader
Warforged Crusader
Warforged Warlock
Warforged Dragonfire Adept

This is the party that never ends...it just kills on and on my friends...

Juntao112

2013-01-08, 05:22 PM

How dare you leave out Necropolitans!

Norin

2013-01-08, 05:23 PM

Warforged Crusader
Warforged Crusader
Warforged Warlock
Warforged Dragonfire Adept

This is the party that never ends...it just kills on and on my friends...

who does the traps here? ;)

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-08, 05:28 PM

Immabozo

2013-01-08, 05:32 PM

But I'd still rather have the versatility and power of a Wizard over a Rouge.

If you are depending on the combat effectiveness of a woman's make up to compare the effectiveness of you character... I have bad news for you.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 05:34 PM

If every Wizard in your campaigns hang out in Demiplanes and just pops on down with the occasional Astral Projection then that is a little boring, don't you think? :smallsmile: Not the point of this comment though.

The point remains, if you can take away the Fighters weapon and armor and the Rogues tools and call it fair, why can't you take away the Wizard's Spellbook? It's a little (understatement) hypocritical to believe something like this. You can't say one thing is fair for something and then turn around and say it is unfair for another thing. :smallsmile:
I didn't even use the word "fair". Nobody is taking away your Fighter's stick or Rogue's many small sticks.

Answerer

2013-01-08, 05:36 PM

At the risk of wandering well off-topic, may I ask if this statement has any significant qualifiers to your mind? I ask because, as written, a PC who gained flight via a dispel-able method who was hit by a Dispel Magic in the session's longest battle (for example, against the flying BBEG) is being disrespected. Travel down this road and it appears from here that we have Player entitlement issues.
Yes, every player is entitled to play.

Mind control against PCs? Bad for the game.
Lockdown against PCs? Bad for the game.
Kicking players out of the fight? Bad for the game.

Player characters don't have to win, they don't have to achieve everything they like, they can even suffer great losses or die. But the player should never suffer. He is there to play a game.

If you think the player has "issues" for expecting to get to play, when he commits his time to the game, well, I've already said my piece on that.

Look, here's how it is: I DM for a group of players with very little free time. The four hours a week we spend playing? That is a very large proportion of their total free time for the week. Getting four hours together like that took a lot of shuffling on their parts. They did this because they wanted to play with the group, and I consider it my responsibility that they enjoy their time with the game.

Further Reading (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/19189/4563)

TopCheese

2013-01-08, 05:37 PM

You said Dead Magic Zone, not Antimagic Field. There is a huge difference between them.

And no, it has nothing to do with pushing tier 1 casters. Leave the strawmen at the door please.

The goal of the game, for the players, is to play. Being told that they are not allowed to contribute during a boss fight because of DM fiat (read: a Dead Magic Zone) is awful DMing, yes. So is having a party where some can fly and some cannot, and throwing a ton of flying enemies at them -- you're telling those who cannot fly that they don't get to play. Not good. The DMZ is the same deal.

A DM who sidelines a player for any significant length of time for arbitrary reasons is, IMO, disrespectful towards that player. I did not commit my free time and go out of my way to sit and watch others' play.

Actually I messed up and said AMF after reading the other replies. The little guy was making a dead magic zone. But then again you weren't there so to automatically say the DM was awful is very disrespectful.

The goal isn't to play, but to have fun. I've seen people play to play and it stopped being fun for them.

Oh no! There is a problem that makes your character not work at 100% (or even 10%) well we might as well burn the character sheet and try again. Crap my level 10 fighter got hit by a level 1- 2 spell... I'm out of the fight! Yup light up the character sheet >.>

I've had wizards that had their spellbook stolen and their wands sundered and I found ways to deal. I got them back/made more/bought something and went on with the game (got revenge too) some of the best stories/sessions I've been in have challenged me and I don't go crying DM fiat when it happens.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 05:47 PM

I've had wizards that had their spellbook stolen and their wands sundered and I found ways to deal. I got them back/made more/bought something and went on with the game (got revenge too) some of the best stories/sessions I've been in have challenged me and I don't go crying DM fiat when it happens.
There's a difference between stealing spellbooks for the story and stealing spellbooks because you want to spite the wizard. It is not a solution in the latter case because it is utterly meaningless with even the minimum of effort on the wizard's part, which is the salient point, and you demonstrate it quite handily - the wizard just buys or makes new stuff, as the worst case scenario.

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 05:47 PM

I didn't even use the word "fair". Nobody is taking away your Fighter's stick or Rogue's many small sticks.

Alright. So teach me about "Futility" so I don't misunderstand your stance, because it feels like you are trying to say that

1) It is impossible on paper and in practice to remove the spellbook from a Wizard
2) It violates the Gentlemen's agreement for a DM to try (and potentially succeed to) remove it using monsters/traps/any reasonable encounter.

No argument, no straw, just trying to get a straight answer, with a straight question :smallsmile:

Larkas

2013-01-08, 05:50 PM

See, a character, the Fighter included, can handle those things. Dead Magic Zones are pure DM-fiat. Your comparison therefore fails utterly, and it remains awful DMing.

Not that throwing flying/teleporting/incorporeal foes at mundane characters is much better.

You missed my point. I was being a little sarcastic. I meant to say that, while most people would cry foul if a Wizard was thrown into a Dead Magic Zone (or even Wild Magic Zone, for that matter), most people also feel it is completely normal for, say, a THF-specced, low-OP Fighter to face a flying creature. Both are bad DMing (well, at least if done all the time or at crucial battles), but one is usually simply ignored.

Of course it is a nice change of pace from time to time: when fighting flyers, the Fighter might have to run for cover and use that Longbow he's been saving since level 1; likewise, when fighting in a DMZ, the Wizard might have to run for cover and use the Crossbow he's been saving since level 1. Or the Fighter might have to rely on his Wizard friend to make him fly; and the Wizard might have to rely on his Fighter friend to keep him safe, respectively. It is nice to keep players on their toes from time to time, but not ALL the time (at least, not using these things).

Now, using critical-immune natural flyers in a DMZ against a party of "regular" PCs, THAT is terrible DMing :smalltongue:

Vorr

2013-01-08, 05:52 PM

Hey guys, the way to balance casters is to be a passive aggressive jerk until they quit. Don't even bother talking to them about it and reaching a gentleman's agreement like an adult. They shouldn't last long.

Sadly, despite chronological age, few players are 'adults'.

Mind control against PCs? Bad for the game.
Lockdown against PCs? Bad for the game.
Kicking players out of the fight? Bad for the game.

Player characters don't have to win, they don't have to achieve everything they like, they can even suffer great losses or die. But the player should never suffer. He is there to play a game.

I don't see such things as being 'bad', more like being fun. When stuff in your game stats to get like ''oh the bad guy does not lock his door'' then your playing some weird game.

Mature players like to role play and have experiences as a character. When they break their Awesomo+5 weapon, they like playing the game to fix it, not sitting in a corner and crying about how they can't play their character concept.

Oh no! There is a problem that makes your character not work at 100% (or even 10%) well we might as well burn the character sheet and try again. Crap my level 10 fighter got hit by a level 1- 2 spell... I'm out of the fight! Yup light up the character sheet >.>

I get players like this all the time. Unless they are 100% all the time and on top of the world, they somehow are not having fun...

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 05:53 PM

Alright. So teach me about "Futility" so I don't misunderstand your stance, because it feels like you are trying to say that

1) It is impossible on paper and in practice to remove the spellbook from a Wizard
2) It violates the Gentlemen's agreement for a DM to try (and potentially succeed to) remove it using monsters/traps/any reasonable encounter.

No argument, no straw, just trying to get a straight answer, with a straight question :smallsmile:
1 is correct - the wizard has so many options to safeguard the book that short of DM fiat, that book ain't goin' nowhere.

I have never claimed, or referred, to 2, so I'm not sure where you got it from. The DM can try and make as many of his players useless as he wants. It's not a violation of the Agreement, merely poor, antagonistic DMing.

Amphetryon

2013-01-08, 06:07 PM

Yes, every player is entitled to play.

Mind control against PCs? Bad for the game.
Lockdown against PCs? Bad for the game.
Kicking players out of the fight? Bad for the game.

Player characters don't have to win, they don't have to achieve everything they like, they can even suffer great losses or die. But the player should never suffer. He is there to play a game.

If you think the player has "issues" for expecting to get to play, when he commits his time to the game, well, I've already said my piece on that.

Look, here's how it is: I DM for a group of players with very little free time. The four hours a week we spend playing? That is a very large proportion of their total free time for the week. Getting four hours together like that took a lot of shuffling on their parts. They did this because they wanted to play with the group, and I consider it my responsibility that they enjoy their time with the game.

Further Reading (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/19189/4563)
At this point, I get the impression that a DM ever using Dispel Magic - let alone intelligent mook strategy - is engaging in bad DMing, and I'm not sure that's your actual philosophy. As I implied before, I think a rational (though slightly stretched) reading of the philosophy you've put forth here is that a DM who includes traps in a dungeon is being disrespectful to the Players if every single one of them didn't include a method of Trapfinding and trap removal on his or her Character sheet, because the time that one of them spends Searching and Disabling is quite literally time when the others don't get to play. Similarly, a straight reading of the above philosophy appears to indicate that putting a challenge in front of the Characters that requires them to reset their spell selection in order to deal with the challenge is the mark of a rude DM; I don't believe that's what you intend, but it's where the language leads.

I personally think that a Player who expects that every encounter will allow him to contribute in every round or moment is asking a whole lot of the game and the DM, especially in 3.X and especially if the Players didn't all build hyper-paranoid, over-prepared Tier 1 Characters or otherwise finagle JOAT out of their built choices.

Please note that the above thoughts are specifically geared toward a 3.X D&D game; a game of Legend, or Warhammer, or any other RPG, may well produce different experiences, with a wider range of Characters better (or worse) suited to a wide variety of encounters.

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 06:17 PM

1 is correct - the wizard has so many options to safeguard the book that short of DM fiat, that book ain't goin' nowhere.

Ah, yes I forget. The Wizard's book is immune to everything short of being tossed into a Sphere of Annihilation and even then that is iffy. You have be realistic sometimes in situations like that. Most Wizard's (in game of course, not claiming I know any Wizards and most being the player's I've met) keep there Spellbooks in either a Secret Chest, a Bag of holding, a Handy Haversake, whatever. All of which are easily vulnerable to attack and logical targets for Exposure and (if in a city) Theft.

Sure the Wizard on paper can have down right immunity to harm, but in practice? Not likely to actually happen in any REAL game.

I have never claimed, or referred, to 2, so I'm not sure where you got it from. The DM can try and make as many of his players useless as he wants. It's not a violation of the Agreement, merely poor, antagonistic DMing.

I'm agreeing with Amphetryon here:

At this point, I get the impression that a DM ever using Dispel Magic - let alone intelligent mook strategy - is engaging in bad DMing, and I'm not sure that's your actual philosophy.

toapat

2013-01-08, 06:21 PM

I personally think that a Player who expects that every encounter will allow him to contribute in every round or moment is asking a whole lot of the game and the DM, especially in 3.X and especially if the Players didn't all build hyper-paranoid, over-prepared Tier 1 Characters or otherwise finagle JOAT out of their built choices.

I think the actual point is, players expect to be able to participate in DnD while expecting to not be arbitrarily handicapped by the DM. If you fight OotS's Tarquin, you better damn well expect that fair play shouldnt be in the playbook, he is after all playing off the Evil Overlords Handbook. But if you are going up against Sandy Elitemook, you should expect that your spellbook library is not arbitrarily relocated to another plane simply so that the rest of the party is allowed to contribute without you altering reality to bend backwards over the BSF

Amphetryon

2013-01-08, 06:26 PM

I think the actual point is, players expect to be able to participate in DnD while expecting to not be arbitrarily handicapped by the DM. If you fight OotS's Tarquin, you better damn well expect that fair play shouldnt be in the playbook, he is after all playing off the Evil Overlords Handbook. But if you are going up against Sandy Elitemook, you should expect that your spellbook library is not arbitrarily relocated to another plane simply so that the rest of the party is allowed to contribute without you altering reality to bend backwards over the BSF

From my original example: A PC who knows that the BBEG flies and casts spells, and who obtains a method of Flight for the encounter which is dispel-able, is having a disservice done to him by the DM if said BBEG casts Dispel Magic on him because he cannot play any more in that encounter. This is what was actually said. Do you believe a DM who has an NPC use Dispel Magic is being rude? Why, or why not?

Answerer

2013-01-08, 06:34 PM

See, I have a hard time believing that this isn't further strawmanning. I said very explicitly that bad things can, should, and will happen to player characters.

Bad things should not happen to players.

There are good points about what some players do or do not enjoy, but for the most part, I think it's a fair to generalize and that say that by and large, players come to the game to play, and you are in breach of the social contract if you tell them they cannot.

Setbacks, challenges, etc. etc. are a part of the game: you over come them. But there are actions and options in 3.5 that (due to its poor design) leave people unable to respond. They are no longer overcoming a problem, they are simply out of the game.

Flying enemies and Dead Magic Zones have the same problem: they are asymmetric. They affect different characters -- and therefore different players -- in fundamentally different ways. I don't mean that one character has a particular weakness or something -- I mean that these are things that can tell one player that, due to nominally valid choices about who and what his character is, he does not get to participate.

Dispel magic? If it's on the CoDzilla, who's got a huge stack of them, and he's got more where they came from? That's a challenge, that's an attack, and that's fine.

But when you dispel magic the Fighter whose only access to flight was incredibly overpriced CL 10 Wings of Flying, and those go down and knock him out of the flight entirely? Or maybe, it was disjunction, so those aren't coming back any time soon. Or maybe the fight is hundreds of feet up in a Dead Magic Zone, so only the Raptoran and the Evil guy who had the option of the Feathered Wings graft are allowed to even approach?

That turns players into the audience. I'm sorry, RPGs are not a spectator sport. I have greater respect for my players' time than that.

And quite simply, pulling out a longbow or crossbow you haven't used since level 1, when you are a party of level 12 adventurers fighting a CR 17 Lich BBEG? That's not playing. You literally might as well not be there.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 06:36 PM

Ah, yes I forget. The Wizard's book is immune to everything short of being tossed into a Sphere of Annihilation and even then that is iffy. You have be realistic sometimes in situations like that. Most Wizard's (in game of course, not claiming I know any Wizards and most being the player's I've met) keep there Spellbooks in either a Secret Chest, a Bag of holding, a Handy Haversake, whatever. All of which are easily vulnerable to attack and logical targets for Exposure and (if in a city) Theft.

Sure the Wizard on paper can have down right immunity to harm, but in practice? Not likely to actually happen in any REAL game.

Backup spellbooks. Recall spells. Fake spell books filled with Explosive Runes. Alarms on the real book. Illusions. Even a level 1 wizard is more intelligent than most human beings alive, and if he isn't keeping his source of power safe from random thugs, then he's not being roleplayed to his intellect. And if the DM makes it a habit to steal books, then this is the sort of wizard you're going to get. As a result, you just get "you find your book stolen", "I get around it" as often as the DM wishes, and then the adventure day proper begins. If you make thefts more frequent, eventually you're no longer playing whatever the plot was because the story is now Gandalf Looks For His Spellbooks and His Party Gets to Tag Along.

Also, your "real game" claim, while extremely audacious (is my game not "real" because the characters roleplay their stats?) is also going against your own point. If in a "real" game the wizard isn't steamrolling encounters, then you don't need to steal the book to create balance between him and the other characters. And if he is steamrolling, then you can't steal the book without resorting to fiat.

So either way it's pointless to consider it.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-08, 06:38 PM

[COLOR="Blue"]Most Wizard's (in game of course, not claiming I know any Wizards and most being the player's I've met) keep there Spellbooks in either a Secret Chest, a Bag of holding, a Handy Haversake, whatever. All of which are easily vulnerable to attack and logical targets for Exposure and (if in a city) Theft.

Sure the Wizard on paper can have down right immunity to harm, but in practice? Not likely to actually happen in any REAL game.

Yes. That's because most DM don't go after spell books much. Wizards in campaigns with DMs that do go after spell books much will have crazy protections on the spell books (or get rid of need for a spellbook).

It's because it's a game and "the spell book protection/ targeting" mini game gets boring for most people, fast. For example my current character has almost no spell book protection. It's only because I know that in last two years only once a wizard lost spell book, for a short time and a nice piece of plot. So I don't expect it to be troublesome.

Answerer

2013-01-08, 06:39 PM

Backup spellbooks. Recall spells. Fake spell books filled with Explosive Runes. Alarms on the real book. Illusions. Even a level 1 wizard is more intelligent than most human beings alive, and if he isn't keeping his source of power safe from random thugs, then he's not being roleplayed to his intellect. And if the DM makes it a habit to steal books, then this is the sort of wizard you're going to get. As a result, you just get "you find your book stolen", "I get around it" as often as the DM wishes, and then the adventure day proper begins. If you make thefts more frequent, eventually you're no longer playing whatever the plot was because the story is now Gandalf Looks For His Spellbooks and His Party Gets to Tag Along.
Relevant:

I've had it happen once. It was a scenerio where
DM does not advertise, player has prepared anyhow.
DM: While walking through the dungeon, you realise your pack feels lighter!
Me: You know I'm invisible and flying all day long, yes?
DM: Yep.
Me: And Bag of Holding type 3 does not actually get any lighter if something is removed from it. Do I notice something tugging at my bag?
DM: No. Next time you go to prepare your spells, you will notice your spellbook is missing.
Me: Ok, where exactly did this theif get a full round to open up my bag, loot around for my spellbook, and bypass the traps on the book, all without me noticing, while I was carrying the bag, flying 5 feet in the air, and invisible?
DM: He's a quickling rogue. He can do that sort of thing, they're really fast.
Me: Did it set off the Alarm spell inside the bag?
DM: ...no.
Me: So he knew the password. When he spoke the password, while holding the bag open, flying in the air adjacent to me, I should have been entitled to a DC 5 listen check. I have more than 4 ranks in Listen, my success is automatic.
DM: He spoke it very quietly.
Me: Alrighty then. Which of the books in the bag did he take?
DM: Your spellbook.
Me: I'm a level 9 wizard with the Colligeate Wizard feat. I've had two spellbooks since level 7. Which one did he take?
DM: Both of them.
Me: Seeing that there were more than just one book, Did he open the books to ensure they were spellbooks before taking off?
DM: Yes.
Me: Alright, give me a save VS Sepia Snake Sigil.
DM: Oh, he already made it.
Me: Ok. The books appear empty aside from the sigil, due to Secret Page. Does he take them anyhow?
DM: Yes, he takes your spellbooks.
Me: Alright, so just to clarify; he's got two spellbooks in hand and is presumably bugging off with them. He's done this feat of aerial acrobatics for two rounds, without anyone hearing (Or feeling) his presence. He's disabled two magical traps, one of which is auto-hit and would have triggered the moment he reached into the bag. All in order to steal a couple spellbooks and leave everything else I was carrying around in there untouched, and not once has he failed a move silently to the entire party's listen checks.
DM: Yep. You no longer have your books.
Me: Alright. Question?
DM: Yes?
Me: How are we all still alive right now? This monster is obviously epic and capable of killing us all.

Spellbook stealing seems to pretty frequently work as above.

toapat

2013-01-08, 06:41 PM

From my original example: A PC who knows that the BBEG flies and casts spells, and who obtains a method of Flight for the encounter which is dispel-able, is having a disservice done to him by the DM if said BBEG casts Dispel Magic on him because he cannot play any more in that encounter. This is what was actually said. Do you believe a DM who has an NPC use Dispel Magic is being rude? Why, or why not?

No, because your specific choice was not to choose a more longterm and practical source of flight.

It can probably feel pretty cheesy if the BBEG upto that point had been a buffoon, but if he has been depicted as extremely pragmatic and proactive in his fights, then it is not unfair for the DM to left Fighter Mcthickhead be Dispelled out of the sky.

Basically, this is rule 1 of 3.5 in full:

The Players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
No Player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, but not to arbitrarily handicap a player by Fiat.
The players are expected to not provide the DM with easy hooks with which to render the characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not manditory class features.
The DM is expected to not repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant.
The DM is expected to provide the resources required for non-spellcasters to compete with spellcasters. Spellcasters are expected to get less then PC WBL, but are also expected to not be required to maintain their spell component pouch.
The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
The players are expected to comply to a minimum required ammount of Railroading
The DM is not to use excessive railroading.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-01-08, 06:45 PM

The simplest way for a wizard to protect against spellbook thievery is to make Gorfnab's Easy Bake Wizard:

Elf, preferably Gray

Elf Wizard Racial Sub - Races of the Wild
Eidetic Spellcaster ACF - Dragon Magazine #357
Spontaneous Divination ACF - Complete Champion - Optional but great at higher levels
Collegiate Wizard feat - Complete Arcane

1st Level - 7+ Int mod 1st level spells known, all cantrips, 1 extra spell per day of highest level
No Familiar, No Scribe Scroll, No Spellbook

For a little cheese look into Domain Wizard from UA since it does stack with the Elf Wizard Racial Sub.

Note: Every level after 1st that advances wizard spellcasting gets you 5 spells known for free instead of the usual 2

Edit: If you're playing in Eberron, the feat Aerenal Arcanist (Player's Guide to Eberron) will net you an additional spell known per level netting you 8+Int spells at 1st level and 6 additional spells known every level after that.That way you don't have to go through the song and dance of preparing multiple contingencies against the spellbook every day.

A less robust, slightly stickier option is to cast Hoard Gullet and store your book inside of you. To memorize, spit it up and read it in a rope trick, and then recast Hoard Gullet and swallow again. As long as you protect yourself against dispel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69571) it's probably easier for the enemy to kill you and take your book, which is really as far as you need to go. I mean, another way to make the caster less effective is for him to be dead, right?

koboldish

2013-01-08, 06:46 PM

I haven't been following the whole thread, but here's my input (in the rare case that anyone actually wants to hear it).

The game is more fun when you either play tier 1's unoptimized, or don't play tier ones. Or if you do something to make highly optimized characters on par with the low optimization ones. Sure, you can kill it with a 2nd level spell, but wheres the fun in that? You can open that door with magic? I can open it with funness and awesome character concepts and wonderfull non-magic sparkles. I can't play Fighters. I need an int-mod! But I don't actually play Wizards in most games. I go with low op Beguilers, or Rogues, or Ninjas, and so on. The game should be hard to beat (in a metaphorical sense, you can't actually in:smallbiggrin:). Also, it's much more fun to optimize non-casters and make them actually be able to compete with Wizards.

Rant concluded, I'm not sure if it actually made any sense. Sorry.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 06:47 PM

The simplest way for a wizard to protect against spellbook thievery is to make Gorfnab's Easy Bake Wizard:

That way you don't have to go through the song and dance of preparing multiple contingencies against the spellbook every day.

A less robust, slightly stickier option is to cast Hoard Gullet and store your book inside of you. To memorize, spit it up and read it in a rope trick, and then recast Hoard Gullet and swallow again. As long as you protect yourself against dispel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69571) it's probably easier for the enemy to kill you and take your book, which is really as far as you need to go. I mean, another way to make the caster less effective is for him to be dead, right?
And then it turns out the wizard had a Contingent Animate Object and Polymorph, which upon his death turns his corpse into a dragon which starts attacking his murderers. :smallbiggrin:

Amphetryon

2013-01-08, 06:52 PM

No, because your specific choice was not to choose a more longterm and practical source of flight.

It can probably feel pretty cheesy if the BBEG upto that point had been a buffoon, but if he has been depicted as extremely pragmatic and proactive in his fights, then it is not unfair for the DM to left Fighter Mcthickhead be Dispelled out of the sky.

Basically, this is rule 1 of 3.5 in full:

The Players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
No Player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, but not to arbitrarily handicap a player by Fiat.
The players are expected to not provide the DM with easy hooks with which to render the characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not manditory class features.
The DM is expected to not repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant.
The DM is expected to provide the resources required for non-spellcasters to compete with spellcasters. Spellcasters are expected to get less then PC WBL, but are also expected to not be required to maintain their spell component pouch.
The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
The players are expected to comply to a minimum required ammount of Railroading
The DM is not to use excessive railroading.

My reading of Answerer's opinion (re-iterated above) is that Dispel Magic is Bad DMing, because it takes a PC out of relevancy for the fight, and that's a "bad thing [that] happens to [a] player." I'm not entirely sure what bad things happen to PCs that aren't also considered bad things that happen to the Player (can't be HP loss, because that's irrelevant until the PC is unconscious, at which point he's not participating, which is a bad thing for the Player), but he can clarify that if he so chooses.

Answerer

2013-01-08, 06:53 PM

No, because your specific choice was not to choose a more longterm and practical source of flight.
Frankly, though, that's bull****.

Basically, I have rather consider system mastery. I can optimize reasonably well. I know where a lot of the traps are, and where a lot of the broken options are.

And I hate it.

Because 3.5 is terribly designed. It does have one strong point (an enormous wealth of options), which can make it good if everyone's got reasonably strong system mastery, but that shouldn't be a requirement to play.

But it is, if you play like this. Sidelining players for suboptimal choices, or passive-aggressively sidelining more powerful characters because other people made suboptimal choices, is awful. And yes, there is a problem where the DM is put in a no-win situation -- exploiting weaknesses kills the player's ability to play, ignoring them gives them "freebies" -- but I think it is necessary to always err on the side of allowing involvement and investment in the game. There are other, better ways to challenge the players.

And yes, I'd also go so far as to ban characters who are too one-dimensional, whom I feel I cannot reasonably challenge without totally side-lining. That's a necessary part of 3.5 as well. Another stupid side of it, but necessary. Which is why the tiers are so important.

My reading of Answerer's opinion (re-iterated above) is that Dispel Magic is Bad DMing, because it takes a PC out of relevancy for the fight, and that's a "bad thing [that] happens to [a] player." I'm not entirely sure what bad things happen to PCs that aren't also considered bad things that happen to the Player (can't be HP loss, because that's irrelevant until the PC is unconscious, at which point he's not participating, which is a bad thing for the Player), but he can clarify that if he so chooses.
...I refuse to continue to be misquoted and misunderstood by you. I'd like you to ignore any further posts by me that you see. Clearly I am not capable of communicating with you, because every single time you attempt to describe my position, it is grossly inaccurate and omits important details that I've stressed repeatedly and explicitly.

toapat

2013-01-08, 07:06 PM

*snip*

Read the list. The DM is only allowed to do that 1-2 times, and they are to provide legitimate challenges. If he can handwave an entire Player out of an encounter, he is only allowed to do that a small number of times, and only if they did something so stupid as to be playing a Big Stupid Fighter of over 5th level who has not put on his DM granted Cloak of Flight, and instead sold it and chose to just get fly cast on him whenever he needed it, then is dispell magic entirely justified.

Jerthanis

2013-01-08, 07:09 PM

You know what's not cool? Having the options of:
A) play a Wizard or
B) not contribute meaningfully, not have fun, and realize that I may as well not even show up to the meeting.

See, in the other recent thread in which Tiers were being discussed, when I mentioned that the Tier system was flawed because I noticed that low tier characters can be absurdly good at combat, but that doesn't earn their way out of T4 because "Does one thing well" can include combat as the one thing, I was assured that the Tier system wasn't a measure of overall power, but of the options available... that higher tier characters can deal with more situations effectively, even if they do more poorly in a single specific one. I accepted that I was apparently failing to grasp the spirit of the Tier system and didn't continue arguing my point.

It's posts like this that make me wonder if we're all interpreting the Tier system differently.

Because sure, okay, I can accept that Critfishing Fighter/Barbarian powerattack pouncing builds can only do damage, and so situations that don't require damage don't benefit from their presence, and thus are at a lower tier, but what I can't accept is the idea of this combat powerhouse being considered worthless or completely unable to contribute to a game such that you may as well not show up.

See, I could see the argument, "Why play anything else than Tier 1 because it has the most options and having more options is more fun", but the idea of "You will never contribute with low tier characters" is simply not borne out by D&D and when I point this out, people assure me that is NOT what the Tier system is meant to convey.

Personally, I have at times used my entire turn to Dimension Door the fighter adjacent to the next enemy so that he can get his full attack on that creature. Is that a move that is entirely my contribution, and the fighter deserves no credit, because he couldn't have gotten there alone? Or is it his contribution because I couldn't have done 100+ damage with a single level 4 spell otherwise? Or maybe it's both of our contribution and we're both necessary elements of a party?

Larkas

2013-01-08, 07:13 PM

Read the list. The DM is only allowed to do that 1-2 times, and they are to provide legitimate challenges. If he can handwave an entire Player out of an encounter, he is only allowed to do that a small number of times, and only if they did something so stupid as to be playing a Big Stupid Fighter of over 5th level who has not put on his DM granted Cloak of Flight, and instead sold it and chose to just get fly cast on him whenever he needed it, then is dispell magic entirely justified.

Huh. This is a whole new dimension of railroading I had never thought about.

Amphetryon

2013-01-08, 07:14 PM

Frankly, though, that's bull****.

Basically, I have rather consider system mastery. I can optimize reasonably well. I know where a lot of the traps are, and where a lot of the broken options are.

And I hate it.

Because 3.5 is terribly designed. It does have one strong point (an enormous wealth of options), which can make it good if everyone's got reasonably strong system mastery, but that shouldn't be a requirement to play.

But it is, if you play like this. Sidelining players for suboptimal choices, or passive-aggressively sidelining more powerful characters because other people made suboptimal choices, is awful. And yes, there is a problem where the DM is put in a no-win situation -- exploiting weaknesses kills the player's ability to play, ignoring them gives them "freebies" -- but I think it is necessary to always err on the side of allowing involvement and investment in the game. There are other, better ways to challenge the players.

And yes, I'd also go so far as to ban characters who are too one-dimensional, whom I feel I cannot reasonably challenge without totally side-lining. That's a necessary part of 3.5 as well. Another stupid side of it, but necessary. Which is why the tiers are so important.

...I refuse to continue to be misquoted and misunderstood by you. I'd like you to ignore any further posts by me that you see. Clearly I am not capable of communicating with you, because every single time you attempt to describe my position, it is grossly inaccurate and omits important details that I've stressed repeatedly and explicitly.

All I ask is that you describe a legitimately bad thing that happens to a PC that is not a bad thing that happens to a Player.

EDIT: Incidentally, I sympathize with being limited to 4 hours of actual gaming time a week; it's exactly my situation, barring involvement in PbP.

toapat

2013-01-08, 07:15 PM

Huh. This is a whole new dimension of railroading I had never thought about.

equipment railroading is entirely justified with anyone who needs equipment to stay relevant. you literally dont have the money before something like, level 19 to get all of the standard assumption equipment for a fighter, plus the standard equalization equipment. Magic Item Crafting is stupidly balanced in 3.5

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-01-08, 07:16 PM

And then it turns out the wizard had a Contingent Animate Object and Polymorph, which upon his death turns his corpse into a dragon which starts attacking his murderers. :smallbiggrin:Admittedly a funny image, but I'd rather use that contingency to avoid dying, or at least to teleport the corpse to a friendly church where I pre-paid a res casting.

Re: Negating players. I find it's much less black and white than it is being portrayed here. For instance, if a shock trooper - one of the most binary builds in the game - is doing too much damage to single targets, the DM doesn't constantly throw around difficult terrain/fliers/incorporeal enemies/ray of dizziness/elusive target/what have you to hard counter him every fight. Instead he, for instance, increases the number of enemies and spreads them out. The shock trooper can still do his thing and almost guarantee to murderize one enemy, but there are X other enemies ready to murderize him and his negative AC value. All of a sudden power attacking for full and dumping it all into AC isn't just overkill; it's incredibly risky.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 07:20 PM

Admittedly a funny image, but I'd rather use that contingency to avoid dying, or at least to teleport the corpse to a friendly church where I pre-paid a res casting.

Nah, the corpse is just an Astral Projection. The real you just woke up on a couch in your private demiplane, attended by your butler and beautiful femgolems. The butler hands you a crystal ball, which you use to watch your dragon kick the tar out of your would-be murderers.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 07:20 PM

See, I could see the argument, "Why play anything else than Tier 1 because it has the most options and having more options is more fun", but the idea of "You will never contribute with low tier characters" is simply not borne out by D&D and when I point this out, people assure me that is NOT what the Tier system is meant to convey.

I'll never get the Tier system myself. I just play a too radically different version of the game then all the Tier Party People.

Take your 10th level wizard on an adventure. They have a mix of spells, magic items, feats and such just like all characters. They come upon something, say a locked gate under a waterfall. They can not spontaneously rewrite their character to get Greater Knock as an at-will supernatural ability. Sure they could leave and take a couple weeks to cook something up, but that won't effect the game.

Larkas

2013-01-08, 07:21 PM

equipment railroading is entirely justified with anyone who needs equipment to stay relevant. you literally dont have the money before something like, level 19 to get all of the standard assumption equipment for a fighter, plus the standard equalization equipment. Magic Item Crafting is stupidly balanced in 3.5

You're punishing a player for a choice he made, a choice he might not even be aware that was a bad one at the time. Maybe he just though he could help the party better by buying a +1 Ghost Touch Greatsword or something. Bringing that up might not be all that bad ("Oh, there's a chasm right in front of you, between you and your Wizard friend, who has been kidnapped, but you have to walk some serious miles to cross it!"), punishing the player for that is very bad. Note, I don't think that a dispel magic targeting a magically flying Fighter is necessarily a bad thing; doing it to punish him is.

Grinner

2013-01-08, 07:22 PM

Juntao112

2013-01-08, 07:22 PM

Amphetryon

2013-01-08, 07:29 PM

toapat

2013-01-08, 07:30 PM

You're punishing a player for a choice he made, a choice he might not even be aware that was a bad one at the time. Maybe he just though he could help the party better by buying a +1 Ghost Touch Greatsword or something. Bringing that up might not be all that bad ("Oh, there's a chasm right in front of you, between you and your Wizard friend, who has been kidnapped, but you have to walk some serious miles to cross it!"), punishing the player for that is very bad. Note, I don't think that a dispel magic targeting a magically flying Fighter is necessarily a bad thing; doing it to punish him is.

+54kgp on top of normal WBL? i see the logic in selling it, but the Fighter already should have a +2 material weapon and maybe +3 mithral fullplate. As i said, you are cheating WBL to make the fighter relevant, if they shirk the permanent item, then they should pay for it. Last time i did WBL calculations, i think alone for armor, weapon, and attributes, i had already spent 600k of the 780k a lvl 20 is supposed to have, on gear that the game is balanced towards you having at level 10. people here denounce DDO for not being like this, and for hyper inflating the Christmastree Effect. Well? i can tell you for certain that in PnP, the Christmas Tree Effect is barely helpful.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 07:37 PM

I would call a game where a 10th level party is stymied by a locked door a pretty radically different version of the game, as well.

Never said the party was stymied, just the wizard. The fighter types for example can smash through. But a single wizard can only do so much. Even if they have 100 spells in a spellbook, they can only memorize a fraction of them.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 07:39 PM

I'll never get the Tier system myself. I just play a too radically different version of the game then all the Tier Party People.

Take your 10th level wizard on an adventure. They have a mix of spells, magic items, feats and such just like all characters. They come upon something, say a locked gate under a waterfall. They can not spontaneously rewrite their character to get Greater Knock as an at-will supernatural ability. Sure they could leave and take a couple weeks to cook something up, but that won't effect the game.
A wizard might have Knock already prepared, or have a scroll, or teleport to the other side of the door, or summon a dextrous minion to unlock it, shrink himself or turn himself to gas and slip through a hole, let his familiar slip through and unlock it from the other side, turn the lock into a cute rabbit, or simply blow it all up. He has many more options than any lower-tier class even when it comes to solving a problem that appears tailor-made for another character class (the rogue - who can only hope that his Open Lock skill is high enough, or UMD one of the wizard's tools if he has the cash to spare).

Larkas

2013-01-08, 07:41 PM

+54kgp on top of normal WBL? i see the logic in selling it, but the Fighter already should have a +2 material weapon and maybe +3 mithral fullplate. As i said, you are cheating WBL to make the fighter relevant, if they shirk the permanent item, then they should pay for it. Last time i did WBL calculations, i think alone for armor, weapon, and attributes, i had already spent 600k of the 780k a lvl 20 is supposed to have, on gear that the game is balanced towards you having at level 10. people here denounce DDO for not being like this, and for hyper inflating the Christmastree Effect. Well? i can tell you for certain that in PnP, the Christmas Tree Effect is barely helpful.

I still think one shouldn't punish a player for this kind of choice, specially if that choice was borne out of a lack of system mastery. Most players are not even aware there is anything like WBL (which is, after all is said and done, merely a guideline. And yes, we Playgrounders are not "most players"). Anyways, I won't keep pushing the point. It is good enough for me to know that I won't ever pull that kind of stuff on my players. :smallyuk:

EDIT: This might have sounded offensive. My apologies, it was not my intention.

navar100

2013-01-08, 07:45 PM

At this very moment I'm playing. I just slew the dragon, saved the kingdom, learned Vecna's true name, and found a million gold pieces in treasure. I gained a level. I'm the greatest player EVAR!

thethird

2013-01-08, 07:46 PM

Wait... Vecna ain't Vecna's name?

Amphetryon

2013-01-08, 07:48 PM

Never said the party was stymied, just the wizard. The fighter types for example can smash through. But a single wizard can only do so much. Even if they have 100 spells in a spellbook, they can only memorize a fraction of them.

So, just the Character who has (statistically) the highest IQ and best chance at planning for various contingencies?

toapat

2013-01-08, 07:49 PM

Wait... Vecna ain't Vecna's name?

very few DnD dieties use their true names, the only one i can think of that definitively did was killed and stripped of a small fraction of his divine ranks by Asmodeus.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 07:51 PM

A wizard might have Knock already prepared, or have a scroll, or teleport to the other side of the door, or summon a dextrous minion to unlock it, shrink himself or turn himself to gas and slip through a hole, let his familiar slip through and unlock it from the other side, turn the lock into a cute rabbit, or simply blow it all up. He has many more options than any lower-tier class even when it comes to solving a problem that appears tailor-made for another character class (the rogue - who can only hope that his Open Lock skill is high enough, or UMD one of the wizard's tools if he has the cash to spare).

The wizard has more options during character creation and downtime...sort of, but not really. But if the wizard does not have one of your five or six ways of opening a door midgame they can't just spontaneously change their character.

Plus play a wizard in a high usage all day game...they run out of 'tricks' in no time. Sure they might have five teleports or polymorphs at 8am, but suddenly by 2pm they have none. And, oh look, the adventure will continue for another six hours.

So it goes back to the ''theoretical'', the wizard could have done this or that....but they did not and now we are in the middle of the game.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-08, 07:52 PM

To sum up all of the "But this doesn't happen in my game!" stuff: in my view, it comes down to the fact that the tier of a class is irrelevant next to the tier of the player and the tier of the game.

By analogy to the general perception that T1 is overpowered and game-breaking, T3 is most balanced and fun, and T5 is limited and flawed, here's what I mean by player and game tiers:Tier 1 Player: Capable of building characters that can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge.
Examples: Most of the forums' best optimizers.

Tier 1 Game: The DM runs a no-holds-barred open game and handles powerful PCs by keeping up with the players.
Examples: The Tippyverse, any game where "my wizard is astrally projecting from a fast-time demiplane" would fly.

Tier 2 Player: Capable of building characters like T1 players but can't necessarily use them to their full potential.
Examples: Most of the "armchair optimizers" in forum discussions.

Tier 2 Game: The DM puts some restrictions on the game for sanity's sake and handles powerful PCs by keeping up with the players within those bounds.
Examples: All the epic tristalt high-PB etc. etc. games on the forums.

Tier 3 Player: Capable of optimization but not of building or playing anything too crazy.
Examples: Most optimizers not exposed to the forum hivemind.

Tier 3 Game: The DM puts restrictions on the game to try to ensure most players are on the same level and handles powerful PCs by talking things out with the players and houseruling.
Examples: Most "normal" forum games.

Tier 4 Player: Capable of building a respectable character that succeeds in by-the-book games without really taking anything further.
Examples: People just discovering optimization.

Tier 4 Game: The DM runs a fairly standard game and handles powerful PCs by talking things out and imposing bans and houserules.
Examples: Many games for new groups.

Tier 5 Player: Capable of using optimized builds from the internet or other players but not really improving or expanding upon them.
Examples: Jerkish powergamers.

Tier 5 Game: The DM runs a game for a blaster/healer/skillmonkey/tank party and handles powerful PCs by banning things without really understanding their power levels.
Examples: Railroaded core-only games.

Tier 6 Players: Incapable of using optimized builds for various reasons.
Examples: Those who subscribe to the Stormwind Fallacy, those who don't have time to learn the system or frequent forums.

Tier 6 Games: The DM runs a very nonstandard games, either through lots of houseruling or heavy-handed fiat, and what characterizes "powerful PCs" is very different.
Examples: If you've played with this DM, you know.

The answer to the "why play anything but a wizard?" problem, then, depends on the "tier" of your group.

T1/T2 players, including myself and many others on this forum, can easily build a nigh-invulnerable wizard with a Swiss army knife spell selection or a mostly-nonmagical character who can curbstomp the average wizard run by the average DM and take either one to a game table, but there are few DMs who can or want to DM for them and few players who can play them to their full potential, and actually doing so in a game is just being a jerk if the DM and other players aren't on board. T1 players play things besides wizards because of the challenge, because of their respect for their groups, and so forth.

T3/T4 players, including the OP and other players who aren't up-to-date on 3e and don't frequent the forums (and there's nothing wrong with not being as D&D-obsessed as some of us are :smallwink:), can easily build wizards to overshadow other PCs and mostly-nonmagical characters who can surpass the casters in their campaigns, but still play other classes. T3 players play things besides wizards because of the effort involved in making a "true" wizard, because they get bored of playing T1 classes, and so forth.

T5/T6 players, fortunately including no one here, either build "true" wizards only accidentally or can steal builds but not do things themselves, and trying to do that in a real game will get them killed, piss off their group, or both. T5 players play things besides wizards because they don't realize their potential, can't make uber-wizards work, don't find it possible in their games, and so forth.

We have people here who think wizards are overrated, people here who don't see any reason not to play a wizard over all other classes, people who can rattle off dozens of stock wizard tactics, people who are bored of playing wizards, and more, and they're all right in the context of their own games. The class tier system measures potential, so while the T1 wizard can be the answer to all your problems, it can also be the cause of other problems, and while it's theoretically superior to T2-T6 classes it's the tier of the player and the game that determines whether you end up playing Vecna, Gandalf, or Rincewind.

thethird

2013-01-08, 07:59 PM

very few DnD dieties use their true names, the only one i can think of that definitively did was killed and stripped of a small fraction of his divine ranks by Asmodeus.

Cool to know. Out of curiosity, which god was stupid enough?

The wizard has more options during character creation and downtime...sort of, but not really. But if the wizard does not have one of your five or six ways of opening a door midgame they can't just spontaneously change their character.

Plus play a wizard in a high usage all day game...they run out of 'tricks' in no time. Sure they might have five teleports or polymorphs at 8am, but suddenly by 2pm they have none. And, oh look, the adventure will continue for another six hours.

So it goes back to the ''theoretical'', the wizard could have done this or that....but they did not and now we are in the middle of the game.

Well... I guess that the main point is that the wizard (t1) can potentially change its selection faster than anyone and that its list from which it can pick is bigger than any other list.

So, yes, if a Rogue invests ranks in open lock and keeps it relevant it might be able to open almost any door.

But what if it doesn't? Or doesn't invest enough to beat the DC? Doesn't seem fair?

Well too bad, you will have to wait till you go up a level and invest a significant chunk of resources that you won't be able to relocate later in order to be able to deal with it.

Maybe you might say that it is a bad example because no rogue ever goes out adventuring without master work tools and maxed ranks in open lock. I have seen enough rogues to doubt that. But there are still many other skills, swim for example, than surely no one is going to invest ranks in them and can be replaced by spells.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 08:01 PM

The wizard has more options during character creation and downtime...sort of, but not really. But if the wizard does not have one of your five or six ways of opening a door midgame they can't just spontaneously change their character.
A T1 character has many options available at any given time when they are played intelligently. Every spell the wizard prepares represents a flexible option, and he gets to prepare a lot of spells.

Plus play a wizard in a high usage all day game...they run out of 'tricks' in no time. Sure they might have five teleports or polymorphs at 8am, but suddenly by 2pm they have none. And, oh look, the adventure will continue for another six hours.
Says who? Adventurers don't work 9 to 5 jobs. The adventure continues for as long as the adventurers feel like it, and when the wizard can hole up in an impermeable, invisible fortress to replenish spells starting at level 4, it gets pretty hard to stop him from taking a nap.

Besides, the HP on the party melee isn't infinite either. They might be able to swing a sword all day if standing in an empty field, but they can't swing anything if they're dead - and in any game where the wizard's been forced to expend all of his spells, there would have been loads of encounters already, each of which makes the fighter sad because he is now bleeding all over the place.

So it goes back to the ''theoretical'', the wizard could have done this or that....but they did not and now we are in the middle of the game.
Except the wizard can prepare an entirely new set of spells the next day, or pull out a scroll, or teleport to town and buy the right item, or summon or bind a creature that has an SLA that does what needs to be done, or take 15 minutes to fill a slot left empty...the reason that wizards are so good is precisely because they have options during the game.

Archmage1

2013-01-08, 08:08 PM

Basically boils down to: don't want to manage the spells, the dm actually knows how to counter wizards, and you are sick of going squish.
The dm "thoughtfully" provided all enemies with a total and complete immunity to all spells, as well as yourself.
you are playing Grok the Wizzard(orc barb that thinks he is a wizard)

You decided that that whole truenamer thing was worth a shot.
Or, you know, you want to actually live in the real world.

A counter to a couple of things said that wizards can't do
A wizard can leave a spell slot open, and spend 15 min to fill it.
There is a reserve feat that lets you summon elemental. using this, you just broke tomb of horrors, as there is nothing an infinite supply of expendable minions can't solve.

Grinner

2013-01-08, 08:09 PM

By analogy to the general perception that T1 is overpowered and game-breaking, T3 is most balanced and fun, and T5 is limited and flawed, here's what I mean by player and game tiers:Tier 1 Player: Capable of building characters that can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge.
Examples: Most of the forums' best optimizers.

Tier 1 Game: The DM runs a no-holds-barred open game and handles powerful PCs by keeping up with the players.
Examples: The Tippyverse, any game where "my wizard is astrally projecting from a fast-time demiplane" would fly.

Tier 2 Player: Capable of building characters like T1 players but can't necessarily use them to their full potential.
Examples: Most of the "armchair optimizers" in forum discussions.

Tier 2 Game: The DM puts some restrictions on the game for sanity's sake and handles powerful PCs by keeping up with the players within those bounds.
Examples: All the epic tristalt high-PB etc. etc. games on the forums.

Tier 3 Player: Capable of optimization but not of building or playing anything too crazy.
Examples: Most optimizers not exposed to the forum hivemind.

Tier 3 Game: The DM puts restrictions on the game to try to ensure most players are on the same level and handles powerful PCs by talking things out with the players and houseruling.
Examples: Most "normal" forum games.

Tier 4 Player: Capable of building a respectable character that succeeds in by-the-book games without really taking anything further.
Examples: People just discovering optimization.

Tier 4 Game: The DM runs a fairly standard game and handles powerful PCs by talking things out and imposing bans and houserules.
Examples: Many games for new groups.

Tier 5 Player: Capable of using optimized builds from the internet or other players but not really improving or expanding upon them.
Examples: Jerkish powergamers.

Tier 5 Game: The DM runs a game for a blaster/healer/skillmonkey/tank party and handles powerful PCs by banning things without really understanding their power levels.
Examples: Railroaded core-only games.

Tier 6 Players: Incapable of using optimized builds for various reasons.
Examples: Those who subscribe to the Stormwind Fallacy, those who don't have time to learn the system or frequent forums.

Tier 6 Games: The DM runs a very nonstandard games, either through lots of houseruling or heavy-handed fiat, and what characterizes "powerful PCs" is very different.
Examples: If you've played with this DM, you know.

Love this taxonomy. :smallbiggrin:

Vorr

2013-01-08, 08:28 PM

To sum up all of the "But this doesn't happen in my game!" stuff: in my view, it comes down to the fact that the tier of a class is irrelevant next to the tier of the player and the tier of the game.

I think your on the right track here.

The Z Game My type of game and anything goes. The DM rules with an iron fist. The game is fast, fun, deadly and totally unfair by modern rules of fairness. Things just happen at seemingly random to make the game more fast, more fun, more deadly and more unfair every minute. The wizard might try the old teleport across a ravine only to find the other side of the ravine is a solid state Abyassly portal and they fall into the Abyss into a lake of acid and take 100 damage and lose half their items and are attacked by fiendish sharks!

In this game a Teir 1 nonsense wizard fairs no better then the rest of the characters, and can often make things worse...

The L Game This type of game is typical. The DM runs the game by consent of the players and bends over backwards to make them happy. The DM optimize and knows the tricks but does not have the will or energy to do it all the time. This is often a very casual game or a low magic game.

In this type the Teir 1's can walk all over the DM, the rules, the game and the other players. This is the game where the archmage won't wizard lock his doors as it would take too long for the group to get through them all.

The H Game This is a common game. The DM is either new, shy, unsure or simply does not know the rules very well. Even more so the DM here is little more then a cheer leading coach for the players. This DM does not even put a magical trap on a treasure chest, as they have simply never read that page.

The Teir 1's rule this game. As ''rule experts', they will often tell the DM what happens in the game. While the DM just nods and says ''ok''.

toapat

2013-01-08, 08:33 PM

Cool to know. Out of curiosity, which god was stupid enough?

Jesus (at least that is the implication). His name was errased from history, and he has something like 700 divine ranks still, while dead, and will reincarnate if his name is spoken. The impressive thing about that is that:

Asmodeus Killed him
He did so with millenia of planning
He did that without tripping Portfoliosense.
He killed a being with more power then the DM.

NotScaryBats

2013-01-08, 08:34 PM

I've had this discussion with my friends about MTG, too. I call it "theoretical Magic" where you can say you have any of infinite resources at your command, and counter your opponent's counter-counter example by pulling cards out your butt.

Same with a theoretical wizard that is level 4 and has 30 spells memorized.

The unquantified wizard can do anything, but when you write out your spellbook, choose what's memorized, leave floating empty slots to fill as needed, we're talking about an actual chacter.

So how does this quantified character trivialize all the encounters of the dungeon? He's gotta deal with:

-- many really weak enemies
-- trapped chest
-- moderate powered single enemy
-- two enemies
-- ambush with a strong enemy
-- locked door
-- boss with two minions

He can 'do nothing' for any of these encounters (needn't use a spell every turn) but that's a pretty average dungeon crawl I think, and helps us discuss this in a meaningful way.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 08:38 PM

The wizard might try the old teleport across a ravine only to find the other side of the ravine is a solid state Abyassly portal and they fall into the Abyss into a lake of acid and take 100 damage and lose half their items and are attacked by fiendish sharks!
What.

If all you want to do is decide whether or not PC actions succeed based on DM arbitration and nothing else, why are you even using a system in the first place? Just go freeform.

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 08:38 PM

Backup spellbooks. Recall spells. Fake spell books filled with Explosive Runes. Alarms on the real book. Illusions. Even a level 1 wizard is more intelligent than most human beings alive, and if he isn't keeping his source of power safe from random thugs, then he's not being roleplayed to his intellect. And if the DM makes it a habit to steal books, then this is the sort of wizard you're going to get. As a result, you just get "you find your book stolen", "I get around it" as often as the DM wishes, and then the adventure day proper begins. If you make thefts more frequent, eventually you're no longer playing whatever the plot was because the story is now Gandalf Looks For His Spellbooks and His Party Gets to Tag Along.

Backup spellbooks is logical, recalling spells is logical, Alarming your spellbook is logical (but having it last all day is a little... questionable) and I'm curious how you are making your spellbook an illusion. Carrying around a book of explosive runes is just asking for trouble. God forbid you are carrying it when it is sundered or damaged or anything horrible happens to it.

Arguing that an 11+ intelligence is playing at Batman level intellect is just plain silly. I never stated any of these events are everyday things merely a possibility (albeit an unlikely one since telling a Wizard to protect his book when he is all-powerful is like trying to convince someone to buy Volcano Insurance).

Also, your "real game" claim, while extremely audacious (is my game not "real" because the characters roleplay their stats?) is also going against your own point. If in a "real" game the wizard isn't steamrolling encounters, then you don't need to steal the book to create balance between him and the other characters. And if he is steamrolling, then you can't steal the book without resorting to fiat.

Yes, it's fiat because the world operates at the same level of intelligence as the PC's. Losing a possession can happen to anyone, just because you can bend the entire universe over doesn't mean your items will be stolen anymore then Bob the Commoner who is just so unfortunate enough to live next door to the Thieve's Guild.

Yes. That's because most DM don't go after spell books much. Wizards in campaigns with DMs that do go after spell books much will have crazy protections on the spell books (or get rid of need for a spellbook).

It's because it's a game and "the spell book protection/ targeting" mini game gets boring for most people, fast. For example my current character has almost no spell book protection. It's only because I know that in last two years only once a wizard lost spell book, for a short time and a nice piece of plot. So I don't expect it to be troublesome.

That is true, most DM's don't go after the Spellbook and that is wonderful, however the DM shouldn't get branded as "Bad" or "Evil" for doing it at a logical point in the campaign. A Good DM will provide some difficulty for the player and what can be more difficult then getting your super weapon back from Joe Nobody? More or less the point here is that it shouldn't be considered A-OK to break everyone elses stuff except the Wizard because he is a Wizard and without he is considered less omni-powerful.

Spellbook stealing seems to pretty frequently work as above.

Yeah, that is Bad DM'ing (Railroading). Giving your players a task that cannot be accomplished. If you are going to steal the PC's book at least give them a Spot against the Sleight of Hand or a Listen against the Move Silently.

Juntao112

2013-01-08, 08:42 PM

-- many really weak enemies
-- trapped chest
-- moderate powered single enemy
-- two enemies
-- ambush with a strong enemy
-- locked door
-- boss with two minions
Here would be my suggested spells:
Color Spray/Grease/Glitterdust/Web
Invisible Servant
Grease/Glitterdust/Web
Grease/Glitterdust/Web
Grease/Glitterdust/Web
Shatter/Knock/Acid Arrow/Acid Splash/Summon Monster
Grease/Glitterdust/Web

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-08, 08:49 PM

I think your on the right track here.

The Z Game My type of game and anything goes. The DM rules with an iron fist. The game is fast, fun, deadly and totally unfair by modern rules of fairness. Things just happen at seemingly random to make the game more fast, more fun, more deadly and more unfair every minute. The wizard might try the old teleport across a ravine only to find the other side of the ravine is a solid state Abyassly portal and they fall into the Abyss into a lake of acid and take 100 damage and lose half their items and are attacked by fiendish sharks!

In this game a Teir 1 nonsense wizard fairs no better then the rest of the characters, and can often make things worse...

Player: Pew pew I got you!

DM: Nuh uh I have force I have a forcefield and it ricochets lasers and kills you!

Player: That's cheating!

DM: It's my house so I'm the boss!

Player: This game is stupid. I'm going home.

DM: I'm the greatest. :smallcool:

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 08:49 PM

Backup spellbooks is logical, recalling spells is logical, Alarming your spellbook is logical (but having it last all day is a little... questionable) and I'm curious how you are making your spellbook an illusion. Carrying around a book of explosive runes is just asking for trouble. God forbid you are carrying it when it is sundered or damaged or anything horrible happens to it.
You seem to have this assumption that wizards carry their spellbooks around in their hands all the time. Why would you put your decoy spellbooks in a situation where they can be sundered or damaged?

Arguing that an 11+ intelligence is playing at Batman level intellect is just plain silly. I never stated any of these events are everyday things merely a possibility (albeit an unlikely one since telling a Wizard to protect his book when he is all-powerful is like trying to convince someone to buy Volcano Insurance).

I didn't say anything about Batman. I said things about not being stupid.

Yes, it's fiat because the world operates at the same level of intelligence as the PC's. Losing a possession can happen to anyone, just because you can bend the entire universe over doesn't mean your items will be stolen anymore then Bob the Commoner who is just so unfortunate enough to live next door to the Thieve's Guild.
You really think it's as easy to steal from a wizard as from a commoner? Wow.

You seem to have this idea of an abstract situation where an undefined bad thing might happen to the spellbook, and then get aggressive when you get a response because you can't actually define what that thing is. Just because it's not mathematically impossible that the wizard's book will somehow leave his possession doesn't mean it's probable, likely, or relevant.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 08:53 PM

What.

If all you want to do is decide whether or not PC actions succeed based on DM arbitration and nothing else, why are you even using a system in the first place? Just go freeform.

Solid State Topographical Portals are a feature of my game. They look like sections of landscape, but are in fact portals.

And freeform is just crazy. I like rules. I just hate the idea that I must use some 'official' rules. And that everything I do must go by ''page 66'' or whaever.

I made up Solid State Topographical Portals, for example. You will not find them in any book. Now some players would say ''that is not listed on page 12 under Portals so it's Homebrew and does not exist! ", but I don't game with that type of person anyway (even more so after their 'awesome' wizard character falls into that Abyssal Acid Lake and he losses his bag of holding...)

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 08:55 PM

And freeform is just crazy. I like rules. I just hate the idea that I must use some 'official' rules. And that everything I do must go by ''page 66'' or whaever.
So, you like rules, but only when you can change them at any time.

I'm glad that you're having fun with your Calvinball.

Grinner

2013-01-08, 08:59 PM

So, you like rules, but only when you can change them at any time.

I'm glad that you're having fun with your Calvinball.

I get the impression that he didn't mean quite that. Just that he prefers not to treat the official rules as holy scripture.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 09:06 PM

Player: Pew pew I got you!
DM: Nuh uh I have force I have a forcefield and it ricochets lasers and kills you!
Player: That's cheating!
DM: It's my house so I'm the boss!
Player: This game is stupid. I'm going home.
DM: I'm the greatest. :smallcool:

Well it's more like:

Player: I hit the two guards with my Sleepy Deepy spell.
DM:Each guard yawns, but nothing else happens.

Then it depends on the type of player:

My type of player: Oh, well guess I'll keep playing and try something else.
The other type of player: Waaaahhh! My spell is made to always work...screw you guys I'm going home!

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 09:07 PM

I get the impression that he didn't mean quite that. Just that he prefers not to treat the official rules as holy scripture.
But then:

Well it's more like:

Player: I hit the two guards with my Sleepy Deepy spell.
DM:Each guard yawns, but nothing else happens.

Then it depends on the type of player:

My type of player: Oh, well guess I'll keep playing and try something else.
The other type of player: Waaaahhh! My spell is made to always work...screw you guys I'm going home!
You were saying?

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 09:13 PM

You seem to have this assumption that wizards carry their spellbooks around in their hands all the time. Why would you put your decoy spellbooks in a situation where they can be sundered or damaged?

Actually, I assume that Wizard's carry their books in logical locations for a Wizard or any PC with access to magic (Secret Chest, Bag of holding, Handy Haversack, etc.). If you carry around a spellbook in your hand you are asking for trouble. I also assume that you would have the same precautions set up for your Decoy to make it look convincing. Which are just as likely to occur.

I didn't say anything about Batman. I said things about not being stupid.

From the way you describe it you make them sound like the same thing.

You really think it's as easy to steal from a wizard as from a commoner? Wow.

Never said that. I said that the Wizard is just as likely to get robbed as the Commoner is.

You seem to have this idea of an abstract situation where an undefined bad thing might happen to the spellbook, and then get aggressive when you get a response because you can't actually define what that thing is. Just because it's not mathematically impossible that the wizard's book will somehow leave his possession doesn't mean it's probable, likely, or relevant.

It appears you have this strange idea that nothing bad ever happens to Wizard's because they are Wizard's. If I do define such an occasion you will simply throw it off as DM's fiat so to summarize: There is no convincing you that you cannot be prepared for every eventuality since you will always respond "But I'm a Wizard".

I do believe this post pretty much captures how most optimizers are (on and off forum)

Player: I hit the two guards with my Sleepy Deepy spell.
DM:Each guard yawns, but nothing else happens.

Then it depends on the type of player:

My type of player: Oh, well guess I'll keep playing and try something else.
The other type of player: Waaaahhh! My spell is made to always work...screw you guys I'm going home!

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 09:14 PM

It appears you have this strange idea that nothing bad ever happens to Wizard's because they are Wizard's. If I do define such an occasion you will simply throw it off as DM's fiat so to summarize: There is no convincing you that you cannot be prepared for every eventuality since you will always respond "But I'm a Wizard".
I like that you can predict the future. Why, you must be some sort of wizard.

Raven777

2013-01-08, 09:15 PM

Just mentioning that Wizards and their players in a game are not an island onto themselves. They'll usually be surrounded by 3-5 teammates. So even if the Wizard wants to Rope Trick at 2 p.m in the middle of a dungeon crawl because he ran out of spells, his party might very well tell him to tough it out and carry on. Not all parties function like a well oiled commando willing to indulge 2 hours long adventuring days...

In the same order of ideas, even if the Wizard learns to forego blasting in favor of control, his party mates can still very well be the ones screwing him over by standing in melee when he wants to cast Glitterdust or Black Tentacles... No plan surviving contact with the enemy and whatnot...

Carrying on... I highly doubt the whole table is going to stand idle and in awe to let the Wizard go on a solo astral projecting raid...

Bottom line being, even if you play a Tier 1 with the potential and intent to be God, you will rarely have the opportunities to do it unless the whole table starts indulging you, DM included.

Most posts I read decrying Tier 1 seem to do so with the premise that Deep Blue will be playing the character... :smallconfused:

Noctani

2013-01-08, 09:16 PM

I think the biggest thing players overlook is time and money.

For the sake of expediency alot of DMs might completely disregard this for wizards, which is unfair.

Wizards are typically described as quite conservative when it comes to sharing spells, and even those apprentices are mainly taught by older wizards and serve their mentor for years in exchange for arcane knowledge.

Assuming your utility wizard had eight additional spells at every spell level. That means he spent 72 days not adventuring. What happens if the other characters continued and survived? They may be at a much higher level than a wizard or the DM could allow them to hone special tricks in their skill set. A wizard is actually hard to play, if played correctly compared to other characters.

(There are over 1800 wizard spells)

The DM might decide (or roll) certain spells are out of your capacity to create on your own, and some may be unavailable for sale. This would be completely feasible at certain times and the cost of those spells usually means a wizard has less magic items unless he's creating them himself. 8 additional level 9 spells at 3,850 cost an extra 30k in gold. Giving wizard scrolls actually counts towards his maximum wealth. It just so happens that most Tier1 wizards who have every useful spell in his utility belt actually has an enormously wealth that no other character has. Even if the character is given this spell from another mage for free it is essentially part of his "wealth".

I'm not above splitting my party up as a DM and doing solo adventures for two to four weeks so players can achieve their goals.

These are very real difficulties a wizard faces while leveling to his tier1. He might not get there and his tier3-4 buddies may surpass him.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 09:18 PM

I get the impression that he didn't mean quite that. Just that he prefers not to treat the official rules as holy scripture.

Well obviously if you don't treat the rules like the Word of God, then that means everything is random...your blue might be gray, your less might be more, your window to the world might be your own front door, your shiniest day might come in the middle of the night..and cats and dogs will start living together.

But just as I have 12 pages all about Portals, that the players don't know or see or have access to at all does not exactly equal ''things just get made up on the spot.''

Some players won't like it. The type of player, such as optimizers and cheaters, that use and or abuse the rules to get what they want and to win. But once you take that away from them, they can't get what they want, can't auto win and can rule the game.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 09:18 PM

Just mentioning that Wizards and their players in a game are not an island onto themselves. They'll usually be surrounded by 3-5 teammates. So even if the Wizard wants to Rope Trick at 2 p.m in the middle of a dungeon crawl because he ran out of spells, his party might very well tell him to tough it out and carry on. Not all parties function like a well oiled commando willing to indulge 2 hours long adventuring days...

In the same order of ideas, even if the Wizard learns to forego blasting in favor of control, his party mates can still very well be the ones screwing him over by standing in melee when he wants to cast Glitterdust or Black Tentacles...

Carrying on... I highly doubt the whole table is going to stand idle and in awe to let the Wizard go on a solo astral projecting raid...

Bottom line being, even if you play a Tier 1 with the potential and intent to be God, you will rarely have the opportunities to do it unless the whole table starts indulging you, DM included.
The party doesn't need to recover HP, doesn't want to use tactics in combat, and won't accept spells when the wizards offers to buff them? That's...an interesting scenario.

Grinner

2013-01-08, 09:23 PM

You were saying?

I don't get what you're trying to say. :smallconfused:

Edit:

Well obviously if you don't treat the rules like the Word of God, then that means everything is random...your blue might be gray, your less might be more, your window to the world might be your own front door, your shiniest day might come in the middle of the night..and cats and dogs will start living together. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic)

You know what. Nevermind.

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-08, 09:26 PM

Raven777

2013-01-08, 09:26 PM

The party doesn't need to recover HP, doesn't want to use tactics in combat, and won't accept spells when the wizards offers to buff them? That's...an interesting scenario.

Welcome to my party.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 09:45 PM

Hey, why don't you try to cross that ravine?

Ok i cast a spell because i'm a wizard and that's my thing and go across.

Hahahahaha now you're dead! The other side was a portal! To the abyss! Filled with acid! That's what you get, cheater. Try to put people to sleep with SLEEP will you? Your arrogance sickens me. Next time try not to cheat.

Well, your taking them way out of context.

Ravine: The group is sneaking into the mountain castle of a Demon Duke with a Foothold on the Prime. They met a ''helpful'' yougloth who sold them a map(and ripped them off for the 3rd time) to the 'secret entrance''. They found only light traps and creatures in the ''secret caves''. Then the cave lead to the said ravine, with a wooden bridge on the other side that looked like it could be extended across. So the wizard jumped at the chance to teleport over and activate the bridge. Even with the wise rogue suggesting that it looked like a trap(demons got wings and can fly so they don't need the bridge....). So poor Wiz falls into the portal and into the Abyssal Acid Lake and fiendish sharks. He does not die, however, as the rest of the group dives in and saves him.....

Sleepy Deepy:This was a simple case of the sleep spell no effecting creatures that don't sleep ever. An easy detail to pick up after being told a dozen or so times that ''they are not living beings so things that effect life forms won't effect them'' by a couple NPCs.

Venusaur

2013-01-08, 09:53 PM

.3Fairness. This is the big, big one. If the DM bends over backward to be overly fair to the wizard players as in ''I'm going to serve you the game on a plate''. Take familiars for example. Anyone with an an intelligence of above 5 can see that the owl on the wizards shoulder must be 'special'. And that an owl is a weak and easy target. So this makes the said owl an obvious target. Yet, most DM would say ''it not fair'' to target a familiar and they don't do it. It's the same with spellbooks.

This is really dumb. You don't attach the owl or spellbook in a fight because they aren't threats. In a fight to the death, you go for the things that can kill you, not the things that will make them sad to lose. In a gunfight, you shoot the person shooting at you, not the cache of ammo they have stored for later. In the long run, if you are likely to lose, that would hurt them more. However, you are trying to live now, and shanking the book or the bird will not prevent the wizard from blowing you up. Shanking the wizard or the BSF swinging a sword around your head makes more sense.

Also, saying wizards are balanced because I randomly dump them into shark-infested acid pools does not make them balanced. The fact you have to nerf them proves they are unbalanced.

demigodus

2013-01-08, 09:58 PM

The wizard has more options during character creation and downtime...sort of, but not really. But if the wizard does not have one of your five or six ways of opening a door midgame they can't just spontaneously change their character.

Plus play a wizard in a high usage all day game...they run out of 'tricks' in no time. Sure they might have five teleports or polymorphs at 8am, but suddenly by 2pm they have none. And, oh look, the adventure will continue for another six hours.

So it goes back to the ''theoretical'', the wizard could have done this or that....but they did not and now we are in the middle of the game.

Only if the wizard plays like an idiot, or his existence is absolutely vital.

The way I see it when I play T1's, my role isn't to solve every problem. I don't build to be able to solve every problem. I build to solve problems that others can't. Which is why I like divine casters (that, and with druid, in an AMF I still have a bear, and if the target is crit-immune, I'm about as good as the rogue while using my quarter staff. So in a dead magic zone, I'm still not getting outshined). I can change my spell load out mid-campaign (as soon as we rest), and get rid of spells that I don't need (cause someone else got the job), and get spells for situations we can't handle.

Consequently, spells are only used when we don't have another solution, or they drastically reduce encounter difficulty.

In this case, for the T1 to run out of spells in 6 hours, they have been absolutely necessary for party success/survival for the last 6 hours, and the party is damn well resting right this moment, because if the game continues at its current difficulty, the entire party WILL die without the T1's support.

afroakuma

2013-01-08, 09:59 PM

Jesus (at least that is the implication). His name was errased from history, and he has something like 700 divine ranks still, while dead, and will reincarnate if his name is spoken. The impressive thing about that is that:

Asmodeus Killed him
He did so with millenia of planning
He did that without tripping Portfoliosense.
He killed a being with more power then the DM.

...no, that's not true. That's not even remotely true. There is no source that supports this in canon.

mattie_p

2013-01-08, 10:02 PM

...no, that's not true. That's not even remotely true. There is no source that supports this in canon.

Clearly that's because it was erased from history!

toapat

2013-01-08, 10:06 PM

...no, that's not true. That's not even remotely true. There is no source that supports this in canon.

not in 3rd at least, 4th ed isnt canon in this subforum. also, Faerun never gives exact divine ranks

afroakuma

2013-01-08, 10:07 PM

not in 3rd at least, 4th ed isnt canon in this subforum

...in 4th Edition, Asmodeus destroyed Azuth.

toapat

2013-01-08, 10:11 PM

...in 4th Edition, Asmodeus destroyed Azuth.

Might be the version for Points of light, if he is in that setting, definitely is the one for Golairon/PF.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 10:18 PM

This is really dumb. You don't attach the owl or spellbook in a fight because they aren't threats. In a fight to the death, you go for the things that can kill you, not the things that will make them sad to lose.

So you can attack the super buffed up and protected wizard or his weak link pathetic little animal pet that will harm the wizard if killed. Well, I'd target the Familiar...

And, speaking from experience here:If in a fight you do something like throw a rock at the old Corvette's windshield the crazy ''my car is my baby'' guy will be so distraught and concerned about his precious car that he might actually take his eyes off of you and give you a great opening for a hard hit.

In a gunfight, you shoot the person shooting at you, not the cache of ammo they have stored for later.

Taking out supplies is a great way to win a battle. Big Bad sends a couple thugs to destroy Good Guys ammo. Then, a couple shots later, Good Guy has no bullets!

Also, saying wizards are balanced because I randomly dump them into shark-infested acid pools does not make them balanced. The fact you have to nerf them proves they are unbalanced.

I don't nerf wizards. I just don't baby them like a lot of games do. And they don't get singled out or anything. It's kinda common for characters in my games to say fall into acid lakes in the Abyss filled with acidborn fiendish sharks with fiendish grafts that shoot disintegration blasts.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 10:23 PM

So you can attack the super buffed up and protected wizard or his weak link pathetic little animal pet that will harm the wizard if killed. Well, I'd target the Familiar...
So the PCs are never allowed to know anything, but the NPCs all have prescient knowledge. Good job.

TuggyNE

2013-01-08, 10:24 PM

No, because your specific choice was not to choose a more longterm and practical source of flight.

It can probably feel pretty cheesy if the BBEG upto that point had been a buffoon, but if he has been depicted as extremely pragmatic and proactive in his fights, then it is not unfair for the DM to left Fighter Mcthickhead be Dispelled out of the sky.

Basically, this is rule 1 of 3.5 in full:

The Players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
No Player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, but not to arbitrarily handicap a player by Fiat.
The players are expected to not provide the DM with easy hooks with which to render the characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not manditory class features.
The DM is expected to not repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant.
The DM is expected to provide the resources required for non-spellcasters to compete with spellcasters. Spellcasters are expected to get less then PC WBL, but are also expected to not be required to maintain their spell component pouch.
The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
The players are expected to comply to a minimum required ammount of Railroading
The DM is not to use excessive railroading.

OK, this is one of your best posts ever, and I agree with essentially all of it, with the minor exception that WBL should probably be applied evenly.

That is all.

toapat

2013-01-08, 10:24 PM

So the PCs are never allowed to know anything, but the NPCs all have prescient knowledge. Good job.

or they have strangled a few wizards with below exceptional Int scores.

OK, this is one of your best posts ever, and I agree with essentially all of it, with the minor exception that WBL should probably be applied evenly.

That is all.

The point that WBL should not be proportionate is based off of rough estimates in terms of what is needed to make a character compliant for the rules and balanced proportionally to the party. that basically means, using the core classes, that at level 5, the WBL of mundanes should be along the lines of 72kgp (40k with Errata)

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 10:28 PM

or they have strangled a few wizards with below exceptional Int scores.
I'm not sure you are understanding me, yes. In order for the NPC to find out that hurting the familiar hurts the wizard, someone had to have actually gone through with spending all his efforts attacking the raven for no reason while the actual wizard was busy murdering him, then succeeded, then understood the concept of XP loss when the familiar died, then defeated the wizard. This is not what we in the business call "a thing that makes sense".

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 10:30 PM

No, because your specific choice was not to choose a more longterm and practical source of flight.

It can probably feel pretty cheesy if the BBEG upto that point had been a buffoon, but if he has been depicted as extremely pragmatic and proactive in his fights, then it is not unfair for the DM to left Fighter Mcthickhead be Dispelled out of the sky.

Basically, this is rule 1 of 3.5 in full:

The Players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
No Player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, but not to arbitrarily handicap a player by Fiat.
The players are expected to not provide the DM with easy hooks with which to render the characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not manditory class features.
The DM is expected to not repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant.
The DM is expected to provide the resources required for non-spellcasters to compete with spellcasters. Spellcasters are expected to get less then PC WBL, but are also expected to not be required to maintain their spell component pouch.
The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
The players are expected to comply to a minimum required ammount of Railroading
The DM is not to use excessive railroading.

Mind if I sig this and call it "The Gentlemen's agreement"? :smallbiggrin:

Vorr

2013-01-08, 10:32 PM

So the PCs are never allowed to know anything, but the NPCs all have prescient knowledge. Good job.

Why wouldn't the players know this? It's in the Players Handbook.

Augmental

2013-01-08, 10:34 PM

So you can attack the super buffed up and protected wizard or his weak link pathetic little animal pet that will harm the wizard if killed. Well, I'd target the Familiar...

The familiar which doesn't exist because it was traded out for something useful.

Taking out supplies is a great way to win a battle. Big Bad sends a couple thugs to destroy Good Guys ammo. Then, a couple shots later, Good Guy has no bullets!

Or: Big Bad sends a couple thugs to destroy the Good Guy's ammo. The ammo is stored in boxes which have explosive traps on them. Thugs die.

I don't nerf wizards. I just don't baby them like a lot of games do. And they don't get singled out or anything. It's kinda common for characters in my games to say fall into acid lakes in the Abyss filled with acidborn fiendish sharks with fiendish grafts that shoot disintegration blasts.

All that does is kill everyone, not just the wizard.

Arcanist

2013-01-08, 10:34 PM

Why wouldn't the players know this? It's in the Players Handbook.

That my friend is called Metagaming and is often looked down upon by most gaming circles.

toapat

2013-01-08, 10:35 PM

I'm not sure you are understanding me, yes. In order for the NPC to find out that hurting the familiar hurts the wizard, someone had to have actually gone through with spending all his efforts attacking the raven for no reason while the actual wizard was busy murdering him, then succeeded, then understood the concept of XP loss when the familiar died, then defeated the wizard. This is not what we in the business call "a thing that makes sense".

Ok, lets say the BBEG is a Human CE Paladin 6/Blackguard 3 with Power attack, Imp-Sunder, Cleave, Dynamic Priest, and leadership. He plans on taking Landlord as his next feat.

A stupid wizard (lets say Int 14), of 3rd level, uses his familiar to deliver a touch spell. The blackguard shrugs it off, Innitiates a grapple check against the bird, And coup-de-graces it on his turn.

He sees the Wizard instantly become incompetent, then kills the wizard, and tells his mooks from leadership

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 10:40 PM

Why wouldn't the players know this? It's in the Players Handbook.
Because as you yourself keep saying, just because it's written in the book doesn't mean it's true in your games, or that the players are allowed to know. Plus, how did NPCs get their hands on the book?

Ok, lets say the BBEG is a Human CE Paladin 6/Blackguard 3 with Power attack, Imp-Sunder, Cleave, Dynamic Priest, and leadership. He plans on taking Landlord as his next feat.

A stupid wizard (lets say Int 14), of 3rd level, uses his familiar to deliver a touch spell. The blackguard shrugs it off, Innitiates a grapple check against the bird, And coup-de-graces it on his turn.

He sees the Wizard instantly become incompetent, then kills the wizard, and tells his mooks from leadership
So a 9th level character can instantly sense that a 3rd level character (a trivial challenge) who is "stupid" despite having a genius-level intelligence has just become ever so slightly weaker (still a trivial challenge) after he coup-de-graced a creature that is not helpless, and then draws from that the only possible conclusion that killing the familiar was what caused this imperceptible change.

Do you know how much a wizard loses going from 3rd to 2nd? Two spell slots, a point of will save and a point of BAB. That is not the difference between competent and incompetent, and definitely not something that reflects on the wizard in a manner that could only possibly mean one thing.

Augmental

2013-01-08, 10:40 PM

Ok, lets say the BBEG is a Human CE Paladin 6/Blackguard 3 with Power attack, Imp-Sunder, Cleave, Dynamic Priest, and leadership. He plans on taking Landlord as his next feat.

A stupid wizard (lets say Int 14), of 3rd level, uses his familiar to deliver a touch spell. The blackguard shrugs it off, Innitiates a grapple check against the bird, And coup-de-graces it on his turn.

He sees the Wizard instantly become incompetent, then kills the wizard, and tells his mooks from leadership

Why is everyone acting like the death of a familiar is so crippling? All it does is make you lose (200 times Sorc/Wiz level) xp, and you lose whatever tiny benefit the familiar was giving you. It's bad, sure, but it's not enough to make the wizard lose a level.

Answerer

2013-01-08, 10:46 PM

Pretty sure that XP loss cannot make you lose a level. A dead Familiar only hurts a wizard long-term, not during that particular fight. It makes absolutely no sense to target it unless the wizards actively using it in combat (delivering touch spells, or with imbue familiar with spell-like ability or whatever)

Vorr

2013-01-08, 10:51 PM

That my friend is called Metagaming and is often looked down upon by most gaming circles.

Guess I've never seen the ''common rules'' be called ''Metagaming''. I'm fine with players knowing that a dagger does 1d4 damage or that elves can see good in the dark.

How does "Metagaming all the rules work anyway?

Player: I stab the wolf with my dagger...um, how much damage does a dagger do?"
DM: "Roll your knowledge check"
Player: Rolls "Oh, I got a 7, guess I don't know..."

I'm fine with a player remembering anything and a character using that knowledge. Though I won't tell them if they are right or wrong, just say ''you will have to try it''.

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 10:54 PM

Guess I've never seen the ''common rules'' be called ''Metagaming''. I'm fine with players knowing that a dagger does 1d4 damage or that elves can see good in the dark.

How does "Metagaming all the rules work anyway?

Player: I stab the wolf with my dagger...um, how much damage does a dagger do?"
DM: "Roll your knowledge check"
Player: Rolls "Oh, I got a 7, guess I don't know..."

I'm fine with a player remembering anything and a character using that knowledge. Though I won't tell them if they are right or wrong, just say ''you will have to try it''.

That still doesn't explain how your NPCs have read the books and know that killing a familiar causes XP loss, or what XP even is.

toapat

2013-01-08, 10:54 PM

So a 9th level character can instantly sense that a 3rd level character (a trivial challenge) who is "stupid" despite having a genius-level intelligence has just become ever so slightly weaker (still a trivial challenge) after he coup-de-graced a creature that is not helpless, and then draws from that the only possible conclusion that killing the familiar was what caused this imperceptible change.

Do you know how much a wizard loses going from 3rd to 2nd? Two spell slots, a point of will save and a point of BAB. That is not the difference between competent and incompetent, and definitely not something that reflects on the wizard in a manner that could only possibly mean one thing.

1: Coup-De-Grace works on anything that is able to be considered at your mercy. That covers anything below 2 size categories of you when you grapple them.
2: the wizard, is not a PC wizard, he is not a competent wizard (Trading out the familiar is standard for PCs), The guy radiating Pure Evil is able to dump wisdom (he would be using Serenity if it could be applied to blackguard). he has great saves, and gets an AoO against the bird. The wizard is assumed to be within deleveling range when he does this.
3: In Universe the wizard poops himself, and the blackguard observes his reaction.

Why is everyone acting like the death of a familiar is so crippling? All it does is make you lose (200 times Sorc/Wiz level) xp, and you lose whatever tiny benefit the familiar was giving you. It's bad, sure, but it's not enough to make the wizard lose a level.

The wizard in the example is a moron for a wizard, and no, the example was to represent how Mooks would learn that murdering the familiar can weaken a spellcaster.

Raven777

2013-01-08, 10:54 PM

Though I won't tell them if they are right or wrong, just say ''you will have to try it''.

"Sec, gonna go check the SRD."

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 10:58 PM

1: Coup-De-Grace works on anything that is able to be considered at your mercy. That covers anything below 2 size categories of you when you grapple them.
No it doesn't. Even pinned doesn't render someone helpless. Cite some rules.

2: the wizard, is not a PC wizard, he is not a competent wizard (Trading out the familiar is standard for PCs), The guy radiating Pure Evil is able to dump wisdom (he would be using Serenity if it could be applied to blackguard). he has great saves, and gets an AoO against the bird. The wizard is assumed to be within deleveling range when he does this.
So? Never said he couldn't kill it.

3: In Universe the wizard poops himself, and the blackguard observes his reaction.

And logically assumes that defecation is a sign of level loss, and that it will happen every time?

The wizard in the example is a moron for a wizard, and no, the example was to represent how Mooks would learn that murdering the familiar can weaken a spellcaster.
A moron for a wizard is still brilliant. Don't forget that normal intelligence is 10.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-08, 11:04 PM

It makes absolutely no sense to target it

Clearly you do not run particularly evil villains.

Now, of course, to an extent this depends upon the villain, the motivation, etc. But in general most of the "big bads" I roll up would kill a wizard's familiar not for any tactical advantage, but because they want to hurt the wizard, wound the wizard, not physically, but emotionally, and presumably, at least, the wizard treasures and values his familiar.

Lord Badguy is going to destroy the wizard's hometown, his parents, his friends, his siblings. Why wouldn't he also destroy the wizard's pet?

(If he succeeds on the attack roll/beats the familiar's saves/etc. No auto-kills, of course)

Answerer

2013-01-08, 11:09 PM

Sure, he might kill the wizard's pet for giggles/out of spite if it's an easy target.

If he's in the middle of fighting for his life, though? Not gonna be a high priority.

toapat

2013-01-08, 11:11 PM

And logically assumes that defecation is a sign of level loss, and that it will happen every time?

A moron for a wizard is still brilliant. Don't forget that normal intelligence is 10.

A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.

I consider having your hand around the long neck of a bird "Or otherwise at your mercy", it also fits the definition of bound. He also has power attack, Smite good, and can break the thing's neck with an attack from his fullplate gauntlet

and no, being rendered incompetent is going to render some DC -10 spot check. staining his pants brown is just a very obvious one, and the most likely to happen in the -4 to saves, -2 ac aura of the character

Also, 14 is not Brilliant. That is educated. Brilliant is the 18 minimum used for PC wizards. Also, i should have noted that the wizard had below a 5 wisdom. You know, the stat that outright depicts common sense?

Flickerdart

2013-01-08, 11:13 PM

I consider having you hand around the long neck of a bird "Or otherwise at your mercy", it also fits the definition of bound. He also has power attack, Smite good, and can break the thing's neck with an attack from his fullplate gauntlet
Too bad that grapple rules specify that even pinning something is not helpless, so you have literally zero ground to stand on here.

and no, being rendered incompetent is going to render some DC -10 spot check. staining his pants brown is just a very obvious one.
I'll make sure to point out to my players that they have to change pants every time they lose XP.

Also, 14 is not Brilliant. That is intelligent.
Still not stupid.

Brilliant is the 18 minimum used for PC wizards. Also, i should have noted that the wizard had below a 5 wisdom. You know, the stat that outright depicts common sense?
You're making this scenario so contrived at this point that I can't tell if you're being serious, and an forced to assume you are not merely to retain a shred of sanity.

demigodus

2013-01-08, 11:20 PM

Wouldn't a less contrived scenario be that the BBEG is a wizard, or has/had a wizard working for him at one time or another? And got the bloody bird thing explained to him. This would be the kind of stuff you remember as a BBEG. sure, your 2nd level wizard minion's weaknesses aren't very important. But if they are the weakness of everyone that can alter reality without divine intervention, including those that are a threat to you, you freaking remember it.

Still not attacking the thing when fighting for your life though. However, "you may run away once you kill the bird" becomes a perfectly valid order to kill henchmen. So now their options are: fight PCs to the death (and hopefully win), run away and be killed by BBEG, or kill bird and run away and get reward. Bird killing is likely to be picked by henchmen, even in very tough fights.

The point that WBL should not be proportionate is based off of rough estimates in terms of what is needed to make a character compliant for the rules and balanced proportionally to the party. that basically means, using the core classes, that at level 5, the WBL of mundanes should be along the lines of 72kgp (40k with Errata)

out of curiosity, what are these items that you are assuming people have at various levels? Or a link where you work it out.

I'm especially curious about the ~600k in stat boosting at level 10 that you mentioned some posts back. Because I am not so certain the game was built with THAT many stat boosters in mind.

Raven777

2013-01-08, 11:21 PM

I think this thread is spiraling past the event horizon of non-constructiveness. There might be no going back.

MeiLeTeng

2013-01-08, 11:24 PM

I think this thread is spiraling past the event horizon of non-constructiveness. There might be no going back.

Yeah it's pretty much turning out like the other 7 threads/day about Wizards and Tiers.

tyckspoon

2013-01-08, 11:28 PM

Lord Badguy is going to destroy the wizard's hometown, his parents, his friends, his siblings. Why wouldn't he also destroy the wizard's pet?

Because Share Spells means the Familiar enjoys the benefits of all the Wizard's defensive magics, which makes that a somewhat tricky proposition if the Familiar is actually participating in the fight... or the Familiar does *not* participate in the fight, and in fact squirms its way into the Wizard's backpack/Handy Haversack/Magical Familiar-Protecting Fannypack as soon as any threat shows up, and it now requires an extraordinary amount of effort to attack it, such that (much like assaulting a spell book) you can only reasonably do it once you have *already* defeated the Wizard. It's not a combat tactic; it's a way to taunt and torture a captured enemy that you for whatever reason don't want to simply kill.

TuggyNE

2013-01-08, 11:31 PM

Yeah it's pretty much turning out like the other 7 threads/day about Wizards and Tiers.

We got a few good things out of it, though.

willpell

2013-01-08, 11:31 PM

For the first 5 or so levels, wizards and other Tier 1s don't have every single one of those tricks available to them. They're still strong, but they don't do everything all at once. So, in low-level games, other classes are still very relevant. It actually really bothers me just how much of the discussion around here revolves around what is possible at high levels, while ignoring the fact that a lot of campaigns still start at level 1.

So much this. While I don't entirely agree with the attitude that even the most amazing human potential falls within 6 levels of D&D, it's definitely true that the higher the level goes, the less reality the game contains. Epic characters are comparable with gods and can punch out youngish dragons, so it's hardly surprising that wizards break reality in half at that level (and that Fighters suck, because a fighter that can break reality in half isn't a fighter anymore, he's some sort of supernatural warrior straight out of DBZ or Hellsing or a Marvel comic). But at levels 1, 2, and even 3 and 4, a wizard is a skinny, fragile guy with an armful of books who is more than marginally useful for an hour or three each day, and keeps wanting the party to strike camp at noon so he can spend 8 hours sleeping and another hour doing his homework before getting back to the adventure. At these levels, I'll take Fighter-types anyday (and at higher levels Wizards get overcomplected and difficult to manage, though that's more of a personal thing).

toapat

2013-01-08, 11:33 PM

out of curiosity, what are these items that you are assuming people have at various levels? Or a link where you work it out.

I'm especially curious about the ~600k in stat boosting at level 10 that you mentioned some posts back. Because I am not so certain the game was built with THAT many stat boosters in mind.

Melee are assumed to have at level 20:
+6 Item to primary attribute, as well as one to a secondary attribute
+5 tomes to each.
+5 Mithral armor of Heavy Fortification (this is assumed to be available by lvl 10, note, this costs 102k out of your 49k)
at least 1 +10 Material Weapon. (there is no sane reason they cost 200k)
+5 Resistance Item. (bank broken)
Ring of Deflection (whatever maximum is)
Wings of Flying (Needed, not assumed)

comparitively, a Wizard needs:
+6 Int headband
+5 tome
150k (something like this, i forget the exact cost of each)

Juntao112

2013-01-08, 11:34 PM

Clearly you do not run particularly evil villains.

Now, of course, to an extent this depends upon the villain, the motivation, etc. But in general most of the "big bads" I roll up would kill a wizard's familiar not for any tactical advantage, but because they want to hurt the wizard, wound the wizard, not physically, but emotionally, and presumably, at least, the wizard treasures and values his familiar.

Lord Badguy is going to destroy the wizard's hometown, his parents, his friends, his siblings. Why wouldn't he also destroy the wizard's pet?

(If he succeeds on the attack roll/beats the familiar's saves/etc. No auto-kills, of course)

Evil Overlord's list

6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them.

Vorr

2013-01-08, 11:35 PM

Sure, he might kill the wizard's pet for giggles/out of spite if it's an easy target.

If he's in the middle of fighting for his life, though? Not gonna be a high priority.

Oh, I forget sometimes that my game still uses a lot of the hardcore 2e rules. Like the death of a familiar causes HP damage and permanent constitutions loss.

LordBlades

2013-01-08, 11:42 PM

For the first 5 or so levels, wizards and other Tier 1s don't have every single one of those tricks available to them. They're still strong, but they don't do everything all at once. So, in low-level games, other classes are still very relevant. It actually really bothers me just how much of the discussion around here revolves around what is possible at high levels, while ignoring the fact that a lot of campaigns still start at level 1.

Not sure how true that is tbh. Every time I see a thread (here or elsewhere) discussing the level people prefer to start at there seems to be more people that prefer to start at higher levels than those who prefer to start at level 1.

To the OP: as others have said, there's usually no mechanical reason to not play a wizard/cleric/other tier 1 class over anything else in the game, but there's plenty of non-mechanical ones. Maybe you don't find spellcasters fun, maybe your character concept doesn't mesh well with spellcasting or maybe you're aiming for a lower power level. All of those are perfectly valid reasons not to play a caster.

RFLS

2013-01-08, 11:56 PM

Oh, I forget sometimes that my game still uses a lot of the hardcore 2e rules. Like the death of a familiar causes HP damage and permanent constitutions loss.

Man, you're so cool. I wish my DM thought player death was a good thing in all circumstances.

Story

2013-01-08, 11:57 PM

So much this. While I don't entirely agree with the attitude that even the most amazing human potential falls within 6 levels of D&D, it's definitely true that the higher the level goes, the less reality the game contains. Epic characters are comparable with gods and can punch out youngish dragons, so it's hardly surprising that wizards break reality in half at that level (and that Fighters suck, because a fighter that can break reality in half isn't a fighter anymore, he's some sort of supernatural warrior straight out of DBZ or Hellsing or a Marvel comic). But at levels 1, 2, and even 3 and 4, a wizard is a skinny, fragile guy with an armful of books who is more than marginally useful for an hour or three each day, and keeps wanting the party to strike camp at noon so he can spend 8 hours sleeping and another hour doing his homework before getting back to the adventure. At these levels, I'll take Fighter-types anyday (and at higher levels Wizards get overcomplected and difficult to manage, though that's more of a personal thing).

As pointed out many times before, the Fighter is just as useless at level 1 due to lack of healing. At least the Wizard has out of combat utility as well. And gets back all his spell slots after just 9 hours (while the Fighter heals only 1-2 HP).

Answerer

2013-01-09, 12:02 AM

Oh, I forget sometimes that my game still uses a lot of the hardcore 2e rules. Like the death of a familiar causes HP damage and permanent constitutions loss.
...I'm honestly curious, do you see how this is completely disruptive to the concept of having a discussion? How on earth can we even converse with you when we don't know things like that?

Also, why does anyone in your campaign even have a Familiar? They're entirely optional, the bonuses they offer aren't that large, and apparently they're living time bombs. It strains credulity that anyone (PC or NPC) would bother with one.

toapat

2013-01-09, 12:03 AM

Mind if I sig this and call it "The Gentlemen's agreement"? :smallbiggrin:

Go ahead, i missed your post earlier, also, that is the name of Rule 1 after all

demigodus

2013-01-09, 12:11 AM

Melee are assumed to have at level 20:
+6 Item to primary attribute, as well as one to a secondary attribute
+5 tomes to each.
+5 Mithral armor of Heavy Fortification (this is assumed to be available by lvl 10, note, this costs 102k out of your 49k)
at least 1 +10 Material Weapon. (there is no sane reason they cost 200k)
+5 Resistance Item. (bank broken)
Ring of Deflection (whatever maximum is)
Wings of Flying (Needed, not assumed)

comparitively, a Wizard needs:
+6 Int headband
+5 tome
150k (something like this, i forget the exact cost of each)

I would argue that the +5 Tomes aren't really needed (and definitely not assumed by the designers).

That said, I agree that magic weapons are overpriced (I would argue that magic armor is as well...)

Oh, I forget sometimes that my game still uses a lot of the hardcore 2e rules. Like the death of a familiar causes HP damage and permanent constitutions loss.

Is there a point to having a familiar in your games? I remember our party wizard got one when we were playing 2e, but it was only useful for scouting, and limited utility at that. It straight up ran away whenever it vaguely looked like fighting might start. So it wasn't that our enemies choose not to attack it. Rather, they would have had to ditch the fight, and travel a few miles, hunting down a bird, to kill it.

I mean, even in regular 3.5 people seem to prefer to just remove the familiars. And there, it doesn't cause any significant damage to lose it.

toapat

2013-01-09, 12:16 AM

I would argue that the +5 Tomes aren't really needed (and definitely not assumed by the designers).

That said, I agree that magic weapons are overpriced (I would argue that magic armor is as well...)

Actually, i should have noted that they were under the needed, not assumed header, and in order to balance the classes out, they kinda are needed. People complain about DDO giving too much WBL, but honestly? i feel that it lets you get the required stuff without half the trouble. But god they need to make it less grindy

Really, the price of magical equipment overall is stupidly high in 3.5

navar100

2013-01-09, 12:24 AM

See, in the other recent thread in which Tiers were being discussed, when I mentioned that the Tier system was flawed because I noticed that low tier characters can be absurdly good at combat, but that doesn't earn their way out of T4 because "Does one thing well" can include combat as the one thing, I was assured that the Tier system wasn't a measure of overall power, but of the options available... that higher tier characters can deal with more situations effectively, even if they do more poorly in a single specific one. I accepted that I was apparently failing to grasp the spirit of the Tier system and didn't continue arguing my point.

It's posts like this that make me wonder if we're all interpreting the Tier system differently.

Because sure, okay, I can accept that Critfishing Fighter/Barbarian powerattack pouncing builds can only do damage, and so situations that don't require damage don't benefit from their presence, and thus are at a lower tier, but what I can't accept is the idea of this combat powerhouse being considered worthless or completely unable to contribute to a game such that you may as well not show up.

See, I could see the argument, "Why play anything else than Tier 1 because it has the most options and having more options is more fun", but the idea of "You will never contribute with low tier characters" is simply not borne out by D&D and when I point this out, people assure me that is NOT what the Tier system is meant to convey.

Personally, I have at times used my entire turn to Dimension Door the fighter adjacent to the next enemy so that he can get his full attack on that creature. Is that a move that is entirely my contribution, and the fighter deserves no credit, because he couldn't have gotten there alone? Or is it his contribution because I couldn't have done 100+ damage with a single level 4 spell otherwise? Or maybe it's both of our contribution and we're both necessary elements of a party?

You've hit upon what I've said many times of people using the Tier System incorrectly. There are four groups.

Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination! How dare players have such power! Gate exists! Natural Spell exists! Time Stop exists! Spellcasters always have every spell in any book every time all the time exactly when they need it. They always have the correct feats to make things even easier for themselves. Opponents always fail saving throws so that their spells always work. Ban! Ban! Ban!

Group 2: Playing Tier 4 or below means you are The Suck! You cannot do anything. Everyone else is better than you. You are a drain on resources. You're pathetic because you need equipment. You always fail your saving throws. You are not needed.

The OP is of this Group.

Group 3: Holy Be The Sacred Tier 3! It is the epitome elite of how you should play the game. Playing Tier 1 or 2 means you are a power-hungry munchkin "rollplayer". Playing Tier 4 or below means you are an incompetent boob who can't fight their way out of a paper bag. If you're not playing Tier 3 you are playing the game Wrong.

Group 4: See?! This is why 3E sucks! It is horribly broken. It is terrible. You should not play this game. Instead, do what I do and play (insert favorite game system). It is so superior in every way. I condescend those who still play this piece of garbage, but I can't help myself to hang around the 3E boards anyway just so I can bad-mouth it anytime a situation comes up to do so.

These four groups are using the Tier System as a value judgment when that is not what it is at all. They have their own particular preferences and use the Tier System as justification and validation that they are playing the game Correctly and those who do not play their way are Doing It Wrong. They knee-jerk react that a class needs to be "fixed" to fit in another Tier, the perfect Tier, while the Tier it's actually in sucks donkey.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 02:18 AM

6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them.

That list is good...if you want to run a Xanatos-style genre savvy villain.

But sometimes it's fun to just kick back and put your Skeletor on. Ham it up. Gloat, grandstand, monologue, kill minions in anger, laugh maniacally, make dire threats, have a nice lunch with your mortal enemy...

EVERYONE STAND ASIDE! I TAKE LARGE STEPS!

[MILES]
My bride...
My bride!
My bride!
I've come to claim my bride,
Come tenderly to crush her against my side.
Let haste be made!
I cannot be delayed:
There are lands to conquer, cities to loot and peoples to degrade.

[SOLDIERS]
Look at those arms!
Look at that chest!
Look at them!

[MILES]
Not to mention the rest.
Even I am impressed!
My bride!
My bride!
Come, bring to me my bride.
My lust for her no longer can be denied.
Convey the news!
I have no time to lose:
There are towns to plunder, temples to burn and women to abuse.

[SOLDIERS]
Look at that foot!
Look at that heel!
Mark the magnificent muscles of steel!

[MILES]
I am my ideal!
I, Miles Gloriosus,
I, slaughterer of thousands,
I, oppressor of the meek,
Subduer of the weak,
Degrader of the Greek,
Destroyer of the Turk,
Must hurry back to work.

[MILES & ROMANS:]
I/he, Miles Gloriosus,

[SOLDIERS]
A man among men!

[MILES & ROMANS:]
I/he, paragon of virtue,

[SOLDIERS]
With sword and with pen!

[MILES]
I, in war the most admired,
In wit the most inspired,
In love the most desired,
In dress the best displayed--
I am a parade!

[SOLDIERS]
Look at those eyes, cunning and keen,
Look at the size of those thighs, like a mighty machine!

[PSEUDOLUS]
Those are the mightiest thighs that I ever have theen!
I mean...

[MILES]
My bride!
My bride!
Inform my lucky bride:
The fabled arms of
Miles are open wide.
Make haste!
Make haste!
I have no time to waste:
There are shrines
I should be sacking,
Ribs I should be cracking,
Eyes to gouge and booty to divide.
Bring me my bride!

As pointed out many times before, the Fighter is just as useless at level 1 due to lack of healing. At least the Wizard has out of combat utility as well. And gets back all his spell slots after just 9 hours (while the Fighter heals only 1-2 HP).

The fighter isn't "useless" at level 1. In point of fact at level 1 the Fighter is arguably the unchallenged master of out-and-out combat, especially if tackling level-appropriate characters, such as pesky 1st-level wizards.

He is not varied, but he's not "useless." The wizard has out-of-combat utility and some point damage, but he still relies on the fighter for defense against the goblins and kobolds, the cleric for healing, and the rogue for picking locks and dealing with traps.

At level 1, things function as they should, with each class depending on each other class to fill in their gaps.

Even a CW Samurai is good at level 1.

Curmudgeon

2013-01-09, 02:25 AM

+5 Mithral armor of Heavy Fortification (this is assumed to be available by lvl 10, note, this costs 102k out of your 49k)
You're packaging that inefficiently.

+5 armor enhancement: 25,000 gp
Gemstone of Heavy Fortification (Draconomicon, page 83): 35,000 gp
(if you need it): NPC caster service of Limited Wish: 2,410 gp
That's either 60,000 gp or 62,410 gp total. (You didn't specify which grade of armor, so I can't figure the mithral construction cost.)

Raven777

2013-01-09, 02:25 AM

I'm going to guess that this whole deal of a thread is why 3.5 EC6 is so popular and why Pathfinder Society caps at level 12, right?

Norin

2013-01-09, 02:47 AM

A wizard might have Knock already prepared, or have a scroll, or teleport to the other side of the door, or summon a dextrous minion to unlock it, shrink himself or turn himself to gas and slip through a hole, let his familiar slip through and unlock it from the other side, turn the lock into a cute rabbit, or simply blow it all up. He has many more options than any lower-tier class even when it comes to solving a problem that appears tailor-made for another character class (the rogue - who can only hope that his Open Lock skill is high enough, or UMD one of the wizard's tools if he has the cash to spare).

This sums up what i mean in my first post really.

I think this thread is spiraling past the event horizon of non-constructiveness. There might be no going back.

That was not my intention with the thread. Ooops. I kind of saw it comming though.

Yeah it's pretty much turning out like the other 7 threads/day about Wizards and Tiers.

Yeah, see above. We should turn it into a "How to play/make a char that does not rely on spells and still shine brightly in your game on a party of 3 tier 1 chars and yourself!" thread! :smallbiggrin:

I'm going to guess that this whole deal of a thread is why 3.5 EC6 is so popular and why Pathfinder Society caps at level 12, right?

I say, it's quite tempting to try a E6 or PF campaign really. Seems to be a cool challenge.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-09, 02:48 AM

The fighter isn't "useless" at level 1. In point of fact at level 1 the Fighter is arguably the unchallenged master of out-and-out combat, especially if tackling level-appropriate characters, such as pesky 1st-level wizards.

Abrupt Jaunt and his friends Charm Person, Daze, Grease, Color Spray, and Sleep would like words with you.

willpell

2013-01-09, 02:52 AM

It seems to me as though the tiers alone don't signify much, but that a tier crossed with an optimization level is a quadratic measure of how heavy things get in the game. Low-op low-tier: Everyone sucks. High-op low-tier: Ultimate Borkenage. Medium-op medium-tier, or high of one and low of the other: Probably a reasonably functional game. The problem is that optimization level is harder to measure than just saying "Class X is Tier Z", and so a lot of people just bust out a tier and call it a day.

Mind if I sig this and call it "The Gentlemen's agreement"? :smallbiggrin:

I also like this, and think it deserves a thread to discuss some of its particulars in greater detail.

Gemstone of Heavy Fortification (Draconomicon, page 83): 35,000 gp

Doesn't the text explicitly say that the Gemstone of Fortification has to be embedded in a creature's hide to function, and rule out the possibility of humanoids doing so?

TuggyNE

2013-01-09, 02:53 AM

Yeah, see above. We should turn it into a "How to play/make a char that does not rely on spells and still shine brightly in your game on a party of 3 tier 1 chars and yourself!" thread! :smallbiggrin:

That would probably have most of the same problems in the discussion, unfortunately. (Most of the time, the answer is to use differing levels of optimization, probably backed up by a solid gentleman's agreement.)

Edit:
I also like this, and think it deserves a thread to discuss some of its particulars in greater detail.

Agreed.

tyckspoon

2013-01-09, 03:28 AM

Doesn't the text explicitly say that the Gemstone of Fortification has to be embedded in a creature's hide to function, and rule out the possibility of humanoids doing so?

Nah; it says if you don't have dragon-type scales then you need magical aid to implant it, and suggests Limited Wish as a means of doing so. Still dramatically cheaper than Heavy Fort armor.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-09, 04:06 AM

I don't nerf wizards. I just don't baby them like a lot of games do. And they don't get singled out or anything. It's kinda common for characters in my games to say fall into acid lakes in the Abyss filled with acidborn fiendish sharks with fiendish grafts that shoot disintegration blasts.

If things like that happen I expect that:
- characters will be paranoid and game will be boring (sit down in secure location, divine until you know everything you can divine, then proceed carefully learning everything you couldn't divine).
- characters don't care, rush into danger and die a lot. Game will become tiring (because I'll need to create a few character per gaming session).

So I guess I wouldn't play with you for long. How do your players handle the situation?

Oh, I forget sometimes that my game still uses a lot of the hardcore 2e rules. Like the death of a familiar causes HP damage and permanent constitutions loss.

Does anyone in you campaign have a familiar :smalleek:

Aasimar

2013-01-09, 04:18 AM

SiuiS

2013-01-09, 04:34 AM

Most if not all classes are redundant, right? What class can you not say "[Insert tier 1 caster class] does that better!!!"?

role playing isn't about Winning. It's about fun. "Why don't you always succeed all the time ever" is the same question as "why don't you just RP yourself, remove the other players and DM and just narrate how awesome you are in a quiet room".

Which is fun sometimes, but after a while my throat gets itchy and I can never remember the really cool parts to tell other people later.

Killer Angel

2013-01-09, 04:45 AM

After taking up D&D 3.5 again after a few years break and checking out what's what in the optimizing\builds game nowdays it seems to me that the be-all-end all for any char idea or concept is:

"Wizard does that better"
"Why not just go [Tier 1 caster] instead and do all that with less hassle?"

Because there are lot of players that like to play someting different? :smallconfused:

The fighter isn't "useless" at level 1. In point of fact at level 1 the Fighter is arguably the unchallenged master of out-and-out combat, especially if tackling level-appropriate characters, such as pesky 1st-level wizards.

He is not varied, but he's not "useless." The wizard has out-of-combat utility and some point damage, but he still relies on the fighter for defense against the goblins and kobolds, the cleric for healing, and the rogue for picking locks and dealing with traps.

The fighter isn't useless, but you're assuming too much.
Also the 1st lev. fighter heavily rely on cleric for healing: one hit, and he's dangerously near to death, and the wizard doesn't deliver "some point of damage"... a color spray casted by a 1st lev. wizard against CR 1 (or 1/2) opponents, is pretty much a win button.

(edit: of course, they could roll a 15 on the save, but that same roll could be a to hit against the fighter, putting it in the negatives)

TuggyNE

2013-01-09, 04:55 AM

Does anyone in you campaign have a familiar :smalleek:

Of course. It's required, because how else would the DM have any fun? :smallwink:

Norin

2013-01-09, 05:04 AM

You're working on the premise that

a) Everyone is able or willing to optimize the tier 1 classes to that level.
b) Everyone is a gamer looking to 'win' and not a storyteller-type, looking to tell a cooperative story.

This is a "worst case scenario" yeah. Of course ive played with groups that just make a char with race/class that fits his concept with no regard at all to how powerful or how much "win" said char is.

It's a thread to provoke discussion about the topic. It's not about how me and my group(s) play really. :)

A) You really do not need to optimize your tier 1 char alot to be able to handle most situations and make the rest of the party more or less redundant.

B) You are correct. Also, see my little text above.

role playing isn't about Winning. It's about fun. "Why don't you always succeed all the time ever" is the same question as "why don't you just RP yourself, remove the other players and DM and just narrate how awesome you are in a quiet room".

Which is fun sometimes, but after a while my throat gets itchy and I can never remember the really cool parts to tell other people later.

Yeah, i agree. I want games to be more about storytelling and colorful characters, and less about winning. For the sake of argument this thread is as noted above about the "worst case scenario" where i or the other player(s) want to "win" and makes the rest of the group redundant and more or less end up being spectators.

Because there are lot of players that like to play someting different? :smallconfused:

I do too. Nowdays i play in a group made of 3 tier 1 chars, a warblade and me as a Beguiler.

We have alot of fun and it works quite well imo. We are trying not to step on eachothers toes all the time, and let eachother have our respective shine time.

willpell

2013-01-09, 05:08 AM

role playing isn't about Winning. It's about fun. "Why don't you always succeed all the time ever" is the same question as "why don't you just RP yourself, remove the other players and DM and just narrate how awesome you are in a quiet room".

Which is fun sometimes, but after a while my throat gets itchy and I can never remember the really cool parts to tell other people later.

In other words. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0042.html)

Does anyone in you campaign have a familiar :smalleek:

I for one think that sounds like a very nicely drama-inducing rule, as long as the DM is trustworthy. The permanent CON loss would be a game-mechanical representation of the idea that you've lost your closest companion and now have a hole in your soul (almost literally, rather than just poetically, given how the Incarnum rules and the Undead/Construct/Living Construct types associate your soul, or at least life energy which is more or less the same thing, with your CON mod).

You might do this for the same reason you might build a character with a low Constitution and a small HD (such as the Drow Psion in my game - we joke that she loses a fight against a Dire Stiff Breeze). If you think the DM is out to kill you, whether maliciously or just through "let the dice fall where they may" in a world of overwhelming peril where weaklings are expected to cower behind heroes (and hope the heroes aren't targeted with AoO damage), then yes this is not the character you want to play. But if you want to, oh I don't know, PLAY A CHARACTER, then the challenge of being sickly and frail and having to take even mild dangers seriously is at least as valid as, say, the challenge of having no Wisdom, no Charisma, no social or professional skills, and only being able to function in society by killing dangerous monsters and taking their stuff.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-09, 07:49 AM

If you think the DM is out to kill you (...) maliciously (...) in a world of overwhelming peril where weaklings are expected to cower behind heroes (and hope the heroes aren't targeted with AoO damage), then yes this is not the character you want to play.

Well Vorr made an impression of being just that kind of DM.

But if you want to, oh I don't know, PLAY A CHARACTER, then the challenge of being sickly and frail and having to take even mild dangers seriously is at least as valid as, say, the challenge of having no Wisdom, no Charisma, no social or professional skills, and only being able to function in society by killing dangerous monsters and taking their stuff.

But it doesn't make sense. It's a stupid idea from character point of view (creating possibility of big loss for a small benefit). Wizards are intelligent (otherwise we call them commoners). Sure this could be a mistake but an adventurer that makes that kind of mistakes will have a short and painful career (so you will not role play the character long) .

Kazyan

2013-01-09, 08:03 AM

JaronK

2013-01-09, 08:12 AM

Guys, suboptimal Wizards don't exist in any campaigns,

Nobody's saying that, just that Wizards can always be strong if they want to be.

making their weaknesses relevant is bad DMing,

Making weaknesses relevant is good DMing. But having the entire world shift to counter them is entirely different. Randomly having their spellbooks disappear even though a an enemy capable of doing that would be far more then strong enough to wipe out the entire party, or having logic defying massive antimagic fields pop up everywhere, or having enemies pointlessly waste attacks trying to hit a familiar instead of actually defeat you... that's bad DMing.

Good DMing would be letting the party fight significantly more powerful enemies or smarter enemies. Instead of heavy handed stupid approaches like the above, you can do things like have a Red Dragon using a Hat of Disguise or Ring of Chameleon Power to appear as a White Dragon whenever he's seen outdoors, thus tricking the Wizard into preparing the wrong spells to attack him. That actually makes sense... they're weak to cold and immune to fire, so it's a smart move for a Red Dragon to pretend to be weak to fire and immune to cold.

banning them is bad,

I'm personally fine with banning them where they're inappropriate. I sometimes ban every class other than commoners for certain sorts of games. For others, I allow Tier 3 and 4 gestalt only. For others, play as anything as long as it fits a specific theme. It all depends on the campaign I want to run.

and not having the right spell or enemies making their saving throw is a setting plot hole.

Hardly. But it's pretty darn easy to have spells that don't allow saving throws, or having saving throws that most monsters won't beat 95% of the time, or have general use spells that work on almost anyone so the chances of not having a useful spell are extremely low.

JaronK

Togo

2013-01-09, 09:00 AM

Guys, suboptimal Wizards don't exist in any campaigns, making their weaknesses relevant is bad DMing, banning them is bad, and not having the right spell or enemies making their saving throw is a setting plot hole.

I find that not allowing unlimited time, and not giving out huge amounts of warning ahead of time of what is coming up, solves much of the problem in practice.

LordBlades

2013-01-09, 09:20 AM

I find that not allowing unlimited time, and not giving out huge amounts of warning ahead of time of what is coming up, solves much of the problem in practice.

Not giving enough time can be a factor (until fast time demiplanes anyway) but not giving warning to a wizard that wants to be forewarned requires abilities not all enemies would have.

Togo

2013-01-09, 09:52 AM

Not giving enough time can be a factor (until fast time demiplanes anyway) but not giving warning to a wizard that wants to be forewarned requires abilities not all enemies would have.

Only if you don't control time and rest. Unless you allow really vaguely worded divinations to fix or place limits on future events, a capability that is nowhere in the spell description, the wizard finds it hard predict anything other than what's going to happen to him, or to something that's important to him.

You can get forwarning of challenges once events are set in motion and you have some kind of context to set your divinations on, but if you don't get a chance to rest and change spells before that challenge appears, it's not particularly game-breaking.

Vorr

2013-01-09, 10:02 AM

If things like that happen I expect that:
- characters will be paranoid and game will be boring (sit down in secure location, divine until you know everything you can divine, then proceed carefully learning everything you couldn't divine).
- characters don't care, rush into danger and die a lot. Game will become tiring (because I'll need to create a few character per gaming session).

So I guess I wouldn't play with you for long. How do your players handle the situation?

It's midway between the two. The players are not so much paranoid as they are careful.

It's just a very different style then the 'normal generic game' that I'm sure most of you are used to. A very extreme style. The 'default' game has that 'wink and nod' that the characters won't die or even get slightly harmed or impaired. The idea in the normal game is to make the challenge more about the rules, and far less about the story. And above all the game must be fair and balanced.

Does anyone in you campaign have a familiar :smalleek:

Of course. They give lots of useful abilities. You will notice the huge gap between my type of gamer and the rest. The other gamers think it's crazy to have a 'time bomb' familiar and risk damage and death of a character. My players think it's fun.

Well Vorr made an impression of being just that kind of DM.

No I didn't. Everyone just assumes that if your not a weak ''let the players walk all over you DM'' that your game is some type of adversarial ''kill the characters'' romp.

Making weaknesses relevant is good DMing. But having the entire world shift to counter them is entirely different. Randomly having their spellbooks disappear even though a an enemy capable of doing that would be far more then strong enough to wipe out the entire party, or having logic defying massive antimagic fields pop up everywhere, or having enemies pointlessly waste attacks trying to hit a familiar instead of actually defeat you... that's bad DMing.

It's just different styles. So the bad guy can use an illusion, but can't say sink the groups boat and make them walk through the swamp? The bad guys can't kill or steal the groups horses to slow down their movement?

Targeting the weakest links is good stagey. You have ten kobold sorcerers each with a wand of magic missiles (5 charges). They could fire at the tank who can more then take the damage or the wizard who is immune to the spell effect.....or fire off a couple shots and kill the riding dog, two horses, wolf and owl with the group. It's after all pointless for a minion to waste an attack vs a powerful character: "Oh it did not get a 20 so it missed again''.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 10:24 AM

Abrupt Jaunt and his friends Charm Person, Daze, Grease, Color Spray, and Sleep would like words with you.

At 1st level the save DCs are low enough that the fighter has a decent chance of making them on pure chance alone; the effects don't last very long; charm person specifically states that the charmed person retains his own will and must be convinced to do things. Further, even Helpful characters can still hate your guts, and charm person only puts you in "friendly" territory.

In the middle of a battle with goblins on all sides, the goblin wizard casting charm person on the fighter can expect the fighter to try and subdue him and the other goblins rather than kill them, but he'd have to be a heck of a diplomancer to convince the fighter to actually switch sides, turn on his allies, or even just stop fighting.

Also the 1st lev. fighter heavily rely on cleric for healing: one hit, and he's dangerously near to death, and the wizard doesn't deliver "some point of damage"... a color spray casted by a 1st lev. wizard against CR 1 (or 1/2) opponents, is pretty much a win button.

But even a specialized illusionist could only gets 4 color sprays per day at level 1, and that's assuming that they rolled an 18 and then are an LA +0 race with a +2 racial bonus to INT. And that's assuming that all four 1st-level spell slots are consumed.

Actually, now that I think about it, there is a way to get 5/day, isn't there?

In any event, he's going to run out of those real fast if they're his go-to, meaning that the wizard will instead be holding onto those for when the party needs them and instead using his crossbow and his cantrips the majority of the time and will not, in fact, generally be casting his precious 1st-level spells. He'll instead be relying on the fighter for defense, the rogue for dungeon utility, and the cleric for healing and buffs, just as the fighter will be relying on the wizard for artillery, the rogue for point damage and flanks, and the cleric for healing and buffs; and so on.

Again, as it should be.

willpell

2013-01-09, 10:34 AM

But it doesn't make sense. It's a stupid idea from character point of view (creating possibility of big loss for a small benefit).

You could say the same about romantic love. And certainly there are people who, knowing the possibility of a broken heart, choose never to love anything in the first place; if they're comfortable with that trade-off, that's their business. Likewise, some wizards choose never to have a familiar, never to gain the benefits (most of which are not game-mechanical), and thus never to face the risk of loss. That's up to them, but a True Roleplayer type is a lot more willing to consider deliberately gimping his character's mechanical effectiveness simply to generate the potential for drama and heighten the experience of living through that character's story, complete with occasional poignance and tragedy.

Sure this could be a mistake but an adventurer that makes that kind of mistakes will have a short and painful career (so you will not role play the character long) .

That's entirely up to the DM. Not every monster is going to execute a defeated foe; gloating at their misery and leaving them to suffer is very in-character for a blackguard or the like, and a dragon might happily accept offers of being a slave or cultist or something instead of just eating their would-be victim. There are plenty of ways a weak adventurer can avoid dying and continue their career; it might involve "suboptimal" actions such as running away or letting the enemies defeat you, but if you're more into the roleplay this isn't the end of the world, as long as your story stays interesting and you're enjoying seeing what happens.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 10:41 AM

At 1st level the save DCs are low enough that the fighter has a good chance of making them; the effects don't last very long; charm person specifically states that the charmed person retains his own will and must be convinced to do things. Further, even Helpful characters can still hate your guts, and charm person only puts you in "friendly" territory.I'd like to see the 1st level Fighter that has a "good chance of making" a DC 15 Will save; I'm wondering about how you and I may differ in our definitions of "good chance." To me, it means "greater than 50%" at a bare minimum.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-09, 11:02 AM

At 1st level the save DCs are low enough that the fighter has a decent chance of making them on pure chance alone; the effects don't last very long; charm person specifically states that the charmed person retains his own will and must be convinced to do things. Further, even Helpful characters can still hate your guts, and charm person only puts you in "friendly" territory.

In the middle of a battle with goblins on all sides, the goblin wizard casting charm person on the fighter can expect the fighter to try and subdue him and the other goblins rather than kill them, but he'd have to be a heck of a diplomancer to convince the fighter to actually switch sides, turn on his allies, or even just stop fighting.

No. This really could not be more wrong with regard to this subject.

Let's break it down:

DCs: 11 + Intelligence modifier (this is a Wizard, so the minimum is +3, it's more likely to be +4, and if you Gray Elf it then you have a +5) = 15 likely, 16 possible, which is already much, much worse for the Fighter than 'can make it on chance alone', especially since it's unlikely that our intrepid sword-swinger even has a +1 on his Will save (and is likely that he ONLY has a +1 or +2 on Reflex - not that Grease gives a damn if you make your save or not). If your character is enchantment or illusion-focused (maybe you're going Shadowcraft Mage, maybe you're taking the Shadow Weave Magic feat line, maybe it's just in your concept) then Spell Focus bumps that by another 1. Shadow Weave Magic increases the DC by another 1 for characters with that sort of focus; Extend Spell can make that Daze last two rounds (and is a feat I see on a lot of low-level mages just to get it out of the way).

So you're seeing a DC 16 just with Spell Focus, 17 if you've got a Shadow Weave Mage on your hands, and a max 1st level spell DC of 19 for one school (probably Illusion) if the best options are taken, 18 for the Enchantments. That's not "a good chance". That's a death sentence, and that's also ignoring the fact that Grease simply states "No, you're out of the fight," to our intrepid first-level fighter.

As far as Charm Person goes, I'll point you to the spell description:

Charm Person
Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

So no, if this goes off properly the fight is over - and over before it began if it's the Wizard's first action upon seeing the Fighter. Or would you beat down a trusted friend and ally with highly painful but technically non-lethal violence?

LordBlades

2013-01-09, 11:05 AM

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 11:15 AM

I'd like to see the 1st level Fighter that has a "good chance of making" a DC 15 Will save; I'm wondering about how you and I may differ in our definitions of "good chance." To me, it means "greater than 50%" at a bare minimum.

Well, first off, let's step back for a moment, and remember that D&D is balanced around the idea that every elite character has the following ability score base: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

Remembering this, a primary caster will have a 15 in their casting stat, and maybe Spell Focus for whatever spell we're talking about, so in fact a 1st-level spell is probably only DC 14, not 15 (10 + spell level (1) + Spell Focus (1) + Casting stat (2)). For the sake of argument we'll assume that this caster is not a member of a race that grants a bonus to its casting stat.

The classic sword & board fighter needs Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14. Of the mental stats, Wisdom is the most important, so let's put his 12 here: +1 bonus to Will saves. For the sake of argument we'll assume the fighter doesn't have Iron Will and isn't a member of a race with a bonus to Wisdom or will saves, so, that's just a +1. The fighter makes his save on a roll of 13 or better, then: a 40% chance. Given that this is the land of High Adventure!, I'd call a 40% chance decent, or decent enough, at least.

Now I'm certain that you could, for example, say that the wizard is in a race with a bonus to casting stat, giving our example wizard a 17 instead of a 15. So the DC becomes 15. But if you do that, I'll say that the fighter is a dwarf: +2 to saves VS spells. The fighter now has a 45% chance of making a save, even better. Had he been a dwarf in the first place, in fact, he would have had a 50% chance. Boost the casting stat again to 19 (save DC is now 16) through some cheese (is there an LA +0 race with a +4 bonus to a mental stat?), and I'll have the dwarf get Iron Will for a further +2 (now has a total of +5 against spells): we're back to that 45% chance again.

Is it optimal? No, not really, but then again how did you find an LA +0 race with a +4 racial bonus to a casting stat? You've got to be sacrificing something as well.

Point is, at 1st level, there's actually a fairly even trade-off of competing bonuses.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 11:19 AM

Or would you beat down a trusted friend and ally with highly painful but technically non-lethal violence?

I would totally beat down a trusted friend and ally with highly painful but technically non-lethal violence if said trusted friend and ally is taking actions to harm my other trusted friends and allies (i.e., the fighter's party, which, what, did the wizard just forget they exist? Or does he think the battle is over just because he charmed the fighter?)

Once again, we see that at 1st level the fighter is relying on other classes to cover his weak spots, just as he is covering the weak spots of other classes. What's the wizard who's prepared all these charms going to do when he encounters a skeleton, or 1d4+1 kobolds?

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-09, 11:21 AM

What's the party wizard who's prepared all these charms going to do when he encounters a skeleton, or 1d4+1 kobolds?

He's going to have only one charm prepared and be packing grease, color spray, and sleep for his other options. Grease locks the skeleton down, at which point even the wizard can finish it, and it's also great for kobolds - as are the other two.

Wizards, even at first level, do not need their 'weaknesses' covered. They have them covered all by themselves.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 11:30 AM

He's going to have only one charm prepared and be packing grease, color spray, and sleep for his other options. Grease locks the skeleton down, at which point even the wizard can finish it, and it's also great for kobolds - as are the other two.

Wizards, even at first level, do not need their 'weaknesses' covered. They have them covered all by themselves.

In any one given encounter, but each time he casts a spell that's a spell he can't use for the next encounter.

According to the DMG a 1st-level wizard should be able to face four CR 1/4 encounters by himself before needing to stop and rest, as the fifth CR 1/4 encounter will probably kill him.

So the wizard faces, in this order, a kobold zombie in one room, two rats in a second room, three bats in a third room, and finally, the dungeon boss, a kobold in the forth room. Also, secretly there's a fifth room that contains a dreaded Cat beyond the kobold. But this is optional.

He can't rest between encounters, because according to the DMG he shouldn't need to. Now, do you really think that the 1st-level wizard is going to be able to do this by himself?

Compare/contrast: do you think a fighter could?

Deadline

2013-01-09, 11:30 AM

Best way to play a wizard in a wizard-hating DMs campaigns? Be a GOD wizard without a familiar, and take a small animal pet into every combat with you.

The enemies waste actions murdering Mr. Fuzzles, and when the DM takes out his wizard hate on you, the whole party suffers reaps the RP rewards! Fun for everyone!

toapat

2013-01-09, 11:32 AM

You're packaging that inefficiently.

not everyone has access to dragonomicon, also the DM has arbitrary right to have the Gemstone become embedded through your character's sternum, piercing their heart or lungs.

either way, that in total will cost slighly more then the 66kgp a player is assumed to have at level 10, even if you failed to calculate 13*70 to properly add up to 910gp for the casting of lesser wish.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 11:33 AM

The enemies waste actions murdering Mr. Fuzzles, and when the DM takes out his wizard hate on you, the whole party suffers reaps the RP rewards! Fun for everyone!

If I as a DM hated wizards, I wouldn't waste my time with that. I'd make my BBEG a wizard with an identical character sheet to the party wizard, except he's one level above him. Always.

toapat

2013-01-09, 11:34 AM

If I as a DM hated wizards, I wouldn't waste my time with that. I'd make my BBEG a wizard with an identical character sheet to the party wizard, except he's one level above him. Always.

with Gestalt levels in something that gets earthglide and gets rid of the need to breathe

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 11:35 AM

with Gestalt levels in something that gets earthglide and gets rid of the need to breathe

Why bother? My BBEG is by definition better than the party wizard already. There's no need to rub it in. Deliciously, the mere fact that there is no need to rub it in, is in fact rubbing it in.

But, for the record, I don't hate wizards, and would never actually do this.

toapat

2013-01-09, 11:40 AM

Why bother? My BBEG is by definition better than the party wizard already. There's no need to rub it in. Deliciously, the mere fact that there is no need to rub it in, is in fact rubbing it in.

But, for the record, I don't hate wizards, and would never actually do this.

You are relying on the initiative rolls to win that, Earthglide causes some problems if you cant find a way to get channel spell, but Line of Effect being completely ruined is always useful

Story

2013-01-09, 11:40 AM

Well, first off, let's step back for a moment, and remember that D&D is balanced around the idea that every elite character has the following ability score base: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

Those stats are for NPCs. 25 point buy is the minimum recommended for PCs.

In any event, he's going to run out of those real fast if they're his go-to, meaning that the wizard will instead be holding onto those for when the party needs them and instead using his crossbow and his cantrips the majority of the time and will not, in fact, generally be casting his precious 1st-level spells. He'll instead be relying on the fighter for defense, the rogue for dungeon utility, and the cleric for healing and buffs, just as the fighter will be relying on the wizard for artillery, the rogue for point damage and flanks, and the cleric for healing and buffs; and so on.

The Fighter is useless without a Tier 1 friend to keep him alive, while the Wizard at least has a chance. The big question of course is why you don't just have 2 Clerics on the team. It's like saying a Commoner is really good since you can have a team of spellcasters to constantly buff and heal you.

Killer Angel

2013-01-09, 11:41 AM

thethird

2013-01-09, 11:44 AM

Actually, now that I think about it, there is a way to get 5/day, isn't there?

Focused specialist?

Well, first off, let's step back for a moment, and remember that D&D is balanced around the idea that every elite character has the following ability score base: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

Could you quote the source of that? I might help to get some insight on the design process of the game.

I would totally beat down a trusted friend and ally with highly painful but technically non-lethal violence if said trusted friend and ally is taking actions to harm my other trusted friends and allies (i.e., the fighter's party, which, what, did the wizard just forget they exist? Or does he think the battle is over just because he charmed the fighter?)

Assuming that the wizard takes its turn for charming you, it will be a round before the wizard has a chance to act again, so by your logic, I hope that your trusted friends and allies (read the fighter party) seeing you charmed don't attack your trusted friend and ally (read the wizard).

So no, by your logic, the battle might not be "over" but you just turned sides.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 11:47 AM

Those stats are for NPCs. 25 point buy is the minimum recommended for PCs.

Actually what's recommended - by the PHB, anyway - is rolling 4d6 and discounting the lowest die. For any one given roll, the average result of this is 11.5 Over six rolls, this is most likely to produce, on average...15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

Ta-da! Someone has done the math for me to prove this (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html)

Both point buy and the default array itself are in fact alternates to the 4d6 drop 1 six times standard; those other two are optional variants.

However, since 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 are the statistically most likely results of 4d6 drop 1 six times, the game is built around them, since it makes more sense to do that then follow the 4d6 drop 1 six times for every NPC that WotC created.

Could you quote the source of that? I might help to get some insight on the design process of the game.

You don't have to look any further than the Monster Manual, wherein all the "elite" monsters (Troll Hunter, etc) are built using that. In the Player's Handbook, the sample of ability score generation, which involves a player rolling up an elf wizard (Mialee), generates 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. In the DMG itself, when suggesting the Elite Array, the DMG points out that it was the method used to generate the sample NPCs in the DMG.

Again, the average result of 4d6 drop 1 six times, is the Elite Array, so I don't see how D&D could have been balanced around anything other than the assumption that both the players and the monsters and NPCs were using it.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 11:49 AM

Well, first off, let's step back for a moment, and remember that D&D is balanced around the idea that every elite character has the following ability score base: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

Remembering this, a primary caster will have a 15 in their casting stat, and maybe Spell Focus for whatever spell we're talking about, so in fact a 1st-level spell is probably only DC 14, not 15 (10 + spell level (1) + Spell Focus (1) + Casting stat (2)). For the sake of argument we'll assume that this caster is not a member of a race that grants a bonus to its casting stat.

The classic sword & board fighter needs Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14. Of the mental stats, Wisdom is the most important, so let's put his 12 here: +1 bonus to Will saves. For the sake of argument we'll assume the fighter doesn't have Iron Will and isn't a member of a race with a bonus to Wisdom or will saves, so, that's just a +1. The fighter makes his save on a roll of 13 or better, then: a 40% chance. Given that this is the land of High Adventure!, I'd call a 40% chance decent, or decent enough, at least.

Now I'm certain that you could, for example, say that the wizard is in a race with a bonus to casting stat, giving our example wizard a 17 instead of a 15. So the DC becomes 15. But if you do that, I'll say that the fighter is a dwarf: +2 to saves VS spells. The fighter now has a 45% chance of making a save, even better. Had he been a dwarf in the first place, in fact, he would have had a 50% chance. Boost the casting stat again to 19 (save DC is now 16) through some cheese (is there an LA +0 race with a +4 bonus to a mental stat?), and I'll have the dwarf get Iron Will for a further +2 (now has a total of +5 against spells): we're back to that 45% chance again.

Is it optimal? No, not really, but then again how did you find an LA +0 race with a +4 racial bonus to a casting stat? You've got to be sacrificing something as well.

Point is, at 1st level, there's actually a fairly even trade-off of competing bonuses.
It's theoretically "balanced" around a 25 point buy*. Rock Gnome: STR 6 DEX 11 CON 16 (from the Racial bonus) INT 18 WIS 8 CHA 8 = 25 points. Focused Specialist Illusionist, with Enchantment, Evocation, and Necromancy barred, and the Immediate Magic ACF for "Brief Figment," (which is generally less useful than Abrupt Jaunt) and the Feat Spell Focus: Illusion. Give me 28 PB, and the DEX moves up to 14; give me 32 PB, and the WIS improves to 12. Note that the DC is 16 now, where I'd only asked for a (non-sarcastic, but thanks LordBlades :smallsmile:) example of a viable 1st level Fighter who could expect to make a DC 15 Will save more than 50% of the time. If you find that 40% of the time is "most" of the time, as your example would indicate is your belief, then good luck and good gaming.

*The array you cite is an example of 25 points, not necessarily one most Playgrounders would take on that PB, either. For that matter, most Playgrounders will tell you they prefer a higher PB (32 is popular) for something closer to 'balance.'

Killer Angel

2013-01-09, 11:51 AM

I would totally beat down a trusted friend and ally with highly painful but technically non-lethal violence if said trusted friend and ally is taking actions to harm my other trusted friends and allies (i.e., the fighter's party, which, what, did the wizard just forget they exist? Or does he think the battle is over just because he charmed the fighter?)

It works this way: the PC wiz. casts charm on NPC fighter n.1; NPC fighter n.2 tries to attack PC wizard; NPC fighter n. 1 "totally beat down a trusted friend and ally (NPC 2) with highly painful but technically non-lethal violence".

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 11:57 AM

It works this way: the PC wiz. casts charm on NPC fighter n.1; NPC fighter n.2 tries to attack PC wizard; NPC fighter n. 1 "totally beat down a trusted friend and ally (NPC 2) with highly painful but technically non-lethal violence".

Why is NPC fighter no. 2 even existant? Shouldn't it be "NPC wizard hits PC wizard with magic missile, likely killing him," or "NPC rogue shoots PC wizard with shortbow, likely killing him," or some such?

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-09, 12:00 PM

In any one given encounter, but each time he casts a spell that's a spell he can't use for the next encounter.

According to the DMG a 1st-level wizard should be able to face four CR 1/4 encounters by himself before needing to stop and rest, as the fifth CR 1/4 encounter will probably kill him.

So the wizard faces, in this order, a kobold zombie in one room, two rats in a second room, three bats in a third room, and finally, the dungeon boss, a kobold in the forth room. Also, secretly there's a fifth room that contains a dreaded Cat beyond the kobold. But this is optional.

He can't rest between encounters, because according to the DMG he shouldn't need to. Now, do you really think that the 1st-level wizard is going to be able to do this by himself?

Compare/contrast: do you think a fighter could?

So he casts Grease and shoots the zombie to death with his crossbow, takes out the second room with Color Spray, blasts the third one with Sleep, Charms the kobold and then Abrupt Jaunts away while his trusted kobold ally does battle with the dreaded Cat.

Meanwhile, the fighter one-shots the zombie in the first room (I'll assume he makes the easy attack roll). If he has Cleave then he can one-shot the rats encounter; if he doesn't he's taking damage. He takes MORE damage from the bats in the third room, and if they're swinging for 1d4 the way the rats are then those are 5 hit points he can ill-afford to lose (2.5 if he has Cleave to cut through two of the bats in one hit).

So Cleave!Fighter is down 2.5 HP when he faces the kobold and probably does okay, assuming a flat field and the fighter winning initiative. Non-Cleave! Fighter is down 7.5 HP when the kobold becomes a thing, which means he needs to win initiative or face down a very serious chance of death.

Thankfully, either way the cat is no problem.

Juntao112

2013-01-09, 12:16 PM

You could say the same about romantic love. And certainly there are people who, knowing the possibility of a broken heart, choose never to love anything in the first place; if they're comfortable with that trade-off, that's their business. Likewise, some wizards choose never to have a familiar, never to gain the benefits (most of which are not game-mechanical), and thus never to face the risk of loss. That's up to them, but a True Roleplayer type is a lot more willing to consider deliberately gimping his character's mechanical effectiveness simply to generate the potential for drama and heighten the experience of living through that character's story, complete with occasional poignance and tragedy.
Thoughts:
1. A broken heart does not entail Con loss.
2. Must there be mechanical penalties in order to induce poignancy and tragedy at the lost of a familiar? I was under the impression that a True Scotsman Roleplayer would not require a mechanical basis for his roleplaying - that if his mother died, his character would react appropriately without need for a constant Crushing Despair effect on his character.

That's entirely up to the DM. Not every monster is going to execute a defeated foe; gloating at their misery and leaving them to suffer is very in-character for a blackguard or the like, and a dragon might happily accept offers of being a slave or cultist or something instead of just eating their would-be victim. There are plenty of ways a weak adventurer can avoid dying and continue their career; it might involve "suboptimal" actions such as running away or letting the enemies defeat you, but if you're more into the roleplay this isn't the end of the world, as long as your story stays interesting and you're enjoying seeing what happens.
Question: When your extremely frail character can die from a 50ft fall, or by being hit once in combat, how are you going to survive long enough to roleplay?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 12:21 PM

If you find that 40% of the time is "most" of the time, as your example would indicate is your belief, then good luck and good gaming.

I didn't say it was "most" of the time, I just said that it was a decent chance. As outlined by someone else: Deep dwarf with 18 Wis and Iron Will. +9 to Will saves VS spell. Against a save DC of 16 the deep dwarf makes it on a 7 or better: 70% of the time.

I was trying to be as generic as possible, however, and was assuming that the opponent wizard was likewise.

So he casts Grease and shoots the zombie to death with his crossbow,

Properly I should have defined the size of the room as well; let's say 30 feet with the wizard and zombie started at opposite ends. That's fair, right? It puts the zombie at the maximum distance of a 1st-level grease.

The grease makes the zombie fall if he fails his save, which he does against a DC 14 75% of the time (elite array, PHB race wizard, etc), so, for the sake of argument, we'll say that the wizard won initiative, cast grease, and the zombie fell.

But, this gives the kobold zombie a +4 bonus to AC against ranged attacks, because now he's prone. Now I don't know what this wizard has for Dex, but let's call it +2 and therefore a +2 bonus to ranged attacks, while the kobold zombie now has a 17 AC against ranged attacks. The wizard needs to roll a 15 or better to hit the kobold zombie...meaning he has only a 30% of doing so for any given attack.

So the odds of the kobold zombie getting back up and being able to attempt to move without being hit once by the wizard are about as good as the chance of the wizard hitting him once. So let's say the wizard hits the kobold zombie with his light crossbow (because there is no way that a 1st-level wizard could afford a heavy crossbow, not if he wants to buy other useful items, anyway - not with 75 starting gold). He deals 1d8 damage, or an average of 4. The kobold zombie has 16 hit points...and damage redction 5/slashing. On average, the wizard can't even deal damage to the kobold zombie with his crossbow!

Now the kobold zombie has to succeed on a DC 10 balance check. Balance can be used untrained and the kobold zombie has a 55% chance of advancing since it has an 11 dex. For the sake of argument let's say he makes it 15 feet. Meanwhile the wizard is pegging away at the kobold zombie and occasionally getting past the damage reduction, assuming he hits, which with his +2 bonus to attack verses the zombie's 13 AC, he's doing less than 50% of the time.

This is actually horrible for the wizard: he's got less than a 50% chance of even hitting the zombie while it's standing, let alone while prone, and he's got less than a 50% chance of even dealing damage to the zombie, even if he hits.

Sorry, but no, I'm pretty sure the zombie, though it'll be slippin' and slidin' and not having a fun time on the grease, will be able to make it to the wizard and eat him unless the wizard uses some other spell or has some slashing melee weapon that it can use effectively in combat, trying to out-melee the kobold zombie.

Except for one minor, tiny additional detail: At 1st level, grease's duration is only 1 round. The kobold zombie is temporarily inconvenienced by grease at best and is going to be able to close into melee range with the wizard easily before the wizard can hit it with the crossbow or, even if it does, damage it.

And all of this is also ignoring that the standard kobold zombie comes equipped with a crossbow of his own.

So...the short version is, grease is quite possibly the worst spell a solo wizard could cast against a kobold zombie, that still at least has a chance of affecting it.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-09, 12:22 PM

Thoughts:
1. A broken heart does not entail Con loss.
2. Must there be mechanical penalties in order to induce poignancy and tragedy at the lost of a familiar? I was under the impression that a True Scotsman Roleplayer would not require a mechanical basis for his roleplaying - that if his mother died, his character would react appropriately without need for a constant Crushing Despair effect on his character.

Question: When your extremely frail character can die from a 50ft fall, or by being hit once in combat, how are you going to survive long enough to roleplay?

I...I think I love you.

Flickerdart

2013-01-09, 12:22 PM

The thing that most amuses me is that it's no problem building a WIzard on 25 PB...but a Fighter on 25 PB is really feeling the burn.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 12:25 PM

I didn't say it was "most" of the time, I just said that it was a decent chance. As outlined by someone else: Deep dwarf with 18 Wis and Iron Will. +9 to Will saves VS spell. Against a save DC of 16 the deep dwarf makes it on a 7 or better: 70% of the time.Actually, the exact wording was "a good chance;" if 40% success is good to you, more power to you.

Deep Dwarves have LA (assuming we're talking about the same Race), and that response was specifically color coded for sarcasm as generally not viable outside of the niche purpose of making the save (and already noted in my responses, see above).

ahenobarbi

2013-01-09, 12:25 PM

It's midway between the two. The players are not so much paranoid as they are careful.

It's just a very different style then the 'normal generic game' that I'm sure most of you are used to. A very extreme style. The 'default' game has that 'wink and nod' that the characters won't die or even get slightly harmed or impaired. The idea in the normal game is to make the challenge more about the rules, and far less about the story. And above all the game must be fair and balanced.[/QUOTE]

How do you know what 'default' game is?

Of course. They give lots of useful abilities. You will notice the huge gap between my type of gamer and the rest. The other gamers think it's crazy to have a 'time bomb' familiar and risk damage and death of a character. My players think it's fun.

You don't agree that taking a familiar in that rule set is a stupid decision?

No I didn't. Everyone just assumes that if your not a weak ''let the players walk all over you DM'' that your game is some type of adversarial ''kill the characters'' romp.

I think I know better what kind of impression you made :smalltongue:
You came to this thread and posted that wizards are weak because you can decide that they teleported into acid lake infested with disintegrate-spitting sharks when they thought they are teleporting to other side of the cliff (why would wizard teleport rather than fly/walk/send summon to check is beyond me).

If you are simply running a game where players are challenged by hostile environment then I misunderstood what you meant. Still I think that too hostile environment requires too cautious behavior and makes game boring in long run.

Targeting the weakest links is good stagey.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not (would targeting Elan be a good strategy? I don't think so - he might be so weak he is not worth the effort it would take).

You could say the same about romantic love.

Except familiar is a tool you decide to (or not to) obtain. Romantic love is a goal in and of it self.

Likewise, some wizards choose never to have a familiar, never to gain the benefits (most of which are not game-mechanical)

What are those "not game-mechanical" benefits of familiar?

That's up to them, but a True Roleplayer type is a lot more willing to consider deliberately gimping his character's mechanical effectiveness simply to generate the potential for drama and heighten the experience of living through that character's story, complete with occasional poignance and tragedy.

Couldn't you just have your beloved pet to the same exact role playing effect?

Killer Angel

2013-01-09, 12:27 PM

Why is NPC fighter no. 2 even existant? Shouldn't it be "NPC wizard hits PC wizard with magic missile, likely killing him," or "NPC rogue shoots PC wizard with shortbow, likely killing him," or some such?

OK.
NPC wizard hits PC wizard with a magic missile (unless NPC fighter isn't AaO him), doing 1d4 +1 dam, that don't kill the PC wizard, that probably will have 6 hp.
Same for the rogue, the shortbow does 1d6 and must beat the Wiz AC.

(BTW, 2 1st lev NPC, are not an appropriate CR for a single 1st lev. PC, but still the odds are in favor of the wizard)

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 12:27 PM

Sometimes it is not (would targeting Elan be a good strategy? I don't think so - he might be so weak he is not worth the effort it would take).

Without having access to their dice rolls, we don't know how much of the Order's successes come because of Elan's bardic music.

Besides, it's a well-known fact that you always target the archers and casters first. Even if Elan isn't much of a caster, his bardic music alone makes him a good initial target...though, admittedly, probably not as good as V or Haley.

Arcanist

2013-01-09, 12:33 PM

The thing that most amuses me is that it's no problem building a WIzard on 25 PB...but a Fighter on 25 PB is really feeling the burn.

WELL! To be fair PB isn't exactly balanced for SAD classes and if memory serves Fighters require a little bit of everything to not suck (and even then they're at there limits).

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-09, 12:36 PM

WELL! To be fair PB isn't exactly balanced for SAD classes and if memory serves Fighters require a little bit of everything to not suck (and even then they're at there limits).

Really, Fighter just needs Strength, Constitution, and then it picks between either Dexterity or Intelligence, pumping one and dumping the other (and with certain builds it can actually dump Strength if it's pumping Dexterity). Wisdom is nice but you're not going to be making the Will saves anyway, so why bother, and of course Charisma is Charisma, and not really useful to any fighter build besides one that takes cross-class in UMD for some reason.

No, you want a MAD class, you go to the Monk.

Of course, this is really an argument against SAD, not MAD. The Wizard (and all full casters) should depend on more than a single stat. That's why I homebrew every full caster to split their spellcasting between two stats: One for save DCs, and one to determine maximum spell level and bonus spell slots.