PDA

View Full Version : Why it doesn't matter...



Ephraim
2006-12-22, 03:16 AM
I have decided that it doesn't matter that high-level fighters may be less effective than high-level wizards. Sure, everybody has some method in mind that they'd use to fix the fighter. I know I've houseruled in a few class features that make fighters a little bit more powerful and a lot more interesting. Ultimately, though, I think that appreciation of the fighter as-is (or mostly so) is justified and that the real solution requires a perspective change on the part of the players and the DM.

1. The fighter is offensively effective at lower levels. Early on, casters are support for fighters. It is okay that there is a role reversal at higher levels. Fighters are still a relevant part of the team. They provide coverage so that the casters have time to fire off their key spells. They also mop up monsters that the casters have weakened so that key spells can be conserved. Making a habit of utilizing the strengths of all of the party's members gives villains fewer linchpins to exploit.

2. There is a widespread perception that high-level Wizards should be extremely powerful, but by no means is a DM bound to obey this convention. If the villain knows how dangerous the party's casters are, then a fortress designed to hamper those casters is both appropriate and an interesting challenge for the party. Along the same lines, DM's should discourage complacent casters. If a player hasn't opted to take Spell Mastery or Eschew Components because she believes that the DM would never be lame enough to do something to her component pouch or spell book then the DM should target the component pouch and spell book sometimes. DM's should not get suckered in by the "That's no fun!" argument. It may not be fun for the people playing fighters that the wizard gets concessions that lead to overpowering.

3. There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. Unless your game is purely tactical combat, try to avoid traditional, overpowered builds in favour of something novel that lets everybody in the party participate. Players frequently condone metagaming to make a character more powerful, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with metagaming to make combat more fun for everybody. Just because the wizard can be a one-man show-stopper doesn't mean that he has to be.

Turcano
2006-12-22, 03:30 AM
Well, yeah. Character classes were never supposed to be balanced against each other, since it's a team game and all. The only thing that enters into it is how balance relates to NPCs; as many people have pointed out, BBEGs are very disproportionately spellcasters, at least at high levels. And even then, the DM can compensate for that deficiency.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 03:40 AM
That should be the case, Turcano, but the arguments I've seen about this topic always seem to have an element of "Spellcasters don't need fighters!" to them.

As far as villains go, I don't think it's because spellcasters are stronger. One, I think that spellcasters are perceived as being smarter than fighters, so fighters get stuck in the role of henchmen. Two, spellcasters have access to a range of villainy that fighters just can't achieve. When fighters are villains, they are typically generals or murderers. They can be despicably evil, but they're still mundane. When spellcasters are villains, they can raise the dead and consort with demons. That sort of supernatural villainy is more exciting to players, I think.

On a completely different note, watching Picard, Riker, and Data headbanging is unnaturally addictive.

Jades
2006-12-22, 03:48 AM
Just here to state my agreement with the OP.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 04:02 AM
Uh, one fo the major problems is that the fighter CAN'T effectively contribute at high levels--against a Balor or a Wyrm or whatever, the fighter a) can't do much and b) gets minced easily. Against NPCs who aren't fighters, same. At low levels, the fighter is not "ofensively effective". At low levels, it's balanced--Sleep is a "win button" at level 1, after all, and has a very good chance of success. By level 5, the wizard can be contributing more, but the fighter is still necessary. By level 20, the fighter is essentially completely superfluous--the party would not be much weaker without him, he can't do much, and so on.

As for spellbooks, spell-trapped spellbooks (and a single Spell Mastery, preferably including Teleport) are the way to go.

Turcano
2006-12-22, 04:04 AM
The thing about the "spellcasters don't need fighters" argument is that it almost always degenerates into "Oh yeah? Well my wizard can beat up your fighter!" (Some of them begin with that.) Which, again, assumes that classes are supposed to be balanced against each other.

Regarding spellcasting vs. warrior BBEGs: The versatility of the spellcasting villian's evilness is directly tied to said villian's versatility in general. As I said, you can compensate for this in a warrior BBEG, either through templates, spell-like abilities (is this considered "cheating"?), equipment, or even fluff. For instance, a warrior can raise/animate dead through the use of an evil artifact or have fiendish ancestry (or other relationships, like Nale/Sabine). It's a bit more work for the DM, but it can be done.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 04:09 AM
Versatility isn't the problem--power is. A fighter BBEG would have to be enormously higher-level than a spellcasting one to be any kind of threat to a high-level party.

Yuki Akuma
2006-12-22, 04:12 AM
I think a lot of people have a difficulty seeing the difference between "thought experiments" and "mental exercises", and "what I'd do in real life".

Behold_the_Void
2006-12-22, 04:14 AM
Actually the major reason they don't need to be balanced is that this is a game that a lot of people play together to have fun. And if the group is working well together, each character will have their own time to shine. If I ever played in a campaign where the wizard player just started doing everything and wouldn't give the rest of us a chance to play, I would just walk. A 20th level uberwizard means absolutely nothing if nobody's around to play with them. Then it's all just scribbling on a piece of scrap paper.

Turcano
2006-12-22, 04:16 AM
That's true, provided that both of the BBEGs are engaging the party all by their lonesomes. However, both of them are likely to have minions, and there's no rule that forbids a warrior from having minions who are spellcasters.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-22, 04:51 AM
Uh, one fo the major problems is that the fighter CAN'T effectively contribute at high levels--against a Balor or a Wyrm or whatever, the fighter a) can't do much and b) gets minced easily. Against NPCs who aren't fighters, same. At low levels, the fighter is not "ofensively effective". At low levels, it's balanced--Sleep is a "win button" at level 1, after all, and has a very good chance of success. By level 5, the wizard can be contributing more, but the fighter is still necessary. By level 20, the fighter is essentially completely superfluous--the party would not be much weaker without him, he can't do much, and so on.

As for spellbooks, spell-trapped spellbooks (and a single Spell Mastery, preferably including Teleport) are the way to go.
Bull. If the fighter can't do much, it's because the wizard's already blown everything up, not because he couldn't hurt the monsters. There are all kinds of fun ways to dish out hurting to monsters using a martial build. I see some of them in action every time I DM these days; hell, I had a level 12 paladin one-hit a cornugon last week. My eyes fairly shot out of my head at that one.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 05:02 AM
Er, no. It's because monsters fly faster, hit as hard, and are tougher than the fighter. I mean, what's a non-archer going to do against a Pit Fiend? And dragon full attacks not only kill the hell out of fighters, dragons are powerful spellcasters in their own right, plus they've got 150' fly speed and Flyby Attack. It's not that the fighter can't hurt monsters on a full-attack, it's that getting that full attack in can be pretty hard, and when it isn't, the response full-attack will hurt you more than you hurt the monster.

At level 12, sure, Fighters contribute. By level 20, very little.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-22, 05:12 AM
Who said anything about melee? I said a martial build.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 05:18 AM
Archery has its own problems (you're not tanking anymore, and Wind Wall totally shuts you down, to name a couple), and if it's the only viable high-level option for fighter types, that's not a good thing and showcases the problem.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-22, 06:00 AM
Melee still isn't helpless. That one hit kill on the cornugon I mentioned? That was 217 damage in one go. It would have damned near killed a pit fiend as well, and he'd have had less trouble with it because he wouldn't have to deal with the damned spiked chain with stunning ability. And that was at 12th level; let them buff him some more with some higher level buffs, and he's ready to own pretty much anything that he can get to.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 06:22 AM
The occasional smiting crit on a lance-charge doesn't consistent output make.

Getting to things is at least half the problem.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-22, 06:24 AM
No crit and no lance. I'll post the build later if you want; I need to go to bed.

Marius
2006-12-22, 06:48 AM
You guys just don't get it. A fighter without spellcasters is meaningless at high levels, how do you "melee" with a flying dragon? A flying dragon that can actually fly way more faster than fighter (assuming he has some item that let's him fly).
It does matter that casters are much more powerful than non-casters. It shouldn't happen, d&d is a tactical wargame and a 15th level fighter should be as powerful as a 15th level wizard. Right now, a wizard-killing fighter build couldn't even touch any regular wizard build.
Classes don't have to be balanced for intra party fights but they should be balanced to make sure that every character in the party could be useful and have fun.
You shouldn't have to keep trying to find ways to nerf spellcasters or force their players to tone them down.

Morty
2006-12-22, 07:23 AM
You shouldn't have to keep trying to find ways to nerf spellcasters or force their players to tone them down.
Why? I think it's better to slow down most uber-powerful classes than to overpower others. Especially when there are tons of ways to slow wizards, clerics etc. down, and I can't think of many reasonable ways to significantly pump up nonspellcasters.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 07:35 AM
You guys just don't get it. A fighter without spellcasters is meaningless at high levels, how do you "melee" with a flying dragon? A flying dragon that can actually fly way more faster than fighter (assuming he has some item that let's him fly).


The fighter is offensively effective at lower levels. Early on, casters are support for fighters. It is okay that there is a role reversal at higher levels.

I wasn't suggesting that fighters can get by without casters. In fact, quite the opposite. I was acknowledging that casters may be the stars of the show at high levels but that they may still have a use for their fighters.


It does matter that casters are much more powerful than non-casters. It shouldn't happen, d&d is a tactical wargame and a 15th level fighter should be as powerful as a 15th level wizard.


There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. Unless your game is purely tactical combat, try to avoid traditional, overpowered builds in favour of something novel that lets everybody in the party participate.(emphasis added)

Like I said, if you want to think of it as nothing more than a tactical combat game, that's fine. Although that is not the way that I want to play D&D, I agree that you could have fun playing that way. In that case, yes, it does matter that high-level fighters don't compare favourably to high-level casters. The fighter still doesn't need to be fixed, though. In tactical combat simulation, you just don't bother with the fighter class past a certain level (4 or 6, I think, says popular wisdom. I forget.)


Right now, a wizard-killing fighter build couldn't even touch any regular wizard build.
Classes don't have to be balanced for intra party fights but they should be balanced to make sure that every character in the party could be useful and have fun.
You shouldn't have to keep trying to find ways to nerf spellcasters or force their players to tone them down.


There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. [...] Players frequently condone metagaming to make a character more powerful, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with metagaming to make combat more fun for everybody. Just because the wizard can be a one-man show-stopper doesn't mean that he has to be.

We outright disagree about this point. I'd only agree that you shouldn't have to force the people playing casters to tone it down if they're already doing so conscientiously without you saying anything. Truly, "Bob, the other players aren't having fun anymore." is a perfectly legitimate argument. Furthermore, this doesn't have to be a painful experience for the player with the caster. They can look at it as an opportunity to play with all of the spells in their spellbook rather than just the five they know will win every battle.

Khantalas
2006-12-22, 07:51 AM
Now, why my favorite villains are almost always martial or sneaky characters?

Pegasos989
2006-12-22, 08:07 AM
1. The fighter is offensively effective at lower levels. Early on, casters are support for fighters. It is okay that there is a role reversal at higher levels. Fighters are still a relevant part of the team. They provide coverage so that the casters have time to fire off their key spells. They also mop up monsters that the casters have weakened so that key spells can be conserved. Making a habit of utilizing the strengths of all of the party's members gives villains fewer linchpins to exploit.

Actually, spellcasters aren't just support on low levels. Spellcasters have sleep, color spray, hold person, deep slumber... A sorcerer or wizard with a scyhte for coup de gracing would not be a support, the fighter next to him in case enemy gets near or he runs out of spells is support. However, I admit that in a normal party with nice player of wizard, the warrior types are atleast as important as spellcasters. I am simply agains saying that spellcasters are just the support...

And as a common player of warrior types... I don't like to be just someone to mop up monsters casters just defeated at high levels, I would like to be defeating them myself too. This is why it matters.


2. There is a widespread perception that high-level Wizards should be extremely powerful, but by no means is a DM bound to obey this convention. If the villain knows how dangerous the party's casters are, then a fortress designed to hamper those casters is both appropriate and an interesting challenge for the party. Along the same lines, DM's should discourage complacent casters. If a player hasn't opted to take Spell Mastery or Eschew Components because she believes that the DM would never be lame enough to do something to her component pouch or spell book then the DM should target the component pouch and spell book sometimes. DM's should not get suckered in by the "That's no fun!" argument. It may not be fun for the people playing fighters that the wizard gets concessions that lead to overpowering.

Yes but the wizards protect those weaknesses. Do you know how easy it is to sunder fighter's weapon compared to destroying all wizard's three hidden spell component pouches. If DM has to spend a lot of extra trouble and target specifically some classes all the time to keep them from outshining the other members, it certainly matters that they are overpowered.


3. There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. Unless your game is purely tactical combat, try to avoid traditional, overpowered builds in favour of something novel that lets everybody in the party participate. Players frequently condone metagaming to make a character more powerful, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with metagaming to make combat more fun for everybody. Just because the wizard can be a one-man show-stopper doesn't mean that he has to be.


But I also like playing spellcasters. I enjoy the mechanical side. I don't truly feel joy of advancement unless I am allowed to try to make mechanically as good character as I can (naturally even I stay away from polymorph cheese and the like, I am not munchkin). If I as a spellcaster need to design my character by taking poor choices by purpose to not outshine others, it matters.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 08:26 AM
And as a common player of warrior types... I don't like to be just someone to mop up monsters casters just defeated at high levels, I would like to be defeating them myself too. This is why it matters.

I suppose that my answer will probably be kind of unsatisfying but I suspect that it is unavoidably true. At any given time, some characters will have advantages over others but it's more glaringly obvious when you're looking at wizards and fighters. Like I was trying to say, my solution requires a change in the way one looks at the game. In this case, it requires fighter players to understand that they may not be the star hero most of the time when the party gets to higher levels.




Yes but the wizards protect those weaknesses. Do you know how easy it is to sunder fighter's weapon compared to destroying all wizard's three hidden spell component pouches. If DM has to spend a lot of extra trouble and target specifically some classes all the time to keep them from outshining the other members, it certainly matters that they are overpowered.

I'm afraid I don't actually know how hard it is to sunder a wizard's three hidden spell component pouches. On the other hand, if they're hidden, the DM should be ruling on how easily the wizard can pull components out of them. I think that the argument that Bears With Lasers presented earlier was compelling, though. If a wizard has Spell Mastery (teleport) and has spare spellbooks back home, he's probably safe from losing his spellbook. That really isn't even abusive, so as a DM, I couldn't justify nerfing it either. Of course, it's a step in the right direction, at least. That one feat devoted to Spell Mastery is not another metamagic feat.


But I also like playing spellcasters. I enjoy the mechanical side. I don't truly feel joy of advancement unless I am allowed to try to make mechanically as good character as I can (naturally even I stay away from polymorph cheese and the like, I am not munchkin). If I as a spellcaster need to design my character by taking poor choices by purpose to not outshine others, it matters.

In my opinion, players have to make concessions about stuff like this. So that the rest of the party can enjoy themselves, the Haleys of the world shouldn't run ahead and loot the dungeon and the Belkars of the world shouldn't be devising plans to slay the party while they sleep. Likewise, the Vaarsuviuses (Vaarsuvii?) of the world shouldn't horde power when it impedes playing as a team.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 08:27 AM
Like I said, if you want to think of it as nothing more than a tactical combat game, that's fine. Although that is not the way that I want to play D&D, I agree that you could have fun playing that way. In that case, yes, it does matter that high-level fighters don't compare favourably to high-level casters. The fighter still doesn't need to be fixed, though. In tactical combat simulation, you just don't bother with the fighter class past a certain level (4 or 6, I think, says popular wisdom. I forget.)

I've had to read this again several times...

because making the game less about tactical combat and more about diplomatic interactions, or maybe an investigation plot Really brings out all the strengths of a fighter char... right...



I've stayed out of these "casters vs warriors" thusfar... but the more threads I read on it, the more I get the feeling that quite some people don't know what they are talking about.


So, let me enter the fray and make a statement:

Warrior classes are underpowered compared to Caster classes.
They are considered underpowered, not because they are so much weaker, but because they are unneccesary. A four caster party is more powerfull then a traditional mixed party is more powerful then a four warrior party. Sure a fighter can support a wizard. A second wizard with the right spell coices however, is better support. A cleric (or druid) with the right spell and domain choices, is even Better support.


A fighter is underpowered because there are better choices out there, and in my opinion, this shouldn't be the case for a core class.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 09:11 AM
I've had to read this again several times...

because making the game less about tactical combat and more about diplomatic interactions, or maybe an investigation plot Really brings out all the strengths of a fighter char... right...

I was not entirely clear on this point. Yes, the fighters are going to be best in combat. That doesn't mean that it has to be purely tactical combat. The other possible extreme is cinematic combat. In any case, the players don't have to approach combat with the notion that they must win as efficiently as possible. It is possible to enjoy the game with suboptimal builds. That's the kind of mindset I'm advocating. I think the game is more fun when the players get over the mechanical aspects and try to have fun in different ways.

So even if fighters are unnecessary, who cares? Are you trying to play D&D or are you trying to beat it? (If you're trying to beat it, then this thread was not started for your benefit.)

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 09:14 AM
Um. If your fighter keeps failing at things and being generally unhelpful, that's not very cinematic, is it?

"It's possible to enjoy the game with suboptimal builds" is true, but it is NOT a viable excuse for a lack of balance--and we're not talking suboptimal, we're talking "ineffectual". A whole lot of people have a hard time enjoying a game where their character can't really contribute anything.

Morty
2006-12-22, 09:22 AM
Um. If your fighter keeps failing at things and being generally unhelpful, that's not very cinematic, is it?

"It's possible to enjoy the game with suboptimal builds" is true, but it is NOT a viable excuse for a lack of balance--and we're not talking suboptimal, we're talking "ineffectual". A whole lot of people have a hard time enjoying a game where their character can't really contribute anything.

QFT. It's not much fun if wizard is more powerful on higher levels simply because he's a wizard and you are not. Especially if you put much effort into making effective martial/skillmonkey etc. build, and wizard is more powerful just because of his class.
In fact, spellcasters should be actually weaker in straight fight than meleers. But that'd require rebuilding whole magic system.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 09:22 AM
Check out Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved for such a rebuild.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 09:24 AM
The casters can play suboptimal characters, though, and the DM can account for this when crafting encounters for the party. And cinematic combat doesn't care so much about the numbers. The DM moderates events based on how interesting, exciting, creative, etc. they are.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 09:25 AM
So even if fighters are unnecessary, who cares? Are you trying to play D&D or are you trying to beat it? (If you're trying to beat it, then this thread was not started for your benefit.)

Ah, I catch what you mean. I think you're still missing the main problem however:

It's less apparent with wizard because wizards do require some thinking and planning, but It's more easily demonstratable with clerics and druids. Clerics and druid can make themselves equal to, or even outshine fighters. But this is not the core of the problem. The core of the problem, is that they can do it easily. So easily infact, that it can even happen on accident. A caster in a party may be all goodwill and holding back to let the fighter shine, only to find out that if he accidentally moves a finger, the fighter has just been outshone and the fighter player feels like Robin again standing next to Batman. And no-one likes to play Robin all the time.

I remember the first time I played, I took a druid, and I figured that natural spell was probably one of those must-have feats to make a druid able to keep up with the rest of the party. It took a little while to realise that the party fighter had become practically obsolete. And that was entirely not on purpose, and not for that sake of being strong. I did what most new people would do - take what I think I'll need to keep up with the rest.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 09:26 AM
...if you were going for the kind of cinematic combat where numbers didn't matter, why would you be playing D&D and not, say, Wushu?

The casters can play suboptimal characters... which is not an excuse for a lack of class balance. I mean, by that logic, there's no need to ever balance anything. "Oh, if it's too good, just don't do it."

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 09:26 AM
The casters can play suboptimal characters, though, and the DM can account for this when crafting encounters for the party. And cinematic combat doesn't care so much about the numbers. The DM moderates events based on how interesting, exciting, creative, etc. they are.

Wait... I thought we were playing DnD here?

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-22, 09:28 AM
Exactly. It's D&D. It started out as a tactical wargame, and that's still the core of D&D. The rules are largely concerned with that, and a certain amount of it is intrinsic to the system.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 09:51 AM
You're sidestepping the thrust of my argument, though. I'm making recommendations for people who are more interested in playing D&D just to hang out and have some adventures with their friends. The combat side of things is just so everybody can enjoy cleaving monsters in twain. It should be challenging but glorious!

Maxymiuk
2006-12-22, 09:51 AM
I'll just throw my opinion, since why not.

If wizards are overpowering fighters and you don't like the fact:

1) Throw out the casters and play a martial class game. Restructure the encounters so that the "puny swordswingers" don't get wiped out.

2) Throw out the fighters and play an all-caster game. Burninate the countryside and prove once and for all the dominance of "Teh Wizzard."

3) Play another system because seriously, most other games I tried do a fairly good job balancing various classes/professions against one another, or are simply structured in such a way that you need a team with diverse talents, since there's no single person who can do it all.

4) Start homebrewing with casters nerfed, casters being prestige classes, casters being NPC issue only, or what have you.

But above all, stop whining and do something about the problem that you so aptly identified. Sheesh. :smallannoyed:

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 09:54 AM
But above all, stop whining and do something about the problem that you so aptly identified. Sheesh. :smallannoyed:

Whining? Who's whining? All these threads are started by people saying "warrior classes are not underpowered!" or "why are caster classes overpowered?" and the rest of us are just trying to respond and explain or convince them otherwise.

As for me, I'm still busy working on a whole new system.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 09:58 AM
All these threads are started by people saying "warrior classes are not underpowered!" or "why are caster classes overpowered?"

Heh, I'm not saying anything like that at all. The whole point of this thread was that warrior classes are underpowered and that caster classes are overpowered but that that it's really easy adopt an attitude that doesn't really care or mind.

Maxymiuk
2006-12-22, 10:00 AM
Whining? Who's whining? All these threads are started by people saying "warrior classes are not underpowered!" or "why are caster classes overpowered?" and the rest of us are just trying to respond and explain or convince them otherwise.

Emphasis mine. Yup, that there's whining a'right.


As for me, I'm still busy working on a whole new system.

So obviously I wasn't addressing you. :smallwink:

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 10:06 AM
Heh, I'm not saying anything like that at all. The whole point of this thread was that warrior classes are underpowered and that caster classes are overpowered but that that it's really easy adopt an attitude that doesn't really care or mind.

Falls into the same catagory of what I'm referring to: It's a honestly started thread, and not just another random whine by a disgruntled player who got shown up in his/her last game.



Emphasis mine. Yup, that there's whining a'right.

Aww be fair :smallsmile: I often don't like what some people write in em, but the threads themselves are usually honest questions and honest misunderstandings.

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-22, 10:38 AM
Heh, I'm not saying anything like that at all. The whole point of this thread was that warrior classes are underpowered and that caster classes are overpowered but that that it's really easy adopt an attitude that doesn't really care or mind.


I am with you Ephraim. I like warrior and caster classes and so what if one is better than another the great thing about pen and paper rpgs is getting together with real people and having fun.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 10:40 AM
I am with you Ephraim. I like warrior and caster classes and so what if one is better than another the great thing about pen and paper rpgs is getting together with real people and having fun.

Then again, people saying this do start to get annoying...

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-22, 10:44 AM
Then again, people saying this do start to get annoying...

Whaaaa???:smallconfused:

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 10:51 AM
Whaaaa???:smallconfused:

Because it's pointless. It's like saying "if only people in the world would be good, there would be no evil".

A very commendable sentiment, but utterly pointless in the face of either discussion, understanding an issue or solving a problem.

Pointless sentiments being repeated multiple times gets on my nerves. We heard it once, good. It doesn't contribute anything however, so please don't keep saying it.

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-22, 11:02 AM
Because it's pointless. It's like saying "if only people in the world would be good, there would be no evil".

A very commendable sentiment, but utterly pointless in the face of either discussion, understanding an issue or solving a problem.

Pointless sentiments being repeated multiple times gets on my nerves. We heard it once, good. It doesn't contribute anything however, so please don't keep saying it.

We have also heard the argument that the game is broken a million times and that casters always win. While it is nice that some of you want to and are trying to "fix" the game. For some of us (it must be a lot of us with how well dnd sells) we still enjoy it and play it without complaining all the time about it. :smalltongue:

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 11:06 AM
Pointless sentiments being repeated multiple times gets on my nerves. We heard it once, good. It doesn't contribute anything however, so please don't keep saying it.

Actually, as the OP, I'm going to go ahead and totally contradict Nifty_Knickers and say that I really appreciate the support. There are lots of people out there who do care that wizards are more powerful than fighters. We all know that. I like to know that there are other people out there willing to speak up and say, "Who cares? Have fun!"

Thomas
2006-12-22, 11:06 AM
It's the way the game is. If I want a game where a small section of character classes doesn't (potentially) dominate the entire game, I'll play something else. There's plenty of games with much better balance for magic (including a lot of great d20 games).

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:08 AM
We have also heard the argument that the game is broken a million times and that casters always win. While it is nice that some of you want to and are trying to "fix" the game. For some of us (it must be a lot of us with how well dnd sells) we still enjoy it and play it without complaining all the time about it. :smalltongue:

Sure. But the arguments made are arguments supported by demonstratable facts and contribute to a discussion. We are having a discussion. So, while its great to know that you and others don't see any problem at all, it's not actually adding anything to the discussion at hand is it?

So, sentiment recieved, interperated, understood and duely noted. Please, lets not have someone else come in and say the same thing again.

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-22, 11:12 AM
Sure. But the arguments made are arguments supported by demonstratable facts and contribute to a discussion. We are having a discussion. So, while its great to know that you and others don't see any problem at all, it's not actually adding anything to the discussion at hand is it?

So, sentiment recieved, interperated, understood and duely noted. Please, lets not have someone else come in and say the same thing again.

ahhh I see we have an empiricist on our hands. :smallbiggrin: Unfortunately in the real world not all variables are measurable. Fun factor, thrill of the game, emotional responses are all part of the dnd experience so if someone has fun playing a fighter what gets his butt whooped every time he goes up against a caster who are we to say that his experience doesn't contribute to the discussion???

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:13 AM
Actually, as the OP, I'm going to go ahead and totally contradict Nifty_Knickers and say that I really appreciate the support. There are lots of people out there who do care that wizards are more powerful than fighters. We all know that. I like to know that there are other people out there willing to speak up and say, "Who cares? Have fun!"

I believe you don't catch my meaning.

This is a discussion forum. When anyone brings up something, right or wrong, discussions are bound to spring up around it.

When someone asserts something false, others will attempt to prove what's true. And vice versa happens.


I don't care much if fighters are underpowered to wizards, considering that my most played games are freeform rpgs, where balance is non-existent.

But if someone comes unto a discussion board and says "This and this is unbalanced or balanced" we'll have to attempt to refute it.

Discussion is what this is all about. Saying "this is not so if people don't do so" is no basis for a discussion.

Thomas
2006-12-22, 11:17 AM
So, sentiment recieved, interperated, understood and duely noted. Please, lets not have someone else come in and say the same thing again.

What are you, King of Discussion? Who made you supreme arbiter of what contributions to a discussion are meaningful or desired?

How about enjoying some STFU and letting people post as they like?

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:18 AM
ahhh I see we have an empiricist on our hands. :smallbiggrin: Unfortunately in the real world not all variables are measurable. Fun factor, thrill of the game, emotional responses are all part of the dnd experience so if someone has fun playing a fighter what gets his butt whooped every time he goes up against a caster who are we to say that his experience doesn't contribute to the discussion???

Because it's is has no bearing on a discussion.

"This is unbalanced" is a statement that can be taken, reviewed, and either supported or refuted through analysation of available evidence.

"This is balanced" is a statement that can be taken, reviewed, and either supported or refuted through analysation of available evidence.

"This is fun" is... well... is great, but we can't actually do much with it here can we?

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:18 AM
What are you, King of Discussion? Who made you supreme arbiter of what contributions to a discussion are meaningful or desired?

How about enjoying some STFU and letting people post as they like?

Maturity in those attending a discussion is also always desired.


[edit] Here, let me give you something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion

Thomas
2006-12-22, 11:21 AM
Maturity in those attending a discussion is also always desired.

Does that mean you'll stop telling people to not "come in and say the same thing again" ?

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 11:23 AM
Discussion is good, but I also think that a forum such as this is valuable for expression of opinions. In this case, part of the intent of the original post was the edification of for-fun players who may feel overwhelmed by the heavy promotion of optimization in some online communities.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:23 AM
Does that mean you'll stop telling people to not "come in and say the same thing again" ?

Can you explain to me how "Please lets not have" expresses anything other then an opinion and a desire? It's hardly an order.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:26 AM
the edification of for-fun players who may feel overwhelmed by the heavy promotion of optimization in some online communities.

That's not a problem with the attitudes of players towards the game but rather a problem of people not realising the difference between ,proving a mechanic + thought excersize, and actually doing anything like it on purpose ingame.

There have been many threads around about pun-pun and ikea terrasques. But nobody ever plays them.


As I said, this is a discussion board. It's very important that people understand what a discussion board is and how it's used. For one, it's Not here for advertising and promoting ideas. It's for discussions and thought excersizes, and if people would just realise that in the first place, there would be no need for this thread in the first place, because people can then understand that things discussed here are not idea-promotions to use at home.

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-22, 11:29 AM
Because it's is has no bearing on a discussion.

"This is unbalanced" is a statement that can be taken, reviewed, and either supported or refuted through analysation of available evidence.

"This is balanced" is a statement that can be taken, reviewed, and either supported or refuted through analysation of available evidence.

"This is fun" is... well... is great, but we can't actually do much with it here can we?

Webster defines a discussion as: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate. since the OP didn't specifically ask a question we would need to infer that his question is "Is it possible for us to play whatever without all the complaining about the discrepancies between casters and warriors?" So with that being stated my answer is yes because it is fun which directly answers the question at hand. And just to reiterate my previous post just because it is difficult to refute fun factor, emotional response , etc. does not make it any less valuable of a variable. :smallsigh:

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:31 AM
And just to reiterate my previous post just because it is difficult to refute fun factor, emotional response , etc. does not make it any less valuable of a variable. :smallsigh:

Let me put it differently then. The emotions of one person or even 10 people are hardly representative of the whole species is it? "he likes it" and "they like it" are fundamentally fallicious arguments.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 11:35 AM
There are, however, many discussions concerning the fighter's lack of effectiveness that firmly advocate never taking more than 4 (6?) levels of fighter. The thought experiments may be genuinely absurd but there are other trains of thought that sincerely recommend optimization methods that may make a player feel like they're a burden to their team if they don't follow them.

Marius
2006-12-22, 11:39 AM
I wasn't suggesting that fighters can get by without casters. In fact, quite the opposite. I was acknowledging that casters may be the stars of the show at high levels but that they may still have a use for their fighters.

That part wasn't for you actually.



Like I said, if you want to think of it as nothing more than a tactical combat game, that's fine. Although that is not the way that I want to play D&D, I agree that you could have fun playing that way. In that case, yes, it does matter that high-level fighters don't compare favourably to high-level casters. The fighter still doesn't need to be fixed, though. In tactical combat simulation, you just don't bother with the fighter class past a certain level (4 or 6, I think, says popular wisdom. I forget.)

Tactical combat is a good part of almost any d&d game. "cinematic combat" what's that? Tactical combat can be cinematic but that's not the point. The non-casters shouldn't be weaker than the casters. Rogues have a ton of skill points and any wizard with a good spell selection can probably outshine them.



We outright disagree about this point. I'd only agree that you shouldn't have to force the people playing casters to tone it down if they're already doing so conscientiously without you saying anything. Truly, "Bob, the other players aren't having fun anymore." is a perfectly legitimate argument. Furthermore, this doesn't have to be a painful experience for the player with the caster. They can look at it as an opportunity to play with all of the spells in their spellbook rather than just the five they know will win every battle.

Maybe it's because my english sucks but you didn't understand what I meant. Right now the only way to play at high levels is to nerf spellcasters (at least if you want everyone to be useful) but we shouldn't have to do it. The classes should be balanced with each other right from the book.

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-22, 11:47 AM
Let me put it differently then. The emotions of one person or even 10 people are hardly representative of the whole species is it? "he likes it" and "they like it" are fundamentally fallicious arguments.

Not for the person who emotions you are referring to. This idea that there is one "correct" answer for everything question is fundamentally flawed. Qualitative arguments are just as valid in some circumstances as quantitative measurements. We aren't discussing whether gravity works for one person better than another. This is a game we are talking about. It is specifically designed to be a pleasurable experience and just like anything else that is designed to elicit emotions it has a lot to do with each individual and their life experience. Just because I like chocolate better than vanilla doesn't mean that vanilla is wrong for everyone. Each person makes that decision for themselves and if two people like chocolate there is nothing wrong with them talking about it with each other people and they aren't forcing anyone who likes vanilla to be part of the conversation. The same goes for dnd if you like the game play it if you don't like it play another game. You have to remember that trying invalidate or dismiss some one else's opinion just because you can't quantify or feel it is unnecessary doesn't make it any less real or valid. :smallamused:

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:47 AM
There are, however, many discussions concerning the fighter's lack of effectiveness that firmly advocate never taking more than 4 (6?) levels of fighter. The thought experiments may be genuinely absurd but there are other trains of thought that sincerely recommend optimization methods that may make a player feel like they're a burden to their team if they don't follow them.

Again I say this is a problem with the perception of the boards by the people who look at it.

Most optimisation threads start with the board version of "Hey, look what I can do!"

Others start with "My character is having problems, how can I deal with them"

The first case is just another thought exercise. The second case is asking for individual help. Ofcourse people can read it (especially in the second case) the wrong way and think "I MUST use these suggestions to Win", but someone who does that in every case is already someone who plays to compete. His/her tastes already lie in that direction, and mentioning to them "hey, you can also Not do it" is hardly going to change their mind.

And besides, what I mostly don't like about this thread in particular is that, although it is a commendable effort to promote an idea, it's is very bad in that it lets people believe that discussion boards are places where ideas are promoted. Once they believe that, then you only worsen the problem, i.e. more people will then look at thought experiments and start treating them as ideas to be used.

NullAshton
2006-12-22, 11:52 AM
Nifty, lets look at what you've argued in this thread...


Like I said, if you want to think of it as nothing more than a tactical combat game, that's fine. Although that is not the way that I want to play D&D, I agree that you could have fun playing that way. In that case, yes, it does matter that high-level fighters don't compare favourably to high-level casters. The fighter still doesn't need to be fixed, though. In tactical combat simulation, you just don't bother with the fighter class past a certain level (4 or 6, I think, says popular wisdom. I forget.)

Quote by Ephraim, saying basically that yes, fighters are underpowered. It also states that he thinks he does not think the fighter should be 'fixed', because he believes that combat should not be the prime focus of a D&D game. and that you should look at things other that simply how effective classes are in combat. People enjoy playing fighters instead of casters, regardless of how mechanically inept the class may be.

Now lets look at how you replied to that, Nifty...


Warrior classes are underpowered compared to Caster classes.
They are considered underpowered, not because they are so much weaker, but because they are unneccesary. A four caster party is more powerfull then a traditional mixed party is more powerful then a four warrior party. Sure a fighter can support a wizard. A second wizard with the right spell coices however, is better support. A cleric (or druid) with the right spell and domain choices, is even Better support.

You state right then, that warriors are underpowered compared to caster classes. That has already been stated by the person you replied to, and in the same passage that you quoted. To build on that, you stated that they are considered underpowered because that they are 'unneccesary'. Yes, Ephraim admitted that they are unnecessary as well, so all this is doing is restating information that has already been said and turning it into an argument.

What is the argument here? The actual argument here that I've seen is an argument of playing styles. With one playing style that focuses less on the rules and more on story and plot, it seems like the fighter is still having fun, and thus does not need any type of boost by altering the rules. On the other hand, certain people like Nifty and Marius have a different playing style. This argument is nothing more than a conflict of playing styles, so what does trying to convince the other people that your style is right accomplish?

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:52 AM
Not for the person who emotions you are referring to. This idea that there is one "correct" answer for everything question is fundamentally flawed. Qualitative arguments are just as valid in some circumstances as quantitative measurements. We aren't discussing whether gravity works for one person better than another. This is a game we are talking about. It is specifically designed to be a pleasurable experience and just like anything else that is designed to elicit emotions it has a lot to do with each individual and their life experience. Just because I like chocolate better than vanilla doesn't mean that vanilla is wrong for everyone. Each person makes that decision for themselves and if two people like chocolate there is nothing wrong with them talking about it with each other people and they aren't forcing anyone who likes vanilla to be part of the conversation. The same goes for dnd if you like the game play it if you don't like it play another game. You have to remember that trying invalidate or dismiss some one else's opinion just because you can't quantify or feel it is unnecessary doesn't make it any less real or valid. :smallamused:

That's the whole point isn't it? What works for A doesn't neccesarily work for B, so saying A likes it has hardly any impact on the discussion at all.

Qualitative arguments are just as valid in some circumstances as quantitative measurements. But not in this case.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 11:55 AM
You state right then, that warriors are underpowered compared to caster classes. That has already been stated by the person you replied to, and in the same passage that you quoted. To build on that, you stated that they are considered underpowered because that they are 'unneccesary'. Yes, Ephraim admitted that they are unnecessary as well, so all this is doing is restating information that has already been said and turning it into an argument.

...

Why on earth are you quoting my opening statement? It's not the argument, the arguments are in the other posts. That is just my opening statement so everyone knows where I stand on the subject. It isn't even a response to anything.


[edit] I just realised you're actually commenting on my playing style...

When did my playing style ever come into this? Do you even Know what my playing style is? What would it even have to do with this discussion?

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-22, 12:08 PM
That's the whole point isn't it? What works for A doesn't neccesarily work for B, so saying A likes it has hardly any impact on the discussion at all.

Qualitative arguments are just as valid in some circumstances as quantitative measurements. But not in this case.

I would have to disagree with you on this. Since the discussion is whether or not fighters are playable for just the enjoyment of the game, qualitative arguments are valid because it basically boils down to I like to play fighters because.... and I don't like fighters because....:smallsmile:

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 12:26 PM
I would have to disagree with you on this. Since the discussion is whether or not fighters are playable for just the enjoyment of the game, qualitative arguments are valid because it basically boils down to I like to play fighters because.... and I don't like fighters because....:smallsmile:

But then it becomes nothing more then a promotion of ideas. You have read the other posts I've written I presume, so you know how I feel about that and what I think this way of using the board causes.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 12:34 PM
And besides, what I mostly don't like about this thread in particular is that, although it is a commendable effort to promote an idea, it's is very bad in that it lets people believe that discussion boards are places where ideas are promoted. Once they believe that, then you only worsen the problem, i.e. more people will then look at thought experiments and start treating them as ideas to be used.

We disagree regarding the function of a message forum. I do not have (nor do I desire) a weblog where I might promote my ideas. We differ, however, in that I see a web forum as an appropriate venue for the promotion of ideas. Discussions can, after all, be philosophical in nature -- neither persuasive nor instructive -- and still be valuable.

Regarding your line of argumentation that all optimization discussions are thought-experiments-only, I have found that not to be the case. I paraphrase for the sake of brevity, but I have encountered players both on the internet and in real life who have stated that in practice, one should never play a pure fighter because one will be a burden to one's team.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 12:48 PM
We disagree regarding the function of a message forum. I do not have (nor do I desire) a weblog where I might promote my ideas. We differ, however, in that I see a web forum as an appropriate venue for the promotion of ideas. Discussions can, after all, be philosophical in nature -- neither persuasive nor instructive -- and still be valuable.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I strongly oppose the use of a forum like this for promoting ideas. Normally I wouldn't, but this forum already suffers far too much from people who can't seperate thought exercises from active use, and I feel this should not be encouraged.

A good example in case would be NullAshton above. In an older thread that was discussing broken combinations, Null could not understand that those involved in the discussion were Not using those broken combinations in their home games, despite everyone trying to explain that to him for several pages.

I fear that when this board is used more for promoting ideas, more and more people will think it is the purpose of the board and take simple thought exercises as suggestions for use.

The Ikea Tarrasque for example. A great little critter design. But no-one who comes here should read about it and immediatly get the idea "I should use this in my game".



Regarding your line of argumentation that all optimization discussions are thought-experiments-only, I have found that not to be the case. I paraphrase for the sake of brevity, but I have encountered players both on the internet and in real life who have stated that in practice, one should never play a pure fighter because one will be a burden to one's team.I believe this does not speak for the average player, but that these are either players who already play the game as powergamers (thus powerfull characters are important to them), or players who have already lost the ability to seperate thought-exercise from actual use, and start using the board to promote ideas.

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-22, 12:50 PM
But then it becomes nothing more then a promotion of ideas. You have read the other posts I've written I presume, so you know how I feel about that and what I think this way of using the board causes.

Once again to quote my good friend Webster, Forum: a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas.

Emphasis mine. I understand you don't think that a forum is a good place to promote ideas but they serve this function . It may be a good idea for posters to clearly label whether they are promoting an idea, asking a question or simply creating a thought exercise thread. but just because you don't like that the threads are used this way doesn't mean it is an improper use.:smallcool:

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-22, 01:15 PM
Um. If your fighter keeps failing at things and being generally unhelpful, that's not very cinematic, is it?

"It's possible to enjoy the game with suboptimal builds" is true, but it is NOT a viable excuse for a lack of balance--and we're not talking suboptimal, we're talking "ineffectual". A whole lot of people have a hard time enjoying a game where their character can't really contribute anything.
You still haven't established just why a martial character can't contribute. To use the pit fiend example, a fly spell or an item that grants it is superior to the fiend's fly speed and maneuverability. The fiend has a nasty attack sequence, but if you don't by the level you're facing one, then you do indeed fail. A silvered, holy, evil and lawful outsider bane weapon and you're set. A ring of freedom of movement takes care of the fiend's improved grab and constriction, you should easily have the Fortitude save to reliably deal with the poison, goggles of true seeing deal with the ability to go invisible, and something to grant fire resistance takes care of most of the rest.

And if I read one word about how you can't have any of those items without wizards, I'm going to scream, because that isn't the point. You don't need a wizard there in combat crafting stuff for you while you're fighting the damned thing.

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 01:34 PM
I believe this does not speak for the average player, but that these are either players who already play the game as powergamers (thus powerfull characters are important to them), or players who have already lost the ability to seperate thought-exercise from actual use, and start using the board to promote ideas.

I believe that you are correct that such posters play the game as powergamers. They are very vocal in their advocacy of optimization without moderation, though. I suppose that I wanted to vocalize a for-fun perspective as a reminder that people have different goals in playing the game and to offer encouragement to those who may have been crossed by the vocal powergamers.

NullAshton
2006-12-22, 01:44 PM
A good example in case would be NullAshton above. In an older thread that was discussing broken combinations, Null could not understand that those involved in the discussion were Not using those broken combinations in their home games, despite everyone trying to explain that to him for several pages.

I understood perfectly. It's just that the way that you talk about them ALL THE TIME, and even going to the point of occasionally suggesting to people that they USE those combinations. I've often seen people say that Shock Trooper is essential for a fighter... and everywhere you see people recommending that you do things to optimize builds, using those 'thought' exercises. Might I ask you, if they are simply thought exercises, why do you keep telling people about those thought exercises?

Ephraim
2006-12-22, 01:51 PM
[Y]ou didn't understand what I meant. Right now the only way to play at high levels is to nerf spellcasters (at least if you want everyone to be useful) but we shouldn't have to do it. The classes should be balanced with each other right from the book.

Your English is just fine by the way. I would not have guessed that you are not a native speaker (writer?)

I'm pretty sure that I did understand what you meant but I don't think that you are correct. You assert that the only way for warriors and casters to play together at high level is to nerf casters. That just isn't true. If the people playing the casters agree to "play nice" then there isn't a problem. The casters aren't exercising power that minimizes the effectiveness of the warriors and everybody gets a chance to play.

Viscount Einstrauss
2006-12-22, 02:01 PM
Is it weird that most of my BBEG's aren't spellcasters? I prefer making superhumanly skilled combatants armed with insanely powerful gear. My favorite was an extremely skilled human swordsman who subdued a god of war and used that to unleash his own soul's true potential. It worked similar to psionics and ki, but far more potent and dangerous since running out would instantly destroy him. He wielded a +7 colossal greatsword using a pair of gauntlets from the god he beat and could use a variety of terrifying soul powers on it to effectively hit with whatever enchantment he feels like hitting with (free action, but costed soul point).

Nifty_Knickers
2006-12-22, 02:06 PM
Just a quick reply. I really ought to get going, but I can't help coming back to post. Gods I'm addicted to forums



I understood perfectly. It's just that the way that you talk about them ALL THE TIME, and even going to the point of occasionally suggesting to people that they USE those combinations. I've often seen people say that Shock Trooper is essential for a fighter... and everywhere you see people recommending that you do things to optimize builds, using those 'thought' exercises. Might I ask you, if they are simply thought exercises, why do you keep telling people about those thought exercises?

Because it's no fun to have thought-exercises alone ofcourse! The more the merrier.

Something that's perhaps a misunderstanding: When someone says something like "schocktrooper is essential!", it usually means: Shocktrooper is essential for a tweaked build. No-one says you need should run a tweaked build in a normal game. Actually, I believe in a lot of posts around the forum, the opposite is often said, i.e. "Don't use this unless you're playing in a tweaked or high-power game".



ok, really ought to run now

Arbitrarity
2006-12-22, 02:13 PM
Ok, it seems rather simple.

Casters are more powerful than fighters.

Fighters may be ineffective at higher levels (comparatively).

No one has to play any class to the fullest. Casters can be gimped, fighters can be gimped. This may be considered fun, or not fun. Whether it is fun or not in a larger sense is indeterminable. However, it is possible to determine such a thing on a local scale. I can't say "Playing gimped characters is more fun for everyone"

Nor can I say "Playing gimped characters is no fun for everyone!"

What I can say is that some people, as a form of balance, don't play characters to the optimum. This may be more fun for the party, more fun for them, or have some other reward. However, it is irrelevent. They have that option, and any houserules we make here are similarly optional.

Gah. Ok. Something can be imbalanced. As long as it has no impact on how much fun is had, no issues. If it does, then change it. How much fun is had is indeterminable on a universal scale. On a local scale, with a local solution, there is a good chance of getting things right. We can make our houserules, and DM's can take them, or not. On that local scale, that is where value is determined.

Actually, it seems I have said nothing :/.

EDIT (Weh, the sentiment is echoed)

Marek Haldir
2006-12-22, 02:40 PM
The whole anti-fighter sentiment that is pervalent in many threads on this forum is really annoying. Fighters are not as powerful as wizards at high levels, they never have been, even since 1st ed. The whole arguement of the Fighter becoming useless only becomes valid if the DM lets things get that out of hand.

Now regardless of wether or not the fighter class is; underpowered, or useless, or obsolete. DnD is a game. A game where people pretend to be Wizards, or fighters, or clerics, etc. The DM is the referee and storyteller, the players are just that, players. Now since this is a game, it is up to the players to choose what they want to play. Some people like to be fighters, regardless of their shortcomings.

A good DM will choose encounters suitable to the party, not just ones that can be solved solely by a Wizard player who has his win button. Having a perfectly optimized Wiz with win button spells, or some uber Cleric who can melee consistantly better than the fighter, can make life for a Fighter boring. If your campaign is like that where one character is consitantly being the star and not letting others have their time in the spotlight then you should seriously rethink how you play. Good characters in fiction are not perfect, flaws, humanity, hardships are all much more interesting than the perfect characters. In fact perfect characters are generally the more annoying characters that people enjoy seeing get dumped on.

In the end DnD is about fun, and playing a game together as a group. Everyone should have fun, not just the overpower classes, so with that as a goal it doesn't matter at all that the Wizard is better at high levels than the Fighter, as long as they are both enjoying themselves while playing the game.

Marius
2006-12-22, 03:02 PM
Your English is just fine by the way. I would not have guessed that you are not a native speaker (writer?)

Thanks but sometimes I feel like I can't express myself in english like I could in my native language.



I'm pretty sure that I did understand what you meant but I don't think that you are correct. You assert that the only way for warriors and casters to play together at high level is to nerf casters. That just isn't true. If the people playing the casters agree to "play nice" then there isn't a problem. The casters aren't exercising power that minimizes the effectiveness of the warriors and everybody gets a chance to play.

I'm not saying that every wizard should be played up to its maximum potential but players shouldn't nerf themselves just to let the rest of the party shine. That shouldn't be the task of a player. Imagine yourself as Mandalor, a high level Archmage with enough power to put a little hole in the world. Would he stop and say "hey I'm just outshining everybody! Let's start casting really bad spells to help them a bit".
Why should a player concern himself with balance? WotC is the one that has to make sure that every book is balanced. We should have to read more and more books trying to see how a player could break the game.

Athenodorus
2006-12-22, 03:47 PM
I am interested in finding ways to counter the problem, rather than telling people to just have fun with their friends. :) Unlike certain Games Which Shall Not Be Named, the DM actually has power to change balance as he/she/it sees fit.

RandomNPC
2006-12-23, 09:21 PM
I DM a group that has never had the problem of a caster out shining anyone.

blasters run out of spells, and most spells have SR or some form of save, then there's the touch attacks that can miss, ruining a spell. controlers don't get to kill as many things, allowing the fighter to be right next to the body when its looting time. I dare any caster in my game to use touch attacks when they think something is weakened so they can loot first. it will work, just not as often as they would like.

fighters miss with attacks, but they dont get X many attacks at this attack bonus each day like a wizard gets X many spells of a specific level each day. don't tell the party they have to go though five fights before they can rest, who lasts? when grease, fireball, disintigrate, web, and even magic missile are spent the fighter has recovered half his ranged attacks (arrows and bolts) that have missed, and can continue melee with any equal challenge untill the cleric runs out of healing.

potions, scrolls, and wands? lets say the equipent runs out the fighters stuf to; no swords, no spell books. no armor no components. spell mastery and eschew materials for wizards, imp. unarmed, stunning blow and power attack for fighters.

i don't try to balance things in my game, the things balance themselves.

AaronH
2006-12-24, 03:35 PM
You know, the one thing a lot of people are missing here, is that the game is ran by a DM, a live person creating and manipulating the world as you go. Sure, we can be a party of uberwizards running around destroying the universe, but DnD is built so that the DM can always win. Every build can be countered, (except maybe PunPun) every class has a weakness. Nothing is underpowered or overpowered in this game, why? Because everything is situational.

Sulecrist
2006-12-24, 04:21 PM
Before I state my position, let me say this.

I've played a lot of characters. About two thirds martial. Maybe half of all of my characters had fighter levels. I've also been DMing for quite some time. I'm not outstandingly biased for or against fighters; some of my favorite characters have been for purely melee.

D&D is unbalanced past level ten. The distortion begins earlier, but it's irrevocable at twelve or so. The RAW do not keep non-pure-casters on par with pure ones. There have been attempts (Tome of Battle) to raise the damage output of martial characters. Damage output is good, but it hardly changes the fact that casters are very, very versatile and martial characters are very straightforward--by the RAW.

A DM can throw nullstone and antimagic around, focus attacks on the wizard or just strip spells away. They can make feats, ban feats, cut spells, or add fatigue/possession rules. This, though, is not RAW. Sad as it is, archetypical RAW 4-member D&D is a rough, shoddy experience.

There is plenty that can be done to change this, but it's difficult. Frankly, I'm blessed with a group of frankly unimaginative (and somewhat forgetful) casters who are so bleak and so straightforward (most of them just melee with quarterstaves and then Heal) that the Fighter shines.

If you want a balanced game, don't play archetypical RAW D&D with smart players.

Starbuck_II
2006-12-24, 04:50 PM
Is it weird that most of my BBEG's aren't spellcasters? I prefer making superhumanly skilled combatants armed with insanely powerful gear.

Gear=magic. So he subtitutes not being a spellcaster with magic. Good idea...wait...isn't using magic what spellcasters do?


My favorite was an extremely skilled human swordsman who subdued a god of war and used that to unleash his own soul's true potential.

Assuming you could a God with just Melee (unlikely but I'll give benefit of Doubt).


It worked similar to psionics and ki, but far more potent and dangerous since running out would instantly destroy him. He wielded a +7 colossal greatsword using a pair of gauntlets from the god he beat and could use a variety of terrifying soul powers on it to effectively hit with whatever enchantment he feels like hitting with (free action, but costed soul point).

+7 weapon=Epic Check.
God Guantlets=Epic Check
Soul Powers/template to give soul points= kinda magic check

So most your BBEGs use Artifacts (which what epic weapons are to use below level 21st dudes) and spell-like abilities or template?

I'm not sure that is a good statement. You use artifacts to make your BBEGs useful at high levels?

Zincorium
2006-12-24, 05:10 PM
I enjoy playing fighters. I feel somewhat slighted that not only am I presented with a sub-optimal choice by the game book, but that I usually get pointed out as a powergamer in the games I play.

That the game is set up this way isn't a matter of play style. It's a matter of the writers of the game failing to take the effort to make it all balanced, and leaving everyone to play catch up or ignore the problem entirely.

That it isn't an issue for you doesn't mean it's right. I play freeform when I can simply because it's easier to keep things fair the first time around.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-25, 03:17 AM
Gear=magic. So he subtitutes not being a spellcaster with magic. Good idea...wait...isn't using magic what spellcasters do?
Having gear isn't the same as being a spellcaster and you know it.

Ephraim
2006-12-28, 09:28 AM
I've studied this problem at greater length and I have to concede that point 1 isn't valid. Even at mid levels, Clerics and Druids appear to do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter does. Points 2 and 3 still mean that you can be a Fighter but if your goal is to be the party's melee offense/defense (and not, specifically, a Fighter,) it's kind of sad that you should be a Cleric and not a Fighter.

Roderick_BR
2006-12-28, 10:09 AM
My opinion on this subject:
http://www.critical-fumble.com/webpage/pages/issue34.html
and
http://www.critical-fumble.com/webpage/pages/issue54.html

I just say: Try to let a wizard travel without a fighter to see how long he lasts (I had a mage that was killed by KOBOLDS!)

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 02:31 PM
That only applies at low levels, Roderick. Besides, a character travelling alone is always more vulnerable.

Marius
2006-12-28, 02:55 PM
My opinion on this subject:
http://www.critical-fumble.com/webpage/pages/issue34.html
and
http://www.critical-fumble.com/webpage/pages/issue54.html

I just say: Try to let a wizard travel without a fighter to see how long he lasts (I had a mage that was killed by KOBOLDS!)

Try to let a fighter travel without a wizard to see how long HE lasts. I can asure you that the wizard will last longer.

Telonius
2006-12-28, 03:06 PM
That only applies at low levels, Roderick. Besides, a character travelling alone is always more vulnerable.

You know, I think this is a very good thing to mention, and maybe the whole argument could turn on it. Why is it okay that Wizards are overpowered? Because they have to fit into their society too. If they keep outshining everybody, everybody will assume that the wizard will take care of all of their problems for them. And if they get too famous, they're going to have a lot of enemies. Kings who want to keep their undivided hold on power, rival wizards, maybe even clerics. Even the best Wizard will run out of spells if you throw enough minions at him. So the lone wizard could become a recluse or a complete paranoid (which, come to think of it, are two wizardly archetypes - wizard working alone in his hut for years, and psycho BBEG). Or, they could figure out some way of living in their society, which means working alongside fighters and the rest, and gaining their help and loyalty. The wizard would very seldom show their full power; and when they did, it would be even more impressive because of that.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 03:07 PM
How on earth does that make it okay for wizards to be overpowered in a game that is fundamentally about groups of guys killing things and taking their stuff?

Telonius
2006-12-28, 03:15 PM
How on earth does that make it okay for wizards to be overpowered in a game that is fundamentally about groups of guys killing things and taking their stuff?

I think we have different opinions on what the game is fundamentally about. Dungeon crawls are fundamentally about groups of guys killing things and taking their stuff. There's more to D&D than just dungeon crawling.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 03:20 PM
Yeah, there's adventuring. The typical things D&D games are about are not playing a wizard who grows up in a city and has to avoid being conscripted.

Fhaolan
2006-12-28, 03:28 PM
Yeah, there's adventuring. The typical things D&D games are about are not playing a wizard who grows up in a city and has to avoid being conscripted.

Although that might be an interesting game. I don't think I could pull it off as a DM, but it has possibilities. :smallsmile:

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-28, 03:58 PM
okay, so, thoughts, and these may be off topic at this point, bc i get tired of hearing the same old "fighters suck, wizards pwn, so you only need wizards" arguments so i just skipped to the end, inferring most of the content of the previous three pages. anyhoo, my 2 cp.

yes, fighters do suck. they have poor damage dealing abilities at higher levels and their defense isnt that great either, all they have going is lots of hit points. my thought on this is they are supposed to. the purpose behind a fighter is that they grab a weapon and strap on some armor and start hacking at things. this was great in earlier editions, wherein they were the best at this due to their available weapon selection. now that anyone can use any weapon, clerics got a boost past fighters for melee. they have equal damage and defense as the fighter, plus better saves and spell casting, with only slightly less hit points. however, no one said you have to be just a straight plain fighter. if you still want to keep its flavor, take levels in paladin or ranger which both get spells eventually, or if direct damage is your thing draw up a thw barbarian. or grab some prestige classes as soon as you can, the purpose of those is to make whatever class you have better.

as for wizards being pwn all characters, i think this is a slippery slope problem that became a problem for wotc. they decided to make classes more or less balanced at lower levels, then things spiralled out of control. in older editions, mages would cast their one or two spells at low level, then bust out the sling or darts and try and do some feeble damage. this made fighters shine too much at low levels, so they gave the new wiz a boost for its low levels. what they forgot to consider was that at about level 10 fighters and wizards were fairly balanced, wizards were better at level 20. by boosting them to about even at lvl 1, at lvl 10 wizards outshone fighters, and by 20 they make fighters inconsequential.

also, in regards to optimization, the deal with optimization is that it is case dependant. sure a wizard may be optimized to kill/disable anything that it faces in battle, but what of out of battle? im not saying fighters are good at that, but paladins should be, rogues are usually okay, and thats the whole purpose of bards. so, yeah, if your game is all hack-and-slash, with little intrigue and no plot beyond that of the dungeons and dragons console game, then the wizard is obviously the most powerful character class (especially since you tend to level fast in games like this). but if the game in any way involves trying to figure things out, deal with people, avoid combat, then there are much more efficient classes for that (bard, ranger and rogue come to mind). so yeah, while optimization may be great, its not necessarily "optimum" for role playing dnd, a character with a specialization and balanced periphery is actually more useful.

just my thoughts

<hides from barage of pro wizards-pwn-all types and from anti wizards-pwn-all types>

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 04:10 PM
A wizard's spells (Charm Person, Detect Thoughts, Disguise Self, Suggestion, and so on--many more out of core) and high INT make him better in social situations than warrior-types, pretty much. The wizard's spells let him do pretty much anything. "But in social situations skillmonkeys are better" isn't really a balance argument.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-28, 04:18 PM
bears, did i say that it was balanced? no, if you read, i said that it was unbalanced. balancing generally only refers to combat situations, where wizards shine. balancing does not refer to outside combat situations, which can be equally as important to the game, depending on how the gm runs the show. please, dont misquote me.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 04:20 PM
Balance doesn't just refer to combat. Social situations are "encounters" and have CRs just the same as monsters.

...and you were trying to argue that wizards' combat superiority is counterweighed by social situations.

Is... BALANCED... by it, one might say.

Morty
2006-12-28, 04:26 PM
For me, the main problem with wizards is that their main disadvantage, i.e
being fragile like hell disappears after level 10 or so. Before that, wizard can win an entire encounter with some luck by save-or-lose spell, but he's still vunerable. On higher levels, wizard can kill and disable everything better that non-wizard and sing "Can't touch this" at the same time. Making wizards less untouchable and lowering DC for the most powerful save-or-die/lose/suck is easiest way to slow down wizards a bit, I think.

Telonius
2006-12-28, 04:35 PM
If all you're looking at is game mechanics and combat, it's not a balance issue. I do think it's a balance issue, just not a "how fast can I kill the guy" balance issue. If any one class can completely replace and outdo another class (while still maintaining its role and purpose), there is a problem. A wizard might be able to do, through spells, what a Fighter is supposed to (absorb damage and thwack things); or what a skillmonkey is supposed to do (sneaky and social things). But then they've used up the spells that could have gone towards doing what an arcane caster is supposed to do, and is best at doing: battlefield control. It's possible to get by doing this, but it's not playing to the wizard's strength. There's an opportunity cost involved, and the results can be sub-optimal.

Lord_Kimboat
2006-12-28, 05:20 PM
At low levels, it's balanced--Sleep is a "win button" at level 1, after all, and has a very good chance of success.

I know this was from a while back but I just had to disagree with this one Bears. Sleep isn't useful against undead and will target party members as well as anyone else although it is only a 10' radius burst. Sure, for undead you can say the cleric can take care of them - another caster - but they have to have a decent cha for that where as all a fighter needs is a club (for skeletons) or a sword (for zombies). I just can't see sleep as a win button.

I'll agree with you that fighters at anything above lvl 15 are essentially useless but before that they usually pay their dues by protecting the casters at low level. Most of the games I play are at low levels so I tend to see this a lot and my fighters are usually really good at taking down enemy casters.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 05:26 PM
Sleep isn't useful against undead... but is more useful against archers than melee, and useful against pretty much everything else.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-28, 05:32 PM
heck or a morninstar for both of em (yay for bludgeoning/peircing damage!)

i had the same thought, lord kimboat, that if nothing else they guard the squishies so that they can become not so squishy. a party of lvl 1 mages may survive, but they do have a better chance if you toss in at least a fighter. if an all mage party loses initiative once at low levels, they pretty much die. fighters keep instadeath at a minimum. and its kinda like that friend who was good to you in elementary school, so you kept him around through high school, not because there werent better options, but because he had always been there for you. fighters are that friend.

Lord_Kimboat
2006-12-28, 05:42 PM
Sleep isn't useful against undead... but is more useful against archers than melee, and useful against pretty much everything else.

I don't know mate. The 10' radius has caused problems for casters that I've had on my side before as has the whole lowest HD/Lvl first thing. I remember one encounter against 2 medium spiders that dropped down among our group. The sorcerer tried her sleep spell, only to get AOOed and lost the spell (but luckily stayed standing at 0 hp), the wizard then backed off and used his sleep spell and took down my fighter but we were again lucky that the barbarian saved - we later found that the spiders were 2 HD and we were first level. That encounter nearly turned into a TPK. The wizard even sort of redeemed himself by finishing off one of the spiders with his staff.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 05:43 PM
That's what aiming spells carefully is for. And 5' stepping away so you don't provoke AoOs.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-28, 06:03 PM
well, accurate roleplay would say that the mage couldnt accurately target an AoE spell on the first try, but thats beside the point. so sleep, as you yourself have stated is ineffective vs undead and anything in melee, which leaves living ranged attackers, which there are relatively few of at really low levels. most encounters at low level (as i have experienced) are cr 1 critters with melee weapons. kinda makes your one spell being sleep kinda useless. so youve got three cantrips and whatever weapon you brought to the fight (which you inherently suck at because your purpose is to cast not hit stuff with your staff).

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 06:05 PM
Um... sleep is perfectly effective in melee. Five-foot step back and drop it. What's more, very few encounters start *right in your face*, they usually have to close first.

krossbow
2006-12-28, 06:13 PM
So, essentially, it doesn't matter because I should try to suck? What?

Ephraim
2006-12-28, 06:49 PM
So, essentially, it doesn't matter because I should try to suck? What?

If you must put it into those terms... But yes, that captures the essence of point 3. For the sake of making the game fun for everybody, including the guy who just wants to play a fighter, the casters should try playing around with some of their spells that aren't just win buttons.

I always hear the argument that "Who, realistically, wouldn't always take the spells that maximize their chances of survival?" My answer to that is that you can't swing a dead cat in D&D without hitting something that is unrealistic. Why shouldn't the Wizard decide that he doesn't want to get rusty with some of his lesser spells? Why can't the Cleric declare that in honour of the Festival of Charity, he is taking a vow of pacifism for the rest of the week?

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-28, 07:02 PM
Um... sleep is perfectly effective in melee. Five-foot step back and drop it. What's more, very few encounters start *right in your face*, they usually have to close first.
Yeah, if you see them. What's your typical 1st level wizard's Spot modifier, again?

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 07:04 PM
If anyone in your party sees them, and points out where they are. Or if they're not hiding. It's not like every other encounter is an ambush, dude.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-28, 07:05 PM
Since when do wizards need parties, Bears? I thought they pwn all.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 07:06 PM
Since they're in D&D.Nobody has ever said that wizards Pwn All at level one--level 20 is another matter.

That's quite a chip on your shoulder against wizard supremacy you've got there.

Lord_Kimboat
2006-12-28, 07:13 PM
Anyway Bears, I essentially think I agree with you (and most on this list) that Fighters do get kind of useless at high level. I don't agree that mages are at all powerful at low levels. Up to second level, a wizard has what? Four sleep spells tops (and that's if he's specialized)! A fighter can swing that sword all day.

My guess, and please excuse me if I'm wrong, is that you tend not to play at low level (on the starting level discussion thread you said you refuse to start at 1st level) and you've got a DM that maybe plays it a little easier on the spell casters. Now, I don't know this for a fact and I do apologize if I'm wrong but in my own experience, I've seen a lot of low level spell casters thrashed by monsters while the fighters are still up, kicking butt and taking names.

Now, my suggestion is that there really isn't a need to take a fighter passed about 5th level. Multi into something else or maybe even start a new character - I tend to play low level stuff so making it to 5th level tends to be a pretty long haul.

Pegasos989
2006-12-28, 07:14 PM
I just hate it when people mention that wizards are overpowered at high levels, then some people post threads to say that it isn't so, then other people prove that it is so, then the people proven wrong start clinging on every word and twisting it to mean something it didn't, like "At 20th level, fighter is quite obsolete" to "1st level wizards don't need parties even if most encounters are ambushes", or something...

Not saying it has happened lately, just mentioning that I hate when that happens.

Pegasos989
2006-12-28, 07:18 PM
and you've got a DM that maybe plays it a little easier on the spell casters


No no no. Let's not go into arguements like "why aren't the wizards' spellbooks stolen all the time" or the like... Because people saying that some DMs go easy on spellcasters often say stuff like "But spellbook/component pouch can be sabotaged" (which is atleast not easier than sundering fighter's weapon), "There should be a ****load of mooks readying actions on spellcasters" (I don't even know what this is all about) or something. :D

krossbow
2006-12-28, 07:27 PM
Bah; everyone knows that your taking it easy on casters if frenzied berserker gnomes with spell resistance don't rain from the sky to steal your spellbooks while frothing at the mouth.


Stupid spell-book gnomes.:smallannoyed:

Pegasos989
2006-12-28, 07:29 PM
Bah; everyone knows that your taking it easy on casters if frenzied berserker gnomes with spell resistance don't rain from the sky to steal your spellbooks while frothing at the mouth.


Stupid spell-book gnomes.:smallannoyed:

Rocks fall. Everyone dies.

Except wizard. He had contignency.

Lord_Kimboat
2006-12-28, 07:31 PM
No no no. Let's not go into arguements like "why aren't the wizards' spellbooks stolen all the time" or the like... Because people saying that some DMs go easy on spellcasters often say stuff like "But spellbook/component pouch can be sabotaged" (which is atleast not easier than sundering fighter's weapon), "There should be a ****load of mooks readying actions on spellcasters" (I don't even know what this is all about) or something. :D

Hey, whoa, Pegosos. I'm not suggesting that at all. I only brought it up because Bears With Lasers seems to think that Wizards at low level are still pretty dominating. Thus I suggested that maybe . . . maybe his normal DM is a little easier on spell casters than other classes.

Honestly though, I have to side with Bears on this, that fighters don't seem to be able to 'pull their weight' at high levels. In my current group, my 10th level fighter constantly kills fewer opponents than the 10th level sorcerer. Every game without exception. Now I don't feel bad about this because for the first 5 or 6 levels I was always protecting her. I tend to think of this as my time to get some relaxation while she protects me.:smallsmile:

Tokiko Mima
2006-12-28, 07:38 PM
If you look at spell slots as essentially being a Feat usable once a day you can see why Wizards have such an overwhelming advantage over Fighters, even with the large amount of Feats fighters get. Fighters have the advantage of endurance; they never run out of criticals or full round attacks. Wizards increase their power exponentially as they level, while fighters have a very linear progression.

I think one of the ways you could cause Fighters to be needed is to either throw even more encounters at a party per day than normal. Almost never let your party get uninterrupted rest, and Wizards won't be able to be Batman.. they'll hoard their save or die spells for the moments when it's really life or death for them.

Of course, this depends on the campaign, but I think if you're dungeon crawling there should be at least a few patrols of baddies out scouting the areas your party is in. You could of course try a Rope Trick, or Mage's Magnificent Mansion but that eats up a spell slot, and isn't completely foolproof.

Pegasos989
2006-12-28, 07:38 PM
Hey, whoa, Pegosos. I'm not suggesting that at all. I only brought it up because Bears With Lasers seems to think that Wizards at low level are still pretty dominating. Thus I suggested that maybe . . . maybe his normal DM is a little easier on spell casters than other classes.

Honestly though, I have to side with Bears on this, that fighters don't seem to be able to 'pull their weight' at high levels. In my current group, my 10th level fighter constantly kills fewer opponents than the 10th level sorcerer. Every game without exception. Now I don't feel bad about this because for the first 5 or 6 levels I was always protecting her. I tend to think of this as my time to get some relaxation while she protects me.:smallsmile:

Hehe, okay. It is just that I have seen SO many times when wizards are called balanced because DM can take away their spellbooks or something... :D

Pegasos989
2006-12-28, 07:42 PM
If you look at spell slots as essentially being a Feat usable once a day you can see why Wizards have such an overwhelming advantage over Fighters, even with the large amount of Feats fighters get. Fighters have the advantage of endurance; they never run out of criticals or full round attacks. Wizards increase their power exponentially as they level, while fighters have a very linear progression.

I think one of the ways you could cause Fighters to be needed is to either throw even more encounters at a party per day than normal. Almost never let your party get uninterrupted rest, and Wizards won't be able to be Batman.. they'll hoard their save or die spells for the moments when it's really life or death for them.

Of course, this depends on the campaign, but I think if you're dungeon crawling there should be at least a few patrols of baddies out scouting the areas your party is in. You could of course try a Rope Trick, or Mage's Magnificent Mansion but that eats up a spell slot, and isn't completely foolproof.


Fighter has limited resources.
HP. When cleric runs out of spells, fighter is screwed.
Buffs. When wizard can no longer haste fighter, let him fly, etc. fighter is screwed.

So adding more encounters helps actually less than people seem to think.

Also, if it would work, wizard would spend nearly all his time doing nothing (and player being bored) but then there would be the boss encounters with which he would sweep the floor with (due to having saved his spells)... So I don't see it adding more fun.

Beleriphon
2006-12-28, 08:24 PM
The answer to why it doesn't matter.

This guy:
http://www.paulkidby.com/images/tshirts/rincewind-1.jpg

is NOT as cool as this guy:

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/news/images/0412/conan.jpg

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-28, 08:48 PM
Since they're in D&D.Nobody has ever said that wizards Pwn All at level one--level 20 is another matter.

That's quite a chip on your shoulder against wizard supremacy you've got there.
It's the logical conclusion of all this nonsense. If the wizard beats everything, the wizard doesn't need anything else.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-28, 11:26 PM
No, it's not, and no one was saying that about the wizard at level 1--just that a level 1 wizard could contribute a lot (namely, having a good chance to end each of 4 daily encounters right on his turn). It's the level 20 wizard that doesn't need anyone else until he comes up against another, better wizard, or more wizards/other spellcasters.

Good to see that you're beating the crap out of those strawmen, though. You show'em.

Tokiko Mima
2006-12-29, 03:08 AM
Fighter has limited resources.
HP. When cleric runs out of spells, fighter is screwed.
Buffs. When wizard can no longer haste fighter, let him fly, etc. fighter is screwed.

So adding more encounters helps actually less than people seem to think.

Also, if it would work, wizard would spend nearly all his time doing nothing (and player being bored) but then there would be the boss encounters with which he would sweep the floor with (due to having saved his spells)... So I don't see it adding more fun.

True, but that really depends.

I mean, if the fighter is facing foes that rarely hit and do damage through his high AC, then he/she isn't expending resources. In other words, if you focus a Fighter on defense/tanking first then the amount of time spent in combat per day can stretch to near infinity, especially if you use the -9/+30 model instead of autohits and misses.

Fighters are typically only depleted by encounters close to or above their level. Wave after wave of minor troops set after a high level fighter will be cut down with little effort. What Fighters don't do well against is BBEG's melee or spell casting.. those do deplete their HP and require divine resources.

Wizards, on the other hand, are depleted in every encounter that they use their power to influence. When facing hordes of minor foes sent mostly for harrassment's sake the Wizard is faced with the attrition warfare. Without a credible amount of melee power, they will tend to lose.

I understand what people are saying, but I think by extending the encounters on a given day and playing the BBEG smarter you can draw out the Fighters few advantages, and keep the Wizard from always being better in a given situation. As far as it being not fun, it would have to be a delicate balance: the fighter defending the wizard from easier encounters without requiring direct magical assistance, and the wizard being needed in stronger encounters where his/her spellcraft can save the day.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-29, 06:55 AM
No, it's not, and no one was saying that about the wizard at level 1--just that a level 1 wizard could contribute a lot (namely, having a good chance to end each of 4 daily encounters right on his turn). It's the level 20 wizard that doesn't need anyone else until he comes up against another, better wizard, or more wizards/other spellcasters.

Good to see that you're beating the crap out of those strawmen, though. You show'em.
I wasn't under the impression that I was engaged in debate. If that's what you want, though.

No matter how powerful the wizard, a dagger between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style. A well-played rogue, at almost any level, can and will forcibly remove a wizard's vital organs because of one factor. He controls the encounter. If played patiently and with the right skills (and given a scroll of mind blank to remove arcane sight or any of that nonsense), he'll steal everything the wizard owns up to and including his left kidney. With the last part accomplished with a well-aimed blade. Can't hit what you can't see, and the wizard simply isn't tough enough to take that kind of punishment once the rogue's in close. Further, he'd be downright stupid to confront the wizard in the middle of a road in broad daylight. No one can be 100% on guard all the time; the wizard will be vulnerable at some point if he's going it alone. All you have to do is wait it out. It is absolutely zero wonder that Tippy went off the deep end when someone tried to use fighter 18/rogue 2 against his spell combo; sneaky classes with ways to get massive damage bonuses (rogue, ninja) are the wizard's bane.

Meantime, rogue stabs fighter, fighter says "ow" and proceeds to maul him. :smallamused:

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 07:00 AM
What exactly are you suggesting? That the rogue steals all of the wizard's equipment, while he's wearing it, and then stabs the wizard? How does he find the wizard, exactly? How does he avoid notice once he steps right up and takes something? What's the wizard doing all this time, in your scenario? Just hangin' around, ignoring his disappearing equipment? What about the wizard's passive spells, such as Magnificent Mansion and Contingency?

With Heavy Fortification availible at high levels, a dagger between the shoulderblades means crap-all.


If someone has the leisure to plan and the other party doesn't know they're coming, that person is at a huge advantage. And the best person to take advantage of this would be, in fact, not a rogue but... a wizard. The best class for both defending himself against being found and for finding someone, methodically studying them, then appearing and killing them in a vulnerable moment is the wizard.


You may not have been in a debate, but beating up strawmen is exactly what you were doing. Nobody ever said or even implied that a level 1 wizard doesn't need a party. You pulled that COMPLETELY out of thin air.
So, what's with this huge chip on your shoulder? Did a level 20 wizard kill your parents, or something? Were you bitten by a radioactive NullAshton?

Pegasos989
2006-12-29, 07:01 AM
I wasn't under the impression that I was engaged in debate. If that's what you want, though.

No matter how powerful the wizard, a dagger between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style. A well-played rogue, at almost any level, can and will forcibly remove a wizard's vital organs because of one factor. He controls the encounter. If played patiently and with the right skills (and given a scroll of mind blank to remove arcane sight or any of that nonsense), he'll steal everything the wizard owns up to and including his left kidney. With the last part accomplished with a well-aimed blade. Can't hit what you can't see, and the wizard simply isn't tough enough to take that kind of punishment once the rogue's in close. Further, he'd be downright stupid to confront the wizard in the middle of a road in broad daylight. No one can be 100% on guard all the time; the wizard will be vulnerable at some point if he's going it alone. All you have to do is wait it out. It is absolutely zero wonder that Tippy went off the deep end when someone tried to use fighter 18/rogue 2 against his spell combo; sneaky classes with ways to get massive damage bonuses (rogue, ninja) are the wizard's bane.

Meantime, rogue stabs fighter, fighter says "ow" and proceeds to maul him. :smallamused:

Yes, wizard can be on guard 100% of the time, due to... I dunno... Contignency, sleeping in Rope Trick, Flying with Overland flight all day, etc.

So really, describe me how the rogue steals everything wizard has?

Meanwhile, what does fighter have against rogue who sneaks next to him and CDGs while he is asleep? His listen and spo... Oh wait, aren't even class skills. But yeah, he can - and should - ask the wizard for help in this matter, as with everything else.

EDIT: Ninjaed by Bears... Bear ninjas... Bear ninjas with lasers... EEP!

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 07:03 AM
Hell, sleeping in a Rope Trick cast from inside a Magnificent Mansion with a golem, kept in the wizard's Bag of Holding when the wizard isn't asleep, patrolling it.


If you want to really go nuts, the wizard is inside an Effigy (see Complete Arcane) and has full cover from everything, including AMFs, with a few slots his familiar can open and then close so the wizard can get line of effect on his turn while his effigy beats on things.

Marius
2006-12-29, 07:05 AM
Wizards and fighters are assumed to have the same number of encounters, just 4 and with that number the wizard controls every encounter past level 10th.
Rope trick eats up a slot? Sure, a 2nd level slot, do you really think that a 9th level wizard would mind to reserve a 2nd level slot that could ensure that he will be able to rest and regain every spell he has?
And you are right, a fighter can swing his sword all day but without a wizard to buff him chances are that he'll die very soon.
Extending the number of encounters won't work, a high level wizard can use his lower level spells to deal with weak enemies while he saves his best spells for the BBEG. And it's even worse for the fighter since he won't be buffed so he probably will be the first one to fall.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-29, 07:34 AM
What exactly are you suggesting? That the rogue steals all of the wizard's equipment, while he's wearing it, and then stabs the wizard? How does he find the wizard, exactly? How does he avoid notice once he steps right up and takes something? What's the wizard doing all this time, in your scenario? Just hangin' around, ignoring his disappearing equipment? What about the wizard's passive spells, such as Magnificent Mansion and Contingency?
I'm suggesting that the wizard isn't going to sleep in a rope trick every night for his entire life. And yes, the individual that sees the other first and can remain undetected has a huge advantage, and that's precisely what the rogue's advantage is; the entire class is basically built for it. As for contingency, unless that spell was cast by a god, it isn't going to get through mind blank to detect and activate against the rogue. Magic cannot detect the subject of such a spell. And for the stepping up and taking something, the left kidney would be the first thing. Bodies are much easier to loot when they're not moving around. :smallamused:

With Heavy Fortification availible at high levels, a dagger between the shoulderblades means crap-all.Heavy fortification on what armor?

If someone has the leisure to plan and the other party doesn't know they're coming, that person is at a huge advantage. And the best person to take advantage of this would be, in fact, not a rogue but... a wizard. The best class for both defending himself against being found and for finding someone, methodically studying them, then appearing and killing them in a vulnerable moment is the wizard.Which does not at all mean that he'll be able to execute such against a hypothetical rogue. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly. Sure, the wizard can kill the rogue, but so too can the rogue kill the wizard. It depends on who's looking for whom. If Whiz-Bang the All-Powerful has been going about proving just why he has that name by killing a lot of people, eventually somebody's cousin that he doesn't know about is going to want to take him out. Or hell, the Regulators decide he's too dangerous or something and send an agent without the wizard's knowledge. And if the wizard is busily hiding himself all the time then the point is moot because he's not affecting anyone if he never comes out of his hole.

And yes, I'm thinking long-term as opposed to "two people of X and Y classes meet in the middle of an open field at a distance of 60 feet, FIGHT," because however many stupidly built barbarians you throw at wizards in that fashion, it's not a real test of anything.

You may not have been in a debate, but beating up strawmen is exactly what you were doing. Nobody ever said or even implied that a level 1 wizard doesn't need a party. You pulled that COMPLETELY out of thin air.Then what was all that about sleep being a win button?

Hell, sleeping in a Rope Trick cast from inside a Magnificent Mansion with a golem, kept in the wizard's Bag of Holding when the wizard isn't asleep, patrolling it.
The wizard is sucked into the astral plane and dies as the bag of holding interacts with the rope trick.

And it's way past time for me to be asleep, so I won't be replying again until much later today. Just so you know.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 07:56 AM
I'm suggesting that the wizard isn't going to sleep in a rope trick every night for his entire life.
No, just until he gets Magnificent Mansion, or retires and builds himself a real tower. A smart wizard *will* sleep in a rope trick, probably with an Alarm around it to boot. Can you assassinate a wizard who isn't taking any precautions against it? Sure.


And yes, the individual that sees the other first and can remain undetected has a huge advantage, and that's precisely what the rogue's advantage is; the entire class is basically built for it. Too bad that that doesn't come up too much with PC-group party balance. You weren't talking "saw him first", you were talking "methodically stalking him for days/months/years waiting for the moment, with the guy having no idea he's being stalked".
And the fun part is, in such a scenario, a wizard would be a better assassin than a rogue.


As for contingency, unless that spell was cast by a god, it isn't going to get through mind blank to detect and activate against the rogue. Magic cannot detect the subject of such a spell. And for the stepping up and taking something, the left kidney would be the first thing. Bodies are much easier to loot when they're not moving around. :smallamused:Contingency isn't a divination. What Contingency can and can't know is up in the air, but it can *certainly* react to physical events like "someone or something trying to stab me". It's not trying to read the rogue's mind or divine his presence; it'd react the same way to a mechanical device trying to stab the wizard.
Kidney? Heavy Fortification.


Heavy fortification on what armor? On his mithral buckler, or his mithral twilight chain shirt, of course.


Which does not at all mean that he'll be able to execute such against a hypothetical rogue. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly. Sure, the wizard can kill the rogue, but so too can the rogue kill the wizard. Yes. If the rogue sneaks up Mind Blanked with the wizard having no idea he's there, then uses an Antimagic Field scroll, and the wizard isn't the paranoid kind... he can kill the wizard. Of course, the fact that he's a rogue doesn't actually matter at that point; a Complete Warrior samurai with cross-class UMD ranks could do the exact same thing.
Meanwhile, the wizard would have a vastly easier time killing the rogue.
And a really paranoid wizard could make his bead inside a solid Forcecage produced by Greater Shadow Evocation (no cost). He doesn't worry about air, he has an ioun stone of I Don't Need To Breathe. Better yet, he cast Rope Trick inside the force cage.

A TRULY paranoid wizard doesn't sleep any particular need to sleep anywhere but inside his trusty Effigy, which prevents anyone from getting line of effect to him.


It depends on who's looking for whom. If Whiz-Bang the All-Powerful has been going about proving just why he has that name by killing a lot of people, eventually somebody's cousin that he doesn't know about is going to want to take him out. Or hell, the Regulators decide he's too dangerous or something and send an agent without the wizard's knowledge. And if the wizard is busily hiding himself all the time then the point is moot because he's not affecting anyone if he never comes out of his hole. The wizard can come out fully prepared for the day; he only needs to hide while he's asleep.


And yes, I'm thinking long-term as opposed to "two people of X and Y classes meet in the middle of an open field at a distance of 60 feet, FIGHT," because however many stupidly built barbarians you throw at wizards in that fashion, it's not a real test of anything. Mm-hmm. And an assassin that the wizard doesn't know is coming is a real test of... what, exactly? Nothing that has anything to do with real gameplay, I'd say.

(Paranoid wizard: Contact Other Plane, cast on my familiar. Hey, Fluffy, ask Thor if anyone's trying to assassinate me. Yeah? Which continent are they on? Yeah? Are they within a hundred miles of me?" And so on. And then again, just to make sure you got the right answers.


Then what was all that about sleep being a win button?Because a level 1 wizard can have a DC 15 or 16 Sleep (Grey Elf with Spell Focus: Enchantment, DC 17), which is about a 7/10 chance of being I Win against the vast majority of first-level enemies. Sleep is one of the powerhouses of the low levels.


The wizard is sucked into the astral plane and dies as the bag of holding interacts with the rope trick. Sorry, that's only Portable Holes and Bags of Holding. The fluff that says it's dangerous is a remnant with *no* defining mechanics, left over from 2nd Ed, and WotC has said, basically, to ignore it.]

Pegasos989
2006-12-29, 08:06 AM
Yeah, as bears said, arguement that "A rogue with years of preparation time should be able to kill a lone, unprotected wizard who doesn't have magic items, self crafted golems or anything... Atleast with some scrolls bought from wizards!" is not... too great.

Matthew
2006-12-29, 08:13 AM
Spell Casters have it too damn good in 3.x and I blame the massively reduced Spell Recovery times. It used to be 10 Minutes per Spell Level of Spell, now it's just 'an hour'. Rant, rant, rant! Stupid new edition! Rant, rant, rant!

They were still loads more powerful than Fighters at 7th-20th Level, though. If you want to make them less powerful, increase Spell Recovery times, decrease total Slots and keep certain Spells out of their grubby little hands (make Clerics learn their Spells and control their Spell Lists).

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 08:18 AM
Yeah, I remember how a wizard couldn't memorize all his spells in twenty-four hours. That was great.

Wait. No, that wasn't great. That was a terrible game mechanic.

Ephraim
2006-12-29, 08:19 AM
The wizard is sucked into the astral plane and dies as the bag of holding interacts with the rope trick.

And it's way past time for me to be asleep, so I won't be replying again until much later today. Just so you know.

In fairness, I thought of playing this dirty trick on the Wizard as well but a careful reading suggests it doesn't work. The description of Rope Trick states that creating an extradimensional space inside of an extradimensional space is hazardous. The bag of holding is specifically described as a nondimensional space.

Matthew
2006-12-29, 08:33 AM
Yeah, I remember how a wizard couldn't memorize all his spells in twenty-four hours. That was great.

Wait. No, that wasn't great. That was a terrible game mechanic.

Why do you think that? [Please answer without sarcasm].

Fizban
2006-12-29, 08:38 AM
A TRULY paranoid wizard doesn't sleep any particular need to sleep anywhere but inside his trusty Effigy, which prevents anyone from getting line of effect to him.
What is this about an Effigy blocking line of effect? The only Effigies in Complete Arcane is the Effigy Creature template, which has to be applied to, ya know, a creature. IIRC, a standard living creature. I don't know of any living creatures that allow people to live inside themselves, and certainly none that have these shutters on the sides to open for line of effect. Unless you're assuming living in the gullet of a creature with a swallow whole ability, which can't really be turned off.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 08:39 AM
Essentially, because it was cumbersome without contributing much if anything to the game, balance-wise or in some other way.

Edit: an effigy is a construct. Build an effigy with room for you inside it, and you can sit inside it. Build slots that open and close into it, and it will have slots that open and close.
As to living creatures you can sit inside... try anything with Swallow Whole.

Matthew
2006-12-29, 09:03 AM
It was definitely somewhat cumbersome, but I don't know if I would agree it added nothing to the game in terms of balance. I always found it made me think twice before unloading all my Spells, since it was going to take a long time to memorise them all again. I suppose it might just mean longer rest periods inbetween encounters, though.

Fizban
2006-12-29, 09:04 AM
Except building a construct that you can ride around inside requires it to be invented first. Effigy's have no such rules. There's a couple specific monsters, but I don't think any of them had rules for creation.

I mentioned swallow whole: as the Effigy creature works just like a normal one bar the template and following your commands, it would still deal damage. It is not stated that a living creature with swallow whole can choose to not deal damage, therefore your Effigy just ground you into pulp.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 09:05 AM
Basically, yeah. The party is unlikely to move on without a wizard, so it'd just mean that longer periods of time are handwaved when people say "we rest."

Edit: Swallow Whole is just to find creatures with enough room for you inside them. You wouldn't have them swallow you whole, just make a space inside. From the fluff, the effigy is a replica, and certainly doesn't need identical working innards. It's a fluff-based solution, but there it is.
And a search reveals that a Gibbering Mouther's insides do 1d4 CON damage, something entirely preventable in a number of ways, i.e. the Soulfire armor enhancement from the BoED. I wouldn't want to live in one of those things, though.
A gelatinous cube could engulf you if you were immune to paralysis and acid.

Fizban
2006-12-29, 09:10 AM
Well by assuming a fluff based solution you open the door to the fluff based solution of no bag of holdings in your rope trick or mansion.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 09:12 AM
Except that there's no logic behind that, and it's easily avoided by having your construct carry your stuff into your Mansion anyway.

Saph
2006-12-29, 09:18 AM
Three points regarding the "Wizards are uber!" idea:

1. The Wizard class requires you to be a massive geek to fully exploit its power. You have to know the spells, know the magic items, know how to combine them, and be good at battlefield tactics. Personally, I know of two, maybe three players who have a sufficiently encyclopaedic knowledge of D&D to pull off all the stuff that's being attributed to wizards here. The vast majority of players don't have anywhere near high enough a geek factor (or they just don't care).

2. It's fairly obvious from looking at the classes that D&D was not designed with the above sort of player in mind. The wizard class has much more potential for brokenness than the others, but if you aren't sufficiently geeky, you won't be able to exploit it that much. The designers just didn't take into account the sheer amount of mental energy that geeks will put into optimisation. (Whether they should have known better's another question. :) ) But if you don't have a sufficiently geeky wizard in your game, it's not a big problem.

3. If you DO have a sufficiently geeky wizard in your game, there are still ways around it.

Basically, a high-enough level wizard with enough time to prepare is almost invincible to anything except a higher-level caster. So, the question is: if you were living in a world like this, what would you do about it?

A good analogy is nuclear weapons. A person in our world with a nuclear weapon can destroy a city. So can a D&D wizard. So, a high-level wizard in D&D would likely be treated the same way that someone with nuclear weapons or the ability to build them is treated in our world. Governments doesn't care if Joe Splod and his friends halfway around the world have got a few machine guns, but if they find out that they've got a suitcase nuke . . .

Or you could just tell your players: "Don't powergame with casters". Simpler, and a lot less painful for them in the long run.

- Saph

Morty
2006-12-29, 09:19 AM
Just one question:
Am I and my gaming group only people who think that Rope Trick and Mage's Magnificent Mansion are spells too stupid even for D&D standards? It appears that we are...

Pegasos989
2006-12-29, 09:28 AM
Three points regarding the "Wizards are uber!" idea:

1. The Wizard class requires you to be a massive geek to fully exploit its power. You have to know the spells, know the magic items, know how to combine them, and be good at battlefield tactics. Personally, I know of two, maybe three players who have a sufficiently encyclopaedic knowledge of D&D to pull off all the stuff that's being attributed to wizards here. The vast majority of players don't have anywhere near high enough a geek factor (or they just don't care).

...what? Change being geek to have general grasp of D20 rules and some tactical thinking and you are good to go.


2. It's fairly obvious from looking at the classes that D&D was not designed with the above sort of player in mind. The wizard class has much more potential for brokenness than the others, but if you aren't sufficiently geeky, you won't be able to exploit it that much. The designers just didn't take into account the sheer amount of mental energy that geeks will put into optimisation. (Whether they should have known better's another question. :) ) But if you don't have a sufficiently geeky wizard in your game, it's not a big problem.

If you don't have anyone who read PHB once (or atleast most of it), then you are right. If reading PHB makes you geek... You have wierd mindset.


3. If you DO have a sufficiently geeky wizard in your game, there are still ways around it.

Basically, a high-enough level wizard with enough time to prepare is almost invincible to anything except a higher-level caster. So, the question is: if you were living in a world like this, what would you do about it?

A good analogy is nuclear weapons. A person in our world with a nuclear weapon can destroy a city. So can a D&D wizard. So, a high-level wizard in D&D would likely be treated the same way that someone with nuclear weapons or the ability to build them is treated in our world. Governments doesn't care if Joe Splod and his friends halfway around the world have got a few machine guns, but if they find out that they've got a suitcase nuke . . .

Or you could just tell your players: "Don't powergame with casters". Simpler, and a lot less painful for them in the long run.

- Saph


Except that those nuclear weapons have unlimited use and can use themselves, so governments can't just "use them as they wish".

Also, half of the fun in DnD is trying to make a really efficient character. "Don't try to make efficient character but rather suck." is like saying "Don't try to have fun.".

Matthew
2006-12-29, 09:31 AM
Saph:
That's a fairly hilarious analogy. Treat High Level Wizards as Nukes. Their Spells are government secrets and their powers not to be used except in the most desperate of circumstances. Governments take great pains to prevent enemy Spell Casters developing High Level Weapons Grade Spells...

Mort:
Doubtful. They are certainly on my list of Spells that generally don't make it into my campaign games.

Saph
2006-12-29, 09:35 AM
...what? Change being geek to have general grasp of D20 rules and some tactical thinking and you are good to go.

Oh, come on. I said "the stuff in this thread". Go back and look at, say, the spell combos that Bears was listing. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that an average player would be able to think of that on the fly? You can call that being a geek or not, your choice, but my point stands - very few players are that much into it.


Also, half of the fun in DnD is trying to make a really efficient character. "Don't try to make efficient character but rather suck." is like saying "Don't try to have fun.".

Then nerf wizards and other casters, or don't play higher-level games. I'm just making suggestions so that you don't have to.

- Saph

Pegasos989
2006-12-29, 09:48 AM
Oh, come on. I said "the stuff in this thread". Go back and look at, say, the spell combos that Bears was listing. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that an average player would be able to think of that on the fly? You can call that being a geek or not, your choice, but my point stands - very few players are that much into it.



Then nerf wizards and other casters, or don't play higher-level games. I'm just making suggestions so that you don't have to.

- Saph

On the fly, possibly not. Playing a wizard a whole campaign (months, possibly years) and reading every spell he knows and then combining those... Yes, it should be easy for average player. The problem is not cleric being strong, it is cleric being so strong by simply casting 3 basic spells or druid being strong by simply taking natural spell.

And yes, nerfing wizards is common but coming up with a decent fix when whole magic system is so unbalanced is very hard.

belboz
2006-12-29, 10:05 AM
1. The fighter is offensively effective at lower levels. Early on, casters are support for fighters. It is okay that there is a role reversal at higher levels. Fighters are still a relevant part of the team. They provide coverage so that the casters have time to fire off their key spells. They also mop up monsters that the casters have weakened so that key spells can be conserved. Making a habit of utilizing the strengths of all of the party's members gives villains fewer linchpins to exploit.

There's been some factual disagreement with this, but I'd like to point out that, even if true, this isn't very satisfying. Everyone in a game should get to feel they're contibuting *regularly*. I'd much rather play a game that's really an ensemble piece than a game consisting of two volumes, one about the fighter and a sequel about the wizard.


2. There is a widespread perception that high-level Wizards should be extremely powerful, but by no means is a DM bound to obey this convention. If the villain knows how dangerous the party's casters are, then a fortress designed to hamper those casters is both appropriate and an interesting challenge for the party. Along the same lines, DM's should discourage complacent casters. If a player hasn't opted to take Spell Mastery or Eschew Components because she believes that the DM would never be lame enough to do something to her component pouch or spell book then the DM should target the component pouch and spell book sometimes. DM's should not get suckered in by the "That's no fun!" argument. It may not be fun for the people playing fighters that the wizard gets concessions that lead to overpowering.

This *is* worth remembering, but a DM needs to be careful with the component pouch/spell book trick. The DM cannot appear to pick on a particular character. Wizard players are eventually going to wonder why the fighter's weapons never get stolen. The fortress, on the other hand, is a fine idea to use regularly: If casters are "overpowered," baddies in the world are going to begin to figure that out, and prepare accordingly.


3. There is nothing wrong with the players of the wizard characters letting the fighter characters do their thing. Unless your game is purely tactical combat, try to avoid traditional, overpowered builds in favour of something novel that lets everybody in the party participate. Players frequently condone metagaming to make a character more powerful, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with metagaming to make combat more fun for everybody. Just because the wizard can be a one-man show-stopper doesn't mean that he has to be.

I've written my thoughts about this response to brokenness before, but basically, I think it's unfair to ask players to search for a "sweet spot" between sufficient effectiveness and over-effectiveness. It's one thing to give up a min-maxed build because it doesn't fit your character concept; it's another thing to have to figure out just how much you need to self-nerf to make the game fun for others.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-29, 12:21 PM
...what? Change being geek to have general grasp of D20 rules and some tactical thinking and you are good to go.
If you don't have anyone who read PHB once (or atleast most of it), then you are right. If reading PHB makes you geek... You have wierd mindset.
Except that those nuclear weapons have unlimited use and can use themselves, so governments can't just "use them as they wish".

Also, half of the fun in DnD is trying to make a really efficient character. "Don't try to make efficient character but rather suck." is like saying "Don't try to have fun.".

its funny, who's making straw men now? the quote was not "any one who reads the books and knows how to play is an uber geek" it was "anyone that spends vast amounts of time maximizing and exploiting every possible combination of spells, feats and skills needs to find something constructive to do". while "half the fun" of dnd may be making a really efficient character, as you say (i would call what you do more like find way to make the wizard absurdly power broken), the other half is making a character that covers the weaknesses of the other characters while not making them obsolete. thats where "group dynamics" and "being a good person not a jerk who tries to win at dnd" comes in. while i like making my character as good as the next guy, thats secondary to making sure that we, as a group, get to all keep playing and having fun. if i want to "win", ill go play neverwinter nights or baldur's gate. i play dnd so that i can get together with a bunch of friends, screw around for a couple of hours, and immerse myself in a fantastic world full of swords and sorcery. but thats just me, apparently.


On the fly, possibly not. Playing a wizard a whole campaign (months, possibly years) and reading every spell he knows and then combining those... Yes, it should be easy for average player. The problem is not cleric being strong, it is cleric being so strong by simply casting 3 basic spells or druid being strong by simply taking natural spell.

And yes, nerfing wizards is common but coming up with a decent fix when whole magic system is so unbalanced is very hard.

[emphasis mine]
average? the average player takes spells he thinks will be good, more often the ones that he likes. personally, when im playing a wizard, i dont use a lot of the battlefield control spells (i use some, but thats not what i like to do) mostly because i dont like having to keep track of all that much more stuff, when fire ball or horrid wilting can drop enemies fairly efficiently. so no, your "average player" doesnt min/max everything in the game. he or she will min/max some things, but to the level that you and bears obviously do, most people call that "obsession" or "having way too much time on your hands", not normal.

Ephraim
2006-12-29, 12:40 PM
Belboz,

I appreciate your comments. You actually focused on the notion of whether or not it matters instead of whether or not my assumptions were 100% accurate.

Regarding your concerns about point 1, I still think it would be okay if the classes were not perfectly balanced. As long as the fighter remains relevant into high levels, I don't think it matters that the party dynamic changes from focusing on the fighter with the wizard as support to focusing on the wizard with the fighter as support. (Note: remaining relevant indicates that the abilities of the various casters in the party do not render the fighter obsolete.)

Regarding your comments on point 2, I agree that the DM should not single out the wizard for abuse. On the other hand, nor should the DM give the wizard preferential treatment. If it's considered fair and fun to encounter rust monsters, which are a huge threat to a fighter's equipment, then it's disingenuous to claim (as some people do) that it isn't fun to threaten the wizard's equipment.

As far as nerfing casters go, there are probably a selection of most offensive spells that DM's could ban or tone down. Even just banning spells like Rope Trick and Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion so that you can force the party to sleep in the real world could be an improvement. As a DM, if you decide that you want to emphasize a particular weakness of the caster classes, it's a relatively little effort to review spells for offenders that allow casters to ignore that weakness.

Regarding your comments on point 3, I think it would be sufficient for the casters to try. Even if they don't find the perfect sweet spot right away, they can experiment until they find something balanced. Even if they don't pursue a real sweet spot, occasionally opting to memorize something besides the same playbook of win-button spells could be an improvement.

Avenger337
2006-12-29, 01:06 PM
Also, half of the fun in DnD is trying to make a really efficient character. "Don't try to make efficient character but rather suck." is like saying "Don't try to have fun.".

Oh dear, now I'm entering into this argument... Stupid me being bored on Christmas break.

I *COMPLETELY* disagree with you. Powergaming is not fun. Making blatently overpowered characters that spoil the game for everyone is not fun. DnD is not a game that you "win". It's a social game that's supposed to involve, you know, interaction with other people and stuff. If you want to play a "I just blew everything up because I have a bigger gun than you do," go check out your local first-person shooter and don't bother me.

As a DM, if someone tried to powergame a wizard. Scratch that. If someone tried to powergame *any* character like you're talking about, I would do one of three things:
1) Set up encounters that deliberately don't let the wizard shine. One of my goals when planning sessions is to create situations where each of the players can do something useful, not where the wizard does everything. "But-- But-- the wizard can do it better!" No, he can't. I'm the DM. I know a lot more about the world than my players, by necessity, so it's quite trivial to set up situations in which character A isn't nearly as effective as character B. If it comes to it, I start fudging dice rolls or whatever to make it happen. "But-- But-- that's not fair!" Of course it isn't. Life isn't fair. The real world isn't fair. Why should my fake world be fair? I never promised anybody that I'd be fair to them. I promised them that I'd work damn hard to make sure they're having fun, and if all my players are having fun, I don't give a rat's ass if I'm fair.
2) If for whatever reasons number one doesn't work, I go to the "Sit down, shut up, and knock it off" method. If you insist on breaking the game, I'm going to remove your ability to break it. You can't cast X spell, you can't use Y ability anymore, you no longer have Z item. Note that this is different than taking away good abilities or discouraging creativity or whatever. Underneath it all, I *want* my players to succeed at whatever task they've undertaken; I just want to make it challenging for them. If someone is consistently overshadowing the game, powergaming to the extreme, and flaunting it in my (and the other players') face, then they can't do that anymore.
3) If 2 doesn't work, there's always the "You are the weakest link. Good-bye" method.

Fortunately, I've never had to kick anyone out of any of my games, and only very very rarely had to stop someone from using X, Y, or Z ability. Maybe I just have good players, I dunno. Maybe people have more common sense than to actually do some of the things suggested in this (and other) threads.

But getting back to the point of this thread, that's why it doesn't matter. The point of DnD is not to "win" by breaking such-and-such a class.

(Incidentally, one of my most favourite classes is the bard. Another is the ninja. The next character I want to play is a horizon walker. So please don't tell me these classes are useless or dumb, because I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of them)

Ephraim
2006-12-29, 01:25 PM
(Incidentally, one of my most favourite classes is the bard. Another is the ninja. The next character I want to play is a horizon walker. So please don't tell me these classes are useless or dumb, because I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of them)

You, sir, are a man after my own heart. I wish that more players were open to this attitude toward character selection. In a theoretical discussion with a buddy of mine, he stated that playing a fighter to level 20 is unacceptable, because it makes you a burden to your team. There's a balance to be struck between making decisions that benefit the team and the team adapting to accomadate your decisions.

Saph
2006-12-29, 01:26 PM
One of my goals when planning sessions is to create situations where each of the players can do something useful, not where the wizard does everything. "But-- But-- the wizard can do it better!" No, he can't. I'm the DM. I know a lot more about the world than my players, by necessity, so it's quite trivial to set up situations in which character A isn't nearly as effective as character B. If it comes to it, I start fudging dice rolls or whatever to make it happen. "But-- But-- that's not fair!" Of course it isn't. Life isn't fair. The real world isn't fair. Why should my fake world be fair? I never promised anybody that I'd be fair to them. I promised them that I'd work damn hard to make sure they're having fun, and if all my players are having fun, I don't give a rat's ass if I'm fair.

Yup. Saying "the wizard is stronger!" makes no sense on its own. A wizard is exactly as strong as the DM wants the wizard to be.

What people really mean when they say "the wizard is stronger!" is "The wizard is stronger when the DM is running the game the way I think the game should be run according to rules and balance and enemies and challenges."

But then the question I'd ask is: "Okay, so does this spoil the game for you?"

If the answer is "no", then there's no problem. If the answer is "yes", then the DM needs to run the game differently. How you do that is up to you. I prefer soft-power changes like the ones above rather than hard-power ones (a hard-power change would be banning or nerfing caster classes, or halving the XP they earn), but it's completely up to you.

And, like I've said, many people don't find casters overpowered in their games. So for them . . . once again, no problem.

It seems easy to solve to me, but people seem to get a little worked up over this here . . .

- Saph

Marius
2006-12-29, 02:12 PM
Oh dear, now I'm entering into this argument... Stupid me being bored on Christmas break.

I *COMPLETELY* disagree with you. Powergaming is not fun. Making blatently overpowered characters that spoil the game for everyone is not fun. DnD is not a game that you "win". It's a social game that's supposed to involve, you know, interaction with other people and stuff. If you want to play a "I just blew everything up because I have a bigger gun than you do," go check out your local first-person shooter and don't bother me.

As a DM, if someone tried to powergame a wizard. Scratch that. If someone tried to powergame *any* character like you're talking about, I would do one of three things:
1) Set up encounters that deliberately don't let the wizard shine. One of my goals when planning sessions is to create situations where each of the players can do something useful, not where the wizard does everything. "But-- But-- the wizard can do it better!" No, he can't. I'm the DM. I know a lot more about the world than my players, by necessity, so it's quite trivial to set up situations in which character A isn't nearly as effective as character B. If it comes to it, I start fudging dice rolls or whatever to make it happen. "But-- But-- that's not fair!" Of course it isn't. Life isn't fair. The real world isn't fair. Why should my fake world be fair? I never promised anybody that I'd be fair to them. I promised them that I'd work damn hard to make sure they're having fun, and if all my players are having fun, I don't give a rat's ass if I'm fair.

I agree that the game is about having fun but I don't see with you should try to be unfair when someone plays an effective build. What I do in my games is simply ban spells or builds, or items (I banned metamagic rods for example) before they get in my game.
You have to remember that even when your world doesn't have to be fair it has to be fun for everyone, even for that guy that tries to powergame. If you don't like him just tell him that you don't want to play with him.
On the other hand we are not even talking about someone trying to play a "broken" wizard/obscure-prestige-class/even-more-obscure prestige class that keeps using polymorph and chesse like that. ANY average wizard build just using the SRD will still be "better" at probably everything than every other non-caster class.
It's not because every wizard player is a powergamer but because the wizard is just very unbalanced. And not only the wizard, the whole magic sistem is unbalanced.
Any DM can try to solve this problems one way or another but we shouldn't, the game should be easy on us. We shouldn't be bothering ourselves with game mechanics and how broken they are.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-29, 02:20 PM
Yeah, as bears said, arguement that "A rogue with years of preparation time should be able to kill a lone, unprotected wizard who doesn't have magic items, self crafted golems or anything... Atleast with some scrolls bought from wizards!" is not... too great.
Who cares if the scrolls are bought from wizards? Seriously, that argument just fails. Unless your campaign setting has some form of massive war going on between wizards and everybody else, there's no reason why no one can procure magic items from a wizard whom he does not wish to kill. And it doesn't take years of preparation time; it just takes some failed Spot checks. Which against Hide modifiers in the 50+ range, the wizard is going to provide all friggin' day.

Matthew
2006-12-29, 02:23 PM
It's not because every wizard player is a powergamer but because the wizard is just very unbalanced. And not only the wizard, the whole magic sistem is unbalanced.
Any DM can try to solve this problems one way or another but we shouldn't, the game should be easy on us. We shouldn't be bothering ourselves with game mechanics and how broken they are.

Hmmn. Yeah, I kind of agree with that last sentiment. I wouldn't have said so for previous editions, which were much more up in the air about balance, but it is something of a problem for D&D 3.x, which seems to want to present itself as a "balanced" edition.

It would be nice if everything was perfectly balanced for us. However, I am not at all sure that it is really possible, as the nebulous nature of the game makes accounting for every single combination and its ramifications a bit difficult. Not to mention the wildly different appetites and expectations of their audience.

I think it's a bit of a misleading to say 'we shouldn't have to rebalance the game, as it already ought to be balanced,' because really its not about balance, it's about our perception of what is balanced and that differs from group to group. Maybe there is an absolute balance out there for D&D suitable for everyone, but I doubt it is easy to find or we would have it already.

I haven't really directly experienced any balance issues in 3.x yet, but neither have I fully explored every mode and level of play.

Marius
2006-12-29, 02:28 PM
Who cares if the scrolls are bought from wizards? Seriously, that argument just fails. Unless your campaign setting has some form of massive war going on between wizards and everybody else, there's no reason why no one can procure magic items from a wizard whom he does not wish to kill. And it doesn't take years of preparation time; it just takes some failed Spot checks. Which against Hide modifiers in the 50+ range, the wizard is going to provide all friggin' day.

You can't hide from contingency or alarm or etc. I just LOVE rogues but they can't kill a prepared wizard.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-29, 03:08 PM
Contingency isn't a divination. What Contingency can and can't know is up in the air, but it can *certainly* react to physical events like "someone or something trying to stab me". It's not trying to read the rogue's mind or divine his presence; it'd react the same way to a mechanical device trying to stab the wizard.
If it isn't trying to divine his presence, then it's not going to know he's there. Or anyone else, for that matter. Would make the spell sort of useless. Not that contingencies aren't fairly expensive to cast in the first place for limited effectiveness; if you're walking around with one all the time, chances are it's going to be expended by a passing animal or something.

On his mithral buckler, or his mithral twilight chain shirt, of course.
Twilight? How non-core of you. But I suppose, if you really want to not have a robe of any kind, given that robes and armor use the same item slot.

Yes. If the rogue sneaks up Mind Blanked with the wizard having no idea he's there, then uses an Antimagic Field scroll, and the wizard isn't the paranoid kind... he can kill the wizard. Of course, the fact that he's a rogue doesn't actually matter at that point; a Complete Warrior samurai with cross-class UMD ranks could do the exact same thing.
How would said samurai do the "sneaking up" part of all that?

Meanwhile, the wizard would have a vastly easier time killing the rogue.
And a really paranoid wizard could make his bead inside a solid Forcecage produced by Greater Shadow Evocation (no cost). He doesn't worry about air, he has an ioun stone of I Don't Need To Breathe. Better yet, he cast Rope Trick inside the force cage.
Y'know, your spellcasting costs are really starting to add up here. Does anyone read the Material Component line of forcecage? Anyone at all? It seems not, the way it's slung around every day by every wizard who can cast it.

To quote the primary wizard player in my own group, forcecage is the big red button. It's great, but it quickly becomes prohibitively expensive to use.

A TRULY paranoid wizard doesn't sleep any particular need to sleep anywhere but inside his trusty Effigy, which prevents anyone from getting line of effect to him.
I've run a campaign with an effigy master, a gnome one, no less, and that never came up.

Mm-hmm. And an assassin that the wizard doesn't know is coming is a real test of... what, exactly? Nothing that has anything to do with real gameplay, I'd say.
Whether the wizard is actually killable at all. It becomes useless to even start talking of real gameplay if the wizard wins everything even when rigged against him. It would just mean that if you ever played in one of my games, I'd have to ban you from spellcasting. Fortunately, my own players aren't obstinate powergamers, so I don't typically have this problem.

(Paranoid wizard: Contact Other Plane, cast on my familiar. Hey, Fluffy, ask Thor if anyone's trying to assassinate me. Yeah? Which continent are they on? Yeah? Are they within a hundred miles of me?" And so on. And then again, just to make sure you got the right answers.
How hazardous.

Because a level 1 wizard can have a DC 15 or 16 Sleep (Grey Elf with Spell Focus: Enchantment, DC 17), which is about a 7/10 chance of being I Win against the vast majority of first-level enemies. Sleep is one of the powerhouses of the low levels.
Okay. So why does the wizard need a party if he has a win button? After all, cast it and he wins, right?

Sorry, that's only Portable Holes and Bags of Holding. The fluff that says it's dangerous is a remnant with *no* defining mechanics, left over from 2nd Ed, and WotC has said, basically, to ignore it.
Translation: Bears doesn't like it so it gets ignored. It's there, I don't know a DM who wouldn't use it (especially against a character who's player has been indulging in twinkies a bit too much), and the player is even forewarned.

Avenger337
2006-12-29, 03:24 PM
I agree that the game is about having fun but I don't see with you should try to be unfair when someone plays an effective build. [...] You have to remember that even when your world doesn't have to be fair it has to be fun for everyone, even for that guy that tries to powergame.

Note that I didn't say I was unfair because someone played an effective build. I am, by no means, asking people to play ineffective builds. I'm asking people to not hog the spotlight. The powergamer who plays with me will have his chance to kick butt, just like every other member of his party. He just won't be able to kick butt all the time, and if I have to stack the cards against him to ensure this, then I'm going to stack the cards against him.



ANY average wizard build just using the SRD will still be "better" at probably everything than every other non-caster class.
It's not because every wizard player is a powergamer but because the wizard is just very unbalanced. And not only the wizard, the whole magic sistem is unbalanced.
Any DM can try to solve this problems one way or another but we shouldn't, the game should be easy on us. We shouldn't be bothering ourselves with game mechanics and how broken they are.I might disagree with your first sentence, because I've seen situations in which wizards have perfectly competent builds and aren't any more effective than their party members. But I don't really want to argue about that. My point is that, "Whoa, what?? Wizards are more powerful? Pssh YEA they are!" Of course they're more powerful. It's magic! It can do practically whatever the hell it wants! The reason it doesn't matter (and the point of this thread) is that NOBODY wants to push a button and win. Not the DM, not the other people in the party, and (hopefully) not the player himself. You can get that by grabbing a big gun in Half-Life 2 and blowing the crap out of ten million zombies and antlions and stuff. And frankly, magic isn't always the coolest thing. People don't alway want to play a wizard. People don't always want to play a wizard to "maximum effectiveness."

It's just not fun to push a button and win.

(As a side note, I defy any one of you to create a system of magic that is as cool and exciting and limitless as DnD's that *isn't* broken. Why? Cuz it's magic! It should be able to do awe-inspiring, amazing feats that no one else can do. And if it can't, well, that's the crappiest magic I've ever seen. I'll go back to my big sword, thank you.)

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 03:55 PM
Oh, come on. I said "the stuff in this thread". Go back and look at, say, the spell combos that Bears was listing. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that an average player would be able to think of that on the fly? You can call that being a geek or not, your choice, but my point stands - very few players are that much into it.

We're discussing the extremes here. So, no, but I do think a player with a bit of experience could and would be able to think of other wizard tactics and combinations--Solid Fog and a wall spell, Forcecage and a damage fog, Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Exhaustion, et cetera.


Edit: incidentally, the crunch-heavy nature of D&D Magic makes it not so much with the Exciting and Nifty, and more Just Another Tool.

Morty
2006-12-29, 04:18 PM
(As a side note, I defy any one of you to create a system of magic that is as cool and exciting and limitless as DnD's that *isn't* broken. Why? Cuz it's magic! It should be able to do awe-inspiring, amazing feats that no one else can do. And if it can't, well, that's the crappiest magic I've ever seen. I'll go back to my big sword, thank you.)
Magic doesn't have to be uber-brokenly powerful to be fun and satisfying. Magic is magic, and it'll be cool nad useful even if wizards(and other spellcasters) are poor combatants- because they can do many things others can only dream about. Also, it can't include crap like fogs, clouds and walls. And Rope Trick. And Mage's Magnificent Mansion. And yes, I'm homebrewing my own system from 3 years or so, and I'm planning to include sane magic system, which is not that hard. Besdie that, I fully agree with you.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-29, 04:26 PM
which is why i dont think spell casters should be able to get more than vague references to exactly how a spell works until after they use it. tell them the spell type and school, whether its ranged or not, tell them if its short or long ranged (not as in the ranges short, medium and long, but more like it works for combat ranges only or it works on very wide ranges) and tell them generally what kind of effects it does (puts them to sleep, does damage, controls their mind in some way, etc, but nothing like it deals 2d8 damage save for half, or they are stunned for 1d4 +1/level rounds, etc.) this basically says that magic isnt an exact science, and that it may take a little experimentation to get it to work. this usually isnt applicably to lower level spells (even a commoner in a magical world should know what magic missile does) but as spells get higher the descriptions should be more and more vague. i do the same thing with my uber powerful weapons. sure identify will tell you that it has this +x/+y enchantment and that it has some other modifier, but they are almost always hidden powers that i will give to players after they use the weapon for a while or they do something specific to trigger an ability. i had a sword called "yoohoo toodle-oo aka purse snatcher bob" (i didnt name it) that was a +3 longsword, after a bit i realized that it gave me some bonuses to my thieving abilities, then i realzed that it gave me bonuses to other stuff too, like tumble, parry, and a whole bunch of other stuff, then came to realize that it was also a sword of luck, which came in really handy. i got bob at about 4th level, it was 12th level before all his abilities (at least i think it was all of them) were revealed to me. this keeps up with the "magic is mysterious" feel that seems to make stuff in dnd more realistic, plus it gives reasons why bbegs are casters. your bbeg is rarely gonna a run-of-the-mill character. but thats just my 2 cp.

Saph
2006-12-29, 04:44 PM
We're discussing the extremes here. So, no, but I do think a player with a bit of experience could and would be able to think of other wizard tactics and combinations--Solid Fog and a wall spell, Forcecage and a damage fog, Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Exhaustion, et cetera.

Sure, every spellcaster comes up with their personal favourites and tricks. But how many of them are really game-breakingly powerful? More to the point, how often do the super-powered ones actually get used, and work?

In my experience, not that often. How many people now have chipped into these debates saying: 'well, in my game, we don't find casters all that powerful', or 'in my game we find that (insert class here) is better'? If wizards were as easily abuseable as some people here think, then these games should be a lot rarer.

So I think my point stands: most people aren't geeky enough to make uber-wizards, and for many of the ones that are, their geekiness is focused in a different direction.

- Saph

Morty
2006-12-29, 04:44 PM
which is why i dont think spell casters should be able to get more than vague references to exactly how a spell works until after they use it. tell them the spell type and school, whether its ranged or not, tell them if its short or long ranged (not as in the ranges short, medium and long, but more like it works for combat ranges only or it works on very wide ranges) and tell them generally what kind of effects it does (puts them to sleep, does damage, controls their mind in some way, etc, but nothing like it deals 2d8 damage save for half, or they are stunned for 1d4 +1/level rounds, etc.) this basically says that magic isnt an exact science, and that it may take a little experimentation to get it to work. this usually isnt applicably to lower level spells (even a commoner in a magical world should know what magic missile does) but as spells get higher the descriptions should be more and more vague. i do the same thing with my uber powerful weapons. sure identify will tell you that it has this +x/+y enchantment and that it has some other modifier, but they are almost always hidden powers that i will give to players after they use the weapon for a while or they do something specific to trigger an ability. i had a sword called "yoohoo toodle-oo aka purse snatcher bob" (i didnt name it) that was a +3 longsword, after a bit i realized that it gave me some bonuses to my thieving abilities, then i realzed that it gave me bonuses to other stuff too, like tumble, parry, and a whole bunch of other stuff, then came to realize that it was also a sword of luck, which came in really handy. i got bob at about 4th level, it was 12th level before all his abilities (at least i think it was all of them) were revealed to me. this keeps up with the "magic is mysterious" feel that seems to make stuff in dnd more realistic, plus it gives reasons why bbegs are casters. your bbeg is rarely gonna a run-of-the-mill character. but thats just my 2 cp.

I've got exactly the same feeling. Magic in D&D tend to be "I use- I have", or "I cast spell, X happens". It's boring. DM should describe at least slightly describe what exactly happens when you cast spell. My DM is doing that, and playing wizard is much more fun, even with severely limited acces to scrolls.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 04:50 PM
Sure, every spellcaster comes up with their personal favourites and tricks. But how many of them are really game-breakingly powerful? More to the point, how often do the super-powered ones actually get used, and work?

In my experience, not that often. How many people now have chipped into these debates saying: 'well, in my game, we don't find casters all that powerful', or 'in my game we find that (insert class here) is better'? If wizards were as easily abuseable as some people here think, then these games should be a lot rarer.

So I think my point stands: most people aren't geeky enough to make uber-wizards, and for many of the ones that are, their geekiness is focused in a different direction.

- Saph


Game-breakingly powerful? No. Dominate the game at high levels? Yeah, the vast majority of people seems to feel that wizards do that.

Besides being abuseable, wizards are also just plain very powerful. They can kill you in a single round. They have options you can't possibly have. They rule the high levels.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 04:52 PM
If it isn't trying to divine his presence, then it's not going to know he's there. Or anyone else, for that matter. Would make the spell sort of useless. Not that contingencies aren't fairly expensive to cast in the first place for limited effectiveness; if you're walking around with one all the time, chances are it's going to be expended by a passing animal or something.
It's not a Divination spell. Read Mind Blank again. Contingency can detect his presence on a purely physical basis. It's not trying to read his mind or use a Divination effect.
How much a Contingency "knows" is arguable, but arguing that Mind Blank somehow makes it not work, when that's not mentioned anywhere, is a poor argument. Contingency triggers when something happens. If it happens, contingency triggers. There is no line in the text about fooling a contingency or anything of the sort.
Expensive to cast? It requires a focus. Focuses don't get used up. You need one no matter how many Contingencies you cast.


Twilight? How non-core of you. But I suppose, if you really want to not have a robe of any kind, given that robes and armor use the same item slot.
Why do I care about not having a robe? Besides, the buckler's perfectly core. So, yep. Heavy Fortification. Oh, no--a rogue without sneak attack! However will I live?


How would said samurai do the "sneaking up" part of all that?
Oh, he'd just walk up when the wizard is sleeping. You know, since the wizard doesn't sleep in a Rope Trick or Magnificent Mansion for some reason, and doesn't have an Alarm spell cast, like you're assuming he doesn't.
Or maybe he drank a Potion of Invisibility and a Potion of Sculpt Sound, or something.


Y'know, your spellcasting costs are really starting to add up here. Does anyone read the Material Component line of forcecage? Anyone at all? It seems not, the way it's slung around every day by every wizard who can cast it.

To quote the primary wizard player in my own group, forcecage is the big red button. It's great, but it quickly becomes prohibitively expensive to use.
Um, Greater Shadow Evocation. It replicates Forcecage. At no cost.


I've run a campaign with an effigy master, a gnome one, no less, and that never came up.
I'd imagine it wouldn't. It's not much fun to spend time making contingency plans that extreme.


Whether the wizard is actually killable at all. It becomes useless to even start talking of real gameplay if the wizard wins everything even when rigged against him. It would just mean that if you ever played in one of my games, I'd have to ban you from spellcasting. Fortunately, my own players aren't obstinate powergamers, so I don't typically have this problem.
Sure, the wizard's killable. Drop'im in a dead magic zone. Catch him sometime when the player didn't actually say "I cast Greater Shadow Evocation, then Alarm, then Magnificent Mansion, then go in there to sleep for the night, and tell my golem to kill all intruders." Have two characters the wizard thought were friendly activate their Moments of Prescience to win initiative, one casting Antimagic Field and theother grappling the wizard inside it.

You have to go to some pretty ridiculous extremes, though.

What makes you assume I'm an obstinate powergamer? I'm actually very obliging, and prefer crunch-light, high-concept games like Nobilis.


How hazardous.
Hazardous? How so? You cast the spell on the familiar, so the familiar is the one who might get INT-drained, not you. Perfectly safe.


Okay. So why does the wizard need a party if he has a win button? After all, cast it and he wins, right?
Because it's not unlimited-use and first-level wizards are squishy. What are you trying to do here? Nobody's even suggesting first level wizards Win D&D. "Win button" was a way of saying "Sleep is highly effective". What are you trying to prove? Why do you keep trying to assume or get me to say that wizards are God of D&D starting right from level one?
Is it because you're desperately groping for something to be right about?


Translation: Bears doesn't like it so it gets ignored. It's there, I don't know a DM who wouldn't use it (especially against a character who's player has been indulging in twinkies a bit too much), and the player is even forewarned.
EXCEPT:
-It doesn't say anything except "hazardous". There are no mechanical consequences listed.
-The Bag of Holding is NOT an extradimensional space. It specifies that it is a NON-dimensional space.
So, no. It's not that I don't like it so I ignore it. It's that it's a line of text carried over from an old edition that does not actually say what happens, nor does it apply to bags of holding.

You might be thinking of "if you put a bag of holding into a portable hole, everything nearby is sent to the astral plane". That is actually an existing rule, with mechanics, even if it's just as dumb.

So, yes, it is possible to kill a wizard, if the wizard isn't being careful or you're the DM.
But, no. A rogue with Mind Blank can't sneak past Alarm and Contingency into a Rope Trick or Magnificent Mansion and stab the Heavy-Fortification-item-wearing wizard to death.

Pegasos989
2006-12-29, 04:59 PM
its funny, who's making straw men now? the quote was not "any one who reads the books and knows how to play is an uber geek" it was "anyone that spends vast amounts of time maximizing and exploiting every possible combination of spells, feats and skills needs to find something constructive to do". while "half the fun" of dnd may be making a really efficient character, as you say (i would call what you do more like find way to make the wizard absurdly power broken), the other half is making a character that covers the weaknesses of the other characters while not making them obsolete. thats where "group dynamics" and "being a good person not a jerk who tries to win at dnd" comes in.

The problem is that I don't need to min/max to become absurdly broken. Cleric arranging his stats in right order and casting three spells quickened becomes broken. Druid taking one feat and shapechanging to most obious choices becomes broken. The same way, wizard using most obious spells becomes broken (why would he not sleep inside rope trick? why would he use less good spells).

If it was just a combination or two to avoid, it would be fine. I certainly don't try to win in DnD (I stay away from polymorph cheese, various PrCs like frenzied berserker or initiate of the sevenfold veil, etc... I try to become as good as I can but being fair!) but I lose the fun when I see "It is obious I would be better off casting any of these 20 spells but I guess I will make strategically and mechanically inferior choices that I can make sure I will not outshine anyone...". I don't like wizard being overpowered - I would want it to be weaker, so I could try to make as strong character as I can without needing to care about that problem. But the problem exists and it won't go away by saying everyone trying to make efficient character is just a powergamer trying to win in DnD.


Oh dear, now I'm entering into this argument... Stupid me being bored on Christmas break.

I *COMPLETELY* disagree with you. Powergaming is not fun. Making blatently overpowered characters that spoil the game for everyone is not fun. DnD is not a game that you "win". It's a social game that's supposed to involve, you know, interaction with other people and stuff. If you want to play a "I just blew everything up because I have a bigger gun than you do," go check out your local first-person shooter and don't bother me.

I don't like playing overpowered characters either. I wish wizards were weaker. However, having several "This is strategic game. I want to make good choices. But the first 20 choices make me outshine others so I will just... Hmm... Find some of the poorest choices so I can make sure I won't outshine everyone." ruins the fun for me.


As a DM, if someone tried to powergame a wizard. Scratch that. If someone tried to powergame *any* character like you're talking about, I would do one of three things:
1) Set up encounters that deliberately don't let the wizard shine. One of my goals when planning sessions is to create situations where each of the players can do something useful, not where the wizard does everything. "But-- But-- the wizard can do it better!" No, he can't. I'm the DM. I know a lot more about the world than my players, by necessity, so it's quite trivial to set up situations in which character A isn't nearly as effective as character B. If it comes to it, I start fudging dice rolls or whatever to make it happen. "But-- But-- that's not fair!" Of course it isn't. Life isn't fair. The real world isn't fair. Why should my fake world be fair? I never promised anybody that I'd be fair to them. I promised them that I'd work damn hard to make sure they're having fun, and if all my players are having fun, I don't give a rat's ass if I'm fair.

I wouldn't have fun in that game so you would have failed. Sure, if you said "these spells don't exist", yeah, I would accept it and be okay with it. But saying that these exist and their save DC is what it is and enemies can fail the saves" and then not acting like that would ruin my fun and my trust to DM. And yes, real world is not fair, which is one of the reasons why I play DnD. So it should be fair.


2) If for whatever reasons number one doesn't work, I go to the "Sit down, shut up, and knock it off" method. If you insist on breaking the game, I'm going to remove your ability to break it. You can't cast X spell, you can't use Y ability anymore, you no longer have Z item. Note that this is different than taking away good abilities or discouraging creativity or whatever. Underneath it all, I *want* my players to succeed at whatever task they've undertaken; I just want to make it challenging for them. If someone is consistently overshadowing the game, powergaming to the extreme, and flaunting it in my (and the other players') face, then they can't do that anymore.

This method I would agree to (if some spells make wizards broken, best thing is to disable those spells) if you did it fairly but as you already said you have no intention on being fair...?


3) If 2 doesn't work, there's always the "You are the weakest link. Good-bye" method.

Fortunately, I've never had to kick anyone out of any of my games, and only very very rarely had to stop someone from using X, Y, or Z ability. Maybe I just have good players, I dunno. Maybe people have more common sense than to actually do some of the things suggested in this (and other) threads.

But getting back to the point of this thread, that's why it doesn't matter. The point of DnD is not to "win" by breaking such-and-such a class.

(Incidentally, one of my most favourite classes is the bard. Another is the ninja. The next character I want to play is a horizon walker. So please don't tell me these classes are useless or dumb, because I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of them)

I do not want to win DnD. However, DnD has mechanics and tactical aspect. I want to make most use out of my resources and always choose the tactically best choices. It is just that without any intention to break the game or win, Wizards outshine everyone.

I do not try to powergame, just make tactically best choices and then there will be outshining. I do not like it but it is a fact. If you kick me out of the game because of it, it is really unfair but well, you said you don't care about fairness anyways.

Saph
2006-12-29, 05:12 PM
Dominate the game at high levels? Yeah, the vast majority of people seems to feel that wizards do that.

Vast majority? Did you take a poll? Because I'm seeing quite a few people saying 'it's not a problem in my game'.


Besides being abuseable, wizards are also just plain very powerful. They can kill you in a single round. They have options you can't possibly have. They rule the high levels.

So nerf wizards, or don't play at high levels.

Unless you don't mind, or don't find it a problem in your games, in which case, what's the big deal?

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 05:17 PM
Were I to run a D&D game, I would nerf wizards. It's difficult to find the right balance, though.

The "big deal" is that D&D is a crunch-heavy game. This is an intentional design feature and part of its draw. However, the crunch is pretty soggy in a number of places.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-29, 05:18 PM
well, those who powergame rarely call whatthey do "powergaming" or "min/maxing", often they use phrases like "im merely optimizing my character" or the above quote of "I want to make most use out of my resources and always choose the tactically best choices". now, dont get me wrong, i have no problem with doing things efficiently or effectively, but when that is the whole purpose of playing, then you arent playing, you are doing math. if i want math, ill go take a calculus class. if i want a game that requires tactics and ingenuity, ill go play dnd. if i want a game that has tactics, ingenuity and the purpose is to become a solopwnmobile, ill go play neverwinter nights.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 05:23 PM
Of course that's not the whole purpose of playing. But it IS part of the fun of D&D. D&D is intentionally designed that way.

You want a system that's all about roleplaying, try Wushu (http://www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html), or Nobilis, or the Amber DRPG, or any one of a number of games where the crunch ranges from light to practically nonexistent.

Even Exalted, which is at least as crunchy as D&D (but, on the whole, much better balanced, I'd say) brings the Awesome and supports and helps out roleplaying much better than D&D rules do.

"Tactics and ingenuity"? D&D? Is this by chance the Counter-D&D that some people on the boards play?


Incidentally, Saph, you seem to be forgetting that D&D is played, primarily, by geeks.

Saph
2006-12-29, 05:34 PM
Incidentally, Saph, you seem to be forgetting that D&D is played, primarily, by geeks.

Many people would say that playing D&D makes you a geek by definition. :)

But there are geeks, and then there are geeks. The lesser geek (Geekus minor) and the roleplaying geek (Geekus dramatica) won't optimise their characters to anywhere near the degree of the greater geek (Geekus major) or the much-feared geeklord (Geekus munchkinus).

- Saph

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-29, 05:39 PM
im not suggesting that its solely about tactics and ingenuity, but that they are equally as important as combat. which is why dnd is a combat roleplaying game, not one or the other, but both. min/maxing is all well and good, but when that becomes your primary focus, to me, you have lost focus on the fun.

this isnt to say that i dont love the combat aspects of dnd. i really do. i try to figure out the roleplaying stuff as quickly and efficiently as possible most times so that i can get on to killing stuff, this doesnt mean that i dont enjoy the roleplaying as well. many times i have said that even though its allowable by the rules that my character would do something, take a feat or use a spell, or that it would be better if he did, i dont, because i have decided what i want my character to feel like. personally, when i play with a fighter, i go sword-and-board rather than twf, not because its better (honestly, ill agree that its probably actually worse) but thats what i want my fighters to do. ill figure out the best way to make him the best he can be, but based on what his personality is not on what would make him the best character in the game for his class.

again, this comes down to personal tastes. there was a poll a while back asking you to rate which was more important to you: combat or roleplay. i was about a 6 on the scale (1 was all roleplay, no dice, no rules; 10 was table top war game, all dice rolling and killing stuff). you seem to fit in around an 8 or 9. thats personal taste. you cant say that one is better than the other, in as much as you cant say which flavor of ice cream is the best. you may like chocolate, and i vanilla. neither is right, neither is wrong. its just personal tastes. well, if you choose something like anchovie flavored ice cream or urine sherbet, then you are, in fact, wrong about what is best :smallbiggrin:

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 05:39 PM
Oh, please. The Roleplaying Geek can easily be as geeky as, and even geekier (and more pretentious than) any munchkin.

Just drop by a LARP sometime if you don't believe me. :P

Ephraim
2006-12-29, 05:41 PM
Unless your campaign setting has some form of massive war going on between wizards and everybody else, there's no reason why no one can procure magic items from a wizard whom he does not wish to kill.

Okay, so I'm threadjacking my own thread but this comment made me think of something wickedly cool. All D&D needs is a good dose of bullet crossbow goblins.
Part 1 [Zebra Girl] (http://zebragirl.keenspot.com/d/20060304.html)
Part 2 [Zebra Girl] (http://zebragirl.keenspot.com/d/20060624.html)

Thrawn183
2006-12-29, 05:42 PM
I've managed to read every single post in this entire thread! That said, I don't want to offend anyone. I aim to lay out a persuasive argument.

Wizards are extremely powerful. Yes its true.
For simplicity's sake I will keep my statements to fighters and wizards only and not get involved with partial castrers etc.

1) Save or die: A wizard can cast spells that target both fortitude or will saves that a pc / npc / monster / almost anything other than a god (which I'm assuming doesn't matter) must save against or die. A fighter can never do anything like this. Any kind of attack that a fighter wishes to make is going to be subject to an attack roll or grapple check or some other roll of that kind. A wizard will be good against every opponent he ever faces by choosing a spell that targets the right save / has no save / ignores spell resistance.
2) Power word spells / Bigby's hand spells: Just too dang good! (and those are core no less, and I'm not even going to talk about some of the other)
3) Special Abilities: What fighter can afford to spend all his money on items to make him fly, have freedom of movement, have true seeing etc... and still have space for A) the things he needs to be effective at dealing damage (stat boosting etc.) B) his weapons and armor. I seem to see a lot of talk about fighters that ignores how increadibly expensive their weapons are. You need what... bludgeoning and slashing and piercing and adamantine and cold iron and silver... often in the right combination! A post earlier mentioned a fighter just going out and buying an effective weapon... what character just stores that kind of money and spends it on a single encounter?
4) I have looked at some of the calculations for how damage increases for different classes and I feel that the fireball spell seems to be the gold standard for a balanced spell. Its damage scales with caster level just as the amount of damage a fighter can do scales with the feats available to him. Granted, the damage done by fighters doesn't exactly scale linearly but it seems to match pretty well. The problem: fireball is only a 3rd level spell. Higher level spells do the same damage and also have a chance to do something along the line of stunning, paralysis, stat damage etc.
5) Battlefield control spells. They are more powerful than evocation. If fireball is balanced, as I think it is (or at least is close to being), then they definitely aren't.
This is shorter than what I would like it to be to discuss everything that needs to be addressed, but I will conclude now anyway.

The question is what does a fighter do that another class can't? The point of having core classes is that they can't be replaced, they bring something unique to the table. Fighter only feats were designed to address this but they don't make the fighter different enough from say barbarians to be worth an entire core class. Yes, I know all about the new feats for fighters, but frankly they just don't address the core problem: Fighters can only do damage. In D&D flexibility is king and the wizard rules all.

Now for why this matters: People go on and on about broken spells etc. The problem is that even just core only games are unbalanced. We, the players/DMs should not have to concern ourselves with balancing issues. We should not look at spells and take them out of the list because they're "too good" rather than they simply don't fit into the setting you sweated, cried and bled for (that may be an exaggeration but it sounded good). What people are complaining about, yes even whining, is that the classes aren't balanced and that it shouldn't be our job to fix them in the first place.

Bear's, you are officially one of my heroes. Please, just don't get yourself kicked like TLC.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-29, 05:46 PM
oh, i believe you. either extreme is an uber geek (all of us who play dnd are kinda geeky anyway, myself proudly included). LARPs make me laugh. i ran across a group of them at a national park one time, i almost fell off a cliff i was laughing so hard at them "roleplaying".

Matthew
2006-12-29, 05:51 PM
Bear's, you are officially one of my heroes. Please, just don't get yourself kicked like TLC.

Perhaps you should PM this, I haven't seen The Last Night round for a while either...

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 05:55 PM
im not suggesting that its solely about tactics and ingenuity, but that they are equally as important as combat. which is why dnd is a combat roleplaying game, not one or the other, but both. min/maxing is all well and good, but when that becomes your primary focus, to me, you have lost focus on the fun.
That's how a lot of people HAVE fun.
D&D may involve roleplaying, but the system does not support it very well. It doesn't help it thrive, and often actively suppresses it. Some people make do with D&D for roleplaying, but, again, D&D was designed to be a crunch-heavy game, and the crunch is meant to be part of the fun. Someone who's playing a crunchy game of D&D is staying closer to what D&D was designed to be... which isn't actually superior to subverting it in any way, but it's true nevertheless.


this isnt to say that i dont love the combat aspects of dnd. i really do. i try to figure out the roleplaying stuff as quickly and efficiently as possible most times so that i can get on to killing stuff, this doesnt mean that i dont enjoy the roleplaying as well. many times i have said that even though its allowable by the rules that my character would do something, take a feat or use a spell, or that it would be better if he did, i dont, because i have decided what i want my character to feel like. personally, when i play with a fighter, i go sword-and-board rather than twf, not because its better (honestly, ill agree that its probably actually worse) but thats what i want my fighters to do. ill figure out the best way to make him the best he can be, but based on what his personality is not on what would make him the best character in the game for his class.And you'll suffer for it mechanically.
Compare to something like Wushu, where how effective you are at resolving a combat scene has nothing to do with what weapons your character using, his fighting style, or even whether he was described to hit or miss his opponent.

There's something that annoys me about "it's what my character would do!", though. Why would a fighter, who's presumably had battlefield experience, and talked to other adventurers, not *know* that greatswording is just plain superior to sword-and-shielding, especially given the existance (also, presumably, not a secret) of animated shields?


again, this comes down to personal tastes. there was a poll a while back asking you to rate which was more important to you: combat or roleplay. i was about a 6 on the scale (1 was all roleplay, no dice, no rules; 10 was table top war game, all dice rolling and killing stuff). you seem to fit in around an 8 or 9. thats personal taste. you cant say that one is better than the other, in as much as you cant say which flavor of ice cream is the best.Actually? Most of the time, I'm under 4 or so. My favorite published game is Nobilis, which is maybe a 3. I have run and been in great "1" games.
D&D has a crunch component. I don't ignore it. Without that, the D&D Experience is left pretty dull and lackluster compared to systems and games that do contribute to and support your roleplaying (or at least, don't distract from it in any way, i.e. systemless). I don't roleplay much less in D&D, but I also pay attention to crunch, so I'm probably at about a six or 7 from the two ends balancing out.

The_Last_Night
2006-12-29, 05:57 PM
I'm around. In disguise.

Pegasos989
2006-12-29, 06:01 PM
ARGH!!! But I am really not trying to powergame. (Or well, depends on definition I guess. I would take leap attack over spell focus(divination) on a barbarian.)

I want everyone in the group to have fun as much as I do. I would even make myself have slightly less fun if it made the others have slightly more fun. I think that I would have most fun in a team in which everyone would be equal in power and contributing equally in both combat and roleplaying.

I still want to make the good choices. It is not "powergaming" or "trying to win in DnD".

I will give a few examples and I really hope you answer them for me.

Let's take rope trick for example. I assume I am playing elven wizard (I only need 4 hours of meditation and 1 hour to prepare. Sure, I need 4 more hours of rest but that time I can be concious and keep watch). At 5th level, rope trick let's me meditate there and prepare there, thus removing my need to let down my guard at nights. It is quite obious that I should use rope trick, both tactically and roleplaying (If I was that wizard, I would sure as hell rest safe!). Do you have reasons why not to and do you think this is trying to win in DnD?

Then, overland flight. (fly for hour/level) From 9th level on, it lets me spend whole day flying (easy transportation, avoiding pit traps, avoiding a lot of other dangers...). Roleplay wise, my character would use it (which would you rather do: Safely fly all day or walk in the mud or on the swamp, trying to get forward) and tactically speaking, he really should use it. No reason not to. Can you give me good reasons why not to use it and do you think it is trying to win in DnD to use that?

Then, contignency. It is a spell to which I can put trigger like "when someone damages me, dimension door me up 400 feet. (naturally I have ring of feather falling. Besides, I have fly on anyways.)". It is very easy to think of that and no reason not to use it, both tactically and roleplay wise. Can you give reasons for me not to use it and do you find it munchkinny?




This is what I meant. That kind of obious choices with no reason not to use mean wizard is no longer so vulnerable resting from 5th level on, flies all day from 9th level on, instantly teleports away when attacked from 11th level on... These are all something that it doesn't need uber geek trying to win in DnD to think about, just some quite obious choices for anyone playing a wizard.

I meant that in those situations, if I use such stuff, I become overpowered, if I nerf myself all the time "I could rest safe, I could fly all day, I could make sure I am never full attacked... But I guess I won't because I want to make sure I won't outshine everyone" (Edit: So ignoring tactically and roleplaying wise obious choice to purposefully scale my character down instead of being able to use his abilities) makes it less fun for me, which is why I think wizards are overpowered.

Ephraim
2006-12-29, 06:02 PM
That's how a lot of people HAVE fun.
D&D may involve roleplaying, but the system does not support it very well. It doesn't help it thrive, and often actively suppresses it. Some people make do with D&D for roleplaying, but, again, D&D was designed to be a crunch-heavy game, and the crunch is meant to be part of the fun. Someone who's playing a crunchy game of D&D is staying closer to what D&D was designed to be... which isn't actually superior to subverting it in any way, but it's true nevertheless.

I always have trouble accepting this argument. In my case, I use D&D because I want thorough rules for moderating combat, which is the hardest to moderate, in my opinion. Roleplaying being system agnostic, I select the system whose rules best suit my purposes regardless of how often or how seldom I plan on actually engaging in situations that require the rules to moderate them. D&D is the gold standard in medieval adventure fantasy and has detailed rules for combat. Although it frequently lacks with regards to roleplaying, I am much more capable of moderating a roleplayed situation without rules.

Pegasos, your arguments are reasonable which is why I think it requires a conscious choice on the part of the player to avoid those kind of logical, but [sometimes dull] ruts. The player(s) should try to come up with a reason why the wizard wouldn't cast rope trick every night or have a contingency in place to teleport away at the first occurrence of danger.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-29, 06:03 PM
well, the fighter in question may "know" that a great sword is "better" (at dealing damage, not necessarily as an all around character choice), but he started off not being able to afford both good armor and an amazing weapon, so he compromised and got mid range on both. decent armor, and a decent weapon. bastard sword (not treated as exotic in our campaigns, mostly because it was arguably the most common sword in medieval europe) and shield fit his needs. he then got them magicked, and doesnt want to have to start over learning a new style of fighting. so yeah, if i had rolled better on my beginning wealth, he could easily have gone with a two-hander, but he didnt, so i played him as best i could with what i was given, then i went for consistency of play rather than jumping on the next best thing as soon as i could get to it. again, thats personal taste. i just didnt want to play my fighter that way.

Matthew
2006-12-29, 06:07 PM
I'm around. In disguise.

What an interesting coincidence. Ah well, just shows, you never know who is lurking in the shadows...

Pegasos989
2006-12-29, 06:11 PM
What an interesting coincidence. Ah well, just shows, you never know who is lurking in the shadows...

Coincidence... I am kinda not surprised that he actively watches a thread with conversation about this...

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-29, 06:28 PM
ARGH!!! But I am really not trying to powergame. (Or well, depends on definition I guess. I would take leap attack over spell focus(divination) on a barbarian.)
okay, that one is just too obvious, and obviously not powergaming. you would be stupid to do the latter.


I will give a few examples and I really hope you answer them for me.
ill do my best


Let's take rope trick for example. I assume I am playing elven wizard (I only need 4 hours of meditation and 1 hour to prepare. Sure, I need 4 more hours of rest but that time I can be concious and keep watch). At 5th level, rope trick let's me meditate there and prepare there, thus removing my need to let down my guard at nights. It is quite obious that I should use rope trick, both tactically and roleplaying (If I was that wizard, I would sure as hell rest safe!). Do you have reasons why not to and do you think this is trying to win in DnD?
no, i cant see a reason to not reasonably protect yourself. much like a fighter getting good armor. just makes sense. however the example given earlier of using mage's magnificent mansion with the golem as guard over the bag of holding containing the rope trick doesnt. sure technically it works, but that level of paranoia needs psychological help.


Then, overland flight. (fly for hour/level) From 9th level on, it lets me spend whole day flying (easy transportation, avoiding pit traps, avoiding a lot of other dangers...). Roleplay wise, my character would use it (which would you rather do: Safely fly all day or walk in the mud or on the swamp, trying to get forward) and tactically speaking, he really should use it. No reason not to. Can you give me good reasons why not to use it and do you think it is trying to win in DnD to use that?
while technically this works just fine, i do have some problems with it roleplay wise. overland flight basically means you dont touch the ground (hence the flight) and therefore dont use your legs. if you decide to fly everywhere for a week or so, the muscles in your legs would begin to atrophe, after a month you can no longer use them. take astronauts for example. after spending a week or two in space, where most mobilization is from grabbing things and floating to the next grab point, then coming back to earth. they cant walk right for a few days, and thats after some physical therapy. and they are in peak physical condition, your average wizard isnt. so while this isnt a broken spell by any means, i would say (as the dm) that the next time your mage tried to move without assistance of some kind, that he would struggle greatly to do so.


Then, contignency. It is a spell to which I can put trigger like "when someone damages me, dimension door me up 400 feet. (naturally I have ring of feather falling. Besides, I have fly on anyways.)". It is very easy to think of that and no reason not to use it, both tactically and roleplay wise. Can you give reasons for me not to use it and do you find it munchkinny?
again, no reason mechanically why you cant use this. although i think the choice of spell in the contigency is rather cowardly. personally stoneskin, shield, some kind of armor, heck even improved invisibility, is a much more viable option. if thats how you play your character, one that runs away at the first hint that he may have to take some damage rather than comfortably blowing stuff away behind his meat shield wall, then thats your preference. again nothing mechanically wrong, but roleplay weak.


This is what I meant. That kind of obious choices with no reason not to use mean wizard is no longer so vulnerable resting from 5th level on, flies all day from 9th level on, instantly teleports away when attacked from 11th level on... These are all something that it doesn't need uber geek trying to win in DnD to think about, just some quite obious choices for anyone playing a wizard.
your right. im sure that if someone playing a wizard took time to read over what spells he could select, would come across some or all of these ideas. but some (actually) all of the complicated multiple spell combinations do equal powergaming, if not outright munchkinism, like the afore mentioned layered fortress of solitude. sure all of the above are fine, but you chose reasonable examples on purpose. im sure that there are much cheesier examples you could have come up with that you have either used, wanted to use or heard about from someone else.


I meant that in those situations, if I use such stuff, I become overpowered, if I nerf myself all the time "I could rest safe, I could fly all day, I could make sure I am never full attacked... But I guess I won't because I want to make sure I won't outshine everyone" (Edit: So ignoring tactically and roleplaying wise obious choice to purposefully scale my character down instead of being able to use his abilities) makes it less fun for me, which is why I think wizards are overpowered.
there is a difference between scaling down a character and not maximizing a character. much like the difference between using a normal spell and a maximized spell and a (non-existant) minimized spell. rolling 6d6 is normal, dealing a straight 36 damage is mazimizing, dealing 6 is minimizing.
the goal isnt to make you have less fun. and if you think that in order to be fair you have to scale down the wizard you play, which in turn means that you arent having as much fun, then dont play a wizard. play a rogue or a fighter-class or something. find an area where your gift of optimization doesnt make you over powered, but makes you just a little better than the average player. that way you can still enjoy optimization, but dont ruin the fun of others by outshining them/taking their usefulness away.

i hope that was satisfactory. also, i apologize for any catgirls that i just killed.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 06:34 PM
Um, "flying everywhere atrophies your legs"? Did... did you really just suggest that? For D&D? Way to kill a catgirl.

The wizard walks around at night. Maybe he does stretches before he goes to sleep.

"Roleplay weak"? How is it weak roleplaying for a wizard to want to reposition himself in the air when an enemy has gotten all up in his face? It's perfectly reasonable from a roleplaying standpoint.

Matthew
2006-12-29, 06:45 PM
Coincidence... I am kinda not surprised that he actively watches a thread with conversation about this...

I'm more suprised that he hadn't contributed.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-12-29, 06:47 PM
Um, "flying everywhere atrophies your legs"? Did... did you really just suggest that? For D&D? Way to kill a catgirl.



i hope that was satisfactory. also, i apologize for any catgirls that i just killed.

just making sure you read the whole thing. just because it kills catgirls doesnt make it not reasonable. dnd world still exist such that so do physics. if they are too far off from what we have in our world, then the world becomes nigh unplayable, because to grasp an entirely new modus operandi of physics is beyond the human ability to conceptualize. sure, i can do the math for a 28 dimensional universe, that doesnt mean that i can grasp what that would be like. catgirls aside, you did nothing to defeat my statement. therefore it stands, seeing as how you have decided to make this thread a debate.
well im out of here until about the 5th of january, so i cant defend sanity any longer. i bid you all adieu.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-29, 06:55 PM
I'm more suprised that he hadn't contributed.

If he's in disguise, he's probably contributed as whoever he's in diguise as.

As to the "atrophy" thing--the wizard walks around while helping set up camp and such. Or does stretches. Voila.

Pegasos989
2006-12-29, 06:55 PM
okay, that one is just too obvious, and obviously not powergaming. you would be stupid to do the latter.


ill do my best


no, i cant see a reason to not reasonably protect yourself. much like a fighter getting good armor. just makes sense. however the example given earlier of using mage's magnificent mansion with the golem as guard over the bag of holding containing the rope trick doesnt. sure technically it works, but that level of paranoia needs psychological help.

Yeah. I agree that the trick bears suggested goes far further than I would personally play it (especially noting that if someone can get to magnificient mansion, he can propably get to your rope trick too and at that point, only extra protection you had was the golem and as fighter sleeps in the rope trick too...).



while technically this works just fine, i do have some problems with it roleplay wise. overland flight basically means you dont touch the ground (hence the flight) and therefore dont use your legs. if you decide to fly everywhere for a week or so, the muscles in your legs would begin to atrophe, after a month you can no longer use them. take astronauts for example. after spending a week or two in space, where most mobilization is from grabbing things and floating to the next grab point, then coming back to earth. they cant walk right for a few days, and thats after some physical therapy. and they are in peak physical condition, your average wizard isnt. so while this isnt a broken spell by any means, i would say (as the dm) that the next time your mage tried to move without assistance of some kind, that he would struggle greatly to do so.

Well, this can be answered by two ways.
One is that he does excercise: He spends the 4 hours of sleep +1 hour of preparing in rope trick, then keeps watch, walks around the camp, etc. hours daily to keep himself in shape. (he can have overland flight active even then in case he is attacked, just not using it while walking around). Even then, he would propably get weaker than average person, which is reflected by a lower strenght score. Makes sense?
The other way is that the magical energy keeps him going. 20th level wizard can take dozens of greataxe hits from low level warriors. What is roleplay explanation for this? I personally think that they are so full of the pure arcane energy that it protects them and empowers them. Logically, I think that it would also help them walk...



again, no reason mechanically why you cant use this. although i think the choice of spell in the contigency is rather cowardly. personally stoneskin, shield, some kind of armor, heck even improved invisibility, is a much more viable option. if thats how you play your character, one that runs away at the first hint that he may have to take some damage rather than comfortably blowing stuff away behind his meat shield wall, then thats your preference. again nothing mechanically wrong, but roleplay weak.

Well, let's turn it to 100 feet. (still enough to prevent full attacks.) Or change it to cast wall of force towards the direction from which attack came. He can still take part in combat very well (wizard has a lot of range spells) but protects himself better. I don't see this as roleplay wise weak. If I was the wizard, I would rather teleport (dimension door) 100 feet away than put on a spell that slightly removes damage they inflict on the next attack.



your right. im sure that if someone playing a wizard took time to read over what spells he could select, would come across some or all of these ideas. but some (actually) all of the complicated multiple spell combinations do equal powergaming, if not outright munchkinism, like the afore mentioned layered fortress of solitude. sure all of the above are fine, but you chose reasonable examples on purpose. im sure that there are much cheesier examples you could have come up with that you have either used, wanted to use or heard about from someone else.


there is a difference between scaling down a character and not maximizing a character. much like the difference between using a normal spell and a maximized spell and a (non-existant) minimized spell. rolling 6d6 is normal, dealing a straight 36 damage is mazimizing, dealing 6 is minimizing.
the goal isnt to make you have less fun. and if you think that in order to be fair you have to scale down the wizard you play, which in turn means that you arent having as much fun, then dont play a wizard. play a rogue or a fighter-class or something. find an area where your gift of optimization doesnt make you over powered, but makes you just a little better than the average player. that way you can still enjoy optimization, but dont ruin the fun of others by outshining them/taking their usefulness away.

i hope that was satisfactory. also, i apologize for any catgirls that i just killed.


Yeah, I have seen a lot people using cheesier stuff. I have seen people using polymorph abuse, craft contignent spell, etc. which I agree to be powergaming.
However, the thing I was trying to prove was that wizards can get unbelievably powerful by just having a lot of simple tricks - that anyone could think of - on. And that the tricks are so easy that if playing full campaign (months or years), people would think of those. It might not be powergaming, you just always find a new simple trick ("Hey! I learned dimension door. Let's see how it would react to my metamagic feats... What, silented it has no components? Okay, I will just prepare that silented and never be grappled again. :)") and then they add up and you become overpowered nearly by accident.

I agree that wizards can be played a bit down without minimizing - I am about to play a pacifist wizard who doesn't believe in directly engaging combat himself but is "okay" with buffing allies, so he will all the time be using bull's strenght, haste, etc. but not going to cast a single offensive spell, as my next character. I think he might still be very effective.

However, I want to level up and choose the best feat I find so I can actually think that I am building the character as well as I can (whether the feat is taken for roleplaying or mechanical reasons). I feel I can't make this with wizards because they get broken so easily, so I tend to play other classes (or gishes) instead.

This is the thing why I think that wizards are overpowered - as a player, I need to start thinking of how much I should tone down my character to fit with the rest, which I dislike. (I think I might enjoy wizards more if DM nerfed them. :D )


But yeah. I believe that you understand me now better, so I can stop talking about this (naturally if you got something to add, just add. :P).

Now, what was the topic about again... Oh? Hey, unbelievable. It was actually subject closely related to this. How rare. :D

Matthew
2006-12-29, 06:57 PM
If he's in disguise, he's probably contributed as whoever he's in diguise as.

So I gather.

ambu
2006-12-30, 10:53 AM
Who said that your legs atrophy if you do not walk for nine hours? Do taxi drivers or desk clerks have atrophied limbs? The astronauts atrophy because there is no gravity (so to speak, there is but let's not get there) and the calcium leaves their bones.

But seriously, your legs atrophy in DnD because you fly nine hours per day? Bad logic aside, I would agree to that if dragons and pegasi and all other of creatures also had the same problem.

Atrophy. Sheesh.

Fhaolan
2006-12-30, 12:24 PM
Who said that your legs atrophy if you do not walk for nine hours? Do taxi drivers or desk clerks have atrophied limbs? The astronauts atrophy because there is no gravity (so to speak, there is but let's not get there) and the calcium leaves their bones.

But seriously, your legs atrophy in DnD because you fly nine hours per day? Bad logic aside, I would agree to that if dragons and pegasi and all other of creatures also had the same problem.

Atrophy. Sheesh.

I'm not sure if atrophy is the correct word. However....

I severed one of the ligaments in my knee about two, three months ago. Due to the way my leg is muscled, I was still able to hobble around, and regained the ability to walk about a week or so later. I can't do anything very vigorous or the leg will collapse beneath me. Ligaments don't heal, so I am to have surgery some time in January to have the ligament replaced, hopefully.

After the week of hobbling, my injured leg was *visibly* less muscular than my good one. It is very surprising how quickly the calf muscles deteriorate if they are not in use.

Taxi drivers and desk-jockeys *do* have weak legs, unless they put a lot of effort into exercising them when off the job. They're not atrophied, but they are definately weak compared to someone who uses their legs all day.

Marius
2006-12-30, 12:53 PM
It's true, but that kind of logic doesn't work the other way in d&d. For example let's say my character has a strenght of 10 if he starts to exercise his body he will never have a strenght of 18 while in real life with a year of exercise a normal person can be pretty strong.

ambu
2006-12-30, 12:57 PM
First of all, get well soon and I hope all goes well with your surgery.

So now that we have so to speak come to terms with what happens IRL, do we agree that is completely irrelevant to what would happen in DnD? Based on the dragon argument above?

Fhaolan
2006-12-30, 04:03 PM
So now that we have so to speak come to terms with what happens IRL, do we agree that is completely irrelevant to what would happen in DnD? Based on the dragon argument above?

Oh, it's completely irrelevant to D&D. I was just attempting to address the IRL point, since it was already brought up.

The dragon/pegasis point didn't really sway me, for the record. It's the 'I can't exercise to increase my STR score' argument that, to me, shows how D&D doesn't model the RL ability to increase, and decrease, physical scores like STR through exercise or lack thereof. IRL, I could increase my strength dramatically through exercise, but the only way I can do that in D&D is to use the ability increases via levelling, or magic items. IRL, I could decrease my strength dramatically through enforced bedrest for months at a time. D&D doesn't model that for the same reason it doesn't model strength training. It's too much effort, bookkeeping, and doesn't add to the fun of the game.

Ephraim
2006-12-30, 04:37 PM
I've had a few more thoughts regarding wizards that were inspired by the thread about sword-and-board fighters.
Related to Point 3
The crux of my argument is that there is nothing wrong with playing an optimized version of a suboptimal concept. Why should wizards always specialize in the powerful spheres (are they abjuration, transmutation, and evocation?) If a player is open to playing a toned-down wizard character, why not do it by specializing in Enchantment and banning Abjuration and Transmutation? Without Alarm, Rope Trick, Fly, or Haste, the player will have the pleasure (NOT a burden) of coming up with a new repertoire of spells that make his wizard awesome.

Related to Point 2
A friend of mine also pointed out that if sleeping inside a Rope Trick is so common, villains will be aware of it as well. If the alarm has been raised and the adventurers seem to have simply disappeared, the villain is going to send out teams of henchman equipped with Gems of Seeing and scrolls of Dispel Magic. (Yes, Rope Trick can reach 30 feet in the air, out of reach of Dispel Magic, but the dungeon can be constructed with ceilings no more than 20 feet high.)

Fizban
2006-12-30, 05:33 PM
Umm, dispel magic has a range of 100'+10'/level, that's a lot more than 30.

Ephraim
2006-12-30, 05:42 PM
Umm, dispel magic has a range of 100'+10'/level, that's a lot more than 30.

I neglected to look up the rules regarding spells with an AoE burst effect. If used as an area spell, Dispel Magic can be centered somewhere besides the caster then?

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-30, 05:45 PM
Umm, of course it can. It can be centered anywhere within 100' + 10'/level.

Ephraim
2006-12-30, 05:55 PM
Okay, so notwithstanding my inability to understand the rules, the henchmen with Gems of True Seeing and scrolls of Dispel Magic still knock the party out of the Rope Trick. As for using Alarm to protect the room in which the Rope Trick is located, I'd rule that the mental alarm function definitely doesn't work through the Rope Trick window and I'm undecided as to whether or not an audible alarm could be heard through it.

Pegasos989
2006-12-30, 05:57 PM
I've had a few more thoughts regarding wizards that were inspired by the thread about sword-and-board fighters.
Related to Point 3
The crux of my argument is that there is nothing wrong with playing an optimized version of a suboptimal concept. Why should wizards always specialize in the powerful spheres (are they abjuration, transmutation, and evocation?) If a player is open to playing a toned-down wizard character, why not do it by specializing in Enchantment and banning Abjuration and Transmutation? Without Alarm, Rope Trick, Fly, or Haste, the player will have the pleasure (NOT a burden) of coming up with a new repertoire of spells that make his wizard awesome.

Well, true. It is just that many of buffs that make wizard awesome are also buffs he should use to party. By banning enchantment, he no longer can cast heroism on the fighter, by banning transmutation he no longer casts greater magic weapon, by banning...

However, if wizard were to ban conjuration, he would lose access to quite a few of his most devastating spells, battlefield control and personal (dimension door, acid fog...). I might actually try a wizard banning conjuration sometimes. Hadn't thought of that (for some stupid reason).

BTW, the "powerful spheres" would propably be conjuration (battlefield control, summoning, dimension door...), transmutation (huge part of self buffs, like overland flight, etc.) and illusion or enchantment (both pretty much devastate low will saved classes).


Related to Point 2
A friend of mine also pointed out that if sleeping inside a Rope Trick is so common, villains will be aware of it as well. If the alarm has been raised and the adventurers seem to have simply disappeared, the villain is going to send out teams of henchman equipped with Gems of Seeing and scrolls of Dispel Magic. (Yes, Rope Trick can reach 30 feet in the air, out of reach of Dispel Magic, but the dungeon can be constructed with ceilings no more than 20 feet high.)Sure. However, those aren't cheap enough to be given to every guard. It is true that if someone is explictly aware that dungeon has someone inside rope trick, they can tell the local wizard to take troops with him and start scanning the area with see invisibility.

However, patrols without spellcasters searching for such, many animals/monstrous humanoids/etc. will just not find it.

EDIT: Really, gems of true seeing are really expensive. They are given to few henchmen. Wizard starting to scan area by moving around with see invisibility or something is about the only way...

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-30, 05:58 PM
Yes, henchmen with the exorbitantly expensive Gems of True Seeing. Those just lie around everywhere.

By the point that you're facing enemies who can afford handfuls of'em, you don't use Rope Trick, you Teleport or Shadow Walk or something the hell out, then back in.

Ephraim
2006-12-30, 06:07 PM
Yes, henchmen with the exorbitantly expensive Gems of True Seeing. Those just lie around everywhere.

By the point that you're facing enemies who can afford handfuls of'em, you don't use Rope Trick, you Teleport or Shadow Walk or something the hell out, then back in.

Lanterns of Revealing, then -- half the cost. Scrolls of See Invisibility (lasts 30 minutes.) I was just trying to illustrate the point that if the DM plays the villain intelligently, this tactic can be countered.

Diggorian
2006-12-30, 06:11 PM
I agree that it doesnt matter.

I prefer fighter types over wizards, so have been the tank in many a group. In wide experience, as soon as big bad shows up, the wizards first action is too buff fighter, if he hasnt given the fighter some applicable magic item already. The wizard that casts fly on himself to confront the dragon (overstepping his party role) usually ends up getting a toast in his memory, after he's made into toast.

"Wizard for the WIN." Just sounds like class-fanboy player talk to me. At higher levels magic becomes more prevalent. Wizards have access to that magic, but so do fighters to a lesser extent via items. In low magic games Wizards paint a huge bull's eye on themselves that flashes "If your Int is higher than 8, try to kill me first" in bright pink neon (a variant Arcane Mark).

High power at range is a definate advantage, if you your wizard can make the -40 spot check to se their target at long range.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-30, 06:13 PM
So, your argument is... that fighters are as good as wizards because magic items let them do many of the things wizards do?

Matthew
2006-12-30, 06:15 PM
I thought that the general thrust of the argument was that it doesn't matter that Wizards get increasingly better than Fighters past Level 5...

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-30, 06:21 PM
Diggoran appears to be saying that they actually don't, anyway.

Matthew
2006-12-30, 06:24 PM
Nah, he placed too many conditions on it to be outright saying that. It would be outright crazy to say that in RAW default D&D Fighters and Wizards were more or less equal and he's not crazy... is he?

Diggorian
2006-12-30, 06:33 PM
Not clinically insane.

I typed what I meant. Quote what you dont understand and I'll simplify it for ya, if I can. :smallwink:

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-30, 06:54 PM
What I don't understand is how you can possibly believe that magical items can grant the fighter all, most, or even half the uberness inherent in spells both low- and high-level?

Diggorian
2006-12-30, 07:16 PM
Never said that.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-30, 07:18 PM
"Wizards have access to that magic, but so do fighters to a lesser extend via items."

Basically, I don't get your point. *Why* doesn't it matter? Do you really feel the tank contributes remotely as much as the wizard at high levels?

Diggorian
2006-12-30, 07:24 PM
That quote states no assertion of belief. The high level magic items of fighters gives them access to magic, although the wizard has access to more powerful magic than that given by the fighter's items. A tendency I've observed.

And yes, in my experience tanks are the front line fighters even into high level. I wouldnt say that tanks are the most important role in the party cause I've havent gamed in all possible parties, and sweeping statements to that effect are just silly.

Turcano
2006-12-30, 07:25 PM
Basically, I don't get your point. *Why* doesn't it matter? Do you really feel the tank contributes remotely as much as the wizard at high levels?

The people who play tanks don't seem to mind all that much. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the people who complain the most about casters leaving warriors in the dust are the people who favor casters.

Diggorian
2006-12-30, 07:31 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the people who complain the most about casters leaving warriors in the dust are the people who favor casters.

I have observed this tendency as well.

Mike_G
2006-12-30, 07:43 PM
Actually, I did experience the "everyone but the Wizard is redundant" thing at high level a few years back. Once the Wizard got access to pre-errataed Shapechange, plus the ability to share spells with his familiar, the rest of us just watched him trounce the bad guys in melee.

I coined the phrase "sitting at the non-wizard kiddie table" for what the rest of the party did in that adventure.

We shortly nerfed Shapechange, which WOTC later did anyway, and things got better, but that adventure sucked.

For the Rogue, Paladin and Barbarian at least. The Cleric and Wizard handled everything fine.

You can make it not matter, as the DM, but the rules do favor casters to the point that the non-casters in our party said basically, "Call us when you play a game under 12th level. Until then, you two have fun, we're going out for some beers."

The casters decided that since they wanted to play with a group, they would agree to some nerfs, and the DMing has since taken into account the fact that the whole party would like to participate.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-30, 07:48 PM
Yep. Plenty of people who play melee characters primarily, or both melee characters and casters, feel that casters dominate high levels.

Turcano
2006-12-30, 08:01 PM
Yep. Plenty of people who play melee characters primarily, or both melee characters and casters, feel that casters dominate high levels.

Well, you'd be stupid not to think that casters are more powerful than warriors; it's just that it sometimes looks like the casters are the ones who make a big deal of it. I rarely see complaints along the lines of "I play a warrior and I fell marginalized because the party caster does my job for me" (although as Mike_G points out, that does come up when casters turn the cheese factor up), but complaints along the lines of "You warriors should feel marginalized because casters do your job for you" are legion.

Diggorian
2006-12-30, 08:11 PM
I'm thinking that when WotC made the change to 3.0 they didnt factor that wizards used to take a lot more XP to level, so you paid for alot more to get to those world-shaking spells.

Still it doesnt matter to me because wizards and fighters are part of a team, and there's no "mage" in team :smallwink: . I can see how wizards can become god-like at high level but have never had a DM that didnt compensate for that in some way. Guess I've been fortunate.

Ephraim
2006-12-30, 08:13 PM
Well, you'd be stupid not to think that casters are more powerful than warriors; it's just that it sometimes looks like the casters are the ones who make a big deal of it. I rarely see complaints along the lines of "I play a warrior and I fell marginalized because the party caster does my job for me" (although as Mike_G points out, that does come up when casters turn the cheese factor up), but complaints along the lines of "You warriors should feel marginalized because casters do your job for you" are legion.

My stance is kind of weird, I guess. I'm trying to establish attitudes that encourage nobody to marginalize anybody else. Of course, I also intend to do some balancing to help ensure that it's harder for anybody to marginalize anybody else by accident.

Lord_Kimboat
2007-01-02, 09:42 PM
Okay, I've read most of the posts of this thread (all 8 pages of them) and my guess is that there isn't going to be any agreement any time soon.

However, there are a few observations that I'd make because despite all of the arguments and seeming contradictions in viewpoint, I'm not certain that all of them are mutually exclusive.

First, I have to say that for the most part I agree with Bears. He's consistently pointed out that high level wizards are 'usually' more than a match for high level fighters. In the games he plays in, I am certain that this is true. It is semi-true even in the games I play although I know one 9th level wizard that doesn’t have a single offensive spell. Also, the group I mostly play with seems balanced – I have a ranger/fighter and there is a sorcerer in the group (don’t know if wizard stuff applies to sorcerers) and it generally seems the consensus that while I protected her back in the past, she’s protecting me now.

Pegasos, I feel for you in that you seem like you really enjoy role playing but tend to optimize almost by habit and gain enjoyment in that too. Sadly, I don’t. I gain 0 enjoyment out of tweeking my characters and crunching numbers. In fact, working out my ranger/fighters attack bonuses/penalties gives me a headache and I’m sure I frequently get it wrong (“damn! haven’t added the cleric’s prayer in” and “oh, the off hand is only +2 from my str bonus”). Now I know many people who DO enjoy this sort of thing and I’m sure many of them play wizards but I just don’t enjoy it.

This brings me to Saph. She seems to spend more time with gamers like me who don’t have as much of the ‘Geek’ factor. Now while I must admit that I’m probably a card carrying geek I hate to crunch numbers and I don’t spend hours pouring over the PHB or spend money on other books just so I can find ‘just the right tweek’.

Renegade Paladin makes an interesting point that perhaps stealth could cancel some of the wizard’s advantage. Certainly I don’t see even Bears disagreeing with this in concerns to a low-level wizard. Rogues are certainly a playable class and I would be more comfortable with Renagade’s arguments if I didn’t feel that he may be suggesting that Rogues are ‘more uber’ than wizards. I believe that we should be aiming for balance.

Avenger 337 seems to suggest that the DM use his power to enforce this balance and suggested several ways of doing so. I found that I would greatly enjoy to be in one of his games even when Pegasos felt he would not as Avenger doesn’t really reward optimization. I’d like to make it clear though that I feel that Pegasos does have a point. If someone spent a fair amount of time and effort optimizing their character while another playing in the group does not, it seems unfair to reward the player who put in less effort.

Mauril, while he seems to encounter power gamers, optimizers or whatever they call themselves, seems to stay away from them – a good choice in my book – because I believe this to be the crux of what this discussion has become.

This is the point I’m finally trying to make.

Some gamers are optimizers (for want of a better term) and some are not. Non optimizers don’t see wizards as unbalanced because ‘it doesn’t come up in there games’. For optimizers though, this lack of balance is apparent and some – like Bears, Pegasos and indeed Ephraim who started this discussion, choose not to exploit this lack of balance but spend their time and effort putting messages on a board to expose this lack of balance.

I am one of the non-optimizers so I’m not really certain that this lack of balance exists or how broken it is but I would like to thank everyone who contributed and replied to my posts.

Calver
2007-01-21, 01:13 PM
Hmmm... wonder if this post is done and I shouldn't bother replying... Well, I'll just make it a quick one.
Let me start by saying that I doubt I could have summoned the will to read all 8 pages of this post, and therefore I am sorry if I missed something important.
I happen to be some strange, freak-of-nature, hybrid Role Player and Optimizer (as Lord Kimboat termed it). I will spent hours trying to optimize my character; and I happen to think that it's fun. However, I cannot allow my character to be a generic optimization. And, because I'm trying to keep this post short, I just deleted the example, but... hey, what are you going to do :smallbiggrin:? Basically, I like prestige classing into whichever prestige class looks cool, not necessarily is the best for my character; and I have fun playing that character even though he may not be the best.
And it is from this Role playing perspective that I'm going to draw this insight: A wizard is not a wizard without a party. If the Wizard is a total **** (and my latest wizard was, with his -3 Charisma and -2 Wisdom) then it is the party's responsibility to deal with that wizard (through role playing). Except for the fact that, through role playing, I'm slowly making my Wizard less and less of a jerk, I wouldn't be surprised if my wizard got left to die in White Plume Mountain the first time he used up all his spells. I think that role playing should take the initiative to balance out any imbalances on its own. The archetypal, neutral or good wizard is a wise, diplomatic old man. If you have a 20th level Wizard that is still acting the same way he was when he was 1st level, then I personally believe that you have a role playing problem and your wizard really didn't experience anything. I'm not saying that every wizard should be an archetype, but I would think that a wizard learned something from toying with the very fabric of the universe for however many game years it took for him to reach 20th level.

Matthew
2007-01-21, 01:30 PM
I don't know about that. Experience doesn't necessarily change a person's personality at all. It might, but it doesn't have to.

In general, players have a responsibility to one another and to the Dungeon Master to build Characters that are agreeable to everyone.

Dausuul
2007-01-21, 03:13 PM
Wow, these threads just never end...

The way I see it, the two most popular points of view are "Casters are overpowered compared to non-casters at high levels" and "It doesn't matter whether some classes are more powerful, everyone should be able to have fun regardless."

So, looking at it from the point of view of "What should one actually do about it," I come to the following conclusion:

1. If the system remains as it is, the people in group A ("Casters are overpowered") will be unhappy, and the people in group B ("It doesn't matter") won't care.
2. If the system is adjusted so that non-casters are stronger and/or casters are weaker, the people in group A will be happy, and the people in group B still won't care.

Therefore, in any game involving at least one person who belongs to group A, it would be better to adjust the system so that non-casters are stronger and/or casters are weaker--assuming that this can be done relatively easily.

Of course, it is entirely possible that most posters actually fall into group C, which is of the opinion that "The point of these threads is to demonstrate with righteous indignation that the other person is wrong, not to solve any kind of problem."

Calver
2007-01-21, 03:19 PM
Well, I suppose that a naive, fresh-out-of-wizards-school wizard may not change after seeing people get cleaved in half, ingested, melted, have their brains eaten, and/or shriveled up into a husk by some disease. Even if he did bring all those things about on his own, as is not improbably to happen. Of course, I'd also assume that he had somehow never, ever made a mistake with a spell that, though completely acceptable, had some unfortunate effects.
I guess it's a lot like the Rogue that made sure to always search for traps every single time, because he'd be expecting everything to be trapped, having seen unusual, CR 20 traps before he even took his rogue level.

Matthew
2007-01-22, 02:38 PM
Of course, it is entirely possible that most posters actually fall into group C, which is of the opinion that "The point of these threads is to demonstrate with righteous indignation that the other person is wrong, not to solve any kind of problem."

Ah, you missed Group D, the people who think Spell Casters are the weakest Base Classes or Monks the most overpowered. That is usually the reason these threads start.

My experience is that they tend to go something like:

Party A "X sucks"
Party B "No, you are so wrong. X rocks!"
Party A "Eh?"
Party B "X rocks because of A, B and C."
Party A "Hmmnn. I guess... that sucks"
Party C "Nah, just keep in mind Y and Z."

TimeWizard
2007-01-23, 09:02 PM
Team playing only alleviates the problem, at high levels having a wizard buff the fighter and hang back is a lot like having someone looking over your shoulder pointing out your mistakes. They could just do a better job of it, and it feels a little depressing- it often leads to a "why even bother" syndrome. But what to do about it? I'm not qualified to answer that.

Have fun, I guess, 'til Monte and Skip come a knockin' with a new book.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-23, 09:26 PM
Well, why is the wizard just hanging back after buffing the fighter? Granted, you just slipped on a key element of team gameplay- using everyone's greatest asset in tandem- but the wizard can still do what a wizard does best and just blast from behind while the fighter goes on an imbued rampage in front.

Really, why would a wizard/cleric buff themselves when there's a perfectly good fighter in front of them that's naturally got a lot of combat beauty? Toss the dog some bones, let him have some fun in front, then you play around with battle control and blaster spells. Thus you have maximized your party usefullness and included the fighter as a core member of your strategies.

Could you still work without the fighter? Well, yes. But you'd be somewhat less effective.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 10:07 PM
Well, why is the wizard just hanging back after buffing the fighter?[/color]
Because otherwise, he will steal the show.

[quote]Really, why would a wizard/cleric buff themselves when there's a perfectly good fighter in front of them that's naturally got a lot of combat beauty?
For clerics especially--because their Personal buffs are vastly better than their other-person buffs.

Wehrkind
2007-01-24, 03:02 AM
Ok, look, seriously now, if you are a mage, and you want to "do what you do best", and are using blaster spells, you are doing it wrong. Damage is NOT what mages do best.
Now, don't get me wrong. I want to run around and nuke things too. Recognize though that the mage's power lies not in flashy fireballs and horrid wiltings. It lies in the fact they have spells that say "You lose. I don't care how many hp you have."
That is what mages do best, and it makes most classes fairly irrelevant.

As for buffing, yes, it is very nice to toss your party members a bone. The fact remains you do better as a party by making yourself mighty and going to town.

Edit: Gotta give credit; Timewizard points it out pretty much exactly.
Even if you hold back, people know what you can do, and if you fail they are going to want to know why you didn't fix things. It's like some kid's dad playing football with the peewee league. If he kicks ass, the game just turns to "give dad the ball" and if he doesn't, all the kids are upset because he let them fail.

Bosh
2007-01-24, 04:37 AM
If you're DMing a game and want to make things balanced houserule the hell out of it. If you're playing in a game and the DM isn't houseruling it then you have to work within the RAW, which is unbalanced as all hell.

If the second situation is the case, then Seph's suggestion makes a lot of sense. But rather than use suboptimal tactics, give your character some fun to play but very sub-optimal character creation quirk that's fun to play.

For example play a wise old cleric with high wis, int and cha but craptacular str, con and dex. That way you can have fun with some skill points and in social situations, play your best and use intelligent tactics, but no matter how much you buff yourself you probably still won't be able to outshine a fighter in melee.

This works as long as the rest of the party is newbies, bad tacticians, willing to limit themselves but all it takes is just one player who knows how to make a powerful character and does so or makes a powerful character by accident to upset things.

So Seph's solution can work to make a bad situation less bad but its not really a very stable solution.