How to prove to my friends that spellcasters are OP

[Harbinger]

My friend doesn't believe me when I say 3.5 is unbalanced. Or, rather, he admits that there is some unbalance, but "only at like level 10". How can I show him that full casters are OP before that point, without doing something like challenging him to a duel?

He also thinks the fighter is one of the most powerful classes, and that the ranger and the bard are less powerful than the monk.

[Eldariel]

If it really matters, just look through the classes with him. Build a level 6 Fighter and a Druid together, take a bunch of CR 6 combat and non-combat challenges from the DMG and play 'em out. He can build any number of Fighters and Druids he wants, that won't relevantly influence the outcome as long as each Fighter and Druid is individually taken through the gauntlet.

Do the same with a Wizard (make sure the spell selection is intelligent) and a Cleric too and see which class performs the best in the largest number of those. The "Why Each Class Is In Its Tier"-thread in my signature also has some decent explanations. Principally, it boils down to some classes having more options than others, and thus performing more effectively in a wider variety of challenges. Level 9 (level 5 spells) in particular also introduces gamechanging spells.

Or hell, use Lesser Planar Binding/Planar Binding/Animate Dead and compare the things a Wizard can create or bind and compel to obedience with a Charisma-check (at worst you need a Scroll of Moment of Prescience to more or less automatically make it regardless of the terms) to Fighter in terms of combat capability and otherwise and point out that those are mere underlings.


Monks are exceptionally simple far as testing preconceptions goes; just build a Monk without an insane stat array, compare its numbers to equal-CR'd encounters (grapple, trip, doesn't matter what he does). Monk is a special child in being a martial class that, in addition to martial classes being super-restricted higher up. Bard and Ranger should perform significantly better, again with intelligent spell selection.

[Red Fel]

Set up a series of challenges on the order of the Same Game Test. (Google it if you're unfamiliar.) Don't limit it to combat, but include whatever you like. Be creative. Some combats, a trapped corridor, assassinating a noble, stealing an object, preparing a village for war, whatever you like. Then stat out each of the classes you want to test, at several levels - say, five, ten, and fifteen. Limit yourself to PHB, and subject each build to your friend's approval. Then run the test and see how easily each build can perform each task.

[ryu]

Alternatively Human focused specialist conjurer wizard with abrup jaunt ACF precocious apprentice into your favorite level two fire spell and use it to fuel the fiery burst feat. Congratulations. You are now an all-day long auto-shotgun with more durability at level one than most fighters have by like six to eight if they're lucky. Show him what that does on its way up to ten across all levels up to ten with standard awesome wizard spells in a same game test. If he complains that that's just one build do the same with a no-fanciness druid, a cloistered cleric, and any other tier one class. He still wants more? Start using tier 2s. Still wants more? Show him tome of battle classes while pointing out that these are two tiers lower than the full casters.

[Captnq]

Well, it depends.

Here. Have him read the Noob Guide (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9479.0). Then jump down to the section on the Tier System.

See, the problem is, he may be right. It's sort of all relative.

Give me access to all the books, I'll make you a monk by level 20 who's immune to just about everything, has +43 fists, does about 100-800 HP of damage a punch, gets about 20 attacks a round, Touch AC in the triple digits., criticals on an 11 to 20, and gets an extra attack every time they crit.

Now give me a level 20 wizard and it'll be much worse.

It's not the class, it's the player that's always been deadly. If this guy simply cannot see past fireballs and evocation to the binary nature of save-and-suck spells, well, for him, wizards aren't that bad. You see, in his head, he may be self-nerfing. He may be following the rules as intended, not Rules as Written. He may simply see a Lightning Mace/Round house kick/maxed out criticals combination as "cheating".

He might not consider the fact that a wizard can use Limited wish to cast clerical spells to maximize his wizard spells. He might think Astral Projection from another universe to be cheating. He might think Polymorphing is cheesy.

I suspect your problem is, he's not good at the system. He's not a RAW type of player, and that's fine. The fact is, numbers don't lie. Wizards do everything better. But trying to "prove it" won't work unless you get him to see the rules the same way as you. He doesn't He still has in his head this image that wizards cast spells. He doesn't understand that wizard can turn into a red dragon and mix it up better then the monk. He doesn't understand the wizard can Spam Summon Monster until his problems go away. Or if he needs to, he can teleport away and come back later.

It's a mental image you are fighting.

That's why you need to have him read Trap 5 of the Noob Handbook as well. It explains that sometimes a title is just a title.

[Deophaun]

He might not consider the fact that a wizard can use Limited wish to cast clerical spells to maximize his wizard spells. He might think Astral Projection from another universe to be cheating. He might think Polymorphing is cheesy.
He did say that his friend does think the imbalance "only" comes online at level 10 (indicating that he doesn't see much high-level play). So the level 20 test isn't all that important. A level 5 test, however, would be.

Given that, his sentiment isn't that unreasonable. The unbalance does begin earlier, but by 10 it's becoming unmanageable in a party with competent players playing characters across tiers.

[Incanur]

Monk are less than impressive early on, though, without high stats. Playing one starting at level 1 with a 25 or 28 point buy strikes me as an exercise in frustration. Either you can attack decently or you've got a decent AC - not both.

[Silva Stormrage]

I would let him just have his opinion, you are right in this situation. Does it affect your gameplay if he is wrong?

However, in case it is the best example would be showing how casters are better at melee than melee.

My suggestion would be a cleric with corpse crafter + animate dead. 5th level, two ogre zombies and two human skeletons. Arena match. Have the cleric sit on a lounge chair with the skeletons fanning him while the ogres crush the fighter. Give them basic equipment, breast plate, etc. Have them grapple or just melee the fighter down. The ogres will each have 84 hit points which each will be about double the fighter's.

If you are worried about mobility replace the ogres with skeleton Centaurs, which probably are decently more efficient anyway.

Get other corpse crafter feats if you feel it is necessary. Or if he tries to reason that the undead cost money get fell animate + DMM to get them for free.

[Deophaun]

Monk are less than impressive early on, though, without high stats.
Well, Monks are just less than impressive, period. But early on they can at least have a clear combat roll as they don't yet have a ton of class features all working at cross purposes. Level 6 is where they take their first major drop in comparison to all other martial classes, as the full BABs get their first iterative. Plus, a Monk's damage output compared to a THF PA hitter just looks worse and worse as the levels pile up.

So, while Monks are less than impressive, they are at their most impressive early on. Rangers do get an early start on outclassing them with their combat style at level 2, but your average bow-based ranger will be spending his third level paying the Precise Shot feat tax at a time when the monk is bragging about his new free trip attempts.

Then his moment in the sun is gone. Ranger gets animal companion and, maybe, his first spell, and the Monk is eating dust the rest of the way.

[Eldariel]

So, while Monks are less than impressive, they are at their most impressive early on. Rangers do get an early start on outclassing them with their combat style at level 2, but your average bow-based ranger will be spending his third level paying the Precise Shot feat tax at a time when the monk is bragging about his new free trip attempts.

Well, Monk gets Improved Trip by 6 on Core. SRD gives it on 2, granted. Still, level 1 Monk is the worst Monk compared to Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/etc. since unlike everyone else, Monk doesn't get proper weapon damage and armor on level 1 where it matters. Monk has a bunch of 1d6 weapons vs. the two-handers of a martial type, Monk has 0 BAB and Monk has ****ty AC. In other words, while normal Martial types do shine early, Monks don't.

Monks have bad To Hit when that's one of the few selling points low level martials have, and Monks have bad AC & base damage which are the other two advantages low level martials have. Oh, and they can't use reach weapons which is the final straw. Basically, low level Monks without like 18/16/16/8/18/8 stats suck the most compared to the other weak classes. A level 1-3 Monk is a terrible warrior. And yeah, yeah, grapple, trip, blah blah blah, Monk is still comparatively bad at it (as in other classes can do the exact same thing better if so desired; Trip with reach, maybe even strength bonuses, on level 1, Grapple with full BAB and Armor to protect you from people aside from the one you're grappling).


Like, NPC 1-3 Warrior outclasses a level 1-3 Monk.

[Silva Stormrage]

Well, Monk gets Improved Trip by 6 on Core. SRD gives it on 2, granted. Still, level 1 Monk is the worst Monk compared to Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/etc. since unlike everyone else, Monk doesn't get proper weapon damage and armor on level 1 where it matters. Monk has a bunch of 1d6 weapons vs. the two-handers of a martial type, Monk has 0 BAB and Monk has ****ty AC. In other words, while normal Martial types do shine early, Monks don't.

Monks have bad To Hit when that's one of the few selling points low level martials have, and Monks have bad AC & base damage which are the other two advantages low level martials have. Oh, and they can't use reach weapons which is the final straw. Basically, low level Monks without like 18/16/16/8/18/8 stats suck the most compared to the other weak classes. A level 1-3 Monk is a terrible warrior. And yeah, yeah, grapple, trip, blah blah blah, Monk is still comparatively bad at it (as in other classes can do the exact same thing better if so desired; Trip with reach, maybe even strength bonuses, on level 1, Grapple with full BAB and Armor to protect you from people aside from the one you're grappling).


Like, NPC 1-3 Warrior outclasses a level 1-3 Monk.

Monk isn't THAT bad. Compared to a level 1 warrior a monk has better saves, a bonus feat, wisdom to ac and -1 BAB. A monk doesn't HAVE to use his fist at all. At level 2 and three monks get BAB and better saves and class features.

Sure they are bad features but warrior gets literally nothing except +1 bab. Which isn't that good in of itself, thats essentially saying that weapon focus is greater than the monk's saves + wis to ac + improved grapple/stunning fist. Which I don't think is the case.

Monk is bad but its not as bad as WARRIOR, sure its probably worse than adept and expert but still, it beats 3 of the NPC classes that counts for something :smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

Monk isn't THAT bad. Compared to a level 1 warrior a monk has better saves, a bonus feat, wisdom to ac and -1 BAB. A monk doesn't HAVE to use his fist at all. At level 2 and three monks get BAB and better saves and class features.

Sure they are bad features but warrior gets literally nothing except +1 bab. Which isn't that good in of itself, thats essentially saying that weapon focus is greater than the monk's saves + wis to ac + improved grapple/stunning fist. Which I don't think is the case.

Monk is bad but its not as bad as WARRIOR, sure its probably worse than adept and expert but still, it beats 3 of the NPC classes that counts for something :smalltongue:

Wisdom to AC is worse than armor on this level. That class feature doesn't actually exist. It's -1 BAB (& saves, which I'm ignoring here since I'm considering the fighting stats) & Bonus Feat vs. Martial Weapon Proficiencies & Armor Proficiencies. That's the big one.

Martial Weapon Proficiencies enables the Warrior to actually use e.g. Guisarme, Greatsword, Longbow, an array of good weapons (better yet, he can pick since he's proficient in all of them) and Armor Profs gets him a mail of some sorts. He can even wield a Shield on top of that, which can actually have benefits at times on level 1 and it only costs 7gp to have a Heavy Wooden Shield at hand.


Like, level 1 reach is basically a free extra attack when each enemy approaches you. With a two-hander. You can also trip (if you're stronger than the enemy your chances are non-horrid even without the feat; if you have Flaws or are Human you might actually have the feat and put on a horrific show with the Guisarme) with that attack if you feel that's optimal (succeed and the enemy is pretty FUBAR'd).

Greatsword does about twice the damage anything Monk has does. Monk hits somebody for 1d6+2, Warrior hits somebody for 2d6+3. Longbow (or even Light Crossbow, another weapon Monk isn't proficient in and that performs adequately on this level to save gold) functions at a range where the Monk can't really operate. Monk simply lacks ranged proficiencies. And Shield obviously gives the Warrior the option of fighting with +2 AC at a damage deficit instead of -4 to hit from defensive fighting.

Proficiencies matter a ton on low levels and Monk is literally the only warrior type that doesn't get them (Rogue doesn't either but Rogue gets a decent bunch of weapons at least; though low level Rogues are kinda hardpressed to do anything but shoot a bow). Hell, did you know that unless you have 1 BAB you can't combine move action and drawing a weapon? That's kind of a big deal, since on low levels you don't need full attacks and thus are free to move around; basically, Warrior can switch weapon every round (by dropping the old one) if he feels so inclined while Monk is stuck in one mode all day unless he stops for a turn.


Proficiencies (or the lack there-of) don't matter all that much for most of the game but early on they kick Monk in the groin with a steel boot.

[Deophaun]

Well, Monk gets Improved Trip by 6 on Core. SRD gives it on 2, granted. Still, level 1 Monk is the worst Monk compared to Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/etc. since unlike everyone else, Monk doesn't get proper weapon damage and armor on level 1 where it matters. Monk has a bunch of 1d6 weapons vs. the two-handers of a martial type, Monk has 0 BAB and Monk has ****ty AC. In other words, while normal Martial types do shine early, Monks don't.
First, do try to narrow your discussion. Obviously Fighter is off the table, as the OP's friend thinks Fighter is the strongest class. We were, however, told about how the OP's friend thinks that the Monk outclasses the Ranger and the Bard, which is why my comments were restricted to the Ranger.

Second, do pay attention to what's written so that you don't end up agreeing with a point you are ostensibly trying to argue with. For example, compare:

In other words, while normal Martial types do shine early, Monks don't.
With

Well, Monks are just less than impressive, period.

And no, your standard bow-focused Ranger is no better with DPS at level 1 than a Monk, because there's no TH damage bonus with a bow (and it's going to probably be level 2 when he picks up a composite longbow), and unless he picked Human for the bonus feat that Ranger is going to be plagued with a -4 penalty for shooting into melee until 3rd. The advantage the Monk has over the Ranger at level 1 is Flurry, which, as I stated, pretty much goes away at level 2 when the Ranger gets his combat style (Rapid Shot).

[ArcturusV]

Well, I can understand why he might think things like "A wizard isn't OP until level 10+". It's a very old school attitude... but it doesn't mesh well with the update to 3.5. In particular:

The addition of level 0 spells so that basic effects like Light no longer take up higher level slots.

The addition of +Stat spells for high stats.

Full Con bonuses and HP at first level for classes.

The regulation of magic item crafting as a very simple, pain free process that requires almost no effort at all.

This means, compared to the traditional "mage", that a 3.5 edition Wizard has:

About 8 times as many spells per day. Will have anywhere from double to triple the HP that they would have had before, able to load out with items of power piss easily rather than having to actually quest for every minor item of power and be capped on the number of items they can ever create (Yeah, you were capped on the items you could create by the virtue of having to use permanency, which took away a point of Con every time you cast it, with no ability to get it back, ever).

This is key, because it really ruined the 'swing balance' of earlier editions. Your friend was right... in second edition. Where you wizard MIGHT dominate one fight a day by casting sleep, or ray of enfeeblement, etc. And otherwise be a guy who has maybe 1 HP, will die if he ever gets hit, and can only use Sticks and knives, no safely trying to luck crossbow from across the chamber, etc.

Now how does that practically impact the game at low levels?

Well, lets use a bog standard PHB wizard. No fancy ACFs, splat diving, etc. Level 1, no other races for starting out at 20 int, etc. Hell, lets not even go Specialist for the extra spell.

Means you got 2 1st level spells per day (Read: Ends encounters hard buttons), and 3 Cantrips (Read: Handy utility spells that don't shut down an encounter on their own, but are helpful). A familiar (Which used properly is always useful, be it having someone to Aid Another on you, to scouts, to clandestine partner in crime, or even something as simple as harvesting venom off your tiny viper...), and the scribe scroll feat.

Now take a standard sort of "Go out yonder and kill some kobolds" adventure for level one characters. Typically it starts with one 'random' encounter on the way to the dungeon, with a chance to rest up and heal before tackling the dungeon itself. So your wizard is just going to nova this encounter. Bust out the color spray and just cripple it in one shot. Your ultra powerful monk by the way will struggle to take out a random kobold in a "fair" fight due to having not exactly the best AC or HP. But he'll do okay due to having both Strength and Wisdom to attack, at least for connecting on the enemy.

So you get some XP from the encounter, some loot, etc. Your smart wizard will have stuff they already bought... and with their couple dozen XP or so.. spend the night penning magic scrolls. Why not? At this point you're spending 12 gp (A pittance considering what you're likely to get in loot) and 1 XP (Ha, not bad at all), and in return adding massive amounts of firepower to your wizard in terms of extra castings of Sleep, Color Spray, Charm Person, Silent Image, Ray of Enfeeblement, etc, etc, etc, that don't use up the real limiter on their power, spells/day.

And it snowballs from there. Your wizard who scribes 2-3 scrolls while everyone heals up after the fight (Because it'll happen and at level 1 natural healing takes a while, etc), is now about twice as powerful, and has twice the endurance they had before. They now have enough firepower to curbstomp an entire day worth of dungeon crawling (3-4 encounters), with a variety of tools at their disposal. Compared to the monk who still... kind of ineffectually punches enemies and will have trouble trying to solo any sort of creature you run into on a one on one match up.

Course, people who don't play wizards will look at that plan and go "Well you'll end up like level 1 while everyone else is level 3 at that rate!". Which isn't true. Consider that leveling up is... eh... roughly 12 encounters or so. If I crafted a scroll to handle each one, hell, even if I crafted two to deal with each encounter... that only leaves me 24 XP behind. Less than a single encounter worth. And because I'm lower level than everyone else I'll get +10% XP on that single encounter. If it's a big enough fight that means I might actually end up with MORE XP than my comrades. Despite having burned XP on crafting all this time.

Course, there's also the "Well you won't have 8 hours of downtime to craft a scroll"... but at level 1 you tend to. I mean no one sends level 1 adventurers on time sensitive critical missions. Slow healing and limited spells per day means even minor amounts of damage, like two-three party members only taking a single hit each, means you'll be "Down" for a day or two to rest, get healing magics, etc, and top off again.

And if you have a spellcaster, be it wizard, druid, cleric, etc, who does this, and they all can if they want, at level 1? He's still going to be the rockstar of the group.

[Deophaun]

ArcturusV, I have to say you have described the very opposite of the starting level campaigns my group runs. If we play that low level, levels 1-3 get very interesting and desperate very quick with no chance to go back to town and rest up if we get a boo boo. Of course, low op characters wouldn't survive those.

[ArcturusV]

True enough I suppose. But if you were running a campaign like that? I rather have 4 casters, rather than 4 monks, fighters, rangers, rogues, etc. Because having 4 guys who can pop off even only 2 "I win" buttons a day beats having 4 people who, while effective, are going to have to risk getting skinned alive and come out of every encounter with a close call.

Then again at level 1, Tactics are a lot more important than Optimization necessarily. But Optimization leads to more tactical options being available. Having a party where your wizard can pop off a charm person for intelligence gathering, finding secret safe ways, passcodes, caches, etc of the enemy becomes a lot more important than "I can hit people hard".

[Eldariel]

And no, your standard bow-focused Ranger is no better with DPS at level 1 than a Monk, because there's no TH damage bonus with a bow (and it's going to probably be level 2 when he picks up a composite longbow), and unless he picked Human for the bonus feat that Ranger is going to be plagued with a -4 penalty for shooting into melee until 3rd. The advantage the Monk has over the Ranger at level 1 is Flurry, which, as I stated, pretty much goes away at level 2 when the Ranger gets his combat style (Rapid Shot).

There's nothing stopping a first level bow ranger from two-handing a weapon in melee if he feels so inclined tho. He needs good strength to get bow damage later on anyways so he's probably fairly well setup for this, actually.

A ranger has all the advantages martial weapon profs + shield profs provide an NPC Warrior as well, plus his possible Favored Enemy. Granted, he only has light armor but it still probably matches a Monk's Wisdom (Studded Leather is +3 and relatively affordable; unless a Monk has 18 Wisdom & 18 Dex, that'll match him).

Hell, the reason you'd use a bow in the first place is 'cause you're fighting at range. Monk can't do that at all so effectively the Ranger is doing infinitely more DPS than the Monk when he is actually using a bow.

[Deophaun]

Not really. The "I win" buttons aren't so "I win" when the enemy isn't bunched up. Casters are nice, don't get me wrong, and the 4 wizards/sorcerers (let's not include clerics or druids, as they've basically got no disadvantages at 1st level) would probably do better than the 4 fighters (though the 4 rangers/rogues actually could work due to stealth synergy). What makes those low-level parties work though are non-core classes like Crusaders, Totemists, and Dread Necromancers.

There's nothing stopping a first level bow ranger from two-handing a weapon in melee if he feels so inclined tho. He needs good strength to get bow damage later on anyways so he's probably fairly well setup for this, actually.
The Ranger is MAD. He's going to be as set up for Strength as the Monk is.

And you've got starting wealth limitations here, too. Longbow and Greatsword? After studded leather, there's not even enough left over for a coil of rope. So the monk's theoretically 2d6+X2 Str, while the ranger is at a lesser TH + X1.5 Str. Not seeing clear Ranger superiority here. And the Ranger has spent his first feat on PBS, while the Monk has choices.

[eggynack]

let's not include clerics or druids, as they've basically got no disadvantages at 1st level.
This, except infinite clerics and druids instead of not clerics and druids. If you're going to prove the superiority of casters, clerics, or better yet, druids, do the job better than wizards do. Just have your friend build his first level monk, and compare the stats to what a druid's riding dog has, and then show the player entangle. At low to moderate optimization levels, the riding dog is going to be superior in just about every way, at least when you put leather barding on the thing. It's really as simple as that. Sure, things change at level two, but then the druid gets more spells, and then fleshrakers happen, and things go crazy.

[some guy]

And it snowballs from there. Your wizard who scribes 2-3 scrolls while everyone heals up after the fight (Because it'll happen and at level 1 natural healing takes a while, etc), is now about twice as powerful, and has twice the endurance they had before. They now have enough firepower to curbstomp an entire day worth of dungeon crawling (3-4 encounters), with a variety of tools at their disposal. Compared to the monk who still... kind of ineffectually punches enemies and will have trouble trying to solo any sort of creature you run into on a one on one match up.

Wait, I thought you could only create one scroll per day?


Creating an item requires one day per 1,000 gp in the item’s base price, with a minimum of at least one day.

[Deophaun]

Wait, I thought you could only create one scroll per day?
Basically, he's saying that since 1st level characters only recover 1 - 2 hp a day (depending on how much they rest), waiting for someone who got hit for 6 hp of damage, for example, is going to take at least three days to heal before you venture back out.

[some guy]

Basically, he's saying that since 1st level characters only recover 1 - 2 hp a day (depending on how much they rest), waiting for someone who got hit for 6 hp of damage, for example, is going to take at least three days to heal before you venture back out.

Ah, right. Thanks for the clarification.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, that. Generally if you got in a fight where say, 3 people got mauled (Likely at first level since even fighters and rogues generally are going to get tagged), you're talking a minimal 2 day downtime. Cleric casts healing magic today (If they didn't already burn their slots already), reloads the next day, finishes topping off people after the extra points of Heal skill based resting. But you don't want to leave home with all your spells already expended, so you rest one more day. In that time the wizard has nothing to do but pen one scroll on the first day (As you probably still have more than 8 hours to the day), one on the second, maybe even one on the third if the cleric already burned his spells on the day of the fight or you just get a late start to the day as it only takes 8 hours.

At higher levels of course the downtime is shorter. But at higher levels your spells/day aren't really a limiting factor anymore. And if you have kind of normal DMG suggested 2-3 months of downtime between adventures (I say suggested as it mentions that's how long you're supposed to be downtime 'training' to level up and such, honing your skills, getting stuff done, applying new lessons, etc), instead of making scrolls it'd be staffs, wondrous items, etc, which are even higher on the power scale. When you walk out to start your next adventure and you're decked out in twice as much Magical Item Doom as any other teammate it gets bad. Course you might craft for them as well. In which case your spellcaster REALLY is powering up the party because he just doubled the party's wealth in very real terms for very minor costs.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, that. Generally if you got in a fight where say, 3 people got mauled (Likely at first level since even fighters and rogues generally are going to get tagged), you're talking a minimal 2 day downtime. Cleric casts healing magic today (If they didn't already burn their slots already), reloads the next day, finishes topping off people after the extra points of Heal skill based resting. But you don't want to leave home with all your spells already expended, so you rest one more day. In that time the wizard has nothing to do but pen one scroll on the first day (As you probably still have more than 8 hours to the day), one on the second, maybe even one on the third if the cleric already burned his spells on the day of the fight or you just get a late start to the day as it only takes 8 hours.

At higher levels of course the downtime is shorter. But at higher levels your spells/day aren't really a limiting factor anymore. And if you have kind of normal DMG suggested 2-3 months of downtime between adventures (I say suggested as it mentions that's how long you're supposed to be downtime 'training' to level up and such, honing your skills, getting stuff done, applying new lessons, etc), instead of making scrolls it'd be staffs, wondrous items, etc, which are even higher on the power scale. When you walk out to start your next adventure and you're decked out in twice as much Magical Item Doom as any other teammate it gets bad. Course you might craft for them as well. In which case your spellcaster REALLY is powering up the party because he just doubled the party's wealth in very real terms for very minor costs.

It's worth noting that scrolls can contain multiple spells too (scroll (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm) treasure lists up to 6 spells but no proper upper limit is ever mentioned) so if he wants to spend more resources on an individual scroll and thus craft more in a day, that's perfectly feasible.

[ericgrau]

Don't make a caster with forum help to challenge them with. Instead, have your friends make casters without any help. If their casters aren't OP, all you are really doing by making a broken caster is bringing in brokenness problems to a table where there didn't used to be any. And if you're worried about making an OP caster yourself, then you play a non-caster. But trying to make the problem as bad as possible to try to deal with it is the polar opposite of what you should be doing. Even if it's only test fights, it's merely a less bad way of introducing brokenness.

You might have your friends go against test fights instead of you, but real fights are much more fun. Make it a semi-short plotted campaign if you're worried about it falling apart.

[Chronos]

Let's look at the minimal case for a wizard: Level 1, core-only. Compare that to a fighter, in a fairly typical first-level encounter.

The party runs into a group of goblins. The fighter can probably kill about one per round, if the dice favor him on his attack roll. The wizard can take out all of them in one round, with a Color Spray, if the dice favor her on the saving throws. Taking out all of the enemies is clearly superior to taking out one enemy.

Now, the wizard can only do this a limited number of times per day, while the fighter "never runs out of sword". But the wizard can still do it, even with fairly low optimization, three times per day. The system is designed on the assumption that you'll face about four significant encounters per day, and honestly, at first level you'll be lucky if you can do that many anyway before running out of hit points.

Alternately, consider instead a first-level druid. He likes fighters at first level? Well, that's understandable, fighters are better than most classes at first level. But compare the stats of the druid's pet wolf with a fighter: They're nearly equal. Plus if the wolf dies (quite plausible at low level), you can just replace it the next day: You can't say the same for the fighter. And this is in addition to the druid himself, who's routinely immobilizing large groups of monsters multiple times each day, and if nothing else still has his hide armor and greatclub to fall back on.

[ericgrau]

If foes form a convenient circle and the fighter is level 4 with great cleave, a spiked chain and good rolls he can take out 24 foes a round. Heck more than twice as many if he just drank a potion of enlarge person. But who the heck cares about favorable circumstances? Average circumstances are what matter.

Just let it play out and if there's a problem it will become apparent on its own. Don't try to make a new problem in a campaign, nor complicated scenarios outside a campaign that are difficult to adjudicate properly.

[jedipotter]

My friend doesn't believe me when I say 3.5 is unbalanced. Or, rather, he admits that there is some unbalance, but "only at like level 10". How can I show him that full casters are OP before that point, without doing something like challenging him to a duel?

He also thinks the fighter is one of the most powerful classes, and that the ranger and the bard are less powerful than the monk.

You could just admit that your the one that is wrong. After all it does depend on what you mean by ''balance''. So if you define ''balance'', you will have an easier time.

Most people have D&D balance something like ''Every single character must be exactly the same in every way'' or ''the game must be fair 100% of the time''. And if you say that ''I think every character should have all the same abilities, options, and such'' then it might be a bit more clear what you are trying to say.

Though the so called ''balance'' does depend on how you play the game. All most all balance problems come from friendly Dm's. And a lot of the rest come from ''interpretations'' of the rules, or what the rules say or don't say(and some crazy stuff like ''well it does not say the monster can be harmed by magic, so that means it is immune to magic'').

So just drop the ''balance'' thing and say more: I personally don't like mundane classes as I only like flashy classes with tons of options that allow me to indulge my fantasy. It's the difference between I like the idea of picking up a rusty sword and going toe to toe vs a horde of orcs and I like standing on a mountaintop and using arcane fire to blast the moon out of orbit and obliterate an orc army.

[Muja]

Though the so called ''balance'' does depend on how you play the game. All most all balance problems come from friendly Dm's. And a lot of the rest come from ''interpretations'' of the rules, or what the rules say or don't say(and some crazy stuff like ''well it does not say the monster can be harmed by magic, so that means it is immune to magic'').

So just drop the ''balance'' thing and say more: I personally don't like mundane classes as I only like flashy classes with tons of options that allow me to indulge my fantasy. It's the difference between I like the idea of picking up a rusty sword and going toe to toe vs a horde of orcs and I like standing on a mountaintop and using arcane fire to blast the moon out of orbit and obliterate an orc army.

Though I do agree that certain groups can avoid the powergap between tiers fairly well, to say that a good chunk of the imbalance in games omes from BS rules lawyering is an unfair generalization that is 9/10 patently false. a good example of this imbalance would be having a druid and monk in the same party with similar optimization. unless they both go big dumb fighter and the druid ignores their casting and just uses their animal companion to ride on it then its obvious after only one or two encounters which of the two is more useful in any given scenario. Balance is generally not a group to group thing (minus rules interpretations as you mentioned, where RAI does matter), and rarely is it the reason that the debate over the balance between spellcasters and mundanes occur. There is an inbalance, and the only time that I have seen it logically argued otherwise is at lower levels when the spellcaster chooses suboptimal spells and feats while the mundane plays a lion totem barbarian/Dungeoncrasher Fighter/blahblahblah :smallbiggrin: so really they try to pull a double negitive by fighting imbalance with inbalance

[Deophaun]

The party runs into a group of goblins. The fighter can probably kill about one per round, if the dice favor him on his attack roll. The wizard can take out all of them in one round, with a Color Spray, if the dice favor her on the saving throws. Taking out all of the enemies is clearly superior to taking out one enemy.
The problem is color spray has a range of 15 feet. I've never had an encounter at low level where they were likely to group up enough for it to end an encounter before it started (Now, fighting against one or two opponents? Absolutely, but more than that, not happening). Plus, it also requires the wizard getting close to the fighting, which is risky enough at later levels, let alone level 1.

And then there's the fact that goblins are not stupid creatures. They are going to stay at range as much as they can (cowardly). They'll probably hit and run and use Hide and Move Silently to ambush you while shooting/throwing from behind cover.

Your saving grace is that they aren't going to be well coordinated, but that also works against color spray, as they won't be working in close units. The fighter is going to have a much better time pursuing and picking them off as their attacks become erratic.

Don't get me wrong, color spray is a great low level spell, but in my experience it's more an "Oh $@#&!" button than an "I win" one. Sleep is actually better here, but you're unlikely to get all of them, and maybe only one. You're also going to want one of your spells to be mage armor, because these goblins will be aiming for soft targets, and their to-hit means they will have a better than 50/50 chance even if Dex is your secondary attribute if you don't have other protection. At 6-7 HP, two hits can kill you.

[Incanur]

If you're a beguiler, you can just sneak up to a group of enemies and color spray them in the face. Forest gnome illusionists can also be pretty sneaky. Your average wizard, not so much.

[Eldariel]

The Ranger is MAD. He's going to be as set up for Strength as the Monk is.

And you've got starting wealth limitations here, too. Longbow and Greatsword? After studded leather, there's not even enough left over for a coil of rope. So the monk's theoretically 2d6+X2 Str, while the ranger is at a lesser TH + X1.5 Str. Not seeing clear Ranger superiority here. And the Ranger has spent his first feat on PBS, while the Monk has choices.

Ranger needs less Wis than the Monk so he's still less MAD. But it's true, he's at least not as clearly advantaged in the situation as an NPC Warrior; however, that doesn't really matter. He can make do with 16 Dex and Str and 12 Wis and Con relatively easily tho while a Monk with that array would be looking at AC 14 (to Ranger's 16 plus option of using a shield). You probably shouldn't get a Greatsword if you got a Longbow; you can use a Guisarme, a Greataxe, a ton of cheaper options than the Greatsword.

Monk's 2d6+x2 Str is completely theoretical. 0 BAB and -2 from Flurry, he'll be lucky if one of those lands; both once in a blue moon. Like, even with 18 Strength (18!) he's looking at +2 to hit vs. the AC 13-15 creatures that populate low CRs (Goblins, Orcs, Kobolds, what-have-you). His chance of landing 1 attack is about the same as a two-hand Ranger's chance of hitting. A two-handing Ranger does way more expected damage.


Put this into numbers; assume the Ranger uses...say Greataxe. Average 6.5 damage. Assume both the manage 16 Strength. Assume Monk manages full attack (which isn't even guaranteed; Monk is literally the only class that needs a full-round action to stand still to do damage on this level). Ranger attacks at +4 for 1d12+4 (x3 crits), Monk attacks at +1/+1 for 1d6+3.

They attack a Goblin, AC 15. Monk averages 4.77 damage in a round. Ranger? 5.77 damage. In other words, Ranger is expected to one-shot it to -1 while Monk drops it to +0 meaning it gets another turn (in addition to the fact that the Monk needs a full attack to accomplish this while the Ranger can move and attack). God forbid Monk needs to move. Then he's at +3 for 1d6+4 (two-handing a quarterstaff) for 3.54 expected damage. He needs two rounds to be expected to drop the Goblin.


Now, say the Ranger was smart and invested in a Light Crossbow for his ranger weapon instead of a Longbow ('cause he needs to buy a proper Composite Bow to use his Strength for damage anyways so Longbow is only a stopgap - Light Crossbow is simply a more efficient stopgap with the low level 1 wealth).

This leaves money over for a Greatsword (which is the best weapon on these levels if you want damage; note that Guisarme is usually superior tho and cheap as hell thanks to getting AoOs fairly frequently vs. melee enemies without reach like all the discussed types here; but that's harder to account for mathematically). It does average 6.05 damage to this here Goblin so basically automatic termination and it performs very well against tougher opponents as well. And with Guisarme in hand he's defensively way better off since enemies have a high likelihood of death before they even get to him. And he can constantly re-establish distance since he has a free move action each round.


Like, Monk looks like this:
Melee:
Quarterstaff +3 for 1d6+4
Quarterstaff Flurry +1/+1 for 1d6+3

Ranged:
+3 Shurikens 1d2+3 (10' range increment)
Shuriken Flurry +1/+1 for 1d2+3 (10' range increment)

AC 15 (let's assume he got 14 Wisdom), 9 HP

Ranger?
Melee:
Greatsword +4 for 2d6+4 (19-20/x2)
Guisarme +4 2d4+4 @ 10' range
Flail +4 for 1d8+3 while using a shield

Ranged:
Light Crossbow +4 for 1d8 (19-20/x2) (80' range increment)
Sling +4 for 1d4+3 (50' increment)

AC 16, AC 18 with Heavy Wooden Shield, 9 HP


Ranger eclipses the Monk in literally every way. He has better melee, more options in melee, better ranged combat (well, as in he can actually efficiently engage enemies more than 10' away), more options in ranged combat, better AC, able to gain even more AC, more skill points, lower stat requirements (though admittedly a Ranger does want stats too), more auxillary class features (we haven't mentioned Favored Enemy, Track or Wild Empathy here), ability to use Ranger spell trigger items, etc.

And yeah, level 2 he gets Rapid Shot and can buy that (Mw.) Composite Longbow with Str +3 and his ranged combat ability becomes even more superior to the Monk's.

None of the feats a Monk could take on this level would really make that much of a difference here.
- Grapple requires a touch attack plus a successful grapple check so its chances of success even with Improved Grapple aren't much better than the Monk's normal attacks' and it's only useful vs. a single opponent (multiple opponents can wreck the now-flatfooted Monk hard if he does grapple their ally).
- Stunning Fist is 1/day and you need to guess beforehand which attack is gonna hit.
- Monk doesn't qualify for any of the +1 BAB stuff.

Monk's best bet is taking Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword or Longbow or something and enjoy being only 1 BAB behind the Ranger.

[jedipotter]

Though I do agree that certain groups can avoid the powergap between tiers fairly well, to say that a good chunk of the imbalance in games comes from BS rules lawyering is an unfair generalization that is 9/10 patently false. a good example of this imbalance would be having a druid and monk in the same party with similar optimization. unless they both go big dumb fighter and the druid ignores their casting and just uses their animal companion to ride on it then its obvious after only one or two encounters which of the two is more useful in any given scenario. Balance is generally not a group to group thing

Well ''more useful'', like ''balance'' depends on what you mean. Are you comparing ''for two minutes my character did nothing and let another have the spotlight'' vs ''my character is so awesome that they do everything all the time by themselves and rule!'', then a guess the second character is ''more useful'' if you want to hog game time.

I'd say that bad calls and rule interpretations are only about a third of the problem, not 9/10th's. The worse problem is the willing partner DM. When the Dm just lets a player do ''whatever'' as they like the player, think it is cool or worse, just agree with him. So when the druid player casts a spell to nuke the world, the Dm just says ''yup that is what happens''. And the third is just ''playing the game a set way''. This is where, after ''five balanced encounters'' the group will rest....all for the benefit of the spellcasters, as the mundanes can go on. To see if your the type, just ask yourself if you'd play a spellcaster with little or no spells(and also add in that you can't make a Wal mart full of magic items and that your Enveloping Pit was utterly destroyed in round 1 of the game).

[Deophaun]

Eldariel, nothing you said is incorrect. However, the problem is you're coming at this with moderate mechanical optimization in mind, not the standard "I want my level 1 character to use bows" framework, which is basically how the OP's friend's (and, frankly, a lot of players) mind works. So yes, the Ranger is buying a longbow, because it's the best bow he can afford, and he wants to be good with bows. The Ranger is not buying a shield, because shields get in the way of his bow. And for a martial weapon, he's thinking of something secondary that he doesn't want to waste money on, like a longsword. There's no "if he's smart," here. This is common tunnel vision caused by seeing nothing but character concept.

This is why Monk looks pretty good at level 1 versus a Ranger, because the level 1 Monk is a better Bruce Lee than a level 1 Ranger is a William Tell.

But once you hit level 2, even with this optimization mentality, the Ranger gets out ahead. It can pull back close at level 3, as the Ranger is still getting prerequisites, but by level 4, there's no optimization level where the Monk comes close.

[erikun]

Well, first of all, your friend isn't that incorrect. The balance between casters and noncasters are much closer at lower levels, although I'd put it at 5th-7th level when classes like the Fighter become obviously redundant. They're outclassed earlier than that, but not quite to such an obvious point.

If you want to highlight the differences, then I'd recommend making a short one-shot campaign. Have your gaming group put together four 1st level Fighters, then run through the session to see how well they did. Then put together four 1st level Druids, complete with wolf companions along with Entangle and some other good spells. Make sure that at least one player knows how to correctly play a Druid. It shouldn't take long before your friend notices how much better the Druid, with the wolf, throwing around Entangle and using a Shillelagh club can be.

Next, but together a 3rd level dungeon. Again, run four 3rd level Fighters through it. Then run something like one 3rd level Wizard, with three 3rd level Clerics using good spells to buff themselves. Again, he'll probably notice the difference with Glitterdust/Web flying around, with the frontline tanks capable of healing themselves, and with everyone buffed through Bless/Aid/Bull Strength to be better than the Fighters previously. Or just wandering around with Spiritual Weapon active.

After that, a 6th level dungeon should nicely finish things off. At this point, you could even be soloing the party with PC-classed individuals. Wizard 6 gives you invisibility, flight, Protection from Arrows, and as many summons as you'd like. Druid 6 gives Natural Spell, meaning it can just hang out as a sparrow and summon hoards of enemies. (Both can blast as well, if desired.) Cleric 6 can have hoards through Animate Dead, summons, and even the elemental rebuking. You can even toss a dragon at them, complete with flight and breath weapon. After they've seen how difficult it is with a party of four Fighters, hand over the spellcasters with Dispel Magic, Magic Circle, and all the tricks that they've just seen used, and see how well they do. :smalltongue:

[Chronos]

Quoth Deophaun:

Don't get me wrong, color spray is a great low level spell, but in my experience it's more an "Oh $@#&!" button than an "I win" one. Sleep is actually better here, but you're unlikely to get all of them, and maybe only one.
The difficulty with Sleep is that it's a one-round casting time, which gives the enemy plenty of time to either withdraw and make you waste your casting, or disrupt it.

And yeah, with either spell, you're unlikely to get all of them. Some will save. But then again, some of the fighter's attacks will miss, too. But where the fighter is only attacking one thing at a time, the wizard is attacking all of them (or at least a group of them, if they're not arranged right).

It's also true that at first level, the wizard is fragile, but then, at first level, everything is fragile. Even the barbarian can be killed by a lucky crit. At this level, it might be easier to kill the wizard, but it's still easy enough to kill everyone else that everyone's going to need to be ultra-paranoid. Well, everyone except for the druid's companion, of course.

[Deophaun]

And yeah, with either spell, you're unlikely to get all of them. Some will save.
I actually meant that it's unlikely you'll get all of them in the area. Most won't have to bother saving.

But the chances of sleep or color spray affecting a goblin in its area is actually going to be significantly higher than the chance of a 1st-level fighter hitting.

It's also true that at first level, the wizard is fragile, but then, at first level, everything is fragile. Even the barbarian can be killed by a lucky crit.Against goblins? Unless the Fighter and the Barbarian have dumped Con, they're both safe from a lucky crit at full HP.

At this level, it might be easier to kill the wizard, but it's still easy enough to kill everyone else that everyone's going to need to be ultra-paranoid.
And the Wizards can't be. They don't have Spot or Listen as class skills, and Wis is a dump stat. If they had a Ranger, he could have scouted ahead and would have noticed the tracks the goblins left and maybe even spotted their hiding places, all without being discovered. A party of 4 wizards lacks that capability, so they're going to walk into the ambush, be caught flat-footed without mage armor up, and on average have one of them suffer severe damage. Abrupt Jaunt does help, but not all high optimization wizards take it.

[ryu]

I actually meant that it's unlikely you'll get all of them in the area. Most won't have to bother saving.

But the chances of sleep or color spray affecting a goblin in its area is actually going to be significantly higher than the chance of a 1st-level fighter hitting.
Against goblins? Unless the Fighter and the Barbarian have dumped Con, they're both safe from a lucky crit at full HP.

And the Wizards can't be. They don't have Spot or Listen as class skills, and Wis is a dump stat. If they had a Ranger, he could have scouted ahead and would have noticed the tracks the goblins left and maybe even spotted their hiding places, all without being discovered. A party of 4 wizards lacks that capability, so they're going to walk into the ambush, be caught flat-footed without mage armor up, and on average have one of them suffer severe damage. Abrupt Jaunt does help, but not all high optimization wizards take it.

All it takes is one to be the scout from level 1. Loss of the three worst schools means NOTHING when the group has non specialist wizards covering any gaps. As levels advance? No one is more prepared to back up paranoia than the wizard. They get craft contingent spell and spontaneous divination. That's their playground.

[Deophaun]

All it takes is one to be the scout from level 1.
Just the one volunteering to die, really. Wizards cannot fill the scouting role at level 1, which is a huge problem when their CL is 1 and none of their buffs cover an 8-hour adventuring day.

Loss of the three worst schools means NOTHING when the group has non specialist wizards covering any gaps.
Which means what, exactly? You have a Transmuter and a Conjurer. Goblin javelins on a surprise round still kill them just fine.

As levels advance?
If levels advance, then we're not talking about a party of 4 level 1 wizards anymore, are we?

[eggynack]

Then put together four 1st level Druids, complete with wolf companions along with Entangle and some other good spells. Make sure that at least one player knows how to correctly play a Druid. It shouldn't take long before your friend notices how much better the Druid, with the wolf, throwing around Entangle and using a Shillelagh club can be.
You should probably go with riding dogs instead of wolves. Apart from a slight lowering in speed, riding dogs are basically strictly better.

[ddude987]

Alternativley to actual testing, show him this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314701). It displays the capabilities of different classes quite well. Or show this in addition to running tests to prove different capabilities.

[ryu]

Just the one volunteering to die, really. Wizards cannot fill the scouting role at level 1, which is a huge problem when their CL is 1 and none of their buffs cover an 8-hour adventuring day.

Which means what, exactly? You have a Transmuter and a Conjurer. Goblin javelins on a surprise round still kill them just fine.

If levels advance, then we're not talking about a party of 4 level 1 wizards anymore, are we?

Here's a buff that lasts all twenty four hours for you on the one guy scouting: automatic no to five attacks per day if not more plus two spot checks thanks to a feat familiar, and improved initiative. That's orders of magnitude safer scouting than some dinky ranger can ever hope to fill.

Nah. they just waste a jaunt or two. Also that's a rather hilariously unlucky scenario.

I only brought up later level to point out that like all other things this doesn't get harder with levels for the wizard as it does with mundanes.

[Deophaun]

Here's a buff that lasts all twenty four hours for you on the one guy scouting: automatic no to five attacks per day if not more plus two spot checks thanks to a feat familiar, and improved initiative. That's orders of magnitude safer scouting than some dinky ranger can ever hope to fill.

You can't use abrupt jaunt while flat-footed. It's also significantly less useful when you're dodging three ranged attacks, instead of just one. Or are we assuming that these goblins, which like to attack weak prey, are somehow not going to single out the first one wounded?

+2 to Spot. Be still my beating heart. You're now the equal of a Ranger that hasn't bothered with the skill. Besides, you don't have a familiar. You traded it for abrupt jaunt.

Improved initiative will let you be the first one to realize you've got two javelins sticking in you. Way to go.

And now what do you do? Do you and your three companions take the first round to cast mage armor, or are you going to use three spells to (hopefully) neutralize three goblins attacking you from different directions (better be all, as you have a 50/50 chance that, if they get another attack, one of you is going to drop below 0)?

And this is just your first CR1 encounter for the day. There are three more.

[Muja]

Well ''more useful'', like ''balance'' depends on what you mean. Are you comparing ''for two minutes my character did nothing and let another have the spotlight'' vs ''my character is so awesome that they do everything all the time by themselves and rule!'', then a guess the second character is ''more useful'' if you want to hog game time.

I'd say that bad calls and rule interpretations are only about a third of the problem, not 9/10th's. The worse problem is the willing partner DM. When the Dm just lets a player do ''whatever'' as they like the player, think it is cool or worse, just agree with him. So when the druid player casts a spell to nuke the world, the Dm just says ''yup that is what happens''. And the third is just ''playing the game a set way''. This is where, after ''five balanced encounters'' the group will rest....all for the benefit of the spellcasters, as the mundanes can go on. To see if your the type, just ask yourself if you'd play a spellcaster with little or no spells(and also add in that you can't make a Wal mart full of magic items and that your Enveloping Pit was utterly destroyed in round 1 of the game).

Balance is assuming that a player can succeed at its specialty better then a generalist, and that encounters are varied between menial to heck of a challenge. In Dnd 3.5 there are few things that happen that cant be described as combat, skill challenges, roleplaying, or puzzle solving. Now let us assume 3 characters made from core that isnt skewed one way or another. an Evoker Specialist wizard with only basic smart choices, a fighter using the best combo he enjoys (lets say 2handed wielding an axe, etc), and a bard focused on being Macgyver (I can do anything with any tools I can find).

The Wizard primarily will blast through combat unless its an encounter meant to challeng them specifically (golems, energy immune monsters, antimagic fields), can solve puzzles fairly well with their high intelligence and varied utility spells, roleplay as done by the player with the added benefit of enchantment spells and the like, and solve skill challenges by ignoreing them (knock on lokcs, fly of climb checks, invisibility on stealth, etc).

The Bard is similar to the Wizard, in that it can solve most issues with its versitility, but with less success unless they plan ahead or have teammates to buff up FOR the task. Not amazing, but compared to all the mundane classes can fill any role with a least a feasible success rate.

Fighter...Can fight, and defend, and perhaps speak well if he is statted correctly. Skill Challenges are not his thing because of the low skill point total they aqquire plus a commonly low intelligence. Puzzles are usually solved by them by smashing the device/door/mcguffin/etc, and if that doesnt work the player guesses. Ultimately it is Okay at one aspect of this game, and can be overshadowed fairly quickly by ANY full caster, and still has a rough time playing in the artial caster leagues without heavy optimization.

To directly respond to what is considered 'balanced': It is when every player feels like they are contributing to the party. Why should the Fighter guy feel useful when the cleric is tanking as well as damaging, healing, AND controlling the battlefield? Its not 'hogging' game time when that is playing the character to its basest of potential. Its similar to saying that a Fighter shouldnt use a ranged weapon, because its hogging the ranger's coolness.

Next: Your commit about the druid casting. How is a druid sing its spells an issue for a DM? If I cast Ice Storm in a group we were playing together in, and I killed the entire enemy encounter would you be expecting the Dm to ban that spell? Bann me using spells at all? On a related note your commit about limited spells beyond 5~ encounters. It goes both ways, sir. Assuming the mundanes are fighting with the casters on a given dungeon crawl that lasts weeks with no rest then, yes, the casters wil run out of spells. You know what though? The Fighter who was in the melee is also rapidly losing HP that isnt being recovered by resting. Some would say the same is true of casters but it most be noticed that Blaster-Casters hide behind the fighters and therefore are taking a fraction of the damage at best, or are a druid or cleric in which case they are healing themselves or summoning damage sponges, respectively. So the Fighter/Ranger/Monk is dying before the Caster is running out of spells, so that argument is invalid.

So really all I can say is that unless you measure value of a player strictly off of doing only one thing correctly and anyone who can do more as 'attention hogging', then I truely cannot follow your logic at all. Casters are simply superior compared to mundanes of similar optimization, whether we like it or not. Dont get me wrong, I am not White Knighting casting classes here. I much prefer to play a warlock or Paladin of X then a full caster, for the reasons I have mentioned over why they are so strong. That doesnt change my objective view, something that has been agreed on for years on these forums.

[ryu]

You can't use abrupt jaunt while flat-footed. It's also significantly less useful when you're dodging three ranged attacks, instead of just one. Or are we assuming that these goblins, which like to attack weak prey, are somehow not going to single out the first one wounded?

+2 to Spot. Be still my beating heart. You're now the equal of a Ranger that hasn't bothered with the skill. Besides, you don't have a familiar. You traded it for abrupt jaunt.

Improved initiative will let you be the first one to realize you've got two javelins sticking in you. Way to go.

And now what do you do? Do you and your three companions take the first round to cast mage armor, or are you going to use three spells to (hopefully) neutralize three goblins attacking you from different directions (better be all, as you have a 50/50 chance that, if they get another attack, one of you is going to drop below 0)?

And this is just your first CR1 encounter for the day. There are three more.

No not +2 TO spot checks. plus two spot checks. The familiar gets one. You're good at reading comprehension. As for the abrupt jaunt trading it out we have THREE of them. If I wanted to be risky I could send all three ahead with the scout for no less than four total spot checks.

Four wizards each with a move action and color sprays on loadout. Now I'll be legitimately surprised if three goblins have any real chance of living this and that's assuming none of them are within fifteen feet of each other for the sprays.

[Eldariel]

Eldariel, nothing you said is incorrect. However, the problem is you're coming at this with moderate mechanical optimization in mind, not the standard "I want my level 1 character to use bows" framework, which is basically how the OP's friend's (and, frankly, a lot of players) mind works. So yes, the Ranger is buying a longbow, because it's the best bow he can afford, and he wants to be good with bows. The Ranger is not buying a shield, because shields get in the way of his bow. And for a martial weapon, he's thinking of something secondary that he doesn't want to waste money on, like a longsword. There's no "if he's smart," here. This is common tunnel vision caused by seeing nothing but character concept.

This is why Monk looks pretty good at level 1 versus a Ranger, because the level 1 Monk is a better Bruce Lee than a level 1 Ranger is a William Tell.

But that's just his assumption; doesn't make it right. Besides, think the basis of the archetype, Lord of the Rings: Aragorn (and rangers in general) is perfectly competent with sword and indeed, uses it in melee. Hell, the classic "D&D" Ranger, Drizzt, likewise prefers melee (though he does use a bow every now and then). A bow isn't a melee weapon; I can't see why anybody would assume a character with only a bow is sufficiently equipped (same with "only a sword"; everybody should have a ranged option). By extension, comparing an archer's damage to melee damage is comparing apples to oranges.

It seems intuitive and indeed was my first expectation when making my first characters with no op-fu and no knowledge of the system that ranged attacks deal less damage than melee attacks. Ranged attacks have the inherent strategic advantage of being usable where melee attacks are not. In many open areas you can safely attack enemies with bow and get a ton of free attacks where a sword would fail you. In other cases you can't even reach the enemy to melee. And on the other hand, when somebody gets to your face a bow is an incredibly inconvenient weapon. Just draw a sword; you can't defend yourself properly with a bow.


If this is indeed the noob's logic as you suggested, it's clearly flawed and we can treat it as such. I do think Monk's power is one misconception worth fixing. I'll say this: when my friends and I started 3e D&D we thought the Monk was overpowered. It had so many scaling numeral values, class features on every level, etc. Everybody has been there, it looks so darn good on paper.

In our case it took a few campaigns before anybody actually played one, partly due to the perceived overpoweredness (indeed, it was already in the 3.5-era when it happened). When a friend of mine finally rolled his Monk in a campaign from a level 1 in a 3-man team (others being Paladin and Rogue), he was a drag on the party. He couldn't hit things or do relevant damage without lucky rolls. He wasn't as good a sneak as the Rogue was and needed the Rogue to disarm traps anyways. He couldn't take hits, he couldn't really support people in melee efficiently. He was worthless. As you might expect, he wasn't having a ton of fun being worthless either. The campaign ended after 5 sessions.

Playing a Monk from low levels is a punishment I wouldn't wish on anybody. It's going to be poor for that player, it's going to be a drag on the party and will probably either cause the player to quit or reroll very soon. Or grit his teeth and hope it gets better; he'll have a surprise waiting for him, it doesn't (unless we're talking about Tashalatora, Sacred Fist or something; low levels still suck but at least he has something to look forward to). This manner of a comparison should, indeed, be one of the easiest way to point the problems of the Monk lest he wants to play one himself.

[Deophaun]

No not +2 TO spot checks. plus two spot checks. The familiar gets one. You're good at reading comprehension. As for the abrupt jaunt trading it out we have THREE of them. If I wanted to be risky I could send all three ahead with the scout for no less than four total spot checks.
Question: why is your scout rolling instead of Taking 10? What's your reason? Metagame? Besides, your familiars aren't going to have the alertness feat if you send them more than 10 feet away, and your mention of a feat is why I was thinking that a person with the familiar was the scout.

Your familiars are also animals. Smart animals, but animals nonetheless, and NPCs. Do you think your cat isn't going to be distracted by squirrels and mice, or your Raven by shiny objects in the stream? -5 penalty.

Four wizards each with a move action and color sprays on loadout. Now I'll be legitimately surprised if three goblins have any real chance of living this and that's assuming none of them are within fifteen feet of each other for the sprays.
With that, you'll only get one color spray off. Maybe. You have one person scouting, and he's getting pummeled with javelins. Your move action isn't going to get you in range in time (unless you have a weird idea where being 30' ahead is somehow "scouting").

[Incanur]

I think you're overestimating the ability of stock goblin to get a surprise round. They've got +5 hide, +5 move silently. That's not bad at level one, but certainly not automatic success either. Similarly, their javelins won't have much higher than a 50% chance to hit and deal an average of 2.5 damage. Familiars aren't animals - they're magical beasts with 6 Int and many have solid perception skills. A lot of times the goblins aren't getting a surprise round. To the contrary, wizard party designed for it can manage decent sneak and decent awareness at level 1. (Hint: Forest gnomes get +8 to hide.)

[ryu]

Question: why is your scout rolling instead of Taking 10? What's your reason? Metagame? Besides, your familiars aren't going to have the alertness feat if you send them more than 10 feet away, and your mention of a feat is why I was thinking that a person with the familiar was the scout.

Your familiars are also animals. Smart animals, but animals nonetheless, and NPCs. Do you think your cat isn't going to be distracted by squirrels and mice, or your Raven by shiny objects in the stream? -5 penalty.

With that, you'll only get one color spray off. Maybe. You have one person scouting, and he's getting pummeled with javelins. Your move action isn't going to get you in range in time (unless you have a weird idea where being 30' ahead is somehow "scouting").

Why use all rolls? I only need ONE success and at least four trials. If I can't pull more than a ten with at least four rolls I'm obligated to crush that D20 in the Lytokk's vice. Actually not his vice. Showing up unannounced is rude. Best to purchase a vice to crush with. Point is everyone taking ten is a gratuitous misuse of resources with how much rolling favors my odds here. There are no smart animals. By definition animals must have less than 3 int. Familiars are magical beasts thank you very much.

As for distance I was assuming tight dungeon/cave environment. In that environment scouting means trap insurance, and ambush round the corner insurance. It's dangerous, even stupid, to let the scout out of your range of influence. Under that rule greater distances can be afforded with levels. Not here though.

[Deophaun]

I think you're overestimating the ability of stock goblin to get a surprise round. They've got +5 hide, +5 move silently. That's not bad at level one, but certainly not automatic success either.
It's going to be a DC 17 to Spot them, as they're going to be more the 20 ft. away. That's assuming they didn't bother to take 2 minutes to Take 20.

The scout's taking 10 (unless he's actually rolled 600 d20s per hour of travel time, no, I don't know a DM who is going to hold his game for that, but he's free to do so; if he's not ready on his turn, he simply delays). Yeah, your non-scouty people aren't noticing them. It's tough for a Ranger, but they can do it, especially if, as usual, they aren't traveling on the road.

Similarly, their javelins won't have much higher than a 50% chance to hit and deal an average of 2.5 damage.
Flat-footed wizards with no mage armor have an AC of 10. Goblins have a +3 to hit with javelines. So that's a 65% chance to hit. That comes out to roughly 2 out of three hitting. Level 1 Wizards have 6-7 HP on average, depending on what they did with Con. So after the surprise round, he's down, on average to 1-2 HP. There's also a decent chance he's taken out in the first surprise round.

Yes, I've done the math.

Familiars aren't animals - they're magical beasts with 6 Int and many have solid perception skills.
Not seeing a +7 among them. When I said "animal," I was not referring to type, but to nature. They're NPCs, so they're controlled by the DM with Player input.


As for distance I was assuming tight dungeon/cave environment.
I'm assuming forest. If people are sending you to clear out goblins, it's because the goblins are doing something that makes them a pest, not because they're safely hiding in a cave/dungeon.

[ryu]

Now who said the quest itself was to kill goblins? having said yourself that they are merely the first encounter of the day I rather doubt three cowards with javelins are the main goal here. If so I can afford scroll nova shenanigans. You do not want me to be able to afford scroll nova shenanigans.

Also you bet your ass we roll all spot at this level if more than one subject is available. When that's as significant a chunk of your success as almost all of the total check result on a twenty you squeeze what you can. The DM asked for it when he specifically called for a forest quest at level one. Paranoia isn't a character flaw. It's a life skill.

Further the familiar isn't an NPC. It's a part of the character. Did you name it? Did you set its attitudes and general personality as a part of your backstory? Did you personally decide every single detail of it when it formed from your will at the behest of magic? No? Then you get no say in how it acts so long as rules of the game are adhered to.

Edit: Also wow the board doesn't censor that word. Learn something new every day.

[Incanur]

Flat-footed wizards with no mage armor have an AC of 10.

Often 11 if they're optimizers, as it's good to be small. :smallsmile: But they're not so likely to be flatfooted because they're not so likely to get surprised. (And wizards can get Improved Initiative as a bonus feat instead of Scribe Scroll.)


Not seeing a +7 among them.

Then you failed your spot check. Bats, for example, have +8 to both spot and listen. Hawks have +16 (!) spot. Owls have +14 (!) listen. Ravens have +7 spot.

As far as taking 10 goes, stealth/awareness functions entirely differently depending on whether or not you roll. For detection, it's almost always better to roll.

Regardless, with the right familiar, the wizard party has good enough perception skills and will often hide better than the goblins - who have miserable perception skills. So it's the wizards who'll be getting surprise rounds most of the time. :smallamused:

[Deophaun]

Now who said the quest itself was to kill goblins? having said yourself that they are merely the first encounter of the day I rather doubt three cowards with javelins are the main goal here. If so I can afford scroll nova shenanigans. You do not want me to be able to afford scroll nova shenanigans.
Maybe it's to stop the raids on traders, or find some missing kids, or find out what's been spooking McGregor's cow. The point is, goblins hiding in holes don't bother anyone, so there would be no quest if something wasn't out and about. The monster originally given was goblins.

Also you bet your ass we roll all spot at this level if more than one subject is available. When that's as significant a chunk of your success as almost all of the total check result on a twenty you squeeze what you can. The DM asked for it when he specifically called for a forest quest at level one. Paranoia isn't a character flaw. It's a life skill.
Question: when you've traveled overland in a game at level 1, how many times did you say "Ok, I'm making 1800 Spot checks for the three hours we're traveling. I'll just break out my dice..."

I'm willing to bet "never." So, if you're not taking 10, your metagaming.

Further the familiar isn't an NPC. It's a part of the character. Did you name it? Did you set its attitudes and general personality as a part of your backstory? Did you personally decide every single detail of it when it formed from your will at the behest of magic? No? Then you get no say in how it acts so long as rules of the game are adhered to.Obviously we disagree, but Curmudgeon has convinced me that players only control PCs, and nothing else.

[Pex]

My friend doesn't believe me when I say 3.5 is unbalanced. Or, rather, he admits that there is some unbalance, but "only at like level 10". How can I show him that full casters are OP before that point, without doing something like challenging him to a duel?

He also thinks the fighter is one of the most powerful classes, and that the ranger and the bard are less powerful than the monk.

Why should that bother you? Unless he gets on your case for wanting to play a bard instead of a monk, let him have his fun. If he feels heroic playing a fighter so be it. You can have your fun playing a wizard.

[eggynack]

Question: when you've traveled overland in a game at level 1, how many times did you say "Ok, I'm making 1800 Spot checks for the three hours we're traveling. I'll just break out my dice..."

I'm willing to bet "never." So, if you're not taking 10, your metagaming.

You could always just have the DM roll spot and listen checks when one would be relevant to the situation, and perhaps use random pre-rolled numbers to avoid the issue where the players know that you're rolling spot and listen checks.

[Deophaun]

Then you failed your spot check. Bats, for example, have +8 to both spot and listen. Hawks have +16 (!) spot. Owls have +14 (!) listen. Ravens have +7 spot
I'll give you Hawk and Owl. I've honestly never had a player take those. The rest only work with the Awareness feat gained through proximity with its master. Since it's the person who has traded that away that's doing the scouting in Ryu's scenario, Raven and Bat won't work.

[ryu]

Maybe it's to stop the raids on traders, or find some missing kids, or find out what's been spooking McGregor's cow. The point is, goblins hiding in holes don't bother anyone, so there would be no quest if something wasn't out and about. The monster originally given was goblins.

Question: when you've traveled overland in a game at level 1, how many times did you say "Ok, I'm making 1800 Spot checks for the three hours we're traveling. I'll just break out my dice..."

I'm willing to bet "never." So, if you're not taking 10, your metagaming.
Obviously we disagree, but Curmudgeon has convinced me that players only control PCs, and nothing else.

And are these goblins CONSTANTLY out and about? Do your adventurers just hike off and hope for happy circumstances where they find the target out and about, or do they gather information and find where they live?

How often do I roll spot at low levels? Dice roller app on the phone generates hundreds of trials per second. The DM can call for spot check relevance at literally every six second interval in the entire hike. If that particular number set is too low in all? Nobody made the check. Why do I take the initiative to make choices like this workable? I play high OP games. This means I assume as a matter of course that everything I can see, and most of what I can't, is trying to kill me.

The player controls everything on their character sheet including backstory. The DM controls the entire freaking world. He doesn't need influence over my resources on top of that.

[Deophaun]

You could always just have the DM roll spot and listen checks when one would be relevant to the situation, and perhaps use random pre-rolled numbers to avoid the issue where the players know that you're rolling spot and listen checks.
Here's how it works in the groups I'm in:
-DM assumes you're taking 10. There are no rolls to clue players in.
-Saying "I'm scouting/on watch/etc." means you don't get hit with the -5 distracted penalty. However, as soon as you do something other than that, you gain the penalty.
-If you want to roll, you roll, but we expect a reason beyond "you just set up the battle mat." For instance: "When I come up to the top of the hill, I'll roll a Spot check."

But, by RAW, the DM has no requirement to ask for a Spot check.

There's also the issue of both sides playing by the same rules. The poor rogue trying to sneak past the orc camp is going to fail spectacularly if all 50 are rolling. This protocol uses RAW so that both sides have a chance at success and failure.

[Deophaun]

And are these goblins CONSTANTLY out and about? Do your adventurers just hike off and hope for happy circumstances where they find the target out and about, or do they gather information and find where they live?[/quote]
"They come from the forest to the East."

Want to find out where? Well, do you have anyone with track?

AHow often do I roll spot at low levels? Dice roller app on the phone generates hundreds of trials per second.
Really? I was unaware the phones had mechanical arms to roll real dice (which is what RAW calls for, not "use a random number generator.")

Yes, we actually use that RAW to eliminate the "group of 7 all making a dozen spot checks so we're virtually guaranteed to spot Sneak McSneakington by force of large numbers."

[ryu]

See here's the thing. Every turn on the hike has the simple macro steps until something relevant happens.

Step one move actions.

Step two spot checks.

If in dungeon also spend turns searching in between movement.

Why are they all rolled? Rolling is the default until such time as I decide I'm taking 10. Why is it default? I already explained how paranoid I am.

Edit: Cute house-rule. Fine I'll make an automation to roll a dice every turn. That or simply roll them all directly myself if you care that much. I have actions I can take as I please by RAW. No you can't just take them from me with arbitrary fiat while hard-balling me with auto-hiding goblins to prove a point.

Edit again: Yes actually. Wizards. Do you have any idea how many skill points four of them get? That's assuming no track familiars. Also simple divinations from town to narrow the search slightly.

[eggynack]

I don't think that taking 10 is just to avoid rolling dice. I'm pretty sure that the goal is to give an average result when the player wants it. It's an actual game function, rather than some convenience function, and penalizing players because there's a hassle involved in actual rolling seems kinda pointless. I think it's fair to just have the players decide if they want to take 10 or actually roll, and they can use the approximation method I presented in the latter case.

[Deophaun]

Why are they all rolled? Rolling is the default until such time as I decide I'm taking 10. Why is it default? I already explained how paranoid I am.
If you're saying your rolling, then roll. "Rolling" isn't a game state. You aren't rolling unless the dice actually moves.

So that's 600 die rolls for every hour of travel.

[Deophaun]

Edit: Cute house-rule.
Not a House Rule. It's RAW. You roll dice in this game, not use random number generators.

You want to make an automaton, go right ahead. You deserve credit for your initiative. Somehow, though, I doubt it's going to save you that much time.

[ryu]

If you're saying your rolling, then roll. "Rolling" isn't a game state. You aren't rolling unless the dice actually moves.

So that's 600 die rolls for every hour of travel.

Edited it into last post in response to to you editing the one before no less than three times, but I will state again: FINE. I will do it and manually to boot. The phone was a kindness I set up for your convenience, but one way or another the rolls happen.

Edit: Multiple dice automations at a time then. Perhaps even a mechanism to call out the rolls. I don't care how much effort I have to go through to make this work.

[TuggyNE]

Really? I was unaware the phones had mechanical arms to roll real dice (which is what RAW calls for, not "use a random number generator.")

Yes, we actually use that RAW to eliminate the "group of 7 all making a dozen spot checks so we're virtually guaranteed to spot Sneak McSneakington by force of large numbers."

… seriously? I have no words.

[eggynack]

… seriously? I have no words.
Indeed. This went to a rather ridiculous place. The game may say something about rolling dice, but people can use a random dice roller, or a spinner, or a number selecting chicken for all I care. It's all the same outcome, and it has no impact on the rules of the game. If people can make the process of rolling more convenient, then more power to them.

[Deophaun]

… seriously? I have no words.
Selectively enforced, granted, but yes. "Everyone roll a d20" went out when the DMs started using RNGs and shut down stealth characters.

Edit: Anyway, we're way off topic, and this is pointless considering that high spot familiars were pointed out. So, as long as there's someone with a hawk or owl familiar, Wizards can scout at level 1 (provided you get the empathic link worked out).

[ryu]

It is plainly stated that taking 10 is the choice of the player. They can do it as they believe it suits them. In that system you don't get to decide what the player does with their options. If that means I have to roll 600 times in quick succession and right down the individual results with time interval notations to use my resources as I please? Fine. I'm rather contrarian as you may have noticed, and especially so about the resources at my disposal being tampered with.

[Icewraith]

Taking ten on spot checks is basically giving your DM a small algebra problem:

If x is the scout's spot bonus, y is the hide bonus needed to ambush the scout at a -6 range penalty (about 30 feet IIRC, sneak attack or partial charge distance) with a medium size creature with two minutes of preparation.

10 (spotter takes 10)+x +1 (tie goes to the spotter) -6 (range penalty) = y + 20 (hider takes 20)
x-15 = y

If your DM knows his stuff, never take 10 on spot checks, and love and cherish your hawk familiar.

[Incanur]

I'll give you Hawk and Owl. I've honestly never had a player take those.

You've also probably never DMed for a level-1 four-wizard party. I certainly haven't. Familiars can be a liability, so players often eschew them, but they provide serious upsides as well.


The rest only work with the Awareness feat gained through proximity with its master.

Familiars give Alertness to their masters via proximity. They don't gain the feat themselves. Raven and bat work fine, doing at least as good a job at spotting as your average ranger. If I wanted to make a wizard focused on perception/scouting, I'd roll up a forest gnome illusionist with a bat familiar. If I really needed stealth, I'd swap my feat for hide as a class skill, but that's probably not necessary.


There's also the issue of both sides playing by the same rules. The poor rogue trying to sneak past the orc camp is going to fail spectacularly if all 50 are rolling. This protocol uses RAW so that both sides have a chance at success and failure.

This approach has much to recommend it. I can't get over how different the two options are. However, note that assuming somebody rolls a 20 in a large group does not mean automatic detection - it just means you need a higher bonus.

[Harrow]

To Harbinger, I suggest showing your friend MoI and ToB. Just for funsies, it won't actually solve anything. I would just like to hear about the reaction of someone who thinks that Fighters and Barbarians are more effective party members than Wizards when they read about classes that get Pounce on half a dozen natural weapons, get DR 6/Magic at first level, teleport at-will, or gain the ability to grant actions to other characters.

Seriously though, unless he's DMing a game and insists on terrible fumble rules or half the party wants to be Monks and Ninja's while the other half want to be Druids and Artificers, it doesn't really matter that he over-values stabbing things.

[Deophaun]

Familiars give Alertness to their masters via proximity. They don't gain the feat themselves. Raven and bat work fine, doing at least as good a job at spotting as your average ranger.
OK, then I need help, because all of the stats you gave were 2 points higher than their MM entries. So, I'm trying to figure out where the extra +2 comes from.

[Phelix-Mu]

OK, then I need help, because all of the stats you gave were 2 points higher than their MM entries. So, I'm trying to figure out where the extra +2 comes from.

I'm way out of step with the discussion, but I recall errata that realized that Weapon Finesse for many animals with 1HD had to be a bonus feat due to the BAB +1 req. Thus, Weapon Finesse became bonus, and a bunch of birds and the like picked up, of all things, Alertness. Yay?

[Deophaun]

And a trip to the errata reveals the missing +2. Thank you.

[Pickford]

Depends. There are several kinds of CR appropriate fights.

One a day (this is a CR = character level)
4 a day (these CRs combined = character level)

So, for example, a level 1 character should be able to triumph over 4 kobolds attacking 1 at a time, or all at the same time. However...not all characters can handle these enemies together easily, and not all enemies can handle them apart easily.

The most serious danger to a Wizard, is probably the steady draining of resources dealing with threats that are minor...but not so minor he can safely just melee them. Does this make sense? (i.e. A wizard 'will' kill a lower CR threat most of the time without tremendous risk...the question is: do they have to use multiple spells to deal with it?...how many spells can they really afford to use?)

So in the former example, a baseline level 1 Wizard will have at least 4 spells. However only one of those is a level 1 spell, the other 3 are orisons. The only damaging orison (assuming the wizard memorized only combat able spells) does not do enough damage non-crit to kill a kobold. Which means, at best, that Wizard will kill 2 kobolds using spells. That leaves 2 unaccounted for.

Because the Wizard has access to more save or die abilities, they are better equipped to tackle single high CR monsters than other classes. However, by this same token, they are less well equipped to deal with multiple low CR enemies as over-kill on each enemy becomes more and more likely, leading to a drain of resources and existential failure when potential numer of enemies exceeds resources to deal with them.

The discussion about zombies made me wonder...what does a 1st level Wizard do vs a kobold zombie (cr 1/2)...it has 16 hp. I don't think the Wizard can even 'do' 16 hp of damage let alone 32, and the zombie is immune to the save or dies (sleep/color spray) that typically get trotted out.

So what would a Wizard do at level 1? (I know disrupt undead exists but I can count the number of times I've seen it included on no hands)

Eggynack:

compare the stats to what a druid's riding dog has

How will the Druid compete with the Fighter if he's giving up his Wolf for the Riding dog?

some_guy:

Ah, right. Thanks for the clarification.

Unless of course someone makes their heal check, then it's 2/level or 4/level

Incanur:

As far as taking 10 goes, stealth/awareness functions entirely differently depending on whether or not you roll. For detection, it's almost always better to roll.

Taking 10 is only useful when the probability of failure is below 50%. Conversely, taking 10 always fails if the probability of failure is 50% or higher. On top of this, the DM has the option to roll these checks 'for' you (unless you're burning a move action to spot), so you don't get a choice in if 10 is taken or not.

Incidentally, if you 'are' making a Spot check on purpose (a move action) that's 3 seconds per check, since a move action is functionally 1/2 a round (6 seconds). So 100 spot checks is 300 seconds or 5 minutes out of every 10 is spent stopping to look around.

If you have 600 die rolls, that's 10 minutes of every hour that aren't spent traveling (so you're moving a 5/6 speed).

[eggynack]

How will the Druid compete with the Fighter if he's giving up his Wolf for the Riding dog?
What wolf? It's always a riding dog, unless the player in question is unaware of the increase in power, or otherwise just likes wolves. I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. He'll compete with the fighter in roughly the same manner that he'll compete with the monk.

[tyckspoon]

So in the former example, a baseline level 1 Wizard will have at least 4 spells. However only one of those is a level 1 spell, the other 3 are orisons. The only damaging orison (assuming the wizard memorized only combat able spells) does not do enough damage non-crit to kill a kobold. Which means, at best, that Wizard will kill 2 kobolds using spells. That leaves 2 unaccounted for.


Crossbows. A light or heavy crossbow is just as dangerous as a spell to most CR 1 or lower creatures, and the hypothetical 4-Wizard party should have all 4 carrying a loaded and ready-to-fire bow at any time in which a combat is a possibility. Spells should not even be *considered* unless you run into something that cannot reasonably be dealt with by 4 crossbow shots.

(Also, if I were trying to work out a party of 4 Wizards and felt the need for a designated scout? That guy is sucking up the spell failure chance and wearing armor at low levels. Heck, maybe they all do. Leather is cheap, has no Check Penalty to screw up their non-spell activities, and that 2 points of AC is quite relevant at 1st level.. and like I said, their crossbows are at least as useful to their offense as their spells anyway, unless they really need to try to put down a crowd with Sleep or Color Spray.)

[Pickford]

Crossbows. A light or heavy crossbow is just as dangerous as a spell to most CR 1 or lower creatures, and the hypothetical 4-Wizard party should have all 4 carrying a loaded and ready-to-fire bow at any time in which a combat is a possibility. Spells should not even be *considered* unless you run into something that cannot reasonably be dealt with by 4 crossbow shots.

(Also, if I were trying to work out a party of 4 Wizards and felt the need for a designated scout? That guy is sucking up the spell failure chance and wearing armor at low levels. Heck, maybe they all do. Leather is cheap, has no Check Penalty to screw up their non-spell activities, and that 2 points of AC is quite relevant at 1st level.. and like I said, their crossbows are at least as useful to their offense as their spells anyway, unless they really need to try to put down a crowd with Sleep or Color Spray.)

Would you care to stat out these boy wonders?

I don't see how heavy crossbows will do a lick vs a few kobold zombies. Each one has DR 5/slashing (so that's on average going to negate all but .5 damage from each hit) and an AC of 13...so the wizard archers are going to whiff more than 50% of the time unless they put a 16+ in dex...which is improbable as they would almost certainly prioritize int (and if they did dex and int, there's nothing left over for con...or str to avoid getting grappled to death)

[eggynack]

Would you care to stat out these boy wonders?

I don't see how heavy crossbows will do a lick vs a few kobold zombies. Each one has DR 5/slashing (so that's on average going to negate all but .5 damage from each hit) and an AC of 13...so the wizard archers are going to whiff more than 50% of the time unless they put a 16+ in dex...which is improbable as they would almost certainly prioritize int (and if they did dex and int, there's nothing left over for con...or str to avoid getting grappled to death)
Kobold zombies? That seems oddly specific. I mean, if crossbows don't work in a single encounter, you can just use something completely off the wall, like maybe spells. As for dexterity, the general stat allotment goes about 18 intelligence, 14 constitution, and the rest in dexterity. A point buy of 28 will get you a 14 in dexterity, and you can even sacrifice a point or two of intelligence in a low point buy if it ups one of the other two stats by enough. A 16 will get you pretty far.

[Pickford]

Kobold zombies? That seems oddly specific. I mean, if crossbows don't work in a single encounter, you can just use something completely off the wall, like maybe spells. As for dexterity, the general stat allotment goes about 18 intelligence, 14 constitution, and the rest in dexterity. A point buy of 28 will get you a 14 in dexterity, and you can even sacrifice a point or two of intelligence in a low point buy if it ups one of the other two stats by enough. A 16 will get you pretty far.

It's a low CR, what's the problem?

[eggynack]

It's a low CR, what's the problem?
It just looks like tyckspoon said, "Most," instead of, "Every CR 1 encounter in existence." I mean, he explicitly said that he'd cast at the random enemy who happens to be resistant to crossbow bolts, so I don't understand the issue you're having.

[ryu]

It's a low CR, what's the problem?

Uh nothing? He just stated that that was one of the spell worthy encounter exceptions. There really aren't many of those if the group is optimizing. As a matter of fact if the group is optimizing they still wouldn't have to burn actual resources on them, but Eggy is a gentler man than I.

[Deophaun]

Biggest problem with crossbows is they kill your action economy. Light means you can't move, and heavy means you attack every other round.

Ah, for 2e, when Magic Users could use slings.

[Incanur]

Zombies would indeed be difficult to destroy for a four-wizard party, but they're also easy to escape from. And enough crossbow bolts would eventually put them down. So they're an annoyance, but not a huge issue.

[Phelix-Mu]

The overall problem with this whole circumstance that the OP is in is that it is largely table experience that guides the opinions of inexperienced players. If all a player knows is fairly low-op games, then the kind of tricks that wizards can manage just don't enter the player's vocabulary. Many players of low op don't immediately opt for wizard, and sorcerer is often a better and lower-bookkeeping blaster.

So, when we talk about a four wizard party handling everything anyone else can handle, most players of the aforementioned ilk are going to just stare in confusion.

Or argue endlessly in threads.:smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Just noticed something. Crossbows actually have an expected damage of 1.5 per successful hit against zombie kobolds, rather than .5. The weapon deals 1d10, and each result is reduced by 5, so you end up with 15/10 damage, which comes out to a marginally better 1.5. Fancy.

[Pickford]

It just looks like tyckspoon said, "Most," instead of, "Every CR 1 encounter in existence." I mean, he explicitly said that he'd cast at the random enemy who happens to be resistant to crossbow bolts, so I don't understand the issue you're having.

So what is he going to cast?

Incarnur: Zombies are surprisingly spry. They can still charge, so if you're within range (or they surround you as you prepare to camp out for the night....).

[eggynack]

So what is he going to cast?

Silent image is pretty good against zombies. Make an illusory wall for a getaway of maximum swiftness. Alternatively, grease can do some good work against zombies.

[Incanur]

You usually won't need anything special to escape zombies - just double moving away works. Kobold and human zombies move a maximum of 30ft per round.

[tyckspoon]

So what is he going to cast?


Depends on what you actually need to achieve. Chill Touch, Grease, Expeditious Retreat, Silent Image, and probably another double handful of out-of-Core spells will let you get by them, if you just have to get to something that's on the other side or escape an attack in a poorly-chosen resting spot. If you have to *destroy* them? Kite and pump them with crossbow bolts until they eventually fall over. It won't be fun or fast, but it'll work, eventually.. 1st level spells really don't have good options for actually removing HP from zombies. Ideally, one or more of the Wizards would have the Precocious Apprentice -> Reserve Feat combo for this kind of thing, but I kind of like to keep this kind of discussion inside easily referenced (ie, d20srd-accessible) materials when possible.

[jedipotter]

Balance is assuming that a player can succeed at its specialty better then a generalist, and that encounters are varied between menial to heck of a challenge.

Um...you might want to look up the word ''Balance''.


And sure what you described is true enough, with a loose reading of the rules, a willing DM and the strange idea of fairness that gamers have.

Classic example: The character finds out that Duke Evil is behind the Evil Plot and has the Cup of Life needed to save the king. The duke is a couple of miles away from the city on his private island fortress(Muuhahahahahaa).

*The Wizard-one round after he learns about the duke, he simply does a scry and die. Scrys on the duke, teleports over, and obliterates everything by surprise. So all of five minutes after he knew the duke was behind the plot, the duke is dead and the character gets the cup and saves the king. And this is a fine way to play the game, and is fun....for some people.

*The Fighter-Has to figure out a way to get on the island. He does a little investigation and learns that a supply ship goes once a week. So he figures out a way to get hired on as a mercenary, and sets sail. On the days long journey to the island, pirates attack...and low and behold the pirate captain is the kings(long lost) sister. So the fighter and the sister team up to save the king: she raids the island to distract them, and the fighter slips into the castle. The fighter and the duke have a solo fight up on the ramparts....and the fighter wins. Then he grabs the cup and sets off to save the king...

So, see, two totally different ways to play. And both are just fine.

[Red Fel]

Um...you might want to look up the word ''Balance''.


And sure what you described is true enough, with a loose reading of the rules, a willing DM and the strange idea of fairness that gamers have.

Classic example: The character finds out that Duke Evil is behind the Evil Plot and has the Cup of Life needed to save the king. The duke is a couple of miles away from the city on his private island fortress(Muuhahahahahaa).

*The Wizard-one round after he learns about the duke, he simply does a scry and die. Scrys on the duke, teleports over, and obliterates everything by surprise. So all of five minutes after he knew the duke was behind the plot, the duke is dead and the character gets the cup and saves the king. And this is a fine way to play the game, and is fun....for some people.

*The Fighter-Has to figure out a way to get on the island. He does a little investigation and learns that a supply ship goes once a week. So he figures out a way to get hired on as a mercenary, and sets sail. On the days long journey to the island, pirates attack...and low and behold the pirate captain is the kings(long lost) sister. So the fighter and the sister team up to save the king: she raids the island to distract them, and the fighter slips into the castle. The fighter and the duke have a solo fight up on the ramparts....and the fighter wins. Then he grabs the cup and sets off to save the king...

So, see, two totally different ways to play. And both are just fine.
Emphasis added. I agree that both are fine styles for the players, but I think Jedi hit on a big point here: Spellcasters can ignore the plot.

Melee-types have to board the train and ride the rails. Does your adventure take you to an island? You'd better find a mode of transportation. Oh, look, there's a boat with a seedy crew. Guess which boat you're taking?

Spellcasters make their own railroad. And it's not some primitive affair with steam and tracks. It's a fancy mag-lev with air-conditioned cabins and drink service. Need to travel? Teleport. Need information? Scry, speak with dead. Need to scout? Invisibility, ethereal, etc. Spellcasters have the tools to bypass any major plot object, almost any way they so choose. Melees have to deal with the situation as given.

Even outside of combat, spellcasters can make or break the game. They have the creative freedom to turn the world into their personal sandbox, as well as the power to keep the other kids out.

[Incanur]

Ideally, one or more of the Wizards would have the Precocious Apprentice -> Reserve Feat combo for this kind of thing, but I kind of like to keep this kind of discussion inside easily referenced (ie, d20srd-accessible) materials when possible.

Especially because that combo violates RAW, as very text of Precocious Apprentice indicates you can't cast 2nd-level spells: "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect."

(I've actually allowed Precocious Apprentice tricks in one game, but that doesn't make it RAW.)

[HaikenEdge]

Especially because that combo violates RAW, as very text of Precocious Apprentice indicates you can't cast 2nd-level spells: "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect."

(I've actually allowed Precocious Apprentice tricks in one game, but that doesn't make it RAW.)

So what you're saying is, Precocious Apprentice allows you to cast a 2nd level spell without being able to cast 2nd level spells?

[DSmaster21]

I proved this to a friend in PF in about five minutes. Lv 1 Human sorcerer, Stats 12/14/14/13/8/17 vs his Lv 1 Human Fighter 16/16/14/12/10/8. His feats were Weapon Focus Longsword, Dodge, Shield and Toughness (I had us use 2 traits and 2 traits equaling one feat). I took Spell Focus Evocation, and Varisian Tattoo Evocation, and only one trait, Signature Spell Shocking Grasp, This Paired with my Copper (I think, don't have my books on hand but I know it is the Electricity Metallic) Dragon Bloodline means I do 3d6+3 (Average 13) Damage with it and can do x2 on a 20. He has Touch AC of 14 (True was like 21) and HP of 16. I have AC 16 when you add my subpar choice (since normally I would get it later as a draconic bloodline) of Mage Armor for my other spell and HP 9. We go into the fight and I have him smoking on the ground in three rounds Now I only had 2 HP by that point but my third attack was a crit and I brought him from 4 to -15 in one shot.

He asks for a rematch with a core-only Caster and I pull out a sorcerer armed with Spell Focus and Greater SP Illusion and Color Spray-Punching dagger combo. (Basic idea with this combo is to have a Casting stat of 16+ and taking the two SP feats thus making the DC to resist Color Spray (Sleep works too) a 16-17 which leaves clerics and druids as the only people (ie rolling a 11-12 to succeed) who can resist and since it makes early foes pass out you can coup de grace them which is an autocrit and with the p-dagger (x3 on crits (Spears also work)) that means I roll 3d4 +1 for strength (Might be 3d4+3 but I can't for the life of me remember whether I multiply STR as well and I choose to err on the side of weakness if I don't feel like checking). After I inflict an average of 8 damage I then get to force a FORT save of 10 + Damage, that if failed insta-kills my foes.

[Deophaun]

Especially because that combo violates RAW, as very text of Precocious Apprentice indicates you can't cast 2nd-level spells: "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect."
It's not saying that you can't cast 2nd-level spells. It's saying if your level doesn't qualify you to cast 2nd level spells, here's a caster level check that will.

[Pickford]

Depends on what you actually need to achieve. Chill Touch, Grease, Expeditious Retreat, Silent Image, and probably another double handful of out-of-Core spells will let you get by them, if you just have to get to something that's on the other side or escape an attack in a poorly-chosen resting spot. If you have to *destroy* them? Kite and pump them with crossbow bolts until they eventually fall over. It won't be fun or fast, but it'll work, eventually.. 1st level spells really don't have good options for actually removing HP from zombies. Ideally, one or more of the Wizards would have the Precocious Apprentice -> Reserve Feat combo for this kind of thing, but I kind of like to keep this kind of discussion inside easily referenced (ie, d20srd-accessible) materials when possible.

Kobold Zombies are equipped with light crossbows...that's potentially a 1 shot kill of the Wizard. They also have DR, so the Wizard is probably incapable of killing them at range.

[HaikenEdge]

Kobold Zombies are equipped with light crossbows...that's potentially a 1 shot kill of the Wizard. They also have DR, so the Wizard is probably incapable of killing them at range.

Zombies are mindless; do they even understand how to use a crossbow? I mean, I assume the acts of aiming, pulling a trigger and reloading the crossbow all require some sort of cognitive function.

[Pickford]

Zombies are mindless; do they even understand how to use a crossbow? I mean, I assume the acts of aiming, pulling a trigger and reloading the crossbow all require some sort of cognitive function.

:smallconfused:

Is this a rhetorical question? The Monster Manual lists the gear.

[HaikenEdge]

:smallconfused:

Is this a rhetorical question? The Monster Manual lists the gear.

Having gear doesn't mean they can actually use it. That's as if I somehow acquired a particle accelerator; I'd still have no clue how to use the bloody thing.

[Deophaun]

Zombies are mindless; do they even understand how to use a crossbow?
Zombie template says:

Attacks: A zombie retains all the natural weapons, manufactured weapon attacks, and weapon proficiencies of the base creature. A zombie also gains a slam attack.
So yes, if the creature knew how to use a crossbow in life, it knows how to use it as a zombie.

[HaikenEdge]

Zombie template says:

So yes, if the creature knew how to use a crossbow in life, it knows how to use it as a zombie.

Wow, I need to stop looking to pop culture for what I think Zombies are... I guess those are better categorized as Ghouls.

My apologies on that one.

[Incanur]

It's not saying that you can't cast 2nd-level spells. It's saying if your level doesn't qualify you to cast 2nd level spells, here's a caster level check that will.

Nope: "When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you lose the benefit described above but retain the extra 2nd-level spell slot, which you can use to prepare or spontaneously cast a spell of 2nd level or lower as you normally would." If the feat let you cast 2nd-level spells, this would happen immediately.

Also: kobold zombie are surprising effective for 1/2 CR zombies. If I'm ever DMing the four-wizard party, I might have to include them. Note however that they can only shoot their crossbow once every two rounds. Escape should still be pretty easy for the wizards.

[Pickford]

Nope: "When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you lose the benefit described above but retain the extra 2nd-level spell slot, which you can use to prepare or spontaneously cast a spell of 2nd level or lower as you normally would." If the feat let you cast 2nd-level spells, this would happen immediately.

Also: kobold zombie are surprising effective for 1/2 CR zombies. If I'm ever DMing the four-wizard party, I might have to include them. Note however that they can only shoot their crossbow once every two rounds. Escape should still be pretty easy for the wizards.

Try it like this:

The party beds down for the night...but (unless they make their listen check) they've wandered into the midst of an old battlefield and attracted the attention of the nightmarish horror that is....Zombie Kobolds!!

The kobolds (2-8 depending on total previous encounters that day) come from all directions (ideally preventing easy escape).

i.e.

__ K ______K


K __ PPPP __ K


_ K _______ K


Something like that.

[AlltheBooks]

Wow, I need to stop looking to pop culture for what I think Zombies are... I guess those are better categorized as Ghouls.

My apologies on that one.

:smallconfused:

Ghouls are typically smarter than an average human.

[HaikenEdge]

:smallconfused:

Ghouls are typically smarter than an average human.

So what exactly are popular culture zombies, then? Zombie Human Commoners?

[Pickford]

So what exactly are popular culture zombies, then? Zombie Human Commoners?

Fast Pop culture zombies or slow pop culture zombies? :smallamused:

[HaikenEdge]

Fast Pop culture zombies or slow pop culture zombies? :smallamused:

How about both? I'm kind of curious where they're getting their bite attack from, for example.

[Haldir]

I remember the first time I looked at the Monk's table in the PHB. "So many things." thought I "they must be very powerful!" That is, until you realize that a front-line melee class who trains with specialty weapons, but doesn't have a full BAB, is completely and utterly dysfunctional both thematically and in play.

[Oko and Qailee]

My friend doesn't believe me when I say 3.5 is unbalanced. Or, rather, he admits that there is some unbalance, but "only at like level 10". How can I show him that full casters are OP before that point, without doing something like challenging him to a duel?

He also thinks the fighter is one of the most powerful classes, and that the ranger and the bard are less powerful than the monk.

Make a level 1 druid or cleric compare to level fighter. Its actually not that hard to make a level 1 of those guys better than any fighter.

In another thread someone asked about making a lvl 1 solo dungeon char, I proposed the following:

Cloistered Cleric 1, 18 in charisma, rest of stats distribute as desired. Take healing domain, trade it for healing Devotion. Trade Knowledge Domain for Devotion (minimum +1 to hit and dmg FTW). Last domain is Undeath for extra turning. Feats can be w/e is going to make you hit stuff, I recommend another extra turning though.

laugh as you can heal 160HP a day without using spells and it activates automatically if you hit negative, you are getting through that dungeon easy.

At any higher level the difference becomes huge and you don't have to do a stupid build like the above. Anything Fighters can get casters can get for free. A Fighter needs to spend money on armor... a Cleric can just use Greater Luminous Armor. Fighter has higher BAB? Oh wait, Divine Power, Cleric now has the same BAB and more strength, this alone makes a cleric better than a fighter. FIghter can't heal himself without items. A fighter can't fly (air walk ftw!).

Like, you have to be blind to not see casters are better. A Cleric can use Gate and summon a Solar.... something stronger than a level 20 fighter when the Cleric is only level 17.

"But the fighter is tankier!"
Shapechange - Now Wizards, Druids, and Clerics who chose the right domain for it, are all tankier.

Anything a fighter can do, a T1 caster can do with less than a single spell.

[Oko and Qailee]

How about both? I'm kind of curious where they're getting their bite attack from, for example.

Can that not simply be considered an unarmed strike? :smallconfused:

[AMFV]

Wizards are absolutely terrifying, even at first level they can kill you in basically the most horrifying ways you can imagine. You could be killed by somebody you believed was a friend (Charm Person). You could die trying to stay awake, the last thing you remembered would be is that you weren’t able to stay awake (Sleep). You could die unable to see struggling to figure out what happened to you (Color Spray). You could die barely able to move struggling to stand (Ray of Enfeeblement or Ray of Clumsiness).

Wizards are terrifying and they only become more terrifying at higher levels. They are OP because they have so many options. At first level a wizard can create cunning illusions to deceive their enemies (Silent Image), Illusions you can’t even recognize without touching or interacting with. They can completely protect themselves from mind control (Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos etc.) They can always have a mount without paying for it or feeding it (Mount). They can get things off the top shelf or from very high places (Enlarge Person). They can hide in tiny rabbit holes, with squeezing (Reduce Person). They don’t even have to stay awake to stand guard (Alarm).

These are feats that fighters can’t replicate for many levels if they can replicate at all, and not without large investments of money, and objects which fill item slots, thus taking away opportunities for other items. Wizards are simply better, this is just the gap at first level, imagine how terrifying they become as the gap expands.

[Incanur]

Eh, fighters have a number of meaningful advantages over wizards at level 1. An everybody at level 1 is potential prey to a pack of feral dogs. :smallamused:

[AMFV]

Eh, fighters have a number of meaningful advantages over wizards at level 1. An everybody at level 1 is potential prey to a pack of feral dogs. :smallamused:

Most of those advantages evaporate pretty quickly with competency though. A wizard with shield and mage armor has +8 AC, which is more than a fighter can afford at that stage. A wizard with abrupt jaunt or expeditious retreat can run away much much more effectively than a fighter wearing armor. A fighter is as vulnerable to a critical hit as a wizard, those three extra hit points on average are almost never going to make the difference. A wizard using touch attacks or rays is as likely to hit as a wizard. As such I don't think there are any meaningful advantages the fighter has.

[eggynack]

Eh, fighters have a number of meaningful advantages over wizards at level 1. An everybody at level 1 is potential prey to a pack of feral dogs. :smallamused:
What kinda dogs, and how many of them? I mean, at a certain CR, you're obviously not going to have much of a chance.

[Suddo]

Level 6 is usually when people consider things to get interesting. Before that I think the party works together well, outside of a few spells (Glitterdust) but even then fighters usually have to finish the job.

[jedipotter]

Emphasis added. I agree that both are fine styles for the players, but I think Jedi hit on a big point here: Spellcasters can ignore the plot.

Melee-types have to board the train and ride the rails. Does your adventure take you to an island? You'd better find a mode of transportation. Oh, look, there's a boat with a seedy crew. Guess which boat you're taking?

Spellcasters make their own railroad. And it's not some primitive affair with steam and tracks. It's a fancy mag-lev with air-conditioned cabins and drink service.

I would not say spellcasters can ignore the plot. They still need to figure out they need the Cup of Life to save the king and still need to learn about the duke. They can scry and speak with the dead all day long, but still need a place to start. They can't scry on a spot, like the duke's island castle unless they know it even exists, there is no ''scry for plot'' spell. The same way random dead bodies won't know anything about the duke....but if you were to ask some of the dukes dead family in the family crypt...

And remember the twist: spellcasters often leap before the look. Take Star Wars as an example: Luke goes to Uber Wizard Kenobi with the ''we must get the droids to Alberdran.'' So a minute later, Kenobi teleports everyone to Alberdran. Just in time for everyone to die when the planet blows up.

[AMFV]

I would not say spellcasters can ignore the plot. They still need to figure out they need the Cup of Life to save the king and still need to learn about the duke. They can scry and speak with the dead all day long, but still need a place to start. They can't scry on a spot, like the duke's island castle unless they know it even exists, there is no ''scry for plot'' spell. The same way random dead bodies won't know anything about the duke....but if you were to ask some of the dukes dead family in the family crypt...

And remember the twist: spellcasters often leap before the look. Take Star Wars as an example: Luke goes to Uber Wizard Kenobi with the ''we must get the droids to Alberdran.'' So a minute later, Kenobi teleports everyone to Alberdran. Just in time for everyone to die when the planet blows up.

Which of course triggers Obi-Wan's contingency teleport that takes them back. You don't get to be an uber-wizard by being dumb. As somebody pointed wizards have a high potential to get messed over by that sort of behavior, it's why high-level wizards are all paranoid and OCD, to survive as a wizard you have to be.

[Pickford]

AMFV: Erm, a Fighter using a dagger (1d4+4) can one-shot a wizard at level 1, with a possibly >50% chance (+1 bab, +1 weapon focus, +4 str, +1 masterwork) He could be using a heavy shield (+2) and wear scale mail (+4) with a +2 dex bonus (+8 total), which the Wizard is pretty well incapable of hitting with a weapon. The game is still fairly close to rocket tag at 1st, but the Fighter has the HP advantage no matter what.

eggynack: How about just a pair of zombie kobolds? :)

[LordConcrete]

Let's just all agree that by level 7, unless the wizard is fighting Giacomo, the wizard will win.

Unless, the fighter is an ubercharger.

In which case, the wizard will still win, because wizards win rocket-tag.

[Eldariel]

Most of those advantages evaporate pretty quickly with competency though. A wizard with shield and mage armor has +8 AC, which is more than a fighter can afford at that stage. A wizard with abrupt jaunt or expeditious retreat can run away much much more effectively than a fighter wearing armor. A fighter is as vulnerable to a critical hit as a wizard, those three extra hit points on average are almost never going to make the difference. A wizard using touch attacks or rays is as likely to hit as a wizard. As such I don't think there are any meaningful advantages the fighter has.

Unless you only have an arena fight or something, Shield is incredibly inconvenient to prepare with your level 1 slots tho. It has almost negative a duration, and persisting spells on level 1 is quite hard. I don't usually even bother with Mage Armor unless you have a relatively short thing to do or I'm doing stuff alone; 1 hour isn't all that much. Usually I'd rather just prepare an array of offensive spells that maximizes the chances I can take out whatever would try to hit me before it gets close enough to try and hit me.

@Pickford: Well, give him a sword or a greatsword and yes. Dagger isn't reliable against Wizards with 14+ Con and straight-up can't one-shot a 12 Con Wizard with a Toad familiar (max 8 damage to 8 HP; 0 HP can still act).

[eggynack]

eggynack: How about just a pair of zombie kobolds? :)
Apparently, a riding dog deals slashing damage with his bite attacks, so I've gotta figure that theoretical druid would do pretty well against that. Zombie kobolds also have terrible reflex saves, so entangle or impeding stones would be reasonably devastating. Zombie kobolds, with their mindlessness, are also unlikely to ignore the riding dog to go after the druid standing behind him, so that's a factor as well. Low power zombies are admittedly tough for their CR though.

[AMFV]

Unless you only have an arena fight or something, Shield is incredibly inconvenient to prepare with your level 1 slots tho. It has almost negative a duration, and persisting spells on level 1 is quite hard. I don't usually even bother with Mage Armor unless you have a relatively short thing to do or I'm doing stuff alone; 1 hour isn't all that much. Usually I'd rather just prepare an array of offensive spells that maximizes the chances I can take out whatever would try to hit me before it gets close enough to try and hit me.

@Pickford: Well, give him a sword or a greatsword and yes. Dagger isn't reliable against Wizards with 14+ Con and straight-up can't one-shot a 12 Con Wizard with a Toad familiar (max 8 damage to 8 HP; 0 HP can still act).

This is true, I was attempting to demonstrate that wizards could replicate or beat most of the purported advantages of fighters even at the early level, which is why I aimed at the sort of things that were direct comparisons. The ability to end encounters is not really easy to wrap your head around when comparing to avoiding getting hit and stabbing things with a sharp object.

I would personally go BFC as much as possible, I've found that's generally the most effective way to avoid damage, however, for the direct comparison I think pointing out the direct things is probably the better route.

(Also note that neither shield nor mage armor were in my original post where I discussed how wizards are OP at level 1)

[Augmental]

Nope: "When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you lose the benefit described above but retain the extra 2nd-level spell slot, which you can use to prepare or spontaneously cast a spell of 2nd level or lower as you normally would." If the feat let you cast 2nd-level spells, this would happen immediately.

"Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances."

The feat says that you can cast the spell even if your caster level isn't high enough to let you cast second-level spells normally. Specific trumps general.

[Incanur]

Most of those advantages evaporate pretty quickly with competency though. A wizard with shield and mage armor has +8 AC, which is more than a fighter can afford at that stage. A wizard with abrupt jaunt or expeditious retreat can run away much much more effectively than a fighter wearing armor. A fighter is as vulnerable to a critical hit as a wizard, those three extra hit points on average are almost never going to make the difference. A wizard using touch attacks or rays is as likely to hit as a wizard. As such I don't think there are any meaningful advantages the fighter has.

You're taking the wizard love way too far. There's no question that wizards have vastly more options and more raw power at the higher levels - though even then they can't quite literally do anything the fighter can - but at level 1 it's a different story. Wizards do better against some foes, fighters against others. Scale armor and a wooden shield beat out mage armor and shield at level 1, because these spells have such short durations. 3hp is often the different between unconscious/death and consciousness/life. Etc. Because most D&D parties include a fighter-type character, the now-class god wizard assumes such a character's presence. You don't actually need a martial character, but the battlefield-control approach requires somebody to deal the damage. (This can be a riding dog, undead minion, dominated fighter, whatever.)

[ryu]

You're taking the wizard love way too far. There's no question that wizards have vastly more options and more raw power at the higher levels - though even then they can't quite literally do anything the fighter can - but at level 1 it's a different story. Wizards do better against some foes, fighters against others. Scale armor and a wooden shield beat out mage armor and shield at level 1, because these spells have such short durations. 3hp is often the different between unconscious/death and consciousness/life. Etc. Because most D&D parties include a fighter-type character, the now-class god wizard assumes such a character's presence. You don't actually need a martial character, but the battlefield-control approach requires somebody to deal the damage. (This can be a riding dog, undead minion, dominated fighter, whatever.)

Druid, his pet, cleric, the party wizard using a scythe to coup de grace people into oblivion, and even a small child wielding a fairly heavy rock are capable of doing the fighter's job of mop up easily. With abrupt jaunt the wizard can also be a safer tank than him.

[ArcturusV]

3 extra HP on average?

I ask because if you're talking level 1... a fighter should generally be having about 6 extra HP, if not more. Because sure... well... Con is really a wizard's third stat. Dex is more important, particularly at level 1 where you might end up "Luck Crossbowing"... but in general for initiative winning which is important when you're trying to one shot stuff before you are one shot in return. So Int>Dex>Con.

Whereas Con is secondary to a fighter, as they usually go Str>Con>and usually in my experience Int for Expertise and so they might actually have some skill points.

[eggynack]

I would generally stick with the treantmonk assessment for stat assigning matters. 14 in constitution, everything else in intelligence until there is no more room for intelligence, and then the remainder in dexterity, with a possible nod to wisdom. That could lead to a higher dexterity than constitution, or it could lead to a lower one, depending on the situation. Going below a 14 in constitution seems unwise. In any case, I would expect something similar out of the fighter, so I'm in agreement about the difference of six. It's possible that incanur was using rolled stats for the first die, which would produce the difference of three that was claimed.

[Incanur]

It should be a 6hp difference, yes, though fighters don't necessarily put Con higher than wizards do.

[AMFV]

3 extra HP on average?

I ask because if you're talking level 1... a fighter should generally be having about 6 extra HP, if not more. Because sure... well... Con is really a wizard's third stat. Dex is more important, particularly at level 1 where you might end up "Luck Crossbowing"... but in general for initiative winning which is important when you're trying to one shot stuff before you are one shot in return. So Int>Dex>Con.

Whereas Con is secondary to a fighter, as they usually go Str>Con>and usually in my experience Int for Expertise and so they might actually have some skill points.

That would be a reasonable assumption, if the majority of guides and people who had posted had not directly disagreed with it. If you want we can adjust to a difference of four to make up for a higher con, but assuming a fighter has a Constitution score six full points higher is absolutely unlikely, particularly given that wizards tend to vote con as the best secondary stat.

Heck, if you're not going ray wizard dex is pretty much superfluous, or close to it. I mean it could add 2 or 3 to your AC, but that's usually not going to make much of a difference, and my chance of hitting with a crossbow is already low, I'd rather have survivability in that case.


It should be a 6hp difference, yes, though fighters don't necessarily put Con higher than wizards do.

Again that would be a full six points higher con, that is not feasible, unless the fighter maxed con or has a level adjustment. If the wizard has even a con score of 12 it would require the fighter have an 18, and both of those are fairly unlikely.


You're taking the wizard love way too far. There's no question that wizards have vastly more options and more raw power at the higher levels - though even then they can't quite literally do anything the fighter can - but at level 1 it's a different story. Wizards do better against some foes, fighters against others. Scale armor and a wooden shield beat out mage armor and shield at level 1, because these spells have such short durations. 3hp is often the different between unconscious/death and consciousness/life. Etc. Because most D&D parties include a fighter-type character, the now-class god wizard assumes such a character's presence. You don't actually need a martial character, but the battlefield-control approach requires somebody to deal the damage. (This can be a riding dog, undead minion, dominated fighter, whatever.)

Scale Armor is +5, a wooden shield is +2, that's +7, that's still beaten out by a the mage armor, shield combo, as I stated earlier I wouldn't use high level slots for buffs, that was just a point of direct comparison, if my enemies are unconscious, or blinded, or believe themselves to be my friends they can't kill me.

Secondly weapon non-proficiency only applies to to-hit... ergo I can wield a Scythe and coup de grace just fine, without any feats or anything, that's me doing the damage, or I could use the crossbow. Not saying that I wouldn't be happy to have a fighter, but frankly, a wizard still has the versatility to solve those problems at pretty nearly any level. That only gets worse with leveling.

Furthermore, 3 HP is very rarely the difference between unconsciousness and death, very rarely, most weapons will do enough to put both people into unconsciousness on a crit, secondly wizards have a few survival mechanisms (such as running faster due to not wearing armor) that fighters simply can't do as well.

[Incanur]

Heck, if you're not going ray wizard dex is pretty much superfluous, or close to it.

Dex is never - ever - superfluous in 3.x. Everybody wants higher initiative whenever and however they can get it.


Again that would be a full six points higher con, that is not feasible, unless the fighter maxed con or has a level adjustment. If the wizard has even a con score of 12 it would require the fighter have an 18, and both of those are fairly unlikely.

Max hp at first level. :smallsmile:

[AMFV]

Dex is never - ever - superfluous in 3.x. Everybody wants higher initiative whenever and however they can get it.



Max hp at first level. :smallsmile:

I stand corrected, I can't believe I forgot about that. Well that is slightly more significant, although not dramatically so. I concede that first level wizards do have less hit points than first level fighters, they still are wizards though even from first level, which is kind of the point I'm arguing.

Edit: Dex is pretty nearly superfluous since + initiative items exist, my stat points in the presumed 25 point buy we discussed are a very scarce resource, so I would rather have a high con than dex. Although that could be me personally, but again most guides agree with that. If I have points to spare then I look at raising dex or other stats.

[ArcturusV]

See, I rather have the higher dex over the con as a wizard. My reasoning for it?

Well, as the wizard I DO have the means to just one shot an encounter, or severely cripple it. However it's based necessarily on speed, surprise, and taking them before they go "Oh crap, wizard!" and spread out and run away until they see me burn a spell. So I want to go first. Because if we kick down that doorway, me going first means I catch those enemies when they're bunched up. Me going second means that the enemies are usually split and I can't tag them as effectively.

[AMFV]

See, I rather have the higher dex over the con as a wizard. My reasoning for it?

Well, as the wizard I DO have the means to just one shot an encounter, or severely cripple it. However it's based necessarily on speed, surprise, and taking them before they go "Oh crap, wizard!" and spread out and run away until they see me burn a spell. So I want to go first. Because if we kick down that doorway, me going first means I catch those enemies when they're bunched up. Me going second means that the enemies are usually split and I can't tag them as effectively.

I usually take Improved Initiative at first level, although to be absolutely honest I'd rather have both a decent dex and a decent con. The reason I was making that argument was because somebody had mentioned 25 point buy, although I think that was the other thread, they all kind of blur together at this point.