Linear fighter, Quadratic wizard

[molten_dragon]

You hear that statement around here quite a bit in regards to what's wrong with casters vs. mundane characters. They might start out at a similar power level, but a caster's abilities advance at a much quicker pace over time.

I had a weird idea for trying to fix the issue the other day. What if you took it literally and designed the fix around that?

Switch to a spell point system similar to psionics for all casters, but instead of a linear progression of point cost, make it quadratic. A spell would cost a number of spell points equal to the spell level squared.

You might need to tweak the progression slightly, or the end total. But at 20th level, if a character had 500 spell points, he could cast his lower level spells with few limits, but his higher level spells he would have to use very very cautiously. A 9th level spell would wipe out a sixth of his spell points for the day.

[avr]

You might also want to look up 15 minute adventuring day & similar.

The wizard still rules, but has to either make magic items or insist on fighting only on the ground he chooses.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I doubt it would help much. The linear warriors' part of the equation is the more problematic of the two. The difference in power curves is only part of the problem. The other part is the one-dimensional nature of the warriors' growth. Unless it also expands in breadth, gaining new abilities as the older ones improve, the warriors' abilities will always be eclipsed by the sheer variety of abilities available to the casters.

[Artillery]

If you want to do the psionics approach why not get rid of free scaling?

Just like with Psionics, you want your fireball to do 15d6, it will cost you 15 spell points, not a lvl 3 slot with free scaling.

Be sure to cap things at Caster/Manifester level per spell, that is what prevents craziness. AKA: Psionics is OP the lvl 5 psion just did 20d6 with energy burst because he doesn't understand the cap on augmenting powers.

[jedipotter]

Switch to a spell point system similar to psionics for all casters, but instead of a linear progression of point cost, make it quadratic. A spell would cost a number of spell points equal to the spell level squared.

Well I don't agree with the whole linear/quadratic thing, but anyway:

1. If you made higher level casting harder, like making it cost your level times the spell level. So 1st level caster 1st level spell would equal 1 power point. 10th level caster 10 power points for the same spell. 20th level caster and 9th level spell 180 power points!

2. You will need a set, low amount of power points. With no bonus power points, power items or anything else. You also need to make regaining power points very slow and not have a way to speed it up. So like the 20th level caster can cast one 9th level and one 1st level spell, then must rest a full 24 hours.

3. If you drop spells, then spell points work great. Just have things like range is 1 pp per ten feet, damage is 1d6 per 5 pp and such. And let the players just make up effects based on the guide lines. They will burn themselves out in like five minutes...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well I don't agree with the whole linear/quadratic thing, but anyway:

You don't agree with an observable fact or you think "linear warrior /geometric wizard" or "linear warrior /exponential wizard" would be more accurate?

[Spore]

I prefer to power up the mundanes. Be it with DM fiated custom magical items or with actual powers that are superhuman. In a world where an archer can shoot 5 arrows in 6 seconds and actually hit with them where a wizard can fly or stop time why can't the fighter "sunder" an enchantment, why can't the rogue poison the arch demon and why can't the archer pin someone to the ground with his or her arrows?

I feel quadratic fortuitous fighter, quadratic nimble rogue and quadratic strong willed caster is more up to par than those old and worn out rules. Exaggeration is the core of the game so why have Druids call upon HUGE extinct species, why have Wizards conjure up an Astral Storm and Fighters still hack away things on the ground.

The Wizard can imprison the fighter for all eternity below the planet's surface, to never die, to never love or be loved, the Fighter can bash the rogue's face in and the rogue can backstab the fighter...and then get the face bashed in. I am a sucker for game balance, and if the lore has to suffer then so be it. That is the reason why games like World of Warcraft or LoL are so popular. Because you can TRULY choose whatever hero you want to be and don't have to think about power levels and tiers.

Yes, it is implausible that the Hunter can shoot and hit 20 enemies with one thug of the bow string, yes it IS implausible that a warrior only armed with a shield can withstand that white dragon's ice breath , claw attacks and higher magic for several minutes, but why is it suddenly acceptable that the caster taps into the magical realm, freezes time and kills that "annoying little wyrm" with 3 maximized scorching rays?

[molten_dragon]

You might also want to look up 15 minute adventuring day & similar.

The wizard still rules, but has to either make magic items or insist on fighting only on the ground he chooses.

I'm familiar with the 15 minute adventuring day. I find that's not nearly as big of a problem as it's made out to be (in my group at least). Generally either the party is on a deadline and can't waste the time to clear a dungeon like that, or their enemies clue in to what they're doing and find a way around it.

[molten_dragon]

Well I don't agree with the whole linear/quadratic thing, but anyway:

1. If you made higher level casting harder, like making it cost your level times the spell level. So 1st level caster 1st level spell would equal 1 power point. 10th level caster 10 power points for the same spell. 20th level caster and 9th level spell 180 power points!

2. You will need a set, low amount of power points. With no bonus power points, power items or anything else. You also need to make regaining power points very slow and not have a way to speed it up. So like the 20th level caster can cast one 9th level and one 1st level spell, then must rest a full 24 hours.

3. If you drop spells, then spell points work great. Just have things like range is 1 pp per ten feet, damage is 1d6 per 5 pp and such. And let the players just make up effects based on the guide lines. They will burn themselves out in like five minutes...

I do like the idea of having it tied to caster level too, that basically bakes in the increased cost for auto-scaling that psionics has.

And I agree power points would have to be controlled pretty strictly. But 1 9th level spell and 1 1st level spell then having to rest for 24 hours seems to be a bit too restrictive.

[ahenobarbi]

Bad idea IMHO. Wizard to be effective will have to choose most powerful options (...shapechange to Zodar for 1 wish/round because it's the only spell you get to cast today).

[jedipotter]

You don't agree with an observable fact or you think "linear warrior /geometric wizard" or "linear warrior /exponential wizard" would be more accurate?

Well it is not a fact. It is more accurate to say ''If you play the game this way (the way you play, do things and interpret the rules) then yes it is a fact for that way of playing the game.

If you don't follow all of ''that way'' of playing the game...then it is not a fact.

[avr]

The basic idea that phrase is trying to convey is that fighters continue doing the same sort of things as they gain levels, but do them better - whereas a wizard can start doing very different things as they go up levels, and also do both old and new things better.

I'm curious as to how you'd reinterpret spell lists so that a wizard does not get to do new things, or something? else which allows a fighter to start doing new things.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well it is not a fact. It is more accurate to say ''If you play the game this way (the way you play, do things and interpret the rules) then yes it is a fact for that way of playing the game.

If you don't follow all of ''that way'' of playing the game...then it is not a fact.

It has nothing to do with playstyle. As warrior classes increase in level they get increases in their base numbers and that's it. No non-magical class gets any real options beyond "hit it" and "hit it harder" from his class levels. Meanwhile virtually all casters get similar increases in their numbers but they also get an ever widening pool of options, whether they choose to avail themselves of those options or not. Each new spell level also expands their ability to influence more than just a single target object or creature right in front of them.

In other words; choosing to play a blaster wizard that can only do direct HP damage doesn't change the fact that you had a choice to make while the fighter only got a choice in how he hits the bad guys with his pointy stick.

[Sam K]

You hear that statement around here quite a bit in regards to what's wrong with casters vs. mundane characters. They might start out at a similar power level, but a caster's abilities advance at a much quicker pace over time.

I had a weird idea for trying to fix the issue the other day. What if you took it literally and designed the fix around that?

Switch to a spell point system similar to psionics for all casters, but instead of a linear progression of point cost, make it quadratic. A spell would cost a number of spell points equal to the spell level squared.

You might need to tweak the progression slightly, or the end total. But at 20th level, if a character had 500 spell points, he could cast his lower level spells with few limits, but his higher level spells he would have to use very very cautiously. A 9th level spell would wipe out a sixth of his spell points for the day.

Wouldn't a problem occur that when the buffers/healers/CCers run out of power, the warriors/rogues have to stop anyway? I mean, even if your mundanes can perform their mundane actions every round with no limit, they will have to stop when their casters run out of power because the party is very weak when it has no magic support. Unless the DM is going to lower the CR of all encounters when the casters are low on power, which will get noticable pretty quickly. "Hmm... why are we suddenly running into slightly stunned orcs with arthritis in this lair of dire half fiend beholders?"

The problem is that some classes are designed around very powerful supernatural abilities that you have a limited use per day of, and some classes are based on fairly weak mundane abilities that you can use at will. Because of the group-based nature of the game, the mundanes are still restricted in how often they can face encounters; even if you have a full party of mundanes, in which case they would still be restricted based on their hitpoints, which they cant renew easily without supernatural means. Fighters can full attack all day, but that doesn't do them any good when noone has power left to heal them after the fight, or buff them before it starts.

I think the idea that some classes are mundane has to go. It doesn't make sense in a game where past the first few levels, NOTHING YOU ENCOUNTER IS MUNDANE. Mid level parties constantly face even mooks with supernatural abilities. The idea that some classes have to obey the laws of physics doesn't make much sense in that context - they are the minority. If magic is so common that even unintelligent creatures can harness it, masters of martial skill should be able to get some use of it as well.

[The Trickster]

In other words; choosing to play a blaster wizard that can only do direct HP damage doesn't change the fact that you had a choice to make while the fighter only got a choice in how he hits the bad guys with his pointy stick.

Hey now, fighters don't have to smack things with a pointu stick. They can grapple, trip, or disarm stuff too.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Hey now, fighters don't have to smack things with a pointu stick. They can grapple, trip, or disarm stuff too.

There're pointy sticks for each of those options and employing those pointy sticks is usually better than trying to do the same with bare hands.

[ArcturusV]

That doesn't even really matter, in that even if the Wizard just chucks damage spells, they still end up with the "Quadratic" growth compared to a fighter.

Say a level 17 fighter who can hack up 1 target for about 200 damage a round. Versus the wizard who can drop a Meteor Swarm and inflict similar damage to a single target.... or clear out an entire front line/room with a single standard action.

It still ends up with the same sort of relationship.

Thing is... that's not necessarily a bad thing when you have proper swing balance. If at level 1-5 you're counting on the fighter to carry you, and from 6+ you're counting on the wizard to be able to drop the boom when needed... it doesn't FEEL like a problem in game often. Because the Wizard is proving effective (As everyone knew he would be), and the Fighter was already proven effective. It's a group dynamic thing where because the Fighter was the combat beast originally, facing down the toughest enemies and carrying the day... your mind naturally chalks in a "Good Teammate" mark next to him. Even if he's less effective comparatively now... he has nothing to prove. He already has. So your mind kind of skips over it in actual play. The wizard gets a pass at low level because everyone knows there will come the point where he hits level five.... and starts throwing out 5d6 AoE every round (Even with their level 1 Evocations) and severely softening up your enemies, etc. And when your party gets swarmed by 20 gobbos who are still actually a threat by weight of numbers, and your wizard just laughs and goes "Ha, encounter over" and roasts them... yeah. He's proven himself.

So really I find the problem comes from two things:

1) In 3rd edition first level wizards are no longer anywhere near as helpless as they were originally, to the point where their limiting factor that made them depend on teammates, day long endurance, isn't so much a factor. So there is less "carrying" by the Fighter.

2) People like to start campaigns at higher levels in 3rd edition games for some reason (I know WHY they say they like to, but it seems odd because almost no one in 2nd edition said "Lets start at level 10" or something, compared to 3rd edition where I rarely see game where people want to accept playing at level 1 unless the DM forces them to by virtue of them not being able to get another game and he's the only one who wants to DM). So with the higher level starting point the swing balance doesn't come into play, the Fighter never "proved" himself requiring more optimization from the Fighter with less rewards as far as group dynamics go.

[molten_dragon]

Bad idea IMHO. Wizard to be effective will have to choose most powerful options (...shapechange to Zodar for 1 wish/round because it's the only spell you get to cast today).

Then simply don't allow broken options like that.

[OldTrees1]

The Linear/Quadratic problem is 2 different problems:

Problem 1) Power Curves (Level vs Level^2)
Wizards gain access to higher spell levels. Higher spell levels are more powerful per caster level than Lower spell levels. Wizards increase in caster level. Thus the power of Wizards grows proportional to the square of their level.

WotC was foolish enough to intentionally design the power curve difference and design CR to assume a balanced party (50% casters, 50% non casters). Thus the difficulty curve is inbeteen the linear growth of the fighter and the quadratic growth of the wizard.

Solution 1) Rebalance the curves
Adjust everything up to the quadratic scaling. All results of noncaster combat actions (attacks, combat manuevers, ...) should grow in power proportional to the square of the level. Say by multiplying by some fraction of BAB.

Problem 2) Options (+Power vs +Power * +Options)
Wizards gain new options much faster than Fighters do. Fighters tend to need to invest everything in keeping their few tactics up to par. A wizard can keep their tactics up to par and buy new options for a few gp.

Solution 2) Increase the rate and availability of new tactics to Fighters
Floating Feats (reassign some feats as an hour ritual)
Feats that grow in versatility as BAB increases
...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Then simply don't allow broken options like that.

You missed the point there. Though the overstatement didn't help matters.

The point there is that the wizard will default to his most powerful, most efficient option right out of the gate because he knows he's not going to get a second shot. It also incentivizes selecting only those options since you'd never get a chance to use more flavorful but less effective options.

[molten_dragon]

Wouldn't a problem occur that when the buffers/healers/CCers run out of power, the warriors/rogues have to stop anyway?

Only if they blow their load using their highest-level spells repeatedly. The intention with this would be to force the casters to choose. "Do I really want to cast that 9th level spell, when for the same number of spell points I can cast eighty 1st level spells?" If used right, the caster would still be able to contribute to most any fight, but their higher level spells would have to be used very sparingly.

[The Mormegil]

I never understood why fighters can't interact with magic at all. I mean, it's a magical world. They don't need to be casting spells, but why cut them off of like half the fun of playing fantasy? In a modern setting, you don't cut off characters from all technology, they can all interact with it in some form.

I think what warriors need (and all martial characters for the matter) is some options to do stuff with magic. Spitballing a few ideas at random: cutting magic with your sword, using magic items effectively, analyzing magical phoenomena, throwing back magic effects, being a copycat, having access to supernatural abilities, absorbing magic thrown at you, smelling magic, using magic currents to your advantage...

It's not FUN for a character to be completely unable to do anything about half the things that are important in your tale. It's like the barbarian in a social setting - either you flaunt your incompetence and derive fun from throwing wrenches in the plans of your allies, or you sit back and play with the phone until the scene is over.

[ArcturusV]

The only problems I see with that necessarily being:

1) Low level spells don't necessarily scale in usefulness no matter what you do. See for example staple spells like Color Spray, Sleep, and Fear. Or even ones that aren't HD capped but still aren't worth a damn at high levels like Bless. If you're at high levels where the option is between "Cast a 9th" and "Cast a dozen 1st", you're going to realize your dozen 1st level spells are probably less useful than even just taking out your crossbow and trying to snipe.

2) Having "Magic Points" or Spell Points, MP, etc... does the exact opposite of what you seem to be trying to get at. Because no one just "does the low stuff" and saves their big boom for that final encounter... because doing the low stuff means you don't end up having the points to drop the boom when you need to. It's counter to the purpose as higher point costs means you want to use it first (So you still have the points to use it), and then recover the points ASAP. More conducive to the 15 minute day. This is due to the resources being, well, equal. The impact of a single 8th level spell is always going to be higher than the impact of even three 2nd level spells. So why use these low level spells? In the slot system like we have, there's a reason... because it's all you can use them for. In a point system that doesn't exist.

[Abaddona]

Also action economy -> if whole encounter can be disabled by casting one 9 level spell then this is probably your best option. If you try casting lower level spells the battle will take several rounds (you are risking that your enemies will run for reinforcements etc.) so your front liners may get hurt (which means that someone must use power points or wands to heal them), will use some of theirs once a day items and generally you may end up losing more resources than you would lose by casting one big spell.

[molten_dragon]

The impact of a single 8th level spell is always going to be higher than the impact of even three 2nd level spells.

Is the impact of a single 8th level spell always going to be higher than 16 2nd-level spells? I kind of doubt it.

The point is to not make the costs scale linearly like they do now.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is the impact of a single 8th level spell always going to be higher than 16 2nd-level spells? I kind of doubt it.

A) probably. There really is that an immense a difference between a 2nd and an 8th level spell.

B) What circumstance can you even think of that would require 16 spells of any level?

[ArcturusV]

Frankly... yes, probably would still be that way. Between average 3-5 encounter adventuring days, and generally effects not really scaling properly, not in that 8th level spells are necessarily "more powerful" than a 2nd level spell, so much as the potential of the 2nd level spells is capped in such a way that the things you're facing at level 15 just laugh at it.

It's really 3rd level where you start to get utility that is always useful. But even that is kind at a point where it's more that there are handfuls of stuff that are useful but not useful in a "spam" way too much. Even the AoE blasting like Lightning Bolt and Fireball aren't that good due to friendly fire concerns as something you cast 12 times.

But again, you're kinda crippling the system in that... suddenly they can't use the utility 3rd level stuff, because the high impact stuff is still more important. There's probably a balance point out there somewhere, sure.

But in practical terms I don't know where it'd be. And even if you severely gimp the cost of high level magic, it still doesn't really impact the fact that the high level magic is still pretty "I win", and that teams who are smart will do whatever they can to make sure the wizard has their "I win" button ready to push.

[Abaddona]

If your fight takes you 10+ round then this probably means that you either spended more resources than this one 8 level spell or you are fighthing bunch of one hd mooks so you can as well use only your crossbow or even wait in the corner because everything is under control anyway.

[ahenobarbi]

Then simply don't allow broken options like that.


You missed the point there. Though the overstatement didn't help matters.

The point there is that the wizard will default to his most powerful, most efficient option right out of the gate because he knows he's not going to get a second shot. It also incentivizes selecting only those options since you'd never get a chance to use more flavorful but less effective options.

Thank you for explaining. The probem isn't that wizard can use to many spells per day. It's that a wizard can use spells that are much moe powerfull than hat fighter can do (if you care about balance in paty with a wizard and a fighter).

OP's idea doesn't adress the issue at all. In fact it can make it worse by making it harder for wizards to use tactics that tend to play well with figter in team (buffing, debuffing, bfc) but may require more spell slots than most powerfful and spel-slot effective options (chain gating solar, wish abuse, ...).

[limejuicepowder]

This fix is along the same lines as another popular "fix" of changing all casters to bardic progression. And I really don't like this style of fix.

If I'm a caster, I want to cast spells. I don't want each of my powers fall in to the category of "too good to use," or have to harshly ration everything I do. From a play style perspective, I'd rather use 5 weaker spells than 1 powerful spell - at least then I get to be a caster in all rounds of combat, instead of casting one spell (hoping it works), and then standing around while the rest of the party mops up. Under that type of system, in basically becomes a party of mundanes who carry around their utility-knife wizard to occasionally cast something important. Minds well just do away with casters entirely and give each class UMD and decent access to scrolls.

The more time intensive, and better, fix is a rewrite the most broken spells, get rid of some of the spells that negate other classes, and increase mundane options.

My chosen quick and dirty fix though is leaving spell slots and progression the same but taking away automatic access to spells of 7th level or higher.

[Boci]

I really think people are underestimating how much this increased investment will matter. 16th level wizards with 30 int: 272 spell points, or enough for four 8th level spells with 16 points left over.

First of all, mindblank, which means the wizards technically only has enough points for three 8th level spells with 16 points left over. Any more pre-buffing that involves a spell higher than 4th (like overland flight, and heart line up which will collectively exceed the cap by far to name but a few) and they only get two 8th level spells. Yeesh.

Then we have the bigger problem: spells fail. They can be countered, neutralized, disrupted by readied action ect. Also, there are no "I win" spells, only "I win, unless the opponent has X" and the wizards will not always have the necessary information. They could cast an "I win" battle field control spell, only to have the monster teleport or fly out of it, have it fizzle on spell resistance, the monster may have just the right immunity, ect.

Now normally this doesn't matter too much, because a wizard has more than enough spells to see them through the day (and it’s not as if martial classes have something better to offer, barring extreme optimization/unusual circumstances). Worst case scenario is probably that a 16th level uses up their 8th and 7th level spells and must, shudder, cast one or two 6th level spells. They will still be more than pulling their weight. But with this houserule, they have no such fall back.

Well done molten_dragon, I think this approach has potential, certainly more than it is being given here.

[molten_dragon]

From a play style perspective, I'd rather use 5 weaker spells than 1 powerful spell - at least then I get to be a caster in all rounds of combat, instead of casting one spell (hoping it works), and then standing around while the rest of the party mops up.

This being the case, I don't understand exactly why you dislike my suggestion, when that is exactly what it gives you the option to do. If you want to be able to cast more spells, you have that option, they just have to be lower level spells.

You get to choose between a handful of powerful spells, or a lot of low-level ones, or realistically, something in the middle.

[molten_dragon]

A) probably. There really is that an immense a difference between a 2nd and an 8th level spell.

I'm not so sure I agree. There are 2nd level spells which can remain useful throughout all levels of play. Maybe 8th and 2nd level is a little too wide of a gap for comparison though.


B) What circumstance can you even think of that would require 16 spells of any level?

There probably aren't many, but several encounters in a row might require 16 spells.

For this suggestion to work, it presumes you aren't allowing your casters to do the 15 minute adventuring day.

[Carth]

There probably aren't many, but several encounters in a row might require 16 spells.


I have never experienced anything that makes me think there's any reason to take this statement seriously.

[ArcturusV]

... I have... but not a high levels, but closer to say, level 6. Not level 16.

Thing is that it depends on not only giving them a reason to slog through a bunch of encounters in one go... it also depends on them knowing that they are going to go through a bunch of encounters at once.

Thus something like a prison break scenario maybe. But a standard dungeon crawl? Unless they've divined out the entire layout they're not really going to know "3 fights and we clear this level and can rest? or 10 fights?"

[Carth]

I mean, I guess those iron man scenarios people throw out are a plausible thing to run wizards out of spells, but my experience in long adventuring days is that hit points are what run out long before spells, and typically not for the casters.

[molten_dragon]

I have never experienced anything that makes me think there's any reason to take this statement seriously.

Huh? You've never cast 16 spells before resting on a caster before? That's very weird. Most casters I've played (and DM'd for) will use 3-5 spells per encounter. It's not uncommon for them to do 4-6 encounters before resting.

Hell, for some tough fights I've had people cast more than 16 spells to buff for one fight.

[molten_dragon]

I mean, I guess those iron man scenarios people throw out are a plausible thing to run wizards out of spells, but my experience in long adventuring days is that hit points are what run out long before spells, and typically not for the casters.

How do you ever run out of hit points? Do wands of lesser vigor not exist in your games?

[molten_dragon]

Thing is that it depends on not only giving them a reason to slog through a bunch of encounters in one go... it also depends on them knowing that they are going to go through a bunch of encounters at once.

Thus something like a prison break scenario maybe. But a standard dungeon crawl? Unless they've divined out the entire layout they're not really going to know "3 fights and we clear this level and can rest? or 10 fights?"

To me that's part of the appeal. The casters are forced to give serious consideration to when/if they want to cast their most powerful spells, because they don't know how much more fighting they're going to have to do, and if they run out too soon, there will be some sort of consequences.

[ArcturusV]

HP isn't a problem in most of my games either as far as endurance. Less because of Lesser Vigors and more because most of my players get a bit more tactical, setting traps and ambushes, bypassing encounters they don't have to face with trickery and guile, etc. Those sort of things are very easy on your HP... but still hard on other resources like spells.

Thus in your Prison Break scenario you might have something like: Charming the Jailer (To get him in position), then Suggestion to get him to do something like open up the door. Illusions for scouting/blinds/hiding spots. Divinations to check out if people are in an area before you go around a blind corner or into a court yard, a spider climb spell to scale a wall, etc, etc, etc. Done right you won't ever lose a HP and were never in danger of losing an HP... but you'll still end up burning through 10+ spells on your escape. And you can't just stop to rest.

[limejuicepowder]

This being the case, I don't understand exactly why you dislike my suggestion, when that is exactly what it gives you the option to do. If you want to be able to cast more spells, you have that option, they just have to be lower level spells.

You get to choose between a handful of powerful spells, or a lot of low-level ones, or realistically, something in the middle.

Perhaps. A spell system that worked almost exactly like the psionic system would be very good - but that would require rewriting a lot of spells, since they don't scale the same way psionic powers do.

[Carth]

Learn to multi quote. Click the button directly to the right of where it says quote. It will greatly reduce the inelegance of your posting.


Huh? You've never cast 16 spells before resting on a caster before? That's very weird. Most casters I've played (and DM'd for) will use 3-5 spells per encounter. It's not uncommon for them to do 4-6 encounters before resting.

Hell, for some tough fights I've had people cast more than 16 spells to buff for one fight.

The post I quoted had you describing "several encounters in a row might require 16 spells." I read this as multiple encounters each requiring 16 spells. That is unthinkable, but it seems this was a misunderstanding on my part anyway. In a published module, I think Red Hand of Doom's Battle of Brindol is probably the outer limit of what a marathon day is going to look like, and the spells running out problem isn't prevalent there.

Edit: looking through it again, that particular example (Brindol) probably favors casters due to the environment. Though I'd posit that to be more prevalent than favoring non-casters.


How do you ever run out of hit points? Do wands of lesser vigor not exist in your games?

As a matter of fact, no, they don't. Not every DM is willing to allow what amounts to unlimited out of combat healing. :smallsigh:

[Suddo]

This is a problem inherent in a d20 leveling system. Look up a point buy system like shadow run or gurps and you'll see that it can get solved quite easily.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

This is a problem inherent in a d20 leveling system. Look up a point buy system like shadow run or gurps and you'll see that it can get solved quite easily.

Clearly you never played GURPS 3e, where the casters were stupidly overpowering, particularly when combined with GURPS Martial Arts.

I made a 150 point character with a skill 25 in Deathtouch and wielded a Staff, and had the Quarterstaff skill (which also had a 2/3 parry modifier). He ended up with a parry of 12, and hitting someone did a guaranteed 2d6, ignoring DR due to Deathtouch. Oh, and with the 20 point version of Weapon Master (single weapon: staff), he actually ended up with multiple attacks in one turn.

Yea, it was pretty ridiculous. And as he leveled, it only got more ridiculous.

[Just to Browse]

Wizards are not actually quadratic, and fighters are not actually linear. Fighters are logarithmic, and wizards are unstoppable.

Literally 1 casting of shapechange makes the wizard better than the fighter in every single way. If the wizard can cast that only once per day, he's still broken.

[Boci]

Wizards are not actually quadratic, and fighters are not actually linear. Fighters are logarithmic, and wizards are unstoppable.

Literally 1 casting of shapechange makes the wizard better than the fighter in every single way. If the wizard can cast that only once per day, he's still broken.

For 1 encounter. Its last 10 minutes / CL, no? Plus 9th level spells only affect the last 20% of the game.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Wizards are not actually quadratic, and fighters are not actually linear. Fighters are logarithmic, and wizards are unstoppable.

Literally 1 casting of shapechange makes the wizard better than the fighter in every single way. If the wizard can cast that only once per day, he's still broken.

I'm more worried about the Save or Lose 'rocket launcher tag' which wizards of practically any level play.

At first level, it is Sleep. If it isn't immune, and the Wizard has properly prepared himself for high DC's, it's an automatic shut-down. Granted, he can only do it once or twice, but that's really all he needs.

By the time he hits third level and nets 2nd level spells, he's got Glitterdust. Blinded is a save or lose condition, because unless he's got a Listen check, he can't even FIND his opponents. Then, of course, the 50% miss chance.

By the time he hits 5th level, he's got Stinking Cloud and Fly, and is effectively unable to be harmed by melee.

But it isn't until 8th level that he becomes truly unstoppable, when his Rope Trick gets to 8 hours, and you end up with the fifteen minute adventuring day. Then he can nova every encounter, and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it.

[molten_dragon]

Learn to multi quote. Click the button directly to the right of where it says quote. I will greatly reduce the inelegance of your posting.

You're being a ****. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Kelb_Panthera]

For 1 encounter. Its last 10 minutes / CL, no? Plus 9th level spells only affect the last 20% of the game.

That's only if you cast from your own slots. At 9th level it's about a tenth of your WBL to buy and keep a scroll of shapechange on hand as an insurance measure against crud hitting the proverbial fan. It's only a dc 19 Caster level check to activate. Meaning it's a 55% chance of success on the first try and a 79.75% chance of activating it within two attempts, -if- you don't have any CL boosts by then.

[Carth]

That's only if you cast from your own slots. At 9th level it's about a tenth of your WBL to buy and keep a scroll of shapechange on hand as an insurance measure against crud hitting the proverbial fan. It's only a dc 19 Caster level check to activate. Meaning it's a 55% chance of success on the first try and a 79.75% chance of activating it within two attempts, -if- you don't have any CL boosts by then.

A scroll is a nice backup against dispels, otherwise it's generally worth investing in a greater extend rod, pearl of power (or better, a vest of the archmagi), and some light CL boosting to make it last 14-15 hours even at level 17. With 8 hours of rest and 1 hour of spell preparation, that should be sufficient given that by the time you get these spells you should be sleeping securely in a mage's mansion, at minimum. Also applicable to foresight.

Edit: but then again, how many people allow shapechange as it's written more than once. :smallbiggrin:

[Just to Browse]

For 1 encounter. Its last 10 minutes / CL, no? Plus 9th level spells only affect the last 20% of the game.

Regardless of the other 16 levels the wizard has accumulated, his one ability (if it really is one) at level 17 can overshadow all 17 of the fighters levels. Even if it was for only 1 encounter a day it's still not "balanced".

EDIT: (Schneeky) I agree about SoLs borking the game too, but I figured ny point would be made better with a direct comparison of capabilities. So shape change, polymorph, draconic polymorph, tenser's transformation, etc are better fitted to my argument.

Wizards being capable of doing everything is still a problem too.

[The Insanity]

What I'd like to see are some examples of a quadratic Fighter/Rogue/Monk/etc., and I don't even mean mechanics, but just the fluff of it.

[DeadMech]

I'll take a hand at it I guess. So the goal is to make a class both more powerful over time and give them more options.

Let's take the rogue. What it's supposed to be is the nimble, savvy class that finds the opponents weak point and exploits it. The problem though is that it's quite limited at this task as it's written.

First is the fact that sneak attack doesn't work against a wide variety of creature types. I would address this by adding class features along the progression that allow for precision damage against these types. Structural linchpins for constructs or perhaps literally a wrench into the clockwork. Later on you might be able to channel just enough magic energy and insight into a strike to disrupt flows of negative energy holding undead together. In a world a magic and creatures of unusual anatomy it's suicide for a class that depends on precision damage to not study how to apply it to them.

Sneak attacks are also limited from the start with how you can apply them. Ranged sneak attacks don't work because you have to be within rather dangerous proximity. What is the difference between hitting the heart with a knife by hitting the attack roll versus shooting someone in the heart by hitting the attack roll? Range penalties already confer a penalty to accuracy after all. To fix that I would again during progression add class features that extend sneak attack range by some percentage of weapon range.

Also to trigger a sneak attack you can use flanking but this often means putting your relatively squishy rogues on the wrong side of the front lines though i don't know specifically how you fix this.

Another complaint I hear is that a rogue is often a one shot pistol. Once you execute a sneak attack the enemy group automatically becomes aware of you. The lack of facing by default in DnD means that even if you took the time to sneak around to the back of an enemy formation the moment you run out and stab the flatfooted caster you are again on the wrong side of the enemy lines and can't hide to set up another attack without cover. Generally I hear the suggestion to take class dips into other classes in order to get that ability when it probably should have been something that came out of the rogue box.

To be honest I've never played a high level rogue. Perhaps fixing these issues make sneak attack too powerful and the damage would need to be rolled back a bit. I think I would accept that though if it meant that my class wasn't useless in combat half of the time.

Another role of the rogue is to be the party eyes and ears by virtue of being the skill monkey. Of course the issue of splitting the party to send one relatively squishy member into the heart of enemy territory can often be fatal. One bad roll can end the rogue in this situation. Fail to spot the goblin spotters on the cliff in the cave. Welcome to ambush town population you. Fail a move silent or hide check. Again dead. Forget to check that one spot for a trap, dead. Perhaps an ability to re-roll a number of Indian Jones style skill checks a certain number of times per day during progression.

First off I despise the amount of time it takes to check even relatively small corridors completely. At some point a rogue shouldn't have to announce that he's checking every square of a dungeon. It really should be an automatic action at a certain point for him to be sure that the area immediately around him be trap free to the best of his ability. Perhaps a slowly expanding aura of search trap as he progresses.

At high levels maybe even some sort of instantaneous movement to escape or position oneself like the shadowdancers' ability a certain number of times per day. That would some some problems. Ran out from behind a rock to sneak attack. Run back behind it's shadow after and jump to the other side of the cavern behind a different rock so that when the troll runs over to paste you, you are no longer there.

[Isamu Dyson]

You hear that statement around here quite a bit in regards to what's wrong with casters vs. mundane characters. They might start out at a similar power level, but a caster's abilities advance at a much quicker pace over time.

I had a weird idea for trying to fix the issue the other day. What if you took it literally and designed the fix around that?

Switch to a spell point system similar to psionics for all casters, but instead of a linear progression of point cost, make it quadratic. A spell would cost a number of spell points equal to the spell level squared.

You might need to tweak the progression slightly, or the end total. But at 20th level, if a character had 500 spell points, he could cast his lower level spells with few limits, but his higher level spells he would have to use very very cautiously. A 9th level spell would wipe out a sixth of his spell points for the day.

I'm fine with the way D&D 3.0/3.5 handles spellcasters compared to melee warriors: magic should be powerful, but, more specifically, it is a major feature of how D&D was designed.

Then again, I share a similar viewpoint about Jedi in Star Wars games.


Clearly you never played GURPS 3e, where the casters were stupidly overpowering, particularly when combined with GURPS Martial Arts.

I made a 150 point character with a skill 25 in Deathtouch and wielded a Staff, and had the Quarterstaff skill (which also had a 2/3 parry modifier). He ended up with a parry of 12, and hitting someone did a guaranteed 2d6, ignoring DR due to Deathtouch. Oh, and with the 20 point version of Weapon Master (single weapon: staff), he actually ended up with multiple attacks in one turn.

Yea, it was pretty ridiculous. And as he leveled, it only got more ridiculous.

When it comes to GURPS, you need a GM that is able and willing to step in to regulate.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Is the impact of a single 8th level spell always going to be higher than 16 2nd-level spells? I kind of doubt it.

Mind blank? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm)

[Just to Browse]

What I'd like to see are some examples of a quadratic Fighter/Rogue/Monk/etc., and I don't even mean mechanics, but just the fluff of it.

The fighter and rogue are inherently a low-level concept. As soon as you need to fly (5th level) or teleport short distances (7th level), neither can keep their "flavor" and remain useful, because their flavor is rooted in mundane-ness.

The fighter and rogue should go to level 5-6, and then stop. After that point, rogues need to be shadowdancers, dread pirates, assassins, ninjas, etc and fighters must become dragon knights, mech pilots, batman, blackguards, etc.

[Carth]

A screwy thing is that if you make a quadratic rogue, fighter, or whatever, there's a chance that it actually ends up better than casters, depending on how far you go, by virtue of the fact that 'mundane' abilities that are functionally identical to spells are more likely to end up working in adverse conditions such as antimagic, and probably won't require concentration checks ever.

[The Insanity]

The fighter and rogue are inherently a low-level concept. As soon as you need to fly (5th level) or teleport short distances (7th level), neither can keep their "flavor" and remain useful, because their flavor is rooted in mundane-ness.
But that's circular logic. "Fighter is a mundane so he's not useful. You can't make him useful, because he's a mundane."
If you make Fighter and Rogue into a higher level concept then it will be a higher level concept. It's only a matter of imagination and breaking of stereotypes/conventions. There's no "flavor" to keep, so that's not really a problem, unless by "flavor" you mean uselessness. Simply put Fighter and Rogue were presented as mundanes throughout the editions and it got ingrained into peoples minds so hard that they can't really imagine anything else. Which I find laughable, because even in their weak, mundane states, Fighter and Rogue aren't really that mundane. I mean, it's not really mundane for a high level Fighter to kill a dragon that's much bigger than him, or swim in lava with no problem, or fall from an equivalent of the Empire State Building and easily survive. I could go on.


A screwy thing is that if you make a quadratic rogue, fighter, or whatever, there's a chance that it actually ends up better than casters, depending on how far you go, by virtue of the fact that 'mundane' abilities that are functionally identical to spells are more likely to end up working in adverse conditions such as antimagic, and probably won't require concentration checks ever.
Quadratic Mundanes doesn't necessarily mean that they would gain abilities equal to spells. It would be closer in power to something like ToB's maneuvers, which were a good start, but a bit more useful and strong. And those abilities don't even have to come directly from the character. They could just as easily be narrative powers. Also, who even said they have to be Extraordinary abilities? You could make the stronger ones be Supernatural. It's not like it's unusual for non-casters to have quasi-magical powers (Monk, a lot of prc's, Factotum, Ninja, Swordsage, Crusader).

[Harrow]

Personally, I feel the best way may be to put a hard cap on spellcasting. Give casters a pool everytime they level of, oh, say 4X their daily amount of spells. They are still limited by their Per Day table, but once they've cast the equivalent of 4X that they have nothing left until they level. No pearls of power, no momento magica, no rollover from last level.

You would want to make sure they have enough to get between levels. I've heard estimates of between 12 and 14 encounters to level and 4 encounters per day, so 3 or 4 days worth of spells total per level would probably be most suitable.

I haven't thought out all of the implications of this. You may would have to adjust some things I haven't considered, but I think a level long cap on spell slots would reduce the problems between the difference between casters and mundanes. The biggest problem is deciding on what that cap should be.

[The Insanity]

What about spells cast outside of encounters? You know, like utility or divinations, or healz? And there are still scrolls and wands and stuff.

[Abaddona]

Also what with NPCs? They usually don't adventure so they won't level up (or will level much slower) but there may be times when your PCs will want to hire a spellcaster for something (maybe something as simple as making magic item). Even simple things usefull in a city like for example casting Zone of Truth when interrogating dangerous criminals are now becoming very costly.

[Zanos]

Personally, I feel the best way may be to put a hard cap on spellcasting. Give casters a pool everytime they level of, oh, say 4X their daily amount of spells. They are still limited by their Per Day table, but once they've cast the equivalent of 4X that they have nothing left until they level. No pearls of power, no momento magica, no rollover from last level.

You would want to make sure they have enough to get between levels. I've heard estimates of between 12 and 14 encounters to level and 4 encounters per day, so 3 or 4 days worth of spells total per level would probably be most suitable.

I haven't thought out all of the implications of this. You may would have to adjust some things I haven't considered, but I think a level long cap on spell slots would reduce the problems between the difference between casters and mundanes. The biggest problem is deciding on what that cap should be.
While I understand the desire to balance magical classes in 3.5, none of these suggestions seem like they'd actually be any fun to play. The more you limit a casting class actually casting, the less they'll actually feel like a caster. This also results in situations where wizards just won't do anything most of the time when they feel like the situation can be resolved without them.

Vancian casting isn't inherently overpowered. WoTC just severely undervalued the power of many of the non-damage spells they printed, and didn't give many of the 'mundane' PHB classes nice toys. The only real fix is to rewrite every spell that isn't fireball(and maybe buff fireball a bit.)

I personally feel that several of the core classes should be replaced with ToB classes. A warblade or crusader can contribute fairly regularly in a party with a wizard and a cleric, unless they intentionally overshadow him.

[Abaddona]

Quick and inelegant way to buff mundanes would be simply make them semi-gestalt with ToB classes making one class from two - for example warblade will be getting feats every second level, Crusader will get mount etc. Of course this won't really solve problems but at least it will reduce "trap" options at the same time saving those unique features someone might want for their builds (honestly, trying to "fix" paladin, monk and fighter would require to entirely rewrite them, for example fighter - save for ACFs isn't even a class - it's simply a feat slot and rest of classes arent better either). This will leave rogues, scouts, rangers etc. out, but then again - some of this classes can be merged together also.

[ryu]

Quick and inelegant way to buff mundanes would be simply make them semi-gestalt with ToB classes making one class from two - for example warblade will be getting feats every second level, Crusader will get mount etc. Of course this won't really solve problems but at least it will reduce "trap" options at the same time saving those unique features someone might want for their builds (honestly, trying to "fix" paladin, monk and fighter would require to entirely rewrite them, for example fighter - save for ACFs isn't even a class - it's simply a feat slot and rest of classes arent better either). This will leave rogues, scouts, rangers etc. out, but then again - some of this classes can be merged together also.

Doesn't paladin turn into tier two with all the acfs and other such love they got over time?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'm fine with the way D&D 3.0/3.5 handles spellcasters compared to melee warriors: magic should be powerful, but, more specifically, it is a major feature of how D&D was designed.

Then again, I share a similar viewpoint about Jedi in Star Wars games.



When it comes to GURPS, you need a GM that is able and willing to step in to regulate.

Oberoni Fallacy. In all three cited examples, actually. Rule Zero does not mean the system is not broken. If the GM has to step in an regulate, there's an imbalance somewhere.

[Harrow]

Oberoni Fallacy. In all three cited examples, actually. Rule Zero does not mean the system is not broken. If the GM has to step in an regulate, there's an imbalance somewhere.

I believe this does not count as an example of the Oberoni Fallacy. From what I can tell, he isn't saying that these things are balanced, but arguing that they shouldn't be balanced.

[Just to Browse]

But that's circular logic. "Fighter is a mundane so he's not useful. You can't make him useful, because he's a mundane."
If you make Fighter and Rogue into a higher level concept then it will be a higher level concept. It's only a matter of imagination and breaking of stereotypes/conventions. There's no "flavor" to keep, so that's not really a problem, unless by "flavor" you mean uselessness. Simply put Fighter and Rogue were presented as mundanes throughout the editions and it got ingrained into peoples minds so hard that they can't really imagine anything else.No, that's called a definition. Fighters are defined as being mundane and flavorless, so of course you cannot give them non-mundane capabilities or extra flavor because it would violate their mundanity and flavorless-ness.

This is based on consensus from people in general. Personally, I don't think the fighter should exist--a class defined as "good at fighting" has zero conceptual space, and the images it evokes are like cancer for creativity. But as soon as you hand a rogue a move like Shadow Teleport, consensus becomes that it isn't a rogue anymore. As soon as you give a fighter a high-level mount, people will want to call him an [Adjective] Knight instead.


Which I find laughable, because even in their weak, mundane states, Fighter and Rogue aren't really that mundane. I mean, it's not really mundane for a high level Fighter to kill a dragon that's much bigger than him, or swim in lava with no problem, or fall from an equivalent of the Empire State Building and easily survive. I could go on.I agree. It's crazy that people want to retain mundane-ness is a high fantasy world, and even the basics of high-fantasy settings require us to ignore little things like physics. But if you're writing a "quadratic rogue", you need to give it quadratic abilities that don't look like magic at all. And that crap is impossible.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I agree. It's crazy that people want to retain mundane-ness is a high fantasy world, and even the basics of high-fantasy settings require us to ignore little things like physics. But if you're writing a "quadratic rogue", you need to give it quadratic abilities that don't look like magic at all. And that crap is impossible.

Actually, E6 is pretty mundane and gritty. And awesome, but that's beside the point.

[ryu]

Bring D&D into the near future and give them science which will basically be indistinguishable from magic by then? We're prototyping human cloning and teleportation of particles already....:smallcool:

[OldTrees1]

No, that's called a definition. Fighters are defined as being mundane and flavorless, so of course you cannot give them non-mundane capabilities or extra flavor because it would violate their mundanity and flavorless-ness.

3/4ths correct.
A fighter would still be flavorless if it had a long list of optional flavored abilities to select from (see the flavor in the fighter bonus feats).

[Just to Browse]

Doesn't paladin turn into tier two with all the acfs and other such love they got over time?

Oh, how I wish. His peak comes with the Underdark Knight's earth glide ability, Sword of the Arcane Order, and Battle Blessing, and he's only getting level 4 spells (at max, practically he's casting at level 1 or 2) and even those aren't enough to bypass all skill checks.

A solidly-optimized paladin can score Tier 3 for sure. He's a combat monstrosity with lots and lots of good spells on hand. But he still can't auto-win encounters.

EDIT: @OldTrees1, I round up. :smalltongue:

[Isamu Dyson]

Oberoni Fallacy. In all three cited examples, actually. Rule Zero does not mean the system is not broken. If the GM has to step in an regulate, there's an imbalance somewhere.

What about Pepperoni?

GURPS is a point-buy system: you can build a short-lived cripple and physical god with the same set of rules. It is up to the GM to set limits and step in when something abusive gets snuck on a character sheet.

[Lanaya]

Personally, I don't think the fighter should exist--a class defined as "good at fighting" has zero conceptual space, and the images it evokes are like cancer for creativity.

The warblade is a class which is simply 'good at fighting'. They can strike multiple opponents with a single attack, inspire their allies to fight more effectively, leap onto and savage enemies, shrug off attacks and spells with sheer force of will, carve through solid rock, effortlessly parry attacks, move at super speed, ignore armour by striking through their foe's weak points, catch their enemies off guard with a perfectly aimed strike and bull rush people with enough force to as much damage as a greatsword strike. By level 5. Warblades are the fighter done right, they're entirely mundane and all their abilities are simply 'really, really good at fighting', but they can do interesting things and contribute to a fight, rather than the fighter, who can hit something with a big stick or hit something with a big stick slightly harder.

[Just to Browse]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

If you're saying the warblade is really good at fighting and therefore it's OK for it to not be good at anything else, you would be incorrect because that's a re-skinned version of the fighter problem.

If you're saying the warblade is only good at fighting, you would also be wrong. The warblade gets baby flight (big jump checks), the power to break physics and double their ally's actions, the ability to mine through rock by ignoring hardness, and a 4 + Int skills on a decent skill list. At level 5.

If you're trying to sell me on ToB, then don't worry I'm already there.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What about Pepperoni?

GURPS is a point-buy system: you can build a short-lived cripple and physical god with the same set of rules. It is up to the GM to set limits and step in when something abusive gets snuck on a character sheet.

So in other words, a point buy system is inherently flawed with respect to balance because the player's ability to min/max a character is great enough that it requires Rule Zero to keep it in line?

I couldn't agree more. But that doesn't make it a balanced system. Attempting to claim that the GM's ability to step in when something gets abusive as a means of proving that it is not imbalanced is the very definition of the Oberoni Fallacy.

The reason 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard' exists is that a Fighter gets better at a narrow and limited ability (i.e. beating on things, possibly also tripping and disarming them), and does so in a linear fashion, wheras the Wizard (or, indeed, any full caster with a broad spell list) not only gets more powerful effects, the type of effects they gain access to also balloons out of proportion.

A fighter can hit things. Maybe he can also trip or disarm them. A Wizard has dozens of options. He can selectively target any of an opponent's vulnerabilities to effectively defeat him in one shot. A Fighter has no way around immunity to physical damage or simply being out of reach.

[Zrak]

In a world where an archer can shoot 5 arrows in 6 seconds and actually hit with them

Just for the record, that world is a toned-down version of the real world, where a guy who trained for like three years can fire ten arrows accurately in less than five seconds.

[OldTrees1]

Just for the record, that world is a toned-down version of the real world, where a guy who trained for like three years can fire ten arrows accurately in less than five seconds.

(Curious) At the same target or at multiple targets?

If at the same target then perhaps high level archers deserve a multiplier to their damage (say roll damage twice per hit to simulate to closely fired shots)

If at different targets then perhaps high level archers need more rapid shot effects and more options of what to do with their attack other than just hit for damage.

[Lanaya]

If you're saying the warblade is really good at fighting and therefore it's OK for it to not be good at anything else, you would be incorrect because that's a re-skinned version of the fighter problem.

If you're saying the warblade is only good at fighting, you would also be wrong. The warblade gets baby flight (big jump checks), the power to break physics and double their ally's actions, the ability to mine through rock by ignoring hardness, and a 4 + Int skills on a decent skill list. At level 5.

Well if you want to define the fighter as being really good at combat and totally incapable of ever doing anything outside of combat then yes, that's an inherently broken design, but I don't see anyone speaking in favour of that position anyway. What I have seen, and what I assumed you were arguing against, is people arguing against giving the fighter anything vaguely magical, because all of their powers have to be entirely a case of "I'm just that good at fighting", but all of a warblade's potent and varied abilities are entirely mundane and come about simply because you're that good at fighting. I'm saying that the concept of a fighter, who's defined entirely by skilled at combat, does work if you do it right, and when you do it right you get the warblade.

[Tysis]

There isn't really just one thing you can do to fix the problem. You would need to completely overhaul the majority of spells(assuming you wanted wizards closer to tier 3), which is nearly half the players handbook, just think about that.

Additionally adjusting the power level of spells would also mean needing to adjust the CR of many monsters, which means you may now also need to rewrite much of the monster manual.

Tome of battle is the closest thing to a fighter 'fix' there is.

Alternatively, one could just realize that wotc recognized many of these issues and addressed them in 4e and then had an epic fail of a marketing campaign that alienated their playerbase, but that is neither here nor there

[Zrak]

(Curious) At the same target or at multiple targets?

I believe the speed record is firing at a single target, though multiple targets is still pretty fast, although they were still stationary targets. The guy's name is Lars Andersen, if you want to look him up. I think there's a video of the ten arrows in 4.9 seconds and a speed comparison between him and the movie version of Legolas.

He also uses a pretty weak bow (35 pound draw, if memory serves), but still. Even with a few caveats, it's a problem if a regular, mortal guy can with three years of hard work can exceed what is supposed to be an epic fantasy hero.

[The Insanity]

No, that's called a definition. Fighters are defined as being mundane and flavorless
Citation please.


But if you're writing a "quadratic rogue", you need to give it quadratic abilities that don't look like magic at all.
Um... why? Magic is everywhere. The rogue lives in a fantasy world. Why exactly can't he have magical abilities, other than you saying he can't?

[ArcturusV]

Considering Rogues have the ability to use magic items with no training, just because they are that damned charming and rakish... that has a certain truth to it.

[Firechanter]

Ah. the old Mother Goose Tale of "Casters run out of spells"? At very low levels, maybe, but not from medium levels onward. I like doing "Iron Man" runs. It's not really uncommon to gain two levels between rests. One memorable occasion was taking the whole party (Ftr, Rog, Clr, Wiz, Drd) from level 9 to 11 in a single day, pushing on until the last spell expired. And that was core-only, XP done strictly by the book.
In other words, when a party that is _supposed_ to fight 4 appropriate encounters per day can in fact manage the equivalent of more than 12 encounters, "you run out of spells" is just a lie.

[The Insanity]

Lol. That's one of the reasons I don't like and use XP in my games. It's just too silly for me for a character to level up in a matter of days. Depending on how talented your character is fluffed as, it can take as little as a few months or as much as whole years, but definitely not days.

[OldTrees1]

Um... why? Magic is everywhere. The rogue lives in a fantasy world. Why exactly can't he have magical abilities, other than you saying he can't?

A Rogue can have magical options but must still fulfill its role for players that want a non magical rogue.
+
If one were to solve the Linear Rogue, Quadratic Wizard problem, it would be unwise to leave a Linear Mundane, Quadratic Magic problem.
=
Adding magical abilities to the Rogue ought not be the totality of your solution to the Linear Rogue, Quadratic Wizard problem.

[The Insanity]

A Rogue can have magical options but must still fulfill its role for players that want a non magical rogue.
IMO fantasy games like D&D are wrong games for people that want to play mundanes. That kinda defeats the purpose of playing a fantasy game. :smallconfused:
We have to make something clear here. By "magical" do you mean "as defined by rules" (spells, spell-Likes, Supernatural), or just fluff?

[ArcturusV]

Well... I ponder about that. I mean when you typically think of the Horse and Sword type fantasy stories? It's usually the villains who are innately magical. The heroes are more or less "mundane", perhaps empowered by their own spirituality or cunning. But typically less "magical". As DnD is a game about the heroes, it makes sense for that ideal to be represented in some way.

Granted 3rd edition just isn't good for it.

[HaikenEdge]

I feel like what rogues need at higher levels is massive bonuses to skills, independent of their skill ranks.

As for not wanting to play mundanes in D&D, I imagine there are people who want to play as Conan (the Barbarian), or Garrett (the master thief).

[Boci]

As I said before, I like this idea, but I would add one more change:

Wizards still need to prepare spells. That means multiple copies of the same spell if they want to cast it more than once. In effect, wizards need to have both the spell slot (mental preparation of the spell, or half-cast as some people fluff it) and the spell points (magical energy) to cast the spell.

How would these 3 house rules (spell points, squared casting cost, wizards must still prepare) work? Yeah, 9th level spells are still a problem, but "9th level spells " is a lot more manageable than "a variety of spells from every level".

[johnbragg]

Y
Switch to a spell point system similar to psionics for all casters, but instead of a linear progression of point cost, make it quadratic. A spell would cost a number of spell points equal to the spell level squared.

You might need to tweak the progression slightly, or the end total. But at 20th level, if a character had 500 spell points, he could cast his lower level spells with few limits, but his higher level spells he would have to use very very cautiously. A 9th level spell would wipe out a sixth of his spell points for the day.

I did some work on this, and the outcome depends on what math you use. Either high level casters lose daily access to high level spells entirely, or it doesn't make any real difference at all.

The most successful approaches that have been published reduce caster power by slashing their flexibility (sorcerer/wizard-->beguiler/warmage/dread necromancer). I've worked on an approach that attempts the job by taking A the sorcerer and banning spells above 5th level, using those slots for metamagic or for more lower level spells (a 7th level slot could be traded in for a 4th and a 3rd or 7 1sts).

A little after 5th level, an arcane caster can fly, dispel magic, fireball, and polymorph. When they get abilities that are more powerful than that, it becomes a real problem for non-Tier 1's to keep up.

[The Insanity]

Well... I ponder about that. I mean when you typically think of the Horse and Sword type fantasy stories? It's usually the villains who are innately magical. The heroes are more or less "mundane", perhaps empowered by their own spirituality or cunning. But typically less "magical". As DnD is a game about the heroes, it makes sense for that ideal to be represented in some way.

Granted 3rd edition just isn't good for it.


As for not wanting to play mundanes in D&D, I imagine there are people who want to play as Conan (the Barbarian), or Garrett (the master thief).
I guess that's true. Didn't think of that. Was gonna initially say "D&D" instead of "fantasy".

IMO the simplest options that I see are:
- make Extraordinary abilities (those that are "mundane" in nature and come from raw skill and training) have near magical effects and stress out that fluff-wise they only seem magical to ordinary people, but really aren't (some ToB maneuvers are good examples of that) (Rules quote: "Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities)"
- refluff magical abilities as mundane (which is doable; heck, even the reverse is doable! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049))

[OldTrees1]

IMO fantasy games like D&D are wrong games for people that want to play mundanes. That kinda defeats the purpose of playing a fantasy game. :smallconfused:
We have to make something clear here. By "magical" do you mean "as defined by rules" (spells, spell-Likes, Supernatural), or just fluff?

There are some players that want their characters competent without "as defined by rules"(to use your term) magical abilities yet live in a fantasy world (Kinda hard to do outside of a fantasy world).

There are some players that want their characters competent without fluff magical abilities yet live in a fantasy world (Kinda hard to do outside of a fantasy world).

I want D&D to live up to the promise it made to both of those types of players.

[johnbragg]

I feel like what rogues need at higher levels is massive bonuses to skills, independent of their skill ranks.

As for not wanting to play mundanes in D&D, I imagine there are people who want to play as Conan (the Barbarian), or Garrett (the master thief).

This gets into world-building, but I think the philosophy to adopt is that the world of a fantasy world is like clay that can be shaped and reshaped by willpower. Willpower is to CampaignSettingName as gravity or electromagnetism is to the real world.

Arcane and divine magic are very efficient ways of reshaping the world around you. But all characters with enough willpower (measured in levels, or in Hit Dice for certain monsters) can reshape their world. "Mundanes" are limited not in the quantity of their power but in the direction of their thinking.

A high-level fighter has achieved greatness through his deeds with sword and/or bow and/or shield and/or other-weapon-of-choice. With sword in hand, he is a force of nature.

So certain spells should absolutely be in his province, without making him into a half-caster. Your magic applies your willpower, well Mundaneman's willpower is just as strong, so with the right feats and options, Dispel Magic, Spell Turning, and Iron-Heart-Surge are perfectly valid uses for a weapon or a shield in a fantasy universe.

Some of the 2nd level buffs might make sense as once-per-day abilities, calling upon reserves of willpower to boost his strength (or dex or con), to gain Extraordinary speed (haste or a nerf of haste).

Philosophically, I don't see anything wrong with Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon as fighter Ex abilities, but I think boosting Weapon Specialization to 1/2 BAB is a better option--"it is the man* that counts, not the blade" (Man/orc/elf-maiden/whoever).

All that said, Something Must Be Done about what the fighter does in non-pointy-stick-oriented situations. More skill points is a start, as is a commitment to the idea that high-level adventuring fighters are the rock stars and pro athletes of a fantasy world, with the casters as the equivalents of music company and sports team executives. (Before rappers and athletes started going for those jobs.)

[Rubik]

Some of the 2nd level buffs might make sense as once-per-day abilities, calling upon reserves of willpower to boost his strength (or dex or con), to gain Extraordinary speed (haste or a nerf of haste).

Philosophically, I don't see anything wrong with Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon as fighter Ex abilities, but I think boosting Weapon Specialization to 1/2 BAB is a better option--"it is the man* that counts, not the blade" (Man/orc/elf-maiden/whoever).I think always-on abilities that can be
Dispelled as spells (and which cost nothing but actions to put back up again) would be much better. Always-on Haste? Always-on Spider Climb? Always-on GMW for any weapon you wield? Yes.

[Maginomicon]

While I understand the desire to balance magical classes in 3.5, none of these suggestions seem like they'd actually be any fun to play. The more you limit a casting class actually casting, the less they'll actually feel like a caster. This also results in situations where wizards just won't do anything most of the time when they feel like the situation can be resolved without them.

Vancian casting isn't inherently overpowered. WoTC just severely undervalued the power of many of the non-damage spells they printed, and didn't give many of the 'mundane' PHB classes nice toys. The only real fix is to rewrite every spell that isn't fireball(and maybe buff fireball a bit.)

I personally feel that several of the core classes should be replaced with ToB classes. A warblade or crusader can contribute fairly regularly in a party with a wizard and a cleric, unless they intentionally overshadow him.
Personally, I attack this problem by directly addressing the Binary Defenses vs Gradual Defenses problem (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1533.0).
The only solutions to this would be either making mundanes attack binary defenses with more potent conditions more often (as Tome of Battle took a step towards doing), or to make casters attack gradual defenses more often (as 4E did).
I enacted the latter solution by implementing Save Point Values (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306961), which convert saves into gradual defenses. This does a hell of a lot on its own in-practice. No-save effects, buff effects, recovery effects, utility effects, etc. are unaffected by this change, but all effects that allow a saving throw (i.e. almost all offensive effects) gain something similar to a miss chance.

I also enacted the former solution by implementing Called Shot Attacks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300755). Called shot attacks are only allowed once a turn on a non-touch attack roll that would deal damage, which means that mundanes are far more likely to be making called shot attacks than non-mundanes. On a successful called shot attack, the target gains a zone-stacking penalty that lasts until healed but allows the target the choice on their initiative of attempting a save (fort or will, their choice) for each injured area to ignore the injury for the duration of their turn. Since these saves are affected by Save Point Values, called shots become very powerful since the target must make the difficult choice of whether to try to ignore the penalty at the risk of significant Save Point Value loss. Even if they make the save, they still lose some Save Points and they only ignore the penalty for the duration of their turn.

I will admit that these solutions don't really affect the versatility issue that pervades the "Linear fighter, Quadratic wizard" conundrum, which is why I also...

procedurally limit the learning opportunities of classes that have significant free-form learning opportunities (Wizards, Archivists, Erudites, Factotums, Sha’irs, and similar classes) to something reasonable (more in-line with the factotum really),
enact loose but consistent time limits on campaign events so that crafting becomes a dangerous gamble (but still viable),
add a ritual component to super-powerful spells/powers using the incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm)/communals variant (banning ones that don't have a ritual yet),
change the nature of spellcasting itself so that by becoming a spellcaster you become physiologically vulnerable to fatigue, exhaustion, and ability burn, and
procedurally change the nature of spells so that using them too much makes it harder to cast spells and causes ability burn to your mental scores (which affects your save DCs and maximum spell level castable)

[vitkiraven]

Personally, I attack this problem by directly [/B][/B]addressing the Binary Defenses vs Gradual Defenses problem (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1533.0).
I enacted the latter solution by implementing Save Point Values (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306961), which convert saves into gradual defenses. This does a hell of a lot on its own in-practice. No-save effects, buff effects, recovery effects, utility effects, etc. are unaffected by this change, but all effects that allow a saving throw (i.e. almost all offensive effects) gain something similar to a miss chance.

I also enacted the former solution by implementing Called Shot Attacks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300755). Called shot attacks are only allowed once a turn on a non-touch attack roll that would deal damage, which means that mundanes are far more likely to be making called shot attacks than non-mundanes. On a successful called shot attack, the target gains a zone-stacking penalty that lasts until healed but allows the target the choice on their initiative of attempting a save (fort or will, their choice) for each injured area to ignore the injury for the duration of their turn. Since these saves are affected by Save Point Values, called shots become very powerful since the target must make the difficult choice of whether to try to ignore the penalty at the risk of significant Save Point Value loss. Even if they make the save, they still lose some Save Points and they only ignore the penalty for the duration of their turn.

I will admit that these solutions don't really affect the versatility issue that pervades the "Linear fighter, Quadratic wizard" conundrum, which is why I also...

procedurally limit the learning opportunities of classes that have significant free-form learning opportunities (Wizards, Archivists, Erudites, Factotums, Sha’irs, and similar classes) to something reasonable (more in-line with the factotum really),
enact loose but consistent time limits on campaign events so that crafting becomes a dangerous gamble (but still viable),
add a ritual component to super-powerful spells/powers using the incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm)/communals variant (banning ones that don't have a ritual yet),
change the nature of spellcasting itself so that by becoming a spellcaster you become physiologically vulnerable to fatigue, exhaustion, and ability burn, and
procedurally change the nature of spells so that using them too much makes it harder to cast spells and causes ability burn to your mental scores (which affects your save DCs and maximum spell level castable)

Do you use the costs similar to the Call of Cthulhu 3.0 spell costs?
Also, what about limiting spell casters to 0th and 1st lvl spells to standard actions (when they are not already longer, or specifically shorter), and graduating spells up to full attack action level for 2nd and maybe 3rd, to full round actions for higher level spells?

[Just to Browse]

Citation please.Please present your alternative that is supported by the general population.


Um... why? Magic is everywhere. The rogue lives in a fantasy world. Why exactly can't he have magical abilities, other than you saying he can't?

Please read the post you just quoted.

[Maginomicon]

Do you use the costs similar to the Call of Cthulhu 3.0 spell costs?
Also, what about limiting spell casters to 0th and 1st lvl spells to standard actions (when they are not already longer, or specifically shorter), and graduating spells up to full attack action level for 2nd and maybe 3rd, to full round actions for higher level spells?

If you mean the sanity variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm) (specifically the sanity cost in casting spells), then no, that's not in play, but it's not needed in this case.

[vitkiraven]

If you mean the sanity variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm) (specifically the sanity cost in casting spells), then no, that's not in play, but it's not needed in this case.

Actually, I was referring to how some spells had ability damage and others had ability drain. Like the spell Augury costing 2 Wisdom damage, while Contact Diety (Commune?) Did 1 Wisdom Drain. I didn't really think the Sanity aspect of it was important, what with most adventurers being psychotic murder hobos.

[Maginomicon]

Actually, I was referring to how some spells had ability damage and others had ability drain. Like the spell Augury costing 2 Wisdom damage, while Contact Diety (Commune?) Did 1 Wisdom Drain. I didn't really think the Sanity aspect of it was important, what with most adventurers being psychotic murder hobos.

Then no, I didn't do that. I'd never heard of the d20 Call of Cthulhu game until Spoony brought it up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFT1bE7Yjcs).

[vitkiraven]

Then no, I didn't do that. I'd never heard of the d20 Call of Cthulhu game until Spoony brought it up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFT1bE7Yjcs).

Ah, okay. Just seems to me to be an interesting way to bring an actual cost to casting spells, and make it more thematic how casting high powered spells actually temporarily (or permanently) drains the spell caster, like some source material fictions present.

[Maginomicon]

Ah, okay. Just seems to me to be an interesting way to bring an actual cost to casting spells, and make it more thematic how casting high powered spells actually temporarily (or permanently) drains the spell caster, like some source material fictions present.
The Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, and Heroes of Horror book have sanctified and corrupt spells that have sacrifice and corruption costs similar to what you describe.

What I did was implement "Spell Point Burn" which affects a new spellcasting concentration check (DC 5 + spell level + spell point burn) and when it reaches a multiple of 4 causes ability burn in the ability score that calculates save DCs. If anyone wants to see the full context of the system, PM me.

[The Insanity]

Please present your alternative that is supported by the general population.
Sorry, you made a statement of fact, not me, so the burden of proof is on you.
And what does "supported by the general population" even mean? Is this a democracy or something? Facts are facts and non-facts are still non-facts, even if they're "supported by the general population" or whatever.


Please read the post you just quoted.
I did. It doesn't contain an answer.

[Just to Browse]

Sorry, you made a statement of fact, not me, so the burden of proof is on you.
And what does "supported by the general population" even mean? Is this a democracy or something? Facts are facts and non-facts are still non-facts, even if they're "supported by the general population" or whatever.OK, my proof is every single fighter fix thread ever written. Your turn.

Your problem with the population supporting something you don't like is answered in the post you initially quoted. The only "fact" here is that lots of people want their fighter to not get phlebtonium.


I did. It doesn't contain an answer.

My bad, this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16486288&postcount=67). The one that I was responding to a response of.

[Fates]

I could get into this idea, actually. I'm a fan of game balance, but I prefer grittier, lower-power games, and, while of course D&D isn't built for that sort of thing, it's still my preferred method of play. I prefer putting huge limits on spellcasters and then giving small bonuses to mundanes- try to get everyone around the t4 region. I can understand why some folk might prefer to bring the mundanes up so that everyone's t1-2, but frankly as a DM that just makes everything harder for me.

[Pickford]

Boci:

For 1 encounter. Its last 10 minutes / CL, no? Plus 9th level spells only affect the last 20% of the game.

By that time encounters should be regularly using magic in return. Little things, like Mordenkainen's Disjunction (no CL check required), which means it (Shapechange...and any other magic) may only last 1 round.

I think the prevelance of belief that magic is so amazing, compared to the mundane, is that DMs typically are afraid of pulling out the stops with magic themselves. They want the players to win. If NPCs reacted appropriately to the setting, wizards would be priority targets and/or dispelling magics would be the most common type of magic.

I think the disconnect between what is reasonable for a setting and what may be fun for the players is where the superpowered wizard concept dominates.


ShneekeyTheLost:

I'm more worried about the Save or Lose 'rocket launcher tag' which wizards of practically any level play.

Whether it is rocket tag or not is largely dependent on what the Wizard is trying to tag. If it's an Abjurer (or anyone else with spell absorption/reflection) then not much qualifies.


By the time he hits 5th level, he's got Stinking Cloud and Fly, and is effectively unable to be harmed by melee.

Erm, Stinking Cloud is fortitude negates, the prime save of anyone who's going to go into melee, and Fly doesn't net you immunity to arrows. Sure, it's a decent enough escape spell, but it's by no means perfect.

[Gazzien]

From another thread; If you're planning on fighting mundanes, why haven't you prepared Wind Wall or been carrying a wand for the past dozen levels?

[Zrak]

Also, disjunction is going to be more of a problem for the guy who relies on magical equipment that is now ruined and which he has no means of readily replacing than the guy who can just cast shapechange again on the next round.

[Just to Browse]

If the enemy has mordenkainen's disjunction (srsly, which MM encounter had that? Do a majority of your encounters involve high-level counter-based arcane NPCs?), then the enemy also has access to hold monster and hold person and any number of abilities that will regularly wreck fighters more than they wreck wizards.

[Zanos]

By that time encounters should be regularly using magic in return. Little things, like Mordenkainen's Disjunction (no CL check required), which means it (Shapechange...and any other magic) may only last 1 round.
Smart wizards have contingencies. Stupid wizards don't make it to level 17.

Of course, at this point, the wizard is probably astral projected, and MDJ removes him from the fight if he doesn't have a contingency to just remove him from the area of affect. The rest of the party might die, but the wizard is still fine.

[Zrak]

To be fair, though, stupid wizards can spontaneously spring into existence at any level.

[Pickford]

Smart wizards have contingencies. Stupid wizards don't make it to level 17.

Of course, at this point, the wizard is probably astral projected, and MDJ removes him from the fight if he doesn't have a contingency to just remove him from the area of affect. The rest of the party might die, but the wizard is still fine.

You can't put up a contingency for any of those. :smallbiggrin:

[Carth]

Boci:


By that time encounters should be regularly using magic in return. Little things, like Mordenkainen's Disjunction (no CL check required), which means it (Shapechange...and any other magic) may only last 1 round.

Foes capable of casting 9th level spells pose a significant threat? Shocking! :smallbiggrin:

[Zanos]

You can't put up a contingency for any of those. :smallbiggrin:
A contingency, either crafted or from the evocation spell, to cast D.Door to break LoE from someone casting disjunction is perfectly valid.. Alternatively, you could just cast celerity as they are casting the MDJ and break line of effect.

[Pickford]

A contingency, either crafted or from the evocation spell, to cast D.Door to break LoE from someone casting disjunction is perfectly valid.. Alternatively, you could just cast celerity as they are casting the MDJ and break line of effect.

Guess what those are: Magic.

They get destroyed too. You can't use something after it's already gone.

edit: And you seem to be suggesting that contingencies can operate based off what other people are doing, they can not, it requires something to be done to the subject of the contingency/contingent spell.

[Just to Browse]

The fighter can have them though.

//

[Zanos]

Guess what those are: Magic.

They get destroyed too. You can't use something after it's already gone.

It takes time to cast a spell. If you can use an immediate action to teleport away from someone about to hit you, you can use it as they're casting a spell. The contingency resolves before the spell resolves if it's worded correctly. The immediate action resolves before the disjunction if it's taken at the right time.

EDIT:It doesn't say anywhere that contingencies can't respond to things other people do. Logic says that contingencies aren't omnipotent, but if the wizard passes the spellcraft check to know a disjunction is being cast, then it should respond just fine. CA does say that triggers are usually something that happens to the bearer. Usually is not "almost always" or "always."

[Kuulvheysoon]

A contingency, either crafted or from the evocation spell, to cast D.Door to break LoE from someone casting disjunction is perfectly valid.. Alternatively, you could just cast celerity as they are casting the MDJ and break line of effect.


Guess what those are: Magic.

They get destroyed too. You can't use something after it's already gone.

edit: And you seem to be suggesting that contingencies can operate based off what other people are doing, they can not, it requires something to be done to the subject of the contingency/contingent spell.

Pickford, I'm not sure if you know how the contingency spell works. Here's a relevant excerpt:
The conditions needed to bring the spell into effect must be clear, although they can be general. In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur

[ryu]

It takes time to cast a spell. If you can use an immediate action to teleport away from someone about to hit you, you can use it as they're casting a spell. The contingency resolves before the spell resolves if it's worded correctly. The immediate action resolves before the disjunction if it's taken at the right time.

Just gonna warn you right now that Picky will start a thirty page argument with you if you continue this path if his previous behavior in this situation is repeated. No, none of it will make sense. You have been warned.

[Zanos]

Just gonna warn you right now that Picky will start a thirty page argument with you if you continue this path if his previous behavior in this situation is repeated. No, none of it will make sense. You have been warned.
I can't stop. Someone is wrong on the internet.

[Juntao112]

Just gonna warn you right now that Picky will start a thirty page argument with you if you continue this path if his previous behavior in this situation is repeated. No, none of it will make sense. You have been warned.

Can spells really be expected to work the way that they are written?

[Rubik]

There (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146778) are (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236309) ways. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259836)

[ryu]

Still had to warn him. This was his best chance to simply ignore the inevitable ''debate'' and stay with the main point of the thread.

[Pickford]

Pickford, I'm not sure if you know how the contingency spell works. Here's a relevant excerpt:

Yes and if it's contingent on having been dispelled...then it's dispelled and cannot come into effect.

[Zrak]

If, on the other hand, it is contingent upon the caster recognizing that mage's disjunction is being cast, it will be activated immediately, before the spell is finished, provided the caster can reliably make a DC 24 spellcraft check.

[Abaddona]

Except that nothing stops you from wording contingency in such a way that it will trigger BEFORE you get hit by a MDJ. As Zrak pointed out - it's DC 24 spellcraft check and MDJ has short range. Even if he gets hit nothing stops him from schapechanging into something on his next turn or running away. The one who is royally screwed is not caster but his fighter buddy.
There are also other problems with it in the meta play - players can get attached to theirs character sheets - that little magical trinket he wears? It was gift from his character sister - he rescued her when he was level 5 in this fun quest, whole function of this trinket was ability to contact her once a day, you as a DM worked with this player so this item would not look like something straight from MIC but more personal, and you just destroyed that. I'm not saying that stripping PC from theirs possesions, honor etc. before killing them is bad thing, but MDJ does this in probably the worst RP-wise style.
Not to mention that when they are high level every PC probably has one or more artifacts - little flavor things which you created specifically for them as rewards for completing hard quests, not powerfull things but interesting, which match their character concept (like for example lazy rogue getting slippers which are letitng him summon several female servants in maid outfits).

[Gettles]

I'm pretty firmly in the camp of at a certain point, martial characters need to become blatantly over-the-top super human at a certain point (let's say level 10). As the expected fights they engage in become further beyond anything a human could do they need to keep pace. Along with this, I think that a character should never be weaker than his equipment (i.e. a butt-ass naked 20th level fighter should still be able to beat a weaker guy wearing the best gear in the world). By level 15 a fighter should be Dante from Devil May Cry and a Rogue should be the Prince of Persia, by level 20 the fighter is Mike Haggar (http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgysu2TR841qc8akho1_500.png) and the Rogue Carmen Sandiego.

[The Insanity]

OK, my proof is every single fighter fix thread ever written. Your turn.
Err... ignoring the fact that some of those fixes make the fighter magical, that's not really proof of anything. Let me remind you, you stated there's a definition. I'm waiting for a quote of that definition. Popular opinion on the internet isn't a definition. That's Argumentum ad populum aka. Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Your argument is invalid.


Your problem with the population supporting something you don't like is answered in the post you initially quoted.
Um, I don't dislike anything about mundane characters. :smallconfused: And what do you mean "your problem is answered"? My problem is that "general population's support" is irrelevant when talking about facts/definitions. :smallconfused:


The only "fact" here is that lots of people want their fighter to not get phlebtonium.
I wouldn't say "lots", but either way - so?


My bad, this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16486288&postcount=67). The one that I was responding to a response of.
That's the one I read. Still doesn't contain an answer. :smallconfused:

[HaikenEdge]

So, then, way to make fighter 20 worth it is by giving them the capstone of, "If you hit it (and it's nonepic and nondivine), you kill/destroy it, no save."?

[ryu]

So, then, way to make fighter 20 worth it is by giving them the capstone of, "If you hit it (and it's nonepic and nondivine), you kill/destroy it, no save."?

Doesn't pretty much everyone already do that at this level? Level 20 and beyond is the contingency chess/rocket tag zone.

[The Insanity]

So, then, way to make fighter 20 worth it is by giving them the capstone of, "If you hit it (and it's nonepic and nondivine), you kill/destroy it, no save."?
Considering that it's possible (and not even that hard) to make a Fighter that pretty much kills anything in one hit? No, I wouldn't say it's "worth it". And it still doesn't help the Fighter on levels other than 20 (which BTW isn't played that often, from what I heard).

[Pickford]

Except that nothing stops you from wording contingency in such a way that it will trigger BEFORE you get hit by a MDJ. As Zrak pointed out - it's DC 24 spellcraft check and MDJ has short range. Even if he gets hit nothing stops him from schapechanging into something on his next turn or running away. The one who is royally screwed is not caster but his fighter buddy.
There are also other problems with it in the meta play - players can get attached to theirs character sheets - that little magical trinket he wears? It was gift from his character sister - he rescued her when he was level 5 in this fun quest, whole function of this trinket was ability to contact her once a day, you as a DM worked with this player so this item would not look like something straight from MIC but more personal, and you just destroyed that. I'm not saying that stripping PC from theirs possesions, honor etc. before killing them is bad thing, but MDJ does this in probably the worst RP-wise style.
Not to mention that when they are high level every PC probably has one or more artifacts - little flavor things which you created specifically for them as rewards for completing hard quests, not powerfull things but interesting, which match their character concept (like for example lazy rogue getting slippers which are letitng him summon several female servants in maid outfits).

1) The contingency requires an event to have happened to the subject, by which time the contingency is destroyed and can not activate. Someone else doing something isn't actually something happening to the subject.

2) Even if it was possible, the contingency would trigger as soon as it was placed, because somewhere in the universe there's a "thing x" happening. This renders it impossible as a contingency.

[Samalpetey]

1) The contingency requires an event to have happened to the subject, by which time the contingency is destroyed and can not activate. Someone else doing something isn't actually something happening to the subject.

2) Even if it was possible, the contingency would trigger as soon as it was placed, because somewhere in the universe there's a "thing x" happening. This renders it impossible as a contingency.

1) A contingency is triggered by a condition the caster specifies, not necessarily an event happening to the caster.

2) The example was "If, on the other hand, it is contingent upon the caster recognizing that mage's disjunction is being cast", which would be triggered only when the caster can see the person casting and is trying to identify it

EDIT: I just remembered all the arguments that have gone about with Pickford about contingency triggers now... Can we just agree to disagree, or will this become another Pickford thread?

[Abaddona]

I'm sure that I said it before in other discussions (as many other people) but "I hear that someone casts MDJ" is valid trigger for contingency because "hearing exact specified words is something which happens to the wizard" and this is exactly same sort of condition as "falling" or "being underwater" or "air around me smells funny". Those are two simple checks which you pretty much are auto-succeding by the point when MDJ can be used by the enemy (without TPK or other horrors). Considering that we discussed this point over and over and each time it devolwed into "you can do it - no, you can't" style of argument, I will suggest to skip this point and focus on my other arguments instead.
Also if you aren't using PF version of the spell then using MDJ can pretty much end your campaign because PC instantly loses most of his WBL and rebuilding it may be tedious. Even if you let them do it easily, then there is this problem that routine of MDJ -> rebuild WBL -> another MDJ not only turns session into slapstick comedy but also is pretty much unfun due to shear amount of keeping track of which functioning itemst your character actually posses.

[Lanaya]

I think the prevelance of belief that magic is so amazing, compared to the mundane, is that DMs typically are afraid of pulling out the stops with magic themselves. They want the players to win. If NPCs reacted appropriately to the setting, wizards would be priority targets and/or dispelling magics would be the most common type of magic.

That's rather the point. Spellcasters are stupidly powerful, and the only way to beat them is to focus on them while completely ignoring their mundane companions, and even then you have to use another spellcaster. Hence, spellcasters are all-powerful, mundanes suck and can only ever do anything at all if their friendly neighbourhood spellcaster waves their magic hands around to help them out, but even then there's nothing the mundane character can do that a second caster couldn't.

[ryu]

1) A contingency is triggered by a condition the caster specifies, not necessarily an event happening to the caster.

2) The example was "If, on the other hand, it is contingent upon the caster recognizing that mage's disjunction is being cast", which would be triggered only when the caster can see the person casting and is trying to identify it

EDIT: I just remembered all the arguments that have gone about with Pickford about contingency triggers now... Can we just agree to disagree, or will this become another Pickford thread?

Probably doomed. I warned you all.

[The Insanity]

Probably doomed. I warned you all.
The Ignore option works well for me. If you don't use it then you're just asking for trouble ("you" as in the person reading this, not ryu).

[Zrak]

1) The contingency requires an event to have happened to the subject, by which time the contingency is destroyed and can not activate. Someone else doing something isn't actually something happening to the subject.

2) Even if it was possible, the contingency would trigger as soon as it was placed, because somewhere in the universe there's a "thing x" happening. This renders it impossible as a contingency.

The subject hearing mage's disjunction being cast is something happening to the subject. I'm fairly certain "If I hear/see X" is a generally accepted contingency. If you would not interpret contingency this way, command words can certainly trigger a contingency spell. In this case, the wizard speaks the command word("a free action you may perform even when it isn't your turn" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#speak)) upon recognizing the spell being cast(no action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm)) in order to interrupt its casting with his contingency.

Point 2) does not apply to either the condition of the caster hearing a spell being cast or to the condition of the caster saying a command word.

Lastly, even if all of that fails, the caster can just book it next round and come back later with different, better countermeasures.