Nekid Gladiators

[Jolnim]

A lot of posts bemoan how psions/wizards/sorcerors are "overpowered." I can't help but wonder what is the base-line used for a comparison? Granted, a high-level caster can do some pretty incredible things compared to a real-life person, but so can a high-level character of any class. e.g. A 20th level Commoner can take more damage than an average warhorse and can shrug off a fireball (at least from a low-level caster).

IMHO the game as a whole is balanced because if you strip down the caster, they are relatively low HP fodder whereas the classes that don't rely heavily on magic, when stripped down of their armor and weapons, are STILL super-human fighting machines. e.g. O'Chul got dropped in a vat of acid, fought off a shark and still managed to get within feet of impaling Xykon with a makeshift weapon (not that it would have had hurt the liche much, but still ...) that's pretty powerful. Take away all of V's spells and s/he would've been a blob of goo. Even with all V's spells, Tarquin took her down with a whip! I imagine that had T' used the whip on Roy, Roy (arguably) could have just muscled thru to begin a grapple, or used some "overpowered" fighter feat that enabled him to sunder the whip or something. I mean he has been impaled by a triceratops and is still walking around what's a puny whip gonna do!

But (the counter-argument will begin), if a caster/psion was prepared they could A, B, then C. Sure, but my point is that if *any* character is prepared they could counter their enemies' defenses, neutralize their strengths, and gain victory. Tarquin, without all of his resources (magic items & allies) is still a high-level fighter and would be tough to kill due to (probable) triple-digit HPs. Which brings me to this thread's challenge: If the characters were UN-prepared and stripped of all resources (well, lets say they have loin clothes for modesty's sake) and thrown into an anti-magic gladiator arena - who might win?

My top five pics:

1) Xykon - a high-level lich with d12s for HP and undead-enhanced strength & immunity to crits & DR. Con: relatively lower BAB.
2) Tarquin - High BAB & HP, lots of specialty combat-feats. Con: older, so penalties to physical stats.
3) Roy - High BAB & HP, highly intelligent. Con: relatively lower level than Xykon and Tarquin
4) O-Chul - High BAB & HP, intelligent & very tough. Con: possibly even lower level than Roy.
5) Gangi - high strength, lightening breath, claws, wings, high HP. Con: stupid & of unknown level.

[aldeayeah]

d12s aren't so great when you don't have a Constitution score.

On average, a d12 without CON is about as good as a d10 with +1 CON, or a d8 with +2 CON, or a d6 with +3 CON, or a d4 with +4 CON.

[KillianHawkeye]

What's this have to do with Belkar and Roy's gladiator outfits? :smallconfused:

[Mando Knight]

IMHO the game as a whole is balanced because if you strip down the caster

A system isn't balanced just because you can construct a situation where the imbalance is reversed. Magic users have the advantage over mundanes in that they do not need to rely on outside resources (i.e. magic items) to resolve problems, and causing an enemy to outright cease to exist is generally more effective than hitting them with a stick a dozen times. Remove all problems except "beat up an unarmored guy without using any magic at all" and of course the mundanes will perform better.

In fact, this is probably the one situation where a monk could come out on top, being laden with features that are only useful when unarmed and unarmored, and many of those functioning even without magic.

[Reddish Mage]

I think that when we talk about which classes are more powerful then the others, and whether a certain class is "overpowered" we need to look at the conditions that are expected to arise in normal play.

Someone just said in my thread about Psion's being OP that a "properly-built" mailman sorcerer could do 1k damage in an anti-magic field (by using feats or something so the effect isn't technically magic) and presumably wipe the board with Xykon & Tarquin in this hypothetical arena.

However, your gaming group might be different, but the ones I play in very rarely have the players in situations where they are naked and fighting under anti-magic. Just like very few spellcasters are actually going to be using munchkin tricks.

The problem with any arena setup (even without anti-magic) is that using a duel situation as a measuring stick denies an incredible amount of the versatility of the spellcaster classes. The fact of the matter is that, a moderately well-played spellcaster class, in most encounters, will wipe the board with their opponents (whether monsters or mundanes). Spellcasters can have summons or class features that are more powerful than a mundane's character of equal level, and can pretty easily be built so as to play a mundane role better than that class. What truly makes spellcasters so powerful, is that Spellcasters can outperform so heavily in an typical arena setup while having HUGE opportunity outside of an arena, in situations as far ranging from dungeons, to palace intrigues, to bake sales, to use their powers for awesome results that are well beyond anything a mundane can do without magical assistance.

[Gray Mage]

The fact that you need to limit casters to not using any spells should tell you enough about the balance of the system.

[Jolnim]

A system isn't balanced just because you can construct a situation where the imbalance is reversed. Magic users have the advantage over mundanes in that they do not need to rely on outside resources (i.e. magic items) to resolve problems, and causing an enemy to outright cease to exist is generally more effective than hitting them with a stick a dozen times...

A system is balanced if there are countermeasures available for threats. Hypothetical scenarios can be spun infinitum so, yes, you could use the rules system to make up a world where casters are the ultimate powers in that universe without anyone or anything to counter their real-world-physics bending-might. OR you can also use the rules and build a world where casters are regulated (or hated, or persecuted to the point of extinction, or ??) or where countermeasures are readily available. If the rules had no means to counter the spells, I would agree that they were unbalanced, but that is not the case.

A caster - even a psion (I think) - needs to prepare their mind/soul/spirit for the spell, they need rest to regain their spent strength. They still need to have spell components (or precious XP) for many of the mega-reality-altering spells and a lot of them take a lot of time. Yes, there are feats that allow them to cast w/out mundane components, and silently, and sans somatics and even quicker - but by that point you are utilizing a lot of resources for a relatively low-powered spell. And all of that is for naught if you have access to an antimagic field (AMF) - and in a world where high-level wizards are commonly known to exist (like hurricanes and earthquakes), a prudent precaution would be have access to AMF's just like storm-shelters and quake-resistant building materials.

My argument is also that there really are no "mundane" creatures in a system when a 20th level human Commoner can take more punishment than a clydesdale. A "mundane" character of equal level is, theoretically, going to have access to high-powered magic items just as a caster had access to their high-powered magic spells. Equipment and magic items and the ability to use them are as much class features as spells and HP. If you catch a caster unprepared (i.e. sleeping, flat-footed, etc.) they are just as susceptible to being killed and IMHO even more so due to relatively low HP, Fort & REF saves.


In fact, this is probably the one situation where a monk could come out on top, being laden with features that are only useful when unarmed and unarmored, and many of those functioning even without magic.

Yeah, I thought of including Miko - but it seemed that Roy bested her fairly easily once she didn't have her paladin powers and I think an AMF would negate those. O'course Greenhilt was using his family sword, so maybe stripped down it would be a different story...?

[martianmister]

I, for one, prefer Luna's battles. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292068)

[Harbinger]

1) Xykon - a high-level lich with d12s for HP and undead-enhanced strength & immunity to crits & DR. Con: relatively lower BAB.
2) Tarquin - High BAB & HP, lots of specialty combat-feats. Con: older, so penalties to physical stats.
3) Roy - High BAB & HP, highly intelligent. Con: relatively lower level than Xykon and Tarquin
4) O-Chul - High BAB & HP, intelligent & very tough. Con: possibly even lower level than Roy.
5) Gangi - high strength, lightening breath, claws, wings, high HP. Con: stupid & of unknown level.

First, when you say Gannji I'm assuming you mean Enor, right? Gannji has none of those things.

The winner of this fight would be Enor, because he's the only one capable of doing damage, with his claws, bite and lightning. Roy, Tarquin, and O'Chul would all die very quickly, because unless one of them has taken a level in monk or has the feat that lets fists do lethal damage, none of them can deal damage. Since Xykon is a lich and immune to nonlethal damage, (IIRC) they are actually incapable of doing anything to him at all. Enor's fortitude save is probably very high, and since Xykon isn't a monk either he can't do anything other than use his paralyzing touch. So Enor would kill the other three, then destroy Xykon.

[Bovine Colonel]

First, when you say Gannji I'm assuming you mean Enor, right? Gannji has none of those things.

The winner of this fight would be Enor, because he's the only one capable of doing damage, with his claws, bite and lightning. Roy, Tarquin, and O'Chul would all die very quickly, because unless one of them has taken a level in monk or has the feat that lets fists do lethal damage, none of them can deal damage. Since Xykon is a lich and immune to nonlethal damage, (IIRC) they are actually incapable of doing anything to him at all. Enor's fortitude save is probably very high, and since Xykon isn't a monk either he can't do anything other than use his paralyzing touch. So Enor would kill the other three, then destroy Xykon.

Nitpick - as far as I recall Enor's lightning breath would be disabled by antimagic fields.

That said, in my opinion landing a paralyzing touch would count as a victory for Xykon.

[Jolnim]

First, when you say Gannji I'm assuming you mean Enor, right? Gannji has none of those things.

Yes, Enor. I got them confused. Thanks for clarifying. Also, I hadn't thought of the non-lethal damage angle. Enor is looking better. But doesn't a lich drain levels - or is that a supernatural ability that would get supressed in an AMF?

And since we're clariying - I didn't mean for this to be an all-in fight. I was thinking more a one-on-one and that no matter what one-on-one these would be my top 5 picks for who would ultimately prevail.

Maybe Durkon should be in there, as a vampire he would deal lethal unarmed damage, plus with fast healing he is the only one who could effectively just try to keep away long enough to gain some HP.

[Composer99]

Liches (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm) are immune to electricity, which I suspect means that stripped naked with no spells, that leaves Xykon the clear winner of a brawl among the list in the OP.

[Composer99]

Maybe Durkon should be in there, as a vampire he would deal lethal unarmed damage, plus with fast healing he is the only one who could effectively just try to keep away long enough to gain some HP.

I dare say Durkon would defeat Xykon in a no-spells fistfight as long as he has Power Attack available to overcome Xykon's DR; being undead Durkon is immune to Xykon's paralyzing touch and to the negative energy damage Xykon's unarmed attacks do.

[Mando Knight]

I dare say Durkon would defeat Xykon in a no-spells fistfight as long as he has Power Attack available to overcome Xykon's DR; being undead Durkon is immune to Xykon's paralyzing touch and to the negative energy damage Xykon's unarmed attacks do.

In an AMF-enforced fistfight, any of the more martially focused characters could bludgeon Xykon to death: a lich's paralyzing touch, negative energy attacks, and DR are all (Su).

[Jolnim]

I just did some research. AMF supresses spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities, so the Durkon and Xykon's DR would do them no good but being undead still makes them immune to non-lethal damage. I suppose Roy & O'Chul could rip off an arm or leg to use as a club...?

Xykon would still have his negative energy touch attack and immunity to electricity. If Enor wasn't so stupid, he might still beat Xykon, but I doubt it. Durkon is looking lots better to me now.

O'course I hadn't thought of the MitD - he seems strong enough to just crush everyone with sheer strength - unless it is of a magical nature...?

[Zevox]

The problem with any arena setup (even without anti-magic) is that using a duel situation as a measuring stick denies an incredible amount of the versatility of the spellcaster classes. The fact of the matter is that, a moderately well-played spellcaster class, in most encounters, will wipe the board with their opponents (whether monsters or mundanes). Spellcasters can have summons or class features that are more powerful than a mundane's character of equal level, and can pretty easily be built so as to play a mundane role better than that class. What truly makes spellcasters so powerful, is that Spellcasters can outperform so heavily in an typical arena setup while having HUGE opportunity outside of an arena, in situations as far ranging from dungeons, to palace intrigues, to bake sales, to use their powers for awesome results that are well beyond anything a mundane can do without magical assistance.
Indeed. I actually used to be part of a play-by-post board for 3.5E which was primarily focused on arena-style one-on-one battles between characters (built only from content in the SRD, so mainly the core three books plus psionics), and even with a fair few rules in place that were meant to limit spellcasters' dominance (they couldn't use more than 1/3 of their spell slots or power points per fight for instance, or a cap on how many expendables [scrolls, potions, etc] a character could have at one time), they were still far and away the most common and most successful character type. Few players who weren't new to the board ever bothered making a character who wasn't at least part spellcaster, and no such character ever had more than moderate success. The most common use for non-casting classes by far was a dip in the Ranger class, because it brings the ability to use healing wands, and that was almost never more than 1 or 2 levels. And classes like Monk, Barbarian, and Rogue were so rare they may as well not have existed, especially if you were looking at the successful characters that actually won fights more than rarely.

So, yeah, let me just say from personal experience, no, the system is not at all balanced.

[Kornaki]

Your premise essentially is 'imagine the character is in a situation in which they're helpless either way. The caster is way more helpless!'

Who cares? Even the O-Chul/Vaarsuvius as a prisoner comparison is terrible; when push came to shove it was V's familiar that gave them a puncher's chance at doing damage to Xykon. V didn't even need spells to outperform O-Chul at that point, just an often ignored class feature.

[Jolnim]

Indeed. I actually used to be part of a play-by-post board for 3.5E which was primarily focused on arena-style one-on-one battles between characters ... So, yeah, let me just say from personal experience, no, the system is not at all balanced.

I would agree *if* any of the versions of D&D were meant soley for a 1-on-1 gladiatorial style game play instead of role-playing a character in a story arc. Sure D&D *can* be played that way and it is interesting to geek out and compute how many pp Laurin has used/has left, what spells V could sling to change the tide of battle, etc. D&D provided so much more than just that - its a framework upon which a creative DM can build an entire new world for his/her players to enjoy. If they enjoy hack-n-slash - it can accomodate that. If they enjoy mystery and in-depth characterization, it can accomodate that too.

An arena is just one made up situation a character could find themselves in during the context of any D&D campaign. Another could be to set a group of PC's against a nigh omnipotent ubber-powerfull caster and challenge them all to figure out how they can defeat such unimaginable power. How many of those ubber-bad guys actually succeed against a group of well-played and well-prepared adventurers? (unless the DM just wants to be a PC-killer?)


Your premise essentially is 'imagine the character is in a situation in which they're helpless either way. The caster is way more helpless!'

Who cares?

I do, that's why I started the thread. To me it is just as interesting as the more common premise of "image the character is in a situation in which magic is the only answer, which spellcaster is more powerful?" It's just at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Harbinger]

Liches (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm) are immune to electricity, which I suspect means that stripped naked with no spells, that leaves Xykon the clear winner of a brawl among the list in the OP.

Except that Xykon can't damage or affect Enor at all. As Drahcir pointed out, Enor's lightning breath doesn't work in an AMF, so neither does Xykon's paralysis. Enor has a whopping +16 to STR, being a half-dragon half-ogre (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0721.html), so since Strength was likely his highest ability score to begin with he can do enough damage with a single attack to get through Xykon's DR. The other three are even worse off, since they not only can't affect Enor but also don't have any damage reduction.

[b_jonas]

if you strip down the caster, they are relatively low HP fodder whereas the classes that don't rely heavily on magic, when stripped down of their armor and weapons, are STILL super-human fighting machines.

That's pretty much what the Ancient black dragon says in strip #627 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html).

[Composer99]

Except that Xykon can't damage or affect Enor at all. As Drahcir pointed out, Enor's lightning breath doesn't work in an AMF, so neither does Xykon's paralysis. Enor has a whopping +16 to STR, being a half-dragon half-ogre (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0721.html), so since Strength was likely his highest ability score to begin with he can do enough damage with a single attack to get through Xykon's DR. The other three are even worse off, since they not only can't affect Enor but also don't have any damage reduction.

Ah, thanks for the correction, forgot to take the AMF into account.

[Zevox]

I would agree *if* any of the versions of D&D were meant soley for a 1-on-1 gladiatorial style game play instead of role-playing a character in a story arc.
The point of the matter is the balance in terms of combat capability, though. You don't need to balance a game for role-playing and story purposes, because those are accomplished largely without game mechanics entering the equation, the odd diplomacy or bluff check aside. But once battle is joined, there are very clear discrepancies. And if a spellcaster is far superior to others in a 1-on-1, which is probably the worst nominally fair situation for them to be in since it should make their intended weaknesses of poor health and saves the biggest liability, they're certainly going to be even more so in group combat situations, where their AoE and other multi-target abilities shine in a way that no other class type can and they have allies to draw fire from them.

[Reddish Mage]

An arena is just one made up situation a character could find themselves in during the context of any D&D campaign. Another could be to set a group of PC's against a nigh omnipotent ubber-powerfull caster and challenge them all to figure out how they can defeat such unimaginable power. How many of those ubber-bad guys actually succeed against a group of well-played and well-prepared adventurers? (unless the DM just wants to be a PC-killer?)



I do, that's why I started the thread. To me it is just as interesting as the more common premise of "image the character is in a situation in which magic is the only answer, which spellcaster is more powerful?" It's just at the opposite end of the spectrum.

This is what's odd about the premise of your thread. I have not seen a thread about situations where magic is the only answer, but I've seen many (and started a few myself) about magic (or psionics) being an easy answer to the problems that were presented. A DM has to do some work to throw the PCs into situations in which casters are consistently less effective than fighters, and if the DM is constantly throwing around anti-magic fields and opponents with just the right resistances, bonuses, and counters, it becomes quite apparent that the DM is picking on the spellcasters (not to mention that wizards have a paper/rock/scissors way of playing with the DM).

In the situations which OOTS presented us, spellcasters would perform the best, and in fact, Vaarsuvius and Durkon, despite being horribly suboptimal, have on occasion shown the potential for caster awesomeness (to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party). It can be pointed out that V practically solo'd the Young Black Dragon that was pwning the rest of the party.

The Giant compared V and the Order to "Superman and a group of FBI agents" (as opposed to Superman and the Justice League). That's V, a blaster-build wizard with the most useful school of magic barred (though partly this might be V as the powergamers would write hir rather than as the Giant). He explained that, yes, V is getting benched so often to keep hir from dominating.

Let us explain clearly why spellcasters rock:

1. One easy way to show a spellcaster class is better than a mundane is to show that the spellcaster can perform better at the mundane role while still having spells for other purposes. It is very simple to create a druid that would be a more effective tank than a fighter of the same level could possibly be. That druid also comes with an animal companion that can be buffed to the point it is equally effective as a mundane of that level. For examples look up, CoDzilla. See also Gish builds.

2. Yes, mundane's can do a lot with magic items and the use magic devices ability, but its far more expensive for them to do the same sorts of tricks, and they are limited when it comes to the ability to apply metamagic as they can't take caster feats. Mundane's can also have Leadership, but so can casters.

[Kornaki]

I do, that's why I started the thread. To me it is just as interesting as the more common premise of "image the character is in a situation in which magic is the only answer, which spellcaster is more powerful?" It's just at the opposite end of the spectrum.

But you're trying to make an argument about balance. If you are left without any equipment or magic, you can't have a meaningful effect on the world regardless of whether you are a fighter or a wizard.

The reason that spellcasters are overpowered is that

Imagine that we played a game, where we have two coins. You can flip a coin and get $10,000 if you get a heads, and nothing if you get a tails. Or you can flip a coin and get $1,000 if you get a heads, and $10 if you get a tails.

Would you flip that second coin just because you get more money when you get a tails? Of course not, because what you're really interested in is what happens when you get a heads. It's similar with the fighter/wizard paradigm. Yeah once in a while the wizard is totally helpless while the fighter can struggle for a bit without any gear before succumbing to his enemy, but when they're decked out the wizard is going to destroy everything in the time it takes the fighter to charge and get his first attack in. In terms of the net set of outcomes they are way more positive for the wizard than the fighter on average, even if occasionally it can be contrived for the fighter to be superior. It's not balanced, it just has a faint veneer of balance.

I also notice you are making the mistake of assuming that the wizard needs to have a specific spell memorized for each fight; there are a dozen or so spells (at the highest levels, obviously fewer at lower levels) the wizard can just have multiple copies of memorized, and be able to have a significant impact in any situation. Not to mention the availability of scrolls.

[Unisus]

Just a thought on Xykon in an AMF - isn't a lich a being completely held together by magic? Or how powerful exactly is an AMF?

[Reddish Mage]

Just a thought on Xykon in an AMF - isn't a lich a being completely held together by magic? Or how powerful exactly is an AMF?

Check it out http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

Undead (constructs and other "internally supported" magical creatures) are unaffected though their supernatural and spell-like abilities stop functions. Certain spells in place are unaffected. You can cast certain magics into the field. Psionics and Psi-like abilities work like magic for AMF purposes and are normally blocked. Extraordinary abilities are not considered magical even though they break the laws of physics and are unaffected.

There are feats and spells in obscure rulebooks that also allow magic http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10104.0;wap2

[colanderman]

My money's on the Empress of Blood.

:empress: Hello snacks! I see you took your crunchy shells off for me! *nom nom nom*

[Reddish Mage]

Though I don't think that Jolnim is right to claim the classes are balanced. I've played in plenty of 3.5 and Pathfinder games where we all felt we were fulfilling a role despite the mix of full-spellcasters, part-casters, and mundanes.

There were relatively few games were I felt there was a wizard who dominated to the point that the other players became accessories. Is my experience in the minority or does other people find that the theoretical overpower of full-spellcaster class often not translate to their actual game sessions?

[King of Nowhere]

1) everybody is mentioning how everybody will do nonlethal damage. But you can deal lethal damage with your hands, as well as deal nonlethal damage with a weapon, by taking a -4 to hit. so, roy and tarquin can still hurt you.

2) if you want to find balance, a 1v1 arena is the worst situation. the drawback of wizards is that they have limited spells. the balance is in an extended fight, or multiple encounters per day. the game was originally designed for a party taking 5 encounters before resting. after 4 previous encounters the wizard will be much weaker. If you force, or just encourage, your wizard to have several encounters before resting, he cannot fight at top power

3) there are many ways to balance wizards that are consistent with the setting and are not bashing, and simply involve how the setting would react. For example, they say wizards are better with people than bards because they can just charm/dominate them. But a wizard trying to charm his young lady into his bed will, once the effect wears off, find himself slapped with a suite of rape and magically tinkering with the minds of others. While a bard can use diplomacy with impunity for the same effect. apply similar reasonings for all similar instances of wizards supposedly being better at doing stuff than other classes.
And any warrior worth a damn will be stocked with potions of see invisibility, fly, and similar, so that a wizard cannot harrass him with impunity just by hovering 3 meterws above ground. Not to mention most ignorant barbarians will not be so ignorant not to realize that they need to boost their will save to avoid a first level spell disabling them. By the rules, a trinket for +5 to will saves is 12500 gp, any fighter type with enough money is going to have opne of them Or, for 25000 gp, the full +5 to all saving throws. save or die seems much less hot then. I find hard to believe that a fighter will sink countless gp to improve his armor from +4 to +5 but will leave himself open to magical attacks, but most people seem to expect them to do exactly that.
Most importantly, people will know to kill the wizard first. most dm have the monsters attack the party fighters, who will suffer in the front line just to let the wizards do the cool stuff without dirtying their robe. Not realistic. Any opponent with 2 neurons to rub together will know to focus the wizard first and foremost. In my campaign, the party sorceress spent half the fights running away with a handful of hp left after the first round of combat.
Clerics are more difficult to handle because they not only are powerful casters but are also maybe the tankiest class. Still, clerics have mostly save or die, and if virtually everyone on the battlefield have a +5 to saving throws from magic items, they are most likely to not be very effective.
On the other hand, with all that money spent on defending themselves from casters, people won't have the resources to buy uber armors anymore. And then the fighters come back in play.

[EugeneVoid]

Oberoni.

And Wizards can extend rope tricks or some such.

Also:
Hi, I'm a cleric.
That uses DMM like any good cleric.

Then slaps an extended persisted Bite of the Werebear on myself and a Divine Power for good measure.

Sucks for you Fighter.

[Zevox]

2) if you want to find balance, a 1v1 arena is the worst situation. the drawback of wizards is that they have limited spells. the balance is in an extended fight, or multiple encounters per day. the game was originally designed for a party taking 5 encounters before resting. after 4 previous encounters the wizard will be much weaker. If you force, or just encourage, your wizard to have several encounters before resting, he cannot fight at top power
The play-by-post board I mentioned actually accounted for that with a "fight cycle." Spellcasters did not regain spent spells or power points until after three fights (which was the number everyone on that board had heard as the intended amount between rest periods - I've not seen your number of 5 before), nor could anyone buy items or the like until after that many fights. Didn't really make a difference. Casters just have such a variety of powerful options that even forcing them to pace themselves doesn't change their ability to overcome most obstacles with greater ease than physical classes.

[Kornaki]

The play-by-post board I mentioned actually accounted for that with a "fight cycle." Spellcasters did not regain spent spells or power points until after three fights (which was the number everyone on that board had heard as the intended amount between rest periods - I've not seen your number of 5 before), nor could anyone buy items or the like until after that many fights. Didn't really make a difference. Casters just have such a variety of powerful options that even forcing them to pace themselves doesn't change their ability to overcome most obstacles with greater ease than physical classes.

I actually thought it was supposed to be 4 fights a day. If you guys are worried about melee/caster balance, then you could make a rule like 'every tournament, if more than 75% of the field are casters, then we add one additional fight to the fight cycle. If more than 75% of the field are melee-guys, we subtract a fight from the fight cycle"

Where the definition of caster/melee is to be determined.... maybe take the average highest level spell that everyone can cast (if you can't cast then it's 0), and if that number is bigger than, say 7 (assuming a level 20 field) then you add a day, and if it's smaller than 3 you remove a day from the cycle. It would be interesting to see where the breaking point is.

To get back onto the origina point, part of the power of casters is their ability to break the "x-fights per day cycle". Furthermore typically the only reason that a melee fighter is even ready to go for that fifth fight is because the magic users have been healing him the whole time.

[King of Nowhere]

the number 5 comes from the dm manual: it says that a level appèropriate encounter is supposed to rain the party of one fifth of its resources, so that after five of them the party will have to rest to regain spells and hp.

EDIT:
also, about that tournament, were other characters optimized to face a caster? did they have boosts to saves and items to counter basic strategies like fly or invisibility?
Because, I admit I'm not the greater autority on minmaxing, but I have troubles seeing what a wizard can do against a monk well optimized to take on casters. high base saves + item boosts + high touch ac + spell resistance means he can take almost any spell with impunity, add in a few fly potions, and faster movement will allow you to catch the wizard if he tries to keep the distance. the wizard can summon monsters, since monks are relatively weak in melee, but the monk should just evade them (again, high movespeed helps) and focus the caster. the caster can teleport away and escape, but I have troubles seeing how he can win, at least with core stuff.
Of course such a monk would be almost useless against a fighter, which brings in a bit of rock-paper-scissor balancement.

[Reddish Mage]

3) there are many ways to balance wizards that are consistent with the setting and are not bashing, and simply involve how the setting would react. For example, they say wizards are better with people than bards because they can just charm/dominate them. But a wizard trying to charm his young lady into his bed will, once the effect wears off, find himself slapped with a suite of rape and magically tinkering with the minds of others….

And any warrior worth a damn will be stocked with potions of see invisibility, fly, and similar, so that a wizard cannot harrass him with impunity just by hovering 3 meterws above ground. Not to mention most ignorant barbarians will not be so ignorant not to realize that they need to boost their will save to avoid a first level spell disabling them. By the rules, a trinket for +5 to will saves is 12500 gp, any fighter type with enough money is going to have opne of them Or, for 25000 gp, the full +5 to all saving throws. save or die seems much less hot then. I find hard to believe that a fighter will sink countless gp to improve his armor from +4 to +5 but will leave himself open to magical attacks, but most people seem to expect them to do exactly that.

Most importantly, people will know to kill the wizard first.

On the other hand, with all that money spent on defending themselves from casters, people won't have the resources to buy uber armors anymore. And then the fighters come back in play.

Um… if you think a few magic items that a mid-level mundane is going to have is enough to even the score you clearly have no concept at what wizards can do. Do you honestly think wizards are awesome only if they can fly out of range and use save or suck? Resistance items are expensive till relatively high level and there are many ways wizards can cut through even +5 boosted saves. But, even if save or suck mostly just sucks, wizards can still use Planar Ally to get an ally that is more powerful than the fighters (ordinary summons can also be used to good effect without that OP spell, and there are spells that use attack rolls) and wizards could use plenty of spells that don't allow saving throws (Forcecage for example).

Also, a would-be wizard Casanova would use Hypnotism, not Charm Person. Hypnotism moves the victim up two-steps in attitude towards a particular request even after the spell expires.

Nothing you said affects CoDzilla fighter builds (which are still much more effective than an equal level fighter), nor would it affect a Gish build.

[Zevox]

the number 5 comes from the dm manual: it says that a level appèropriate encounter is supposed to rain the party of one fifth of its resources, so that after five of them the party will have to rest to regain spells and hp.
Hm, could you specify where that can be found? I have something of a hard time imaging that this wouldn't have come up on that board when the three-fight-cycle was being debated if it's true, given the extensive knowledge so many members had of the core rule books. Though perhaps it was and I simply don't remember - this was years ago.


also, about that tournament, were other characters optimized to face a caster? did they have boosts to saves and items to counter basic strategies like fly or invisibility?
Well, I should clarify that it was not a tournament. It was a board where matches were paired up once per week between characters of equal ECL.

Anyone optimizing for it of course took into account the meta-game as best they could, which did mean that non-casters had to find ways to deal with invisible or flying foes, but the simple fact is that was still much harder for non-casters than for casters. Boosts to saves, see invisibility effects, fly effects, and so on get expensive. Far more so for fighters than for casters, since the caster can make do with a scroll or memorized spell, while the fighter has to buy a permanent magic item. And even then Wizards in particular could take crafting feats to easily make those same items at half the cost.

And even the magic items fighters could pick up were always vulnerable to Dispel Magic. Winged Boots, for instance, were an obvious pick for fighters worried about flying wizards, but they were also usable only 3/day and have a set caster level of 5, so targeted Dispels could screw over a fighter relying on them.


Because, I admit I'm not the greater autority on minmaxing, but I have troubles seeing what a wizard can do against a monk well optimized to take on casters. high base saves + item boosts + high touch ac + spell resistance means he can take almost any spell with impunity, add in a few fly potions, and faster movement will allow you to catch the wizard if he tries to keep the distance.
Well, there's a variety of reasons monks were never popular as a counter to casters. One being the general meta-game again - while casters were popular, many were Clerics or Druids, and gishes (multiclass combinations meant to be able to do both casting and physical combat, or just using casting to buff themselves for physical combat beyond what a pure physical class could manage) were fairly prevalent as well, and most of these would just straight-up beat a Monk at whatever it might try to do against them.

And even for a straight wizard or sorcerer, Monks were quite vulnerable to something as common as a Wand of Magic Missiles (I don't believe any Monk ever reached a high enough level to get the innate spell resistance from Diamond Soul on that board). And a straight Psion could easily defeat Monks with Ego Whip, since basically every attempt at building a Monk had to dump charisma due to the class' heavy multi-ability dependency. And attempts to buff with potions or use-per-day items were very vulnerable to Dispel Magic/Psionics, since such items basically always default to having the minimum possible caster level.

Don't overestimate that high touch AC, either. Most wizard and psion builds could afford a good dexterity score, which helps quite a bit in making ranged touch attacks. Wizards or Sorcerers could also buy a simple Wand of True Strike for such occasions.

[EugeneVoid]

the number 5 comes from the dm manual: it says that a level appèropriate encounter is supposed to rain the party of one fifth of its resources, so that after five of them the party will have to rest to regain spells and hp.

EDIT:
also, about that tournament, were other characters optimized to face a caster? did they have boosts to saves and items to counter basic strategies like fly or invisibility?
Because, I admit I'm not the greater autority on minmaxing, but I have troubles seeing what a wizard can do against a monk well optimized to take on casters. high base saves + item boosts + high touch ac + spell resistance means he can take almost any spell with impunity, add in a few fly potions, and faster movement will allow you to catch the wizard if he tries to keep the distance. the wizard can summon monsters, since monks are relatively weak in melee, but the monk should just evade them (again, high movespeed helps) and focus the caster. the caster can teleport away and escape, but I have troubles seeing how he can win, at least with core stuff.
Of course such a monk would be almost useless against a fighter, which brings in a bit of rock-paper-scissor balancement.

The wizard can just... buff himself up and smack the **** out of the monk.

[Reddish Mage]

Hm, could you specify where that can be found? I have something of a hard time imaging that this wouldn't have come up on that board when the three-fight-cycle was being debated if it's true, given the extensive knowledge so many members had of the core rule books. Though perhaps it was and I simply don't remember - this was years ago.

I can't get you the quote off-hand but I remember it is stated in the core and it is behind the design philosophy that a monster whose CR is equal to the parties' level is supposed to deplete roughly 1/4-1/5 of the parties' resources (including expendable items). It is very often quoted in this sort of analysis. However, as it related to spellcasters, I also read in a Wizards' Q&A (from someone questioning whether spellcasters should be forced to hold back their best spells to due the unpredictable nature of encounters) that the assumption made was that spellcasters will generally be able to rest before being depleted of spells, they are not to meant to be run down each adventure. According to this Q&A the limits on spells were basically there to prevent spellcasters from recklessly using all that power gratuitously. Spellcasters are meant to do things like use their spells as a solution to problems, to some extent they were always intended to be Batman.

[Akritas]

Without a lot of knowledge of the game mechanics, it seems like it would be hard to balance the person using literally medieval tech with the guy who can shoot green phasers from his fingers, fly and go invisible.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Your argument seems to be something along the lines of "You can imagine a situation in game mechanics where a caster loses to a non-caster therefore the game is balanced."

It seems a bit flimsy.

[Greatmoustache]

i think there was a thread about a hypothetical fight between tarquin and hinjo. the thread had turned into a o'chul vs tarquin some posts later. i've said this in that thread and i say again: if there was a live action movie/series of oots, o'chul would've been portrayed by none other than samuel l. jackson.

this means he wins.

he wins any competition, fight, battle, war. any whatever. (now i hear some crazy babble about a star horse cgi animated series or something like that. see below if you're going to start with the same rap.)

against anyone. c. norris incluled. (however, solid snake not. but since he's a fictional character, and while o'chul is certainly not, this doesn't count.)

against all odds.

yes he does.

[Jolnim]

My premise is that the D&D *system* is balanced because at a minimum if one player has access to 9th level spells, so does another. IMHO it does not matter that the wizard can prepare it X-many times a day simply by studying a spellbook whereas the fighter has to spend X-amount of GP to buy a magic item capable of doing the same thing or countering it. The point is that the SYSTEM allows for both and thereby creates checks and balances. If a DM uses the rules as is and populates his world with enough XP and GP to accommodate both then it is a balanced world.

Yes, the fighter may have to prepare more for certain contingencies going up against a wizard. But think about how much the wizard had to prepare just to get to the point of being able to cast a 9th level spell in the first place! How does a wizard prepare to face a creature with high spell resistance (like a gollem or rhakshasa? answer: he/she has to prepare & plan - or get crazy lucky.

In a system talking about fantasy and magic the use of terms like "realistic" or "most common" are meaningless so the amount of hypothetical situations is limitless and all equally valid (albeit perhaps silly). e.g. the quasi-elemental plane of Ranch Dressing.

True, a gladiatorial-style arena focusing on combat is not the best scenario to measure character balance. But I simply wanted to explore which characters in OOTS are tough when caught completely unprepared and I reckoned the most unprepared situation would be this one.

And per Colanderman's comment, I think the Empress of Blood is definitely a new favorite in the Nekid arena.
My revised picks (I'm trying to stick with named characters):
1) MitD (with the contention that whatever it is isn't of the supernatural variety)
2) Empress of Blood (assuming this counts as a named character)
3) Durkon
4) Enor (he's still awfully stupid)
5) Xykon (Negative energy isn't supernatural, so would still work)

[Reddish Mage]

Two points: Not all possibilities are equally weighted. The mere possibility of endless scenarios where fighters are more powerful/more useful/more instrumental to the plot than the wizards does not make those scenarios natural or easy to produce.

The fact that you have to produce a scenario where the spellcaster doesn't have access to magic, or the fighter actually has a greater total amount of magical resources (which is not natural to the class, and standard wondrous items will never produce the effects a fullcasters can get with metamagic and the magical items available to spellcaster classes).

You can similarly argue that Star Wars games are balanced, because the GM can make the force-users life miserable and introduce home-brew to weaken the Jedi. Or that a game containing supernatural creatures (World of Darkness) and ordinary humans is balanced because you can create a scenario where the mundanes have the upper hand.

Second: Ancient Black Dragon would totally own in your arena. After all, it was her idea in the first place (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html).

[Shadowknight12]

What's this have to do with Belkar and Roy's gladiator outfits? :smallconfused:

This thread has a very disappointingly misleading title.

[Jolnim]

Two points: Not all possibilities are equally weighted. The mere possibility of endless scenarios where fighters are more powerful/more useful/more instrumental to the plot than the wizards does not make those scenarios natural or easy to produce.

I am not saying any class is any more or less useful than any other character to the plot. All characters and classes are essential to a good well-rounded plot.


The fact that you have to produce a scenario where the spellcaster doesn't have access to magic, or the fighter actually has a greater total amount of magical resources ...

I'm not saying a fighter has *greater* amounts. In fact, a fighter really only needs something to give him AMF and most of what a caster can do is null and void. Or just hit the wizard with an STR reducing poison or paralysis or any of a myriad of other techniques that can neutralize a wizard and he can win. Just like all a wizard needs to do is hit a fighter with a good spell to neutralize the fighter's strength.

I am saying ultimately it comes down to which character is best *prepared* and that so long as the DM has populated the fantasy world with sufficient resources - even just resources that are outlined in the rulebooks, not homebrew stuff - then any character class can potentially beat any other character class in any given challenge, not just combat. The details can be arranged to any class's advantage or disadvantage, but that is the job of a good DM to create an entertaining & challenging scenario. Don't blame the rules for being out of balance when the DM doesn't allow kryptonite to exist in a world with a yellow-sun full of Kryptonians.


Second: Ancient Black Dragon would totally own in your arena. After all, it was her idea in the first place (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html).

Good point. You may be right. Did she have a name & would she count if we just call her Ancient Black Dragon?

[King of Nowhere]

of course casters are still more powerful than non casters, even with plenty of preparation from the non-casters. I'm just arguing that it can be countered at least to an extent. to such an extent that it makes sense for the other classes to exist.
Also, it makes sense that wizards are more powerful than fighters, from a worldbuilding point of view. the people with the capability to alter reality with their own will should be more poweerful that those without that capability. it don't break the game as long as fighters can still be useful to the party.

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not saying a fighter has *greater* amounts. In fact, a fighter really only needs something to give him AMF and most of what a caster can do is null and void. Or just hit the wizard with an STR reducing poison or paralysis or any of a myriad of other techniques that can neutralize a wizard and he can win. Just like all a wizard needs to do is hit a fighter with a good spell to neutralize the fighter's strength.

I am saying ultimately it comes down to which character is best *prepared* and that so long as the DM has populated the fantasy world with sufficient resources - even just resources that are outlined in the rulebooks, not homebrew stuff - then any character class can potentially beat any other character class in any given challenge, not just combat. The details can be arranged to any class's advantage or disadvantage, but that is the job of a good DM to create an entertaining & challenging scenario.

Unfortunately, Jolnim, it's just plain wrong. We've explained why its wrong. A fighter is at a tremendous disadvantage in dealing with a wizard. Zevox's play by posts duels were an example in which they a tried to balance things out in favor of mundanes, but could not. That isn't an uncommon situation, I've seen it play out in other arena-style combats going back to 2nd edition. Experienced players on the board can, and do, point to actual dueling groups, as well as play in published adventures, playtests and convention play. There are people on this forum that have literally read every published book, who have played for years, who have been official playtesters. We are not speaking of a matter that there is any disagreement about among the crowd of enthusiasts. I personally, not the one to walk you through how a wizard can be built to take on any challenge a fighter can pose, and show point by point by point how easy it is for a wizard to counter a particular challenge, that a fighter could think to mount. I have participated in those discussions and it is quite obvious once you see how many ways the wizard can go about this.

A wizard CAN be prepared in advance for anything a full-class fighter can throw at him. That includes STR poison, AMF items, and so on. That's doubly true in a duel situation. AMF is not the trump card you think it is. Undead and constructs function inside an AMF, there are spells that can be cast into an AMF, and there are even published feats that allow casting inside an AMF. We discussed this quite recently in my thread on whether Psions are OP.




Don't blame the rules for being out of balance when the DM doesn't allow kryptonite to exist in a world with a yellow-sun full of Kryptonians.

Here, is another thing. Kryptonite doesn't make Superman the equivalent of a mundane human. Kryptonite is the naked AMF arena that makes superman utterly suck. Is it a fun and satisfying solution to fill a game with dead magic zones where mages become useless? Forget about the additional fact, that it is a simple thing for the player of a Kryptonian to simply wear a radiation suit. When talking about a balanced game we are not looking at a concept a game where you can turn the superhero to a zero at times to let the mere mortals shine. Balance in a game with mundanes and casters means that mundanes can fulfill their intrinsic role without casters doing it better or making it unnecessary. Mundanes should be able to do that without extraordinary measures on the part of the DM.

That just isn't the case.





Good point. You may be right. Did she have a name & would she count if we just call her Ancient Black Dragon?

No. We just call her ABD for short on the forums.

[Jolnim]

Unfortunately, Jolnim, it's just plain wrong... A wizard CAN be prepared in advance for anything a full-class fighter can throw at him... Mundanes should be able to do that without extraordinary measures on the part of the DM.

I'll concede defeat to the experts and be thankful I've always played with DM's who go to extraordinary measures to balance out their campaigns.

Guess that puts V on the top of the Nekid list. At least we'll be able to learn his/her real gender
:smallyuk:

[Kornaki]

I'll concede defeat to the experts and be thankful I've always played with DM's who go to extraordinary measures to balance out their campaigns.

Guess that puts V on the top of the Nekid list. At least we'll be able to learn his/her real gender
:smallyuk:

It doesn't take extraordinary measures because casters are only as broken as the person playing them makes them. If you make a wizard that memorizes a bunch of magic missiles and fireballs he will fit right in with the crowd. The fact that conjuring is both the most potent ability of a caster and the most complicated shuts down most imbalance at the average table just because nobody wants to dive into all those different creatures that can be summoned.

You should think of it more like a game of connect-4. If people just pick it up and play it seems like a fairly balanced game - going first has its advantages, but it doesn't make a huge difference. But then it turns out that going first actually means you can guarantee a win - at that point the game is unbalanced. The game doesn't change from balanced to unbalanced, it just seems balanced as long as the players aren't good enough to break it.

[Reddish Mage]

I'll concede defeat to the experts and be thankful I've always played with DM's who go to extraordinary measures to balance out their campaigns.

Guess that puts V on the top of the Nekid list. At least we'll be able to learn his/her real gender
:smallyuk:

I'll mirror Kornaki here. I rarely see spellcasters overwhelm the gaming table myself. Its rarely because of the DM's actions, but mostly because the spellcasters choose not to play that way, or simply doesn't know enough.

Put another way, does it matter that Durkon is potentially better in melee combat than Roy if Durkon doesn't play that way, doesn't take the proper feats, or use the magic items or buffs, and simply doesn't take point?

[Everyl]

I agree with Reddish Mage and Kornaki on this one. Primary spellcasters have the *potential* to be incredibly broken, but are only that way in a normal game if their players have the knowledge and drive to make it happen. In the years I played D&D, I've only met one player who actually tried that, and fortunately the DM was skilled enough to keep things fun and prevent him from hogging the spotlight too often.

I also wanted to weigh in on magic items as a means of balancing the scales. It doesn't work very well from a game-design standpoint, because a caster at the same level will have just as much money to spend on their magical arsenal. The hypothetical fighter has to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of gp just to (hopefully) counter what the wizard gets for free every morning, while the wizard can concentrate on items that synergize with their build or even counter the fighter's counters. It also doesn't work very well from a setting perspective, since it means that non-casters are essentially at the mercy of casters at every level. Think about it: who gets the money for a fighter's +5-equivalent sword? That's 50,000 gp in the pockets of a caster somewhere. Every potion is a few hundred more, every wondrous item or ring is thousands more. From an economic perspective, the existence of non-casters trying to prepare for possible battles with casters means that casters, as a whole, will have *even more* money to spend on making custom magic items for themselves.

In the end, you just have to find a good group of players who won't try to break the universe and let class balance be part of your willing suspension of disbelief. It works well enough for 99% of player groups that I've seen or participated in.