PDA

View Full Version : So when is class inbalance evident?



ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 09:56 AM
I think at 11th level D&D 3.5 holds up pretty good. Monks are ecstatic about having the full flurry. Barbarians likewise with greater rage. Rogues (generally) got opportunist a level ago, and now with their 6d6 sneak attack are kicking butt. The full BAB classes just got their 3rd attack. Rangers in particular who chose bow got improved precise shot, which can be a huge help in the right fights (like attacking a fortified position). Even bards are happy, throwing around inspire greatness and casting freedom of movement and greater invisibility as needed.

Yet by 20th, if you are not playing a full caster, you aren't contributing as much.

So my question to you is at what level does 3.5 start to crack? 13th, when the full casters (aside from sorcerer) get 7th level spells? 15th, when clerics can quicken divine power, wizards get otto's dance, and druids get wild shape huge?

Grizzled Gryphon
2007-01-21, 10:03 AM
Does everyone go with this hype anymore? I mean, come on, "if your not playing a full caster, your not contributing"? If the games you guys are playing demand such things,then I feel sorry for you guys.

There is nothing wrong with NOT being a full caster at 20th level.

No, never mind. I am not going to get into this arguement. All I am going to say is, if you guys are that hooked on power gaming, then more power to you. Your right, of course. What else would you want at 20th level? A party with a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric, and a Druid. All the other classes suck, anyway, right?

Sheesh, how sad.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 10:19 AM
Of course there's nothing WRONG with it. But if you're a Fighter 20 in a group with, say, an even quasi-optimized Druid 20, Wizard 20, and Beguiler 20, then you will barely be able to contribute in the vast majority of circumstances. There's a little wrong with that--not with playing a high level fighter. But that's how it is.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 10:42 AM
Does everyone go with this hype anymore? I mean, come on, "if your not playing a full caster, your not contributing"? If the games you guys are playing demand such things,then I feel sorry for you guys.

There is nothing wrong with NOT being a full caster at 20th level.

No, never mind. I am not going to get into this arguement. All I am going to say is, if you guys are that hooked on power gaming, then more power to you. Your right, of course. What else would you want at 20th level? A party with a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric, and a Druid. All the other classes suck, anyway, right?

Sheesh, how sad.

What's sad is sitting there, doing nothing, situation after situation. Let me give some examples:

DM: The party discovers a vast labyrinth. Tunnels branch off in all directions. What do you do?
Fighter: Okay, let me get my breadcrumbs out.
Cleric: Don't bother. I cast find the path.

DM: The evil lich glares at the party from up on the ledge. He howls, "You are all doomed!"
Fighter: I take out my bow and fire at the lich!
DM: Don't bother rolling to hit; the arrows hit some kind of wall of wind and arc upwards, away from the lich.
Wizard: I nail the lich with evard's tentacles.
DM: Okay, he's struggling in the tentacles' grasp.
Fighter: I'll go finish him off. I run over to the wall and start to climb up to the lich's ledge.
DM: The wall is coated with grease. You can't get up there.
Cleric: How about a little searing light action?
DM: The lich is toast.

DM: What does the party do next?
Fighter: Celebrate our victory!
Cleric: No. I make a knowledge religion check.
DM: You remember that lich's have a phylactery that needs to be located and destroyed.
Fighter: I get out my shovel and find a good spot to start digging.
Cleric and Wizard in unison: No! One of us casts discern location.
DM: You identify the exact spot. It's 10 feet into one of the walls.
Fighter: Sounds like you still need my shovel.
Wizard: I cast shatter on the stupid shovel. Then I cast passwall.
DM: You find the phylactery. Well done.

DM: You are in a hexagonal room with 6 doors. Each door has a strange glyph on it with a strange doorknob.
Fighter: I go try to turn one of the doorknobs.
DM: You get zapped, and it doesn't budge.
Wizard: Let me handle this. I take out my scroll of analyze dweomer. I examine all the glyphs and all the doors.
DM: You figure out exactly how to read the glyphs to open all the doors.

DM: The pit fiend rises up malevolently before the party.
Fighter: I charge!
DM: Make a dc27 will save.
Fighter: What??? Rolling ... crap, a 23.
DM: You turn and flee.

Fighter: I quit.

InaVegt
2007-01-21, 10:53 AM
But Ken-do-nim, that's both a poorly DM'ed campaign, end a fighter which doesn't do what he's supposed to do. The fighter has to protect the spellcasters, while the spellcasters get rid of the enemies. But of course the fighter should also get his chance to shine from the DM.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 11:07 AM
But Ken-do-nim, that's both a poorly DM'ed campaign, end a fighter which doesn't do what he's supposed to do. The fighter has to protect the spellcasters, while the spellcasters get rid of the enemies. But of course the fighter should also get his chance to shine from the DM.

Maybe the fighter isn't played well or equipped well, but poorly DM'd? At high levels, may I ask, what is the encounter that the DM should throw out for the fighter to shine? Most of those encounters I just presented were from actual playing experience I've had.

Anyways, we're getting off topic. I still want to know what levels things start to break down. Believe me, this forum doesn't need another thread arguing class balance. If you believe that there isn't a significant imbalance even at high levels, then that's perfectly fine but please don't post to this thread.

InaVegt
2007-01-21, 11:11 AM
An encounter in an antimagic zone or a golem, it's nice to be a spellcaster, but when there are no spells to cast or the enemy is immune.

And I'm completely aware the fighter is less powerfull than the spellcasters at high levels, doesn't mean it needs to be fixed. The fighter isn't there to kill but to protect the spellcasters while they get rid of the enemies.

Ali
2007-01-21, 11:18 AM
Hmm... from what I can see, most of the complaints are about characters that are above level ten... so the solution would be - don't play characters above that level!

Telok
2007-01-21, 11:18 AM
Good news: It's not quite as bad as ken-do-nim makes out. That's a fairly (actually, very) extreme example.

Bad news: Non-optimal Psion (Nomad) 16/Fighter 1 as secondary party tank, blaster, healer, SR buffing, while primary dispelling, scrying, and travel. While the Fighter 17 using full sources except Book of Nine Blades (which he's currently reading) died three times during the last fight.

The psion used Schism to double overpower Crystal Shard for three rounds in a row (dwarf, 18 Con, Psionic Body) while enjoying a DBF (Energy Conversion and SR) and barely noticing a couple of other spells. The fighter got a charge, full attack sequence, and went down despite having twice the starting HP and only 3 points less AC. If I recall correctly that was rounds 2, 3, and 4 of the last major fight. That combat took 25 to 30 rounds to complete, two Last Breath spells, one Bend Reality to emulate Psionic Revivify, and three(?) True Rezzes afterwards.

So, um... It's a bit extreme to say "Casters win - no exceptions". But not untrue. And yeah, the make/break point seems to be about levels 11 to 15 depending on play style and game setting.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-21, 11:20 AM
I never start there with my campaigns. We start at level 1, and if we end up above level 10, it's because the players earned it. We also typically enter epics.

I do what I can to power up the melee characters so that they can perform better in combat. I'm still waiting on my three recently ordered books to come in so I can fix it for good (ToB, CS, CW).

Malachite
2007-01-21, 11:31 AM
Is it just me, or does noone here think that wizards should be more powerful than fighters at high level? They're breaking the freakin' laws of physics, man! Fighters are only going to shine when casters run out of effective spells, or in situations where the casters can't use said spells. You can argue that an antimagic field is an artificial way of nullifying the casters' advantages, but it seems to make sense to me that at higher levels it will be more likely that people will use antimagic fields as protection because that's where the greatest danger comes from.

I like this analogy - a wizard is the guy with a rocket launcher and a sniper rifle, while the fighter's the guy with a machete and pistol. Fighter can do relatively jack all against anything at range, but if anyone closes in on the wizard he's in trouble. High level grappler monk moving at ~30mph anyone?
Big enemies are like tanks - realistically the fighter's going to struggle on his own, but equally if noone distracts the machine guns the wizard's going to get cut down before he can launch the rocket.

To answer the question, I think the original poster had the right idea - 13-15. My lvl 18 DwDef is having a tough time contributing right now other than shielding the rest of the party.

Indon
2007-01-21, 11:37 AM
DM: You feel waves of exaustion wash over you. Behind your party is the sorceror who you suddenly realize was orchestrating the entire plot! The monk makes his spell resistance, by the way, the rest of you lose six strength and dexterity. Note that exhaustion can drop you to zero strength.

Monk: Ha! I rule.

Fighter: Oh, man, I lose damage.

Wizard: *grumble* freaking aging penalties...

DM: Eh?

Wizard: ...I'm at zero strength.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Maybe eighty-year-old humans shouldn't go around adventuring, eh?

Wizard: But the casting stat bonuses!

Cleric: Well, I'm all good, so, I'll just...

DM: You notice the sorceror has a lackey sorceror. He casts Ray of Enfeeblement on you.

Cleric: That shouldn't be a problem, I have plenty of...

DM: It's maximized. You lose 11 strength. What are you at now?

Cleric: One.

DM: If the ray puts you low enough, the exaustion puts you at zero. So what's your strength?

Cleric: Er... zero.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Either of you happen to prepare a silent, still Bull's Strength?

Wizard and Cleric: No.

DM: Well, then. Roll initiative.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 11:48 AM
Good news: It's not quite as bad as ken-do-nim makes out. That's a fairly (actually, very) extreme example.


Well, you can point things out with the lich and pit fiend fights that could make things different, but figuring out the labyrinth, the doors, and the lich's phylactery location are things spellcasters excel at. At high levels, divination spells make all the puzzle-solving the domain of the casters only.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-21, 11:49 AM
Or a highly cerebral rogue, though it's a bit more challenging for them.

the_tick_rules
2007-01-21, 12:03 PM
well there's plenty of times fighters come in handy. high sr's, saves, anti-magic fields, teleporting into meele and other abilities can really hamper wizards. i'm not saying a 20th level wizard couldn't beat a fighter. but there's a reason all parties are not all wizards all the time. EVERYTHING in d&d has a counter. it's about covering as many bases as you can, not using one exclusively.

Saph
2007-01-21, 12:05 PM
So my question to you is at what level does 3.5 start to crack? 13th, when the full casters (aside from sorcerer) get 7th level spells? 15th, when clerics can quicken divine power, wizards get otto's dance, and druids get wild shape huge?

I'd say somewhere between levels 11 and 20 . . . hard to pin down exactly when, though. 15, maybe.

It's probably more of a gradual process. At level 10 D&D is fine. At level 20 D&D is frelled. Slowly over those 10 levels, the game gets more and more unbalanced until by level 20 it requires a lot of work by the DM to keep the game playable.

There's also the issue that combat at higher levels tends to be horribly lethal. At lower levels you have more safety nets, but at higher levels battles tend to be massacres. Either the PCs get things right and slaughter the enemies in a volley of high-level spells, or they make a mistake and lose half the party in a single round.

So . . . yeah. The moral is: start games at levels 1-5. That way, if you do finally work your way into the high levels, you've had enough time to get involved enough in the story and pick up enough plot connections and unusual items/abilities that it's not so much of a problem.

- Saph

PS - This is why I find all the level 17-20 'character optimisation builds' around these boards to be so ridiculous. If your character is STARTING at that level, odds are the game is in a death spiral already. And if you're not, it's 90% certain that your character will be killed or the game will end before you reach 20th.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 12:08 PM
Is it just me, or does noone here think that wizards should be more powerful than fighters at high level? They're breaking


I made a post once long ago that classes that require more time on the player's part should be more powerful. Choosing & learning your spells can take a while, just like for druids flipping through the books and finding the right animals to wild shape into and summon. I know plenty of people who don't want to play those classes because of the effort involved.



To answer the question, I think the original poster had the right idea - 13-15. My lvl 18 DwDef is having a tough time contributing right now other than shielding the rest of the party.

Thank you for answering the intent of the thread. Okay, so it sounds like if you play a campaign like Red Hand of Doom, or anything that caps around 12, you'll never notice any of these problems. I think there's a lot more people playing D&D 12 and under than 13+.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 12:12 PM
So . . . yeah. The moral is: start games at levels 1-5. That way, if you do finally work your way into the high levels, you've had enough time to get involved enough in the story and pick up enough plot connections and unusual items/abilities that it's not so much of a problem.

- Saph

PS - This is why I find all the level 17-20 'character optimisation builds' around these boards to be so ridiculous. If your character is STARTING at that level, odds are the game is in a death spiral already. And if you're not, it's 90% certain that your character will be killed or the game will end before you reach 20th.

I agree. One problem comes when your 19th level played from first character dies for good, and you start a new one. Naturally you bring in an optimized up the wazoo character. I too laugh at some of the builds people propose, because sure at 17th they kick but from levels 1-11 that character is kinda useless. It is much easier to start an arcane trickster or mystic theurge at high level. So I call this problem the "Hooray my long-standing character died now I get to bring in my killer build" syndrome.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-21, 12:31 PM
What the non-caster classes really lack are good high-level powers. They don't need to be really equal to high-level spells, just barely as good.
Said fighter, for example, after he reached 10th level, he has no good feats to buy. Only the ones he could buy at low level.
Weapon Specialization. Greater Weapon Focus. Greater Weapon Specialization. Improved Critical. Greater Two-Weapon-Fighting (if he even buys it). And that's it. a 20th level Fighter can't get any 20th level based power, while wizards and clerics are using 9th level spells 3-4 times a day.

Those examples you showed indicates a DM not prepared for a wizard player. There's so many ways to weaken him on those situations it's not even funny.
Of course, the fighter will not bother finding the location of things, knowing others can do it better and faster. I mean, what fighter will try to touch a glyph? That's simply not smart. Now, a lich (a full caster) will likely be ready to face pesky clerics and fireball hurling wizards. They are supposed to be incredible smart, and predict many situations. Demons? Likewise. They are strong enough to survive the wizard's first attack and then render him to bits. Clerics would have a better chance.

Heck, I had a DM that only did battle-based campaings. I came in with a 5th level wizard that could cast fireball twice a day, and it screwed the game (I could blast nearly anything) because he didn't knew how to fight wizards. Now, my other friend when he DMs, our casters need to sweat to be useful in the game.

It's all a matter of DMing. And the fighter still lacks good high level feats :p

Artanis
2007-01-21, 12:51 PM
I like this analogy - a wizard is the guy with a rocket launcher and a sniper rifle, while the fighter's the guy with a machete and pistol. Fighter can do relatively jack all against anything at range, but if anyone closes in on the wizard he's in trouble. High level grappler monk moving at ~30mph anyone?
Big enemies are like tanks - realistically the fighter's going to struggle on his own, but equally if noone distracts the machine guns the wizard's going to get cut down before he can launch the rocket.
I'm suddenly reminded of a scene from the Starship Troopers movie:

Ace: "Sir, why are we learning to throw knives if some guy can just push a button and nuke everything?"
Zim: "Put your hand against that wall."
Ace: "Uh..ok..." *does so*
Zim: *pins Ace's hand to the wall with a thrown knife* "Now try pushing a button."

Shazzbaa
2007-01-21, 01:03 PM
Well, you can point things out with the lich and pit fiend fights that could make things different, but figuring out the labyrinth, the doors, and the lich's phylactery location are things spellcasters excel at. At high levels, divination spells make all the puzzle-solving the domain of the casters only.

Whereas the pit fiend and lich are the only ones that I, were I a fighter, would really have a problem with. I mean, I haven't played at uber-high levels, but honestly, before pulling out breadcrumbs and shovels I would be turning to my spell-casting companions and asking, "Soooo... do you guys have some kind of 'find the thing' spell?" Likewise, if there's a room full of magical doors, then I would assume the magical guy is the one who's gonna figure it out. If for some reason, the magical guy can't, then I'll do what I can. It's when fighting that I should get to do stuff... being a fighter and all.

The lich and pit fiend would bother me if that's the sort of thing that always happens, the lich moreso since there's literally nothing the fighter could do.

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 01:32 PM
Ahem.... discern location doesn't give you the EXACT location of something. Just the name of the room it's in.

And sometimes divination spells are welcomed by the non-spellcasting members of the party. Asking the cleric to cast discern location is a lot easier than asking all over where someone is.

The fighter being useless in a fight is just because of a bad DM. For the pit fiend and the whole fear aura... hero's feast, 6th level cleric spell that can make the entire party immune to fear. Also usable by bards, letting the bards have a little bit of useflness so that the cleric can prepare more healing spells. Seeing as how the lich got owned so quickly by the casters... ever thought that the lich should have used his resources to protect against casters rather than the fighter? A little bit of research, and then the lich could protect against the party's most common spells, making the encounter more challenging while letting the fighter do something!

So... casters help the non-casters, while non-casters do things to make the casters not have to use as many spells, and enemies have protections against casters instead of non-casters because non-casters are less of an immediate threat... and everyone can contribute yay!

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 01:47 PM
DM: You feel waves of exaustion wash over you. Behind your party is the sorceror who you suddenly realize was orchestrating the entire plot! The monk makes his spell resistance, by the way, the rest of you lose six strength and dexterity. Note that exhaustion can drop you to zero strength.

Monk: Ha! I rule.

Fighter: Oh, man, I lose damage.

Wizard: *grumble* freaking aging penalties...

DM: Eh?

Wizard: ...I'm at zero strength.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Maybe eighty-year-old humans shouldn't go around adventuring, eh?

Wizard: But the casting stat bonuses!

Cleric: Well, I'm all good, so, I'll just...

DM: You notice the sorceror has a lackey sorceror. He casts Ray of Enfeeblement on you.

Cleric: That shouldn't be a problem, I have plenty of...

DM: It's maximized. You lose 11 strength. What are you at now?

Cleric: One.

DM: If the ray puts you low enough, the exaustion puts you at zero. So what's your strength?

Cleric: Er... zero.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Either of you happen to prepare a silent, still Bull's Strength?

Wizard and Cleric: No.

DM: Well, then. Roll initiative.

So, what you're saying is... casters beat casters?

Wow, what a revelation.

...And what self-respecting cleric would only have 12 Strength?

Starbuck_II
2007-01-21, 01:47 PM
DM: You feel waves of exaustion wash over you. Behind your party is the sorceror who you suddenly realize was orchestrating the entire plot! The monk makes his spell resistance, by the way, the rest of you lose six strength and dexterity. Note that exhaustion can drop you to zero strength.

Monk: Ha! I rule.

Fighter: Oh, man, I lose damage.

Wizard: *grumble* freaking aging penalties...

DM: Eh?

Wizard: ...I'm at zero strength.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Maybe eighty-year-old humans shouldn't go around adventuring, eh?

Wizard: But the casting stat bonuses!

Cleric: Well, I'm all good, so, I'll just...

DM: You notice the sorceror has a lackey sorceror. He casts Ray of Enfeeblement on you.

Cleric: That shouldn't be a problem, I have plenty of...

DM: It's maximized. You lose 11 strength. What are you at now?

Cleric: One.

DM: If the ray puts you low enough, the exaustion puts you at zero. So what's your strength?

Cleric: Er... zero.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Either of you happen to prepare a silent, still Bull's Strength?

Wizard and Cleric: No.

DM: Well, then. Roll initiative.

Why target the Cleric? Wouldn't nullifying the Fighter be better...oh right spells...

Thomas
2007-01-21, 01:48 PM
Is it just me, or does noone here think that wizards should be more powerful than fighters at high level? They're breaking the freakin' laws of physics, man! Fighters are only going to shine when casters run out of effective spells, or in situations where the casters can't use said spells. You can argue that an antimagic field is an artificial way of nullifying the casters' advantages, but it seems to make sense to me that at higher levels it will be more likely that people will use antimagic fields as protection because that's where the greatest danger comes from.

Sure, but that's a **** deal for the classes who aren't full casters. It's also why I prefer a game like RuneQuest, where magic wins - but everyone is a magician. (I mean everyone. The farmer is using Barntar's magic to plow his field, and his wife uses Ernalda's blessings to make food, keep peace in the house, treat the kids' scrapes, and so on.)

Some other games handle the issue well, too; magic is powerful, but non-magic-users remain viable choices as characters.

D&D has a real system defect in that some classes are simply over-poweringly good at high levels.

Suzaku
2007-01-21, 01:52 PM
DM: You feel waves of exaustion wash over you. Behind your party is the sorceror who you suddenly realize was orchestrating the entire plot! The monk makes his spell resistance, by the way, the rest of you lose six strength and dexterity. Note that exhaustion can drop you to zero strength.

Monk: Ha! I rule.

Fighter: Oh, man, I lose damage.

Wizard: *grumble* freaking aging penalties...

DM: Eh?

Wizard: ...I'm at zero strength.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Maybe eighty-year-old humans shouldn't go around adventuring, eh?

Wizard: But the casting stat bonuses!

Cleric: Well, I'm all good, so, I'll just...

DM: You notice the sorceror has a lackey sorceror. He casts Ray of Enfeeblement on you.

Cleric: That shouldn't be a problem, I have plenty of...

DM: It's maximized. You lose 11 strength. What are you at now?

Cleric: One.

DM: If the ray puts you low enough, the exaustion puts you at zero. So what's your strength?

Cleric: Er... zero.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Either of you happen to prepare a silent, still Bull's Strength?

Wizard and Cleric: No.

DM: Well, then. Roll initiative.

Don't you mean

"DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Either of you happen to prepare a still Bull's Strength and have Eschew material?"

ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 02:05 PM
Ahem.... discern location doesn't give you the EXACT location of something. Just the name of the room it's in.

And sometimes divination spells are welcomed by the non-spellcasting members of the party. Asking the cleric to cast discern location is a lot easier than asking all over where someone is.

The fighter being useless in a fight is just because of a bad DM. For the pit fiend and the whole fear aura... hero's feast, 6th level cleric spell that can make the entire party immune to fear. Also usable by bards, letting the bards have a little bit of useflness so that the cleric can prepare more healing spells. Seeing as how the lich got owned so quickly by the casters... ever thought that the lich should have used his resources to protect against casters rather than the fighter? A little bit of research, and then the lich could protect against the party's most common spells, making the encounter more challenging while letting the fighter do something!

So... casters help the non-casters, while non-casters do things to make the casters not have to use as many spells, and enemies have protections against casters instead of non-casters because non-casters are less of an immediate threat... and everyone can contribute yay!

I'm almost sorry I posted that detailed example of high-level play; I really really don't want this thread to be hijacked about arguing class balance. I say almost because it was fun to write, and at least I thought shattering the shovel was funny.

At any rate, the original question of when the imbalance starts to be noticeable has been answered, namely starting at level 13 and being more evident by level 15, so this thread can now end.

Draco Ignifer
2007-01-21, 02:10 PM
So, what do the wizard and cleric do after their meatshield is gone and the Pit Fiend grapples the cleric, and proceeds to Power Word Stun the low-HP wizard while maintaining the grapple, due to its massive concentration check? Unless the Cleric somehow beats a strength 37 demon's grapple, he's stuck in quickened fireball hell, the first round he's being pinned and having his Focus thrown away, and he gets constricted every time the wizard doesn't need another stunning.

You need your meat-shields

*edit: Sorry, didn't notice your post - mine took a while to write.*

Dausuul
2007-01-21, 02:37 PM
Don't you mean

"DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Either of you happen to prepare a still Bull's Strength and have Eschew material?"

Actually, he means

"Cleric: Nope, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't work that way. The penalty cannot take you below 1 Strength. Even if you're at -6 Strength from another source, RoE still can't get you to zero. So I have 1 Strength left, and on my turn I cast Greater Dispel Magic and make it all better."

Dark
2007-01-21, 02:50 PM
Actually, he means

"Cleric: Nope, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't work that way. The penalty cannot take you below 1 Strength. Even if you're at -6 Strength from another source, RoE still can't get you to zero. So I have 1 Strength left, and on my turn I cast Greater Dispel Magic and make it all better."
Funny. If I read Ray of Enfeeblement closely enough, it seems to say that "The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1" is simply one of the spell's effects. In addition to imposing a Strength penalty, it actually protects against Strength dropping below 1. So you could cast Ray of Enfeeblement on the wizard to get him back up :)

Kantolin
2007-01-21, 02:50 PM
To try to answer the opening post, I believe it happens in force at around levels 7-9.

Before that, it can still exist - I've been in many encounters where sleep or grease has delegated me to cleanup, and clerics are still typically one-turn-better like they always are, and druid animal companions are scary then. But at that point, there's a very good chance that the fighter will be able to do something.

Once you hit 7ish, CoDzilla take off running, and your wizard now has a comfortable amount of spells. 8, the sorceror is similar, and the wizard has started to throw around a few tentacles, maybe some resilients, and the fighter is mopup. Then at 9th, teleporting happens, walls of awesomeness as opposed to merely ice and fire, and it goes rapidly away from there.

Although in the case of CoDzilla, I'd liken it lower still, as it's from 3-5th level that clerics begin to make it perfectly clear that they're outperforming fighters. When closing to the enemy, the fighter can shoot a bow, the cleric can spiritual weapon for several continual rounds of 'archery' while the cleric is doing other things. And the moment wizards get fly, fly frequently becomes a daily part of their spells to cast.

The best solution, in my book, is to make encounters where the fighter can do something, even if it's not the most relevant bit, and play to your wizard's weaknesses to a point. For example, if the wizard has no walls, surround the party with a caster 'boss' and a martial 'boss', with the martial close to the wizard, then give the fighter incentive to go tango with the martial boss. Make the idea of 'tanking' work better... just have monsters aim for the fighter if he's at the front of the party, which he almost certainly will be. If the fighter type has the possibility to be aware of things (A spot or listen modifier, so um... a Ranger or Barbarian, at least), give him a bonus on initiative so he can be in position first.

Encourage spellcasters to go for their damaging spells over other types (And haste... haste is a very unfair spell for a spellcaster, but the result is that the fighter feels like he's contributing.) Try putting several situations where there are enemies with elemental weaknesses nicely clumped in 'please fireball me' formation to try to get the direct damage spells coming.

If the problem is 'I'm not contributing as much', then there's not a lot you can do about that short of maybe tome of battle, or maybe beaning them in the face with a legendary sword. But usually, the problem is 'I am doing nothing', and that's potentially solveable... and potentially solveable without making a 'this is the fighter's encounter in antimagic field land, this is the mage's encounter everywhere else'.

Edit: A flaw of low-level games, mind you, is that really nobody has anything hugely special about them. The party skill monkey will miserably fail his skill checks due to the whim of hte dice, and the difference between a fighter and a wizard smacking something is a single point of base attack bonus, while enemy (And ally) hit points are low enough such that a lucky hit from just about anything can kill someone. So that has just as much potential to be unfun for the fighter, but then it has equally as much potential to be unfun for the cleric and druid (And the wizard's d4 really bites him here)

Jamin
2007-01-21, 02:52 PM
When does class balance become an issue you ask well whenever the DM lets it. Yes I truly think that a GOOD DM can keep the game fun for everyone at any level.One thing I see on these broads is that a fighter can not do anything against a Pit Fiend or the red dragon grandpa.Then don't send them.You could send in something that I will call the Linear Guild encounter. These are more often called NPCs and IMO while a little harder to run they work out much better because the fighters can fight the fighters and casters can fight the casters. Everyone has fun! Everyone feels like they are doing something to help the team.

P.S. I know this is far from the perfect solution but it is the best I can do.:smallsmile:
Edit Ninja'd by Kantolin

krossbow
2007-01-21, 02:58 PM
DM: You feel waves of exaustion wash over you. Behind your party is the sorceror who you suddenly realize was orchestrating the entire plot! The monk makes his spell resistance, by the way, the rest of you lose six strength and dexterity. Note that exhaustion can drop you to zero strength.

Monk: Ha! I rule.

Fighter: Oh, man, I lose damage.

Wizard: *grumble* freaking aging penalties...

DM: Eh?

Wizard: ...I'm at zero strength.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Maybe eighty-year-old humans shouldn't go around adventuring, eh?

Wizard: But the casting stat bonuses!

Cleric: Well, I'm all good, so, I'll just...

DM: You notice the sorceror has a lackey sorceror. He casts Ray of Enfeeblement on you.

Cleric: That shouldn't be a problem, I have plenty of...

DM: It's maximized. You lose 11 strength. What are you at now?

Cleric: One.

DM: If the ray puts you low enough, the exaustion puts you at zero. So what's your strength?

Cleric: Er... zero.

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Either of you happen to prepare a silent, still Bull's Strength?

Wizard and Cleric: No.

DM: Well, then. Roll initiative.



Dude, at that point the party is hosed anyways. if the fighter and the monk are soloing those two, They are really going to have a helluva hard time making it.

the sorceror simply steps back and casts greater invisibility; monk and fighter are pretty hosed at this point without the caster. They can't reliably kill the sorceror in one round since they can't full attack. Then, the sorceror simply casts either dominate person or some other nice spell that he should have (If the monk has spell resistance, this better be a pretty high level sorceror since he's the BBEG) on the fighter and BAM! goodby party.
________
Alaska medical marijuana (http://alaska.dispensaries.org/)

The_Snark
2007-01-21, 03:10 PM
Actually, he means

"Cleric: Nope, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't work that way. The penalty cannot take you below 1 Strength. Even if you're at -6 Strength from another source, RoE still can't get you to zero. So I have 1 Strength left, and on my turn I cast Greater Dispel Magic and make it all better."

This is a little off-topic, but the exhaustion penalty of -6 is perfectly capable of taking you below 1 Str, so... yeah.

I'd also like to point out that casters are frequently hampered by the fact that high-level enemies frequently have large amounts of spell resistance, which pretty much negates most spells. When you're losing every other spell to spell resistance, the fighter suddenly becomes a much more reliable source of damage. True, there are spells that get around spell resistance, but for the most part the wizard will be reduced to Orb spells and buffing. Buffing who? Probably the fighter.

When fighting enemies with SR that seems unreasonable for their level, it's even more vital to have somebody who can bash away at the enemy's HP. I point to the rakshasa and mind flayer, both low-level examples of this; a caster of equivalent level without Spell Penetration has a 15% chance of affecting the mind flayer and a 5% chance of affecting the rakshasa.

Enemies with spell resistance are not at all uncommon, especially at high levels; every dragon, demon, and devil has it, for one thing. At the levels we're talking about, there are more monsters with spell resistance than without it. A good portion of them have more spell resistance than their CR would indicate they should, meaning casters pretty much have to take Spell Penetration and the greater version to stay useful.

Wizards also have low health, meaning that if they get hit by enemy attacks they're in trouble pretty fast. High-level opponents almost always have means of hitting the wizards—the dragons fly and have breath weapons, pit fiends cover the area in quickened fireballs or power word stuns, balors hit them with Implosion. Sure, you can prepare for some of these, but the reality is that most wizards won't be able to anticipate everything that might happen to them, nor will they have the resources to prepare for all of it.

krossbow
2007-01-21, 03:20 PM
Eh; wizards can bypass spell resistance just fine. Spell penetration and a few items make that irrelevant. Heck, he just whips out polymorph and tenser's transformation if things look dicey.


However, a smart wizard fighting an enemy can bring up walls of force and other such wards as protection; Or they can use resistance to energy spells, since dragons are color coded most of the time (There is always the incredibly silly one wearing a top hat that's bound to be using a hat of disguise.

Hannes
2007-01-21, 03:22 PM
What the non-caster classes really lack are good high-level powers. They don't need to be really equal to high-level spells, just barely as good.
Said fighter, for example, after he reached 10th level, he has no good feats to buy. Only the ones he could buy at low level.
Weapon Specialization. Greater Weapon Focus. Greater Weapon Specialization. Improved Critical. Greater Two-Weapon-Fighting (if he even buys it). And that's it. a 20th level Fighter can't get any 20th level based power, while wizards and clerics are using 9th level spells 3-4 times a day.


GO FOR THE HORSES! GO FOR THE HORSES! No, really. Mounted combat is nice, although he still won't be able to do as much as the wizard.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 03:33 PM
To try to answer the opening post, I believe it happens in force at around levels 7-9.


I see where you are coming from; certainly I've seen a wizard end an encounter with Evard's tentacles at level 7. However, in my experience, spellcasters are still running out of spells at these levels. I think you are supposed to face 4 encounters of equal challenge rating per day before resting, and at levels 7-9 the spellcasters don't have quite enough 4th & 5th level spells to use them in every one. Take the cleric, for instance. How many divine powers & righteous mights does he have at level 9? He's got to have freedom of movement, greater magic weapon, maybe slay living, etc. memorized as well.

But certainly by 13th the spellcasters still have plenty in the tank after 4 encounters.

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 03:36 PM
Funny. If I read Ray of Enfeeblement closely enough, it seems to say that "The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1" is simply one of the spell's effects. In addition to imposing a Strength penalty, it actually protects against Strength dropping below 1. So you could cast Ray of Enfeeblement on the wizard to get him back up :)

I think it's more like it doesn't let the strength penalty it imposes drop strength below 1. So it would drop the strength addled wizard, but not the cleric.

Kantolin
2007-01-21, 05:49 PM
However, in my experience, spellcasters are still running out of spells at these levels.
This is true, and casters may indeed run out of spells after 4 encounters at these levels and aren't quite gods yet, but that's when the wizard is getting enough 3rd and 4th spells combined to solve about everything he runs into, and the cleric's in similar situations, with domain powers/spells becoming very useful around then, and the druid's getting multiple wild shapes, and large wild shape. Not gods, but are certainly beginning to outperform the fighters on a routine basis.

So while it's not as significant as it is at higher levels, I do think 7-9 is where fighters really drop off, or at least when 'casters just win' begins. The Paladin's begun to level out, the fighter's already hit the top of his key tree, the monk's already or has just now evened out flurry's penalty, and this is when things get comparably more 'meh' for them.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 06:29 PM
DM: You feel waves of exaustion wash over you. Behind your party is the sorceror who you suddenly realize was orchestrating the entire plot! The monk makes his spell resistance, by the way, the rest of you lose six strength and dexterity. Note that exhaustion can drop you to zero strength.

...

DM: You fall to the ground unable to move. Either of you happen to prepare a silent, still Bull's Strength?

Wizard and Cleric: No.

DM: Well, then. Roll initiative.


Do I really have to explain what's wrong with this? Namely, that the cleric and the wizard are vastly unlikely to actually be disabled by this (the wizard isn't going to have six strength; the cleric will have about as much as the fighter -before- buffs; they will both have spells they can cast and long-term buffs; you're showing a spellcaster kicking the party's ass, which is unsurprising; the fighter and the monk can do absolutely nothing in the situation.

If you look at What Magic Can Do, enemy spellcasters are drastically more likely to screw over melee types than spellcasters.

Is this really your best argument that high-level play is somehow balanced between fighters and casters?
Ken-do-nim's examples were much more accurate.



Incidentally, I'm playing an optimized but totally non-twinky (well, except for the use of polymorph to help the melee types contribute more) Diviner 5/Escalation Mage 4 in a Red Hand of Doom game IRL.
I have been outshining the rest of my party since level six. The melee rogue finally died and has made a cleric, and is now kicking ass; the monk started out uselesss, continued being useless except when I Polymorphed him so he could contribute; and doesn't want to spend the effort remaking, so instead he just runs around being ridiculous; the Warforged Juggernaut played by the newbie (we basically built the character for him, he's the Shover Robot) is contributing but has spent one out of the two combats he's been in so far running away due to his terrible will save.

I have been, consistently, the most useful party member. The group started out going "what? You're banning evocation?!! No fireball??!!!" and has changed their minds on that a bit.
Hydra? Ray of Stupidity.
Group of enemies? Confusion and/or glitterdust.
Three Greenspawn Razorfiends trying to ambush us in a tree? Confusion. We have a hilarious time as we watch them Fight Club it out.
Hobgoblin and ogre outpost? Summon Monster IV for 1d3 Huge monstrous centipedes that grapple the grap out of everything. Polymorph the Enlarged, Bull's-Strengthed monk into a Fleshraker Dinosaur; he kills the hell out of things.
Chimera? Okay, that's one fight they contributed more than me to; it made a couple of saves, and I spent time buffing them.
Dragon? Yeah, I took that one out before it could kill them.
We need to get somewhere? I have Teleport now.
In the meantime? I'm flying above the party, so if there are encounters or ambushes, they'll get them, not me.

And so on. We're all having fun, but I get a lot fewer frustrated moments. If the game were going up to level 20, there *would* be problems.


We're currently in the middle of a large fight; a bunch of hobgoblins with clerics and a Bard/Stormsinger (who's been making life hell for our Warforged Juggernaut, and is now grappled by him). This is one that I haven't been able to end quickly. The monk is controlling the doorway, sort of (since they haven't tried to go through it yet); the shiny new cleric is under Divine Power and Divine Favor and a +3 Greater Magic Weapon thanks to a bead of karma and is preparing to charging-Power-Attack crush one of the clerics and cleave into the other one. I'm buffed six ways to sunday and have Glitterdust most of the enemies to blind them.

Five bucks says the cleric and I will do a lot more to end the encounter than the monk and the Warforged Juggernaut.

Dausuul
2007-01-21, 06:31 PM
I think my problem with saying, "Just build your encounters so the fighter can contribute," is that that indicates a need to "help" the fighter. Ask yourself this: At higher levels, do you think it is necessary for DMs to make a special effort to build encounters where the wizard can contribute? Or the cleric? Clearly not.

When the DM has to go out of his/her way to include fighters, and would have to go out of his/her way to exclude casters, that's a problem with the system.

Beefing up the melee types a la Book of Nine Swords is a tolerable fix. Overall, though, I think D&D just gets broken at high levels due to the profusion of "the entire battle comes down to this one die roll" spells and monster abilities. I'd really like to see the whole system revamped with a stronger emphasis on defense versus offense.

Oh, and to address the original question, I would say that the imbalance begins to make itself felt around level 9-10, becomes dramatic around level 12-13, and becomes intolerable around 15-16. Of course, this will vary depending on the relative skills of the people playing the casters and the fighters.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 06:39 PM
My problem with saying "build encounters where fighters can contribute more than spellcasters" is, like WHAT? The way you hear people talk, half the game should be in antimagic fields (wizards can pwn golems about as hard as anything else).

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 06:43 PM
The only time that class imbalance comes up is WHEN YOU LET IT.

As a DM, I've never had an issue where one class outshined the other, UNLESS I was running a very specifically tailored adventure.

For example, if I was running a political campaign, the Bard and the Rogue SHOULD outshine the other characters. In a war campaign, blaster casters and Martial characters have lots of fun, leaving the rogue bored on the sidelines, and the cleric becomes a wand with legs.

Encourage your players to roleplay between, and even during encounters. As long as they get to show their character's personality and let it develop, the game will go well.

Suzaku
2007-01-21, 06:50 PM
In a war campaign, blaster casters and Martial characters have lots of fun, leaving the rogue bored on the sidelines, and the cleric becomes a wand with legs.


Except when you have to constantly sneak around and infiltrate strong holds or sabotage. DMG suggest that war campaigns pcs function as a separate strike team and this usually require stealth :P.

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 06:52 PM
Yeah, I know. I was merely trying to make a point. If I stand a party on the hill, point at an approaching army, and say "BURN FIGHT KILL" who will be having the most fun?

Saph
2007-01-21, 06:53 PM
And so on. We're all having fun, but I get a lot fewer frustrated moments. If the game were going up to level 20, there *would* be problems.

Well, yes, but that was kind of what Kendo and I were saying already - you do not want to play at level 20 without some very good mitigating factors.

At lower levels, casters are powerful, but still require a lot of forethought to really be effective. The party I'm in is 6th-7th level and has an enchanter, an evoker, a rogue, a bard, and a fighter (did have a cleric/doomguide, but he just got torn to bits). I'm the enchanter, and right at the moment I'd say the fighter is the one of my teammates I'd least like to lose, because he's the only guy who can reliably deal out (and take) lots of damage. So if I cast haste or slow, he'll be able to take full advantage of it. My buffs and debuffs would be much less effective if he wasn't around. Whether I'm stronger than him or not is kind of irrelevant, because we're much stronger working together than either of us could be on our own.

- Saph

Shazzbaa
2007-01-21, 06:59 PM
Although in the case of CoDzilla, I'd liken it lower still, as it's from 3-5th level that clerics begin to make it perfectly clear that they're outperforming fighters. When closing to the enemy, the fighter can shoot a bow, the cleric can spiritual weapon for several continual rounds of 'archery' while the cleric is doing other things.

Here's the thing: clerics may be capable of making a better fighter than the figher; but I don't think that's any reason to do so unless it's necessary. Why go out of your way to step on someone else's toes? The point at which the other players can see that the cleric is more powerful is not necessarily the point at which the game breaks down.
As I've referenced before, the game I'm currently in, there's a cleric who is pretty clearly the strongest of the party, and once when the entire rest of the party was incapacitated he showed his impressive ability to take on incredible challenges all by himself. He probably doesn't need us as much as we need him. But he doesn't show it off; he just sits in the back, doing clerical things and spells and such, while me and the fighter and the paladin run up and hit things. When he NEEDS to, he can be a melee machine too... but he doesn't step on the melee-classes' toes when his melee prowess isn't needed.

The point that the game breaks down is when the other classes' abilities become irrelevent to the point that even when the casters are sitting in the back being casters, the meleers can't contribute. I haven't played a great deal, nor have I reached this point, so I can't speak as to when it happens, but I can say that it DOESN'T happen automatically as soon as one class has a higher potential than another. It can, but doesn't have to.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 07:07 PM
Shaz, the problem with that is that the cleric is supposed to wade in and fight. That's why he's got his personal buffs and 3/4 BAB and heavy armor--"doing cleric things" involves fighting. If he intentionally sits in the back.

Similarily, wizards doing wizardy things involves offense.

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 07:10 PM
You see, the way I always saw it was that the reason the Cleric had the huge AC and such was so that he could wade into melee and HEAL PEOPLE. That's a huge part of his job. HEALING. The Wizard sits back casting ranged spells. NOT HEALING. Why spend 2 or 3 buffs making one character uber, when you can spend the same spells to either keep the already uber fighter fighting, or make him even better?

D&D is a party game, not a solo game. You want to solo, play Diablo II.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:12 PM
Then what's the point of evil clerics?

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 07:14 PM
Indeed, what IS the point? D&D is largely written from the point of view that the PCs are supposed to be heros, doing heroic things. Heroes are good, or at worst neutral. Evil is reserved for BBEGs and their minions.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:16 PM
If clerics weren't meant to hit things, they would have no weapon proficiencies, their BaB would be the same as the wizards, and they would have no self-only buffs that make them better at fighting.

And yet, they have all these things. I wonder why?

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 07:17 PM
So that when they are standing next to the fighter, they can survive without being swarmed by bad guys. You can't heal other people when you're surrounded.

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 07:17 PM
I actually have fun with my rogue in all out war situations. Lots of people mean lots of people to flank with, and lots of people to flank with means lots of sneak attack goodness.

To make wizards less effective, throw monsters with SR after them! Demons are a good thing, since they have decent SR. They also have decent all around saves.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:19 PM
So that when they are standing next to the fighter, they can survive without being swarmed by bad guys. You can't heal other people when you're surrounded.

If they were designed merely to 'survive', they would be more like monks than fighters.

Or their self-only buffs would revolve entirely around ways of making them not die.

Khantalas
2007-01-21, 07:20 PM
Indeed, what IS the point? D&D is largely written from the point of view that the PCs are supposed to be heros, doing heroic things. Heroes are good, or at worst neutral. Evil is reserved for BBEGs and their minions.

Obviously you never played with my players. They'd shoot you on sight, feed on your corpse, then animate the skeleton.

You think cleric is about healing? Why? Healer is a much better healing class. Cleric is there to hurt people. That's why it has Divine Metamagic, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Divine Favor (oh, who cares about the names?), War domain, d8 HD, heavy armor proficiency, the stuff that you don't use to heal. And that's partly why there's a CoDzilla word around.

Cleric is not a primary healer. Unless you have a healing shiv. Or you're Fighter.

krossbow
2007-01-21, 07:21 PM
Uh, yeah you can. Ever heard of something call CASTING DEFENSIVELY?
________
Yzr-m1 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_YZR-M1)

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:22 PM
Uh, yeah you can. Ever heard of something call CASTING DEFENSIVELY?

You mean the tactic that's a hundred times worse than your friend the five-foot step?

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 07:22 PM
You see, the way I always saw it was that the reason the Cleric had the huge AC and such was so that he could wade into melee and HEAL PEOPLE. That's a huge part of his job. HEALING. The Wizard sits back casting ranged spells. NOT HEALING. Why spend 2 or 3 buffs making one character uber, when you can spend the same spells to either keep the already uber fighter fighting, or make him even better?
Yes. Healing... which is ridiculously inefficient in the middle of most fights.

You CAN'T spend those spells to make the fighter even better. Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might--all Personal. What are you going to do, cast Bless?
You can keep the fighter alive longer by smashing his enemies. He will take less damage and have more HP left.
Clerics ARE SUPPOSED to fight in 3.5--that's WHY they have Divine Power et al. In 2nd ed, people hated playing clerics because they had to fill their slots up with healing spells. Now, with Spontaneous Healing, Divine Power, and so on, they don't have to, and can actually do other stuff...
...except they wind up smashing things better than the fighter.


D&D is a party game, not a solo game. You want to solo, play Diablo II.How does the cleric wading into melee and only healing when it's necessary during the fight, rather than doing pointless healing during the fight that he could just as easily do *after*, mean that he's playing a solo game?

Don't be ridiculous. "Clerics should shut up and sit in the back and GIVE ME MY HIT POINTS BACK" is the kind of mentality that used to make people hate playing clerics. The reason clerics are so good now is in (over)compensation.


And playing evil characters is perfectly viable in D&D. Rei, I really wasn't expecting this "there is ONE TRUE WAY to play D&D and if your cleric isn't curing my weak fighter's HP or you have an evil alignment YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" stuff from you.

krossbow
2007-01-21, 07:25 PM
Dude, if you have enough enemies to stop the cleric from casting whatever spells he wants, then you have enough enemies that the fighter is going to die in a zerg rush with very little he can do.

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 07:26 PM
Well, if we were talking about Core books and classes/feats only, you wouldn't have the healer class, and you wouldn't have Diving Metamagic. Clerics are there to further their god's portfolios in the world. If we go back to the idea of the PCs being heroes, then they normally follow good, or at worst neutral deities. These deities dislike pain and suffering, and thus healing would definitely figure in there.

In a iconic four player party, you have a Dwarven Fighter, an Elven Wizard, a Halfling Rogue, and a Human Cleric. Four very specific roles. Yes, the Cleric is a secondary fighter. He's also a caster, and a good part of his spells revolve around healing and buffs. Most of these buffs are not self only. Your argument is like saying that because wizards can have access to Polymorph and Tenser's Transformation that they should be on the front lines of combat.

Kantolin
2007-01-21, 07:27 PM
Why spend 2 or 3 buffs making one character uber, when you can spend the same spells to either keep the already uber fighter fighting, or make him even better?

You know, I honestly am curious as to what would happen if you actually could do this.

The trouble, to answer that, is because Divine Power, Righteous Might, and Divine Favor are all personal spells. Therefore, the cleric is incapable of casting them on other people. But I am honestly curious how it woudl alter D&D if they became touch ranged instead of personal. That way, there's incentive to cast it on the fighter which makes said fighter feel better.

I mean. The cleric has a good hit dice, a good base attack bonus, and spells he can only cast on himself. They don't in the slightest get even decent buffs for other people... I attmepted to make a buff-cleric, and well. Really wasn't doing very much.

The cleric is an actually good tank. The Fighter is a significantly bad tank. If the player of the fighter would like to play a good tank, he should play a cleric.

And druids are even more obvious... a cleric has to select a few spells out of a list of comparatively crappy ones (Hey, there's... um... well, there's... hey, Divine Power!). A druid, um. Hey, I'm a bear, a bear that's hurling lightning out of the sky.

Now, if all clerics could do was heal, then they'd be 'fair' in the fashion of nobody at all in the universe would play them. Just look at the healer class in the miniatures handbook... I've never heard anyone have even the slightest desire to play one on account of being dull. But hey... really people, it's not that a 'min-maxed' cleric outperforms fighters, nor is it that the cleric is maliciously stepping on the fighter's toes.

As a comparison, pretend rogues could horribly outperform fighters in combat as well as being skill monkeys. Your average player will look, say "Hey, they have sneak attack" and then, well. Go use sneak attack.

Clerics do that. "Hey, I have heavy armour and a good attack bonus. I go forward and be a secondary main tank. Hey, this spell makes me better at what I'm doing. Hey, I'm actually contributing!"

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 07:28 PM
Rei: name the GOOD non-self only buffs on the cleric list. Go on. Anything that compares with Divine Power and Righteous Might.
Tenser's cuts you off from spellcasting. Polymorph ISN'T personal range.

The problem here is that the cleric ISN'T a secondary fighter. With a minimum expenditure of effort, he is a primary fighter, and he can STILL do his healing job more than adequately. The cleric can get a better damage output, bigger size, and is far less likely to drop like a bag of rocks when he hears "make a Will save". All of his good buffs are Personal, not Touch, and they are not just his best buffs but some of his best spells, period.

Do you REALLY think the cleric isn't intended to fight? Despite Divine Power?

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:30 PM
I think some people here may play too many MMOs. Seriously, all the comments on what the fighter and the cleric should be doing fit games like FFXI and WoW perfectly.

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 07:31 PM
And playing evil characters is perfectly viable in D&D. Rei, I really wasn't expecting this "there is ONE TRUE WAY to play D&D and if your cleric isn't curing my weak fighter's HP or you have an evil alignment YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" stuff from you.

I'm not saying that. What was originally stated was a game balance issue. Now, when discussing game balance issues you have to take into account the ideas with which it was written. Yes, the system is written to allow people to play almost anything their hearts desire. But it is also written with the idea that people want to play heroes, whether that be correct or not.

Personally, I have no problem at all with evil characters. My current home campaign has several (including a Paladin of Tyranny and a Thrall of Graz'zt). But when you talk about "the game is inbalanced because..." you have to look at it and ask whether or not you are using the game as it was written to be used.

The game falls down when people use it in a matter other than primarily intended. Almost everything does.

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 07:32 PM
How is healing ridiculously inefficient? The clerics job is to make sure that NOONE ELSE DIES. Healing is a very efficient way of making sure people don't die.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:33 PM
How is healing ridiculously inefficient? The clerics job is to make sure that NOONE ELSE DIES. Healing is a very efficient way of making sure people don't die.

Making the guys trying to make your guys die die is more efficient.

Think for a moment: If both you and the fighter are wailing on Big Tough Monster, he gets less time to dish out damage of his own, and also has two targets to worry about. If you just stand back and let the fighter do all the work, it takes twice as long to kill Big Tough Monster, so he kills the fighter even more.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 07:33 PM
I'm not saying that. What was originally stated was a game balance issue. Now, when discussing game balance issues you have to take into account the ideas with which it was written. Yes, the system is written to allow people to play almost anything their hearts desire. But it is also written with the idea that people want to play heroes, whether that be correct or not.

Personally, I have no problem at all with evil characters. My current home campaign has several (including a Paladin of Tyranny and a Thrall of Graz'zt). But when you talk about "the game is inbalanced because..." you have to look at it and ask whether or not you are using the game as it was written to be used.

The game falls down when people use it in a matter other than primarily intended. Almost everything does.

Dude, the game was written to allow evil characters as well as good ones. D&D 3.5 is intentionally broad (although limited by classes and such) in the things people can play. This is an intentional design change. Why the hell are you trying to argue that the game was balanced with the thought that people would have a Good alignment, or that clerics would do nothing but heal, when all the evidence shows this just ain't so?
The game is NOT imbalanced because they didn't think clerics would buff up and fight. The game is imbalanced because they wanted clerics to buff up and fight rather than sit back and memorize nothing but heals, and they went too far the other way with clerics' fighting ability.


Null: killing enemies faster is a much more effective way of making sure that people don't die than healing them in the middle of a fight. Most healing gets done after a fight. Sometimes you get a Cure Serious (or Heal) tossed around in combat, but it's rarely the wise choice.

The_Snark
2007-01-21, 07:33 PM
How is healing ridiculously inefficient? The clerics job is to make sure that NOONE ELSE DIES. Healing is a very efficient way of making sure people don't die.

Most of the time, no. It's worth healing dying characters to get them back into the fight, but until you get to Heal, healing spells are not effective enough past low levels to be worth using in combat, for the most part.

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 07:36 PM
Most of the time, no. It's worth healing dying characters to get them back into the fight, but until you get to Heal, healing spells are not effective enough past low levels to be worth using in combat, for the most part.

True. But once you get heal, don't you have to use it like... every battle, to prevent enemies from tearing the weak people like wizards and rogues to pieces?

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:37 PM
True. But once you get heal, don't you have to use it like... every battle, to prevent enemies from tearing the weak people like wizards and rogues to pieces?

Maybe the rogues, but by then wizards are permanently hovering thirty feet above you at all times.

Khantalas
2007-01-21, 07:38 PM
Making the guys trying to make your guys die die is more efficient.

I love you, dude. You're always so fun and so right. Though let's not get any strange ideas here.

Let's put it in a simple way: you're healing the fighter? You lose many spells, and it's likely the fighter dies. Then the monster attacks you. You attack the monster? You cast fewer spells, the fighter doesn't die, and you don't have a big threat coming after you.

Or, simpler: heal fighter, lose many spells, everyone but monster die. Attack monster, lose few spells, only monster die.

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 07:41 PM
Dude, the game was written to allow evil characters as well as good ones. D&D 3.5 is intentionally broad (although limited by classes and such) in the things people can play. This is an intentional design change. Why the hell are you trying to argue that the game was balanced with the thought that people would have a Good alignment, or that clerics would do nothing but heal, when all the evidence shows this just ain't so?
The game is NOT imbalanced because they didn't think clerics would buff up and fight. The game is imbalanced because they wanted clerics to buff up and fight rather than sit back and memorize nothing but heals, and they went too far the other way with clerics' fighting ability.

Yes, I know. I already said that the game can allow almost anything you want to play. But, and this is a but, look at the entire history of D&D. Look at the books, look at the characters in them. Look at the history of fantasy. There is an assumption there that people want to be Heroes. Heroes in nearly all fantasy are good aligned, or neutral with good tendancies. Heroes help the weak, destroy the evil, and look after those around them.

I never said that all a Cleric should do is heal. I said that a large part of why they exist is to heal. Without a cleric, how would a party keep fighting? Of the Core classes, only the Druid and the Bard even have a chance to get within a mile of the Cleric's healing power. When I'm playing a 150hp Barbarian, I want to know that should I go down, my Cleric buddy will get me up again.

The Cleric is slightly overpowered, so is the Druid. But, then again, so is the Dwarf, and I'm not getting into an arguement about that now.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 07:45 PM
Yes, I know. I already said that the game can allow almost anything you want to play. But, and this is a but, look at the entire history of D&D. Look at the books, look at the characters in them. Look at the history of fantasy. There is an assumption there that people want to be Heroes. Heroes in nearly all fantasy are good aligned, or neutral with good tendancies. Heroes help the weak, destroy the evil, and look after those around them.
Fantasy has plenty of antiheroes, too.
And villains, while we're at it.


I never said that all a Cleric should do is heal. I said that a large part of why they exist is to heal. Without a cleric, how would a party keep fighting? Of the Core classes, only the Druid and the Bard even have a chance to get within a mile of the Cleric's healing power. When I'm playing a 150hp Barbarian, I want to know that should I go down, my Cleric buddy will get me up again.
And thanks to spontaneous cures and a Heal or two prepared, you can rest secure in this knowledge even when he's doing your job for you. Clerics can heal--*and fight*. They are supposed to fight, not just heal, which is what you were initially saying (i.e. the cleric's job is to sit in the back healing people).


The Cleric is slightly overpowered, so is the Druid. But, then again, so is the Dwarf, and I'm not getting into an arguement about that now.
That's because people don't insist that NO, the dwarf ISN'T a little better than the other races ("slightly"? Yeah, come on. "Slightly" at mid-levels, "totally" at high), and proceed to tell people who are playing dwarves the effective way that they're Doing It Wrong.

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 07:47 PM
Maybe the rogues, but by then wizards are permanently hovering thirty feet above you at all times.

...yeah. Lemme know how it works out when the enemies can fly just as well as the wizard can.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 07:49 PM
Pretty well, actually, what with you having a number of ways to get a faster fly speed, to stop them from getting to you, to defend you even if they do get to you, et cetera. Not to mention that half of them -can't- fly, so you're twice as safe as others regardless.

Haven't you ever had an experience with an effective wizard, Null?

Saph
2007-01-21, 07:50 PM
Could we not have this argument again? The original question was "at what point does class imbalance become an issue", which is a lot more interesting than what clerics should/should not/are supposed to be/can be doing, which is invariably going to come down to differing playing styles anyway.

I'd still say that D&D works fine up to level 10 or so. At levels 7-10, casters have a definite edge, but it requires preparation, a better knowledge of the game rules, and isn't infallible. I've played in a good few games around this level, and I wouldn't say that any of them were dominated by casters. It's only in the 11-15 area that it really becomes a problem.

- Saph

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:51 PM
Pretty well, actually, what with you having a number of ways to get a faster fly speed, to stop them from getting to you, to defend you even if they do get to you, et cetera. Not to mention that half of them -can't- fly, so you're twice as safe as others regardless.

Haven't you ever had an experience with an effective wizard, Null?

[scrubbed]

Sheriff of Moddingham:


External Baggage
Each thread should exist in a vacuum, free from outside influences—especially those outside of these boards. What this means is that you can't carry over anger from a debate in another thread into a new discussion, and you can't harass anyone over anything they did in another thread, on another website's board, or in real life. If you can't check your baggage at the door, you'll end up earning a warning.

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 07:53 PM
Yes, I have before. The wizard usually nullifies the enemy wizards spellcasting, and then the rest of the party tears the wizard apart.

That's in a party though. One on one, I wouldn't even battle the wizard in the first place. But in a party.... yeah, wizards are handy for nullifying enemy spellcasters.

Rei_Jin
2007-01-21, 07:54 PM
Yes, Fantasy has Anti-heroes. But they have a hard time of it, and there isn't anywhere near as many Anti-heroes as there are heroes. Villains are for the DM to run (if you follow standard fantasy thought).

If you think that I said that his entire job is to sit in the back and heal, then you misinterpret me. I said that a large part of his job is healing. Not the entirety.

The Cleric is a healer, a buffer, a fighter, and a caster. Yes, he can do all of them effectively. But if you are Roleplaying, most (not all) clerics wouldn't want to necessarily be fighting on the front line. If they'd wanted to do that, they would have been fighters or paladins. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule. Followers of deities who have the War Domain or the Strength Domain are more martial than others. But what about the Cleric of Pelor? What about the Cleric of Yondalla? Or Garl Glittergold? Or even Corellon Larethian?

I never said that there is a wrong way to play a Cleric, merely that if all you want to do is be better than everyone else in the party at everything, play by yourself. Playing as part of a party is teamwork.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-21, 07:55 PM
Yes, I have before. The wizard usually nullifies the enemy wizards spellcasting, and then the rest of the party tears the wizard apart.

That's in a party though. One on one, I wouldn't even battle the wizard in the first place. But in a party.... yeah, wizards are handy for nullifying enemy spellcasters.

Uh-huh. And in any encounter where there isn't a wizard on the other side (namely, most of them, from what I can see in my monster manual)?

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 07:55 PM
Yes, I have before. The wizard usually nullifies the enemy wizards spellcasting, and then the rest of the party tears the wizard apart.

That's in a party though. One on one, I wouldn't even battle the wizard in the first place. But in a party.... yeah, wizards are handy for nullifying enemy spellcasters.

The wizard's job is Making People Suck, after all. They're good at making spellcasters Suck, too.

Jamin
2007-01-21, 07:59 PM
Wait I have it! It is so easy. Just make a spell that can transfer spells form the cleric to the fighter. There you go now both of them can fun! hooray for magic.

Khantalas
2007-01-21, 08:03 PM
But what about the Cleric of Pelor? What about the Cleric of Yondalla? Or Garl Glittergold? Or even Corellon Larethian?

Yondalla and Glittergold have the Protection domain. What better way to protect your friends than eliminate the threat?

Pelor has Strength. How come you are avoiding using your strength in battle?

Larethian was War. 'Nuff said.

OK, admittedly, Boccob and a few other deities have non-violence non-killing related domains only, but CW fixed them, too.

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 08:06 PM
Well... technically both of them suck. The wizard is busy counteracting the enemies wizards spells, and neither of them are doing much.

Of course, that's when the rest of the party tears the enemy wizard to pieces. Though there, the rest of the party does contribute.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-21, 08:10 PM
Well... technically both of them suck. The wizard is busy counteracting the enemies wizards spells, and neither of them are doing much.

Of course, that's when the rest of the party tears the enemy wizard to pieces. Though there, the rest of the party does contribute.

A good wizard doesn't ever counterspell. He hits the enemy wizard with a greater dispel to get rid of his buffs, then follows it up with something to stop the caster from doing anything, like web.

Counterspelling isn't an effective tactic. Don't trust Vaarsuvius, he/she isn't very good at her job. :smalltongue:

NullAshton
2007-01-21, 08:14 PM
A good wizard doesn't ever counterspell. He hits the enemy wizard with a greater dispel to get rid of his buffs, then follows it up with something to stop the caster from doing anything, like web.

Counterspelling isn't an effective tactic. Don't trust Vaarsuvius, he/she isn't very good at her job. :smalltongue:

I wasn't talking about counterspelling, I was talking about stuff like the cleric putting death ward and spell immunity on the party, and the wizard removing battlefield control spells like wall of stone.

Khantalas
2007-01-21, 08:16 PM
I wasn't talking about counterspelling, I was talking about stuff like the cleric putting death ward and spell immunity on the party, and the wizard removing battlefield control spells like wall of stone.

But... if the wizard can't cast spells, why do we need Death Ward?

Oh, right. Energy drain.

Indon
2007-01-21, 09:50 PM
I guess my 'everyone is easily counterable by an intelligent NPC in some way' point was missed by the proverbial 5,280 foot measure.


Wait I have it! It is so easy. Just make a spell that can transfer spells form the cleric to the fighter. There you go now both of them can fun! hooray for magic.

You mean this? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/imbueWithSpellAbility.htm)

Though I guess more accurately, the answer to this question should be 'never'. Aside from the fact that D&D isn't about competitive effectiveness in play (and to whomever said this forum reminds them of an MMO forum, I woefully agree), a dynamic D&D campaign has more 'effective' players gaining a greater reputation and being the ones most commonly counteracted.

A D&D campaign really _can_ realistically become an antimagic field campaign if your DM's NPC's aren't stupid. And then the casters have to play with just as much cleverness and innovation as any other player no matter how optimized they may be with their spell selections.

krossbow
2007-01-21, 10:27 PM
Geez, do we HAVE to bring up antimagic field as a viable alternative? It doesn't help.


A fighter entering an antimagic field is hosed too; if the enemies are just as high level, then the party loses, rock falls, everyone dies.


The monsters that fight are way beyond the ken of a fighter without magic weapons and backup. Purple worm? Dead. T-rex? Dead. Any monstrous race? Dead. Don't even get me into how screwed they are if Druid NPC's attack them.




The simple fact is, that a fighter party in an anti-magic field will have to fight enemies of a CR at least 2-4 levels below their level to not die outright. And how these low level mooks got ahold of powerful enough mojo to create CONSTANT LARGE anti-magic zones is beyond me.
Anti-magic zones as a counter tactic if NOT constant and an environmental effect are incredibly easy to foil; their listed small range and the fact that it must either be a scroll or a rouge who's both got a death wish and high use magic device abilities leave the party wizard with ways to avoid being trapped in one (such as contigency).

ken-do-nim
2007-01-21, 10:29 PM
However, in my experience, spellcasters are still running out of spells at these levels.
This is true, and casters may indeed run out of spells after 4 encounters at these levels and aren't quite gods yet, but that's when the wizard is getting enough 3rd and 4th spells combined to solve about everything he runs into, and the cleric's in similar situations, with domain powers/spells becoming very useful around then, and the druid's getting multiple wild shapes, and large wild shape. Not gods, but are certainly beginning to outperform the fighters on a routine basis.

So while it's not as significant as it is at higher levels, I do think 7-9 is where fighters really drop off, or at least when 'casters just win' begins. The Paladin's begun to level out, the fighter's already hit the top of his key tree, the monk's already or has just now evened out flurry's penalty, and this is when things get comparably more 'meh' for them.


Could we not have this argument again? The original question was "at what point does class imbalance become an issue", which is a lot more interesting than what clerics should/should not/are supposed to be/can be doing, which is invariably going to come down to differing playing styles anyway.

I'd still say that D&D works fine up to level 10 or so. At levels 7-10, casters have a definite edge, but it requires preparation, a better knowledge of the game rules, and isn't infallible. I've played in a good few games around this level, and I wouldn't say that any of them were dominated by casters. It's only in the 11-15 area that it really becomes a problem.

- Saph

I just want to thank Saph and Kantolin for the last 2 on-topic posts that have appeared in this thread since I last checked it (I just finished watching my Patriots lose ... waaaaaahhhhhhh, sob, sob, boo hoo ... someone pass a handkerchief please).

Kantolin
2007-01-21, 11:14 PM
You know.

I think the only reason it doesn't seem to happen at lower level (Well, insofar as wizards vs fighters) is because haste helps the fighters (and the clerics, but nevermind them). Since really, the moment the wizard gets haste, he's the one deciding whether or not the team is effective or not.. it's just, well, the fighter sure looks like he's not being outperformed, so yay!

Also at low levels, a cleric still can beat out a fighter in 1 round with Divine Favor. The catch is that it's not that much of a difference, so once again, it doesn't look like the fighter's being outperformed.

So hrm. I'm really curious: Would making a Cleric's Divine Power, Divine Favor, and Righteous Might touch ranged instead of personal psuedo-solve this problem, in a roundabout method? That way the cleric can still march up front and tank and buff himself, but he's inclined to buff the party's Fighter first, then buff himself and step in. If nothing else, this will at least make fighters do something (admittedly, that's more 'wait to be buffed', and on the cleric's end that's more 'buffmonkey' which is less fun, but hey).

Maltrich
2007-01-21, 11:45 PM
Wait I have it! It is so easy. Just make a spell that can transfer spells form the cleric to the fighter. There you go now both of them can fun! hooray for magic.

Ioun Stones, the ones that store spells. Fill 'em up and hand 'em over.

Saph
2007-01-22, 07:00 AM
You know.

I think the only reason it doesn't seem to happen at lower level (Well, insofar as wizards vs fighters) is because haste helps the fighters (and the clerics, but nevermind them). Since really, the moment the wizard gets haste, he's the one deciding whether or not the team is effective or not.. it's just, well, the fighter sure looks like he's not being outperformed, so yay!

I'm afraid that's not really true - and I should know, as I'm in exactly this position with my character in my party now.

A wizard with haste AND a good fighter or two makes the team effective. If I cast haste and the melee fighters aren't there, it doesn't work. You could just as well say that the dwarf fighter in my party is the one 'deciding whether the team is effective' because if he doesn't get in there and deal out some full attacks, most of my spells are useless.

Once again, it's all about teamwork. A fighter and a wizard working together are stronger than the sum of their parts. It's possible for a wizard to defeat enemies all on his own, but it's much, much easier to do it co-operating with the rest of your party.

- Saph

Morty
2007-01-22, 07:24 AM
On the lower levels, balancing issue for wizards is that they don't have enough spells to make themselves untouchable and still screw enemy over/blast enemies back to 2nd edition/buff barty/whatever. Wizard is supposed to kill/disable whole group with few or one spell. It's just that on lower levels he's squishy and on higher he can sing "Can't touch this" while rest of the team is getting beaten.

Iron_Mouse
2007-01-22, 10:05 AM
When is class inbalance evident?

At level 1. It just shifts around with rising levels. Greatly favoring the full casters later, as everyone knows.

People (and sadly, WotC) still seem to think that casters should start weak and become powerful later, and vice versa for noncasters.
I fully disagree. This is outdated since we changed to 3rd edition, since every class needs the same XP to level up, since they all have the same ECL and the same CR.
Still, all the classes differ in power and usefulness, at every level from 1 to 20 (and beyond). In some cases so greatly, it's ridicolous.

Yes, wizards are supposed to be awesome at high levels. But so should *every* other class, too.
There might be ways to work around that, ways to make the fighter/rogue/paladin/whatever look useful even in that 20th level group. But as long as they're not useful by themselves, and the DM has to use tricks to "help" them, the entire system is flawed.

Imho, all the 3.5 base classes need a complete rework. Unless a class is not worth taking from level 1 to 20, it's a bad class, period. I really hope they finally fix that in 4.0 (or 3.75, or whatever comes next).

Saph
2007-01-22, 10:11 AM
Imho, all the 3.5 base classes need a complete rework. Unless a class is not worth taking from level 1 to 20, it's a bad class, period.

Oh, come on. 11 base classes, plus goodness knows how many more, all balanced against each other over 20 levels? That's an incredibly tall order.

Any system is going to have problems and imbalances. D&D might get better with the next edition, but as long as there are people willing to spend hundreds of hours optimising characters, there will be ways to make a character overpowered.

- Saph

Orzel
2007-01-22, 10:29 AM
Class imbalance will always be there. That's the part of having different characters. With 11 base classes it'd be near impossible for someone to not be ahead of the party. It's up to the DM to to make it not as noticable. Squishy sorcerers and skill-low warriors to untochable wizards and ranger murder machines, I've seen them all. The higher the level the easier for classes to cover their weakness. More work for the DM.


Good o' forest o' counterspelling sorcerers.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-22, 11:00 AM
I'd like to tell you about when I first noticed there was a class imbalance. The party was 14th level, I was playing a sorcerer, and we were at the ending fight of Return to Temple of Elemental Evil (which the DM converted to 3.5). Around the corner was the chamber in which we knew that Imix and his top minions were hanging out. The DM had them waiting in there for us, so we had time to buff.

I then told the party of my master plan. My sorcerer with overland flight, greater invisibility and improved blink turned on would project a visible image of himself at the entrance to the chamber. He would then start firing cones of cold & using Mordenkainen's swords on the Fire Elemental Lord and his brethren from the image. By the time they were able to discern that the caster was an illusion and go past him out into the corridor, they would have taken significant damage. But with my caster invisible and blinking, Imix and crew would have a very hard time finding him. If Imix reached him, he'd attack with vampiric touch, then retreat invisibly through a wall thanks to improved blink.

The rest of the party, meanwhile, could gather at one spot so if Imix went there they could all attack him. But really, I realized, fully buffed I didn't need the party for this one.

As it turned out, the other players rolled their eyes and said, "That might work, but it's boring." They boldly marched into the room. I used my projected image and self-buffs anyway. In the end, the party took tons of damage, one of them died, and they pretty much had to retreat. My sorcerer's image nailed Imix with cones of cold (although there was some bad luck with spell resistance), the familiar chipped in thanks to imbue with spell ability, the Mordenkainen's Swords wore him down, and when Imix finally moved up, the image zapped him with vampiric touch. End result? My sorcerer didn't take any damage.

Ethdred
2007-01-22, 12:08 PM
So again we are driven to the conclusion that the answer to the question 'when do the classes become unbalanced' is 'when the game exceeds the players' and Dm's imagination and skill'. I wish my high level wizards were coming up against enemies as easy as the ones you've described here.

Marius
2007-01-22, 12:36 PM
So my question to you is at what level does 3.5 start to crack? 13th, when the full casters (aside from sorcerer) get 7th level spells? 15th, when clerics can quicken divine power, wizards get otto's dance, and druids get wild shape huge?

The inbalance starts to show regularly at level 7th. I still don't know what are people arguing about. If you have to design fights to favor non-casters then it's pretty clear that the game has problems with balance.

Iron_Mouse
2007-01-22, 12:42 PM
Oh, come on. 11 base classes, plus goodness knows how many more, all balanced against each other over 20 levels? That's an incredibly tall order.

Any system is going to have problems and imbalances. D&D might get better with the next edition, but as long as there are people willing to spend hundreds of hours optimising characters, there will be ways to make a character overpowered.

- Saph

The problem is less the optimizing...anyone who spends a lot of time optimizing his character deserves to be better than a non-optimized character. But that should be independant from the class.

The problem is more that attitude. Like "hey, class X is not played enough. Let's make it über-powerful to...encourage playing it!" or "hey, class Y is going to be only used to get into prestige classes anyway, so let's not bother giving it useful abilities after level 8 (or so)!". And so on.

I think it can be done, at least to a certain point. Perfect balance is probably impossible, sure, but they could fix *a lot* if they were only willing...

ken-do-nim
2007-01-22, 12:44 PM
The inbalance starts to show regularly at level 7th. I still don't know what are people arguing about. If you have to design fights to favor non-casters then it's pretty clear that the game has problems with balance.

That does seem to be the consensus. Thanks Marius!

ken-do-nim
2007-01-22, 12:47 PM
So again we are driven to the conclusion that the answer to the question 'when do the classes become unbalanced' is 'when the game exceeds the players' and Dm's imagination and skill'. I wish my high level wizards were coming up against enemies as easy as the ones you've described here.

Well it's not quite so simple as that. The ending fight supremely challenged the party; one death and everyone else reduced to very little. But it didn't challenge my sorcerer. If the DM made the fight harder, there would have been more deaths, and it probably would have seemed unfair to the melee types.

Morty
2007-01-22, 12:50 PM
Ken-do-nim's example shows exactly what's wrong with wizards(and sorcerers, but that's the same)- they can be completely unhittable even in hard fights, unless they're facing other wizards. And they're still making enemies' life living hell.

Ethdred
2007-01-22, 12:58 PM
Well it's not quite so simple as that. The ending fight supremely challenged the party; one death and everyone else reduced to very little. But it didn't challenge my sorcerer. If the DM made the fight harder, there would have been more deaths, and it probably would have seemed unfair to the melee types.

Yeah, but that's because the rest of your party valiantly sacrificed themsleves to be a meatwall for your sorceror. There would probably have been better plans they could have adopted, just as the DM could have come up with some fairly simple counters to your sorceror-only plan.

Also, it's not true that a fight didn't challenge you just because you didn't take damage - sometimes the challenge is how to win the fight without taking damage.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-22, 01:35 PM
Yeah, but that's because the rest of your party valiantly sacrificed themsleves to be a meatwall for your sorceror. There would probably have been better plans they could have adopted, just as the DM could have come up with some fairly simple counters to your sorceror-only plan.

Also, it's not true that a fight didn't challenge you just because you didn't take damage - sometimes the challenge is how to win the fight without taking damage.

If we ever play those characters again, I'm going to refer to the rest of the party as "meatwalls". I like that :-)

Gamebird
2007-01-22, 01:35 PM
Yeah, but that's because the rest of your party valiantly sacrificed themsleves to be a meatwall for your sorceror.

No they didn't. They stupidly threw themselves into a blender and got hacked up, while the sorcerer unplugged the damn thing and saved their asses. Had they hung back and let the sorcerer deal with the encounter to start with, they wouldn't have been hurt.


But here's my thing - Yes, the classes start to shift dramatically in power when the casters get 5th level spells. I'm a DM. I have two groups who are both at this point. What do I do to keep combats interesting for all of the players, not just the casters? (without designing anti-magic zones or using Outsiders, Aberrations or much in the way of non-core material)

Indon
2007-01-22, 01:45 PM
But here's my thing - Yes, the classes start to shift dramatically in power when the casters get 5th level spells. I'm a DM. I have two groups who are both at this point. What do I do to keep combats interesting for all of the players, not just the casters? (without designing anti-magic zones or using Outsiders, Aberrations or much in the way of non-core material)

-Introduce things that ambush. Casters have pretty poor general awareness abilities and are very vulnerable at the beginning of combat. Some things might even set up ambushes at a distance, meaning your scout might actually have to go up ahead of the rest of the party sometimes.

-Have your NPC's adapt to spellcasters. So you're fighting a Lich and your wizard Shapeshifts into a dragon, or somesuch. Well, that Lich isn't stupid; he gets out of the area and reengages after he knows the spell's worn off. Ditto for that cleric who is shining with the radiance of a load of self-buffs, if neccessary.

I'll think of some others after I get back to the computer...

krossbow
2007-01-22, 01:53 PM
-Introduce things that ambush. Casters have pretty poor general awareness abilities and are very vulnerable at the beginning of combat. Some things might even set up ambushes at a distance, meaning your scout might actually have to go up ahead of the rest of the party sometimes.

-Have your NPC's adapt to spellcasters. So you're fighting a Lich and your wizard Shapeshifts into a dragon, or somesuch. Well, that Lich isn't stupid; he gets out of the area and reengages after he knows the spell's worn off. Ditto for that cleric who is shining with the radiance of a load of self-buffs, if neccessary.

I'll think of some others after I get back to the computer...



Ever heard of some things called celerity or contigency? Yeah, wonderful things those spells; basically makes it so it's impossible to ambush a wizard.

Marius
2007-01-22, 02:05 PM
But here's my thing - Yes, the classes start to shift dramatically in power when the casters get 5th level spells. I'm a DM. I have two groups who are both at this point. What do I do to keep combats interesting for all of the players, not just the casters? (without designing anti-magic zones or using Outsiders, Aberrations or much in the way of non-core material)

You could use ToB to give the non-casters an edge. If you don't want to use the ToB classes you could always give the core classes stances and maneuvers. Rogues will love Shadow Hand for example. I gave every non-full caster class an extra ability every 4 levels. For example a fighter could select an ability that gave them Evasion and +2 reflex when using a shield (That makes the sword and board build a little better too).

Edit: You could also nerf the casters a bit by banning a few spells (Alter self, Polymorph, Disjunction, Gate, Time stop, Contingency, etc.)

its_all_ogre
2007-01-22, 02:10 PM
if you are a cleric and have had your str dropped to one you are still going to need still spell and eschew materials to cast dispel magic.
you are wearing full plate and cannot carry more than 5 pound in weight!

i have never found dnd break down at high levels, mainly due to hack fest game styles.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-22, 02:18 PM
-Have your NPC's adapt to spellcasters. So you're fighting a Lich and your wizard Shapeshifts into a dragon, or somesuch. Well, that Lich isn't stupid; he gets out of the area and reengages after he knows the spell's worn off. Ditto for that cleric who is shining with the radiance of a load of self-buffs, if neccessary.


This is excellent advice. An intelligent enemy should allow the party to buff to the max, then retreat and come back later when all those buffs are worn off. The look on a cleric's face when he realizes he's wasted that righteous might/divine power combo... [of course at high levels the cleric has enough of those memorized plus pearls of power or persistent spell that it doesn't matter].

Kantolin
2007-01-22, 03:20 PM
To respond to Saph for an instant:


A wizard with haste AND a good fighter or two makes the team effective.

Well.. yes. But that's part of what I meant, and I believe I was misunderstood.

At 5th level, the wizard gets extremely potent third level spells, and one of these best of these spells is haste, due to how potent it makes all of the physical combat units of the party.

Therefore, if you're in a fairly standard party, the Wizard's haste will (It's splash) hit the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Bard, and then himself for kicks.

Now, the catch is that the wizard personally is practically doubling the fighter's damage output. An encounter where the wizard doesn't utilize haste is almost twice as difficult as an encounter where the wizard does. Therefore, the wizard is seriously boosting the party to a ridiculous level more than it would be had he not, and the fighter has comparable difficulty contributing nearly as much without it.

So therefore, at 5th level, the wizard is overpowered already.

...The catch, now, is that the wizard is being unfair primarily by making the party as a whole less fair, so it still feels like people are doing things, so nobody has any trouble whatsoever with this. So, in an odd way, everybody's happy with this unfairness despite the fact that the wizard is still bringing a heck of a lot more to the table than the fighter.

*Shrug* It's just how people work, I guess... so long as your'e unfairing me, everyone's happy.

^_^ Although then the wizard tends to not get any credit for the battle he essentially won for the party by doubling the meleer's damage output, but eh.


Edit:


intelligent enemy should allow the party to buff to the max, then retreat and come back later when all those buffs are worn off.

Be warned... having enough NPCs do this makes it a more and more viable option for the PCs to teleport out, scry or something on the area they were just at, wait 8 hours, buff up to holy heck and back, then blink in and smack said NPC with a dimensional anchor or sommat.

All of which are frequently selected 4th and 5th level spells, note...

Matthew
2007-01-22, 04:37 PM
Nerf, nerf, nerf, the Spell Casters...

Yeah, after about fifth Level imbalances start to show up, by around seventh level more clearly so. I very rarely play in games that go higher than ninth level.

McBish
2007-01-22, 04:42 PM
Of course there's nothing WRONG with it. But if you're a Fighter 20 in a group with, say, an even quasi-optimized Druid 20, Wizard 20, and Beguiler 20, then you will barely be able to contribute in the vast majority of circumstances. There's a little wrong with that--not with playing a high level fighter. But that's how it is.

Be a bard then you can contribute witty banter. Yay mocking people who can kill you with silly magic.

Saph
2007-01-22, 06:37 PM
Ever heard of some things called celerity or contigency? Yeah, wonderful things those spells; basically makes it so it's impossible to ambush a wizard.

Contingency only guards against one specific situation. As for the celerity/halt line of spells, they're banned or ignored in every game I've ever played in. I don't know any good DM who'd allow them.

Ambush/surprise attacks are a big equalising factor in general. A lot of people seem to assume that a caster will always have time to put up 2 or 3 buffs up before a fight . . . the games I've seen are nothing like this. A battle where you know the location and numbers of the enemies and have time to buff up and choose your time of attack is an EXECUTION, not a battle!

One of the reasons I don't find wizards/sorcerers quite as strong as other people is that the DMs I play with have enemies ambush the party whenever possible. Why wouldn't they? It's not like they have any reason to give the party a fair fight.

- Saph

Saph
2007-01-22, 06:42 PM
...The catch, now, is that the wizard is being unfair primarily by making the party as a whole less fair, so it still feels like people are doing things, so nobody has any trouble whatsoever with this. So, in an odd way, everybody's happy with this unfairness despite the fact that the wizard is still bringing a heck of a lot more to the table than the fighter.

*Shrug* It's just how people work, I guess... so long as your'e unfairing me, everyone's happy.

Oh, I see what you were getting at. It's still a teamwork thing, though - you need haste plus good fighters. I suppose you could say that the wizard's 'bringing' more, but the point I was making was that since we have only one good fighter in our party, losing either me or him would hurt about as much. So I'm still not sure if it's right to say that the wizard's bringing more. I'm not denying that the wizard gets there eventually, but it's a lot later than 5th level.


^_^ Although then the wizard tends to not get any credit for the battle he essentially won for the party by doubling the meleer's damage output, but eh.

Yeah, I've noticed that too. :) Ah well, as long as the rest of the party's happy . . .

- Saph

Lidjis
2007-01-22, 06:43 PM
I think one thing needs to be cleared up here. The point is not that characters working together can be more effective. Of course they can!
A hasted fighter gets a huge boost in damage or control output per round, the improved invisible rogue gets sneak attack out the ass. The problem is that each class is designed to fill a certain archetype. At high levels, a cleric and fighter are a good combo. The cleric buffs the fighter, who beats stuff up. The problem is, 2 clerics are better than a fighter and a cleric at everything. Have one cleric heal while the other outfights the fighter if healing is your thing. OR just have them both buff and run amok, it will still be better than the fighter-cleric combo. Its the same thing at high levels. Two thirteenth level wizards are better than one 13th level wizard and one 13th level fighter. And thats a problem. You can talk about playing the game the way its meant to be played, fulfilling archetypes. The problem is that CoDzilla can fill the meleer archetype better than the fighter and still have full casting and good will saves left over.

Norsesmithy
2007-01-22, 06:52 PM
I think that the biggest thing one can do to help balance the different classes, besides nixing some overpowered spells, is to give the melee classes better saves.

In 1st edition, the Fighter had the best saves of any class, what happened to that?

Matthew
2007-01-22, 07:22 PM
I tend to agree. In my House Ruled (A)D&D Campaign, Player Characters can increase their Saving Throws as Skills (which work slightly differently to 3.x). It works well.

TimeWizard
2007-01-22, 07:29 PM
Does everyone go with this hype anymore? I mean, come on, "if your not playing a full caster, your not contributing"? If the games you guys are playing demand such things,then I feel sorry for you guys.

There is nothing wrong with NOT being a full caster at 20th level.

No, never mind. I am not going to get into this arguement. All I am going to say is, if you guys are that hooked on power gaming, then more power to you. Your right, of course. What else would you want at 20th level? A party with a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric, and a Druid. All the other classes suck, anyway, right?

Sheesh, how sad.

You sir, have won Time's vote for post of the year.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-22, 07:33 PM
Because OBVIOUSLY anyone who realizes the superiority of casters hates everyone who plays anything else, and thinks that it is right and good?

Artemician
2007-01-23, 05:25 AM
Because OBVIOUSLY anyone who realizes the superiority of casters hates everyone who plays anything else, and thinks that it is right and good?

No, OBVIOUSLY that person is showing that he "hates everyone who plays anyone else and thinks that it is right and good" in his choice of words.

Back on-topic, I have to agree with the ToB approach. In fact, one could even go as far as to develop an anti-caster discipline, with maneuveribility, grappling and debuffing as it's primary aim.

The big problem with casters, is that at high levels, they're untouchable. I think it's only fair that a Swordsage can blink up to the flying caster, secure in his invulnerability and pull him to the ground.

Golthur
2007-01-23, 10:42 AM
I tend to agree. In my House Ruled (A)D&D Campaign, Player Characters can increase their Saving Throws as Skills (which work slightly differently to 3.x). It works well.
OK, I'm curious now. :smile:

elliott20
2007-01-23, 12:45 PM
I think the breaking point is when spell casters start getting abilities that fundamentally defy the very mechanics the system is set up to use.

In normal d&d physics, people die in several ways. 1) HP gets reduced to -10, 2) certain stats gets reduced to 0.

And the idea here is that all things can be modulated by measurements. At such and such level, there is an appropriate amount of treasure that is attributed to a certain level of monsters. The problem is with spellcasters, when they hit a certain level and get certain spells (usually around 7-9, I think) they start getting spells that bends these rules and start bypassing standard defenses. Their power expands at an exponential level while fighters still have a very much linear progression.

Just look at how a fighter progresses. Every progression a fighter makes can be measured by levels. And while feats can allow a fighter to BEND the combat rules slightly, it doesn't allow him to outright break it.

The problem is that the wizard's spells were designed outside the realm of the fighter in mind. The fighter, left to standard material, will have no means of being able to defend against the myriad of things the wizard has. After a while, all magic spells start having effects so dramatic and with a single die roll that a non-caster would have to put up a lot more effort to get around the caster.

Do I think this is wrong? not necessarily. Some games suit that feel just fine and some don't.

Matthew
2007-01-23, 01:03 PM
OK, I'm curious now. :smile:

As briefly as I can...

At the moment, how it works in 3.x terms is that the three Saving Throws are treated as Class Skills / Proficiencies for everyone. We use Character Points to advance Skills / Proficiencies, but the 3.x equivalent would be to think of Character Points supplementing Skill Points and being spent at the Player Character's discretion.

It's more complicated than that in reality (as Saving Throws, Skills, Non Weapon Proficiencies, Base Attack Bonus / THAC0, Weapon Proficiencies and the occasional Feat (Track, for instance) are folded into one Skill Set capped at [level] instead of [level+3]), but the above would be a good approximation.

Gamebird
2007-01-23, 02:15 PM
I think the breaking point is when spell casters start getting abilities that fundamentally defy the very mechanics the system is set up to use.

.... At such and such level, there is an appropriate amount of treasure that is attributed to a certain level of monsters. The problem is with spellcasters, when they hit a certain level and get certain spells (usually around 7-9, I think) they start getting spells that bends these rules and start bypassing standard defenses.

They also get spells that defy the WBL guidelines and break the economy. The spell caster reasonably asks the DM if they can cast their spells for money, or sell the products of their spells, using the wall spells and/or Fabricate. A fighter is left holding an axe or hammer, but a wizard can cast a spell like Fabricate, create a whole bridge in a round, and still have the rest of the day left to labor normally. Or not, since they've just short-cutted the labor of days, maybe weeks, with a single spell.

Yeah - making money in non-adventuring aspects isn't the center of most games, but at low levels it's not possible to do anything real game-breaking (other than scribing scrolls). At high levels the casters get options the non-casters don't.