PDA

View Full Version : A suggestion for solving balance issues.



Saph
2007-01-22, 12:14 PM
I've noticed a popular opinion developing on these boards, to the effect that casting classes are so much more powerful than non-casting classes at higher levels that it spoils the game.

I have a simple suggestion for resolving this problem.

Casters only reach full potential in the hands of people who are very good at the mechanics of D&D - ie people who know all the spells and know all the ways in which they work best together. A new player won't be able to, say, get his wizard to fly at level 3, because he probably wouldn't notice the Alter Self spell in the PHB and wouldn't be able to come up with a flying form if he did. Over time less geeky or experienced players can pick up tricks that have been invented by more geeky and experienced players, but this takes time and since spellcasting in D&D requires thinking ahead and planning, not everyone is still going to be good at it. However, if you ARE good at it, you should be able to make a wizard, cleric or druid significantly more powerful than another class.

So here's a solution.

Once you get good enough with the D&D mechanics to have reached this point, start to shift your focus away from "optimising my character" to "making the game as fun as possible for everyone". This can include: buffing/supporting the rest of the party, avoiding spell types that are clearly overpowered (eg the polymorph line), not going out of your way to outshine another player in their area of expertise, using spells that will generally help the plot rather than short-circuiting it, etc.

If even with this you find your character is still so powerful that you're spoiling the game, start designing non-optimised characters. Eg: blaster wizards, multiclass fighter/casters, non-optimal base classes like the fighter, etc.

D&D is a game. You play a game to have fun. If you find that optimising your character too much detracts from the fun, don't do it.

Of course, you're always free to say: "I refuse to play any character that isn't as powerful as I can make them, and if that spoils the game, that's the fault of the DM or Wizards of the Coast." But if that's your attitude, don't complain when your game feels unbalanced.

This solution requires no house rules, no mechanics changes, and doesn't require anyone else but you to agree on exactly which classes are overpowered and when.

- Saph

Thomas
2007-01-22, 02:12 PM
Better solution:

Play a balanced game.

Try RuneQuest. You'll like it. Mmmm.

Morty
2007-01-22, 02:27 PM
RuneQuest? I belive someone wrote that in that system magic wins, but everyone is using spells anyway. If that's true, then no, thanks. Though playing other system is good idea, I just like Vancian magic system. OP's idea seems to be the best way to resolve all 'unbalance issues'. I'm currently playing non-optimized wizard and I'm fine.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-01-22, 02:46 PM
Better solution:

Play a balanced game.

Try RuneQuest. You'll like it. Mmmm.

Don't make me hurt you.

I always try to make the game more fun for everyone regardless of what I play (one reason why I like to DM, I can make the game more fun) and I'm not as veteran or skilled as a lot of people when it comes to optimising characters. Anyway, this has never been a problem for me, not sure if it'll really make a difference in the long run, unfortunately.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-22, 02:52 PM
Now see I like to pick characters based upon whether I think they'll be fun or not. My view of fun generally involves "always being useful and have lots of options". That naturally translates into potent casters. I also like to spend a lot of time on my characters, and if you have say a rogue you can only spend so much time, but with a caster you can flip through all the books endlessly reading spells.

Edit: Sure you can flip through books reading about feats, but you only get so much. With a caster, you can really use all those spells (get some via scrolls, some in your spellbook, with clerics/druids you can memorize as you see fit, etc.)

Yakk
2007-01-22, 03:03 PM
RuneQuest has the problem that most skill based systems have.

You get a heck of alot of points at character creation. Spending these points badly screws your character, because XP comes at a slow pace relative to starting points.

You can easily make a fighting character that is 5 to 10 times more effective (in terms of damage taken per point of damage done) than your buddy, simply because you understand math a bit more.

Plus, the system is rather quirky. Like:
Armor sucks unless you are being overwealmed by low-skill hordes.

Shields are godly.

Divine magic has a multi-day downtime requirement to regain spells.

Far more content seeds than content exists. Each "Rune" (hard to get source of magic) gives you exactly one spell, and these spells are not close to balanced against each other.

Magic, beyond "rune magic", requires rather intense knowledge of the game mechanics to start off with a viable character.

...

Last time we played, I we all got "twice as many skillpoints as a starting character" characters (plus 2 or so runes).

The power ratio between characters was huge. As in "can solo a small dragon" vs "has problems with a goblin".

krossbow
2007-01-22, 03:07 PM
Try arcana evolved. thats a good one.



But really, focusing on helping others? I do not play a game to Baby sit others; I play it to have fun with a group of adventuring PEERS. I want to be out slaying enemies with awsome warriors, not making sure that Bobo the fighter isn't poking his eyes with his sword.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-22, 03:19 PM
It's a valid point, though I honestly think it could have been made in posts on any of the other balance threads we've currently got going. I believe I said something similar in regards to the cleric -- just because you CAN be the best and you CAN outdo everyone else at their own job doesn't mean you SHOULD. Just because you have Righteous Might doesn't mean you cast it every battle -- not unless you really need to.

It doesn't always work, but I think that Saph's got a point in that just thinking about the other players and about not stealing the show will take a huge step in a good direction.

I'll have to admit I'm with Mort, Thomas. Though some of your references to RuneQuest sound fun, I'm somewhat against the idea of everyone having magic in a fantasy setting. I like the idea of the fighter who can't wrap his mind around magic, but fights well; and the wizard who gets powerful magic but can't fight or take a hit for beans. Perhaps D&D is not quite this, but it's close enough.

Morty
2007-01-22, 03:25 PM
It's a valid point, though I honestly think it could have been made in posts on any of the other balance threads we've currently got going. I believe I said something similar in regards to the cleric -- just because you CAN be the best and you CAN outdo everyone else at their own job doesn't mean you SHOULD. Just because you have Righteous Might doesn't mean you cast it every battle -- not unless you really need to.

It doesn't always work, but I think that Saph's got a point in that just thinking about the other players and about not stealing the show will take a huge step in a good direction.

I'll have to admit I'm with Mort, Thomas. Though some of your references to RuneQuest sound fun, I'm somewhat against the idea of everyone having magic in a fantasy setting. I like the idea of the fighter who can't wrap his mind around magic, but fights well; and the wizard who gets powerful magic but can't fight or take a hit for beans. Perhaps D&D is not quite this, but it's close enough.

The wizard being powerful but still fragile as glass bottle is how D&D should look.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-01-22, 03:29 PM
The wizard being powerful but still fragile as glass bottle is how D&D should look.

The problem with D&D is that wizards are not as fragile as a glass bottle if they're at all intelligent. A properly prepared wizard can defend itself from any kind of threat because they've got spells that throw their survivability into the stratosphere.

Morty
2007-01-22, 03:32 PM
The problem with D&D is that wizards are not as fragile as a glass bottle if they're at all intelligent. A properly prepared wizard can defend itself from any kind of threat because they've got spells that throw their survivability into the stratosphere.

That's what I'm talking about. Wizards should be fragile, but on high levels they aren't. And you don't have to powergame to achieve that.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-01-22, 03:34 PM
That's what I'm talking about. Wizards should be fragile, but on high levels they aren't.

Even at low-mid levels they can still frustrate just about anything. Proper use of Alter Self, Mirror Image, Ghostly Visage, Shield, Protection from Arrows - those kind of spells are available very early and will thwart all kinds of annoying attacks.

I think we're agreeing here, though, in that wizards aren't that fragile, so I'm just going to shut up and move on.

Tormsskull
2007-01-22, 04:28 PM
Simple way to balance wizards: They don't get to pick two spells of their choice from the spell list. The DM presents them with a list of spells that they can pick two from. Bam, wizards are as balanced as the DM is good at determining balance.

Morty
2007-01-22, 04:32 PM
Simple way to balance wizards: They don't get to pick two spells of their choice from the spell list. The DM presents them with a list of spells that they can pick two from. Bam, wizards are as balanced as the DM is good at determining balance.

And then we'll have endless bickering which spells DM should approve. Limiting what spells wizard can learn isn't bad idea overall, though.

Nero24200
2007-01-22, 05:33 PM
But really, focusing on helping others? I do not play a game to Baby sit others; I play it to have fun with a group of adventuring PEERS. I want to be out slaying enemies with awsome warriors, not making sure that Bobo the fighter isn't poking his eyes with his sword.

The reason spellcasters get so many spells is so they can buff others as well as themselves.

Frankly, anyone who plays a fullcaster and only buffs him/herself is a powergamer in my eyes and not someone I would invite to my group EVER. Whast the point of making a fighter, and up front meat-shield warrior, if the party cleric, a -lesser warrior- is smashing more skulls than you purely because he decided that only one bulls strength for himself was sufficent? It encourages a "Look out for No1" mentallity and as such, shouldn't have any place is a game which requires all the players to work together. It also leads to the infamous "Spellcasters are super 1337" idea that seems to roam these forums and that non-spellcasters are underpowered. They're not, simple as that, and I know, I play high-level campaigns more often than lower level ones, and its always the non-caster with the most kills since -the party work together!- In my last campaign, the party swashbuckler had 3 times the number of kills than the favoured soul, this is because the favoured soul realised that its far better to buff the main warrior than just herself. Coincidently, most of the challenges they faced were overcome -very- easily.

Meanwhile, the Barberian/Sorceror who -always- tried to outdo the swashbuckler, never got anywhere. The fact that the one character out for himself got no-where does not surprise me.

If you want to balance spellcasters, ask players to play them properly.
Mages -should- be weak and stick behind the party, they should effectivly be moving buffs who can shine a little and fireball if needed. Clerics should effectivly be lesser warriors who can heal if needed. If played properly, they seem a lot less overpowered than you'd image.

Indon
2007-01-22, 06:09 PM
Simple way to balance wizards: They don't get to pick two spells of their choice from the spell list. The DM presents them with a list of spells that they can pick two from. Bam, wizards are as balanced as the DM is good at determining balance.

You could take it a step further and say that wizards get no spells on leveling up, just the ones they can find or purchase to transcribe. Though, that's more suitable for a bit lower-magic campaign, as they go.

Saph
2007-01-22, 06:15 PM
Better solution:

Play a balanced game.

Why on earth would I want to do that? I LOVE playing D&D. You should be telling that to the people who complain constantly about class balance.

The point I'm making is that the power and versatility of spellcasters doesn't have to spoil the game, and I'm explaining why.

- Saph

Saph
2007-01-22, 06:22 PM
Simple way to balance wizards: They don't get to pick two spells of their choice from the spell list. The DM presents them with a list of spells that they can pick two from. Bam, wizards are as balanced as the DM is good at determining balance.

But the whole point is that you can make the game fun without needing houserules. I'm always a little dubious about houserules, partly because I play in games where the players switch around a lot, partly because the more people you add to a group, the more difficult it becomes to get a set of changes that everyone agrees on, and partly because I've found that as soon as you nerf one rules abuse the powergamer types will just move on to another.

It's much more effective to deal with the problem at the source: change the mentality. You aren't playing to maximise the imaginary power of your imaginary character, you're playing to have a good time. So design your character to maximise fun instead of game strength.

- Saph

Matthew
2007-01-22, 06:45 PM
I agree with the premise of your idea Saph, but really this is what goes on in active play groups already, it's a natural solution.

Dealing with the mechanics is the real problem, though, and full Spell Casters are just way out of whack compared to other Character Classes after about Seventh Level or so. There's nothing that can be done about the mechanical disparity without the use of House Rules.

Dausuul
2007-01-22, 07:32 PM
But the whole point is that you can make the game fun without needing houserules. I'm always a little dubious about houserules, partly because I play in games where the players switch around a lot, partly because the more people you add to a group, the more difficult it becomes to get a set of changes that everyone agrees on, and partly because I've found that as soon as you nerf one rules abuse the powergamer types will just move on to another.

It's much more effective to deal with the problem at the source: change the mentality. You aren't playing to maximise the imaginary power of your imaginary character, you're playing to have a good time. So design your character to maximise fun instead of game strength.

- Saph

I agree that the "I will make my character teh ubar and win D&D!" mentality has to go, but that mentality doesn't have to be present for game imbalances to cause problems. Case in point: I was making a character a while ago for a planar campaign. So I said to myself, "Hmm, I think I'll play a spellslinging druid who rides her animal companion into battle. I'll pick up a couple of mounted combat feats and all. That sounds like fun, and I can do a little healing on the side."

So I made my druid, and decided that since the animal companion was such an important part of my character, I'd drop a level into Beastmaster for a boost. After all, "pets" are usually on the fragile side (or so I thought then, based on my experiences in 2nd Edition), and if my mount died under me, where the hell would I be?

It took me about one session to discover that my animal companion was a melee monster that put the party tanks to shame. I felt bad in combat because I was dominating so thoroughly--but having shown what my companion could do, I couldn't simply hold back or play stupidly, or it would have been obvious that I was just taking pity on the poor widdle fighter.

I stuck with that character for that adventure because it would have been too disruptive to dump her in the middle, but as soon as the adventure was over, I scrapped her and made a new character. For this one, I made a dread necromancer from Heroes of Horror. I figured, skeletons and zombies suck, they won't outshine anybody, right? They're just for style and secondary meat shields. And dread necromancers have lots of spells to mess with the enemy, but not a lot of raw damage output, so I'd play a valuable role within the party without walking all over everyone else.

...and then I discovered that skeletons and zombies are just as powerful as beefed-up animal companions when they get +4 Strength and +2 hit points per die and you can make them by the dozen. Another character bites the dust. Since then, I have officially sworn off making characters with pets of any kind.

Now, I will freely admit that I enjoy optimizing my characters. I take great pleasure in finding clever combinations of abilities and powers that let me do cool stuff, and I'm pretty good at it. But I certainly don't set out to hog the spotlight or spoil anyone else's fun--indeed, when I discover that I'm inadvertently doing that, I immediately look for a way to fix it. Unfortunately, that usually means scrapping my character, which is disruptive to the campaign and annoying for all concerned.

The thing is, if you're going to hold back to let other people shine, you have to hold back all the time. Show your character's true power, just once, and from then on everyone else is going to feel like, "Well, why am I up here smacking things with my measly fighter feats when the cleric could just buff up and lay waste?" And if you underestimate your own build, then by the time you discover that you're making everyone else look like wusses, it's too late to tone yourself down.

Dausuul
2007-01-22, 07:42 PM
But the whole point is that you can make the game fun without needing houserules. I'm always a little dubious about houserules, partly because I play in games where the players switch around a lot, partly because the more people you add to a group, the more difficult it becomes to get a set of changes that everyone agrees on, and partly because I've found that as soon as you nerf one rules abuse the powergamer types will just move on to another.

It's much more effective to deal with the problem at the source: change the mentality. You aren't playing to maximise the imaginary power of your imaginary character, you're playing to have a good time. So design your character to maximise fun instead of game strength.

- Saph

I agree that the "I will make my character teh ubar and win D&D!" mentality has to go, but that mentality doesn't have to be present for game imbalances to cause problems. Case in point: I was making a character a while ago for a planar campaign. So I said to myself, "Hmm, I think I'll play a spellslinging druid who rides her animal companion into battle. I'll pick up a couple of mounted combat feats and all. That sounds like fun, and I can do a little healing on the side."

So I made my druid, and decided that since the animal companion was such an important part of my character, I'd drop a level into Beastmaster for a boost. After all, "pets" are usually on the fragile side (or so I thought then, based on my experiences in 2nd Edition), and if my mount died under me, where the hell would I be?

It took me about one session to discover that my animal companion was a melee monster that put the party tanks to shame. I felt bad in combat because I was dominating so thoroughly--but having shown what my companion could do, I couldn't simply hold back or play stupidly, or it would have been obvious that I was just taking pity on the poor widdle fighter.

I stuck with that character for that adventure because it would have been too disruptive to dump her in the middle, but as soon as the adventure was over, I scrapped her and made a new character. For this one, I made a dread necromancer from Heroes of Horror. I figured, skeletons and zombies suck, they won't outshine anybody, right? They're just for style and secondary meat shields (bone shields?). And dread necromancers have lots of spells to mess with the enemy, but not a lot of raw damage output, so I'd play a valuable role within the party without walking all over everyone else.

...and then I discovered that skeletons and zombies are just as powerful as beefed-up animal companions when they get +4 Strength and +2 hit points per die and you can make them by the dozen. Another character bites the dust. Since then, I have officially sworn off making characters with pets of any kind.

Now, I will freely admit that I enjoy optimizing my characters. I take great pleasure in finding clever combinations of abilities and powers that let me do cool stuff, and I'm pretty good at it. But I certainly don't set out to hog the spotlight or spoil anyone else's fun--indeed, when I discover that I'm inadvertently doing that, I immediately look for a way to fix it. Unfortunately, that usually means scrapping my character, which is disruptive to the campaign and annoying for all concerned.

The thing is, if you're going to hold back to let other people shine, you have to hold back all the time. Show your character's true power, just once, and from then on everyone else is going to feel like, "Well, why am I up here smacking things with my measly fighter feats when the cleric could just buff up and lay waste?" And if you underestimate your own build, then by the time you discover that you're making everyone else look like wusses, it's too late to tone yourself down.

Saph
2007-01-22, 07:51 PM
The thing is, if you're going to hold back to let other people shine, you have to hold back all the time. Show your character's true power, just once, and from then on everyone else is going to feel like, "Well, why am I up here smacking things with my measly fighter feats when the cleric could just buff up and lay waste?"

Do they, though? I dunno, maybe it's just my groups, but I find that most players don't seem to pay all that much attention to the exact power level of other characters. I do, but I think I'm a bit unusual. The attitude is more "I'm going to do my thing and I'm only going to pay attention to how powerful your character is if it's pushed in my face". Even then, they forget about it shortly afterwards.

I tend to find that the players who can accurately estimate the power of other people's characters are the ones who are good at optimising in the first place - which means that they're basically in the same situation as you, anyway.

- Saph

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-22, 08:05 PM
The reason spellcasters get so many spells is so they can buff others as well as themselves.

Frankly, anyone who plays a fullcaster and only buffs him/herself is a powergamer in my eyes and not someone I would invite to my group EVER. Whast the point of making a fighter, and up front meat-shield warrior, if the party cleric, a -lesser warrior- is smashing more skulls than you purely because he decided that only one bulls strength for himself was sufficent? It encourages a "Look out for No1" mentallity and as such, shouldn't have any place is a game which requires all the players to work together. It also leads to the infamous "Spellcasters are super 1337" idea that seems to roam these forums and that non-spellcasters are underpowered. They're not, simple as that, and I know, I play high-level campaigns more often than lower level ones, and its always the non-caster with the most kills since -the party work together!- In my last campaign, the party swashbuckler had 3 times the number of kills than the favoured soul, this is because the favoured soul realised that its far better to buff the main warrior than just herself. Coincidently, most of the challenges they faced were overcome -very- easily.

If you want to balance spellcasters, ask players to play them properly.
Mages -should- be weak and stick behind the party, they should effectivly be moving buffs who can shine a little and fireball if needed. Clerics should effectivly be lesser warriors who can heal if needed. If played properly, they seem a lot less overpowered than you'd image.

Right, the cleric casts divine power and righteous might on the fighter...oh wait, those have a range of personal, and divine favor doesn't help the fighter(it makes your BAB improve by 1/CL, can't exceed hit dice). And why can't a cleric prepare 2 Bull sterngths?

Also, why is your way(all casters must be weak) the only way to play? What if I played a wise and strong cleric of Herionous? Wouldn't it make sense for me to be on the front lines and to be buffing myself for combat? I would never play a caster for you, because you would basically tell me how to make and play my character(or so it seems from your post.)

ZekeArgo
2007-01-22, 08:12 PM
The reason spellcasters get so many spells is so they can buff others as well as themselves.

Frankly, anyone who plays a fullcaster and only buffs him/herself is a powergamer in my eyes and not someone I would invite to my group EVER. Whast the point of making a fighter, and up front meat-shield warrior, if the party cleric, a -lesser warrior- is smashing more skulls than you purely because he decided that only one bulls strength for himself was sufficent? It encourages a "Look out for No1" mentallity and as such, shouldn't have any place is a game which requires all the players to work together. It also leads to the infamous "Spellcasters are super 1337" idea that seems to roam these forums and that non-spellcasters are underpowered. They're not, simple as that, and I know, I play high-level campaigns more often than lower level ones, and its always the non-caster with the most kills since -the party work together!- In my last campaign, the party swashbuckler had 3 times the number of kills than the favoured soul, this is because the favoured soul realised that its far better to buff the main warrior than just herself. Coincidently, most of the challenges they faced were overcome -very- easily.

Meanwhile, the Barberian/Sorceror who -always- tried to outdo the swashbuckler, never got anywhere. The fact that the one character out for himself got no-where does not surprise me.

If you want to balance spellcasters, ask players to play them properly.
Mages -should- be weak and stick behind the party, they should effectivly be moving buffs who can shine a little and fireball if needed. Clerics should effectivly be lesser warriors who can heal if needed. If played properly, they seem a lot less overpowered than you'd image.Ok... so your comparing limited-casting full casters (ones that have concrete spells known, nevermind an effing barb/sorc) to Wizards, Clerics and Druids? Tell me, what is that swashbuckler going to do against any of the mid to high level demons? Or even any creature with flying, or with Large or Huge size that decides its time to grapple? Lose, thats what.

You know what a properly prepared spellcaster does in that situation? either controls the creature (charm, forcecage, dimensional anchor, etc) or bombard it in Save or Dies, Save or Sucks, or just plain Die spells untill it isn't a problem anymore. If your caster is actually preparing fireballs and damage spells it isnt a wonder he isnt doing well.

Casters *are* better because they do the job quicker, can adapt to different situations, and essentially outshine anyone who dosent have spell access.

Two Wizards, a Druid and a Cleric will decimate any challenge put before them far faster than any other combination of classes.

Saph
2007-01-22, 08:24 PM
*sigh*

Who cares what the 'fastest way to decimate a challenge' is? I'm trying to explain how you can have fun in a game WITHOUT optimising for power.

- Saph

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-22, 08:32 PM
*sigh*

Who cares what the 'fastest way to decimate a challenge' is? I'm trying to explain how you can have fun in a game WITHOUT optimising for power.

- Saph
I understand, and I acually think this is a great thread(and idea) but I thought that the one I quoted was had an inordinate amount of bias and was basically preaching my way is the only right way.(also, hobbling the better because there are weaker, to the degree he says is uncalled for)

Mike_G
2007-01-22, 08:41 PM
*sigh*

Who cares what the 'fastest way to decimate a challenge' is? I'm trying to explain how you can have fun in a game WITHOUT optimising for power.

- Saph

I agree completely.

We have generally not seen the OMG TEH CASTRES ROXORS!!! syndrome all that often in actual play, and the one time it did happen, early on in 3.5 when the wizarda nd his spell sharing familiar used the un-errated Shapechange to turn into a new horrific, overpowered monster as a free action every round for about a day and a half and wrapped up the whole main boss fight without the need for the ret of us.

So, he stopped using that spell. It was basically a one man Win button, which isn't all that much fun.

I've played with power gamers, but never the same ones more than once.

Gralamin
2007-01-22, 09:12 PM
I can't believe I don't know this but how does Alter Self let you fly [hangs his head in shame]

You can still have fun with optimized characters, in fact most people say that polymorph is bad and shouldn't be used, and create a character optimized without it.
The point of an effective wizard is to make things easier to kill for the rest of the party, which is part of the fun.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-22, 09:59 PM
Alter Self lets you fly when you use it to change into something that can fly. Like a Raptoran, or an Avariel, or something.


As for the tired "casters should buff others!!!" argument--effective wizards do that. But they can't cast Mirror Image or Overland Flight on the fighter. And then, during the fight, they cast offensive spells, debuffs and the like. Clerics and druids... what exactly do you want them to CAST? Their good spells just plain don't apply to the rest of the party.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-22, 10:20 PM
Casters only reach full potential in the hands of people who are very good at the mechanics of D&D - ie people who know all the spells and know all the ways in which they work best together. A new player won't be able to, say, get his wizard to fly at level 3, because he probably wouldn't notice the Alter Self spell in the PHB and wouldn't be able to come up with a flying form if he did. Over time less geeky or experienced players can pick up tricks that have been invented by more geeky and experienced players, but this takes time and since spellcasting in D&D requires thinking ahead and planning, not everyone is still going to be good at it. However, if you ARE good at it, you should be able to make a wizard, cleric or druid significantly more powerful than another class.


By the way, I just wanted to mention that you are right. In the campaign in which I played the run-away sorcerer, another player ran a druid. He never seemed overpowered. He also rarely wild-shaped. He had a constrictor snake animal companion, and was usually worried about its safety and kept it out of tough fights. One time he summoned a lion which did a devastating pounce attack, but that's all I can remember. He died several times, and we blew our cash full resurrecting him at least one of those.

So my dilemma is really similar to what Dausuul spoke to; what I find fun to play ends up being overpowered. And this has nothing to do, by the way, with casters. My other character, my monk, is also running away with the show.

The true problem is that I, like the rest of you who actually read the D&D boards, really dive into the game, and enjoy spending time on my characters, coming up with effective skill & feat & ability choices. The rest of the people I play with don't look at their characters between sessions. (Sometimes it is annoying when they show up at a session trying to decide what skills & feats to take when the DM sent an email saying they levelled up weeks ago). So I end up playing these powerful characters in contrast.

Wehrkind
2007-01-22, 10:45 PM
Well, that might be more of a problem with your other players Ken-do. Given that there are bad choices and good choices in the game, even a class with ridiculous amounts of potential (full caster) you can be bad at it by making poor choices. The problem arrises when someone who makes pretty good choices is simply godly compared to those who make very good choices with another class. Fighters have lots of neat tricks, and I am personally fond of them, but they can't make the laws of reality shut up and sit down.
Casters simply have a solution to every problem. If they player is to unskilled to realize that, then perhaps they are not over powered. But sooner or later that cleric who heals and only breaks out his power when it is necessary is going to do so, one man the boss, then turn around to his gaping buddies and say "Don't feel bad, I will be gimped again until needed."

The argument that they can just "improve the game play for everyone else instead of being overpowered" is somewhat fatuous, because no matter what, if Superman is adventuring with Jimmy and Lois, he is really dealing with most of the problems. If he isn't, Lois and Jimmy are gomers, or Superman has a miserable time trying not to outshine them while they fight evil house flies, or whatever they can handle while he sits on his thumbs. Thumbs of steel.

Artemician
2007-01-23, 05:21 AM
As for the tired "casters should buff others!!!" argument--effective wizards do that. But they can't cast Mirror Image or Overland Flight on the fighter. And then, during the fight, they cast offensive spells, debuffs and the like. Clerics and druids... what exactly do you want them to CAST? Their good spells just plain don't apply to the rest of the party.

Case in point. Noone says you have to play your character to maximum potential to have fun. Hey, an Evoker. He's not having fun because mosnters can save against his spells! Oh look a monk! He's not happy because he can't have those shiny glowing sword-chucks!

Just because a spell is good, doesn't mean you'll feel better after casting it. Which is more fun, doing Forcecage+cloudkill or an in-you-face krk-thoom fireball. Saying that you won't have fun for doing the suboptimal thing is like saying "Why learn archery, you have guns."

Saph
2007-01-23, 06:55 AM
As for the tired "casters should buff others!!!" argument--effective wizards do that. But they can't cast Mirror Image or Overland Flight on the fighter. And then, during the fight, they cast offensive spells, debuffs and the like. Clerics and druids... what exactly do you want them to CAST? Their good spells just plain don't apply to the rest of the party.

Use your creativity. I know you're a good player, Bears - if your wizard is outshining the rest of the party to the point that it spoils things, use your knowledge of the game system to make the game as fun as possible for the rest of your party, instead of using it to optimise your character. Buffing other players isn't the only way to do it, just the simplest one.

Unless you find that casters being stronger isn't a problem in your games, in which case, great - you don't need to worry about it in the first place, do you?

- Saph

Yakk
2007-01-23, 10:02 AM
Playing against a challenge that you are crippling yourself at isn't as fun as trying your best against a challenge.

RPGs are not just social interaction and storytelling -- they are also puzzle/challenge games where you try to solve the adventure thrown at you by the GM.

There are RPGs that don't contain that puzzle/challenge component, but they aren't very popular. Having a common goal (be it bowling, or figuring out who is poisoning the children) is a strong social motivator for much of humanity.

Indon
2007-01-23, 10:49 AM
Playing against a challenge that you are crippling yourself at isn't as fun as trying your best against a challenge.

RPGs are not just social interaction and storytelling -- they are also puzzle/challenge games where you try to solve the adventure thrown at you by the GM.

There are RPGs that don't contain that puzzle/challenge component, but they aren't very popular. Having a common goal (be it bowling, or figuring out who is poisoning the children) is a strong social motivator for much of humanity.

Isn't that argument applicable towards any degree of optimization?

The fact is, some people are better at optimizing characters than others. Some people make wizards and select a certain specific set of spells, carefully establishing contingencies for every concievable event using those spells, and _then_ have the capacity to overshadow the party. But those same people could make a barbarian and have so much strength that they can power attack a BBEG to death in one round.

If you're better at optimizing a character than the rest of your party, you're either going to overshadow them, or you're going to have to play a less optimized character.

No, this doesn't mean you don't play a caster. But maybe you shouldn't try to maximize the effectiveness of the casters' spell selection... pick spells your CHARACTER would like to use, rather than yourself. If you're playing a cleric of Wee Jas, are you really going to memorize many spells like Divine Might? No. You'll ask for spells like Harm instead.

jjpickar
2007-01-23, 10:55 AM
Though, using harm, a level 12 cleric of Wee Jas in a campaign I was running dropped an adult blue dragon from 130 hp (the party thri-keen barbarian got his two greatbows working in the three rounds prior) to ten hp. :smallbiggrin:

Despite that, I agree with the idea of role playing even in character creation. :smallsmile:

Saph
2007-01-23, 11:09 AM
Playing against a challenge that you are crippling yourself at isn't as fun as trying your best against a challenge.

Then you should play as Pun-Pun. Since Pun-Pun is infinitely powerful, any time you don't play as Pun-Pun, you're making your character infinitely weaker than he could be - and so according to you, "crippling your character".

If you're NOT playing as Pun-Pun, then that implies that you already know at some level that maximising your character's power isn't always a good idea.

- Saph

(for those who don't know, Pun-Pun is the strongest legal build in D&D. You can find it on a Google search. It's the ultimate answer to optimisation builds, and, as you'd expect, kills the game instantly.)

Woot Spitum
2007-01-23, 11:15 AM
Simple way to balance wizards: They don't get to pick two spells of their choice from the spell list. The DM presents them with a list of spells that they can pick two from. Bam, wizards are as balanced as the DM is good at determining balance.

Or you could take the OOTS approach, and make your wizards purchase all their spells from random scroll booster packs.:smallbiggrin: ("Darn it, another Featherfall!")

Morty
2007-01-23, 11:39 AM
Or you could take the OOTS approach, and make your wizards purchase all their spells from random scroll booster packs.:smallbiggrin: ("Darn it, another Featherfall!")

I'd kill my DM slooooowly for doing that. THough he already limits what scrolls I can buy...

JacksonAces
2007-01-23, 11:41 AM
What about maintaining balance with XP?

Seems to me that XP should be gained by doing things that are in your role in the party, for example, the fighter should get points for killing things that move, and the casters that can buff him should get points for making him better able to do so. Then, when your cleric casts divine might on himself and rushes into battle, killing everything that moves, while not helping out anyone else, he won't get the kind of XP he would maybe be used to in other campaigns. Therefore, if he wants a more powerful character, the incentive is not to do everyone elses job better than them, but to do their own job, really well. And if they can't even stick to that, they may find it hard later on when they are 3rd level and everyone else is running around at lvl 6.

Just a thought

~jack

krossbow
2007-01-23, 11:57 AM
Then you should play as Pun-Pun. Since Pun-Pun is infinitely powerful, any time you don't play as Pun-Pun, you're making your character infinitely weaker than he could be - and so according to you, "crippling your character".

If you're NOT playing as Pun-Pun, then that implies that you already know at some level that maximising your character's power isn't always a good idea.

- Saph

(for those who don't know, Pun-Pun is the strongest legal build in D&D. You can find it on a Google search. It's the ultimate answer to optimisation builds, and, as you'd expect, kills the game instantly.)



Thats a horrible stawman, and you know it; to maximize YOUR character, you must focus on what is YOUR character. Therefore, by maximizing a Wizard or a duskblade, it is impossible to create pun-pun. I want to play a human who tosses spells out and fights epic battles--- THAT is my character. Therefore, To optimize him will NOT make pun pun, as pun pun can only be made with a VERY specific build, which is incredibly different from my character.



I want to make my character the very best that I can-- I should not be held back by others in the challenges I face. If I am just standing back, patronizing the others, Then the opponent is not a challenge, and I am not having fun.

D&D is not about winning: But it IS about overcoming challenges and obstacles. If there is no challenge for me, then no matter what RPing is going on, my wizard is going to want to get the hell out and find some things worthy of his attention.

Saph
2007-01-23, 12:14 PM
Thats a horrible stawman, and you know it; to maximize YOUR character, you must focus on what is YOUR character.

It's not a strawman at all. Who says that you "must" focus on what is "your" character? Who's going to stop you if you don't? People routinely pick class and race for power reasons. Pun-Pun is just the top end of the scale. There's no particular dividing line between "I want to make the strongest halfling evoker wizard I can" and "I want to make the strongest halfling wizard I can" and "I want to make the strongest wizard I can" and "I want to make the strongest character I can". It's just different levels of optimisation.


I want to make my character the very best that I can-- I should not be held back by others in the challenges I face. If I am just standing back, patronizing the others, Then the opponent is not a challenge, and I am not having fun.

Then you've got a problem.

You're saying: "I want to make my character the best I can", but at the same time you're saying "I don't ever want to be completely successful". So the only time you're going to have fun is when someone else stops you. This means that you're always dependent on the GM to limit your power. I'm explaining that it's possible to have fun WITHOUT depending on the GM to limit you. You're always going to be limited somehow, so why not do it yourself?

- Saph

krossbow
2007-01-23, 12:19 PM
What? What SAYS you should focus on your character is that you are, quote unquote, optimizing YOUR CHARACTER. Now, I don't know how the interpretation in webster is reading currently, but I'm pretty sure, that means your optimizing your PC. Your PC is any PC type you want-- not the most powerful build in existenc. therefore, your view does NOT lead to pun-pun.

Just as tuning up your car does not mean buying a dodge viper.

Heroes are supposed to fight challenges. That does not mean its up to the DM to limit you-- that means that there is something wrong when the DM cannot challenge you without killing the rest of the team. To challenge me does not mean stop me: its just means I have to use strategy, which I will never have to use effectively if we are facing things that will not destroy the fighter.
________
Yamaha Szr660 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_SZR660)

ken-do-nim
2007-01-23, 12:21 PM
Of course, on the flipside let's say you purposefully hold back a bit, don't say take a feat that you know would put your build over the top, and then your character gets killed. Or maybe another player yells at you for holding back and letting their character get killed.

Just playing devil's advocate.

But yes, this is an interesting dilemma and thanks for bringing it up Saph. For instance, shapechange, though powerful, happens to be a lot of fun. When playing a wizard up to high levels, do I not take the spell, or do I let my DM deal with the consequences once I have?

Yakk
2007-01-23, 12:26 PM
So, the goal would be "create a druid who is allergic to fur", so he doesn't like using wildshape?

Or, "a wizard who hates casting non-fire spells".

Basically, you propose "create incompetent characters with large, obvious flaws in their tactics".

You have to avoid using any kind of battlefield control spells, you have to avoid learning any kind of flight spells (or at least using them when fighting non-flyers). You have to avoid learning effective defensive spells. You have to bias towards casting damage spells.

So this restricts me to playing idiots and fools.

I suppose you could start playing a ranger/sorcerer melee build, and then try to play the character without being an idiot or a fool. It just happens that this ranger has natural spell casting abilities, which distract from his ability to learn how to live in nature.

But such combinations often require concentrated anti-optimization, and one has to be careful to remain a useful contribution after your anti-optimization.

But, honestly, I'd rather just fix D&D so that there aren't these massive glaring imbalances. I find tweaking systems interesting and fun. :)

Mike_G
2007-01-23, 12:37 PM
I think you guys are overemphasizing what Saph is advocating.

If, as we've heard ad nauseum Casters r teh uber, then the solutions, if we want to have any fun ior feeling useful, are to:

1) Nerf the casters.
2) Buff up the non casters.
3) Just play a cleric. Forget Fighters, rogues, monks. etc. They all suck. So does Spring attack, TWF, Weapon spec....

or
4) Play RAW, but when creating a character of a clearly overpwoered class, don't try to min max it so much as to make the rest of the party redundant.

We had this in my group. everything was fine and moderately balanced, then we got to a certain level, and the use of the pre-errated Polymorph spells broke the game, and nobody, not even th Wizard, was having any fun. Several players actully said "Yeah. This blows. I'm gonna go do something else. Call me when we play low level again."

So, partly with houserules on a few spells, and partly with the wizard (who has been playing Wizards since the were Magic Users and knows all the spell descriptions from all the editions by heart, stopped taking a few of the "Win Button" spells. That, plus some careful DMing can make everybody have fun.

Saph
2007-01-23, 12:46 PM
I think you guys are overemphasizing what Saph is advocating.

If, as we've heard ad nauseum Casters r teh uber, then the solutions, if we want to have any fun ior feeling useful, are to:

1) Nerf the casters.
2) Buff up the non casters.
3) Just play a cleric. Forget Fighters, rogues, monks. etc. They all suck. So does Spring attack, TWF, Weapon spec....

or

4) Play RAW, but when creating a character of a clearly overpwoered class, don't try to min max it so much as to make the rest of the party redundant.

Bingo. Thank you.

- Saph

Morty
2007-01-23, 12:53 PM
D&D is not about winning: But it IS about overcoming challenges and obstacles. If there is no challenge for me, then no matter what RPing is going on, my wizard is going to want to get the hell out and find some things worthy of his attention.

Emphasis mine.
If there's no challenge for you, the whole game is pointless.


You have to avoid using any kind of battlefield control spells, you have to avoid learning any kind of flight spells (or at least using them when fighting non-flyers). You have to avoid learning effective defensive spells. You have to bias towards casting damage spells.
Huh? My character doesn't use any battlefield control spells, and he's not idiot or fool. It's just I don't like using these spells, plus they are overpowered.

Indon
2007-01-23, 01:02 PM
So, the goal would be "create a druid who is allergic to fur", so he doesn't like using wildshape?


Or maybe a druid who doesn't have encyclopedic knowledge of every animal in the world, when your campaign is going on in a temperate forest.



Or, "a wizard who hates casting non-fire spells".

Or, a wizard who has NOT somehow obtained tens of spells that are fiercely guarded by the most powerful of spellcasters or guilds of spellcasters on your world.



Basically, you propose "create incompetent characters with large, obvious flaws in their tactics".

You're still trying to min-max, I fear. You're confusing "stop min-maxing" with "intentionally min-max a suboptimal build", which aren't at all the same things.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 01:09 PM
Or maybe a druid who doesn't have encyclopedic knowledge of every animal in the world, when your campaign is going on in a temperate forest.
Yeah. Bears, which the druid can summon, are so terribly unlikely to be known by a druid.



Or, a wizard who has NOT somehow obtained tens of spells that are fiercely guarded by the most powerful of spellcasters or guilds of spellcasters on your world.Yeah. Damn those rare core-only spells like Grease and Glitterdust and Haste and Fly. You would NEVER find those as a non-munchkinned wizard!


You're still trying to min-max, I fear. You're confusing "stop min-maxing" with "intentionally min-max a suboptimal build", which aren't at all the same things.It's impossible to build an organic character. You're making the character up. You're deciding what classes to take. It's not somehow any more OK to outshine the fighter with Divine Power/Righteous Might/Divine Favor because that just happened to be your character concept.

Behold_the_Void
2007-01-23, 01:36 PM
Buff spells = range of touch. There.

Really, most people aren't willing to do the massive book-keeping involved in making a wizard uberly optimal. It's a pain in the ass. I've never had problems with wizards totally outshining people because the wizard doesn't want to go through all of his spell slots every time they stop to rest and reprepare things.

And I've also yet to see a Wizard completely end an encounter in one round. But then, I tend to scale the CR of encounters upwards so that the fights rarely end in one round of combat to begin with.

Mike_G
2007-01-23, 01:41 PM
Yeah. Bears, which the druid can summon, are so terribly unlikely to be known by a druid.


Yeah. Damn those rare core-only spells like Grease and Glitterdust and Haste and Fly. You would NEVER find those as a non-munchkinned wizard!



But Grease is a great spell, and isn't an "outshine the Fighter" spell. Battlefield control relies on having some Fighters to actually kill the enemy. Same thing with Haste, or Fly. Cast them on your Fighters so they can be more mobile and get that extra melee attack a round.

Shapechange (as originally written) was a "steal the show" spell. The basic buffs, debuffs and battlefield control aren't overpowered, and actually require teamwork. What are you gonna do, have your familiar peck the slowed badguys to death?

A buff/battlefield control caster meshes perfectly into a party as a valued member of the team. He won't outshine everybody, and really can't solo, since you can't battlefield control anyone to death.

So, you wizard would fit perfectly with a Fighter, Rogue and Cleric.

And please, for the love of all that is holy, don't say how he'd fit better with a Druid, a Cleric and a Beguiler. Please.

Yakk
2007-01-23, 01:43 PM
Or maybe a druid who doesn't have encyclopedic knowledge of every animal in the world, when your campaign is going on in a temperate forest.

Sure. So the druid gets in danger, so wild shapes into a grizzly, a large mean animal. Oh wait, you now kick the crap out of most melee head-to-head.


Or, a wizard who has NOT somehow obtained tens of spells that are fiercely guarded by the most powerful of spellcasters or guilds of spellcasters on your world.

You do get 2 spells/level as a wizard. Anything commonly known. And, by RAW, buying spell scrolls isn't all that expensive or hard to come by, and copying spells from spellbooks isn't that expensive or hard to do.

You could nerf wizards and make buying some spells harder than RAW, but that is part of the "nerfing wizards" thing.


You're still trying to min-max, I fear. You're confusing "stop min-maxing" with "intentionally min-max a suboptimal build", which aren't at all the same things.

My characters, when they run into a situation, should try to respond optimally as far as their knowledge and skills are concerned. When they want a goal, they should seek it with some attempts at being optimal. This is what I call thinking.

I can think from the perspective of my characters. Their goals and motivations are different than mine, and their knowledge is different than mine.

Min-maxing is "minimizing negative consequences, maximizing positive consequences". It is a pretty damn basic decision making algorithm that the average house cat is perfectly capable of following. It is also known as "avoid bad stuff, aim for good stuff".

Now, this means I won't be flying using alter self at L 3 unless my character knows about flying humanoids. It means I won't be pun-pun, because the level of metagame knowledge required to become pun-pun wouldn't be availiable to most in-game dieties. It means that my druids won't be wildshaping into dire apes and putting on combat gear.

But why, once I have a copy of time stop and force cage, won't I press the "I win" button as a wizard? Or if I predict a massive brawl as a cleric, why won't I buff myself to fight?

There are strange, wierd, metagame knowledge based balance flaws in D&D. But there are also "I'm playing a non-stupid wizard at medium-high levels, which makes everyone else in the party who doesn't seriously munchkin up their character seem weak and useless" problems.

Saph
2007-01-23, 01:52 PM
There are strange, wierd, metagame knowledge based balance flaws in D&D. But there are also "I'm playing a non-stupid wizard at medium-high levels, which makes everyone else in the party who doesn't seriously munchkin up their character seem weak and useless" problems.

Many wizard spells (and cleric and druid spells, for that matter) are simply too good. If you use them at full power, you break the game and make it no fun for anyone.

So if you want to play a wizard at highish levels, and want the game to still be fun, you have to figure out ways around this, and one of them is to try and avoid uberpowerful spells. You can call this "being stupid" or "metagaming" if you like, but you have to find SOME way to deal with it. The solution I'm suggesting requires no houserules and no changes to the game system, which is why I think it's usually the best one.

- Saph

ambu
2007-01-23, 01:52 PM
We are confusing the issue here, all of us.
Issue 1: Should we create characters so as not to outshine everyone and everything, since DnD is a team game and not a PC game? Sure
Issue 2: Should the d20 system oblige us to bend backwards in order to achieve this simple goal? Nope.

After all, let's look it from a RP angle: " Hi I am a wizard. I will now confront a menace dragged from the worst pit of Hell and stake my immortal soul in doing so. But I will NOT learn the most useful spells for doing just that, because my business associate Mr Fighter will feel useless...".

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 01:58 PM
Really, most people aren't willing to do the massive book-keeping involved in making a wizard uberly optimal. It's a pain in the ass. I've never had problems with wizards totally outshining people because the wizard doesn't want to go through all of his spell slots every time they stop to rest and reprepare things.
Massive bookkeeping? I don't even need to change my spell list every day. This session of my tabletop game, I did, because we are in a place with a lot of undead (which make a number of my normal spells, i.e. Glitterdust and Confusion, useless; it took me a couple of minutes, and that's all).
Here (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=1777) is the wizard I'm playing in a tabletop Red Hand of Doom game. Our party has ranged from me and two utterly terrible characters to me and four characters, two of which are tolerably optimized, one of which is okay, and one of which is one of the terrible ones from before. (The Polymorph is there for him, so he can contribute--although he regularly turns it down, because then he doesn't feel like it's HIM contributing. He wouldn't like dying, either, mind you.)


And I've also yet to see a Wizard completely end an encounter in one round. But then, I tend to scale the CR of encounters upwards so that the fights rarely end in one round of combat to begin with.


Two games before this one, I ended two encounters in a row in one round: Confusion on a group of Greenspawn Razorfiends, and a Ray of Stupidity against a hydra. This time, one of the encounters took a while (and the Divine Power/Divine Favored-up cleric stole the show), another was made from dangerous to easy by the cleric's turning and my Slow spell, a third was an easy critter we just gang-beat, and a fourth was a somewhat tougher critter I Unlucked that we then proceeded to gang-beat.



But Grease is a great spell, and isn't an "outshine the Fighter" spell. Battlefield control relies on having some Fighters to actually kill the enemy. Same thing with Haste, or Fly. Cast them on your Fighters so they can be more mobile and get that extra melee attack a round.
Fly is for yourself first, since you're squishy. Grease doesn't do the fighter's job, but if the fight is easy because you threw down Glitterdust, Haste, and Grease, and the fighter just mopped up, it's clear what's going on: the fighter is mopping up. He's not your teammate, he's your janitor.


Shapechange (as originally written) was a "steal the show" spell. The basic buffs, debuffs and battlefield control aren't overpowered, and actually require teamwork. What are you gonna do, have your familiar peck the slowed badguys to death?
No, I'll have my summons do it. Or maybe the Dominated guy over there.


A buff/battlefield control caster meshes perfectly into a party as a valued member of the team. He won't outshine everybody, and really can't solo, since you can't battlefield control anyone to death.
With a few summons and damage spells, you can solo--just for less long (it takes more spells).
The buff/battlefield control/save-or-lose/suck wizard meshes perfectly into a party... but DOES outshine people. He's polymorphing the fighter and disabling all the enemies; it's obvious that he's doing significantly more than anyone else.


So, you wizard would fit perfectly with a Fighter, Rogue and Cleric.
Sure, that makes for a great party. Just expect the wizard and cleric to contribute far more to the party's success than the fighter and the rogue.


And please, for the love of all that is holy, don't say how he'd fit better with a Druid, a Cleric and a Beguiler. Please.
Having a Fighter is better than not having anyone. Why are we comparing "with a Fighter ally" to "without any ally at all'?

Saph
2007-01-23, 02:01 PM
Issue 2: Should the d20 system oblige us to bend backwards in order to achieve this simple goal? Nope.

"Should" doesn't make a game fun. If you're finding that your character is powerful enough that you're spoiling the game, then it's your responsibility to do something about it. Or to put it another way: if you don't, who will?

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 02:02 PM
The d20 system is bad at this thing. Therefore, we should... shut up, suck it up, and nerf ourselves in quiet?

Yakk
2007-01-23, 02:06 PM
Or try a different fantasy RPG without the problem. :)

Saph
2007-01-23, 02:09 PM
Two games before this one, I ended two encounters in a row in one round: Confusion on a group of Greenspawn Razorfiends, and a Ray of Stupidity against a hydra.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, though. Ray of Stupidity is WAY too good. It's obvious that whoever was designing it was thinking of it as an anti-wizard spell, and balanced it on that basis, without looking through the Monster Manual and noticing how many creatures, even some with a fairly high CR, have a 2 Int. 1d4+1 has a minimum roll of 2, so this means that a 2nd-level spell is a one-shot no-save kill. Ridiculous.

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 02:09 PM
I play Things That Aren't D&D whenever I get the chance. As D&D is vastly more popular than Other Things, I don't get the chance too often (especially tabletop-wise).


Edit: if I hadn't Rayed it, that hydra would have eaten our terribly built rogue (level adjustment, greatsword and no finesse despite a 12 STR/18 DEX set up, et cetera).

There are plenty more encounters where I didn't end it with one spell, but my spells were pretty definitely and clearly what took the encounter from "we're going to die" to "easy".

Saph
2007-01-23, 02:15 PM
The d20 system is bad at this thing. Therefore, we should... shut up, suck it up, and nerf ourselves in quiet?

Mike G already listed the options, if you aren't willing just to put up with things as they are.

1. Nerf casters.
2. Buff noncasters.
3. Only play casters.
4. Try to manage your own character's power.

Or you can just quit D&D, which I'm personally not willing to do.

You have to pick one of these. I think 4 is the best. YMMV.

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 02:16 PM
Obviously.

That doesn't make it a satisfactory state of affairs.

Mike_G
2007-01-23, 02:20 PM
Obviously.

That doesn't make it a satisfactory state of affairs.

Neither is the fact that I'm not fabulously wealthy, endowed like a Clydesdale and waited on by a dozen women who were thrown out of the Playboy Mansion for bad behaviour, but I struggle on.

Saph is proposing and easy, workable solution to a problem we all admit is there. What else would you do? Other than point out the inequity?

Saph
2007-01-23, 02:20 PM
Obviously.

That doesn't make it a satisfactory state of affairs.

Also obviously.

But calling something unsatisfactory doesn't make it go away. Is anyone going to fix it for you if you complain? Dunno about you, but where I am the answer to that is "no". So that leaves doing something to deal with the problem myself.

- Saph

(edit: Simu'd.)

ken-do-nim
2007-01-23, 02:29 PM
Also obviously.

But calling something unsatisfactory doesn't make it go away. Is anyone going to fix it for you if you complain? Dunno about you, but where I am the answer to that is "no". So that leaves doing something to deal with the problem myself.

- Saph

(edit: Simu'd.)

Time for my "I have a dream" speech.

I have a dream that we - the players of WOTC's game - could come up with a coherent errata that we could all generally agree on and use. We could end all these class balance threads and bring order to the galaxy. Then the larger gaming community would look at the posters in Giant of the Playground Forums and say, "They're onto something". Before you know it, we'd become the maintainers of "open source" D&D.

Now I realize this is a tall order. But with enough hands on deck, we could certainly (a) fix the spells, one by one, and (b) make any other class changes necessary. Why be victims any longer?

Edit: What we'd need to agree on first is a set of principles, like how radical do we want our changes to be, etc. I'd say the more broken the rule, the more radical the fix needs to be. The shapechange fixes on this very website, for instance, are pretty radical, but probably warranted.

Saph
2007-01-23, 02:33 PM
Why be victims any longer?

Because trying to get a bunch of gamers - especially Internet gamers - to all agree on the same set of houserules is like herding cats. :)

Seriously, there's just no way everyone would agree. I've seen countless houserules proposed by countless people, and most get forgotten instantly by everyone except the creator. The only ones that achieve any kind of widespread use are the simplest, most intuitive ones (like "Sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free"). That's why I'm recommending the non-houserule solution in the first place.

- Saph

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 02:39 PM
I would argue that what Saph suggests is niether easy or workable. I mean most of the people I play with are very competative, because this is a game, and while you don't truely win the game, you can be "winning" it by contributing. So many would not fully hold themselves in check because, lets face it, if all you do is cast buff/heal spells on the fighter, you aren't going to have the "I am a mighty mythical (hero/villain), and I just (saved/doomed) the world" feeling that one wants to get when they destroy the BBEG. Instead you get the "I am the 60's TV robin to the Dark Knight returns Batman", and that would not be enjoyable.

I don't think this means you must powergame to do feel good about playing the game, but you must be effective, and if you are holding yourself down so the fighter doesn't feel overshadowed, its pretty hard to be effective, especially if the fighter is a newer player, and so not optimized.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 02:43 PM
But it's not an easy, workable solution (and it sure seems like a lot of people DON'T know the problem is there, seeing as how someone always takes the "no they aren't" side of the "casters are overpowered" debate). Nerfing yourself makes things less fun, and is often difficult, especially since doing so may mean your party suffers.

Saph
2007-01-23, 02:45 PM
I would argue that what Saph suggests is niether easy or workable. I mean most of the people I play with are very competative, because this is a game, and while you don't truely win the game, you can be "winning" it by contributing. So many would not fully hold themselves in check.

Well, I'm assuming that if you're reading this, it's likely that you're the one in your group who most likely to need holding in check.

Obviously you can't limit your teammates' optimising, but you can limit or manage your own.

- Saph

Mike_G
2007-01-23, 02:46 PM
I would argue that what Saph suggests is niether easy or workable.

It's worked for my group. Restraint and a few spell nerfs, like Shapechange, have made the game fun for everybody.

Unrestrained casters found themselves with the option of playing alone, while the Barbarian, Rogue and Paladin went to the bar, or working around the issue.

So, to dig up the most tastless but apt metaphore I can, if you optimized you "please self" skill to the point that your girlfriend feels unneeded and redundant....

You got issues.

D&D is a social, team based game. It's not sitting alone in the dark being impressed at how good you are.

Golthur
2007-01-23, 02:46 PM
Nerfing yourself makes things less fun, and is often difficult, especially since doing so may mean your party suffers.
And, past a certain point, it gets ridiculous - "no I'm not going to cast polymorph, fly, teleport, any save-or-die, any save-or-lose, or... ah, screw it - I'll just go sit in the corner over there". How's that fun for the spellcaster?

ken-do-nim
2007-01-23, 02:51 PM
Because trying to get a bunch of gamers - especially Internet gamers - to all agree on the same set of houserules is like herding cats. :)

Seriously, there's just no way everyone would agree. I've seen countless houserules proposed by countless people, and most get forgotten instantly by everyone except the creator. The only ones that achieve any kind of widespread use are the simplest, most intuitive ones (like "Sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free"). That's why I'm recommending the non-houserule solution in the first place.

- Saph

True, true. But if anybody else is up for trying, feel free to reply. As for agreeing, I was thinking majority voting. Then we'd playtest.

PS: Yeah, I had a thread a few days ago about simple changes that can be made which included the sorcerer one, and most people replied with huge changes instead.

Saph
2007-01-23, 02:51 PM
But it's not an easy, workable solution (and it sure seems like a lot of people DON'T know the problem is there, seeing as how someone always takes the "no they aren't" side of the "casters are overpowered" debate).

Perhaps it's not that they "don't know the problem is there" - it might be that in their games the problem really ISN'T there. I definitely don't see all that many people in my gaming group talking (or complaining) about how uber casters are. Which I can't say I'm all that upset about.


Nerfing yourself makes things less fun, and is often difficult, especially since doing so may mean your party suffers.

It doesn't make me have less fun, and I'm not the only one to think this way. If it makes you have less fun, I guess you have to decide which you dislike less: "nerfing" yourself or being overpowered.

- Saph

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 03:06 PM
It's worked for my group. Restraint and a few spell nerfs, like Shapechange, have made the game fun for everybody.

Unrestrained casters found themselves with the option of playing alone, while the Barbarian, Rogue and Paladin went to the bar, or working around the issue.

So, to dig up the most tastless but apt metaphore I can, if you optimized you "please self" skill to the point that your girlfriend feels unneeded and redundant....

You got issues.

D&D is a social, team based game. It's not sitting alone in the dark being impressed at how good you are.
:smallconfused:
I wasn't suggesting that a wizard can't be useful without the ridicoulus cheese that is shapechange(on this one I agree with the Logical Ninja, those spells need serous nerfing). I was merely refering to the extent that some posters wanted to make casters bend over backwards(like allowing clerics XP only if they solely buffed others and healed). And I said that I was not speaking of optimization, but about effectiveness. You don't have to optimize to be completely effective, but gimping yourself by only allowing yourself to play a secondary supportive role isn't an answer that will help most people.

Also, what happens when the fighter and gimped spell casters face a dragon or other high cr opponent. There is no need to resort to cheese like shapechange, but a fighter, even buffed, can't really take on a dragon unless it just sits there trading full attacks(in which case a paladin/monk/Psy warrior can take on a adult red at level 11, it happened in my group).

You say
D&D is a social, team based game. It's not sitting alone in the dark being impressed at how good you are.Well. it ceratinly isn't about how can I weaken my caharacter so Bob doesn't know I can tank better that him, either.

Edit:
Well, I'm assuming that if you're reading this, it's likely that you're the one in your group who most likely to need holding in check.
Acually, I am the one in my group whonis the least in terms of optimizing. My last few characters have been a Elven rouge/ranger, 1/2 dragon warmage, grey elf wu gen, and a monk. The wugen was level 3 and had to do damage(stupid insectile ogres with tremmorsense ). My most powerful character has been a Willshaper, a homebrew caster that again focused on damage/healing/ buffing others. My newest character is a ranger(archer).
My friends, on the otherhand, always omptimize their characters commpltely.

Saph
2007-01-23, 03:18 PM
I wasn't suggesting that a wizard can't be useful without the ridicoulus cheese that is shapechange(on this one I agree with the Logical Ninja, those spells need serous nerfing). I was merely refering to the extent that some posters wanted to make casters bend over backwards(like allowing clerics XP only if they solely buffed others and healed).

That wasn't what I was suggesting in the first place, though. The whole point is that this is an alternative to nerfing/houseruling.


Also, what happens when the fighter and gimped spell casters face a dragon or other high cr opponent.

Play your spellcaster in whatever way will make the game most fun. That doesn't mean 'gimping' them.

Honestly, guys, stop with the straw men. From some of these posts, it sounds like you think I'm trying to force you to make wizards with a starting Int of 7 or something. That's not what I'm saying at all.

- Saph

Edit:


Acually, I am the one in my group whonis the least in terms of optimizing. My last few characters have been a Elven rouge/ranger, 1/2 dragon warmage, grey elf wu gen, and a monk. The wugen was level 3 and had to do damage(stupid insectile ogres with tremmorsense ). My most powerful character has been a Willshaper, a homebrew caster that again focused on damage/healing/ buffing others. My newest character is a ranger(archer).

I'm confused . . . that sounds as though you DON'T have a problem with your casters being overpowered. In that case, you don't need any help in the first place.

- Saph

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 03:29 PM
I'm confused . . . that sounds as though you DON'T have a problem with your casters being overpowered. In that case, you don't need any help in the first place.

- Saph
Well, I am only one person, and the others...are optimzers(my group also tends to be more rollplay, but its all I have). Also, I think now that my comment really applies to the more extreme who's suggestion would nerf the casters severely. Also, your idea goes against what most people I play with would accept, but if your group goes with it, great, you have very resonable people to play with.

ambu
2007-01-23, 03:31 PM
Saph, I still believe that we are talking about different things here. You are saying, as I understand it:

" Hey, we should all have fun. That means that we should nerf ourselves in order to make our friends enjoy the game too."

Well, I am all for that. But this is not a "How to play team games" forum it is a DnD forum. And Dnd needs some changes in order to ensure that the guy who wants to play the grizzled warrior and the guy who wants to play the power hungry wizard can play side by side without the wizard guy changing his idea. There are many ways to do that. Bears has done a good job with the fighter and I kind of like my suggestion too. Monte Cook has done the same with his Arcana Evolved without creating another game, just another spell system and better thought out classes.

Saph
2007-01-23, 03:38 PM
Saph, I still believe that we are talking about different things here. You are saying, as I understand it:

"Hey, we should all have fun. That means that we should nerf ourselves in order to make our friends enjoy the game too."

I'd phrase it as "don't abuse overpowered stuff", but yeah, more or less.


Well, I am all for that. But this is not a "How to play team games" forum it is a DnD forum. And Dnd needs some changes in order to ensure that the guy who wants to play the grizzled warrior and the guy who wants to play the power hungry wizard can play side by side without the wizard guy changing his idea.

Reasonable thing to want - but see my above points on houserules and disagreement. In the meantime, until D&D gets a new edition or some houserule/alternate-ruleset becomes dominant, this is IMO the easiest fix.

- Saph

Mike_G
2007-01-23, 03:39 PM
And, past a certain point, it gets ridiculous - "no I'm not going to cast polymorph, fly, teleport, any save-or-die, any save-or-lose, or... ah, screw it - I'll just go sit in the corner over there". How's that fun for the spellcaster?

No, no no.

You cast good spells as part of a party plan.

Something like:

Ok, Fred the Fighter, I'm gonna Haste you, and you charge in at the increased move rate and hit for your insane PA/Shock Trooper etc damage, then stay on the front line and use that extra attack per round.

Charlie the Cleric is gonna Prot From Evil you so the BBEG doesn't Mind Control your squishy brain and turn that damage factory on us. Then he's gonna self buff an hold the line with you. Charlie, keep some Restorations ready incase the enemy have their Undead minons drain anybody.

Rachelle the Rogue is gonna skulk around the main line and Sneak Attack the enemy spellcasters. I'll send my Summoned critter with her to help provide some flanking and distract the caster. Plus, maybe some Will Sve buffs. Maybe another P from E

I'll go Imp Invisble and Fly and use Grease, Solid Fog and so on so the minions don't flank Fred and Charlie, then I'll use my Save or Suck stuff as needed.

Any suggestions?

Good. Let's show those Kobolds who's boss!!



Now how is that bad or not fun for Wally the Wizard? Rather than "I'll Shapechange, using a Free Action every round to cycle through the colors of Dragon and breathe every kind of energy known to man, Maybe throw a Balor or two in there as well, then you guys can loot the bodies."

Which sounds more fun, and which more like masturbation?

Golthur
2007-01-23, 03:47 PM
No, no no.

You cast good spells as part of a party plan.

Something like:

Ok, Fred the Fighter, I'm gonna Haste you, and you charge in at the increased move rate and hit for your insane PA/Shock Trooper etc damage, then stay on the front line and use that extra attack per round.

Charlie the Cleric is gonna Prot From Evil you so the BBEG doesn't Mind Control your squishy brain and turn that damage factory on us. Then he's gonna self buff an hold the line with you. Charlie, keep some Restorations ready incase the enemy have their Undead minons drain anybody.

Rachelle the Rogue is gonna skulk around the main line and Sneak Attack the enemy spellcasters. I'll send my Summoned critter with her to help provide some flanking and distract the caster. Plus, maybe some Will Sve buffs. Maybe another P from E

I'll go Imp Invisble and Fly and use Grease, Solid Fog and so on so the minions don't flank Fred and Charlie, then I'll use my Save or Suck stuff as needed.

Any suggestions?

Good. Let's show those Kobolds who's boss!!
And I don't entirely disagree. Yes, D&D is a team game. Yes, it's good to work as part of a team. Using spells as part of a team plan is good.

The problem is, as spellcasters get higher and higher, you have to systematically stop using your character's abilities just so as not to show up the other players - and it gets harder and harder to do with level, since their power is increasing linearly and yours is increasing geometrically. Many, many, of the higher level spells are "I win" buttons that you have to be careful not to accidentally press.

I know - I've deliberately played a suboptimal caster just to make sure this isn't so - a mystic theurge (nerf!) who followed Grumbar the earth god, and so would not use fly for religious reasons. And, past a certain point, I still overshadowed all the other PCs without even trying - in fact, while trying very hard not to!


Now how is that bad or not fun for Wally the Wizard? Rather than "I'll Shapechange, using a Free Action every round to cycle through the colors of Dragon and breathe every kind of energy known to man, Maybe throw a Balor or two in there as well, then you guys can loot the bodies."

Which sounds more fun, and which more like masturbation?
Except when you end up spending more time worrying about the things you're not supposed to be doing than playing the game, it gets less fun. It gets worst against things like balors where the other party members can't appreciably contribute. You should be able to at least attempt to play your character well without stepping on everyone else's toes. If the game were more balanced, it wouldn't be necessary.

clericwithnogod
2007-01-23, 04:10 PM
No, no no.

You cast good spells as part of a party plan.

Something like:

Ok, Fred the Fighter, I'm gonna Haste you, and you charge in at the increased move rate and hit for your insane PA/Shock Trooper etc damage, then stay on the front line and use that extra attack per round.

Charlie the Cleric is gonna Prot From Evil you so the BBEG doesn't Mind Control your squishy brain and turn that damage factory on us. Then he's gonna self buff an hold the line with you. Charlie, keep some Restorations ready incase the enemy have their Undead minons drain anybody.

Rachelle the Rogue is gonna skulk around the main line and Sneak Attack the enemy spellcasters. I'll send my Summoned critter with her to help provide some flanking and distract the caster. Plus, maybe some Will Sve buffs. Maybe another P from E

I'll go Imp Invisble and Fly and use Grease, Solid Fog and so on so the minions don't flank Fred and Charlie, then I'll use my Save or Suck stuff as needed.

Any suggestions?

Good. Let's show those Kobolds who's boss!!



Now how is that bad or not fun for Wally the Wizard? Rather than "I'll Shapechange, using a Free Action every round to cycle through the colors of Dragon and breathe every kind of energy known to man, Maybe throw a Balor or two in there as well, then you guys can loot the bodies."

Which sounds more fun, and which more like masturbation?

With the exception of the fighter having to harass the wizard into casting haste, this is kind of what one of my current group's combats look like. But, really, if you can get any wizard to cast one buff to benefit other people before doing his own thing you're doing pretty well - selfish bastards the lot of them. :smallbiggrin:

As nice as haste is though, sometimes it's nice to see that sudden empowered, maximized orb of whatever drop an enemy caster right off the bat too.

And, after spending the first two rounds of combat and likely more later on buff spells or heal spells, throw the cleric a bone. He should be doing serious damage on the turns he gets to whack something as opposed to just holding the line. :thereshouldbeasmileyforbloodthirsty:

Mike_G
2007-01-23, 04:18 PM
The game skids further and further off the rails at high level.

As I said earlier, you have some options, but none is perfect.

I really don't think it gets to a point where other classes can't contribute, if you have a competant DM. Why shouldn't the Fighter be able to affect a Balor? Assuming he has appropriate magic items for his level, he should be able to do some damage.

Sure, maybe you could end any given encounter with a spell. But every spell is a resource you won't have the next encounter. Evn scrolls and wands cost money, so why not use a lower level spell to grease the wheels for the party to help and save that Win Button spell for when it really is go time.


Yes, D&D has balance issues. Every splatbook makes these issues worse, since they all include more spells, more monsters to Shapechange into and so on. It starts out fairly balanced at low levels, or at least you need all the roles filled and nobody can easily solo, but the higher you get, the worse it gets.

You can always double the xp cost to level, and thus play youyr wizard twince as long before you get to overpowered to have fun, or you can retire the epic party and start fresh. I dunno.

I just think you can have fun palying a Fighter and a Wizard in the same party, so long as you compliment one another, like in my example, and don't render the rest of the group obsolete.

Sulecrist
2007-01-23, 04:38 PM
I'd phrase it as "don't abuse overpowered stuff", but yeah, more or less.



Reasonable thing to want - but see my above points on houserules and disagreement. In the meantime, until D&D gets a new edition or some houserule/alternate-ruleset becomes dominant, this is IMO the easiest fix.

- Saph

Quick question.

What spells are balanced in your book? Just damage dealing ones, or what? Can you list, say, ten target Self or self-cast DPS/Debuff spells that aren't craaazy?

I DM D&D for a bunch of people who don't read the rules and don't build their characters. Like, at all. If I'm lucky, they'll find something that "looks cool" in the Spell Compendium. Otherwise, they just take nothing but Cure, Magic Missile, Call Lightning, and Fireball. Hell, the Druid doesn't do anything but hit things with his quarterstaff and/or scimitar. And he's level 12. (Everyone's older than me, too--I'm the youngest at 19.)

The groups I *play* in are different. As I almost always play a martial class of some kind, I regularly find myself playing Batman. Tome of Battle has balanced things out damage-wise, but it's still unsatisfactory for me to feel impotent. Having my friends do nothing but buff/heal/buff me won't be an improvement. What should they be doing? Especially if they have a character concept in mind (brusque, unscrupulous Storm Lord that hurls bolts of lightning at their foe) and are still, despite everything else, doing more than my Greater attacks that do twice my Concentration check in raw damage?

I've seen one-round combats happen a lot. They crop up more when you're playing with post-Ten people who aren't idiots.

EDIT: One thing I've neglected to mention is that we don't have many combats per day, and we're frequently thrown into encounters with significantly higher CRs than would normally be seen as reasonable. Even so, casters have more than enough slots to win in grinding situations. We went on an eight-encounter streak underground a few weeks ago, and it was a lot harder on the Monk (and to a lesser extent myself) than on the Chameleon, Warmage or Storm Lord.

Behold_the_Void
2007-01-23, 05:14 PM
Bears, looking at your character sheet I'm honestly just incredibly astonished at those ability scores, but that's another matter entirely and likely a difference of playstyle.

You yourself admitted to playing with some rather unoptimized players, I honestly wouldn't blame you for taking charge of the situation. But those encounters all had significant weaknesses, especially to things you could do to take them out in their entirety in one spell. I rarely ever have found myself in encounters where every creature had the same vulnerable save or where creatures were alone and were expected to be a challenge. Again, possibly a different play style but I've found in general when I play we tend to encounter groups of enemies that still present an appropriate challenge but can cover and support each other.

But those spell arrays, while formidable, don't look like something that would be anywhere near a win button without anybody else getting to do ANYTHING. Really, a lot of them look like good support spells that would give everyone else a chance to contribute.

And as far as bookeeping, I'm talking about the nigh omniscient wizard who always has a solution to every single problem and can "never be touched". I've never seen anybody pull anything like that in a game. Again, though, could be different playstyle.

Saph
2007-01-23, 05:33 PM
Quick question.

What spells are balanced in your book? Just damage dealing ones, or what? Can you list, say, ten target Self or self-cast DPS/Debuff spells that aren't craaazy?

Not 100% sure what you're asking. What does DPS stand for - damage per second? Which spells are you thinking of?

I've never tried to make a list of 'balanced' spells, and wouldn't know where to start, to be honest. It's much easier to pick out the ones that aren't balanced, of which the most glaring example is the polymorph line. I'd just do a subjective judgement - if you find that a spell is so effective that it unbalances your game (not other people's games, yours), then you're probably better off not using it.

- Saph

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 06:14 PM
Not 100% sure what you're asking. What does DPS stand for - damage per second? Which spells are you thinking of?

I've never tried to make a list of 'balanced' spells, and wouldn't know where to start, to be honest. It's much easier to pick out the ones that aren't balanced, of which the most glaring example is the polymorph line. I'd just do a subjective judgement - if you find that a spell is so effective that it unbalances your game (not other people's games, yours), then you're probably better off not using it.

- Saph
DPS stands for Damage Per Second, used in many MMORPG(I know this because I have a friend who plays WOW)

ken-do-nim
2007-01-23, 06:53 PM
You know what? I think we have a role model in all of this. When watching the Lord of the Rings, it struck me that Gandalf does absolutely nothing magical, then they face a balrog, and all the sudden it's, "None of you can help me with this. Flee, and let me take this on all by myself." Like, where did that come from? If he can take on a balrog, that cave troll should have been toast. Then later on, they take on Saruman, and he takes a fireball in the face without blinking. I tell ya, he was holding back the whole time, just so that Aragorn & co. would feel useful :-)

Golthur
2007-01-23, 07:36 PM
You know what? I think we have a role model in all of this. When watching the Lord of the Rings, it struck me that Gandalf does absolutely nothing magical, then they face a balrog, and all the sudden it's, "None of you can help me with this. Flee, and let me take this on all by myself." Like, where did that come from? If he can take on a balrog, that cave troll should have been toast. Then later on, they take on Saruman, and he takes a fireball in the face without blinking. I tell ya, he was holding back the whole time, just so that Aragorn & co. would feel useful :-)
Now that's funny :biggrin:

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 07:39 PM
LoTR is tricky, because magic can't be used for the mundane, because it is very difficult to harness. Also, supposedly the wizards were sent to middle earth with the condition that they couldn't reveal their powers(they were all demigods)

Whamme
2007-01-23, 07:56 PM
Then you should play as Pun-Pun. Since Pun-Pun is infinitely powerful, any time you don't play as Pun-Pun, you're making your character infinitely weaker than he could be - and so according to you, "crippling your character".

If you're NOT playing as Pun-Pun, then that implies that you already know at some level that maximising your character's power isn't always a good idea.

- Saph

(for those who don't know, Pun-Pun is the strongest legal build in D&D. You can find it on a Google search. It's the ultimate answer to optimisation builds, and, as you'd expect, kills the game instantly.)

Nonsense. Setting restrictions on _books used_ immediately removes him from existence, given that build relies on the existence of Sarrukhs.

Whamme
2007-01-23, 08:01 PM
Many wizard spells (and cleric and druid spells, for that matter) are simply too good. If you use them at full power, you break the game and make it no fun for anyone.

So if you want to play a wizard at highish levels, and want the game to still be fun, you have to figure out ways around this, and one of them is to try and avoid uberpowerful spells. You can call this "being stupid" or "metagaming" if you like, but you have to find SOME way to deal with it. The solution I'm suggesting requires no houserules and no changes to the game system, which is why I think it's usually the best one.

- Saph

Why is it not better to change the game?

For all you're insulting people who don't want to play the game they way you're recommending, they exist, are human beings, and like to play the game.

Isn't it better to set some ground rules everyone can live by than BLAME SOMEONE FOR PLAYING THE GAME THEY WAY THEY HAVE FUN?

Indon
2007-01-23, 08:23 PM
Why is it not better to change the game?


Because there are plenty of people who play it who like it the way it is and _don't_ think it's unbalanced, and any change that would fix this percieved 'imbalance' will probably screw up their game making _them_ have to play differently or houserule the game to fix it.

You can't please everyone.

But if a change to the game can be made that wouldn't affect the dynamics of nonoptimizing PC groups, that might not be that bad.

Jorkens
2007-01-23, 09:11 PM
Nonsense. Setting restrictions on _books used_ immediately removes him from existence, given that build relies on the existence of Sarrukhs.
More to the point, playing Pun-Pun or using other extreme cheese is unlikely to be a natural in-character thing to do, since it requires meta-gaming to understand the exact loopholes that let it work. Whereas deciding to use a spell that essentially overcomes all of your problems easily is something that it's specifically meta- to avoid: I doubt that the fighter in character would be particularly upset not to have to go toe to toe with that nasty big monster. Anti-optimising the character on a longer-term basis - so that they never get the power to abuse - would work though.

Otherwise, (I brought this up in the less energetic "Class Imbalance: Specific Analysis" thread) is there a reason that DM's don't just start equipping their bad guys with a few anti-magic measures - either generic stuff or having them do their research and specifically plan a way to counter your casters' favorite cheese - to whatever degree they feel would level the playing field?

Sulecrist
2007-01-23, 09:31 PM
Not 100% sure what you're asking. What does DPS stand for - damage per second? Which spells are you thinking of?

I've never tried to make a list of 'balanced' spells, and wouldn't know where to start, to be honest. It's much easier to pick out the ones that aren't balanced, of which the most glaring example is the polymorph line. I'd just do a subjective judgement - if you find that a spell is so effective that it unbalances your game (not other people's games, yours), then you're probably better off not using it.

- Saph

Yes, sorry for the confusion. I've been playing MMOs as long as I can remember (from MUSHes to the more recent full-video ones) and sometimes my roleplaying terminology reflects that.

Can you really not think of a single balanced spell? Or have you simply not tried? What should a spell be balanced against? If you have no standard, how do you know what's too effective? (Obviously, Celerity is broken. What about Disintegrate? What about Scorching Ray? What about Maximized Scorching Ray?)

I've been gaming for more than half of my life, and you know what? I can't think of any really balanced spells either. I can't think of very many at all that act at a power level consistent with that displayed by mundane characters. Tenser's Floating Disk, maybe. Cures and Inflicts. Light. Maybe Darkness, too.

You're an experienced gamer, correct? So are many if not most of the other people in this thread. If we can't even find a standard for balance, how can we artificially rein ourselves in to a balanced level? (This is, in one respect, a straw man argument. It assumes that you/we can't find a standard. If you can, then please enlighten us.)

EDIT: To clarify: Caster balance in my own games is either out of my hands or not an issue (my friends, lord love 'em, aren't very good at D20). I'm interested in the balance itself--how capable should a player be at level twelve, for instance. If you take the Ranger or Rogue as the standard, then a very large amount of spells ought to be completely removed. It's all square one stuff, but I figured a wrongs-from-rights approach might be slicker than the other way around.

Saph
2007-01-24, 06:16 AM
Why is it not better to change the game?

For all you're insulting people who don't want to play the game they way you're recommending, they exist, are human beings, and like to play the game.

Good grief, you're really going off the deep end here. According to you I don't think these guys exist? I don't think they're human beings? I've gone to quite a bit of effort NOT to insult people in this thread . . . although honestly, seeing posts like this makes me wonder why I bother.


Isn't it better to set some ground rules everyone can live by than BLAME SOMEONE FOR PLAYING THE GAME THEY WAY THEY HAVE FUN?

*shrug* If you think you can come up with a set of houserules that "everyone" will be happy with, go for it. Like I said, this is an alternative to houserules.

As for blaming, I've repeatedly said that if caster power isn't a problem in your games, then more power to you - you don't need any help in the first place.

- Saph

Saph
2007-01-24, 06:31 AM
Can you really not think of a single balanced spell? Or have you simply not tried? What should a spell be balanced against? If you have no standard, how do you know what's too effective?

No, that wasn't what I meant. I haven't thought about how balanced most spells are because I don't usually find it to be an issue. So I'd view all spells, only barring a very few, as balanced, until I see them used in a way to put them into the "unbalanced" category.

To use your examples, I wouldn't consider either Disintegrate or Scorching Ray unbalanced, because I've never seen either used in a game-breaking way (and I'm not sure if they even could be). Invisibility is balanced. Mage Armour is balanced. Glitterdust and Grease are strong, but balanced. Alter Self is slightly too good, but I wouldn't stop someone using it as long as they didn't abuse it (eg combining it with a LA +0 Aasimar or the Otherworldly feat). Dimension Door is balanced, so is Scrying, and so is Rope Trick. Note that these are all good spells, but they aren't win buttons.

Where it gets harder is at higher levels, and here I admit that it's much more difficult to pick decent spells without going into the realms of brokenness. But fewer people play high level D&D, so it's less of an issue, and in any case the whole D&D system is more and more unbalanced the closer you get to level 20 - it's not just spells that are the problem.


If we can't even find a standard for balance, how can we artificially rein ourselves in to a balanced level? (This is, in one respect, a straw man argument. It assumes that you/we can't find a standard. If you can, then please enlighten us.)

Well, I can't think of any good standard that would stand up to testing, so I can't really find one. But I do think it's possible to just do a quick-and-rough judgement based on how it impacts the game. Eg: if you find, in your game, that a spell is so strong that it spoils your group's fun, then you probably shouldn't use it. Note that different groups are going to find different spells broken - I'm not sure if it's even possible to come up with an objective measurement.

- Saph

Whamme
2007-01-24, 07:03 AM
Good grief, you're really going off the deep end here. According to you I don't think these guys exist? I don't think they're human beings? I've gone to quite a bit of effort NOT to insult people in this thread . . . although honestly, seeing posts like this makes me wonder why I bother.



*shrug* If you think you can come up with a set of houserules that "everyone" will be happy with, go for it. Like I said, this is an alternative to houserules.

As for blaming, I've repeatedly said that if caster power isn't a problem in your games, then more power to you - you don't need any help in the first place.

- Saph

I like pushing on the envelope of power. I usually don't do that well, but it IS fun.

Good house rules can let me have my fun without creating imbalance.


If there's a problem it's that people game for different reasons so you have to compromise - not have one guy feel bad for playing his way and everyone else feels all smug.

Marius
2007-01-24, 07:05 AM
*shrug* If you think you can come up with a set of houserules that "everyone" will be happy with, go for it. Like I said, this is an alternative to houserules.

- Saph

The problem is that your "solution" doesn't make everyone happy. The ones that are able to know enough about the rules of the game to make an effective character are probably the same people wouldn't enjoy to play an ineffective build just for the sake of balance.

As a DM if I ever see this kind of problems in my game I'll just ban the spells (Actually I already banned a few spells just in case), prestige classes or whatever I feel could be causing one player to shine over the others. Luckly my players don't know anything about rules (they think that monks are overpowered :D ) so I don't have much to worry about this kind of problem.

Saph
2007-01-24, 07:23 AM
The problem is that your "solution" doesn't make everyone happy. The ones that are able to know enough about the rules of the game to make an effective character are probably the same people wouldn't enjoy to play an ineffective build just for the sake of balance.

*sigh* Please, guys, could you stop putting words in my mouth? All I said was that you shouldn't optimise your character to the maximum if it's going to cause problems. And yet I keep getting told that what I actually said was that you should "nerf", "cripple", or "gimp" your characters. (Must be some alternate Net language or something.) You don't think that maybe there's a middle ground in between "completely ineffective" and "I can win every battle on my own with one hand tied behind my back"?

I know enough about the game to make a game-breaking build, but I don't do it. So yes, these people do exist. Mike G sounds like he's another one, from the posts above.


As a DM if I ever see this kind of problems in my game I'll just ban the spells (Actually I already banned a few spells just in case), prestige classes or whatever I feel could be causing one player to shine over the others. Luckly my players don't know anything about rules (they think that monks are overpowered :D ) so I don't have much to worry about this kind of problem.

Yeah, that's more like my group. The situation I'm talking about, though, is when you're the player, not the DM, in a group that isn't all that optimised. Are you going to try and convince them all that spellcasters are teh uber and that the game should be houseruled? That seems like a lot of work to me, and I doubt they'd appreciate it much.

- Saph

clericwithnogod
2007-01-24, 07:29 AM
Well, I can't think of any good standard that would stand up to testing, so I can't really find one. But I do think it's possible to just do a quick-and-rough judgement based on how it impacts the game. Eg: if you find, in your game, that a spell is so strong that it spoils your group's fun, then you probably shouldn't use it. Note that different groups are going to find different spells broken - I'm not sure if it's even possible to come up with an objective measurement.

- Saph

I'd guess that you aren't going to find one...and go along with it's not even possible to come up with an objective measurement. It's a game not an equation, so balanced doesn't always mean everything is equal.

Some people think that the cleric being able to fight as well as cast cleric spells makes him somehow overshadow the fighter. To me, that's like complaining that your brother got to go to beach and mow the grass and you only got to go to the beach twice.

It doesn't help that the most common methods to try to equate balance (taking what happens on average) are meaningless beyond a rough generalization, as 1s and 20s are the most dangerous things in the game. Characters don't die on "average" they die on "great" and "awful." On average, the players win, get good stuff, and everyone lives happily ever after.

To go back to your original, and very good, suggestion that players be considerate of each other in game and allow everyone the chance to shine...

It wouldn't be a bad idea for DMs to work in opportunities for players to re-work their characters a bit when it becomes obvious that a build choice has become less than fun to play or is being overshadowed either. A lot of times things can be fixed, and sometimes new options become available that fit the player's vision of their character as well as or better than what they have while bringing it more in line with what the currently better designed characters can do.

An example would be the "Blood Calls to Blood" feat and the later Fiendish Heritage feats for players that took the feat for flavor rather than as a prerequisite.

As an aside, it would be nice for WotC to wrap up disparate pieces of themes such as prestige classes, feats, etc. that already exist in previous books as a web enhancement to new theme books addressing things such as substitutions of new feats as prerequisites for existing prestige classes rather than leaving them abandoned.