ECL, tiers and OOTS

[MrQ]

I haven't played RPG's for about ten years. Not because I didn't want to, but because I didn't bother to go through the trouble to find a decent group to make it enjoyable.

As such, I'm very much not on par with rules lawyering and pretty much out of it most of the time. I do get most of the jokes tho.

So if you will, tell me this; how come do Clerics get called as game breakers? And especially, when vamped up, are the +6 EC levels justified and if, then how? I really can't see anything in vampire template that could bring Durkon up to threat range similar to X.

I mean Xykon wiped out turbocharged wizard, which is also rated as top tier.

[RebelRogue]

The comic isn't a game of D&D but a narrative, so tiers aren't really in play (except for that one pun). Also, LA tend to overestimated.

[MrQ]

The comic isn't a game of D&D but a narrative, so tiers aren't really in play (except for that one pun). Also, LA tend to overestimated.

Yes, I got that. I am merely using the characters as a focus here to understand how these... things are justified.

Regardless of the narrative question, rules-wise, I still don't get the +6 levels. And I don't get the gamebreaker status. I always felt that fighters were the boring munchkin class.

[Kish]

Level adjustments are designed much more for "make sure playing a monster is always a worse choice than playing a human" than for "make playing a monster equal to playing a human."

(And it's +8.)

As for why clerics are widely regarded as more powerful than fighters, this (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=254) comic storyline might give you an idea.

[Keltest]

Yes, I got that. I am merely using the characters as a focus here to understand how these... things are justified.

Regardless of the narrative question, rules-wise, I still don't get the +6 levels. And I don't get the gamebreaker status. I always felt that fighters were the boring munchkin class.

Well, fighters and fighter-types (including rogues and rogue types) absolutely need gear to be effective and to get stronger. Casters don't (though it cant hurt either). A caster can be in their starting +0 wizard robes of "tripping over a bug and dying" and still wipe out a quarter of the continent.

[Sloanzilla]

Without a doubt, 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder clerics are one of the most powerful classes. As indicated by the comic, with a couple spells a cleric can make himself/herself a much, much better fighter than the fighter.

Plus, there were some silly things in 3.5 like divine metamagic: persistent spell where you could righteous might yourself for an entire day. 3.5 druids didn't even need a specific formula- you just enlarged your pet and then shifted into a polar bear.

Thankfully, OOTS spends little time obsessing on tiers or optimization (aside from the occasional joke), much to the chagrin of a few viewers. Honestly, I've never been a fan of the tier system- it's partially accurate (druids are better than hexblades on average!)- but IMO forgets about things like long-term endurance over multiple encounters. Plus, it seems a bit anal retentive and indicates a strong focus away from roleplaying.

[MrQ]

Without a doubt, 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder clerics are one of the most powerful classes. As indicated by the comic, with a couple spells a cleric can make himself/herself a much, much better fighter than the fighter.

Yes, but it also leaves him open for all kinds of nasty for as many rounds as there is buffing to be done. Not ideal tactic in a fight, or am I missing something gamechanical?


Plus, there were some silly things in 3.5 like divine metamagic: persistent spell where you could righteous might yourself for an entire day. 3.5 druids didn't even need a specific formula- you just enlarged your pet and then shifted into a polar bear.

And, in a world of demons, dragons and casual demigods, a polar bear amounts to Jack Sheep. Or did I, again, miss a memo?


Thankfully, OOTS spends little time obsessing on tiers or optimization (aside from the occasional joke), much to the chagrin of a few viewers. Honestly, I've never been a fan of the tier system- it's partially accurate (druids are better than hexblades on average!)- but IMO forgets about things like long-term endurance over multiple encounters. Plus, it seems a bit anal retentive and indicates a strong focus away from roleplaying.

Probably right. I just want to make sure we're on the same page here, due to me having not participated for a good long time. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Yes, but it also leaves him open for all kinds of nasty for as many rounds as there is buffing to be done. Not ideal tactic in a fight, or am I missing something gamechanical?

The plan would usually involve casting the buffs before starting the encounter. If you know roughly where the Big Bad is- cast just before you "kick in the door".

Like here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0104.html

[Kish]

And, in a world of demons, dragons and casual demigods, a polar bear amounts to Jack Sheep. Or did I, again, miss a memo?
...well, you appear to have gotten a memo that I didn't, that states that druids should only fight enemies way over their challenge rating.

(If you're fighting a demigod at a level where that's a level-appropriate encounter for you, you don't change into a polar bear--you change into a great wyrm dragon.)

[MrQ]

...well, you appear to have gotten a memo that I didn't, that states that druids should only fight enemies way over their challenge rating.

(If you're fighting a demigod at a level where that's a level-appropriate encounter for you, you don't change into a polar bear--you change into a great wyrm dragon.)

D*mn, I'm sure I made sure everyone got that...


Anyhow, point made. A good one, by any rate. Try as I might, though, a polar bear is something I still see a mid-level fighter cutting to ribbons in two rounds, so the credible threat thing... there kinda isn't one. Again, pardon my ignorance.

My arguments here are supposed to be shut down. Excessive force preferred.

[Shale]

"Polar bear" is just a for-instance; a druid can turn into any animal with HD equal to his level, so it's always going to be at least vaguely level appropriate. At high levels, he can even become an elemental.

[Sloanzilla]

A polar bear still has a strength of 27- which is significant in any adventure up to, I suppose, the ones at the very end where you are fighting demigods. That's six strength points higher than, for example, a mid level demon such as a hezrou.

Also, that's a 27 str creature who also has a pet that does more damage and than the party's fighter (and has DR 10) and, since she took natural spell, can still summon MORE pets or cast spells like arc of lightning if he wants to show the anti evocation types who is boss. Druids in 3.5 were pretty powerful.

[MrQ]

Okay, starting to get this.

And the main reason for D and V being complete pushovers with one or two exceptions is to maintain a sense of credible threat in the narrative, am I right?

[Everyl]

One of the big factors that goes into ECL is "how broken could this be in the hands of a power-gamer?" Vampires get a very high ECL adjustment because, while they're much easier to permanently destroy than liches, a lich is only a lich. A vampire comes with at-will Dominate Person and the ability to perfectly, no-saving-throw mind control up to twice their own hit dice in vampires who they create themselves. Basically, for the purposes of balancing an adventure, a vampire PC with 10 class levels is effectively 3 vampires with 10 class levels plus their army of dominated slave/soldier/rations.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Okay, starting to get this.

And the main reason for D and V being complete pushovers with one or two exceptions is to maintain a sense of credible threat in the narrative, am I right?

Basically yes. Giant's said repeatedly that a story where everyone took the optimized choices would be boring (because their be no difficulty or sense of danger). So less than intelligent spell selection and usage (compared to an optimized player mind you. V's been very effective with spells in this last in-comic day), its to keep the comic interesting.

[Sloanzilla]

I think optimization also assumes every specific mechanic of 3.5 is in effect, which it may or may not be in this world. A good chain lightning, for the purpose of a story and certainly for the enjoyment of less DnD savvy individuals- is easier to use than a glitterdust casting wizard.

Being a vampire and being a cleric is a pretty good combination, IMO. A cleric's weaknesses are mobility and stealth, which a vampire easily gets around. A vampire's weaknesses are "various spells and things that harm vampires"- which a cleric gets around with other spells. It's hard to think of an encounter up to this point, aside from the battle for Azure City and maybe fight against Tarquin, that a well prepared vampire-Durkon could not have soloed.

[Seward]

Yes, but it also leaves him open for all kinds of nasty for as many rounds as there is buffing to be done. Not ideal tactic in a fight, or am I missing something gamechanical?


No you are right. The clerics who spend the whole fight buffing instead of fighting are universally despised. Which is why in actual play, fighters tend to be better fighters than clerics, even if the clerics have a few buffs...and aside from divine power, divine favor and righteous might, any buff that helps a cleric helps a fighter at least as much, often more.

People also assume clerics and wizards will always have the spells they need prepared, which also usually turns out not to be true, unless the entire campaign never involves ambushes, time pressure or similar events that deviate from "I attack when I decide, I rest when I want".

That said, a skilled player with a cleric can do quite a lot with just a single buff in the opening round (and a quickened spell or two in higher levels) to make them a decent fighter that can ALSO do all kinds of utility and support stuff out of combat and ALSO have some spells to bring the "boom" when hitting somebody with your mace isn't as good as casting a spell. As noted there are also a few methods (often banned in various campaigns) to extend spells that should last only rounds into minutes or even all day. Once you pass level 10 or so, minute/level buffs will last several encounters, and a party in that mode is significantly more dangerous than one that is jumped when they're in the tavern drinking.

Finally, the prep caster classes are very forgiving of character "build". You can screw up every feat selection and use of your wealth-by-level and still do ok if your spell selection is decent. In 3.5 especially (Pathfinder's a bit more forgiving) a fighter can make a few bad choices and be nearly worthless in mid-high levels.

All these options often exceed the ability of players to keep up with them and lead to paralysis or bad decisions at the table. Summoner druids are notorious for bringing play to a stop unless the player is incredibly organized.

In my own experience, spont casters with decent spell selection meet or exceed performance of the "big three" prepared casters, but that may be because campaigns I play in are more often reactive than (deal with sudden crises, ambushes, enemies who think, move and react) than active (I see the target over there, we buff, prepare and hit it when we're at our peak of power). I've also had very good luck with "lower tier" characters (a monk, an arcane archer with only 1 level of wizard, a "trapfinding tank" heavy infantry multiclass character etc) because, ironically, limited options means you know your role and don't paralyze yourself with choices or trying to do everything. An archers role is to do steady, consistent damage per round that is comparable to the best an arcanist can do if he's making an effort to be good at direct damage. If your archer is good at that, it frees up the "do everything" spellcasters to focus better on things the archer can't do.

Or to put it another way. Last night in my Pathfinder game the Big Bad was defeated because the wizard and sorcerer maneuvered to put a hasted paladin next to it, timed right for a full attack. He used dimension door and the fact that a paladin next to an evil outsider+full attack = dead evil outsider most of the time, rather than trying to do anything clever to the critter that had a boatload of anti-magic defenses and a full attack that could kill the arcanist in a single round. (which made the move fairly gutsy, as he's also in full attack range unable to take actions if the paladin blows it and the rest of the party doesn't cover his ass before the critter moves). (my divine caster's contribution to that battle? Some minute-level buffs on the various fighters, including the paladin, which contributed to the ability to hit the critter)

[Seward]

Being a vampire and being a cleric is a pretty good combination, IMO.

Well, except for the fact that if you aren't a vampire you are 8 levels higher as a cleric. Nothing you get from the template pays for that. The hitpoint cost alone can be pretty serious, as can the fewer hit dice when the opposition casts something like Holy Word or Word of Chaos.

Durkula is stuck at his current power level till the end of the campaign, most likely. But yeah, he'll look pretty good until the others start leveling up.

[MrQ]

Well, except for the fact that if you aren't a vampire you are 8 levels higher as a cleric. Nothing you get from the template pays for that. The hitpoint cost alone can be pretty serious, as can the fewer hit dice when the opposition casts something like Holy Word or Word of Chaos.

Durkula is stuck at his current power level till the end of the campaign, most likely. But yeah, he'll look pretty good until the others start leveling up.

But isn't vamp template hd 12? and wouldn't that translate to +50% hp on average?

[Sloanzilla]

Point being that Durkon did not magically lose 8 levels when he became a vampire, nor would he be 8 levels higher were he to suddenly stop being a vampire. I agree that once some of the other characters gain 4-5 levels (IE-after the end of the entire campaign) the spell level and hit point difference would significantly eclipse his vampire powers. Also, Redcloak may be able to control him right now, and that's not good.

[Seward]

But isn't vamp template hd 12? and wouldn't that translate to +50% hp on average?

It is d12, but your con is "-". Which means for a dwarf, you are almost certainly getting LESS hitpoints per die AND you get no more hit dice till you get through the ECL.

(dwarf with 16 con, which is the most point-efficient way to get con in a point-buy game = 4.5+3=7.5 hit points per level (and 8 points at level 1). Clerics don't always have con items, even at L15, because it conflicts with the wisdom item in 3.5, so lets go with that. d12 = 6.5 hitpoints per level, 12 hit points at level 1. If a cleric with 16 con is over 5th level, he gets less hitpoints by going undead than when he was alive. A class with a +4 con item by level 15, which is nearly every other class, will be hurt even more by becoming undead, although arcanists about break even unless they are gnomes or spent/rolled an unusually high amount of points on con)

[MrQ]

It is d12, but your con is "-". Which means for a dwarf, you are almost certainly getting LESS hitpoints per die AND you get no more hit dice till you get through the ECL.

(dwarf with 16 con, which is the most point-efficient way to get con in a point-buy game = 4.5+3=7.5 hit points per level (and 8 points at level 1). Clerics don't always have con items, even at L15, because it conflicts with the wisdom item in 3.5, so lets go with that. d12 = 6.5 hitpoints per level, 12 hit points at level 1. If a cleric with 16 con is over 5th level, he gets less hitpoints by going undead than when he was alive. A class with a +4 con item by level 15, which is nearly every other class, will be hurt even more by becoming undead, although arcanists about break even unless they are gnomes or spent/rolled an unusually high amount of points on con)

OOTSwise, we have no idea of Durkons CON score, do we now?

[Story]

Which is why in actual play, fighters tend to be better fighters than clerics, even if the clerics have a few buffs...and aside from divine power, divine favor and righteous might, any buff that helps a cleric helps a fighter at least as much, often more.

In my own experience, spont casters with decent spell selection meet or exceed performance of the "big three" prepared casters, but that may be because campaigns I play in are more often reactive than (deal with sudden crises, ambushes, enemies who think, move and react) than active (I see the target over there, we buff, prepare and hit it when we're at our peak of power). I've also had very good luck with "lower tier" characters (a monk, an arcane archer with only 1 level of wizard, a "trapfinding tank" heavy infantry multiclass character etc) because, ironically, limited options means you know your role and don't paralyze yourself with choices or trying to do everything. An archers role is to do steady, consistent damage per round that is comparable to the best an arcanist can do if he's making an effort to be good at direct damage. If your archer is good at that, it frees up the "do everything" spellcasters to focus better on things the archer can't do.

Or to put it another way. Last night in my Pathfinder game the Big Bad was defeated because the wizard and sorcerer maneuvered to put a hasted paladin next to it, timed right for a full attack. He used dimension door and the fact that a paladin next to an evil outsider+full attack = dead evil outsider most of the time, rather than trying to do anything clever to the critter that had a boatload of anti-magic defenses and a full attack that could kill the arcanist in a single round. (which made the move fairly gutsy, as he's also in full attack range unable to take actions if the paladin blows it and the rest of the party doesn't cover his ass before the critter moves). (my divine caster's contribution to that battle? Some minute-level buffs on the various fighters, including the paladin, which contributed to the ability to hit the critter)

That hasn't been my experience at all. Anyway, not having the right spell prepared doesn't come up much in practice except at the lowest levels due to the fact that the best spells are applicable in a wide variety of situations (is there anything that Polymorph can't solve?), plus tricks like scrolls, glyph seals, and Uncanny Forethought. Of course, this can vary from table to table based on houserules and style of play.


Anyway, I'm surprised noone's linked to the actual tier list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559) yet. That provides an explanation of what it is and isn't and why the classes are in their tiers.

Also, LA and ECL were assigned by WOTC based on a couple of guidelines that turn out to not have any relation to actual balance since WOTC had no clue how it was balanced. Most often, the reasoning seems to be "is this better than equivalent levels in Fighter"? and even then, it's often too high.

[Dorsidwarf]

I thought it was established that Redcloak CANNOT Control Undead on Durkon, because he needs to be twice the level or something?

[Kish]

I thought it was established that Redcloak CANNOT Control Undead on Durkon, because he needs to be twice the level or something?
No "or something" necessary; that is exactly the case, barring some kind of "actually the Crimson Mantle lets Redcloak Rebuke Undead as a cleric of twice his actual level" ass-pull which Rich is not going to do.

[Sloanzilla]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Turn_or_Rebuke_Undead unless I'm reading this wrong, twice as many levels to command, but not to rebuke. Rebuking isn't really that useful, it seems.

[Snails]

In the narrative here Durkon does not lose anything by being vamped. Eventually he will not get his 14th or 15th level. Against most opponents he is still ahead by losing two or three levels. Against Team Evil it might not be a good deal. The timing of leveling would matter.

[theNater]

OOTSwise, we have no idea of Durkons CON score, do we now?
He's a dwarf and a melee combatant; odds are good he had some kind of bonus. Losing that is going to offset the hit die change, we just don't know by how much.

[SowZ]

Clerics are like Druids. They aren't the very best at most important party roles, (support, casting, blasting, tanking, dps,etc.) but they are basically second best at everything and best at a few niche roles. It's like the pistol in Halo 1. It's not the best long range weapon, (sniper,) or best close range, (shotgun,) but it is the second best at both and easy to use without much skill making it the all around best choice.

Though Clerics/Druids do get some powerful Cleric/Druid only spells and out of combat type healing, (restoration, Resurrection, Reincarnation,) is pretty important in many campaigns. And Wild Shape has some pretty unique uses.

I personally think Druids are the most overpowered class, followed by Cleric. Yes, Wizard outpaces them at high levels and has more raw power once you get up there. But Druid and Cleric know their entire spell lists so you can't really build them wrong and are both very useful/powerful from level 1 on.

Cleric is always a good option.

[Sloanzilla]

I agree with you.
Wizards have the most outside-of-the-scope-of-reality spell list, but wizards have SOME weaknesses. (Spellbooks, grapple if unprepared, surprise rounds)

High level clerics are impossible to kill, but they have SOME limitations when it comes to utility (non combat obstacles) use.

A good 3.5 druid has no real weakness and no utility limitation.

[MrQ]

I agree with you.
Wizards have the most outside-of-the-scope-of-reality spell list, but wizards have SOME weaknesses. (Spellbooks, grapple if unprepared, surprise rounds)

High level clerics are impossible to kill, but they have SOME limitations when it comes to utility (non combat obstacles) use.

A good 3.5 druid has no real weakness and no utility limitation.

How come? I mean, no utility limitations and how does it compare to cleric's limitations?

[Sloanzilla]

Keep in mind I've never played past L14 or so, in 25 years of gaming. Some guy always says "I've got a new campaign! Let's make level 1s!" and most people agree.

But, from my experiences, a druid has more skill points than a cleric and also has beast shape, so he/she generally has more utility use. Sure, a cleric could airwalk or something, but if there's a camp down the road or another part of the dungeon, the druid is often one of the better options to be a scout. I guess the cleric has the social skills element, but my mid-level experiences with druids have involved them doing a lot of the out of combat legwork (OK guys, the enemy camp is over here and I've set up a camp for us here, and watch for the poison thicket here etc.) I suppose it could be different in an urban adventure, but even then it would be hard to think of a situation where the druid would not immediately be one of the most useful characters.

And then in combat- you have team druid, and his character, animal companion and summons.

[warrl]

Yes, I got that. I am merely using the characters as a focus here to understand how these... things are justified.

Regardless of the narrative question, rules-wise, I still don't get the +6 levels. And I don't get the gamebreaker status. I always felt that fighters were the boring munchkin class.

At level 1 (in 1e through 3.5E), you're right. The Cleric isn't bad, but he isn't really in the same class, and the spellcasting that might give him an edge is so limited

By level 6 a melee-oriented Cleric with creative use of self-buffing should be a better melee combatant than a Fighter unless you average over 5 combat encounters per in-game day of adventuring. (At some point the Druid's even better than the Cleric, but I don't know what that point is.)

And the Cleric doesn't have to be melee-oriented. He won't be quite as good at staying out of melee as a Wizard, but he can be plenty good enough at it. Overall, as a primary combat spellcaster, the Cleric is slightly better than the Wizard (who is a better utility spellcaster).

The basic problem is that there are specific things the Fighter (or any other non-caster class*) is best at, but there are a whole bunch of things that a primary spellcaster is better at - and after a few levels they can often eliminate the need to do the things the Fighter is best at, and can occasionally self-buff or summon something so they are effectively better at those things than the Fighter is.

* Actually that's not quite true. There are a few really lame non-core classes. Some of them barely are up to average at their best features.

[Sloanzilla]

Remember the 3.5 samurai? That was a thing of beauty.

{Scrubbed}

[SoC175]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Turn_or_Rebuke_Undead unless I'm reading this wrong, twice as many levels to command, but not to rebuke. Rebuking isn't really that useful, it seems.Actually it's pretty useful. One successfully rebuke and Durkon is out of the fight.

Also in practice it's much more usefull than turning. It's a pain in the ### to run after turned undead (especially incorporeal undead fleeing throught walls), while it's a piece of cake to cut cowering rebuked undead to shreds

[Snails]

Actually it's pretty useful. One successfully rebuke and Durkon is out of the fight.

Also in practice it's much more usefull than turning. It's a pain in the ### to run after turned undead (especially incorporeal undead fleeing throught walls), while it's a piece of cake to cut cowering rebuked undead to shreds

That would be true about undead who can do nothing but hit things. Durkon is still useful even if he puts his hammer away.

[Snails]

Spell casting classes are very potent if they can control the pacing of the adventure. When you do not have any time for buffs because the fight is suddenly happening to the heroes, the Fighter shines. That advantage fades in the teen levels because the combination of abundant spell slots and long durations makes having one or two good buffs always up pretty easy.

Most people vastly under estimate how difficult it is to play a low level Druid. Specifically, your AC is the worst on the battlefield, your offensive choices for 2nd 3rd level spells suh-huck, summoning in the middle of battle is suicide with such a low AC, and you are missing some great utility spells like prot from evil.

[Amphiox]

It's a simplification, but tiers correlate a lot with flexibility. The more roles a character type can fulfill reasonably competently, the more diverse situations the character can deal with with the least need for additional outside support, the better a tier it is in, usually, with perhaps a few exceptions.

Lack of optimization in a narrative is pretty easy to justify. To optimize well a player has to understand the rules well, to know how to exploit them, and to know the relative utility of the various choices available in character design and power-up. In the real world we have sourcebooks that list all the rules with perfect accuracy, things like the internet to share opinions with other players, the availability of play testing, and so forth. In-universe, though, assuming there isn't some deity who freely gives out such information, characters cannot be presumed to have easy access to all the rules that run their universe. They would have to figure them out for themselves, just as we did in the real world with the laws of physics, and the theories they are working with May not even be perfectly accurate, just as our scientific theories aren't. Characters may not be able to perfectly optimize simply because the most effective ways to optimize simply aren't known or aren't widely known, and the character cannot be expected to have had access to such knowledge.

A player can also plan his characters progression many levels in advance, which for a character in a narrative would be equivalent to someone planning his whole life from high school graduation to retirement in real life, and how many people in real life actually do that?

[SoC175]

That would be true about undead who can do nothing but hit things. Durkon is still useful even if he puts his hammer away.Not if he is frozen and unable to take actions, as per the cowering condition, which is what happens to a rebuked undead.

Wouldn't be much of a class ability if all it does would make them unable to move but still perfectly able to attack at range or with spells.

A rebuked undead is pretty much out of combat.

[Sloanzilla]

2-4th level druids are not absurdly powerful, but entangle is a really good divine first level spell and they still have an animal companion, so I don't think they are terrible.

What I've also found interesting is that beast shape, while one of the best abilities in pen and paper, NEVER seems to translate well to video games. I don't recall spending much time using Jaheira or Elanee's shifting ability in BG2 or NWN, at least not the animal forms.

[Keltest]

2-4th level druids are not absurdly powerful, but entangle is a really good divine first level spell and they still have an animal companion, so I don't think they are terrible.

What I've also found interesting is that beast shape, while one of the best abilities in pen and paper, NEVER seems to translate well to video games. I don't recall spending much time using Jaheira or Elanee's shifting ability in BG2 or NWN, at least not the animal forms.

Its probably because the video games need to try to make it so that other characters are actually useful. If your druid can just beat up everything for you, whats the point of having any other characters except for any story they bring?

[MrQ]

Its probably because the video games need to try to make it so that other characters are actually useful. If your druid can just beat up everything for you, whats the point of having any other characters except for any story they bring?

Funny. Never being too big about character optimisation or rules lawyering, I always felt that druids were the challenging, low tier class.

That might be 2nd ed bias, tho. Never even looked at 3rd ed druids as a plausible choice for characters. Jaheira didn't help, thanks to the level cap.

[Everyl]

Funny. Never being too big about character optimisation or rules lawyering, I always felt that druids were the challenging, low tier class.

That might be 2nd ed bias, tho. Never even looked at 3rd ed druids as a plausible choice for characters. Jaheira didn't help, thanks to the level cap.

Every class gets a little more powerful and/or versatile every time a new book is/was published with more spells, feats, etc. available to them. Druids also get a little more powerful/versatile every time a new creature with the Animal type is published, expanding the potential usefulness of the Wild Shape and Animal Companion class abilities. I'd guess this gave them an advantage over the long haul, thanks to getting a bit more power creep than most of the other classes.

This is probably also why video game Wild Shape doesn't measure up. In a video game, you only get access to animals that have been coded into the game; in a tabletop game, you get every animal you can talk your DM into admitting exists in the setting.

[Sloanzilla]

yeah, that (lack of options) is probably it. The "they just didn't want it to be overpowered" argument doesn't really work, since there are plenty of other class abilities that ARE very powerful that are included. Most video games also have no way of addressing the stealth/scouting concept of shapeshifting (I turn into a bird. I turn into a rat and look around).

Pen and paper also has "wild" armor- so you can turn into a dinosaur but still keep your armor bonus.

Jaheira is actually a pretty decent, balanced character, IMO. Plus she has a fit if you try to remove her once the harper quest has started, so I always feel bad and keep her around. Elanee in NWN because you don't get another divine caster until midway through the second chapter.

[MrQ]

I don't get it. I always felt that druid spells are lame. Passwall, walk without trace and so on and so forth.

Sure, with a capable DM, why not. Useful for narrative purposes. But in terms of blasting things to bit...

[Keltest]

I don't get it. I always felt that druid spells are lame. Passwall, walk without trace and so on and so forth.

Sure, with a capable DM, why not. Useful for narrative purposes. But in terms of blasting things to bit...

Some are certainly less useful than others. But youre playing wrong* if your only consideration is how to kill something this round. And even then, ive seen people manage to do things like kill someone with a hold portal spell by casting it in such a way that a fleeing enemy trips and gets impaled on something.

*Wrong in the sense that youre missing out on a lot of what D&D is designed for.

[Amphiox]

I do not know of this is true in tabletop D&D, but sometimes tiering is a deliberate design strategy for a game. In the computer D&D games it is much easier to play a low level fighter than a low level spellcaster. To get to take advantage of the spellcasters' advantages you have to survive to the mid-levels. Those advantages therefore become a reward for the player for sticking with the game.

A game could have a low tier beginner's class, easy to play at the start but outclassed later on, a high tier expert's class, hard to play at the beginning but becomes very powerful at the end, a high tier casual player's class that is very good throughout for players who want to get through the game's story quickly and don't want to devote huge amounts of time to it, and a low tier expert's challenge class that is hard to play throughout, for expert players who want a challenge on a third or fourth play through.

[MrQ]

Some are certainly less useful than others. But youre playing wrong* if your only consideration is how to kill something this round. And even then, ive seen people manage to do things like kill someone with a hold portal spell by casting it in such a way that a fleeing enemy trips and gets impaled on something.

*Wrong in the sense that youre missing out on a lot of what D&D is designed for.

Oh, it's not that. I've merely understood that ECL's are literaly a tool to measure the potential for solving conflicts. This is why I have some difficulties.

As previously mentioned, everything from my mouth is based on ignorance and is to be shot down. :smallsmile:

[Kish]

Oh, it's not that. I've merely understood that ECL's are literaly a tool to measure the potential for solving conflicts.
I would venture that a character whose only tool for solving conflicts is "brute-force slam to the face"--whether that slam is physical or magic--is generally bad at doing so.

[MrQ]

I would venture that a character whose only tool for solving conflicts is "brute-force slam to the face"--whether that slam is physical or magic--is generally bad at doing so.

Well, blindness can be used to that effect. As well as feather fall. Or bluff check. I still fail to see the effectiveness of druids in this regard.

[ImperatorV]

Well, blindness can be used to that effect. As well as feather fall. Or bluff check. I still fail to see the effectiveness of druids in this regard.

A lot of the Druid's power comes from Summon Natures Ally... Some of the animals are quite strong for the level you get them at, and there are dozens of feats to power of summons even more (greenbound summoning comes to mind). It's often said that Druids are the best summoners short of the Malconvoker.

Also, while the druid's spell list has weaker options than cleric or arcane, they get wildshape and animal companion, which add enough utility and power to make up for it.

[Kish]

Well, blindness can be used to that effect. As well as feather fall. Or bluff check. I still fail to see the effectiveness of druids in this regard.
*shrug* Your choice of two spells that aren't on the druid class list, instead of two spells that are, is utterly arbitrary as far as I can tell. I can say that Heat/Chill Metal are vicious at lower levels, Fire Storm is brutal at higher levels, and summoning and shapeshifting really don't qualify for the offhanded dismissal you're giving them...but I cannot say that any druid ability is not a druid ability, and it's looking like that's what I'd need to say for you to grant that any of them might be anything other than pathetic.

[RebelRogue]

I do not know of this is true in tabletop D&D, but sometimes tiering is a deliberate design strategy for a game. In the computer D&D games it is much easier to play a low level fighter than a low level spellcaster. To get to take advantage of the spellcasters' advantages you have to survive to the mid-levels. Those advantages therefore become a reward for the player for sticking with the game.

A game could have a low tier beginner's class, easy to play at the start but outclassed later on, a high tier expert's class, hard to play at the beginning but becomes very powerful at the end, a high tier casual player's class that is very good throughout for players who want to get through the game's story quickly and don't want to devote huge amounts of time to it, and a low tier expert's challenge class that is hard to play throughout, for expert players who want a challenge on a third or fourth play through.
Iirc this was explicitly mentioned in some older editions of D&D. Which imo is pretty bad game design for an rpg (less so for a computer game).

[Oko and Qailee]

but IMO forgets about things like long-term endurance over multiple encounters.

Sorry, just to chime in.

This is not true. Tier 1 classes have more endurance over multiple encounters, even at low levels.

Ex. A Wizard has 3 spells per day at level 1, lets say he makes all of them the spell Sleep. This means he can solo 4 goblins with a single spell. A fighter will fight 4 goblins, win, but then be at such low HP that he can't keep going for the day, the wizard can fight two more encounters all on his own, meaning he has more endurance over multiple encounters. Likewise, a cleric has healing and a druid has spells and an animal companion.

The tier list does take in long term endurance, it's just that, by level 5, casters have enough spells that, even though they supposedly "have to stop" they've done more in a single day than a lower tier class can even if they ended up working all day.

[Oko and Qailee]

It's a simplification, but tiers correlate a lot with flexibility.

It's flexibility and power. A T1 can do anything, and they can do anything better than anyone else when they put their mind to it.

Tankyness - Shapechange/Blur/Wildshape/Everything a cleric does ever
vs a Barbarians D12 HD

Damage - Shapechange/blasting/Everything a cleric does ever
vs a Lion totem Charging Barbarian (but remember, you can't be deader than dead)

Mobility - Haste/Teleport/Greater Teleport/Air Walk/etc
vs a Monks bonus move speed?

CC - Entangle/Grease/Sleep/DeepSlumber/PrismaticSpray
vs a grapple build?

Skills - Moment of prescience/Glibness/etc
vs a Rogues skill points

See, a T1 can have all of those things in their build at once and compete with every other class in what they're best at and either a) do it better or b) do it well enough to were the difference doesnt matter.

This isn't even including things like Greater Consumptive Shield shennanigans (gives a Cleric arbitrarily high STR and temp HP) for example.

[Legato Endless]

The comic isn't a game of D&D but a narrative, so tiers aren't really in play (except for that one pun). Also, LA tend to overestimated.

Well, sort of. The story isn't designed to fit the whims of the arm chair munchkins who complain about such things, (and it would be boring) but the gaps in power and arrogance the tiers create is a running sub theme in the story. From Xykon's frustration with wizards to the Linear Guild Druid who fought the entire order and taunted Haley about her weakness as a rogue, to the conversation Durkon, Malack and V had.

[zimmerwald1915]

It's flexibility and power.
Kinda. I've seen Tiers 1 and 3 described as Tiers 2 and 4 respectively, plus flexibility.

[Komatik]

Kinda. I've seen Tiers 1 and 3 described as Tiers 2 and 4 respectively, plus flexibility.

{table=head] |FlexibleCharacter|NarrowFocusPerCharacter
Broken|Tier 1|Tier2
Competent|Tier 3|Tier4
Weakish||Tier 5
Useless|NPCs|NPCs
[/table]

[BardicLasher]

So if you will, tell me this; how come do Clerics get called as game breakers? And especially, when vamped up, are the +6 EC levels justified and if, then how? I really can't see anything in vampire template that could bring Durkon up to threat range similar to X.


Short version:

You know that spell Durkon sometimes casts where he grows huge and bashes things into submission and nothing can stand in his way? He can concievably cast that over a dozen times per day at his current level, and it's every bit as badass as it looks. He's got other spells like that, too, he just doesn't cast them.


As for the vampire: The justification is mostly in

A) Dominate person at will and
B) Immunity to death.

While there ARE ways to kill a vampire, they require the opponent to be intelligent, knowledgeable, and prepared to fight a vampire. This means the vast majority of encounters will not be able to threaten Durkon with death. The vampire template also comes with a whopping +9 AC, +3 to attack and damage, +4 on reflex saves, immunity to most effects that require a fortitude or will save, DR 10/magic silver (most foes won't have silver), and the ability to make more vampires out of the creatures you kill that obey your commands (as Durkon did when he was created.) Even with the loss of hit points, Vampire Durkon is far, far harder to /defeat/ than Durkon before, and killing him is out of the question for anyone who isn't expecting to have to kill a vampire.

[Komatik]

Short version:

You know that spell Durkon sometimes casts where he grows huge and bashes things into submission and nothing can stand in his way? He can concievably cast that over a dozen times per day at his current level, and it's every bit as badass as it looks. He's got other spells like that, too, he just doesn't cast them.


As for the vampire: The justification is mostly in

A) Dominate person at will and
B) Immunity to death.

While there ARE ways to kill a vampire, they require the opponent to be intelligent, knowledgeable, and prepared to fight a vampire. This means the vast majority of encounters will not be able to threaten Durkon with death. The vampire template also comes with a whopping +9 AC, +3 to attack and damage, +4 on reflex saves, immunity to most effects that require a fortitude or will save, DR 10/magic silver (most foes won't have silver), and the ability to make more vampires out of the creatures you kill that obey your commands (as Durkon did when he was created.) Even with the loss of hit points, Vampire Durkon is far, far harder to /defeat/ than Durkon before, and killing him is out of the question for anyone who isn't expecting to have to kill a vampire.

Most of said justification being bullcrap, though, at least in comparison to 8 class levels.

Whoever said it earlier in the thread put it well: The LAs and Racial Hit Dice in place are there to ensure that playing a monster always, always sucks so players won't do it and will obediently play their little human-thing, that preferably is a blaster wizard or a healbot cleric or something.

[Sloanzilla]

I totally agree that a mid-level wizard has a good chance of being the party PVP on a given day, but I don't think that L1 example is fair. It assumed exactly the ideal situation for the wizard (3 groups of 4 goblins!) and ignored surprise round arrows, armor class, undead that are immune to sleep, etc.

That's kind of my problem with the tier system- it sounds good on paper but does not translate to real game experiences, at least not at low levels and not fully at mid levels. It also ignores the fact that doing a few things extremely well is as important as versatility.

But like I said, most of my experience is with casual gamers at lower levels, though I suspect that is somewhat common.

[Zevox]

And especially, when vamped up, are the +6 EC levels justified and if, then how?
Something to keep in mind with the Vampire template is that ECL does not measure the character's individual power. It is meant as a way to keep characters with extra abilities from overshadowing the rest of the party, and more often than not it errs on the high side. This is because things like at-will dominate or tons of built-in resistances (just being undead makes you immune to a great many things, and Vampires get damage reduction, energy resistance, and more on top of that) could otherwise quickly become insane. Consider how Durkon helped turn the tide of a battle with an entire army through use of that dominate ability alone, for example, just because there is no limit on how many times he can use it.

In contrast, the challenge rating (which measures what level a party of characters should be at to be appropriately challenged by the creature) of a creature that becomes a Vampire only goes up by 2, not 6. Because yeah, if an enemy had health/spells/etc as a character six levels lower than the party, all those abilities wouldn't make up for it in the slightest.


Try as I might, though, a polar bear is something I still see a mid-level fighter cutting to ribbons in two rounds, so the credible threat thing... there kinda isn't one. Again, pardon my ignorance.
You might want to look up the kind of stats that a mid-level Druid shape-shifted into a Polar Bear would have, then. Because they're considerably better than a typical mid-level Fighter. That shape-shift would give the Druid a strength of 27, which normally requires being very high-level, a constitution of 19, which probably increases their health by a fair deal (depends on what their normal con score is), three attacks per round (claw x2 and bite) that with base damage equivalent to a longsword on the claws and greatsword on the bite, and perhaps most deadly, the improved grab ability that lets them immediately initiate a grapple if a claw attack hits. A grapple which their very high strength score and new size bonus will make very hard for their opponent to win unless they're fighting something just as large and strong.

Oh, and if they have the Natural Spell feat, they can even still cast spells while in this form. The only real downside is that they lose their armor bonus to AC, and depending on what their normal dexterity score is that might go down. Which matters little when their health is boosted and they can get free grapple opportunities.

Basically, Wild Shape really does let Druids be better fighters than actual Fighters of equal level in most cases, and with that one feat they don't even give up their spellcasting doing it.


I don't get it. I always felt that druid spells are lame. Passwall, walk without trace and so on and so forth.

Sure, with a capable DM, why not. Useful for narrative purposes. But in terms of blasting things to bit...
Druids tend to have at least one decent to good blasting spell per spell level, and that's just sticking to the core spells. Produce Flame at level 1, Flame Sphere at level 2, Call Lightning at level 3, Flamestrike at level 4, Call Lightning Storm at level 5, and so on. Wizards get more, but in many cases you only need one good one per level anyway.

Oh, and they have spontaneous summoning spells. Those start weak, but by mid and especially high levels, they get very good.

[Sloanzilla]

MVP, not PVP, heh

[Seward]

I don't get it. I always felt that druid spells are lame. Passwall, walk without trace and so on and so forth.

Sure, with a capable DM, why not. Useful for narrative purposes. But in terms of blasting things to bit...

Druids have a number of the better battlefield control spells. Their damage spells are meh, but that's because their REAL damage spell is either summons or buffing themself+companion.

I had a barbarian/druid hybrid build that I called the "pouncekitty" build. It was designed to not suck in the baby levels (playing like a barbarian with slightly less hitpoints and some out of combat utility spells), was more effective wildshaped into a medium cat than in human form by level 5, and at level 9 had a tremendous powerup when it could use the full sized cat form and feats came together.

With very few spell slots used for combat (a few swift action buff spells was all) her spell selection was split between long duration buffs like freedom of movement, air walk and greater magic fang and out of combat spot utility spells (eg, she could speed up the travel time of all the mounts in the party and make an aura of "terrain gets out of your way if the problem is plants" around the party to get serious strategic mobility even in very rough terrain).

Most of the problems with a charge-based build go away when you can run over the heads of your allies, take no penalties charging up or down air-walked "ramps" and free movement+blindsight disposes of most obstacles to charging. Pretty much she could remove one opponent a round if she had a charge lane to it. They just exploded in gore.
And...she could still summon crap if she needed to. earth elementals to earth glide, once an extra lion to join her in the charge, etc. She used a dire bat animal companion either as a tank, sending it in to draw AOOs or alternately serve as a flying mount to the party archer, wizard or whatever.

Her campaign ended before she really hit her stride, she'd just leveled into level 9 but never got to play it.

There were downsides. Her defenses were nonexistent, so if her buddies had allies, or it got an AOO or something, she got hit very hard. But that's why you have teammates and why you pick your targets properly, like any good light infantry character. Had she made it to the low teens, spells would have done a decent job of helping with that problem too, if she was ready to fight. (unbuffed she could still clobber the opposition but terrain and enemy action is more likely to keep her from charging a new victim every round)


My wife...she went the summoner route and was super-organized so she could almost manage the complexity. By level 9 (with one level of seeker of the misty isles) she could rapid-summon critters or toss up a number of really obnoxious battlefield control spells or just turn into a bear and dim-door herself+all the party melee types around whatever needed to die.

All that and really high scouting skills too, on both characters (stealth+perception are class skills, the wildshape forms give bonuses, as do spells such as camoflauge etc).

No I get why druids are tier 1. I actually think it's harder to get the most out of a cleric...you have a tighter tool selection and more of your effects matter what the other guy has in the way of defenses than things you can do for yourself. Druids, because of the emphasis on utility and support spells, can pretty much count on doing their thing and about the only thing that gives them much trouble is DR, until they simply have enough muscle to suck it up and still do stupid-high damage.

[Komatik]

I totally agree that a mid-level wizard has a good chance of being the party PVP on a given day, but I don't think that L1 example is fair. It assumed exactly the ideal situation for the wizard (3 groups of 4 goblins!) and ignored surprise round arrows, armor class, undead that are immune to sleep, etc.

That's kind of my problem with the tier system- it sounds good on paper but does not translate to real game experiences, at least not at low levels and not fully at mid levels. It also ignores the fact that doing a few things extremely well is as important as versatility.

But like I said, most of my experience is with casual gamers at lower levels, though I suspect that is somewhat common.

One thing about that: Although the Wizard's ceiling for power is absurdly high, it takes a lot of knowledge and understanding of the system to actually get all that power out of it. An unoptimized Wizard can suck worse than you can possibly imagine.

Examples:

Wizard: Extreme flexibility, ability to break the game world, super low optimization floor, absurdly high optimization ceiling.

Fighter: Sucktastic flexibility, very low optimization floor, high optimization ceiling (you can make a Fighter a lot better with knowhow, he still leaves a lot to be desired, but can oneshot basically anything he can charge/pounce at).

Warblade: Great flexibility in combat, high optimization floor, low optimization ceiling (can't make a ToB class much better than it is by op-fu barring a couple cheese builds).

Druid: Extreme flexibility, ability to break the game but not the world*, high optimization floor (Pick Natural Spell, max wis, high con = competent Druid, inevitably), very high optimization ceiling.

*Druids tend to be unable to escape the confines of playing D&D - they just play every aspect of it and do so with supreme power. Wizards and Clerics at some point just stop playing the game, they can abuse the rules that bad.

[Seward]

Yeah. There are actually two axis to consider in terms of a player getting the most out of a class.

1. Build optimization limits (the "floor" and "ceiling" mentioned. A 3.5 warlock, for example, simply can not be optimized to the point where it can compete with the most obvious archery builds or an arcanist with scorching ray and some metamagic). The floor is a matter of how easy it is to screw up the class with bad choices, the ceiling is what the system allows in terms of outcomes.

2. Player complexity limits. All three of the tier 1 "prepared caster" classes can tax a casual player quite a bit. Most players that I've seen end up with a very narrow list of spells prepared that they nearly always take. A fair balance is to have some you swap based on what you learn with open slots to give the rest of the flexibility you might need. But for the average player, a sorcerer is better than a wizard because you always have all your options and you also get to know your options well, as you only get 1-2 new ones each level (a cleric has to learn the entire divine 3rd level spell list when he turns level 5, a favored soul only has to PICK 2 spells from that list when he turns level 6, barring a desire to load up on scrolls)

Druids have absolutely the worst player complexity issues. You have a huge divine spell list, you have also the entire freaking bestiary to learn, and if you want to buff your summons/animals/self you need to be able to handle yours statblock changes smoothly. Finally even for a non-summoner you have more actions to worry about, your best forms have multiple attacks and if you summon.....the amount of die rolling to get through a druid turn is not for the faint of heart.

For a new player, if handed a well designed fighter or a spont caster with well chosen spells, they can usually cope with the complexity and may well exhibit stronger play because they're not overburdened with options. However they won't do things like a more experienced player might (the golf-bag of weapons for the fighter, the scroll/wand/potion support for the spont caster on rarely used options) so will be more inclined to use their power like a club on all obstacles, rather than having a plan for enemies that are designed to resist clubs.

If they are making their own build choices though, a prep caster is more forgiving (as the power is primarily in the spells prepared, not choices made at level up), in spite of the fact that the new player will simply ignore most of the options available to them. A wizard player with darkvision in the spellbook can help the party sneak up without light even though the player just scribed the spell cause the GM put a scroll of it in as loot. A cleric will ALWAYS have Restoration available tomorrow, even if the player didn't even know the spell existed. Etc.

For me personally, I have found the prep casters to be too much of a pain in the rear for nearly a decade unless I only have a splash of it (as in an arcane archer or similar), or it's a fairly limited progression such as a Ranger or Paladin. If I do go down that road I am usually working to a theme that limits my options (as with my pouncekitty druid) to a manageable number most of the time.

But then my goal as a player is to have a character that will be fun to play, and be competent in their role. I use charop mostly to make weird concepts come to life and still be effective, rather than to try to "win" without needing the rest of my team, or stepping on their favorite roles. I do enjoy shared campaigns like Pathfinder Society or Living Greyhawk (back in the day), so my style is oriented to NOT knowing who my party members will be when I sit down with them. I like characters that make lemonade out of the lemons tossed at them, rather than those that try to force the world into their mold. Julio rather than Tarquin, as it were.

[MrQ]

*shrug* Your choice of two spells that aren't on the druid class list, instead of two spells that are, is utterly arbitrary as far as I can tell. I can say that Heat/Chill Metal are vicious at lower levels, Fire Storm is brutal at higher levels, and summoning and shapeshifting really don't qualify for the offhanded dismissal you're giving them...but I cannot say that any druid ability is not a druid ability, and it's looking like that's what I'd need to say for you to grant that any of them might be anything other than pathetic.

Please, no need to get frustrated. I don't have the rulebooks available to me, and I have to operate solely with long-term memory, and we're talking about decades here. I haven't played D&D since before 3,5 came out.

The whole point I have here is to understand character flexibility and class abilities and compare them in some meaningful way. :smallsmile:

[eggynack]

A constitution of 19, which probably increases their health by a fair deal (depends on what their normal con score is).
This is inaccurate, as the wild shape form's constitution doesn't impact HP. Anyways, y'go strolling around the other parts of the forum, and whaddya find? A random druid thread. There are two different types of druids that need to be considered here, which are in core druids, and out of core druids. In core druids aren't quite at the same level, as the spell list has some unfortunate blank spots, like second level spells, as well as some of the higher level sections.

However, you're still looking at a tier one list that can accomplish pretty much anything, with gems like entangle, call lightning, plant growth, sleet storm, stone shape, dispel magic, freedom of movement, spike stones, animal growth, baleful polymorph, control winds, transmute rock to mud/mud to rock, wall of thorns, anti-life shell, find the path, fire seeds, spell staff, transport via plants, wall of stone, control weather, heal, true seeing, earthquake, reverse gravity, word of recall, and shapechange. It's a list that is strong across pretty much all levels, and it alone makes you better than any non-caster in the game.

Moreover, you get wild shape forms that can still grant flight, burrowing, swim speeds, tripping, grappling, and pretty much anything other combat maneuvers you can think of, all within a standard action. Double-moreover, you have an animal companion which is competitive with the party fighter at the levels where that matters. It's an utterly ridiculous thing. Triple-moreover, you get summoning, which allows you to prepare situational spells on the assumption that you can swap them with generally useful nature friends, and they have abilities that make them pretty strong for their level, so they're competitive with other possible spells. It's a spell that is, above all else, an action economy breaker, allowing each of your actions to multiply across successive turns, and you can do that no matter how crappy your list is.

Meanwhile, out of core, you get... everything. I'd rather not go into detail, because I've literally written 61,964 words about what an out of core druid can accomplish, but suffice to say that there's little a druid cannot do natively, and what is on that short list can often be corrected with build decisions. So, yeah. Tier one all the way forever.

Edit: By the way, that non-core list does include competitive blasting options across all levels, as that's become a barometer of class quality for some reason.

[Nightcanon]

The plan would usually involve casting the buffs before starting the encounter. If you know roughly where the Big Bad is- cast just before you "kick in the door".

Like here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0104.html

Alternatively, the cleric applies his buffs while his fighter enemy is dealing with whatever Summon Monster x just caused to pop up behind him...

[Nightcanon]

2-4th level druids are not absurdly powerful, but entangle is a really good divine first level spell and they still have an animal companion, so I don't think they are terrible.

What I've also found interesting is that beast shape, while one of the best abilities in pen and paper, NEVER seems to translate well to video games. I don't recall spending much time using Jaheira or Elanee's shifting ability in BG2 or NWN, at least not the animal forms.

I've never seen a cRPG that didn't treat Wildshape purely as a combat ability. No stealth/ mobility/ flight options.

[Seward]

The only computer game I've ever seen that really did stealth (or 3-d movement like flight) properly was the City of Heroes RPG.

The computer tends to "box text" people out of stealth fora variety of reasons and make it absurdly hard to re-establish it.

[Sloanzilla]

yeah, would just be cool to see some outside of the box thinking on wildshape with video games. Like you can disguise yourself as a deer and get closer to the bandit campground because you are just a deer, or whatever.

Hordes of the Underdark SORT of had that- you turn into a pixie to cross the chasm or an elemental to lift a house or whatever.

[Kish]

Of course, instead of actually making that "aren't you glad you chose a class with shapeshifting ability?" Hordes of the Underdark gave everyone a necklace that let them shapeshift.

[Sloanzilla]

yeah, that was the reasoning behind the "sort of"-
I need to get across this chasm, so I can do so by turning into a pixie using the necklace I was given a few moments ago 100% of the time.

[Sloanzilla]

Also- Many RPG systems use triggers that would make any variety of scouting, druid or otherwise, not worthwhile.

The party druid changing into a hawk to scout ahead would translate into "the party's main character is teleported five feet in front of the guy who wants to talk to him and then attack him."

[Everyl]

Please, no need to get frustrated. I don't have the rulebooks available to me, and I have to operate solely with long-term memory, and we're talking about decades here. I haven't played D&D since before 3,5 came out.

The whole point I have here is to understand character flexibility and class abilities and compare them in some meaningful way. :smallsmile:

If you're looking to familiarize yourself with 3.5e D&D, even if only for the purposes of understanding the comic, you can find most of what you'd need to know here (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm). It has basically all of the rules in the core books, plus psionics and epic-level rules. Most of the fluff has been stripped out, and some monsters that Wizards of the Coast wanted to keep tighter copyright over are missing, but it'll definitely get you up to speed on what every class is capable of doing under the core rules.

Of particular relevance to this conversation, here's the druid spell list (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/druidSpells.htm).

[veti]

yeah, that was the reasoning behind the "sort of"-
I need to get across this chasm, so I can do so by turning into a pixie using the necklace I was given a few moments ago 100% of the time.

Heh. You didn't even need to get across that chasm, it was an entirely optional (and very annoying, and badly scripted - you told your companions to stay back, but suddenly they ended up beside you again) side quest.

HotU was an example of how different a computerised RPG is from the real thing. Rather than "challenges to overcome", it gave you "puzzles to solve". Click the right buttons in the right order, and you're golden. Try anything else, you're stymied until you do it right.

[Sloanzilla]

maybe, but it is still the only NWN game I've ever actually enjoyed, and yes that includes Mask of the Betrayer

[Kish]

I found HotU--showed its seams. By which I mean, it very much felt like three modules in succession, not one module as long as the three chapters: modules which were quite different in design and theme. Chapter Two was my favorite by a long way, Chapter One was okay (about on par with the OC)...Chapter Three was generally a pain, with a lot of obnoxious barely-justified puzzles, though it had some clever (and enjoyable, once I could get to them) parts.

[veti]

maybe, but it is still the only NWN game I've ever actually enjoyed, and yes that includes Mask of the Betrayer

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed[1] most of NWN (1, that is. NWN2 sucked so hard, I gave up in exasperation before I finished the original campaign - and the toolset was more frustrating even than that. I swore then and there not to waste another dime on that franchise.)

But comparing it with a real, P&P game - just shows what a weak substitute it is. There are quite a few fan-made mods that do a much better job than the official campaigns at approaching "roleplaying", but even the best of them are very limited.

[1] Still do, from time to time, which is not bad for a game that's 12 years old.


I found HotU--showed its seams. By which I mean, it very much felt like three modules in succession, not one module as long as the three chapters: modules which were quite different in design and theme. Chapter Two was my favorite by a long way, Chapter One was okay (about on par with the OC)...Chapter Three was generally a pain, with a lot of obnoxious barely-justified puzzles, though it had some clever (and enjoyable, once I could get to them) parts.

I'd agree with all parts of that. Chapter 1 is a slog, Chapter 2 is by far the most interesting segment (culminating in the big battle scene, which is lots of fun), Chapter 3 has the feel of "we're running out of time, forget the funky options and just wrap this up now".

[Rodin]

Deekin is the real reason to play HotU. Quite possibly my favorite Bioware character ever.

Still, I've never quite forgiven HotU for having a boss that has heavy resists in every elemental except for the ones in my barred schools. Finding that out after 30 hours of gameplay was a real punch in the gut.

[Snails]

A lot of the Druid's power comes from Summon Natures Ally... Some of the animals are quite strong for the level you get them at, and there are dozens of feats to power of summons even more (greenbound summoning comes to mind). It's often said that Druids are the best summoners short of the Malconvoker.

Also, while the druid's spell list has weaker options than cleric or arcane, they get wildshape and animal companion, which add enough utility and power to make up for it.

By the book, SNA can be stymied by a Protection from Evil spell. Nature' allies lack SR.

[Sloanzilla]

NWN1's symmetry bothered me. You go north, south, east or west and either fight a billion escaped prisoners or zombies or I can't remember. It all felt more like Gauntlet than a DND game. And each NPC would go through 7 pages of dialog and then give you a +1 item if you found something.

Adam Miller's NWN mods were pretty awesome, however.

As stated in the gaming forum, I can not ever forgive NWN2 for introducing a gnome with the last name of Gnomehands. That just does not make sense.

[veti]

NWN1's symmetry bothered me. You go north, south, east or west and either fight a billion escaped prisoners or zombies or I can't remember. It all felt more like Gauntlet than a DND game.

I modded the original campaign to give no XP from killing enemies, but only for completing quest stages. I think it's a marked improvement, because now you don't actually have to kill everything - sneaking is a viable option.


And each NPC would go through 7 pages of dialog and then give you a +1 item if you found something.

... that, however, would take significantly more work to fix, and life is too short.

[CRtwenty]

I mean Xykon wiped out turbocharged wizard, which is also rated as top tier.

Xykon wiped out a turbocharged Wizard who blindly teleported into a place filled with magical defenses without any preparations and proceeded to try to bludgeon Xykon down with pure force in an absolutely stupid way. Xykon was also being assisted by two other high level casters.

That said, had V actually gone in with a plan Xykon could easily have been destroyed in that fight.

[Oko and Qailee]

Kinda. I've seen Tiers 1 and 3 described as Tiers 2 and 4 respectively, plus flexibility.


How I've understood it has been:
Tier 1: Can do anything, nearly whenever (Implies absurd power and Flexibility)
Tier 2: Can do anything, nearly whenever, when built for it (A Sorcerer with Ice Assassin, Shapechange, Timestop, and Wish is essentially doing anything important you'll ever need)
Tier 3: Can do many things and of those, can do several well
Tier 4: Can do one thing extremely well, or several things decently.

This is off the top of my head, so I might be off.

[Oko and Qailee]

I totally agree that a mid-level wizard has a good chance of being the party PVP on a given day, but I don't think that L1 example is fair. It assumed exactly the ideal situation for the wizard (3 groups of 4 goblins!) and ignored surprise round arrows, armor class, undead that are immune to sleep, etc.


Fair enough, it's certainly an exaggeration and a fairly unfair one at that.

I would still say that a L1-not-optimized-but-knows-not-to-prepare-only-blast-spells wizard can make it farther in a dungeon than a fighter before the need to rest arises. Just looking at Sleep, Hypnotism, Color Spray, etc, those are all pretty typical wizard spells at gaming tables too. Yeah a surprise round can mess you up, but that can mess anyone up and Fighters aren't known for their spectacular Spot checks (Neither are wizards OFC :smallwink: I realize that.)

A cleric even more so (You can easily make some uber cheesy 1 man dungeon crawler cleric)

A druid even more so than that.


MVP, not PVP, heh

Close enough.

[Oko and Qailee]

Xykon wiped out a turbocharged Wizard who blindly teleported into a place filled with magical defenses without any preparations and proceeded to try to bludgeon Xykon down with pure force in an absolutely stupid way. Xykon was also being assisted by two other high level casters.

That said, had V actually gone in with a plan Xykon could easily have been destroyed in that fight.

If V had her surprise round it could have been over before Xykon got to react.

Maybe.

[Loreweaver15]

The thing a lot of people miss with tier lists, both in D&D and in tournament fighters, is that it represents the combat potential of the character played at the absolute most-optimized level. In tournament fighters, this means frame-perfect reads and an understanding of how to break the moves your character is programmed with in interesting and useful ways; in D&D, this means 'how well can this class warp reality?'

There are (almost) no perfect players, however, and the best players often may enjoy playing suboptimal characters, since it is, after all, a game. The best Street Fighter player in the world spent a good amount of time in Street Fighter IV as, alternately, Ryu and Guile, who, while excellent, were never S-tier.

There are also different situations to plan for in D&D, which means that while a Wizard technically needs nobody but him- or herself to shape reality to his or her whims, parties often have a variety of classes built for different tactical roles--and OOTS very recently showed us how, once your party is out of spells, a (tier 5!) Fighter just keeps going and going.

Like tournament fighters, the advice is 'play the character you want how you want, and only learn the tier list so you know the potential of your various choices.'

[Knaight]

The thing a lot of people miss with tier lists, both in D&D and in tournament fighters, is that it represents the combat potential of the character played at the absolute most-optimized level. In tournament fighters, this means frame-perfect reads and an understanding of how to break the moves your character is programmed with in interesting and useful ways; in D&D, this means 'how well can this class warp reality?'

That's not really the case with D&D. The list holds pretty well provided that the optimization levels are roughly equal - the ubercharger gets compared to the batman wizard, the archetypical sword and board fighter to the guy slinging fireballs, and the balance of power tips towards the wizard in each case.


OOTS very recently showed us how, once your party is out of spells, a (tier 5!) Fighter just keeps going and going.
Hit points are also a very finite resource, barring some sort of permanent fast healing or regeneration effect - both of which are largely kept away from PCs, though there are ways around that.


Like tournament fighters, the advice is 'play the character you want how you want, and only learn the tier list so you know the potential of your various choices.'
Pretty much. The tournament fighters favor higher tier characters far more as well, simply because of the more competitive game style. The D&D tiers are much more about knowing what you're getting into.

Besides, it's tier 3 that is most favored on the forum.

[Seward]

In most D&D games higher than level 1, out of combat healing is cheap and abundant. You're ready to go much faster than the version 4 "extended rest". (CLW wands are dirt cheap, someone can always activate them, they can top off even a high level party in less than a cuple of minutes).

Spell slots, not so much. So actually yeah, melee and archers tend to have no limit, and spont casters go a LOT longer before losing options (one top level spell slot and all their choices still exist. A wizard, by contrast, casts a spell and it is gone for the day, or at least requires a cash investment in pearls of power and time to get it back).

The problem is if you control the pace and fight one encounter a day, spellcasters have an easier time "novaing", and the entire party can be supercharged with buff spells. If combat for the day is measured in single digit rounds, even if there is 3 battles each day, endurance doesn't matter. Some people on the boards claim to be able to achieve this ideal state. I've seen it in some games, on some days, but my experience is that most of the time the party cares about its "nova" resources and acts more like this:

If there is a decent archer, the spellcasters can ease up on direct damage and do other things. It's more efficient to let the archer do the ranged direct damage, and he'll do just as much round 1 as round 50 (and if supported with buffs, it's hard to keep up even on round 1 with spells even when novaing, unless you have a large amount of weak opposition that area spells can sweep away)

If there are decent melee (a typical party has about 2), getting them to where they can full attack and minimizing counterattack is the most efficient. Something as simple as a fog cloud can often do this, forcing the opposition to close and eat a full attack while not even getting a charge attack as they close. At higher levels dim door, wall of force and similar spells can channel the enemy one at a time next to the folks that can eat enemy hitpoints like candy..every round, all day.

The only category of enemy where spells are clearly superior is opposition so weak that an area effect spell kills them in one round. Such enemies are usually so weak offensively that you're still better off just letting your physical fighters butcher them (save the boom for the swarms, or to sweep away minions while your physical types focus on the boss).

One reason druids (and clerics if persistent spell is in the game) are seen as slightly superior to wizards is they're capable of emulating the performance of physical fighters for large chunks of the day, not just a few rounds or with minute/round duration buffs (see my pouncekitty post earlier...at level 8 she can stay at peak performance for an hour, and stay in unbuffed cat form all day). I've seen wizards try to do this (we used to run all-arcane parties for level 14-16igh adventures in the twilight of Living Greyhawk) and it just never goes as well as they'd hope. (it was our "I'm buffed for melee" wizard most likely to charge ahead and get the reward any melee gets for charging ahead in that level range). Healing (and other repairs, such as Restoration) was done out of combat with UMD, wands and scrolls by our sorcerer/wild mage.

Not that our all-arcane party had any problems...between us we covered the bases of typical party roles. (mine was battlefield control, bypassing or springing traps safely and really egregious damage against enemies without DR via telekenesis+buffed weapons)

By that level all-arcane or all-divine was a hell of a lot easier than, say, all-melee even if some of the melee were physical combat focused divine casters.

[Seward]

Oh and another thing.

The ubercharger should be compared to the fireball slinger, not the batman wizard. Their party role is direct damage. Generally if your opposition is 1-5 tough enemies per encounter instead of swarms of minions, the fireball slinger does not do that well, which is why direct damage is usually sneered at by the folks who optimize wizards. (a sorcerer is more likely to manage the steady high damage output that makes it seem worthwhile, but it's still not likely the best use of their spell slots and actions a lot of the time). The ubercharger kills one enemy a round (or, if there is only 1 enemy, takes most of its hp away in one action)

Of course the battlefield control, buffs and debuffs that are smiled upon by the optimizers are useless if someone else in the party doesn't get around to doing the hitpoint damage. Arcanists are typically optimized assuming someone in the party does resource-free damage. So you cast 1-2 spells that break the encounter and sit back and watch your minions, er friends, clean up the opposition.

It's actually the rogue who's compared to the Batman wizard. Their party role is primarily utility, although both can do formidable direct damage in the right circumstances. It's a hell of a lot easier to achieve utility and nova-damage rounds with a wizard than a rogue, the rogue is usually only superior at utility if the duration is long (like, infiltrating for weeks, or scouting for hours) and at damage only with significant party support.

But it is known that if the rogue CAN sneak attack,full attack and hit nothing beats the peak output of damage against a single opponent than a well built two weapon fighting melee rogue. Trouble is between sneak-immune opposition, 3/4 BAB and feat starvation it's fairly hard to achieve that ideal state without significant party support and usually a bit of multiclassing.

Also quite frankly, rogues suffer from overkill. Dead is dead. A melee can kill nearly anything next to him in one round in high levels, an archer anything he can see in 1-2 rounds, and can make very efficient use of any extra attacks if any opposition is left. The rogue does more damage when he's on....but so what? He can rarely shift targets if his first target is dead, so the damage potential is usually wasted....and for each round where he pulls off the massive attack, there are many with anemic max damage.

[Loreweaver15]

Yeah, but don't Rogues pull double duty as a useful out-of-combat class? :P

[Sloanzilla]

The basic problem with rogues is that they are often by themselves, have to make the most rolls of any class, and generally have poor defenses (minus reflex saves and evasion). I get the formula for saving throws, but when your trapfinder has some of the lowest will and fort. saves in the game, you are inviting trouble.

I'm of the "direct spell damage is not as bad as many people claim" camp. We had a combat this weekend where a group of 10 orc barbarians of about level 4 or so were running at us. The AE casters knocked down about 40% of their hitpoints before they got to us, which meant the melee was able to kill each one in a single hit. Sometimes a little hit point soak can go a long way.

Sure, crowd control may have made it cleaner, but they also may have saved completely. I know "healing in combat is baaaad" and "damage spells are baaad" are popular internet mantras, but the list of exceptions to those claims are abundant.

[eggynack]

I'm of the "direct spell damage is not as bad as many people claim" camp. We had a combat this weekend where a group of 10 orc barbarians of about level 4 or so were running at us. The AE casters knocked down about 40% of their hitpoints before they got to us, which meant the melee was able to kill each one in a single hit. Sometimes a little hit point soak can go a long way.

That makes for one of the better situations for blasting, though if you didn't actually kill any of the enemies, you didn't really have an immediate tactical impact on combat. Blasting has its moments, but it's a rather situational form of magic. I tend to prefer blasting with strong secondary effects, such that you don't need to wipe out your enemy to see positive results. Thus, boreal wind and orb of fire make for good spells. I also tend to like blasting spells that hit enemies that are difficult to hit otherwise, generally by ignoring SR and/or having a (ranged) touch attack to hit. Thus, orb of fire makes for an even better spell.

[Sloanzilla]

I guess the immediate tactical impact was that the two characters who went next were able to do enough damage to drop their targets, which they would not have otherwise been able to do. The orcs were also at 50% hit points, which meant charging at a group with combat reflexes/reach was likely deadly.

I don't use blasting very much- prefer glitterdust (in 3.5) or create pit (Pathfinder), but I haven't found it to be as bad as some think.

[Sloanzilla]

to get this a little bit back to the OOTS topic- I think the basic jokes that wizards, druids and clerics are quite a bit more powerful than melee characters are on the money. The best moment was probably Roy's dream sequence where all the kids wanted to grow up and be fighters.

The funny thing is, that is actually true- most newbies play melee characters or rogues.

[Oko and Qailee]

The thing a lot of people miss with tier lists, both in D&D and in tournament fighters, is that it represents the combat potential of the character played at the absolute most-optimized level.

and OOTS very recently showed us how, once your party is out of spells, a (tier 5!) Fighter just keeps going and going.


Two comments about this.

The first, the tier list represents all things that can be important in a campaign (not just combat) at equal optimizations (not just at the highest).

OOTS is NOT a good representation of the gaming table. Rich Berlew himself even said he intentionally has been making stuff hard for Varsuuvius. Even then, V does more than Roy in a day.

Look at Azure City, where Berlew intentionally separated V from the fight. I really doubt Roy did more than V did, just from her using Mass Enlarge Person. Yes it was the soldiers who killed the goblins, but they couldn't have at all without V.

A more recent example. Look at Tarquin and Laurin. Tarquin can supposedly go all day, but as soon as Laurin is gone he doesn't want to fight anymore. Because Tarquin can only go on all day as long as the encounter is appropriate, but Laurin can win the encounters Tarquin would never win.


In most D&D games higher than level 1, out of combat healing is cheap and abundant.


Honestly, the point where wizards aren't doing as much in a day as lower tier classes is never. Yes, a Fighter can heal up and keep going at his maximum, but his maximum is well below the wizards.

It's like the 3 4HD fight I mentioned before. Yes, after that fight, a Wizard is done for the day. But a fighter would have DIED in that fight. A wizard winning a single encounter like that means he/she did more than the fighter ever would in that day, despite him "going on". This gap in power becomes bigger past level 1, not lower.

The fighter has "more endurance" in the long term assuming the DM makes all the encounters easier to account for the fact that it's a fighter not a wizard.




The only category of enemy where spells are clearly superior is opposition so weak that an area effect spell kills them in one round. Such enemies are usually so weak offensively that you're still better off just letting your physical fighters butcher them (save the boom for the swarms, or to sweep away minions while your physical types focus on the boss).


See, you're thinking it of it wrong. Enemies DO NOT have to be weak.

Lets say a level 1 character is attacked by a 4HD monster, a horribly imbalanced fight.

A wizard can use sleep/colorspray/etc and have a chance of winning. The Fighter has no chance except for the enemy always hitting a Nat 1.

Ok, lets now look at Mid levels. Vs a Juvenile black dragon
Wizard and Fighter are both level 5.

Two spells, Spectral hand and Shivering touch mean the wizard can beat the dragon. Once again, it's HARD, but possible.

Fighter gets to watch the dragon blow acid/fire/etc at him until he dies. You're not flying much with a fighter. The fighter can maybe beat the dragon that's higher leveled than him... if he tailored his entire build for it... but he has to tailor his entire build to beat something a wizard can beat with two spells.




One reason druids (and clerics if persistent spell is in the game) are seen as slightly superior


Actually, most experienced players consider wizard better than both, their spell list is better. Now, since all 3 are tier 1, with the right amount of optimization, all 3 of them can do anything and there isn't really a distinction between the three. TBH none of them are really better. I prefer clerics, but I always make sure to take domains/spell selections to cover some of that beautiful OP arcane casting that I want.




Oh and another thing.
The ubercharger should be compared to the fireball slinger, not the batman wizard. Their party role is direct damage.


You got it a bit wrong, he's talking about optimization, not role. The Batman Wizard is considered an Optimized Wizard and the Uber Charger is considered an Optimized Fighter/Barbarian/Etc.

In contrast a Blaster Wizard is considered unoptimized and a sword and board fighter is considered unoptimized.

It's actually a fair comparision. Look at the difference:
Optimized Fighter/Barbarian/etc Ubercharger: If he see's you, you will die.

Optimized Wizard: If he knows you exist and oppose him, you will die... from his infinite army of ice assassins as he casts spells at you from a different plane of existence. He found you because he could scry for you whenever, so there was no where to hide. If you somehow managed to find him to kill him, his abazillionty contingencies and permancied defenses kill you. If you survive ALL of that.... he teleports away.

Now, for unoptimized:
Sword and Board: Is lucky if he can hit something, sometimes can't fight stuff his own CR.

Blaster Wizard: Will probably have to stop using fire spells and swap to another elemental type.




Generally if your opposition is 1-5 tough enemies per encounter instead of swarms of minions, the fireball slinger does not do that well, which is why direct damage is usually sneered at by the folks who optimize wizards.


Obsolutely, but that's the worst wizard possible (excluding doing intentionally dumb things like dumping Int), the worst fighter can't even fight swarms.




Of course the battlefield control, buffs and debuffs that are smiled upon by the optimizers are useless if someone else in the party doesn't get around to doing the hitpoint damage.


Coup-de-gracing is easy for anyone, a commoner can do it. That's why Control is considered so good. Combat lasts less than 10 rounds, easily, so when an enemy is paralyzed for 10 rounds (or turned to stone for the rest of their life) it's mechanically the same as being dead.




Also quite frankly, rogues suffer from overkill. Dead is dead.


Absolutely, every single "damage only" build has that problem. It's why Ubercharging, despite doing thousands of damage, is only considered Tier 4. Because the moment you ask them to Spy/CC/Sneak In Somewhere/bake cookies/disable a trap/Not get Mind controlled into killing their own part(except the wizard) they fail.

[Seward]

See, you're thinking it of it wrong. Enemies DO NOT have to be weak.
.


I was talking about fireball slinging vs something like archery.

An arcanist can compete with a well designed archer for a few rounds a day tops, after that they fall behind, except in situations where area of effect damage has a meaningful effect.

By "meaningful" I mean "does enough damage that the monsters die faster than they would without it".

Remember that past the low tiers, anything next to a primary melee tends to die in 1-2 rounds anyway. Only if the damage really does bring it into a 1 round kill from a 2 round kill, or it kills the opposition outright, is a direct damage spell likely to be worthwhile. (which is why magic missile is sometimes the best standard action in the game. Guaranteed kill on anything without SR if its hitpoints are < 1 point per level of the wizard)

I was not comparing debuff or battlefield control spells in that statement. They are obviously useful if they remove some % of the opposition from the fight for 1 or more rounds.

Regarding the low tier wizard alone. IF the wizard wins initiative AND the wizard's opposition all fail saves AND the enemy isn't immune (eg color spray vs vermin or undead) THEN the wizard can sometimes win a fight that a fighter would have no chance at.

The fighter has a similar statement. IF the fighter is high armor class AND the opposition misses often enough (regardless of who won init if flatfooted AC is decent, as it often is) THEN the fighter can sometimes win a fight that a wizard would have no chance at (eg, fighter with 12 dex, scale male, tower shield vs 4 skeletons or 2 zombies. It is assumed the fighter can manage a (free) club and some kind of slashing weapon in starting gear).

The barbarian has another similar statement. IF the barbarian gets initiative AND he crits THEN the opposition can drop in a single blow (options increase with things like cleave(human) or combat reflexes in some circumstances), including opposition the wizard could not stop (large scorpion, say) or opposition that you can't get enough armor class for a likely win with starting gold (like an Ogre).

You can't always sell the lower tier classes short. They're all good when the right circumstance comes up (and seriously, opposition unable to do much damage against AC 20+ at level 1 is WAY more common than an encounter that can be completely removed with a color spray. The fighter can fight defensively and only be hit on a nat 20, while he's hitting about a quarter of the time).

It's also a tactic with heavy infantry to buff their AC to the point where stupid opposition can't hit them at all, and then kill them with slow stuff (like a recent encounter I was involved in which featured a fighter hacking away doing a handful of hp through DR and a couple summoned lantern archons after the rest of the party proved entirely ineffectual or too swiftly damaged...and the party healing was failing to cope with the cursed wounds so they had to stay clear...my tier 2 Oracle contributed a scroll of obscuring mist to cover the escape, 2 lantern archons and a shield of faith for the fighter. He won the encounter with no real help from anyone else beyond one solid hit from the party light infantry before she had to retreat)

Regarding comparing the rogue to the batman wizard, I WAS referring to the Rogue's out-of-combat utility. Batman wizards tend to pack spells useful for scouting etc, and their spells and skill mix tends to be heavy on gaining information for the advantage of the party. Both classes CAN do significant damage but will tend to be uneven in that department (the rogue because of difficulty setting it up, the wizard because his spell slots have lots of competition for other uses, in and out f combat)

[Seward]

Coup-de-gracing is easy for anyone, a commoner can do it. That's why Control is considered so good. Combat lasts less than 10 rounds, easily, so when an enemy is paralyzed for 10 rounds (or turned to stone for the rest of their life) it's mechanically the same as being dead.


Save or be-removed-forever spells tend to be single target (and thus very chancy, especially at higher levels as saves outstrip DCs due to how hit die scaling works). There are a few area save spells beyond sleep and color spray (which stop working around level 5)....fear and confusion are the primary offenders, although evards can sometimes work if the opposition is very weak at grappling. None of those will kill the enemy by themselves and all will usually leave some unaffected. I suppose you can get lucky with a prismatic spray, but as a rule control is ONLY useful to chop the encounter into manageable bits. Somebody still has to kill the enemy before they recover, usually starting with the ones who inevitably resisted/saved.

Damage, by contrast, always weakens the enemy, and it has the distinct advantage that it stacks with the efforts of the non-spellcasters in the party.

It is only when you don't do enough damage to shorten the encounter that the action is wasted (whereas a flesh-to-stone spell where the opposition quite predictably makes the fort save is an entirely wasted action).

Because saving throw spells are very random, I actually like that sort of tactic better on a spont caster, where he can spam the low-fort-save aberration with flesh-to-stone until it stops rolling well, while his party ignores his preferred target until it fails. A wizard can't do that, if the "best" spell doesn't work, he has to reach for second best, etc.

[EugeneVoid]

If V had her surprise round it could have been over before Xykon got to react.

Maybe.

V Genesises a new plane with flowing time. Then, being evil, gates in millions of solars or coutals or whatever. Then uses epic spellcasting to get infinite everything. The End.

[zimmerwald1915]

V Genesises a new plane with flowing time. Then, being evil, gates in millions of solars or coutals or whatever. Then uses epic spellcasting to get infinite everything. The End.
You seem to think V can cast conjuration spells like genesis and gate. In fact she cannot.

[Haldir]

V was soul shackled to one of the strongest conjurers to ever live. He had plenty of access to epic conjuration at that point. Instead, he blasted stupidly and lost.

OOTS is perhaps one of the least optimized 3.5 groups you could have. No survival or spot on the secondary frontliner, primary damage comes from weak blasting and straight classed fighter, Elan took a non-casting Prestige class, so there goes any hope of badass 9th level Bard spellcasting.... Only Durkon is close to being optimal, and that's because the Cleric is optimal out of the box, unlike the Wizard, which can really suck if you do something stupid like ban Conjuration and specialize in Evocation.

It always takes more resources to kill something with HP damage than it does to target a weak save. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids laugh as they rain negative levels and status effects on the enemy, while any other class is forced to target the largest enemy defensive stat, most of them also expose themselves to danger in doing so.

More Effort + More Risk = Less Effective Tactic.

[Haldir]

Save or be-removed-forever spells tend to be single target (and thus very chancy, especially at higher levels as saves outstrip DCs due to how hit die scaling works). There are a few area save spells beyond sleep and color spray (which stop working around level 5)....fear and confusion are the primary offenders, although evards can sometimes work if the opposition is very weak at grappling. None of those will kill the enemy by themselves and all will usually leave some unaffected. I suppose you can get lucky with a prismatic spray, but as a rule control is ONLY useful to chop the encounter into manageable bits. Somebody still has to kill the enemy before they recover, usually starting with the ones who inevitably resisted/saved.

Damage, by contrast, always weakens the enemy, and it has the distinct advantage that it stacks with the efforts of the non-spellcasters in the party.

It is only when you don't do enough damage to shorten the encounter that the action is wasted (whereas a flesh-to-stone spell where the opposition quite predictably makes the fort save is an entirely wasted action).

Because saving throw spells are very random, I actually like that sort of tactic better on a spont caster, where he can spam the low-fort-save aberration with flesh-to-stone until it stops rolling well, while his party ignores his preferred target until it fails. A wizard can't do that, if the "best" spell doesn't work, he has to reach for second best, etc.

A good wizard doesn't have DC's that can be beaten. CL increases are common enough and a good wizard is going to invest in fairly heavily. The INT bonus to your spell DC means that you only have to jack one stat into the stratosphere and your opposition have to jack all three if he wants to be able to succeed on any save you throw at him.

A fighter is not going to have the +10 wisdom mod to keep you from dominating him, and since Will is the weak save for Fighter, assuming wise enough CL increases invested, he will almost never make the saves.

Let's not even get into why metamagic makes your logic terrible.

[EugeneVoid]

You seem to think V can cast conjuration spells like genesis and gate. In fact she cannot.

Oh right, sorry forgot to mention that I was assuming if the party was optimized the story would be very boring.

Imagine if V had teleport. Seriously.

[Loreweaver15]

V was soul shackled to one of the strongest conjurers to ever live. He had plenty of access to epic conjuration at that point. Instead, he blasted stupidly and lost.

Which, interestingly, was the point, and part of her strategic character development from then on.

[Legato Endless]

OOTS is perhaps one of the least optimized 3.5 groups you could have. No survival or spot on the secondary frontliner, primary damage comes from weak blasting and straight classed fighter, Elan took a non-casting Prestige class, so there goes any hope of badass 9th level Bard spellcasting.... Only Durkon is close to being optimal, and that's because the Cleric is optimal out of the box, unlike the Wizard, which can really suck if you do something stupid like ban Conjuration and specialize in Evocation.

Even Durkon isn't really an exception, since optimization isn't just what you build, it's how you play, and Durkon is a healbot for a lot of the story. Similarly Roy's biggest tactical flaw isn't playing a fighter, it's that he never carries a decent backup weapon, which has come back to bite him in the ass.

[Snails]

A good wizard doesn't have DC's that can be beaten. CL increases are common enough and a good wizard is going to invest in fairly heavily. The INT bonus to your spell DC means that you only have to jack one stat into the stratosphere and your opposition have to jack all three if he wants to be able to succeed on any save you throw at him.

A fighter is not going to have the +10 wisdom mod to keep you from dominating him, and since Will is the weak save for Fighter, assuming wise enough CL increases invested, he will almost never make the saves.

Let's not even get into why metamagic makes your logic terrible.

Let's do the math.

12th level Wizard: Int 17 at start, +3 for leveling, +6 for item = 26.
Domination is DC 23.

12th level Fighter: Wis 14 at start (+2), +4 for 12 levels of Fighter, +2 for feat, +4 for Resistance item = +12 Will save. (Lots of mid-level monsters have a +9 or better Will.)

[zimmerwald1915]

V was soul shackled to one of the strongest conjurers to ever live. He had plenty of access to epic conjuration at that point.
That'll teach me to read the thread before shooting my mouth off. Well no, it won't, but it ought to :smallredface:

[Keltest]

Even Durkon isn't really an exception, since optimization isn't just what you build, it's how you play, and Durkon is a healbot for a lot of the story. Similarly Roy's biggest tactical flaw isn't playing a fighter, it's that he never carries a decent backup weapon, which has come back to bite him in the ass.

Admittedly, he has been disarmed in combat a grand totally of maybe two or three times in the entire comic, one of which caused him to single handedly (not literally, he used two) destroy the boss, which won the battle.

[zimmerwald1915]

Let's do the math.

12th level Wizard: Int 17 at start, +3 for leveling, +6 for item = 26.
Domination is DC 23.

12th level Fighter: Wis 14 at start (+2), +4 for 12 levels of Fighter, +2 for feat, +4 for Resistance item = +12 Will save. (Lots of mid-level monsters have a +9 or better Will.)
And if you're doing the math do it more completely than this. You're missing a lot of variables, for instance: how are these stats generated? What races are the characters? Why is the fighter putting all his level-up points into Wis? And why does he have four of them?

Here are a couple characters built using the Elite Array, but using the same items.

Tim the Enchanter
Human wizard 12
6th--heightened dominate person (DC 25)
Str 8, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 24, Wis 12, Cha 10
Feats Greater Spell Focus (enchantment), Heighten Spell, Spell Focus (enchantment), Scribe Scroll, 3 HD, 6 HD, 9 HD, wizard 10, 12 HD
Gear headband of intellect +6

The Black Knight
Human Fighter 12
Fort +14, Ref +9, Will +12
Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Feats Iron Will, 1 HD, fighter 1, fighter 2, 3 HD, fighter 4, 6 HD, fighter 6, fighter 8, 9 HD, fighter 10, 12 HD, fighter 12
Gear cloak of resistance +4

Yeah, these aren't complete either. I'm on a phone. Sue me.

[Kish]

I suspect someone with Wisdom 14 could tell whether he still had all his limbs. *ducks*

[Legato Endless]

Admittedly, he has been disarmed in combat a grand totally of maybe two or three times in the entire comic, one of which caused him to single handedly (not literally, he used two) destroy the boss, which won the battle.

Yes, but I'm not just referring to being disarmed, but also the lengthy period after his blade was broken and before it was reforged, where he was forced to use a stick as his melee implement. That was an entire story arc. And of course, OOTS is awesome. But tactical mistakes frequently add to a story, despite the munchkins' howls.

[Haldir]

Let's do the math.

12th level Wizard: Int 17 at start, +3 for leveling, +6 for item = 26.
Domination is DC 23.

12th level Fighter: Wis 14 at start (+2), +4 for 12 levels of Fighter, +2 for feat, +4 for Resistance item = +12 Will save. (Lots of mid-level monsters have a +9 or better Will.)

You built a very sub-optimal fighter designed to exceed Will saves (seriously, a feat for a +2 to saves? That's one of the weakest build choices you can make), so he won't be able to do the damaging job very well, and you still fail the save half the time. If the wizard has any items to make his saves harder to beat (he will!) you're still losing even more often than not.

And what if the Wizard targets reflex? Did you take the feat to get the paltry +2 to that too? If your Wis is 14, how high is his Dex, and if that is high, how high is Con? HOW MANY STAT POINTS YOU GOT?!?

You've got to pump three stats now (STR, DEX, WIS) and the Wizard might still have a Fort save or suck to throw at you. Regardless of how you build, the Wizard has a spell to target something you literally cannot build against, because builds cannot match the versatility of spells.

[Haldir]

Even Durkon isn't really an exception, since optimization isn't just what you build, it's how you play, and Durkon is a healbot for a lot of the story. Similarly Roy's biggest tactical flaw isn't playing a fighter, it's that he never carries a decent backup weapon, which has come back to bite him in the ass.

Durkon also buffs and debuffs fairly often, which is the optimal choice for Cleric builds. Just because he also does things that are sub-optimal doesn't mean he isn't mostly optimal- Sure, he's not persisting buffs with nightsticks, but he did neutralize almost the entire Linear Guild with a single spell (Holy Word), saved the ruler of Azure City from certain doom with a single spell (Righteous Might). Cleric just does it.

[Keltest]

Yes, but I'm not just referring to being disarmed, but also the lengthy period after his blade was broken and before it was reforged, where he was forced to use a stick as his melee implement. That was an entire story arc. And of course, OOTS is awesome. But tactical mistakes frequently add to a story, despite the munchkins' howls.

That's because he was incorrectly led to believe he required materials he did not have to repair his sword. And how often is a +5 sword going to spontaneously break?

[Legato Endless]

That's because he was incorrectly led to believe he required materials he did not have to repair his sword. And how often is a +5 sword going to spontaneously break?

Admittedly, my bias is heavily influenced by the sadistic DM I had my first 3.5 campaigns with.

[SaintRidley]

OOTS is perhaps one of the least optimized 3.5 groups you could have. No survival or spot on the secondary frontliner, primary damage comes from weak blasting and straight classed fighter, Elan took a non-casting Prestige class, so there goes any hope of badass 9th level Bard spellcasting.... Only Durkon is close to being optimal, and that's because the Cleric is optimal out of the box, unlike the Wizard, which can really suck if you do something stupid like ban Conjuration and specialize in Evocation.

Minor nitpick. Bards cap out at 6th level spells.

[zimmerwald1915]

Minor nitpick. Bards cap out at 6th level spells.
Not with the one prestige class that grants bards 9th-level spellcasting they don't.

[Kish]

Interesting catch-22 there. If Sublime Chord grants 9th-level spell casting, but you need levels in bard to get into the Sublime Chord class, is it bard 9th-level spell casting...or is it Sublime Chord 9th-level spell casting?

[Sloanzilla]

Plus, a "persisting buffs with nightsticks" approach would assume a meta-gaming knowledge that Durkon likely would not have.

I know there is a popular feeling that optimization does not ruin roleplaying, and I agree that it does not *have* to ruin roleplaying, but the criticism you sometimes see over OOTS's non optimized builds sort of supports that it sometimes does.

Sometimes, you just want to cast fireballs. Sometimes you want to play a gnome fighter, or a low wisdom ranger, or even a gully dwarf. Sometimes you pick an greataxe over a two handed sword because you are in a world where you don't really know that an improved crit range is slightly better than a higher crit. Darn left brain types.

[Keltest]

Plus, a "persisting buffs with nightsticks" approach would assume a meta-gaming knowledge that Durkon likely would not have.

I know there is a popular feeling that optimization does not ruin roleplaying, and I agree that it does not *have* to ruin roleplaying, but the criticism you sometimes see over OOTS's non optimized builds sort of supports that it sometimes does.

Sometimes, you just want to cast fireballs. Sometimes you want to play a gnome fighter, or a low wisdom ranger, or even a gully dwarf. Sometimes you pick an greataxe over a two handed sword because you are in a world where you don't really know that an improved crit range is slightly better than a higher crit. Darn left brain types.

I remember my dad telling me about a character he had. It was a wizard who carried around a battleaxe he was barely strong enough to lift.

[Sloanzilla]

See? See?

Stuff like that is fun! More fun than calculating your DPS to be 77 points per round at level 4 and running charts on glitterdust percentage vs. saving throws by level.

[Seward]

Let's do the math.

12th level Wizard: Int 17 at start, +3 for leveling, +6 for item = 26.
Domination is DC 23.

12th level Fighter: Wis 14 at start (+2), +4 for 12 levels of Fighter, +2 for feat, +4 for Resistance item = +12 Will save. (Lots of mid-level monsters have a +9 or better Will.)

Lets do the math with enemies the 12th level wizard will actually fight.

You know....the ones with monster progressions instead of class levels. Wizards relying on single target save or screwed spells are just as useless as somebody trying to use grapple or trip on them past a certain level.

How about an elemental? It advances 1 CR per 4 hit dice.
That means each time the wizard levels, it gets +2 to its good saves and +1.33 to its BAD save. Not to mention getting an extra feat EVERY level (and getting feats whenever the wizard does). Which means it usually has no trouble finding room for defensive feats to shore up any weaknesses it might have.

How about a devil? It has no weak saves, advances 2 hit dice per CR, which means it gets +1 to every save every level, and that leaves aside boosts to things like SR. It also gets feats 2x as fast as the wizard.

Your level 12 wizard improved the save DCs of his spells by 5 (for int increase) + 5 (for using a L6 spell instead of a L1 spell). The monsters increased a MINIMUM of +12 to their saves (and for the 4 hd/level ones, +15 to their BAD save and +24 to their GOOD save).

Yeah. Tell me again how a wizard will always have spells that can't be resisted. Hell even your fighter in the example is going to save half the time, and that's assuming he doesn't have prot evil running (circles of prot evil are routine protection on anyone with a weak will save after about level 8, and fighters also routinely carry potions of same in case they encounter a succubus or vampire and get initiative...at least the fighters I know do). Then there's the thing my own low-will-save archer did. Most will-save spells are short range. He prioritized spellcasters while staying at medium range...and yeah, he used prot evil if there was any chance of a dominator in the opposition.

The math says that the very best chance to stick a save-or-screwed spell is on a CR1 monster. Wizards can not advance in save DCs as fast as the monster saves increase.

Furthermore blanket immunity to a lot of effects is affordable, even for classed-bad guys (no paralysis or entangle after rings of freedom of movement are normal, no fear once everyone's chowing down on a hero feast every day, no confusion or mind control after mind blank is a routine precaution, etc). Then there's spell immunity...if the other guy has done research on your favorite spells.

AREA control/debuff spells are superior because they either have no saves (see Solid Fog/Wall of Force/Forcecage) or even when the enemy saves 3/4 of the time you'll remove 1-2 dangerous dudes from a fight for a while (things like Confusion). That's better than injuring everyone on the field but not enough to make them a one-hit kill for a teammate. Dead though is still the best condition, and hitpoints contribute to it as long as the hitpoints are significant compared to what a fighter or archer can put out in a typical round.

A wizard who goes for even a high percentage single target save/suck is looking at an X% chance of being just as useless as if he'd gone to sleep for the round. Fighters and such have issues like that in low levels, where they miss and waste the entire round, but by higher levels they get enough attacks that they'll accomplish SOMETHING in nearly every round. One who insists on low percentage effects will start to annoy his party just as much as the cleric who spends the whole combat self-buffing.

The Hierarchy of usefulness is tied to the risk in D&D, for the most part.

Buff spells are 100% reliable but their effect is only as good as the folks you are buffing, and are most powerful when the party is just on the wrong side of the bell curve and it tips them over to the other side.

Direct Damage stacks with everything and is fairly reliable (it's unusual to do NO damage), but it can suffer from both overkill and being too weak to matter.

Debuffs are highly risky but have a pretty high payout when they succeed. They're better if you spread the probabilities among multiple enemies, or if you have some effect like Fatespinner that can force an enemy to reroll if a high percentage debuff fails due to good dice.

Battlefield control is generally 100% reliable (a fog cloud will ALWAYS block the charge or ranged attack of anything without blindsight, and will usually take away sneak attacks etc) but of limited duration, so your party needs to do damage/per/round sufficient to clear away the unhindered enemies before the rest extract themselves.

Some effects combine several of these (Evard's tentacles is weak direct damage, a moderately potent debuff (grapple) and an utterly reliable "difficult terrain near a surface" that can block land-based charges or 5' steps, assuming the enemy lacks freedom of movement and isn't flying 10'+ in the air.) Such effects tend to be popular, although not always worth it (really, Acid Fog or Incindiary Cloud is not enough better than Solid Fog to be worth all those level increases)

Disclaimer - my currently played character is a mid-level Pathfinder Oracle with dual-curse who relies on a lot of debuffs, many of which are single target. In spite of the fact that I can force a lot of enemy rerolls and wander around with two different "debuff the enemy" auras, I still have encounters where the enemies make every single save (or are immune or benefit from SR that takes a decent % chance to low%). Which is why I also have buff spells and even a few SR=no direct damage options per day. I like debuffs but I can count a hell of a lot of rounds where I tried a single target debuff that failed in his career. His DCs could be higher, but they're comparable to that L12 wizard example while he's actually level 10, and he has 4 5th level spell slots plus will save(3/day) and fort save(11/day) SU abilities that use his top save DCs.

I've played a wizard to 13th, a sorcerer to 16th, adventured with a 15th level cleric (my wife) and have GM'd a hell of a lot of tier 12-16 adventures. By level 12 or so, single target debuffs become an exercise in frustration and by 16 they're something you only bust out on classed enemies or with very hardcore debuffs already on the enemy (such as limited wish to lower saves and maybe greater bestow curse or something similar).

Sometimes it's just better to TK-violent-thrust 15 size large greatswords with chain-greater-magic-weapon. Or whatever your favorite direct damage nova might be. It's even better to toss a 14 enchanted arrows and the party light infantry at the enemy. The arrow damage will probably be wasted, but if he rolls unlucky and misses more than usual the enemy will still be dead.

[Seward]

I know there is a popular feeling that optimization does not ruin roleplaying, and I agree that it does not *have* to ruin roleplaying, but the criticism you sometimes see over OOTS's non optimized builds sort of supports that it sometimes does.


That's why you must use your optimization skills for good :)

Seriously, D&D characters are pretty damn competent for their challenges out of the box. You can make really bad choices, but average choices with a party that has any kind of balance at all (as OOTS does, they do cover all the primary roles to accomplish things) do not require that each fighter, say, can kill an enemy in one round from across the room.

A player with average skills can outperform the iconics in terms of build and that means the average party can usually accept riskier combats than the game recommends (5-6 people parties instead of 4 person parties also add a very large buffer....the party has fewer weaknesses, more actions and isn't as screwed if a party member is taken out of a hard fight)

I have a tendency to pick wacky characters and then use optimization to make them contribute, rather than pick a mechanically strong build and try to play it. (as an example, my next character is a brash 5 strength halfling tank who fights in what is obviously a costume, not armor, and believes she's chosen Paladin of the Goddess of the Dawn. She has a horse, she can heal or remove fatigue with a touch, she can "smite" her enemies etc. She's chaotic good and is a bard/barbarian+other fullbab+classes mutt...but she does actually have some power from her goddess via traits and some of her feats give effects that look a lot more like divine intervention than otherwise...like doing damage all day comparable to a 20 str fighter with a longsword with a size small favored-weapon of her deity, the ability to do nonlethal damage with that weapon at no penalty and at level 3, the ability to block any one single melee attack each round, no matter what the source, with her off-hand. Oh yeah, and if she pisses off her goddess she loses the feat and trait that make the favored weapon work, leaving her quite screwed as she does NOT have weapon finesse or anything similar)

[theNater]

Lets do the math with enemies the 12th level wizard will actually fight.
No need to do the math on those; the SRD has monster stats. Let's just look 'em up!

How about an elemental?
Elder elementals are CR 11, so a level 12 wizard could reasonably bump into one. And, looking them over, each has at least one save at +10 or lower. If we advance them to level 12, they might catch up with the fighter.

How about a devil?
Well, the barbed devil is CR 11 with a lowest save of +12, and the ice devil is CR 13 with a lowest save of +14. Adjusting either of them to CR 12 means they end up with a +13. Slightly better than that fighter, but nothing to write home about.

[Snails]

.
Sometimes, you just want to cast fireballs. Sometimes you want to play a gnome fighter, or a low wisdom ranger, or even a gully dwarf. Sometimes you pick an greataxe over a two handed sword because you are in a world where you don't really know that an improved crit range is slightly better than a higher crit. Darn left brain types.

It is not really a mystery if we pull our nose out of the optimation spreadsheets and observe the other humans at the table.

Most people like "cool moments" over statistical greatness.

To a certain player the day his 6th level gnome fighter owned a hill giant in a solo combat more than makes up for lesser DPS in other fights. And that player thinks that a grinding 6 round fight is all the more glorious (regardless of the fact that a hyperoptized half Orc fighter barbarian could have finished the fight in just 2 rounds).

The DM does not need truly counter optimized moves to keep the game fun. He only needs to help them be unreliable to open up space for other PCs to have their cool moments.

A heightened Dominate can be countered with a simple potion. The quickened targeted dispel to bring down the potion can be partially countered by a lowish level cleric sporting a magic circle near by. In the end these optimal moves can utterly fail at the gaming table, when faced with a DM that does not coddle.

As a sometimes player of wizards the most reliably devastating opening move I have found is a Wall of Force to divide the enemy into pockets my fighter friends easily overwhelm. While one might argue that my wizard "won", the other players perceive that my wizard helped their fighters have many "cool moments" slaughtering tactically screwed opponents.

[RadagastTheBrow]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Turn_or_Rebuke_Undead unless I'm reading this wrong, twice as many levels to command, but not to rebuke. Rebuking isn't really that useful, it seems.

Nonsense! It sets up the late-comic panel:

:redcloak: Bad dwarf! Bad, bad dwarf! Stay down!

[Seward]

No need to do the math on those; the SRD has monster stats. Let's just look 'em up!

Elder elementals are CR 11, so a level 12 wizard could reasonably bump into one. And, looking them over, each has at least one save at +10 or lower. If we advance them to level 12, they might catch up with the fighter.

Well, the barbed devil is CR 11 with a lowest save of +12, and the ice devil is CR 13 with a lowest save of +14. Adjusting either of them to CR 12 means they end up with a +13. Slightly better than that fighter, but nothing to write home about.

From where I sit that elder elemental has a 50% chance of resisting the wizard's top tier spell on its weakest save.

The barbed devil has a 50% chance AND spell resistance 23 (wiz needs an 11 to overcome) meaning a dominate drops to 25% chance of overall success.

That's way too high odds in my book of an entirely wasted action, especially for a precious top tier spell slot. On a sorcerer I might try four times if it will end the fight if I stick it, on a wizard...no. Even on a sorcerer though I'd probably prefer almost anything else that is more certain to contribute in the current or at least the second round.

now lets compare that to the odds of similar critters vs the same wizard at level 2.

Imp has weakest save = 3, and no SR. elemental has weakest save =0

That wizard has spell dc's on anything that isn't a cantrip of 14. His odds of success against the imp are doubled (50% vs 25% on bone devil) and his odds against the elemental are increased from 50% to 70%.

This trend continues as you level, which is my point. By level 20, save or dies (and their equivalents) are pretty much pointless. They'll save on a "2" unless you hit their weakest save with your best spells, and your best spell slots are hardly well spent if there is a large chance of doing nothing at all.

An elder air elemental advanced to CR20 has weak save DC of 22 assuming no statbumps to will or feats spent to improve it. The wizard at best has a +5 int book and 2 more statbumps, plus 3 more spell levels. Using a level 9 save/die spell on the elemental the wiz has improved his DCs by 6, the elemental has improved its resistance by 12 or more. His odds will have dropped to maybe 25% from 50%...and that's with a L9 spell. Anything down in the level 5ish range is "fail on a 1".

A pit fiend has a weak save of +19 and SR32. both have outstripped the resistance of the bone devil at level 12 compared to the wizard (SR needs a 12 instead of an 11, save increased by 7 where wizard DC only improved by 6 on top tier spell). It also has magic circle vs good at will and no reason to never NOT have it on, which makes it immune to some effects unless you are evil and boosts those saves vs good, plus unholy aura which boosts those weak saves to 23 vs everybody if it gets time to cast it. (I've also never seen a pit fiend that didn't also have some gear, which can also do quite a bit at level 20 to improve any weaknesses to spells it might have, plus help a bit with the hitpoint issue). The unholy aura alone is enough to tip such a spell attempt from "low percentage" to "extremely unlikely to work"

It is actually a hell of a lot easier to make a fighter or archer that can do 225 damage to a pit fiend in one round than it is to kill it with any combination of wizard spells in one round. Indeed, its hitpoints are its weakest defense for its level. (that elemental, by contrast, has nearly as many hp at CR11, and at CR20 has a minimum of 408hp - assuming no con boosts. It's harder to just nuke with damage, but its defenses vs spells, especially direct damage spells are weaker after all IIRC, the elementals GOOD save is +43. Earth and water elementals have formidable con and fort saves too, the air elemental example is actually the easiest of the various choices, but, to be fair, the air elemental has an easier time engaging a wizard unless the wiz is forced to be underwater or underground for some reason)

The pit fiend is also one of the easiest outsiders of CR20 to cope with. A lot of the others have a bunch of caster levels in addition to the outsider goodness and thus all the same buffs clerics or wizards (sometimes both) have to boost their defenses.

[Seward]

Most people like "cool moments" over statistical greatness.

To a certain player the day his 6th level gnome fighter owned a hill giant in a solo combat more than makes up for lesser DPS in other fights. And that

Nailed it. The player of the fighter who saved my whole party from the clay golems will take that story to his grave. The high DPR light infantry got in one whack and was forced to flee. The archer had every kind of arrow for any kind of DR other than Blunt+Adamantine. We didn't have a wizard (my Oracle was the only primary caster, so I was being arcane, divine and even rogue at that table and was pretty stretched, especially as I was "playing up" and had only about a 1/3 chance of a heal spell breaking a cursed wound).

Now I know he couldn't have won without my Oracle's assist, and we likely wound have had a couple deaths without my use of a strategic obscuring mist at a critical moment. So I also have a cool story to tell (I appreciate what my support characters bring to the table). But his story is better :)




A heightened Dominate can be countered with a simple potion. The quickened targeted dispel to bring down the potion can be partially countered by a lowish level cleric sporting a magic circle near by. In the end these optimal moves can utterly fail at the gaming table, when faced with a DM that does not coddle.


Heh...one of my favorite moments with my Oracle was when I used deathwatch (a routine tactic to know if I'm fighting constructs or undead which require very different choices of debuffs or positive vs negative energy) to know that our opponents were alive. So after the paladin took a big chunk out of one enemy, I moved in with a strong cause wounds spell to finish it off (and provide a flank if that didn't work). The critter was a weird half-vampire thing that healed with negative energy and my action restored it. Luckily for me the Paladin had a sense of humor about it.




As a sometimes player of wizards the most reliably devastating opening move I have found is a Wall of Force to divide the enemy into pockets my fighter friends easily overwhelm. While one might argue that my wizard "won", the other players perceive that my wizard helped their fighters have many "cool moments" slaughtering tactically screwed opponents.

This type of action in my mind is the strongest use of an arcane action. Simultaneously screwing over the enemy while enabling your other party members to shine. But you have to have a "support" mentality, being just as happy to see party members butcher the bad guys than to personally defeat them.

[Haldir]

This conversation is spiraling, no matter how you do the math the Save or Lose DC's can be pushed to a point where the target is going to fail a wizards save most of the time, against an appropriately leveled enemy. Even the examples Seward gave fail on less than an 11, and he did not optimize the Wizards save DC's at all.

[Keltest]

I don't suppose we can at least agree that the whole point of a saving throw is so that powerful spells that would effectively kill or otherwise "permanently" incapacitate (barring efforts to undo the spell) a target wont instantly end battles?

[Haldir]

I will agree that is their point. I'm not sure I agree that they succeed in this goal.

Edit- However, most of us agree that the Batman Wizard is the strongest way to play them, as buffing and support allow you to stretch your spell resources further and create a much more enjoyable game experience. Even the Batman should have a good array of spells to target Saves or deal ability score/level damage, because sometimes you just need to lock down their enemy shock troops with a quick and clean standard action, immediately.

[Keltest]

I will agree that is their point. I'm not sure I agree that they succeed in this goal.

Edit- However, most of us agree that the Batman Wizard is the strongest way to play them, as buffing and support allow you to stretch your spell resources further and create a much more enjoyable game experience. Even the Batman should have a good array of spells to target Saves or deal ability score/level damage, because sometimes you just need to lock down their enemy shock troops with a quick and clean standard action, immediately.

I think they've been victimized by power creep. As has been pointed out, its a lot easier for a wizard to make all his spells harder to save against than it is to raise your saves.

[King of Nowhere]

I remember my dad telling me about a character he had. It was a wizard who carried around a battleaxe he was barely strong enough to lift.

for that matter, i once played a wizard who refused to use weapons at level 1. when he run out of spells, he waved his hands and grumbles arcane-looking words, trying to impress the opponents with his maxed ranks in profession: charlatan.

[Komatik]

See? See?

Stuff like that is fun! More fun than calculating your DPS to be 77 points per round at level 4 and running charts on glitterdust percentage vs. saving throws by level.

That depends entirely on the person in question.

Here is 172 points of optimized-to-death damage to the face alongside of a super size serving of fun:
http://i.imgur.com/v2Lb1z5l.jpg?1

[Legato Endless]

That depends entirely on the person in question.

Here is 172 points of optimized-to-death damage to the face alongside of a super size serving of fun:
http://i.imgur.com/v2Lb1z5l.jpg?1

Overkill needs no rationalization. It is its own reward.

[Loreweaver15]

In the words of a very wise man: "There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'Open fire' and 'I need to reload.'"

[CRtwenty]

See? See?

Stuff like that is fun! More fun than calculating your DPS to be 77 points per round at level 4 and running charts on glitterdust percentage vs. saving throws by level.

Lots of people find optimization fun. We pretty much have an entire board on this forum dedicated to it.

[Loreweaver15]

Lots of people find optimization fun. We pretty much have an entire board on this forum dedicated to it.

Exactly. That I would rather have a nice bit of roleplaying fun doesn't change that someone else might want to drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentation of their women. Different people have different priorities, and you gotta be aware of all of 'em.

[Keltest]

Exactly. That I would rather have a nice bit of roleplaying fun doesn't change that someone else might want to drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentation of their women. Different people have different priorities, and you gotta be aware of all of 'em.

Pfft. says you. I outright said that I would kill anyone who tried to use outside story knowledge to min/max their character. Its one thing if theyre fighting orcs and try to optimize vs orcs. That's something someone would do. But someone who looks into ways to make it impossible to save vs their sleep spell through magic items and debuffs, then I will go out of my way to spite them (in universe, no purple lightning).

[eggynack]

Pfft. says you. I outright said that I would kill anyone who tried to use outside story knowledge to min/max their character. Its one thing if theyre fighting orcs and try to optimize vs orcs. That's something someone would do. But someone who looks into ways to make it impossible to save vs their sleep spell through magic items and debuffs, then I will go out of my way to spite them (in universe, no purple lightning).
Why is this necessarily outside story knowledge, or something that would be particularly unlikely in-universe? "Hey, this item makes my spells harder to resist. I should document that fact in the book of items that improve casters, and also wear one of them." Seems pretty basic, no matter how you justify it. It's not out of character when I get a high powered calculator to make my math doings easier, so why would it be out of character when a wizard gets a bauble to make their magic better?

[Keltest]

Why is this necessarily outside story knowledge, or something that would be particularly unlikely in-universe? "Hey, this item makes my spells harder to resist. I should document that fact in the book of items that improve casters, and also wear one of them." Seems pretty basic, no matter how you justify it. It's not out of character when I get a high powered calculator to make my math doings easier, so why would it be out of character when a wizard gets a bauble to make their magic better?

Well if they find one, its because at some level I gave it to them. If they go actively seeking one for the sake of having it (IE they saw it existed in one of the source books and want it) and decide to drop the plot to go hunt for it, I will go out of my way to make bad things happen to them. Like reading explosive runes for example.

[Loreweaver15]

Well if they find one, its because at some level I gave it to them. If they go actively seeking one for the sake of having it (IE they saw it existed in one of the source books and want it) and decide to drop the plot to go hunt for it, I will go out of my way to make bad things happen to them. Like reading explosive runes for example.

That seems a bit unnecessary, even railroady.

[Keltest]

That seems a bit unnecessary, even railroady.

Like I said, im not going to call lightning on them or anything. But there are going to be consequences for abandoning a legitimately dangerous enemy to his own devices in order to chase after your own thing without regards to how the enemy would perceive that.

[Loreweaver15]

Like I said, im not going to call lightning on them or anything. But there are going to be consequences for abandoning a legitimately dangerous enemy to his own devices in order to chase after your own thing without regards to how the enemy would perceive that.

So they're dropping fights in the middle of a combat encounter? That's different, then.

[Keltest]

So they're dropping fights in the middle of a combat encounter? That's different, then.

Well, less literally, but if they were on the edge of a battle, and were told of a weakness they could exploit that would change a loss or MAD into a victory, but they chose to go chase after something to make their wizard stronger, their allies might lose the battle.

Im telling a story with my campaign, and without their intervention the story might not go in a direction they like. That's not to say that theres never any time for treasure hunts, but if they've set a goal, bad things happen if they don't see it through.

[eggynack]

Well if they find one, its because at some level I gave it to them. If they go actively seeking one for the sake of having it (IE they saw it existed in one of the source books and want it) and decide to drop the plot to go hunt for it, I will go out of my way to make bad things happen to them. Like reading explosive runes for example.
Your campaigns don't have any downtime of any kind, either for crafting or shopping? That seems like a pretty campaign specific thing. Per the rules, it shouldn't be too difficult to find most anything in a sufficiently large city, if they exist in your verse. The system itself seems to be opposed to your idea of "treasure hunts", given the aforementioned RAW existence of magic marts, as well as the reasonably easy access to crafting abilities.

[johnbragg]

Well, less literally, but if they were on the edge of a battle, and were told of a weakness they could exploit that would change a loss or MAD into a victory, but they chose to go chase after something to make their wizard stronger, their allies might lose the battle.

Im telling a story with my campaign, and without their intervention the story might not go in a direction they like. That's not to say that theres never any time for treasure hunts, but if they've set a goal, bad things happen if they don't see it through.

Assuming that downtime is a thing that exists, would you feel any better if the players justified it by sinking ranks into Knowledge-Arcana, or something comparable? If your campaign setting supports magic-marts, and runs on the DMG assumptions of item availability and well-known crafting rules, then the mechanics of spell-buffing will be reasonably well known among the fraternity of combat casters.

Of course, nothing says that your setting has to support magic-mart, or follow the DMG assumptions of item availability. (i.e. "Metamagic reducing rods? Yeah, sure, they're right next to the infinite wish candles of invocation. Lousy punks grumble grumble")

[Squark]

Assuming that downtime is a thing that exists, would you feel any better if the players justified it by sinking ranks into Knowledge-Arcana, or something comparable? If your campaign setting supports magic-marts, and runs on the DMG assumptions of item availability and well-known crafting rules, then the mechanics of spell-buffing will be reasonably well known among the fraternity of combat casters.

Of course, nothing says that your setting has to support magic-mart, or follow the DMG assumptions of item availability. (i.e. "Metamagic reducing rods? Yeah, sure, they're right next to the infinite wish candles of invocation. Lousy punks grumble grumble")

The problem is, well, apart from a few spot bans, trying to manage loot fairly is tricky and a lot of GMs just throw their hands up and just let the magicmart exist. Especially since Item Creation requires spellcasting, so not doing that hurts mundane more than arcane.

[Keltest]

Assuming that downtime is a thing that exists, would you feel any better if the players justified it by sinking ranks into Knowledge-Arcana, or something comparable? If your campaign setting supports magic-marts, and runs on the DMG assumptions of item availability and well-known crafting rules, then the mechanics of spell-buffing will be reasonably well known among the fraternity of combat casters.

Of course, nothing says that your setting has to support magic-mart, or follow the DMG assumptions of item availability. (i.e. "Metamagic reducing rods? Yeah, sure, they're right next to the infinite wish candles of invocation. Lousy punks grumble grumble")

Assuming downtime, if they can put in the work to locate a source of such an object (which basically means ask the elves in my setting) and are willing to go through the work of getting it, either begging it off of its current owner or working to earn/recover it, then they can keep it. Otherwise it shall remain there and taunt them with its inaccessibility (buahahaha)