PDA

View Full Version : Do people really want every class to be balanced?



The_Pope
2007-02-06, 07:29 PM
Seriously. Topics about balancing classes seem to be the most popular thing on this wing of the forum. So, I'm really wondering. Do you all honestly want perfectly balanced classes to the most minute possible detail? I know I don't. D&D has never had balanced classes from the get-go, and its worked fine. Sure, your 20th level fighter wont be as powerful as your 20th wizard. If that really really bothers you, you want to know how you fix it? Do you really want to know?

Don't play a fighter.

No, don't rewrite the whole class. No, don't rewrite the wizard. No, don't try to customize everything so it evens out.

Don't play a fighter.

[Scrubbed]

Don't play a fighter.

Its as simple as that. [Scrubbed] Play a wizard, or something to that extent, and feel good about it. People actually do enjoy playing the "underpowered fighter", [Scrubbed]

It even makes sense that a fighter shouldn't be more powerful than a wizard. You have a single man that can rip apart the heavens with magical energy versus a guy that can swing a sword very well. Now tell me how the hell you are going to make those two people equal.

Where would the fun be, if every wizard, monk, bard, druid and fighter were exactly as effective as each other in combat? That's practically along the lines of combining all the classes into one big super class and making eleven slight variations of it because people want to be the same, but not the same, at the exact same time. Wow, look at me, I'm a 10th level Blah.

And before you start criticizing me about taking the best classes for myself and forgetting the weaker ones for the dumber players, or something along those lines, my favorite class, and the one I play most often, is the bard.
They aren't powerful in the smallest sense of the word. All the base classes could drop kick a bard up his arse into next Wednesday.

But you know, if you all really want to make all the classes the same, go ahead. Post your three hundred threads about how to make "class #A as powerful as class #B," or how to make "class #B less powerful and more balanced." It just seems kinda pointless to me, what with everyone going around in circle after circle after circle. After circle. But whatever. Perhaps I'm just a cynical jerk, but I kinda don't see the point of bashing your heads in with a club because D&D classes don't balance out.

Edit: And for people thinking I'm being rude, I'm not trying to be. I just speak sarcastically, and that usually warps itself when typed. I mean for most of this to be read with humor in mind. Read it like, if you were watching something on Askaninja.com, or something. Eventhough that guy is thirty times funnier than I could ever hope to be.

Roland St. Jude
2007-02-06, 07:42 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Wait...so you started a threat to tell people to stop their whiny excuses and to shut up? I'm having a hard time not locking this as a trolling thread. That said, I'll scrub the offending portions and admonish anyone who would like to respond to treat this a genuine request for information.

Rama_Lei
2007-02-06, 07:47 PM
Well, I view as an obvious, "everyone wants to be useful" sort of thing. And no one is saying that the wizard should be the same as a bard which should be the same as a cleric and so on. We just want to make so every class can contribute to the game.

Mauril Everleaf
2007-02-06, 07:47 PM
I think you misunderstand "balanced". Balanced doesn't mean "one big super class and making eleven slight variations", it means "has the ability to contribute at all levels." Fighters and Wizards and Clerics are not balanced under the current system. This is one area that I think 1ed did better than the later editions. Balance in classes was fairly common. A 1st level fighter was slightly more powerful than a firt level wizard (then called magic-user) by 6th level or so they were pretty much on par with each other, power-wise, and at 20th level (if you ever got there) the wizard was only slightly more powerful than the melee class. Clerics could not outshine a fighter in melee, but had the compensation of spells. Thieves mostly stayed out of melee (except for some backstabbing, which was only good when invisible or unnoticed) but were effective with bows and were vital to pick locks and find/remove traps. Your class had its own set of skills which were pretty much exclusive to your class. Also experience points were harder to come by and fighters needed less to level up than wizards, and the gap grew as you leveled up.
So, yes, I do want balance. Balance = options. Unbalanced = forced to play something to be effective. I want options because I want to play a roleplaying game, not crunch some numbers and tweak and optimize my "character" to make a solopwnmobile.

LotharBot
2007-02-06, 07:52 PM
I sent this via PM, but now that hte thread is reopened, I'll let everyone see it:

I don't want every class to be equally capable at every task. But I do want every class to be interesting to play, for the whole game. I want to go from level 1 to 20 with the same party and not have any of my players/characters feel useless for the last 5 levels (or the first 5, for that matter.) That means I don't want there to be too wide of a gap between the overall effectiveness of heavy magic users and heavy axe users. One can be more powerful than the other, but neither should feel like "I shoulda just stayed home".

That's why there's a lot of interest in adding capabilities to melee types late-game -- they reach a point where they might get to do 30 damage in a battle and then the wizard does 90 damage to everyone and the cleric does 200 damage to the BBEG. And, unlike bards or rogues (with diplomacy or disable device or whatever), they typically don't have anything they can contribute other than damage.

It's nice when your players can all contribute something. That's really what "balance" is all about.

sktarq
2007-02-06, 07:54 PM
The major reason why I'd want to have the various classes balenced is not veracity but ease of play, munkining, and fun. If by the end of the characters use the wizard is solving all the problems and the fighter is doing little besides occassionally blocking an advancing monster till the wizard can take care of it. Why is my player with the fighter going to return to the game each week.
I assume that my players (I know I do when being a PC) like to be useful to the party and in part they show up to get the same kind of acomplishment kick they get from a videogame. They are generally more willing to take marginal victories, the occanional loss, and such as a way to add variety and character to the game. (why they are not playing said videogames).
Now This generally doesn't mean that the classes have to be exactly balenced at every level. And I think most people are fine with the overall balence with the current core classes. Those who do try and "fix" the balence are generally a minoritywho I can only guess you have been over exposed too....I haven't heard much complaining since 3.5 came out (before then yeah lots which may have been what kicked this off so much).

Finnally while having a group of 6 wizards was extreamly fun once it would quickly get old if it occured all the time.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-06, 07:55 PM
There are two main contributing factors to imbalance in character classes: the first (and harshest) is that fighter-style feats do not scale, while spells do. The second is that the standard rate-of-exchange for spells is a standard action, while a melee attack is also a standard action.

Scaling fighter-style feats by scale and increasing the standard time for spells to a full-round action would pretty much solve the balance issue. Fighter's feats wouldn't blow, and spells wouldn't be godly.

Fat Daddy
2007-02-06, 07:55 PM
What Mauril and LotharBot said. I don't expect (or want) all the classes to be the same. I do want all the classes to be able to 'shine' on occasion and contribute in a meaningful way in most situations.
Many times it is the responsibility of the DM to create situations where each PC gets a turn in the spotlight. Oft times however, it would be a little easier on the DM if the classes were a little better balanced or rather, more comparable in power level.
In the end, as long as everyone can contribute in a meaningful way and all players are having fun, it's all good.

Rama_Lei
2007-02-06, 07:58 PM
There are two main contributing factors to imbalance in character classes: the first (and harshest) is that fighter-style feats do not scale, while spells do. The second is that the standard rate-of-exchange for spells is a standard action, while a melee attack is also a standard action.

Scaling fighter-style feats by scale and increasing the standard time for spells to a full-round action would pretty much solve the balance issue. Fighter's feats wouldn't blow, and spells wouldn't be godly.
Exactly. You can swing a sword in six seconds. You shouldn't be able to rend reality asunder in the same time.

Khantalas
2007-02-06, 08:02 PM
Exactly. You can swing a sword in six seconds. You shouldn't be able to rend reality asunder in the same time.

I siggied that. Hope you don't mind.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-06, 08:06 PM
But I want to play a high-level fighter without feeling irrelevant to the combats that happen. Who are you to tell me not to do so?

Saph
2007-02-06, 08:13 PM
There's no easy way to balance the classes, because of the difference between potential power and actual power.

A simple class like a fighter has less variation in power. Even a very badly played fighter will be OK in a melee, as a hit point sponge if nothing else. A badly played wizard is utterly useless and will go down in a single hit. On the other hand, a well-played fighter is outshone by a well-played wizard due to the incredible variety of options a wizard has.

So to make a really well-played wizard as powerful as a really well-played fighter, you would have to nerf most spells to such extremes that wizard players have to think hard just to be even moderately effective. And by doing that you'd make the average wizard underpowered, so the classes would STILL be unbalanced, but this time the other way around.

Honestly, I think the easiest solution is just to live with things as they are. Most players don't have a major problem with casters being overpowered, as shown by the number of people willing to say 'casters aren't that good in my game' or 'what we find really overpowered is (insert non-spellcasting class here)'. So it's obvious that class balance issues don't necessarily HAVE to be a problem.

In short, I'm with The Pope. If you think a class is underpowered, just don't play it.

- Saph

greenknight
2007-02-06, 08:14 PM
But you know, if you all really want to make all the classes the same, go ahead.

I think that's a pretty good example of the flaw in your argument. You're confusing balanced with the same as. You're correct, if you really want to play a class that's the same as a Wizard, then you should play a Wizard.

The goal of Balance is not to make all classes the same, but to make all classes equally useful during the course of an adventure or campaign. In any given scenario, a particular character class might be more useful than others, but that should be reversed in other scenarios. For example, the Wizard is nearly useless in a magic dead area (or an area protected by an antimagic field). In those same areas, a Fighter can excel. It's also the DM's responsibility to ensure there are situations where the skills of each character in the party can come to the fore, so if one or two characters seem to be hogging the limelight, then maybe it's the DM at fault, although smart players and rules imbalances can also be the cause of that problem.

Personally, I'm all in favor of well balanced characters, and I think the 3e style rules offer the best opportunity to do that thanks to the multiclassing rules, feat/skill system and prestige classes. But there are still imbalances within those rules, and they should be addressed.

The_Pope
2007-02-06, 08:16 PM
But I want to play a high-level fighter without feeling irrelevant to the combats that happen. Who are you to tell me not to do so?

Then like, take a prestige class. What I've been getting at is I don't understand why everyone wants to change the class. A fighter shouldn't become some super-powered god of force. He's good with his weapons. If you want to go past that, go with a multi-class or a prestige class.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-06, 08:22 PM
Then like, take a prestige class. What I've been getting at is I don't understand why everyone wants to change the class. A fighter shouldn't become some super-powered god of force. He's good with his weapons. If you want to go past that, go with a multi-class or a prestige class.

What prestige class should I take that won't force me into a fairly specific flavor (i.e. Mounted Lance Guy) and will make me able to contribute at a high level? How will this prestige class fix the problems I have as a fighter?

JaronK
2007-02-06, 08:28 PM
The problem, as others have said, is very straightforward: you want to play the kind of character you want to play, and still contribute. Right now, if someone says "we're playing a level 10 core only campaign" and one person's a druid, and you want to play a melee, you can't keep up even doing what you do best. The druid can do everything you can do, but better. It shouldn't be like that. You should be able to play a melee bruiser and shine doing something (for example, I dunno, killing things). You shouldn't have the druid walking around being a full caster and then saying "oh, I think I'll be a better fighter than the fighter" and then Wildshape into a Dire Ape and kill everything in sight.

JaronK

LotharBot
2007-02-06, 08:31 PM
Not everyone wants to overly complicate their games by making their new players have to learn about prestige classes on top of just trying to "get" the basic game mechanics.

I have a group of 6. 3 of my players are brand new. I want my players to be able to play the whole way through our campaign (1-20) without having anybody feel obsolete, and without having to push anybody into taking some obscure prestige class just because the game doesn't give melee types level-appropriate abilities at levels 16-20.

Fighters/Barbarians don't need to be super-powered gods of force, they don't need to have magical abilities, they just need to be able to hit stuff with their swords/axes/whatever effectively even at high levels. I don't think we need the sort of complicated fixes a lot of people have proposed, with pages and pages of new abilities (and I sure don't want to hand my new players that much material to absorb.) All we really need is a few feats to top off some of the fighter feat chains, and a few abilities to top off the barbarian list, that give appropriate abilities at level 16+.

Even something as simple as the "pounce" feat (can full-attack after charging) would make high-level fighters much more viable. A combat-mobility feat (can move with an enemy during their turn, such that you can full attack them next turn) would help too. Any number of small boosts like that, available only at high levels, would make those sorts of characters still feel useful late-game.

The_Pope
2007-02-06, 08:37 PM
What prestige class should I take that won't force me into a fairly specific flavor (i.e. Mounted Lance Guy) and will make me able to contribute at a high level? How will this prestige class fix the problems I have as a fighter?

You could pull a lot of things. Start as a fighter, have a high enough Wisdom, and take one to three levels of monk. Maybe take a few levels of Paladin to improve your saving throws, then branch into the Dervish class. Now you're an unarmored fighter with some good saving throws that can act as a flurry of moving blades, and can perform some dances at the local tavern. You could take the variant from the Complete Mage that allows multiclass fighters to cast in light armor and get him up to a 5th level Wizard so he can cast fly. Now your fighter wont be hampered by flying opponents.

If you want to break away from the fighter, how about an Ur-Priest? Some of the requirements might be hard to pull off without say, taking a level in a class that grants the spellcraft skill. But if you can pull that off, you're a fighter and a full spellcaster.

Cross-class Hide and Move Silently skills, and go for an Avenging Executioner, and then go Assassin. Now you're stealth oriented with the combat skills of a fighter and can death attack something if your damage is doing you no good.

But you know, its all up to how you want your character to act.

The_Pope
2007-02-06, 08:41 PM
Fighters/Barbarians don't need to be super-powered gods of force, they don't need to have magical abilities, they just need to be able to hit stuff with their swords/axes/whatever effectively even at high levels. I don't think we need the sort of complicated fixes a lot of people have proposed, with pages and pages of new abilities (and I sure don't want to hand my new players that much material to absorb.) All we really need is a few feats to top off some of the fighter feat chains, and a few abilities to top off the barbarian list, that give appropriate abilities at level 16+.

You're right, the feats make the fighter. Currently, in a game I'm playing, we have a fighter with a rather high dexterity, a spiked chain, Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip. He makes continuous trip attempts whenever he can, which knocks down just about anything that isn't flying or incorporeal. He barely gets hit in combat ever due to this tactic, and overall is one of the most useful members of the party.

Solaris
2007-02-06, 08:54 PM
There are two main contributing factors to imbalance in character classes: the first (and harshest) is that fighter-style feats do not scale, while spells do. The second is that the standard rate-of-exchange for spells is a standard action, while a melee attack is also a standard action.

Scaling fighter-style feats by scale and increasing the standard time for spells to a full-round action would pretty much solve the balance issue. Fighter's feats wouldn't blow, and spells wouldn't be godly.

Agreed. Emphatically. I was rather startled to see that spells no longer took rounds to cast in Third. Making it a full-round action (or longer!) to cast the more impressive spells and scaling fighters would go a long way towards making them all work. My suggestion is for someone with more time than I to go through and do that tweaking.

ZekeArgo
2007-02-06, 08:54 PM
You could pull a lot of things. Start as a fighter, have a high enough Wisdom, and take one to three levels of monk. Maybe take a few levels of Paladin to improve your saving throws, then branch into the Dervish class. Now you're an unarmored fighter with some good saving throws that can act as a flurry of moving blades, and can perform some dances at the local tavern. You could take the variant from the Complete Mage that allows multiclass fighters to cast in light armor and get him up to a 5th level Wizard so he can cast fly. Now your fighter wont be hampered by flying opponents.

You are kidding me right? Nevermind that the first example pidgeonholes you into an alignment and playstyle, it is also so horribly gimped and MAD dependant I'm not even going to comment on it other than say "no"

As for your second example... so the only way for a fighter to compete with a wizard is to become one? Somehow that doesn't seem to be a workable argument. And how exactly are you going to act as a "fighter" if you've just screwed yourself out of +3 BaB?


If you want to break away from the fighter, how about an Ur-Priest? Some of the requirements might be hard to pull off without say, taking a level in a class that grants the spellcraft skill. But if you can pull that off, you're a fighter and a full spellcaster.

Once more, to be a better fighter you need to become a caster?


Cross-class Hide and Move Silently skills, and go for an Avenging Executioner, and then go Assassin. Now you're stealth oriented with the combat skills of a fighter and can death attack something if your damage is doing you no good.

And now to be a better fighter you need to be a backstabbing rogue?


But you know, its all up to how you want your character to act.

Yes, it is up to me to decide how my character acts. However, I should be able to play the concept of "guy who swings a sword for reasons X, Y, and Z" and not be completly overshadowed by "guy who can stop time" and "guy who can swing a scimitar for reasons X, Y, and Z *and* can cast divine spells *and* has a big companion".

I truly don't know any other way to break it down. The fighter cannot shine at the task he should be the best at, and thats even before spells make dealing damage pointless.

ZekeArgo
2007-02-06, 08:59 PM
You're right, the feats make the fighter. Currently, in a game I'm playing, we have a fighter with a rather high dexterity, a spiked chain, Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip. He makes continuous trip attempts whenever he can, which knocks down just about anything that isn't flying or incorporeal. He barely gets hit in combat ever due to this tactic, and overall is one of the most useful members of the party.

At doing one thing... vs opponents that can actually be knocked down. And when an opposing wizard decides that "Hey, you know web is a pretty damn useful spell" or any of the other myriad ways he could stop the trite, overused chain-tripping fighter what can he do exactly?. Or what if the wizard just flies, or turns invisible, or dimension doors far enough away to make the "tactic" useless?

LotharBot
2007-02-06, 09:03 PM
What level is that fighter? Do you think he'll still be that effective at, say, level 18?

Here's the key thing: how can my new players make melee characters that can contribute all game long if they don't particularly want to use spiked chain cheese? Do they really have to go fighter-monk-paladin-buyAnotherBook-Dervish? It seems like it'd be much easier to just come up with a few feats that require, say, BAB+15, and give combat abilities that actually make sense for Grokk the Half-Orc Barbarian or Uther the Dwarvish Fighter to be able to do at that stage of development. They don't need to be able to cast disintegrate or anything like that, but it'd be nice if they could at least full-attack something once in a while.

Misat
2007-02-06, 09:04 PM
Yes, the chain fighters are always an exception. Why are we talking about fighters and wizards though? Fighters can be amazing, if you want to power game, or they can just be completely fun, if you want to you know...have fun. Wizards are...well they're wizards and just learn that they should all be killed before they hit level 6 to prevent them from ever becoming a threat. So if you hate wizards being overpowered; on your next campaign go for a jaunt and begin slaughtering all wizardfolk. It'll allow you to vent a little bit.
Like I was saying though, bards just get hurt. Barbarians may be good, but I've always seen them as far too limited. Like The Pope said though he still plays a bard. I once saw the party bard convice, using Diplomacy and some low level telepathy spell, the Ogre (bard rolled a 20 and ogre rolled a 1 admittedly) that he needed to kill the other monsters before they snuck up on him. The party bard also successfully kept the rest of the party up with some nice perform checks accompanied by real life stories. The next morning they were all fatigued and the wizard couldn't get a spell off, but the party had fun doing it to themselves.
What I'm saying is that DnD is made, atleast in my eyes, as an alternative to hack n slash video games. If you want to bend rules until they break and get fixed *cough* 3.5 *cough* then by all means go for it, and see just how fast you can get the other players to hate you for doing all the damage and leaving them scraps.
It's a game people. Play it to have fun, and if someone is making it cease to be fun...well smack them out of character and tell them to stop powergaming a roleplaying adventure. Alternatively powergaming can be an art, and if the rest of the party is up for a competition just powergame to your little munchin hearts' content.
For me I'm out because this felt good to get out finally. Balance doesn't matter in a game where, oh what is that? THE RULES CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME JUST BY TALKING TO THE GROUP YOU'RE WITH AND COMING TO A COMPRIMISE. Do what the homebrew section does best and tweak the little things as they come up. Don't do a revamp, just make it so everyone is happy.

The_Pope
2007-02-06, 09:08 PM
You are kidding me right? Nevermind that the first example pidgeonholes you into an alignment and playstyle, it is also so horribly gimped and MAD dependant I'm not even going to comment on it other than say "no"

As for your second example... so the only way for a fighter to compete with a wizard is to become one? Somehow that doesn't seem to be a workable argument. And how exactly are you going to act as a "fighter" if you've just screwed yourself out of +3 BaB?



Once more, to be a better fighter you need to become a caster?



And now to be a better fighter you need to be a backstabbing rogue?

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I gave a few different examples on things you could do as a Fighter. I didn't say they were amazing ideas that are better than any Fighter. The fact is, all the prestige classes for Fighters lock them in a specific role. If you want to have a fighter-like character that is not locked into a specific role, you're going to need to branch out into other areas. Otherwise you're going to be the guy swinging the sword for 20 levels. And that should be the case for a straight fighter. Because a fighter doing anything else but fighting is no longer a fighter. Is it crappy? Maybe. Is it realistic? Yes.

TSGames
2007-02-06, 09:20 PM
I do mostly agree with the original post. D&D is a high magic setting; the warriors even use magic weapons created by wizards to improve their combat abilities, the wizard can teleport you into space, summon demons, 'splode your house with a few gestures. From a flavor standpoint, in D&D it would be very difficult to make any melee class(all of which ultimately rely on wizards or whatever to enchant their weapons) as powerful as the magic users.

I'm not saying you just shouldn't play or fix the class or that you should PrC ad nauseam, you can do whatever you want, I don't care. However, without altering the default setting of D&D and the flavor substantially, it's extremely difficult to make a caster unable to do what a fighter can except better.

ZekeArgo
2007-02-06, 09:20 PM
Did I say that? No, I didn't. I gave a few different examples on things you could do as a Fighter. I didn't say they were amazing ideas that are better than any Fighter. The fact is, all the prestige classes for Fighters lock them in a specific role. If you want to have a fighter-like character that is not locked into a specific role, you're going to need to branch out into other areas. Otherwise you're going to be the guy swinging the sword for 20 levels. And that should be the case for a straight fighter. Because a fighter doing anything else but fighting is no longer a fighter. Is it crappy? Usually. Is it realistic? Yes.

Wow, first of all you continue to prove my point: in your opinion the only way for a fighter to be a better fighter is not to be a fighter. You can't say "well these are options if you want to be an effective fighter" because at that point YOUR NO LONGER A FIGHTER.

Second of all, "is it realistic" is your defense? Yet another catgirl dies huh? So those of us who enjoy heroic fantasy and having characters with the ability to perform "unrealistic" abilities are just out of luck if we want to play a non-caster? *That* is the problem at the moment. A fighter past level 2 is not only redundant when paired with other classes, but is completly outstripped. Whereas you can play a Wizard, Cleric or Druid from 1-20 and *always* have some way that you can contribute.

the_tick_rules
2007-02-06, 09:24 PM
i'm offically announcing my retirement from posting on these fighter hating pages effective as of this post.

The_Pope
2007-02-06, 09:29 PM
i'm offically announcing my retirement from posting on these fighter hating pages effective as of this post.

I think I'll join you in that announcement. I actually like the fighter, despite what everyone says. Wasn't my intention for one of these to form, but wow, lookie.

LotharBot
2007-02-06, 09:30 PM
you can play a Wizard, Cleric or Druid from 1-20 and *always* have some way that you can contribute.

Not to mention a Sorcerer, Rogue, Bard, Ranger, or Paladin. You can make a lot of these more effective by taking a level or two in a different class or taking a prestige class, but all of them can be played 1-20 as is and be worth something at every level.

Fighters and Barbarians just simply lose effectiveness, starting about level 14-15. Even if you use a total cheese build, that only buys you a couple more levels of relevance. At the end of the game, the pure-melee classes need something more to be able to contribute. Not by becoming a non-melee class, either... but by making it worthwhile to swing their (magically-enchanted) swords all the way at level 20.

EDIT: P.S. I love fighters. That's why I want to make them actually work at high levels... preferably before my favorite fighter actually gets to those levels. He's approaching 15 right now; I'd like him to remain interesting at 16-20.

Misat
2007-02-06, 09:41 PM
I don't think the problem is with the fighters. It's with how everyone sees them as needing to be played. Don't do enough with just a blade in hand? Well then switch it up and use tactics other than "roll d20" "roll misc. other dice and add damage."
What about archery? What about using a weird combo like net and I don't know...punching dagger!

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-06, 09:49 PM
I don't think the problem is with the fighters. It's with how everyone sees them as needing to be played. Don't do enough with just a blade in hand? Well then switch it up and use tactics other than "roll d20" "roll misc. other dice and add damage."
What about archery? What about using a weird combo like net and I don't know...punching dagger!
Umm, no, its with the fighters. Net + punching dagger? Wow, you suck more now. Archery is more viable than melee, because it eliminates much of the need for mobility, but the other problems with the fighter remain--and now he's not even tanking as much as he used to be.

Cybren
2007-02-06, 09:52 PM
"http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/misc/navbits_finallink.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1970171) Do people really want every class to be balanced?"

Yes.

Misat
2007-02-06, 10:03 PM
Umm, no, its with the fighters. Net + punching dagger? Wow, you suck more now. Archery is more viable than melee, because it eliminates much of the need for mobility, but the other problems with the fighter remain--and now he's not even tanking as much as he used to be.

Way to take a joke and turn it sideways. I was for the record kidding about using a net and a punching dagger, although I may have to try it now. I'm just saying that you all only talk about steryotypes.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-06, 10:14 PM
We talk about fighters who walk up to things and hit them. Why? Because that's all fighters can really DO.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-06, 10:23 PM
i'm offically announcing my retirement from posting on these fighter hating pages effective as of this post.
So people demonstrate hate by spending time working on something to get it up to snuff?

Misat
2007-02-06, 10:34 PM
We talk about fighters who walk up to things and hit them. Why? Because that's all fighters can really DO.

Lies! What if your fighter wants to be something other than that? I mean hell what's to stop him from picking up Charisma? Oh no! I can't swing as hard because I didn't put my highest stat into strength, but what I can do is focus my feats towards things to aid the party as a whole and not just keep my ego up to par with the mage. I'm just saying things at this point, but simply because I have no examples that will blow your mind doesn't mean it's an invalid point. What if I wanted to be a fearless commander that was able to lead troops into battle, but not pick up all the spellcasting from bard. I'm sorry, but what I see as a tried and true sergeant is not a bard. Yes the marshall may be better, but what's wrong with prestige classes anyways?

krossbow
2007-02-06, 10:41 PM
how will that charisma apply at all? No fighter class skills are charisma based, and almost no charisma based feats are applicable for a fighter (they are more for the barbarian). There are some others, like combat panache, but they require HIGH levels of non-fighter class skills, and are generally better left to the bard or rouge.


Thats like saying "So what if I put my high stat in strength as a wizard? My spells suck, but I can help the party by hitting things!"

Cybren
2007-02-06, 10:42 PM
how many charisma based skills does the fighter get? How many class features based on charisma?

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-06, 10:49 PM
Lies! What if your fighter wants to be something other than that? I mean hell what's to stop him from picking up Charisma? Oh no! I can't swing as hard because I didn't put my highest stat into strength, but what I can do is focus my feats towards things to aid the party as a whole and not just keep my ego up to par with the mage. I'm just saying things at this point, but simply because I have no examples that will blow your mind doesn't mean it's an invalid point. What if I wanted to be a fearless commander that was able to lead troops into battle, but not pick up all the spellcasting from bard. I'm sorry, but what I see as a tried and true sergeant is not a bard. Yes the marshall may be better, but what's wrong with prestige classes anyways?

If the fighter picks up Charisma... he will suck at diplomacy anyway, because it's a cross-class skill. Even if he didn't, he wouldn't be helping the party, since the skillmonkey or divine caster can pick it up as a *non* cross-class skill.

It's an invalid point. Hitting things is all that fighters are remotely good at. You can't say that you can make the fighter more useful by having him do other stuff, since he CAN'T do that other stuff.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-06, 10:54 PM
Lies! What if your fighter wants to be something other than that? I mean hell what's to stop him from picking up Charisma? Oh no! I can't swing as hard because I didn't put my highest stat into strength, but what I can do is focus my feats towards things to aid the party as a whole and not just keep my ego up to par with the mage.
How do you "aid the party as a whole" if you cannot fill your assigned role any better than any other member of the party? You best aid the party by making the most of your class abilities. And a fighter's class abilities require high physical scores and are all geared towards picking up a weapon and standing toe-to-toe with the enemy. The only fighter-related feats that use Charisma tend to require nothing higher than a 13.


Yes the marshall may be better, but what's wrong with prestige classes anyways?
:smallconfused: What do fighter PrCs have to do with the marshal?

In any case, if you want to have a character renowned for being a military commander, I'd recommend creating a build that actually makes a good military commander. As fighters get very little that contributes to actuall commanding of troops, I'd recommend staying away from that for anything other than a few levels to demonstrate some battle chops so the troops have a little faith in the commander.


No fighter class skills are charisma based...
Wrong.

Intimidate and Handle Animal are both Charisma-based class skills for the Fighter.

Dervag
2007-02-06, 11:19 PM
That's why there's a lot of interest in adding capabilities to melee types late-game -- they reach a point where they might get to do 30 damage in a battle and then the wizard does 90 damage to everyone and the cleric does 200 damage to the BBEG. And, unlike bards or rogues (with diplomacy or disable device or whatever), they typically don't have anything they can contribute other than damage.Maybe the problem is metamagic? Most of the exploits that I've seen for spell use, and most of the ways in which it can be made hyper-powerful, revolve around using metamagic feats.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-06, 11:43 PM
Maybe the problem is metamagic? Most of the exploits that I've seen for spell use, and most of the ways in which it can be made hyper-powerful, revolve around using metamagic feats.

Not really. Removing Quicken Spell would tone down melee clerics and only let wizards cast one spell per round, but metamagic isn't the real problem. It's what spells can do.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-06, 11:45 PM
For the record, my problem is with CoDzilla, not with wizards and sorcerers. Sure wizards and sorcerers are amazing at high levels, but they are still 4 hit die armor-lacking low-fortitude save guys. There are, or should be, plenty of monsters who can challenge them. High CR Demons for instance all have true seeing, and some can fly, and some have poison. There goes the benefit of flying invisible, and wizards have bad saves vs. poison.

I just think 3.5E overcompensated for clerics & druids who have no weaknesses. I'm confident this will be fixed for 4E.

Pssst: Misat, you stole my pic ;-). Eh, maybe I'm due for a new one anyway.

grinner666
2007-02-07, 12:01 AM
I've never had a problem with "balance" and the fighter, in this or any other edition. As far as I'm concerned the fighter class IS balanced, even if the powergamers out there don't want to admit it.

Filling the fighter's or barbarian's role is simple. Give him the highest CON you can and keep adding to it. It doesn't matter if the party fighter can do more damage than the wizard, or even if he can hit things as well as the cleric ... though I'll point out that, barring spells that can only be cast a limited number of times per day and are usually better spent on the fighter than on buffing the cleric, the fighter or barbarian can beat the cleric. Or the druid. At every level. BAB alone does that.

Here's the thing. The fighter's role is: damage sponge. NOT damage dealer. In many cases (even at higher levels) both classes can deal damage, but their essential function is to keep the enemy (especially non-spellcasting opponents) away from the spellcasters so they can do their job ... namely casting spells to control the battlefield for the fighters, damage many opponents at once ... or kill one or two immediately.

And both fighters and barbarians excel at it. Both have good Fort saves (the save most important against the save-or-die spells everybody loves to whine about) and the best hit points in the game. When a cleric or druid is still being wiped out by a Power Word: Blind, Stun or Kill, the fighter or (especially) barbarian is laughing it off. By the time they get to upper levels damage-dealing spells like Fireball or Cone of Cold are jokes to them, whether they make their saves or not. The same is not true of a wizard, sorcerer, cleric or druid.

Frankly the whining about "underpowered fighters" is very amusing to me. Every time somebody writes about it, what I see is, "Waaaaahhhh! At the highest levels my fighter has to perform the same support functions the cleric and wizard had to perform at the lowest levels!! Waaaahhhhhh!!!"

Grow up, people. The fact that your 20th-level fighter can't necessarily kick the crap out of your friend's 20th-level wizard doesn't mean he's any less needed than the fact that your first-level fighter COULD kick the crap out of your friend's first-level wizard.

Frankly the only change I'd make ... MAYBE ... is to nerf the cleric and druid to a d6 hit die. That would, at least, equalize the poor ranger in comparison.

PnP Fan
2007-02-07, 12:25 AM
I've been playing a 3.5 version of the Mystara setting for the D&D boxed sets (80's). Something that our GM has done in 3.5, to try and keep in the spirit of the original boxed sets, is he has incorporated a Weapon Mastery system into 3.5. Probably not allowed to go into the details on the boards, but essentially what Weapon Mastery does is bump up the damage caused by the weapon, and sometimes other little nifty things (like improved resistance to disarm, bumps to AC for 1 or more attacks in a round, bonuses to hit, etc. . .). This seems to have made up for a lot of the issues with "damage envy" between the higher level mellee types, and it hasn't really done much to the wizards/sorcerers, because they don't really rely on their weaponry anyway. Additionally, it makes fights go a little faster, as dmg / rnd has increased for the party as a whole. Additionally, some of the little nifties I mentioned above make it much easier to lay the smackdown on some of the tougher opponents. The downside is that the original system was written stricktly with level-based advancement in mind. I think the system could be improved by building it within the pre-existing feat structure that way non-fighter types would have to really debate on whether they needed a better weaponry damage rating, or if they'd rather spend their feat on something more class related. The other aspect of this, from the DM's perspective is that you have to adjust for the shift in balance of the system, because the CR values obviously don't reflect this mechanic. Monsters, or creatures that can't benefit from class (animals, magical beasts, ec. . ) are a little weaker in comparison, while classed villains (humanoids, the occasional half dragon), could benefit equally, and wouldn't really suffer from a decrease in CR.

Is it a little munchkin flavored, yeah, but has it made playing a mellee type a little more fun? Yes!

Just a thought, take it or leave it. :-)

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 12:34 AM
I--I don't think you understand how D&D works.


I've never had a problem with "balance" and the fighter, in this or any other edition. As far as I'm concerned the fighter class IS balanced, even if the powergamers out there don't want to admit it.
The fighter class is balanced... in your dreams. Show me a fighter that can get to a balor and keep it in place in order to fight it, instead of being made a gibbering idiot by its Insanity ability, or just ignored. Go on.


Filling the fighter's or barbarian's role is simple. Give him the highest CON you can and keep adding to it.This is the single worst idea I've heard in the thread. Seriously, how on earth will this help? "Oh no, it's a side of beef! Let me just dominate it/walk around it/fly over it/ignore it because I don't have to attack it for any reason, I'll just attack the enemies that are actual threats."


It doesn't matter if the party fighter can do more damage than the wizard, or even if he can hit things as well as the cleric ... though I'll point out that, barring spells that can only be cast a limited number of times per day and are usually better spent on the fighter than on buffing the cleric, the fighter or barbarian can beat the cleric. Or the druid. At every level. BAB alone does that.The fighter does more damage than the wizard. It doesn't help him. Damage-dealing wizards are the weakest kind of wizards.
Spells can be cast a limited number of times per day... but MORE than enough to get the cleric through four or five encounters, especially since they won't all be difficult encounters. And especially since the cleric has many spell slots of other levels to do other things with.
Meanwhile, all the Druid needs is Wild Shape (but he has an animal companion, too, and can Shapechange at higher levels just because).

Also, HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT WILD SHAPE, DIVINE POWER, DIVINE FAVOR, RIGHTEOUS MIGHT, SHAPECHANGE, AND SO ON ARE PERSONAL ONLY SPELLS/ABILITIES? What can clerics and druids cast on the fighter that is better than those spells? Or even remotely as good? Bless? Aid? C'mon, get serious, here.


Here's the thing. The fighter's role is: damage sponge. NOT damage dealer. In many cases (even at higher levels) both classes can deal damage, but their essential function is to keep the enemy (especially non-spellcasting opponents) away from the spellcasters so they can do their job ... namely casting spells to control the battlefield for the fighters, damage many opponents at once ... or kill one or two immediately.Okay.
Now, please explain how the fighter manages to do this. Why does the wizard care what the fighter's doing? He can teleport, is invisible and flying, and has a contingency to keep him safe; that's ignoring the wall and battlefield control spells that keep the enemy from getting to him. (The Cleric and Druid WANT the enemy to get to them, so they can stomp it.)
Meanwhile, the fighter does... what, exactly? How does he get to the Balor or dragon? How does he make the Balor or dragon attack him instead of someone else? He has no way of doing so. Yes, battlefield control fighters are the best fighters--Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, tripping, et cetera, but at high levels, it just stops working. Enemies move faster, teleport and/or fly fast, and generally can just ignore the fighter who can't even GET to them (and would get schooled if he traded full attacks with them anyway).


And both fighters and barbarians excel at it. Both have good Fort saves (the save most important against the save-or-die spells everybody loves to whine about) and the best hit points in the game. When a cleric or druid is still being wiped out by a Power Word: Blind, Stun or Kill, the fighter or (especially) barbarian is laughing it off. By the time they get to upper levels damage-dealing spells like Fireball or Cone of Cold are jokes to them, whether they make their saves or not. The same is not true of a wizard, sorcerer, cleric or druid.You're... you're kidding me.
Good fort saves? No more so than clerics or druids, who also have good fort saves. Meanwhile, fighters have weak will saves (which JUST AS MANY save-or-lose spells target; hello Fear, Confusion, Insanity, Dominate, et cetera). The Cleric and Druid can heal themselves; the wizard just can't be hurt without tons of effort spent stripping away his defenses. Power Word? C'mon, the spellcasters have spells to deal with this. How about Death Ward and Mind Blank, to start with? Spell Turning? And they're only 1 HP/level behind the fighter, to boot (0, for the cleric with Divine Power up).
The fighter is far more vulnerable than any spellcaster. They have NO defenses besides their fort save and gear.
When the DM says "make a will save", the fighter says "oh, crap". The high-WIS cleric and druid shrug. The wizard shrugs, because he's over there, invisible and in the air, and if he was targeted, his spells would deal with it (i.e. Spell Turning). It is far easier to disable a Fighter than it is to disable any spellcaster.


Frankly the whining about "underpowered fighters" is very amusing to me. Every time somebody writes about it, what I see is, "Waaaaahhhh! At the highest levels my fighter has to perform the same support functions the cleric and wizard had to perform at the lowest levels!! Waaaahhhhhh!!!"Quit making things up. While you're at it, quit writing in a patronizing, insulting tone. The fighter is incapable of performing that role at high levels.


Grow up, people. The fact that your 20th-level fighter can't necessarily kick the crap out of your friend's 20th-level wizard doesn't mean he's any less needed than the fact that your first-level fighter COULD kick the crap out of your friend's first-level wizard.The problem is that he ISN'T needed. Oh, and the first level fighter... fails his Will save vs. Sleep. Yeah, that's some ass-kicking there.
Low-level spellcasters contribute, just not overwhelmingly. High-level fighters... CAN'T contribute. They are a one-trick pony that can't get to the enemy to do their trick, and can't survive very long to do their trick if they're being targeted.


Frankly the only change I'd make ... MAYBE ... is to nerf the cleric and druid to a d6 hit die. That would, at least, equalize the poor ranger in comparison.I think you're vastly overestimating HP. You could give the fighter a thousand HP; it would help a little, but not a lot. It wouldn't fix any of his problems.

Quit talking like everyone other than you is a moron. You're not saying anything new.
Instead, put your money where your frothing mouth is and build me a level 20 fighter who can somehow make CR 18-22 monsters attack him instead of his teammates, or actually get to them in order to fight them (not to mention not getting smooshed by their full attacks and/or spells and/or special abilities).
This is not an MMORPG. Tanking is not a role. You do not "provoke aggro" from monsters.

Here, again, are the fundamental problems with the fighter:
-Their abilities don't scale. They get their best feats ASAP; any high-level feats they might want at 20th, they got at 14th or 16th, if not as low as 6th or 8th. That means at 20th level, they're still getting abilitieis balanced for much lower levels... from a list they've already taken the best off of. The fighter's level 20 bonus feat is actually a WORSE ability than his level 1 or 6 bonus feat.
-No unique abilities except Weapon Specialization->Supremacy... which don't really make much of a difference. Weapon Specialization is a poor feat, except in core; Weapon Supremacy is mediocre. The best feats--Elusive Target, say, or Shock Trooper--are things other classes can pick up.
-They are easy to disable. Fighters have weak will saves, and no defenses beyond what their gear provides against special abilities and spellcasting. On top of that, anything hampering their already-low mobility or draining their AB/damage, which things can do without a save (Solid Fog and Ray of Enfeeblement, for example) keeps them unable to do the only thing they can do.
-They are a one-trick pony. Fighters hit things. Some fighters hit them and trip them, or hit them back with two AoOs every time they get hit. Still, all they can do is walk up to something and hit it. If they can't get to it, or can't hit it hard enough to pose a serious threat, they're screwed.
-Crappy mobility. "Get to it" is the hard part. At high levels, enemies fly, teleport, et cetera. A Balor can bullrush itself with its Quickened TK and voluntarily fail its opposed check if it really, really needs to get out of somewhere--which it doesn't, because it has a great fly speed and Greater Teleport at will, plus plenty of long-range attacks.
-Inability to actually do their one trick better than other people. A core-only fighter is a worse melee combatant than a core-only cleric or druid. An optimized, splatbooked-out fighter is a capable melee combatant... but still worse than an optimized, splatbooked-out cleric or druid at it.

ishi
2007-02-07, 12:39 AM
Here's the thing. The fighter's role is: damage sponge. NOT damage dealer. In many cases (even at higher levels) both classes can deal damage, but their essential function is to keep the enemy (especially non-spellcasting opponents) away from the spellcasters so they can do their job ... namely casting spells to control the battlefield for the fighters, damage many opponents at once ... or kill one or two immediately.

And yet both clerics and druids are better at it. Both have good Fort saves and good Will saves (the saves important against the save-or-die spells everybody loves to whine about) and the best selection of protective and healing spells. When a barbarian or fighter is still being wiped out by a Dominate Person or Insanity, the druid or cleric is passing saving throws. By the time they get to upper levels damage-dealing spells like Fireball or Cone of Cold are jokes to them, because of protective buffs. The same is not true of a Fighter, Barbarian, or Ranger.

Frankly the whining about "underpowered fighters" is very amusing to me. Every time somebody writes about it, what I see is, "Waaaaahhhh! At the highest levels my fighter does nothing!! Waaaahhhhhh!!!"

Wehrkind
2007-02-07, 01:06 AM
*sigh*

Clerics make better toe to toe fighters than fighters. They do EVERYTHING a fighter does, only they do it in addition to other things. You are always, ALWAYS better off with 2 clerics than with 1 cleric and 1 fighter, let alone 2 fighters.

That's it, end of story.

And good lord, this isn't World of Warcraft. Fighter's do not just "absorb damage". Even if it was WoW, the closest approximation would be "Fighters get sheeped, particularly if the have Ashcandy, while you smash the clothies. Ignore the plate!" When real people play, that's what they do, ignore things that can't kill you quickly.

Shazzbaa
2007-02-07, 01:14 AM
Answering the original question:

I would like all of the classes to have something that they are the best at. Different classes are good at different things. You know how when you're playing fighting-genre video games, and there's the big, slow guy that hits really hard but can't move fast; and then the little, fast guy that can run circles around his opponents, but can't take a hit well and can't do much damage? These two are not the same, but they're balanced. The big guy has a smaller chance of hitting the little guy, but if he does, the little guy's toast. The win's not about who picked the better character, but about who plays with more skill.

That's the sort of balance I like. And, yes, I would like classes to be balanced in this regard.

Addressing the issue of balance:
Class battles aside, the most convincing cry I saw for balance was a series of people posting about the times they accidentally outshone the party. These were people who honestly wanted and tried to be team players to the best of their abilities, and ended up still making the other players feel unnecessary, without trying to.
These are not people whining about their under-powered fighters. These are people who want to play powerful, cool-flavoured classes without winning the game automatically.

I would say that a desire for balance is... well, a completely valid desire.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 01:16 AM
*sigh*

Clerics make better toe to toe fighters than fighters. They do EVERYTHING a fighter does, only they do it in addition to other things. You are always, ALWAYS better off with 2 clerics than with 1 cleric and 1 fighter, let alone 2 fighters.

That's it, end of story.
Unless one out of every two fights take place in a giant Antimagic Field.
Which, to hear some people talk, you'd think they do.

PinkysBrain
2007-02-07, 01:18 AM
Wasn't my intention for one of these to form
That's either a bold faced lie or very funny.

Anyway, I'd settle for classes being approximately balanced.

BCOVertigo
2007-02-07, 01:19 AM
I've never had a problem with "balance" and the fighter, in this or any other edition. As far as I'm concerned the fighter class IS balanced, even if the powergamers out there don't want to admit it.

I'd like to admit it, it's just not true. My beguiler a few sessions back took down three huge sized sharks with mirror image, touch of idiocy and stay the hand. This was while the ENTIRE rest of the party struggled to take down one.


Filling the fighter's or barbarian's role is simple. Give him the highest CON you can and keep adding to it. It doesn't matter if the party fighter can do more damage than the wizard, or even if he can hit things as well as the cleric ... though I'll point out that, barring spells that can only be cast a limited number of times per day and are usually better spent on the fighter than on buffing the cleric, the fighter or barbarian can beat the cleric. Or the druid. At every level. BAB alone does that.

There are a few cleric buffs that everyone agrees are the best. The issue is that they are Range: Personal. And as for your Bab arguement, one of those spells gives the cleric full bab. All of this has been said before so I'll stop here, but the main issue with the concept of 'codzilla' is that they can fight almost as good as the fighter (without buffing) and are full casters. Even if they get less swings and less accuracy, they can follow it with a flamestrike and heal up afterwards.


Here's the thing. The fighter's role is: damage sponge. NOT damage dealer. In many cases (even at higher levels) both classes can deal damage, but their essential function is to keep the enemy (especially non-spellcasting opponents) away from the spellcasters so they can do their job ... namely casting spells to control the battlefield for the fighters, damage many opponents at once ... or kill one or two immediately.

I really don't think the fighter's role is damage sponge. What abilities aside from their armor proficiency and d10 help them to that end? Barbarians have a d12 and the ability to rage, as well as armor that is nearly as good, and paladins can cast some minor spells, use the same armor, the same HD and even lay on hands when the situation calls for it. I think the fighter(whose only class feature is the bonus feat) is better utilized as a combat specialist, like a tripper or disarmer or sunderer or even karmic strike AoO tactics. The fact is that they can't stand toe to toe with the enemies at higher levels. Example, the most iconic enemy in both fantasy literature and the game: a firebreathing red dragon. What can a fighter do to it? It's AC is very high, but his full bab helps with that, unless it's flying, or eats him, or uses any of its spells to neutralize him, or any other number of tactics. The problem is that the fighter can't really do his job, even if it is to soak damage like you say. That's why we're all lamenting it's weakness. Because we want to play the iconic dragon slaying knight but CAN'T. I can't play that character as a strictly melee class because warriors in this game CAN'T KILL DRAGONS.


And both fighters and barbarians excel at it. Both have good Fort saves (the save most important against the save-or-die spells everybody loves to whine about) and the best hit points in the game. When a cleric or druid is still being wiped out by a Power Word: Blind, Stun or Kill, the fighter or (especially) barbarian is laughing it off. By the time they get to upper levels damage-dealing spells like Fireball or Cone of Cold are jokes to them, whether they make their saves or not. The same is not true of a wizard, sorcerer, cleric or druid.

Frankly the whining about "underpowered fighters" is very amusing to me. Every time somebody writes about it, what I see is, "Waaaaahhhh! At the highest levels my fighter has to perform the same support functions the cleric and wizard had to perform at the lowest levels!! Waaaahhhhhh!!!"

There is no situation I can think of where I'd rather have a fighter on hand than a cleric or druid. So what if your fighter can survive a fireball, or even two? The cleric can throw up a single spell and go bathe in lava nude. And as for saves, go look at the cleric. It has good will AND fort, as does the druid. Even the barbarian gets a +2 to will from his class features, the fighter has one good save and nothing else. He isn't even especially good at fort saves like the rogue is at reflex(evasion).


Grow up, people. The fact that your 20th-level fighter can't necessarily kick the crap out of your friend's 20th-level wizard doesn't mean he's any less needed than the fact that your first-level fighter COULD kick the crap out of your friend's first-level wizard.

I couldn't care less. I want to be able to play a non-magical warrior and FIGHT things. Not a rage driven barbarian, a soldier. Or an imperial guard, or any other number of characters that another melee class just feels wrong for. Our issue has nothing to do with some stupid interparty rivalry, frankly I don't think the fighter SHOULD be able to take down an enemy who can bend reality to his will. All I want is to play a fighter who can do his job better than anyone else and add something to the group. Which he can't do, and so we all try to fix him.

Edit: Wow, eveything I said was covered in a flurry of smaller posts.

And as for your comment Bears....damnit? Well whatever, I still did a better job at tanking than the fighter....

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 01:22 AM
You know Touch of Idiocy can't drop mental stats below 1, right?

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 01:34 AM
I--I don't think you understand how D&D works.


The fighter class is balanced... in your dreams. Show me a fighter that can get to a balor and keep it in place in order to fight it, instead of being made a gibbering idiot by its Insanity ability, or just ignored. Go on.

This is the single worst idea I've heard in the thread. Seriously, how on earth will this help? "Oh no, it's a side of beef! Let me just dominate it/walk around it/fly over it/ignore it because I don't have to attack it for any reason, I'll just attack the enemies that are actual threats."
<snip awesome>

Thank you BWL. That's the most coherent explanation of exactly what the problem is I've seen in a /long/ time.

Talya
2007-02-07, 01:34 AM
Too many people approach balance from a setting of a fully rested party, everyone has all their resources available to them and is completely prepared.

A properly prepared wizard is godly, and rightly so, nobody should be able to compare. Ever. (And I hate the idea of playing the wizard class and have never played it.) But there's a caveat already implied in this statement:

Properly prepared wizards are rare.

A good DM will have your party spend 90% of their gaming time getting down to the bare minimum, unable to rest, unable to regain those lost spells, sucking down expensive scrolls and wands and potions. If the wizard doesn't ration themselves, they'll be utterly useless when they're really needed...the fighter has something the wizard doesn't: If he's got hit points, he's ready to go. The wizard has a very very low number of spells per day, and no other usefulness beyond those spells. And in a good campaign, when the going gets rough, that one day is gonna become three or four without a suitable night's sleep. Most fights the wizard will either be useless because they don't want to waste their abilities, or because they've already depleted them.

Dervag
2007-02-07, 01:37 AM
How about a "stay with your enemy" feat chain? Something that lets you keep using full attacks against a backpedaling opponent, and which culminates in feats that let you grapple a flier and keep attacking him in the air, or something like that?

That would help solve the fighter's mobility problems.

How about giving him good Reflex saves? It isn't particularly in character for fighters to have exceptional Will saves, but Reflex saves kind of make sense for them because they're spending so much time training in tactics. In a world with direct damage and rays being thrown around, one 'tactic' you'd train in would be the ability to evade or reduce the effects of magical attacks.

Might those two suggestions help?

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 01:41 AM
Fighters having WIll saves would be very in character. The key word here is "discipline".

For what I think would help, see my fighter dix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692). A couple of Tome of Battle things I should have ripped off but didn't include an immediate-action maneuver that lets you follow an enemy who moves away from you, and another that lets you step into the space they just stepped out of (i.e. if they 5' step back to avoid AoOs). I couldn't include real mobility, because flying would completely go against the flavor, but I added a few things in.

The_Pope
2007-02-07, 01:41 AM
That's either a bold faced lie or very funny.

Hah, you're telling me. I ask why people always seem to want to balance all the classes, and suddenly its about how fighters are bad and always will be bad. Perhaps I should not have used them in my example. Then again, had I used like, monks, the thing would have probably changed to how monks are bad and always will be bad.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 01:43 AM
Hah, you're telling me. I ask why people always seem to want to balance all the classes, and suddenly its about how fighters are bad and always will be bad. Perhaps I should not have used them in my example. Then again, had I used like, monks, the thing would have probably changed to how monks are bad and always will be bad.
That's because people are insisting that fighters aren't bad.

The point remains: you fail, because "just don't play a fighter if you don't want to suck" is a crappy answer to people who want to play fighters without sucking (which is a lot of people).

Talya
2007-02-07, 01:50 AM
Fighter saves are an issue, I agree. However, I wonder out of all the huge number of feats fighters get, how many fighters take Iron Will or Lightning Reflexes? Not that those are enough to give them powerful will or reflex saves, mind you...

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 01:52 AM
Think less "Iron Will" and more "Endurance, Steadfast Determination, plus whatever that other PHB II Will-saving feat is, then Iron Will".

daggaz
2007-02-07, 01:52 AM
Hmmm.. I like the idea of making spells full round actions. (and scaling most fighter feats, thats a no-brainer)

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 01:57 AM
1-3 spells should be standard, 3-6 could be full-round, 6-9 could be 1-round actions (i.e. they don't finish until the start of your next turn).

The_Pope
2007-02-07, 02:03 AM
That's because people are insisting that fighters aren't bad.

The point remains: you fail, because "just don't play a fighter if you don't want to suck" is a crappy answer to people who want to play fighters without sucking (which is a lot of people).

But the thing is, playing a fighter, despite its combat weaknesses, doesn't mean it can't be fun to play. Bards aren't useful in combat, but I love them. Combat isn't the biggest part of D&D, despite it being a rather big part. I can think of a few good archetypes that'd be a lot of fun to roleplay. Exploit their weakness, have them have grudges against wizards for being too good. A dislike of snooty druids and their natural crap. Maximize Intimidate ranks and just be good at being scary. Doesn't do much good in combat, but it could stop it from happening, and can be used to boss all the commoners around. So what if you can't hit anything? Sit back, read a book, brew some tea, and watch the wizard and cleric beat things up and then pat him on the back respectfully.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 02:05 AM
But combat IS a big part of D&D (and the only part of it that the fighter is REMOTELY good at) and feeling useless during it isn't fun for a lot of people. What you describe isn't fun D&D for a lot of people. If someone wants to roleplay a weak/useless character, they always have that option--the Fighter class (note how it is not named, say, 'Commoner', or 'Useless Guy With Pointy Metal Stick') shouldn't force it on them.

LotharBot
2007-02-07, 02:06 AM
I ask why people always seem to want to balance all the classes....

I hope we've answered satisfactorily:

We want to balance the classes because we want all of our players to be able to contribute for the whole length of the game so they can enjoy themselves, whether they chose to focus on spells, swords, stealth, or something else, and whether they've been playing long enough to utterly tweak their character or not. The different classes don't need to have completely identical characteristics or capability, but they all need to be able to contribute *something* throughout the game as long as they make basic, sensible choices.

As it currently stands, certain classes reach the point where they don't contribute much of anything because they're unable to acquire legitimately good high-level abilities (combat or not) without excessive amounts of tweaking. Fighters and Barbarians are chief among these. You don't seem to view that as a problem -- "play something else" is your response -- but that doesn't make the game very fun at high levels for people who want to play a "smash it with a big axe" type character.

EDITED TO ADD:
Seriously? Your response is "it's OK for fighters to suck in combat and just role-play"? It's OK for a character to suck in-game if the person who chose it WANTS it to suck and wants to role-play that, but I'm pretty sure most people don't sign up for that when they choose to be a fighter. Most people who choose a fighter or barbarian want their characters to be good at smashing stuff with big swords or axes or clubs. It just plain IS NOT FUN when you're trying to play a character like that and the game leaves you behind.

The_Pope
2007-02-07, 02:27 AM
Seriously? Your response is "it's OK for fighters to suck in combat and just role-play"? It's OK for a character to suck in-game if the person who chose it WANTS it to suck and wants to role-play that, but I'm pretty sure most people don't sign up for that when they choose to be a fighter. Most people who choose a fighter or barbarian want their characters to be good at smashing stuff with big swords or axes or clubs. It just plain IS NOT FUN when you're trying to play a character like that and the game leaves you behind.

Because I personally like roleplaying. I frankly don't care about what class can kick the most people in the posterior. Just because thats how I'd play a fighter doesn't mean thats the only way to play a fighter. God forbid I have my own likings that differ from other people. How horrid I am. And seriously, if you want to play a character that smacks things with a weapon and be good in combat, play a duskblade or a warblade.

But you know what, I don't care about the dang fighter. I don't care if it sucks. I don't play them. I don't want to play them. If someone wants to play them, they can go right ahead.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 02:40 AM
Cut the martyred act. Nobody's going off on you because you like something. We're irritated because you told us to shut up and play a certain way. You started a thread specifically to tell people arguing about class balance that they're all wrong and need to just shut up and not play fighters if they think they're weak.
I think that opinion's been thoroughly debunked now--which means your next step is to acknowledge that, not to pretend we're trying to make you play our way. Seriously, where the hell did that come from?

P.S. If you like character-driven roleplay you might want a system that actively supports it, rather than generally interfering.

grinner666
2007-02-07, 02:47 AM
I--I don't think you understand how D&D works.

Oh really? I think you're just responding with your prejudices. AGAIN. Have you ever played a high-level fighter, or are you just whining because you don't know how to work and play well with others? Frankly I've probably been playing D&D longer than you've been alive.


The fighter class is balanced... in your dreams. Show me a fighter that can get to a balor and keep it in place in order to fight it, instead of being made a gibbering idiot by its Insanity ability, or just ignored. Go on.Riiiiiiiiggghhhhhttt. Because the party clerics and wizards are going to cast Magic Weapon at 20th level, or Sleep, or Magic Missile, rather than protect the people protecting them with a spell as simple as Protection from Freakin' Evil. Again, get it through your head: D&D is a COOPERATIVE game. Without teamwork, the team is toast. Deal with it.


This is the single worst idea I've heard in the thread. Seriously, how on earth will this help? "Oh no, it's a side of beef! Let me just dominate it/walk around it/fly over it/ignore it because I don't have to attack it for any reason, I'll just attack the enemies that are actual threats."Hmmm ... so the wizard who doesn't want to cast THIRD-LEVEL damage spells at 20th level (after all, as you've mentioned before and mention later in this post, damage spells are the least effective spells the wizard has) isn't going to have a Fly spell to spare for his bodyguard the fighter? Or a second-level spell to let him see invisible opponents? To quote the Erfworld thread, Boop on that. Again, hit points and the ability to shrug off damage are a fighter's strengths ... in a party that works together. But apparently you've never dealt with a party that did so.


The fighter does more damage than the wizard. It doesn't help him. Damage-dealing wizards are the weakest kind of wizards.
Spells can be cast a limited number of times per day... but MORE than enough to get the cleric through four or five encounters, especially since they won't all be difficult encounters. And especially since the cleric has many spell slots of other levels to do other things with.
Meanwhile, all the Druid needs is Wild Shape (but he has an animal companion, too, and can Shapechange at higher levels just because).*yawns* You apparently missed or ignored the part where I said that DEALING damage is NOT the fighter's strong point. Did you fail to see it, or just ignore it because I disagree with your prejudices?


Also, HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT WILD SHAPE, DIVINE POWER, DIVINE FAVOR, RIGHTEOUS MIGHT, SHAPECHANGE, AND SO ON ARE PERSONAL ONLY SPELLS? What can clerics and druids cast on the fighter that is better than those spells? Or even remotely as good? Bless? Aid? C'mon, get serious, here.Actually you've never mentioned ANY of these before in any thread I've been a part of, so kindly quit being so freakin' self-righteous. But in response, yes THOSE spells ARE self-only. But what about ... let's see here ... JUST from the PH ... and please forgive me if I don't include Mass and Greater versions ...

Aid, Align Weapon, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cloak of Chaos, the various Cure Wounds spells, Darkvision, Daylight, Delay Poison, Displacement, Eagle's Splendor, Enlarge Person, Etherealness, Faerie Fire, Feather Fall, Flame Arrow, Fly, Fox's Cunning, Freedom, Freedom of Movement, Gaseous Form, Globe of Invulnerability, Goodberry, Guidance, Haste, Heal, Hide from Undead, Hide from Animals, Holy Aura, Imbue With Spell Ability, Invisibility (and I WILL include the Greater and Mass versions here ...), Jump, Knock, Leomund's Secure Shelter, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Levitate, Limited Wish, Mage Armor, Mage Hand, the various Magic Circles, Magic Vestment, Magic Weapon, Mending (*yawns*), Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion ... Neutralize Poison ... the list goes on and on. And on. Why don't YOU get serious here? There's a bazillion spells that would serve a party better placed on a fighter than on a cleric, wizard or druid in an attempt to make him the fighter's equal.


Okay.
Now, please explain how the fighter manages to do this. Why does the wizard care what the fighter's doing? He can teleport, is invisible and flying, and has a contingency to keep him safe; that's ignoring the wall and battlefield control spells that keep the enemy from getting to him. (The Cleric and Druid WANT the enemy to get to them, so they can stomp it.)
Meanwhile, the fighter does... what, exactly? How does he get to the Balor or dragon? How does he make the Balor or dragon attack him instead of someone else? He has no way of doing so. Yes, battlefield control fighters are the best fighters--Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, tripping, et cetera, but at high levels, it just stops working. Enemies move faster, teleport and/or fly fast, and generally can just ignore the fighter who can't even GET to them (and would get schooled if he traded full attacks with them anyway).Because, again, you're ignoring the power of cooperation. OR you're assuming that the party fighter is going to go one-on-one against the party wizard. Because after all, that's what old friends who've been together for years do. Right? Watch each other get their asses kicked, or kick each others' asses?




You're... you're kidding me.
Good fort saves? No more so than clerics or druids, who also have good fort saves. Meanwhile, fighters have weak will saves (which JUST AS MANY save-or-lose spells target; hello Fear, Confusion, Insanity, Dominate, et cetera). The Cleric and Druid can heal themselves; the wizard just can't be hurt without tons of effort spent stripping away his defenses. Power Word? C'mon, the spellcasters have spells to deal with this. How about Death Ward and Mind Blank, to start with? Spell Turning? And they're only 1 HP/level behind the fighter, to boot (0, for the cleric with Divine Power up).
The fighter is far more vulnerable than any spellcaster. They have NO defenses besides their fort save and gear.
When the DM says "make a will save", the fighter says "oh, crap". The high-WIS cleric and druid shrug. The wizard shrugs, because he's over there, invisible and in the air, and if he was targeted, his spells would deal with it (i.e. Spell Turning). It is far easier to disable a Fighter than it is to disable any spellcaster.Ooooohhh, noooooo!!! Fear, Confusion, Dominate Person ... those are, what, fifth-level spells? Oooohhhh, I'm scared. Oh, except ... that's what the different saving throws are THERE FOR.

There are no high-level Con/Ref-save spells FOR A REASON. And that reason is specifically so fighters (and rogues) will remain a challenge into the highest levels. Oh, no!! There's a fifth-level spell that will disable my fighter if he fails his save!!! Guess what? Even with a crappy-normal save he'll still beat it a third of the time at twentieth level!! Or were we discussing lower levels again? Last I heard that wasn't the case ...



[Frankly the whining about "underpowered fighters" is very amusing to me. Every time somebody writes about it, what I see is, "Waaaaahhhh! At the highest levels my fighter has to perform the same support functions the cleric and wizard had to perform at the lowest levels!! Waaaahhhhhh!!!"Quit making things up. While you're at it, quit writing in a patronizing, insulting tone. The fighter is incapable of performing that role at high levels.I will continue writing in a patronizing, insulting tone for as long as you continue to be patronizing and insulting, thank you very much.

The_Pope
2007-02-07, 02:53 AM
We're irritated because you told us to shut up and play a certain way. You started a thread specifically to tell people arguing about class balance that they're all wrong and need to just shut up and not play fighters if they think they're weak.

Since when did I say that? You're putting words in my mouth there. You can play whatever way you want, I'm some schmo on the internet. The whole point of the post was because I wondered why the heck these conversations start. My tone was sarcastic, but I wasn't telling any of you your opinions are bad ones, or you all have to do what I say. Because all that happens with these class disputes is people get upset at each other and trade violent words. My whole point was, if you're going to complain and complain and complain about something, why do you keep playing it? Its like saying "I don't like chocolate ice cream, but I'm going to keep eating it anyway. Maybe if I add more raspberry jam, I'll start liking it." But if thats what you want to do, go ahead.

grinner666
2007-02-07, 02:58 AM
Since when did I say that? You're putting words in my mouth there. You can play whatever way you want, I'm some schmo on the internet. The whole point of the post was because I wondered why the heck these conversations start. My tone was sarcastic, but I wasn't telling any of you your opinions are bad ones, or you all have to do what I say. Because all that happens with these class disputes is people get upset at each other and trade violent words. My whole point was, if you're going to complain and complain and complain about something, why do you keep playing it? Its like saying "I don't like chocolate ice cream, but I'm going to keep eating it anyway. Maybe if I add more raspberry jam, I'll start liking it." But if thats what you want to do, go ahead.

*giggles* Thank you. But I'm going to keep disagreeing with BWL on this one just because he annoys me. :tongue:

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 02:58 AM
...your words were "Shut up" and "DON'T PLAY THE FIGHTER". Telling us what to do and that our opinions are bad was EXACTLY what you were doing. Quit pretending otherwise.

Nobody, to date, has posted an argument that goes "I hate playing high-level fighters, but I keep doing it". Get off your high horse.

Kantolin
2007-02-07, 02:59 AM
Um... well, among other things, let me crop this list (and not make it bold for the sake of my eyes)

Daylight, Faerie Fire, Feather Fall, Goodberry, Knock, Leomund's Secure Shelter, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Mage Hand, Mending, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion

I can't imagine any of those even particularly helping the fighter. O-o Definitely not in most cases. Definitely not in combat, which is where all of the fighter's relevant abilities come from.

Not to mention the actual comment was:


What can clerics and druids cast on the fighter that is better than those spells? Or even remotely as good?

Emphasis mine, where 'Those spells' referred to Righteous Might, Divine Power, or a couple others. Or wild shape which isn't a spell but also can't be given to the fighter.

Oh well. Many more points were made, but I sense Bears with Lasers can rebuttal them himself.

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 03:13 AM
Logic, <thou incestuous knave>, do you speak it?

Oh really? I think you're just responding with your prejudices. AGAIN. Have you ever played a high-level fighter, or are you just whining because you don't know how to work and play well with others? Frankly I've probably been playing D&D longer than you've been alive.

To start with, I don't particularly care how long you've been an idiot, it doesn't make you any less dumb. And yes, I've played a high level fighter (16). Guess what? It went down just about exactly as BWL said.


Riiiiiiiiggghhhhhttt. Because the party clerics and wizards are going to cast Magic Weapon at 20th level, or Sleep, or Magic Missile, rather than protect the people protecting them with a spell as simple as Protection from Freakin' Evil. Again, get it through your head: D&D is a COOPERATIVE game. Without teamwork, the team is toast. Deal with it.
What the hell are you talking about? If you're referring to the Insanity SLA, PfE doesn't block that. Read the spell.


Hmmm ... so the wizard who doesn't want to cast THIRD-LEVEL damage spells at 20th level (after all, as you've mentioned before and mention later in this post, damage spells are the least effective spells the wizard has) isn't going to have a Fly spell to spare for his bodyguard the fighter? Or a second-level spell to let him see invisible opponents? To quote the Erfworld thread, Boop on that. Again, hit points and the ability to shrug off damage are a fighter's strengths ... in a party that works together. But apparently you've never dealt with a party that did so.
His "bodyguard"? What exactly is the fighter going to guard, the wizard's rock collection? OK, let's give him a Fly. Congratulations, you can get to the bad guy. Assuming he can't fly faster. Assuming he doesn't teleport. Assuming you can see him. Assuming he doesn't kite you. Now what do you do? You still can't actually make him CARE. You can give the fighter half a million HP--the balor will look, pat him on the head, then go on to violate the rest of the party while Roy the Fighter looks on helplessly, then use a save-or-die effect to ignore those HP. (Actually, a balor's probably sufficiently evil to enjoy just clawing him apart, very, very slowly.) Even if you can get to the Balor, he /doesn't care/.



*yawns* You apparently missed or ignored the part where I said that DEALING damage is NOT the fighter's strong point. Did you fail to see it, or just ignore it because I disagree with your prejudices?
No, he ignored you because you're completely, totally, utterly wrong. Having HP or being able to soak damage isn't a strength worth having. As explained to you in great detail, you'll either be spellkilled or ignored. The only thing that matters is being able to hurt the enemy--or at least disrupt him so he can't act as he chooses. What can the fighter do towards that goal? Sorry, that's right, nothing.




Actually you've never mentioned ANY of these before in any thread I've been a part of, so kindly quit being so freakin' self-righteous. But in response, yes THOSE spells ARE self-only. But what about ... let's see here ... JUST from the PH ... and please forgive me if I don't include Mass and Greater versions ...

Aid, Align Weapon, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cloak of Chaos, the various Cure Wounds spells, Darkvision, Daylight, Delay Poison, Displacement, Eagle's Splendor, Enlarge Person, Etherealness, Faerie Fire, Feather Fall, Flame Arrow, Fly, Fox's Cunning, Freedom, Freedom of Movement, Gaseous Form, Globe of Invulnerability, Goodberry, Guidance, Haste, Heal, Hide from Undead, Hide from Animals, Holy Aura, Imbue With Spell Ability, Invisibility (and I WILL include the Greater and Mass versions here ...), Jump, Knock, Leomund's Secure Shelter, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Levitate, Limited Wish, Mage Armor, Mage Hand, the various Magic Circles, Magic Vestment, Magic Weapon, Mending (*yawns*), Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion ... Neutralize Poison ... the list goes on and on. And on. Why don't YOU get serious here? There's a bazillion spells that would serve a party better placed on a fighter than on a cleric, wizard or druid in an attempt to make him the fighter's equal.
...Yes. How did I miss that? Mage Hand is going to make the fighter like unto a god in combat prowess. And Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion is so utterly devestating and able to make that fighter stop the Balor from acting as he pleases it's worth mentioning twice.

Don't quote the frakking core spell list at me in it's entirety. Get back to me when you name some spells--specific ones--the casters can use to make the fighter decent. That's the easy part. I dare you to find one that wouldn't be even better just used on the caster himself.


Because, again, you're ignoring the power of cooperation. OR you're assuming that the party fighter is going to go one-on-one against the party wizard. Because after all, that's what old friends who've been together for years do. Right? Watch each other get their asses kicked, or kick each others' asses?
What does this even mean?



Ooooohhh, noooooo!!! Fear, Confusion, Dominate Person ... those are, what, fifth-level spells? Oooohhhh, I'm scared. Oh, except ... that's what the different saving throws are THERE FOR.

There are no high-level Con/Ref-save spells FOR A REASON. And that reason is specifically so fighters (and rogues) will remain a challenge into the highest levels. Oh, no!! There's a fifth-level spell that will disable my fighter if he fails his save!!! Guess what? Even with a crappy-normal save he'll still beat it a third of the time at twentieth level!! Or were we discussing lower levels again? Last I heard that wasn't the case ...
You're an idiot. Dominate Monster, Mass Hold Monster, Imprisonment. That's just the 9th level will save or dies from Core alone. I leave the other billion spells without saves/7-8th level/from splats to the reader.


I will continue writing in a patronizing, insulting tone for as long as you continue to be patronizing and insulting, thank you very much.
...

The_Pope
2007-02-07, 03:13 AM
...your words were "Shut up" and "DON'T PLAY THE FIGHTER". Telling us what to do and that our opinions are bad was EXACTLY what you were doing.

Really? Why didn't you tell me you were a seer? Man, I've been dying to know what people were thinking for such a long time. That must be some kind of power you have there.

The shut up was sarcastic. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell people this. As for telling people to not play the fighter, if you can recall previous arguments even you have been in, one of the main points was "Cleric are better than fighters in every way so fighters are obsolete." So, in that case, if you believe that, why do you play the fighter? When you can just have your idealized cleric, why do you waste your time? Save yourself all that work, and just play a cleric. Or you can continue taking your giant blunt object and beating everyone on this forum who likes the fighter in the head until they no longer want play them anymore.

Edit: Oh, and by the way "Save yourself all that work, and just play a cleric." was a suggestion. Ooooh.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 03:31 AM
Oh really? I think you're just responding with your prejudices. AGAIN. Have you ever played a high-level fighter, or are you just whining because you don't know how to work and play well with others? Frankly I've probably been playing D&D longer than you've been alive.
And yet, you somehow can't seem to get things right. Of course I've played high-level fighters. Rarely Fighter 20, but more effective builds. I'm not whining, here, I'm trying to explain to you how things work--and noticing that you've failed to answer any of my questions. You keep telling me about my prejudices--please, understand that I don't WANT spellcasters to be vastly superior at high levels, or fighters to be useless. I've just come to accept that that's the way it is. In all of these threads, no one has yet explained exactly what it is a fighter does in an encounter with a balor that makes the fighter able to contribute significantly.


Riiiiiiiiggghhhhhttt. Because the party clerics and wizards are going to cast Magic Weapon at 20th level, or Sleep, or Magic Missile, rather than protect the people protecting them with a spell as simple as Protection from Freakin' Evil. Again, get it through your head: D&D is a COOPERATIVE game. Without teamwork, the team is toast. Deal with it.Protection from Evil is minutes/level. Do you really think the best use of the wizard's standard action against a scary monster is casting it?
Protection from Evil also suppresses charms and compulsions that let the caster exercise ongoing control. That takes care of Charm and Dominate, sure, but not the dozen other spells and monster abilities.


Hmmm ... so the wizard who doesn't want to cast THIRD-LEVEL damage spells at 20th level (after all, as you've mentioned before and mention later in this post, damage spells are the least effective spells the wizard has) isn't going to have a Fly spell to spare for his bodyguard the fighter? Or a second-level spell to let him see invisible opponents? To quote the Erfworld thread, Boop on that. Again, hit points and the ability to shrug off damage are a fighter's strengths ... in a party that works together. But apparently you've never dealt with a party that did so.See above re: standard action. That's two of'em now. The wizard just spent two rounds making the fighter sort-of-kind-of-useful. Those are two rounds in which he could have killed the enemy.
See Invisibility is PERSONAL. True Seeing is touch range, but expensive.
And, oh, yeah--fly gives the fighter a 60' fly speed. How does this let him get to balors (faster fly speed, greater teleport at will) or dragons again?


*yawns* You apparently missed or ignored the part where I said that DEALING damage is NOT the fighter's strong point. Did you fail to see it, or just ignore it because I disagree with your prejudices?But you're wrong--dealing damage IS one of the fighter's strong points. That is, he's better at it than he is at pretty much anything else he can try.


Actually you've never mentioned ANY of these before in any thread I've been a part of, so kindly quit being so freakin' self-righteous. But in response, yes THOSE spells ARE self-only. But what about ... let's see here ... JUST from the PH ... and please forgive me if I don't include Mass and Greater versions ...That gets mentioned in every thread on the topic, because SOMEONE invariably says "buff the fighter!"

Aid, Align Weapon, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cloak of Chaos--these are either overridden by gear, or give such minor bonuses (Aid--+1? WOOOOO) so as to be not worth the standard action.
The various Cure Wounds spells--yeah, after combat. Darkvision, Daylight, Delay Poison, Displacement, Eagle's Splendor, Enlarge Person, Etherealness, Faerie Fire, Feather Fall, Flame Arrow, Fly, Fox's Cunning--Enlarge Person, Fly, and Displacement are the only ones there that can help in combat... against monsters without True Seeing, which balors have. Enlarge Person barely helps at high levels; it's a good low-level buff. Fly--see above. Even if it's worth the action, Fly offers a 60' fly speed. This doesn't let the fighter close to melee against a high-level enemy that doesn't want to let him, with the exception of a very few.
Freedom--read the spell description. The fighter might need this one... after the fight. Freedom of Movement--yeah, that's a good one, but hopefully the fighter has a Ring of it like everyone else. Gaseous Form, Globe of Invulnerability, Goodberry, Guidance--Globe is personal only, Gaseous form, again, DOESN'T HELP THE FIGHTER, Goodberry and Guidance--are you kidding me?
Haste--covered by weapon or boots of speed, Heal--useful... after the fight, Hide from Undead, Hide from Animals--are you kidding me? Did you READ the list you made?, Holy Aura--covered by gear, Imbue With Spell Ability--useless, Invisibility (and I WILL include the Greater and Mass versions here ...)--doesn't help, Jump, Knock, Leomund's Secure Shelter, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Levitate, Limited Wish, Mage Armor, Mage Hand--Yeah, Limited Wish, that burns XP. Real smart. Jump? Knock? Secure shelter? HOW DO ANY OF THESE HELP?
The various Magic Circles--see above re: Protection from Evil, although this is a good one to extend, Magic Vestment, Magic Weapon--the fighter DOES get these, in the morning, and they don't help him with the problems I listed,

Mending (*yawns*), Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion ... Neutralize Poison ... the list goes on and on. And on. Why don't YOU get serious here? Because in that list of spells you made, 90% had nothing to do with combat, and maybe one or two actually helped the fighter at all.


There's a bazillion spells that would serve a party better placed on a fighter than on a cleric, wizard or druid in an attempt to make him the fighter's equal.Oh, yeah? Name them. Magnificent Mansion is NOT one of them. What spells can be put on the fighter that will let him deal with the issues outlined (hint: Mind Blank is a big one, but that denies him, say, the bonuses from Greater Heroism). The list is tiny, and includes none of the best buffs in the game. Seriously, compare Imbue With Spell Ability to Divine Power.

If the cleric buffs up and melees, he's not only meleeing better than the fighter, but he's a lot less vulnerable. He's much harder to disable. He's doing the party more good. The druid has got all of one or two spells on his list that can help the fighter at all.

Finally, this help takes standard actions. Let's say a wizard and cleric both spend a couple of rounds, and at the end the fighter has Fly, Freedom of Movement, Greater Heroism, Death Ward, Enlarge Person, Magic Circle Against Evil, and, hell! Greater Invisibility and True Seeing as well.
What does the fighter do? How does he catch the Greater Teleporting, faster-flying balor or 200-ft-fly-speed, Flyby-Attack-having dragon? How does he force the balor to attack him if he does?
And what has the balor or dragon been doing during this time? The MM can answer that one: throwing a DC 27 Implosion out, which has a great chance of killing the rogue (the wizard has his own defenses--or would have, if he hadn't wasted time casting Fly on the fighter), Quickened Telekinesis, and then hitting the fighter with a DC 25 Insanity. Then he teleports Way The Hell Over There, summons some more demons, and comes by for a strafing run.

Do you really think that that's the most efficient thing the wizard and cleric can do? Instead of, say, casting Dimensional Anchor, then hitting the Balor with empowered Enervation followed by a will-save spell?

Do you really think that a fighter with those spells up can fight better than a Divine Power/Righteous Might/Divine Favor cleric, or that he's harder to disable?


Because, again, you're ignoring the power of cooperation. OR you're assuming that the party fighter is going to go one-on-one against the party wizard. Because after all, that's what old friends who've been together for years do. Right? Watch each other get their asses kicked, or kick each others' asses?How am I assuming that the fighter is going to fight the wizard when I ask you how the fighter can help against monsters?
You have yet to answer me: how does having a bunch of HP help the party? How can the fighter "tank" if the monster or NPC ignores him and goes after the more dangerous targets, i.e. wizard, cleric, etc?
Assume the cleric and wizard DO buff the fighter, as I showed above. Now: HOW DOES THE FIGHTER HELP? How does he 1) get to the balor or dragon, 2) keep him there, 3) hold his own against the resulting full attacks and/or SLAs?
Until you can answer those things (I can answer them for the spellcasters; an example was above), you're talking empty insults.



Ooooohhh, noooooo!!! Fear, Confusion, Dominate Person ... those are, what, fifth-level spells? Oooohhhh, I'm scared. Oh, except ... that's what the different saving throws are THERE FOR.

There are no high-level Will/Ref-save spells FOR A REASON. And that reason is specifically so fighters (and rogues) will remain a challenge into the highest levels. Oh, no!! There's a fifth-level spell that will disable my fighter if he fails his save!!! Guess what? Even with a crappy-normal save he'll still beat it a third of the time at twentieth level!! Or were we discussing lower levels again? Last I heard that wasn't the case ......so, you're saying is that the fighter is fine against will-save spells, because... he'll only fail two-thirds of the time? Brilliant.
Incidentally, Prismatic Sphere/Wall, Insanity, Dominate Monster, Binding, Repulsion, Insanity, and Plane Shift are all high-level Will-save spells that will kill the fighter or remove him from the fight. And that's just in core. And that's just spells, ignoring monster abilities like fear auras (DC 27 will save on the pit fiend, for example) and paralyzing touches and gazes and .
If you've been playing D&D so long, how come you think there aren't any high-level will-save spells? Or that making your will save one-third of the time somehow ISN'T "easy to disable"? How is the Druid better off Death Warding the fighter than charging and full-attacking the enemy thanks to, say, the Dire Tiger's Pounce ability and Air Walk? Or casting Animal Growth on his animal companion, which will then do the same? How are the Cleric and Wizard better off doing all that than the tactic I showed above?

You're basically suggesting that the spellcasters devote the first two rounds of combat, in order to make the fighter marginally less useless--two rounds in which they could end the combat entirely.
If that doesn't show the fighter is useless, what does?


I will continue writing in a patronizing, insulting tone for as long as you continue to be patronizing and insulting, thank you very much.I've been fairly civil considering your tone, actually. I've also given concrete examples. Meanwhile, you... gave a list of spells, 90% of which has no possible application to the issue, and the rest of which is either already covered by gear or doesn't actually HELP the fighter do what he needs to.


To sum up:
-Yes, there ARE high-level will-save spells. Imprisonment is one of the worst--9th level, a potential -4 penalty to the save, and there's no defensive spell that can protect you. You're out of the fight. There are also plenty of spells with NO save, from Irresistible Dance and Scintillating Pattern to Ray of Enfeeblement and Solid Fog.
--Therefore, your "will save doesn't matter because there are no high-level will save spells" argument is 100% wrong.
-No, making will saves one-third of the time DOES NOT mean that spells like Fear aren't a concern, because you lose two thirds of the time.
-There are also monster abilities with high-DC Will saves; I gave examples. The fighter with a poor will save will be screwed by them far more often than not.

-There are no spells that can help the fighter do what he needs to do more than marginally.
-The spells that do help him marginally are a waste of rounds that could be used much, much more effectively. The spellcasters are screwing their party over (note the Dead-Rogue-from-Implosion above) by buffing the fighter.

-You have yet to explain these things:
--HOW can the fighter tank? If he has high HP and poor offense (as you suggested a good fighter should), why won't the monsters ignore him, even if they can't get to him?
--How can the fighter get to and engage a balor or dragon, with or without being disabled, even with the best buffs he can possibly get?
--How is failing his will save vs. medium-level spells half the time NOT a huge weakness?
---Explain them in detail. What does the fighter do, each round? Try to factor the Balor's or Dragon's intelligent tactics into this.

Instead of calling people whiners, try actually thinking about these things and answering the questions.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 03:44 AM
Really? Why didn't you tell me you were a seer? Man, I've been dying to know what people were thinking for such a long time. That must be some kind of power you have there.
I don't know what you were thinking, I just know what you SAID.


The shut up was sarcastic. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell people this. Yeah, as evidenced by your repeating it, and your... um... sarcasm font...?


As for telling people to not play the fighter, if you can recall previous arguments even you have been in, one of the main points was "Cleric are better than fighters in every way so fighters are obsolete." So, in that case, if you believe that, why do you play the fighter? When you can just have your idealized cleric, why do you waste your time? Save yourself all that work, and just play a cleric. I don't play pure fighters anymore. I'd kind of like to do so without getting frustrated at the suck, though. You're saying "screw what you want and prefer, suck it up and play a cleric even when that's not what you'd rather do". Some of my favorite character concepts are fighter types, pure or otherwise; why is it okay that implementing them in mid-to-high level games is such a problem?
I like fighters. I'd like it if fighters could contribute at high levels. What's so wrong about that?


Or you can continue taking your giant blunt object and beating everyone on this forum who likes the fighter in the head until they no longer want play them anymore.Am I telling everyone to stop liking the fighter? No. if you're okay with sucking, go for it.
My problem is people who seem to think--aggressively at that, as witness grinner--that the fighter CAN contribute adequately at high levels.


Edit: Oh, and by the way "Save yourself all that work, and just play a cleric." was a suggestion. Ooooh.Really? And how does it differ in format from telling someone what to do? "Maybe you should..." or "I suggest..." would be suggestions.

Maybe if you don't like debate threads on the topic, you shouldn't read them. If you want there to be other threads on other topics, maybe you could start them.
Instead of, you know, telling people to shut up and deal with the fact that D&D doesn't really allow one of its more popular playstyles.

Marius
2007-02-07, 04:02 AM
Too many people approach balance from a setting of a fully rested party, everyone has all their resources available to them and is completely prepared.

A properly prepared wizard is godly, and rightly so, nobody should be able to compare. Ever. (And I hate the idea of playing the wizard class and have never played it.) But there's a caveat already implied in this statement:

Properly prepared wizards are rare.

A good DM will have your party spend 90% of their gaming time getting down to the bare minimum, unable to rest, unable to regain those lost spells, sucking down expensive scrolls and wands and potions. If the wizard doesn't ration themselves, they'll be utterly useless when they're really needed...the fighter has something the wizard doesn't: If he's got hit points, he's ready to go. The wizard has a very very low number of spells per day, and no other usefulness beyond those spells. And in a good campaign, when the going gets rough, that one day is gonna become three or four without a suitable night's sleep. Most fights the wizard will either be useless because they don't want to waste their abilities, or because they've already depleted them.

Because according to the DMG you party will face 4 appropriate CR encounters before resting. Wizards, clerics and druids (especially at high levels) can face the 4 making the fighter look useless. If you feel like "hey I could add 2 more encounters now that they don't have spells anymore". Then prepare to kill some players because without the casters your party is screwed. And you fighter won't have anyone to buff him or heal him witch means that suddenly he is even more useless and has a really good change of dying.
And in any case if you break the "4 encounters" rule that means that you agree with us. You think that the fighters sucks and that you need to push everyone else until they can actually matter somehow.
But sadly that won't even work at high levels.

The_Pope
2007-02-07, 04:16 AM
You know, I had a great retort about how only an idiot goes around with his vulnerable party members visible to monsters and not using their meat shield as the purely visible one for the monsters to see and attack, and how any wizard casting fly around flying creatures is stupid as all heck, as it makes them a giant target, invisibility or no, but do you know what?

I'm tired of this debate. Completely. Theres no reason for me to continue it. Its this nerd mentality where you have to bash your knowledge against the other guy's face that is just really really annoying. Its like those guys who have to flaunt their muscles and beat anyone up that challenges them. Its, well, boring. Its that typical alpha-male mentality that is just so bloody annoying. I have no desire whatsoever to keep going with this futile little "the thing in my pants is bigger than yours game." So you know what, go ahead. Bicker about your fighters and wizards and dragons and balors to your hearts content. Have fun.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 04:19 AM
Okay, so you've moved on from "shut up" to "you guys are annoying alpha-male nerds".

Boy, you sure are good at this social interaction thing.

And boy, you sure are superior to the rest of us because instead of participating in a debate, you start posts telling people to shut up. I bet you've never corrected someone you thought was wrong.
Woo WOO.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-07, 05:32 AM
The real long and short of why "people" want every class to be balanced is that what you like and what I like isn't going to be the same, and you're effectively punished just because you like characters that hit things with sticks.
Even if you like a variety of things, like I do, there are times when you just want to play a door-smashing sword-swinging melee smasher. Smashy smash smash. But you're all but useless, nothing but padding on the CR rating of what enemies you face, because you can't compete with the mages. Hell, you can't even contribute to the fights.
For no reason at all other than what you like, you're relegated to the backseat of the game, and while it's easily possible to play a useless-fun character (hell, my completely ineffectual rogue was the best character I ever played), it's rather hard to get the full experience unless you're slinging spells.
And even barring a "total balance" of all classes, the ability to even have a chance would be helpful--and I mean with full class features and everything. Who cares if it's unrealistic to be able to beat someone who can rewrite existence on a whim? We're talking about a game where killing things by any means directly leads to making you stronger.

Saph
2007-02-07, 05:34 AM
. . . Guys, isn't it possible that some people might not agree on the power levels of classes, and how balanced they are?

And isn't it also possible that this might be because of differing playing and GMing styles, rather than because one person is right/intelligent and one person's wrong/stupid?

The reason these arguments get nowhere is because you're comparing how things are in your game to how things are in someone else's game. There's no real basis for comparison, so it's always going to end up as "I find it's like this," "No, I find it's like this," "You're wrong," "No, you're wrong" - and there is no way to resolve it.

Does it really matter THAT much whether some other guy on an Internet forum believes that wizards are more powerful than fighters, or that fighters are more powerful than wizards? I mean, is the reality of the D&D universe going to implode if the other guy holds an opinion about game balance that you think is wrong?

- Saph

Cyborg Pirate
2007-02-07, 05:40 AM
. . . Guys, isn't it possible that some people might not agree on the power levels of classes, and how balanced they are?

And isn't it also possible that this might be because of differing playing and GMing styles, rather than because one person is right/intelligent and one person's wrong/stupid?

Um... as an outsider to the whole debate, I have to step in here and say that those arguing differently because they have a different playstyle are, basically, pointless. Whatever playstyle anyone has, we still have the RAW rules to compare. Personal preference or personal experience should mean very litte (actually, nothing at all) in a discussion about the rules...



Does it really matter THAT much whether some other guy on an Internet forum believes that wizards are more powerful than fighters, or that fighters are more powerful than wizards? I mean, is the reality of the D&D universe going to implode if the other guy holds an opinion about game balance that you think is wrong?

...what would the point of talking be in the first place if we're all going to ignore each other? Secondly, I might not care myself when someone goes around saying the world is flat, but I would care if impressionable people were to come in all the time and see someone spout misinformation uncontested.



[edit] And something I want to say, as an outsider just reading the thread for my personal amusement: The_Pope, your arguing... disgusts me. Please do something about yourself?

Saph
2007-02-07, 05:54 AM
I might not care myself when someone goes around saying the world is flat, but I would care if impressionable people were to come in all the time and see someone spout misinformation uncontested.

. . . so believing that the D&D classes are not imbalanced enough to spoil the game is, in your view, an offense on par with saying that the world is flat? And you think that 'impressionable people' need to be protected from these opinions?

Do you have any idea how much of a nerd this makes you sound? :P (Not meant as an insult, but good grief! Doesn't that at least make you laugh?)

- Saph

Roderick_BR
2007-02-07, 05:58 AM
Then like, take a prestige class. What I've been getting at is I don't understand why everyone wants to change the class. A fighter shouldn't become some super-powered god of force. He's good with his weapons. If you want to go past that, go with a multi-class or a prestige class.
No , he's not. That's the point. High level fighters get nothing at high level, that they wouldn't normally get at lower levels, ie, useless stuff.
Imagine playing a wizard that at 20th level, gains only additional 0th-5th level spells?
I agree the fighter shouldn't be changed. He just needs better high level feats.
And if I don't want to take a prestige class? Some, like the Weapon Master is just a specialization of the fighter, so it's good, but if I want a pure fighter? I need to sacrifice my personal enjoyment just to not be useless in the long run.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-02-07, 06:06 AM
. . . so believing that the D&D classes are not imbalanced enough to spoil the game is, in your view, an offense on par with saying that the world is flat? And you think that 'impressionable people' need to be protected from these opinions?

Do you have any idea how much of a nerd this makes you sound? :P (Not meant as an insult, but good grief! Doesn't that at least make you laugh?)

- Saph

...what, is saying that the world is flat an offensive thing? It has nothing to do with offence for me. I just strongly dislike stupid people and ignorant people, and anything that helps educate people is a big plus to me. People being able to see two sides of an argument get a chance to make up their own minds or check for each side's correctness. People who only get to see one side of an argument rarely have any incentive to check for themselves whether it's correct.


I can't say I had to laugh at what you had to laugh at, but I did have to laugh at your first sentence :smallbiggrin:

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 06:08 AM
Saph: not on par, but really, it's the same "what? No, that's wrong" urge that drives one to argue.

Saph
2007-02-07, 06:24 AM
Saph: not on par, but really, it's the same "what? No, that's wrong" urge that drives one to argue.

I suppose, but do you really want to continue these arguments forever? You should have noticed by now that there's an infinite supply of people who don't think that casters are overpowered.

- Saph

Wehrkind
2007-02-07, 06:26 AM
Ahem... Truth is it's own reward Saph. When two people disagree, one will be correct, and one will be incorrect (alternately, both might be less than correct). They both profit from the experience of discussing and logically debating the topic to find out which is correct, however. That's sort of the point of speaking with other people.




That's why we're all lamenting it's weakness. Because we want to play the iconic dragon slaying knight but CAN'T. I can't play that character as a strictly melee class because warriors in this game CAN'T KILL DRAGONS


That probably sums it up better than anything. One can not play the heroic warrior as we tend to imagine him in various mythic formats. The RAW does not lend itself to it.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 06:27 AM
But fewer with every several arguments. People who used to say that no longer do.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-02-07, 06:35 AM
I suppose, but do you really want to continue these arguments forever?

The end of the movie The Boondock Saints comes to mind:

"The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith to go as far as needed?"

(repeat with irish accent for full effect :P )

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-07, 06:58 AM
(repeat with irish accent for full effect :P )

A little off-topic, but you can say that about anything, regardless of whether it ever had an Irish accent beforehand.

Rigeld2
2007-02-07, 07:06 AM
I would love for every character to be able to contibute equally. In the parties I play in now, the only reason I can contibute with my Warlock, my Fighter, or my boomerang Master Thrower (tho shes a skillmonkey so has out of combat stuff to contribute, and to a lesser extent the Warlock) is because the people playing the Cleric and Arcane Heirophant (in all 3 games... O.o just realized that) a) wont take my advice on optimizing what they should do and b) are really built that well. Should my contribution be based on what another class is capable of doing, but isnt at the moment? I dont think so - but I manage to have fun anyway. Have I played Highly optimized casters? Yes. Have I enjoyed it? Yes. Did I render party members irrelevant? Yes. Should it be that way? No.

Stephen_E
2007-02-07, 08:27 AM
I have played a high level fighter, Orc (10 of 14 levels were Fighter + 1 Barbarian, 1 Exotic Weaponmaster, 2 Trobal Protector - prestige from 3.0 splat book) who made signifcant contributions in fights BUT the only regular who was a caster was a suboptimal Cleric/Arcane mix who liked damage dealing stuff. We mostly fought humanoids, and yes, the magic users generally got away. We did have a part-time Gnome illusionist who, despite been several levels lower, did often more than pull his weight (aside from the time he blinded most of the party). And finally I was the most skilled at min-maxing/optimisation. And to top it off the DM didn't have his casters use Will save or lose/die stuff. Instead they did things like cast Disintergraet against me. Scary, but at least it was against my best save. I also had a Heavy Warhorse as a Wild Cohort, which ment I had very good mobility, and my mount didn't die easy.

In short, yes you can have high level Fighters be balanced, but circumstances have weighted masively in their favour. This on it's own should hint there is a balance problem. Withgout that skewed playing field, Melee types tend to be way out of balance with pure casters by the time you hit level 10+.

Stephen

ken-do-nim
2007-02-07, 08:38 AM
This is why I had a thread a little while ago about when the balance becomes an issue. The general agreement was that it became noticeable at 7th but not a big deal. By 13th it gets to be a problem. By 17th it is intolerable.

But how many campaigns actually reach 13th? For instance, I know that BWL is in a Red Hand of Doom campaign, so his wizard is probably 7th or 8th. I would guess that at least 75% of D&D experiences occur at levels 10 and below.

I do happen to be playing a monk in a 14th level campaign, but play balance isn't too bad. Outside of combat, admittedly the cleric does everything like scrying/sending/divination/wind walk/etc. (and the DM sometimes gives him easter egg xp awards for using his spells well, grrr...), but in combat my monk cleans up. The wizard is a spellsword and went the blaster-caster route (he barred conjuration and necromancy *gasp* *hurl* *choke*), making him useful but by no means dominant. The cleric to my knowledge has never combined divine favor/divine power/righteous might. So here we have a case where because the cleric and wizard players don't know how to optimize, game balance is acceptable.

So in the 25% of games which are level 13 and above, probably only half of those will feature well-played casters. So we're talking about serious balance issues in about 10-15% of D&D games.

Rigeld2
2007-02-07, 08:41 AM
So in the 25% of games which are level 13 and above, probably only half of those will feature well-played casters. So we're talking about serious balance issues in about 10-15% of D&D games.
If your numbers are correct, and I dont believe they are. Every game I have ever played in has gone to at least 16th level (since 3.0 came out at least... the 1st and 2nd ed days rarely saw above 10th).

Saph
2007-02-07, 08:46 AM
In the parties I play in now, the only reason I can contibute with my Warlock, my Fighter, or my boomerang Master Thrower (tho shes a skillmonkey so has out of combat stuff to contribute, and to a lesser extent the Warlock) is because the people playing the Cleric and Arcane Heirophant (in all 3 games... O.o just realized that) a) wont take my advice on optimizing what they should do and b) are really built that well. Should my contribution be based on what another class is capable of doing, but isnt at the moment? I dont think so - but I manage to have fun anyway.

But most players don't know how to optimise casters. (Or they don't want to optimise casters, or they wouldn't enjoy playing an optimised caster if they made one, etc.) Of all the D&D games I currently play in, there's no more than one character per group that you could call really optimised, and it doesn't seem to spoil the games.

I do understand what you and Bears are getting at, but I think you've both got a slight tendency to over-estimate the optimisation-ness of the average player. If no-one KNOWS how to make a broken cleric, wizard, or druid, then it's hard to see how they're going to get made. Also, you tend to refer too often to high-level games.

I'd say that most D&D games are played in the level 1-5 range. Of those that aren't, most are played in the level 6-10 range. The number of games in the 11-15 range that I know of or have heard of is VERY small, and I don't know of a single campaign that's currently running with a level of 16 or higher. So a problem that only becomes serious at level 11 and only becomes crippling at level 16 is a problem that most players aren't going to run into much.

That isn't to say I wouldn't prefer a better class balance, but I don't think it's the game-ruining problem you make it out to be.

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 08:49 AM
For the record, I'm not "in" my Red Hand of Doom campaign, I am my Red Hand of Doom campaign. Well, not anymore--but I was, for quite a while; it was me, and two VERY poorly built characters--a monk and a rogue. I had to pull out all the stops--Polymorph, all that jazz--to get us through stuff with them alive. All the stops, I'll note, didn't include any direct damage spells (although I now use Orb of Lightning, to tone things down a little, and did and do have the Storm Bolt reserve feat for when I had nothing better to do).
The rogue died eventually and made a cleric; he's now a force to be reckoned with when he buffs (even if he does tend to Power Attack for full all the time). The monk is... still useless. (I'm not sure how your monk contributed Ken, except for the fact that your cleric apparently doesn't buff and you have a spellsword blaster--a sure way to make blasters worse is to try and make them into gish.)
We also have a new player, for whom I built the Shover Robot (http://www.devilducky.com/media/898/), a Warforged PsyWar/Fighter/Warforged Juggernaut. He has Expansion and Grip of Iron as powers, and a solid feat selection (including Power Attack and Pusback). He grapples better than the cleric, but the cleric (between Bead of Karma + GMW for a +3 weapon, Divine Might, and Divine Favor) does significantly more damage. The cleric also has noncombat functions, and heals. In serious fights, I still contribute more than anyone, but the cleric helps a lot; the warforged is a solid melee type, and the monk... just kind of runs around and does 1d10+1 occasionally.
We're about to defend a city from an army (I'm planning on pooling our funds to get a Lyre of Building, and then hire a good musician with perform(Strings), and use a staff with Control Weather to help with stuff). There'll be a red dragon involved; we'll see how that goes.

Edit: people don't really need to know that much with CoDzilla. Every druid knows about Wild Shape and Natural Spell, pretty much, and most clerics cast Divine Power and Righteous Might. Wizards are a little tougher, but anyone with a personal preference for "subtle" magic--which is quite a few people--will find it very effective. And even at ECL 8/9, the difference between the casters and the noncasters in my game is remarkable.
Obviously, however, "fighters can't contribute at high levels" won't show up until, well, high levels. Druids start beating them at melee at level six to eight, though, and for clerics, seven to nine.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-07, 08:50 AM
If your numbers are correct, and I dont believe they are. Every game I have ever played in has gone to at least 16th level (since 3.0 came out at least... the 1st and 2nd ed days rarely saw above 10th).

See? Saph agrees with my numbers :smallsmile:

Saph
2007-02-07, 08:56 AM
We also have a new player, for whom I built the Shover Robot . . .

We're about to defend a city from an army (I'm planning on pooling our funds to get a Lyre of Building, and then hire a good musician with perform(Strings), and use a staff with Control Weather to help with stuff).

This is what I mean, though. You're doing the optimisation and tactical stuff FOR the other players. What would the game look like if you weren't there? Would anyone have noticed the balance issues if your wizard wasn't annihilating everything, particularly if they were the kind of players who didn't think about game balance much in the first place?

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 09:00 AM
The Warforged Juggernaut's player is new to D&D; he's the only one I actually built the character for (and that's why I did so). The Lyre of Building was the DM's idea, actually, he let it slip. :P

The cleric built his own, by and large, with only a little gear advice. If I weren't there, he'd be dominating, since he'd be better at everything than everyone. He has better melee capabilities than the Warforged, can Diplomacy as well as anyone, and has spells.

Edit: of course, without me, there'd've been several TPKs. They would have noticed the balance issues in that they'd be dead. And making Frenzied Berserkers or something.
Also... sure, people who don't care about balance and can't optimize won't care about balance and won't optimize. Does that mean that the mechanics of the game should cater to them, rather than to the people who do? The first group will be fine either way.

Orzel
2007-02-07, 09:14 AM
I hate thread catch up.

I would love to see these 3 things.

1) Each base class having a well defined strength(s) that no other base class can match without nerfing themself.

2) Each base class having a well defined weakness(es) that can only be beaten by weakening their strength.

3) Many common situations where a class' strength/weakness is made invaluable, useless, or dangerous.


I'm sick of fighters and wizard so let's go to rangers. The first two.
1) Excellent in the wilderness, best tracker, excellent skirmish warrior
2) Low combat defense, watered down class features, Poor will save.

Rangers are the best at what they do. They also have clear weaknesses. No other class can provide ranger services with multiclassing, prestige or weird feat choice. But Ranger services are not exactly common in use but that's the nature of the class. They are pretty balanced.

Now with the more unbalanced classes, part 1 and 2 aren't correct thus leading part 3 to be messed up. Therefore these classes won't contribute equally. We end up with mmorpg style imbalance. The DM would have to regulate the game into something rather tedious to get over the balance.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 09:16 AM
A druid with the simple Track feat is a better tracker and Wilderness Guy than the ranger (forms with Scent, for example). He's also a better skirmisher, since he has wild shape forms that can Pounce. Druids can be as stealthy as rangers, by looking like a harmless little bird.

A rogue with Track can also arguably be Wilderness Guy just as well.

Orzel
2007-02-07, 09:37 AM
A druid with the simple Track feat is a better tracker and Wilderness Guy than the ranger (forms with Scent, for example). He's also a better skirmisher, since he has wild shape forms that can Pounce. Druids can be as stealthy as rangers, by looking like a harmless little bird.

A rogue with Track can also arguably be Wilderness Guy just as well.

You forgot the part where the druid get spotted and catches a projectlile with his/her face since all their gear "falls of". Or the part where druid tracks slower than rangers with a limited amount of time. Or the part where being ting only grant +8 to a nonclass skill at level 11. Not better, different.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 09:40 AM
Um, the druid's gear "melds into his new form". The druid gets spotted, but spotters see... a bird. The druid is hiding in plain sight, effectively; he can be a deer, say, as soon as he can wild shape--or a medium-sized flyer. Those'll let him scout just fine. The ranger's smaller penalty to track fast is negated by the Druid's much higher wisdom. Plus, the druid has a lot of spells that help. The Druid is every bit as good at it.

PnP Fan
2007-02-07, 10:14 AM
Sorry about my previous post. I got caught up in the Ultimate Fighter vs. Wizard challenge. oooops. (though I find that it is still one way to level the playing field with regards to damage envy)

To answer the original post, yes. I like a game with classes balanced against each other. I'm not interested in fighting my friends, but it's nice to know that, if we ever get to 20th level, my fighter/barbarian/ranger will still be able to contribute in a meaningful way, whether by damage or battle field control, or whatever. This balance issue has been in existence since the 1st ed (no one wanted to play the fighter, all of the 'beat it with a stick' folks wanted to play a paladin or a ranger!), and has never really been resolved. I would be curious what the current run of WotC game designers do for their fighter types, or how they envision fighters at high levels. Third party products can help with some balance issues (damage in particular) but not all (trick fighters seem to be nearly useless at high levels unless they are fighting opponents with near human stats.
And yes, I think discussing these things is usefull for the aforementioned reasons (learning, reaching for Truth, etc. . ). If I were a nooob to the game though, with the . . heated arguments, after reading this series of posts (and pretty much all of the threads about a similar topic), I think I would just walk away from the hobby altogether. I want to relax on my weekends, not sit in angry discussions about game balance, or whatever. Constructive discussion maybe, but not these dominance establishing arguments.
Incidentally, why does this keep popping up if it's been discussed to death already? I spent a week on this formum before becoming a member, and half the threads I read through degenerated into "fighters suck, wizards rule" type discussions. I'm not disagreeing, fighters need some help (wizards need nerfing, glass half empty/full). But why continue to beat the poor dead horse?

Leush
2007-02-07, 10:21 AM
And we all know how well harmless birds fare in D&D... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0154.html)

EDIT: It keeps popping up because there are people who see that one class is more powerful in theory than the others and want to do something about, whilst other people don't care, enjoy the game as it is, and when they lose half of their total blood volume through their ears, start to poke the other half.

It is true that divine casters are overpowered. It is true that wizards are more powerful than the rest. But truly, magic is magic. In its highest forms it should very well be stronger than mundane sword beating in a standard, high fantasy d&d game. Perhaps magical sword beating should be as powerful as disembodied magic, but not mundane fighty mcfighter swordbeating.

Don't like it? Fine. We have a thing known as houserules, they're allowed.

Since I mostly play on pbp I must say that it has never been that important for me, since you spend a good ninety percent of the time yapping and hence a lot less time dice rolling.

The other reason we deate it is because we're all bored and have nothing better to do with our sad lives.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-07, 10:32 AM
This balance issue has been in existence since the 1st ed (no one wanted to play the fighter, all of the 'beat it with a stick' folks wanted to play a paladin or a ranger!), and has never really been resolved.

Gotta disagree there. The original 1E Player's Handbook was actually fairly well balanced. Unearthed Arcana threw a monkey wrench into things a bit. With weapon specialization, fighters and rangers got better than everyone else. Cavaliers and paladins could advance their ability scores, and weapon of choice was almost as good. So the fighting classes, magic-users, and druids were top dogs, while clerics/thieves/illusionists were second-rate. At least that's my recollection.

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 11:00 AM
Don't like it? Fine. We have a thing known as houserules, they're allowed.
"You can houserule it better" is not a good excuse for bad rules.




I'm not disagreeing, fighters need some help (wizards need nerfing, glass half empty/full). But why continue to beat the poor dead horse?

Nerfing the best class til everyone is equal is...well, stupid. I disagree with BWL here. Wizards shouldn't be nerfed, everyone else should be buffed.

See, nerfing classes contributes to a problem D&D already has at the low levels everyone venerates as balanced (and which fighters have at high levels): you suck. You are, to quote the Exalted 2E Corebook, "lucky if [you] own a rusty dagger and a loincloth, and [you're] possessed of all the fighting prowess of an asthmatic schoolboy." I play RPGs because I want to be able to be awesome--to kill the dragon, slay the demon, duel the evil swordsman on the city walls--not be some incompetent guy.

Is this a tractable problem? Maybe not. But I think there are systems which solve it a lot better than D&D does currently, Exalted being one of them. One way it is superior in this aspect: it doesn't penalize you for being awesome. Mechanics like stunt dice, and charms which mechanically give you some decent bonus, but thematically are cool (like Dragon-Graced Weapon, which, for Dragon-blooded (the weaker, elemental-influenced Exalts), gives a decent bonus to a melee strike--by adding something from your element)--make what you're doing seem awesome. I haven't played enough Exalted to say if it's perfectly balanced, and certainly the different types of Exalted aren't balanced (not meant to be, in fact.) But whenever I've played, the one thing that remains constant: What I'm doing seems epic and awesome enough that I don't notice if it's not balanced. D&D as a fighter? Not so much.

Leush
2007-02-07, 11:22 AM
It is not about bad rules: It is about wizards, in high fantasy being more powerful than mundane folk and the rules reflecting that. I'm saying that it is inappropriate for low magic games and for those cases it should be houseruled. EDIT: Although some rules are plain bad... But look at it this way: Everything that isn't in an offical sourcebook is a houserule, and as such will be referred to as a houserule until someone decides to put it into the next edition.

And whether people need to be buffed/nerfed is a matter of opinion. If you buff the fighter, and all the other 'weak' classes, you'll have to buff the monsters, and you end up with a Red Queen scenario. Whilst if you weaken everything, it's still vaguely playable. If you nerf the casters, then everyone will find the high level monsters challanging, just like they're meant to be and CR 20 will mean that you do spend a quarter of your bajillion gold pieces fighting them.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-02-07, 11:36 AM
I just have to post this, and I hope Wehrkind doesn't mind.


Just no. I can't have this fight again. We need to start seeing other people. We just don't understand each other. It's not you, it's the cleric and druid's ability to fill two archetypical roles simultaneously as well as those they replace. It is tearing us appart.

I made you this mix CD of songs that describe exactly how I feel. Included are such tracks as "OMG I'm a Full Caster and Tank (and You Aren't)", "People Who Aren't Like Me (Die In One Spell)"; and "I'm a Giant Bear Who Casts Spells."

Some editing changes made. These alterations did not affect the meaning of the quoted text

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 11:42 AM
Sure, it's realistic (if we can apply that word) that wizards are fundamentally more powerful than fighters. I make this argument a lot, actually. That doesn't make it any more FUN--and that's the key part. For example, take Star Wars d20 (disclaimer: I've never played it, I'm just going by what I've heard). A lot of people I've heard who've played it call it the "Why The Hell Didn't I Play A Jedi Game." That's realistic--in Star Wars, yes, the jedi are better than you. Does that make it fun for the guys who have to watch?

And the solution isn't to nerf casters or expect their players to go easy. The only thing that'll do is make it so you can't fight what you should be able to--sure, you could restructure the CR system and make things correspondingly easier, but that'd just hide the fact you're just making everything suck. And I've already discussed why having everyone suck and having them kill stuff that sucks equally, well, sucks.

See, that's the problem with people who bring up that ridiculous "Fighters can go all day, wizards have to sit back and do nothing or they'll run out of spells" canard. Not only is it patently untrue at high levels--a wizard has enough spell slots for a metric crapton of encounters, plus scrolls, wands, staves, pearls of power--the fighters will rest when the casters say so. Why? Because they'll die otherwise.

See, the people who say this neglect that the wizards don't have an option of conserving spell slots and letting the melee types handle encounters, because the melee types can't beat the encounters--not the hard ones, at least. Show me CR20 encounters which a. fighters can beat without spellcasters and b. a spellcaster wouldn't find entirely trivial, and then we'll talk about "saving" slots.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-07, 11:46 AM
Think less "Iron Will" and more "Endurance, Steadfast Determination, plus whatever that other PHB II Will-saving feat is, then Iron Will".
If you refer to "Indomitable Soul", that feat has Iron Will as a prerequisite.


A druid with the simple Track feat is a better tracker and Wilderness Guy than the ranger (forms with Scent, for example).
But wild shape doesn't grant special qualities such as scent.

Though Complete Adventurer does include a Wild feat that lets you use a wild shape to specifically gain scent... :smallsigh:


Nerfing the best class til everyone is equal is...well, stupid.
Kurt Vonnegut agrees with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron) :smallwink:

...and so do I.

Elfwitch
2007-02-07, 11:50 AM
To answer that OP question yes I want all the classes to be able to contribute to the game in some fashion.

I have played a high level fighter in a game that also had a cleric/paladin and a monk and at high levels they fought better had better saves to allow them to stay alive.

Someone brought up that a high level fighter is there to soak damage. A cleric/paladin who can lay on hands and heal himself is going to have an easier time soaking damge than a fighter. And almost as many hitpoints as a fighter of the same level.

I don't want to nerf casters because magic at that level is supposed to be awe inspiring and scary.

But I don't think it would hurt the game to give fighters feats that scale along the lines that spells do.

And saying that a fighter should be able to do more out of combat to contribute to the party makes no sense to me at all. They get two skill points and a very limited class skill list.

As for the bard not being as good as a fighter or as good as a wizard is missing the point of playing a bard. Bards rock in social situations. They also contribute to the party during combat with their bardic song and healing abilities. There bardic knowledge and use magic device also allow them to contribute to the party and the game.

But a fighter is supposed to fight and soak damage that is their main way to contribute to a party and at high levels other classes do this so much better.

The only way this is not true is if the DM goes out of his way by leveling the playing field by having some combats take place in magic dead zones or throw a lot of creatures with high spell resistance. Or throw enough encounters to drain the power away from the casters.

Of course when you do that the casters start whining about not being able to contibute.

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 11:54 AM
Kurt Vonnegut agrees with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron) :smallwink:

...and so do I.
Ironically, I was going to post that, but ran off to breakfast rather than finding a link. :)

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-07, 12:01 PM
Ironically, I was going to post that, but ran off to breakfast rather than finding a link. :)
Ha! That's what you get for having a healthy meal. Healthy meals make you lose. Other people post before you. Shhalahr wins! :smalltongue:

Tola
2007-02-07, 12:31 PM
That's why we're all lamenting it's weakness. Because we want to play the iconic dragon slaying knight but CAN'T. I can't play that character as a strictly melee class because warriors in this game CAN'T KILL DRAGONS

...Isn't that more because Dragons are ridiculously powerful than anything else?

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 01:01 PM
That's why we're all lamenting it's weakness. Because we want to play the iconic dragon slaying knight but CAN'T. I can't play that character as a strictly melee class because warriors in this game CAN'T KILL DRAGONS

...Isn't that more because Dragons are ridiculously powerful than anything else?
...Nnnnooo, not really. Casters can beat up dragons, if they want. It's not *easy*--like most high level monsters, there's not a lot of room for error; if you let it full attack you, you might end up quite dead if not prepared--but very doable.

Matthew
2007-02-07, 01:11 PM
Huh? I don't think he's saying Casters can't kill Dragons, but rather that Non Casters can't do very much against them, which is a function of the power level of Dragons.

Siberys
2007-02-07, 01:13 PM
Why, you ask? Because I like tinkering with the rules. Simple as that. It's FUN

(sorry for comin' in a bit late with that comment... :smallbiggrin: )

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 01:14 PM
I read "more powerful than anything else" as "too hard to kill at all", not "too hard to kill"--which isn't true. Casters can kill them. Fighters should be able to too.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-07, 01:18 PM
Why, you ask? Because I like tinkering with the rules. Simple as that. It's FUN

(sorry for comin' in a bit late with that comment... :smallbiggrin: )

Hear, hear.

LotharBot
2007-02-07, 01:26 PM
he whole point of the post was because I wondered why the heck these conversations start.

Has that been answered to your satisfaction?

People want the classes to be balanced because they want all the players in the game to be able to contribute something as long as the campaign is going on, including those players whose character concept is "guy with a big axe", without having to guide those players through crazy PrC progressions or cheese builds.

People will continue to post fixes, tweaks, and so forth as long as they feel there are classes that don't contribute at certain stages of the game. Or as long as they feel the classes can be made more interesting or "better" archetypes. Or as long as they feel they can do something fun with them. Whining, flaming, and telling people to "shut up and don't play fighter" is not going to change that, it's just going to make you look like a troll (in the classic internet sense, not in the classic fantasy sense.)

Telonius
2007-02-07, 01:29 PM
Yes, I would like every class to be generally balanced. I like playing knights in shining armor sometimes, arcane magic users sometimes, and divine casters sometimes. I would like there to be a point to each class, other than, "Soak up damage until tenth level or so. Then you can go home, Mr. Wizard and CoDzilla will take it from here." If I want to play an archer, the game should not be designed so that he's mostly useless. If I want to play a longsword-wielding knight, the game should allow him a niche that no other class can fill. Otherwise, the game is not as much fun for people playing non-casters. The entire point of D&D is for all of the players to have fun, and grossly unbalanced classes detract from that.

Truwar
2007-02-07, 01:31 PM
It even makes sense that a fighter shouldn't be more powerful than a wizard. You have a single man that can rip apart the heavens with magical energy versus a guy that can swing a sword very well. Now tell me how the hell you are going to make those two people equal.

First of all, if you can accept that a guy could rip the heavens apart with magic, why is it so hard for you to imagine a supremely deadly fighter. When it comes right down to it, a fighter should be MORE dangerous than a mage in most combat situations. A wizard can go invisible, fly, attack large areas of enemies at once, erect powerful magical defences, teleport, and summon creatures from the beyond to aid then in their tasks. A fighter kills things, he does not tumble, he does not turn undead, he can’t cast spells. Killing is what he does, more than ANY other class, that is what he is focused on.

I am not quite sure what precedent you base your idea that wizards SHOULD be more powerful than fighters. They are already much more versatile, there is no reason for them to be more deadly.

As far as “Completely” changing the fighter class, that is not neccesarry at all. The only thing a fighter needs is a linear progression of feats that gorw more and more powerful. Providing a feat path a fighter can follow through lv 20 would remove the need to depend on multi-classing and PrCs to keep his edge. In my opinion every class should have a good reason to stick with them instead of fleeing to another base class or PrC (which is why the sorcerer DOES need to be reworked).

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 01:34 PM
First of all, if you can accept that a guy could rip the heavens apart with magic, why is it so hard for you to imagine a supremely deadly fighter. When it comes right down to it, a fighter should be MORE dangerous than a mage in most combat situations. A wizard can go invisible, fly, attack large areas of enemies at once, erect powerful magical defences, teleport, and summon creatures from the beyond to aid then in their tasks. A fighter kills things, he does not tumble, he does not turn undead, he can’t cast spells. Killing is what he does, more than ANY other class, that is what he is focused on.

I am not quite sure what precedent you base your idea that wizards SHOULD be more powerful than fighters. They are already much more versatile, there is no reason for them to be more deadly.
Have you ever read fantasy? Take the Wheel Of Time, for instance. Aes Sedai have warders, true, for their protection. But in a fight, an Aes Sedai will rip a warder. Hell, a good channeler should be able to take the entire fighting force of the White Tower out and barely break a sweat. It's not that wizards SHOULD be more powerful, it's that unless you massively twist and destroy the flavor, they are. And that's hard to balance.

Matthew
2007-02-07, 01:37 PM
Come on now, super deadly warriors are part and parcel of fantasy fiction. Conan always beats the Wizard.

LotharBot
2007-02-07, 01:43 PM
The entire point of D&D is for all of the players to have fun, and grossly unbalanced classes detract from that.

QFT.

("Quoted for Truth", for the uninitiated.)

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 01:44 PM
OK, now we're about to degenerate into the equivalent of fanboy discussions of Star Wars vs. Star Trek (fyi, Wars winning is the general conclusion, I'm told.) In what I read, the wizard, well, owns the fighter. But regardless of which canon you're looking at, one thing is clear: the wizard breaks reality. The fighter swings a sword. These two things are on an entirely different scale.

Telonius
2007-02-07, 01:50 PM
Have you ever read fantasy? Take the Wheel Of Time, for instance. Aes Sedai have warders, true, for their protection. But in a fight, an Aes Sedai will rip a warder. Hell, a good channeler should be able to take the entire fighting force of the White Tower out and barely break a sweat. It's not that wizards SHOULD be more powerful, it's that unless you massively twist and destroy the flavor, they are. And that's hard to balance.

Actually, the magic users and dragons in most fantasies usually get pummeled by the melee fighters. Beowulf totally rocked Grendel and his mom. Ulysses was able to get out of a whole bunch of magical situations. Morgoth nearly lost to Fingolfin, and he was a god. Saruman was killed by a simple knife to the back. Smaug was killed by an archer. Conan the Barbarian came out of quite a few encounters with magic users no worse for wear; so did Solomon Kane. Bavmorda was defeated by essentially a use of Sleight of Hand by Willow (who couldn't control magic at that point). Darth Vader killed the emperor with muscle alone. (Okay, maybe not quite straight fantasy, but close enough). Merlin, who is basically the granddaddy of all wizards, is far from all-powerful. It's really only very recently that magic-users have gotten their "universe-shaking power at will" qualities from fiction writers.

Golthur
2007-02-07, 01:52 PM
Why, you ask? Because I like tinkering with the rules. Simple as that. It's FUN

(sorry for comin' in a bit late with that comment... :smallbiggrin: )
Booya. QFT.

:biggrin:

Grey Paladin
2007-02-07, 02:08 PM
Just return to the old 2E exp rules, by the time the wizard is able to rewrap reality the fighter is an f'in demigod.

I translated the rules to 3.X this way: All base classes beside the monk and bard level as usual, the bard and monk need only 900 EXP, Clerics Druids and other full casters beside the one noted bellow take 1500 exp, Wizards, Psions, and other "tier one" casters take 2000 exp.

Your base EXP to level is changed if you take a class level in a class that has an higher EXP requirement to the EXP requirement of that class.

Multi classing penalty works as usual, additionally, for each other class you have, add 200 to your EXP to level, 300 if that class is a prestige class.

Yes, its true that the silly fighter should not be able to beat a wizard of the same level, it is also true that learning how to tell the laws of the universe what to do should take at least twice as much effort as mastering a weapon

.

Artanis
2007-02-07, 02:12 PM
OK, now we're about to degenerate into the equivalent of fanboy discussions of Star Wars vs. Star Trek (fyi, Wars winning is the general conclusion, I'm told.) In what I read, the wizard, well, owns the fighter. But regardless of which canon you're looking at, one thing is clear: the wizard breaks reality. The fighter swings a sword. These two things are on an entirely different scale.
In the end, it doesn't matter. DnD is a game. A game's first, second, and third jobs is to be FUN. If some aspect of the game is not fun, then the game FAILS at that aspect. Thus, as a game, DnD either has to make Fighters FUN by being able to contribute some unique capability to their party and then worry about making the fluff fit, or it has to not put Fighters in the game at all in the first place.

Narmoth
2007-02-07, 02:17 PM
This is what I did to make my groups characters balanced against each other:
I gave them special skills to compensate for weaknesses they character would work better without. THis was done in a 2nd ed. campaign, so I won't explain the rules or mechanics behind the modifications, but just give you the general idea.

First the Ranger. He's profesion (kit) was a sharpshooter, but because of little need in missile attacks and specialisation in dualwielding of longswords, his profession isn't really noticeable. His missile attacks/round were 2 and his melee attacks/round were 5
I gave him abillity to use upt to 3 arrows on each attack if he managed a dex check, giving him 6 attacks each round with the bow.

Then the undead-slaying cleric. He has a much worse chance to hit any monster than the ranger (that has a + 22 to his attack in 3.5 terms) and therefore wasn't effective in combat at all. To not reduse him to a med-kit, I allowed him to spin in a sircle with his maul (2 handed hammer) so he attacks as long as he either misses an opponent or kills him, but not when hitting normally, giving him a greater chance to have some impact in acombat situation.

Then the mages. There are 2 of them in the group, one of them a powergamer that made his mage to a fighter mage that fokused more on fighting and good armour than on spells and the other is a specialist in transmutation magic.
The only modifying they needed was usefull magical items and an easy, quick and more or less free way to create new spells.

Now all in the group is likely effective in combat as long as I stage the combat in an planned and balanced fashion, not making the whole encounter wulnerable to just one or two types of attacks.

Matthew
2007-02-07, 02:28 PM
Wait, how does a Second Edition Ranger get five Melee Attacks a Round? Is that part of the House Rule? Is that five Melee Attacks a Round at Levels 1-6?

krossbow
2007-02-07, 03:00 PM
saying that it's the fighter's role to be mundane and sucky is just asinine.


Why CAN'T the fighter be a uber warrior who jumps around, flips through spells and slices people up?

Why can't my fighter be a cloud esque character who slices a building in a half, jumps through and cleaves the bad guy?


If we're talking about a world in which dragons fly around, Wizards erase time itself with wish spells, and people make their own PLANES, I see no reason to not allow fighters to be over the top.
________
Vapor Genie Vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/)

Grey Paladin
2007-02-07, 03:06 PM
That's not a fighter, that's a swordsage.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-07, 03:09 PM
As one of the people who's tinkered with class rewrites, I'll add that not only is it fun but it ALSO can provide the solution for the balance problem in your own game, if you percieve the balance problem to be bad enough to require fixing. I've personally found that simply by removing a few of CoDzilla's abilities you can bring them into balance with the rest of the core 11 without unduly rewriting them or changing the archetype they fulfill.

The reason is simple, too. When I'm playing a melee-type, I don't want to have to dip into a variety of different classes just to be effective. Taking a PrC? Sure, why not. I can see this being fun. If I'm dipping in to four or five different classes just to try to keep up with someone who hasn't even bothered with a PrC, that's a problem. If I see a problem and I think up a solution, I use it. Sometimes in a community like this where we share a common hobby, I might even post my solution to this problem so that others might comment. I might even get feedback from other like-minded individuals! That might be fun!

I think a lot of the anger in this thread comes from the initial post, which was pretty much designed to provoke a reaction. It was pretty much a challenge in everyone's face screaming "How dare YOU try to change the way YOU play YOUR game in a way that I don't like!? What is your defect!?" That's certainly not the way to invite reasonable discourse, and the OP shouldn't have expected anything less than what he kicked up here. It doesn't matter if it was intended as a joke, because even knowing he meant it to be a joke I was still somewhat insulted.

Stephen_E
2007-02-07, 07:18 PM
Re: What levls people play at.

IME this always raise arguments because high level games aren't distributed evenly amongst gaming groups. By that I mean each group has their own "level spread". Joe Bloggs group plays almost purely 1-10th level, Jane Does group plays Epic or 12th +, Fred's plays a even mix. Ask any one and they'll tell you, with complete honesty, that "this" is the frequency. My undeerstanding is that surveys done indicate that Joe Blogg type groups predominate, but an exact breakdown would be hard to do since you have to take in account how much they play, as well as what levs they mostly play.

Re: Balancing Melee/Fighters vs Pure casters
While lack of scaling up is indeed one problem with Fighters in particular and Melee types in general, there are two other contributing problems.

1) Casters have no weaknesses at high levels. Pre-3rd Ed Spell Resistance was the bane of casters existance. Simply put there were creatures out there that any spell you threw at them had a 95% chance of failing. This seriously restricted your options had forced you to rely on supporting your melee types to win the battle. Spell resistance is now merely an irritant.

2) Prestige classes for semicasters (Rangers/Paladins ecetre) don't work. Any prestige class designed to advance their casting as well as the rest is better for the pure caster. Basically they need to get away from the "all level advancement in casting spells is the same". Gaining a casting level advancement as a semi is far less powerful than as a pure caster. The rules need to recognise this and differentiate. My own suggestion on this is to consider one level of pure caster spell advancement = 2 levels of semi caster advancement. Thus when it say the character gains 1 level of Divine casting advancement, the Ranger would gain 2 levels.

Stephen

Misat
2007-02-07, 07:26 PM
. . . Guys, isn't it possible that some people might not agree on the power levels of classes, and how balanced they are?

And isn't it also possible that this might be because of differing playing and GMing styles, rather than because one person is right/intelligent and one person's wrong/stupid?

The reason these arguments get nowhere is because you're comparing how things are in your game to how things are in someone else's game. There's no real basis for comparison, so it's always going to end up as "I find it's like this," "No, I find it's like this," "You're wrong," "No, you're wrong" - and there is no way to resolve it.

Does it really matter THAT much whether some other guy on an Internet forum believes that wizards are more powerful than fighters, or that fighters are more powerful than wizards? I mean, is the reality of the D&D universe going to implode if the other guy holds an opinion about game balance that you think is wrong?

- Saph

Stopped reading here because I want to respond to this part.
Yes! It does vary from person to person. (the next post down) responded by saying that this is a futile argument, but how is it pointless? Because the rules make it so? OK people. This is not a computer game. You can do whatever you want here in the land of dragons and magic. That means...oh no...breaking the rules! I don't think you should cheat and allow anything to go, but what's wrong with giving a fighter something special at higher levels if he asks for it in order to be playable? Let's say he requests a special ability that would give him a boost to his physical stats (not unheard of since the Kensi can boost his strength by 8 at level...7?) If I were DMing and the fighter was lagging behind, I would say yes. Does this fix the class permenantly? No. It does however allow that one fighter to be playable and even more finely tuned to what the player wants. That's what the game is about to me. If the game is about slashing monsters very very easily to you, then tell your DM that you just want to be uber powerful fighter, and ask him for +30 strength. Then you can be better than everyone else. That's clearly what DnD is about. Oh wait, preemptive strike here! "We don't want to be more powerful. We just want to be playable!" Then work it out and make it happen! Why do you need to have written rules stating what you already know? If fighters suck completely at your table, either stop playing fighters or do something about it.
BAH! You're all so whiny...

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 07:35 PM
Stopped reading here because I want to respond to this part.
Yes! It does vary from person to person. (the next post down) responded by saying that this is a futile argument, but how is it pointless? Because the rules make it so? OK people. This is not a computer game. You can do whatever you want here in the land of dragons and magic. That means...oh no...breaking the rules! I don't think you should cheat and allow anything to go, but what's wrong with giving a fighter something special at higher levels if he asks for it in order to be playable? Let's say he requests a special ability that would give him a boost to his physical stats (not unheard of since the Kensi can boost his strength by 8 at level...7?) If I were DMing and the fighter was lagging behind, I would say yes. Does this fix the class permenantly? No. It does however allow that one fighter to be playable and even more finely tuned to what the player wants. That's what the game is about to me. If the game is about slashing monsters very very easily to you, then tell your DM that you just want to be uber powerful fighter, and ask him for +30 strength. Then you can be better than everyone else. That's clearly what DnD is about. Oh wait, preemptive strike here! "We don't want to be more powerful. We just want to be playable!" Then work it out and make it happen! Why do you need to have written rules stating what you already know? If fighters suck completely at your table, either stop playing fighters or do something about it.
BAH! You're all so whiny...
Congratulations on winning Best in Show at the Talking Out Your Ass Without Reading the Thread competition.

A. We ARE trying to do something about it. This thread exists because ThePope decided that we should all stop playing fighters instead of whining. We told him what I'm telling you: we want to do something about it.
B. It's really, really, hard to fix them. If you think a STR bonus will do it, you haven't been reading. It's very hard to name /anything/ that will buff fighter-types to the level of being able to compete reasonably without either breaking the game or the flavor entirely.

ZekeArgo
2007-02-07, 07:40 PM
Stopped reading here because I want to respond to this part.
Yes! It does vary from person to person. (the next post down) responded by saying that this is a futile argument, but how is it pointless? Because the rules make it so? OK people. This is not a computer game. You can do whatever you want here in the land of dragons and magic.

Your argument fails because "you can do whatever you want" does nothing to foster discussion. The only thing we can discuss is that which we have actual facts on, and that is the RAW.


That means...oh no...breaking the rules! I don't think you should cheat and allow anything to go, but what's wrong with giving a fighter something special at higher levels if he asks for it in order to be playable? Let's say he requests a special ability that would give him a boost to his physical stats (not unheard of since the Kensi can boost his strength by 8 at level...7?) If I were DMing and the fighter was lagging behind, I would say yes.DM Fiat, while part of the game, varies from DM to DM.


Does this fix the class permenantly? No. It does however allow that one fighter to be playable and even more finely tuned to what the player wants. That's what the game is about to me.What the game is to you has nothing to do with the problems of the rules as written, which we are discussing.


If the game is about slashing monsters very very easily to you, then tell your DM that you just want to be uber powerful fighter, and ask him for +30 strength. Then you can be better than everyone else. That's clearly what DnD is about. Oh wait, preemptive strike here! "We don't want to be more powerful. We just want to be playable!" Then work it out and make it happen! Because to do that is an *enormous* pain. What would you rather do? Play one class that you don't have to PrC/Optimize and still be a dominating force in your game, or have to cherry pick classes, feats and items just so you can suck a little bit less?


Why do you need to have written rules stating what you already know? If fighters suck completely at your table, either stop playing fighters or do something about it. BAH! You're all so whiny...

The reason we talk about the rules and defects within them is that otherwise we'd all just be saying "oh but this way is better in my opinion" and "no my way is better." As I said, the only concrete thing we can talk about are the RULES.

Oh, and it's considered poor form to whine when your accusing others of whining.

Misat
2007-02-07, 07:43 PM
I did read most of the thread thank you, and I was giving an example. I didn't mean to say that +x to a stat, can be done with magic items, would balance the entire system. But what about adding in, as someone mentioned, easier access to spell resistance? Maybe make that SR harder to beat? The main problem, with damage ratios because I'm not even getting into "You're dead, please try again" spells, is that there is really no miss chance. I also think that the exp trick, with some heavy tweaking, could be a really nice idea. When it comes down to it though I still think that these are problems better solved in a case by case situation using the DM as the ultmate judge, not using the thousands of books. I think it's War of the Throne or something RPG that has an amazing mantra at the beggining. The part of the mantra that I'm refferencing is something along the lines of, if a rule doesn't work for you, change it. So change it, and then put the change on here so others can look at it, tear it apart, then secretly go use it themselves. What I don't like is people just stating their demands for the fighter to be fixed. Do something about it or just live with it. Maybe I am just talking out of my ass though, that is what I do.

Misat
2007-02-07, 07:48 PM
This has been qouted: Because to do that is an *enormous* pain. What would you rather do? Play one class that you don't have to PrC/Optimize and still be a dominating force in your game, or have to cherry pick classes, feats and items just so you can suck a little bit less?

Honestly? My group and I enjoy customization. It's what makes this game more appealing than a hack n slash video game. Hell we even went so far as to 'make' our own game so we could customize even more. I say 'make' tentatively since it's still in early stages, and looking like a dead case. But it was still fun to be able to play god for awhile. Then we figured out we could just do that with DnD anyways.

LotharBot
2007-02-07, 08:08 PM
My group and I enjoy customization.

So why do you act as though there's something wrong with wanting to customize various classes in order to make them more balanced?

Roderick_BR
2007-02-07, 08:13 PM
OK, now we're about to degenerate into the equivalent of fanboy discussions of Star Wars vs. Star Trek (fyi, Wars winning is the general conclusion, I'm told.) In what I read, the wizard, well, owns the fighter. But regardless of which canon you're looking at, one thing is clear: the wizard breaks reality. The fighter swings a sword. These two things are on an entirely different scale.

In D&D, high level warriors are supposed to brawn with dragons and fight deities. "Supposed to" is the key word here. D&D makes all those hours wasted leveling up becoming useless because you can't get good powers at high level. Again, I compare a 20th level fighter with a 20th level wizard that instead of having spells from 0th to 9th level, has only twice the spells from level 0 to 5. Makes it not that interesting to level up after 10, eh?

endersdouble
2007-02-07, 08:17 PM
In D&D, high level warriors are supposed to brawn with dragons and fight deities. "Supposed to" is the key word here. D&D makes all those hours wasted leveling up becoming useless because you can't get good powers at high level. Again, I compare a 20th level fighter with a 20th level wizard that instead of having spells from 0th to 9th level, has only twice the spells from level 0 to 5. Makes it not that interesting to level up after 10, eh?
How many times do I have to say this: I agree with you! It's just hard to express that power without breaking the flavor horribly.

Misat
2007-02-07, 08:18 PM
So why do you act as though there's something wrong with wanting to customize various classes in order to make them more balanced?

I never said it was wrong to want improvement. I just don't think this is the way to do it. Brainstorm like some people have done. Hence I mentioned that SR and variant level rates might be a good solution. The thing is half the people don't contribute, I know that I'm guilty of this as well since all I said is decide it amongst your group, but I'm alright with being called a hypocrit (how do you spell that?) if it means this goes somewhere meaningful. Now if you all just want to argue that's cool. I enjoy a debate, but that isn't what people say they want. They say they want a change.

Arceliar
2007-02-07, 08:25 PM
I myself enjoy balance through unbalance. A rock-paper-scissors style system where every basic character type owns against another but is easily killed by a third seems to be the way to go. So, let's look at it this way:

Fighter -> Absolutely slays the rogue or other 'expert' type character. Unless maybe the Rogue makes a full round of sneak attacks.
Rogue -> Spellcaster's bane. Monk fits this even moreso. Evasion and large amounts of melee damage (via feint + sneak attack or flurry of blows) can work wonders.
Wizard -> Probably going to destroy a fighter of equal level, especially if using highest level spells.
Cleric -> Heal/buff everyone else, with a minor in meatshield.

Now, seeing as MOST enemies tend to be melee oriented, Fighter pales in comparison. The fighter often serves as the second body to help flank with the rogue, the meatshield to keep the wizard safe, and the cleric's best friend who provides cover while he heals everyone in sight.

The few significant enemies at high levels who aren't simply overpowered melee fighters tend to be spellcasters or have many/infinite use spell-like abilities. The wizard is still on par with these enemies, and said enemies often have the advantage against fighters.

It's true that swinging a sword REALLY well is less impressive than say, Genesis or Wish, but it's not in any way underpowered inherently, IMHO. The problem lies in the supply of enemies around, at least as I see it. I've run campaigns that last all the way from 1 to the lower epic levels, and I can honestly say with the right choice of enemies the whole party can stay happy-yet-near-death at all times. Exactly the way it should be.

Misat
2007-02-07, 08:34 PM
I myself enjoy balance through unbalance. A rock-paper-scissors style system where every basic character type owns against another but is easily killed by a third seems to be the way to go. So, let's look at it this way:

Fighter -> Absolutely slays the rogue or other 'expert' type character. Unless maybe the Rogue makes a full round of sneak attacks.
Rogue -> Spellcaster's bane. Monk fits this even moreso. Evasion and large amounts of melee damage (via feint + sneak attack or flurry of blows) can work wonders.
Wizard -> Probably going to destroy a fighter of equal level, especially if using highest level spells.
Cleric -> Heal/buff everyone else, with a minor in meatshield.

Now, seeing as MOST enemies tend to be melee oriented, Fighter pales in comparison. The fighter often serves as the second body to help flank with the rogue, the meatshield to keep the wizard safe, and the cleric's best friend who provides cover while he heals everyone in sight.

The few significant enemies at high levels who aren't simply overpowered melee fighters tend to be spellcasters or have many/infinite use spell-like abilities. The wizard is still on par with these enemies, and said enemies often have the advantage against fighters.

It's true that swinging a sword REALLY well is less impressive than say, Genesis or Wish, but it's not in any way underpowered inherently, IMHO. The problem lies in the supply of enemies around, at least as I see it. I've run campaigns that last all the way from 1 to the lower epic levels, and I can honestly say with the right choice of enemies the whole party can stay happy-yet-near-death at all times. Exactly the way it should be.

All hail. Against a balron fighters lose that's true, but against a high level rogue...Remember classed bosses? You know the ones that aren't just a monster? I think you're dead on Arceliar, plus I like how your name implies you're honest and know what you're talking about.

Kantolin
2007-02-07, 08:36 PM
Rogue -> Spellcaster's bane. Monk fits this even moreso. Evasion and large amounts of melee damage (via feint + sneak attack or flurry of blows) can work wonders.

But they're not. O-o Honestly. I mean, significantly they're not.


Cleric -> Heal/buff everyone else, with a minor in meatshield.


But it's not 'minor'. Their AC is the same as the fighters, and they're better at.... better.

greenknight
2007-02-07, 08:45 PM
Gotta disagree there. The original 1E Player's Handbook was actually fairly well balanced.

Not really. If you go by just the 1st Ed PHB rules, it's generally much better to take a Ranger or Paladin (if your character can qualify for either of these classes) than take a Fighter. Paladins get pretty much everything Fighters do (except free men-at-arms when they establish a stronghold), as well as immunity to disease, better saves, detect evil at will, lay on hands, cure disease, permanent "Protection from Evil" and at higher levels turning undead, spellcasting, a free warhorse and the ability to use a holy sword (if the PCs ever manage to get one). They do have a slightly slower level progression (but it's not that significant), a LG requirement, tithing (slightly annoying, but too bad), and some magical item restrictions, but nothing which significantly hinders their combat effectiveness.

Rangers are also fairly similar to Fighters. They have (slightly) fewer hp a high levels, and don't get the free men-at-arms, but they do get 2 - 24 followers (henchmen). But they get tracking, a better ability to surprise foes (and a reduced chance of being surprised), spellcasting (drawing on both the Druid and MU spell lists) and a bonus to damage equal to their level when attacking giant class creatures (which includes a fairly large range of creatures including orcs, ogres, kobolds, trolls and bugbears). Again, there's an alignment restriction, and slightly slower level advancement, as well as a few other limitations, but overall a Ranger's always going to be more powerful than a Fighter with the same XP. In fact, the punishment for Paladins and Rangers who violate their alignment restrictions is that they become Fighters.


With weapon specialization, fighters and rangers got better than everyone else. Cavaliers and paladins could advance their ability scores, and weapon of choice was almost as good. So the fighting classes, magic-users, and druids were top dogs, while clerics/thieves/illusionists were second-rate. At least that's my recollection.Top dog was probably a high level Monk (a Grand Master of Flowers was darn near Godly). High level MU's were next, although Bards (if the character could qualify) were also quite powerful. Clerics and Druids probably come next, with Paladins and Rangers following. Fighters were one of the weakest classes, but they were better than Thieves (who were darn near useless at higher levels). I leave Assassin out of the list because depending on the DM and player, they were either near Godly or almost as weak as Thieves. With UA, a lot of classes became more powerful, and even though the Fighter gained Weapon Specialization, the class became relatively weaker. In any event, class balance in 1st Ed is about as good as it's gender and racial balance.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 08:46 PM
I myself enjoy balance through unbalance. A rock-paper-scissors style system where every basic character type owns against another but is easily killed by a third seems to be the way to go. So, let's look at it this way:

Fighter -> Absolutely slays the rogue or other 'expert' type character. Unless maybe the Rogue makes a full round of sneak attacks.
Fighters have no spot; the rogue can hide and snipe. Also... Rogues have Use Magic Device.


Rogue -> Spellcaster's bane. Monk fits this even moreso. Evasion and large amounts of melee damage (via feint + sneak attack or flurry of blows) can work wonders.
Except, of course, monk damage is small (large dice don't make a lot of damage, and monks are usually finesse-based) and you can't furry when you move, and rogues (whom a Heavy Fortification buckler strips of their offense at high levels) have weak will *and* fort saves, which means pretty much everything a good wizard does, they're very vulnerable to.



Or anyone else.

[quote]Cleric -> Heal/buff everyone else, with a minor in meatshield.
Minor? Clerics attend the Graduate School of Meatshield, working on their PhD along with the Druid; Fighters are still getting drunk every night in college.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-07, 09:06 PM
Um... as an outsider to the whole debate, I have to step in here and say that those arguing differently because they have a different playstyle are, basically, pointless. Whatever playstyle anyone has, we still have the RAW rules to compare. Personal preference or personal experience should mean very litte (actually, nothing at all) in a discussion about the rules...


Not true...

If you give your players more or less points to build characters or roll stats, that playstyle changes character balance.

If you build your campaign on the fly rather than planning complex situations and encounters in advance, that playstyle changes character balance.

If your adventures run at the pace of the players rather than the pace of events, that playstyle changes character balance.

If your DM pulls back from killing you when the monsters roll well and you roll poorly, that playstyle changes character balance.

If your maps don't include varied terrain, varied objects and varied avenues of approach, that playstyle changes character balance.

If you run campaigns that are heavily populated by certain creatures such as undead and constructs or evil outsiders, that playstyle changes character balance.

If your dungeons consist of cavern/room with encounter, empty passage/corridor, cavern/room with encounter rather than underground lairs built (or at least adapted) with a purpose in mind and populated by intelligent creatures that are guarding and living in it or natural caverns with some thought put into an ecosystem, that playstyle changes character balance.

If you perform all of your actions in the way that improve your individual performance without consideration of the performance of the entire group, that playstyle changes character balance.

Raum
2007-02-07, 09:47 PM
Do classes need to be "balanced"? Define "balanced" for me and I might be able to provide an answer. I don't like the paper - rock - scissors attempts at balance, nor do I think classes should necessarily be balanced against one another. It seems to be used in at least two significantly different meanings. I'll avoid the term because it isn't being used consistently.

I'd say simply all classes should be "viable, useful, and quintessential". By "viable" I mean each class should be playable and have the ability to develop in a meaninful fashion. When I say "useful" I mean classes should be capable of performing meaningful (helpful to the group) functions at any given level. Finally, "quintessential" means that a class should be the best at it's essential archetypical role.

To address the argument at hand, the fighter class should be playable (it is), develop in a meaningful manner (it doesn't), helpful to the group at any given level (if you want to be generous, you could say ~30% of the time), and best at it's role (again it isn't).

So yes, I think the fighter class needs to be fixed. I just don't think comparing it to other classes (with the exception of the quintessential requirement) is the best method of fixing the class.

Arceliar
2007-02-07, 10:05 PM
Minor? Clerics attend the Graduate School of Meatshield, working on their PhD along with the Druid; Fighters are still getting drunk every night in college.

Yes, same AC as fighters, but less HP. Now, a cleric can cast defensively and heal themselves, but odds are there's something more constructive a cleric could do with that spell slot..such as heal someone else or summon a monster to tank instead.

It doesn't matter arguing class balance though... One of the DM's jobs is to make sure the game is fun--that's the entire point to a game. Watching the wizard hurl fireballs left and right isn't fun for a fighter. Watching the wizard get beaten to a bloody pulp by an Iron Golem while the Rogue crys at his uselessness in this particular encounter and the cleric remains indifferent as always, that's fun. From time to time.

As for monk damage... Monk damage is small. So is wizard HP. Plus monks have the whole spell resistance thing going for them..it's not a lot but it helps. Please remember, monks usually pick up feats like Improved Trip and such (it's one of their possible bonus feats after all..). That's pretty good at making sure you either keep your enemy on the run at all times or get in regular flurries.

As for the fighters being sniped... hiding after a snipe is a -20 penalty to the hide check. I'd say after the first shot, the fighter's going to be actively looking for the sniper..which gives him a pretty good chance to spot all but the highest level rogues. If he does bother to get cross-class ranks in spot, then the rogue needs to come up with a new tactic or pray for exceptional dice rolls on his part and poor ones on the fighter's.

Use Magic Device is always a problem. Fortunately, magic items that pose a significant threat tend to be slightly on the expensive side.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-07, 10:15 PM
Yes, same AC as fighters, but less HP. Now, a cleric can cast defensively and heal themselves, but odds are there's something more constructive a cleric could do with that spell slot..such as heal someone else or summon a monster to tank instead.

Er. Average less 1 HP per hit die. Not a big disparity there.

Arceliar
2007-02-07, 10:29 PM
Er. Average less 1 HP per hit die. Not a big disparity there.

Quite true. Don't forget constitution though, there's not exactly a lot fighters need, whereas Cleric/Druid have to work for at least 1 19+ stat to get their full spellcasting ability. Fighters usually roll with Strength first, so Con is often 2nd or 3rd priority with either class, but in my experience fighters seem more willing to neglect strength and increase con as they level than clerics or druids are to neglect wisdom.

*Edited: If we're talking meatshields, IMHO the Neutral Good Incarnate wins. With even a little luck it's possible to get over 60 AC and 400 HP by level 20. With enough essentia left over to either make an epic weapon or get 7d6 electricity damage melee touch attacks.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-07, 10:32 PM
How many times do I have to say this: I agree with you! It's just hard to express that power without breaking the flavor horribly.
Oh, sorry. To don't break the flavor, I think Wizards of the Coast should make some high level power feats available to high level fighters. Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization as a good start. And I think no spell above 6 level should be cast as a default action, but a full round action.

Arceliar
2007-02-07, 10:36 PM
Oh, sorry. To don't break the flavor, I think Wizards of the Coast should make some high level power feats available to high level fighters. Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization as a good start. And I think no spell above 6 level should be cast as a default action, but a full round action.

Melee Weapon Mastery and Weapon Supremacy (PHB2) seem to be at least 'a good start' to me.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-07, 10:41 PM
And I think no spell above 6 level should be cast as a default action, but a full round action.
You know, it just hit me.

I've never seen a spell with a casting time of "1 full round action." Casting times jump from 1 standard action to "1 full round, to the beginning of your next turn." The only time a spell takes a simple full-round action is when a character spontaneously applies a metamagic feat.

Kinda wierd quirk.

Raum
2007-02-07, 10:48 PM
Melee Weapon Mastery and Weapon Supremacy (PHB2) seem to be at least 'a good start' to me.
Weapon Supremacy is certainly nice. Melee Weapon Mastery however isn't really worth burning a feat on. It's best functional result is the ability to easily switch between 1H + Shield and 2H...which might be nice if using a shield was effective. Otherwise switching between weapons of the same damage type isn't going to gain all that much.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-07, 11:39 PM
Finally, "quintessential" means that a class should be the best at it's essential archetypical role.

To address the argument at hand, the fighter class should be playable (it is), develop in a meaningful manner (it doesn't), helpful to the group at any given level (if you want to be generous, you could say ~30% of the time), and best at it's role (again it isn't).

So yes, I think the fighter class needs to be fixed. I just don't think comparing it to other classes (with the exception of the quintessential requirement) is the best method of fixing the class.

The quintessential requirement is flavor rather than balance. Characters in fiction both fight and cast and still fight as effectively as companions or enemies that only fight. Players want to play those types of characters too. If you want to bash stuff all the time, a character who wants to both bash and cast shouldn't have to bash less effectively just because you don't want to cast. Similarly, a character possessing out-of-combat (or primarily out-of-combat) abilities like healing and trapfinding shouldn't be penalized in combat. A balanced character should be able to do something fun and meaningful on each of their turns in combat (fighting, offensive casting, a buff plus fighting, a maneuver and fighting or whatever it takes to get there) and in a fair share share of situations out of combat (via skills, class abilities, spells or whatever).

note - 'cast' refers to doing something to the enemy, whether it's a direct damage spell, save or suck, debuff or whatever. Fluffing the fighter in some way isn't the same as getting to cast offensively.

Balanced:

rd. 1: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 3: Fight with effectiveness of 1

rd. 1: Cast with effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Cast with effectiveness of 1
rd. 3: Cast with effectiveness of 1

rd. 1: Cast with effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 3: Cast with effectiveness of 1

rd. 1: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Cast with effectiveness of 1
rd. 3: Fight with effectiveness of 1

rd. 1: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of 1
rd. 3: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of 1

Not Balanced:

rd. 1: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 3: Fight with effectiveness of 1

rd. 1: Cast with effectiveness of 2
rd. 2: Cast with effectiveness of 2
rd. 3: Cast with effectiveness of 2

rd. 1: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Cast with effectiveness of 2
rd. 3: Fight with effectiveness of 1

rd. 1: Cast with effectiveness of 2
rd. 2: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 3: Cast with effectiveness of 2

rd. 1: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of 3
rd. 2: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of 3
rd. 3: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of 3

rd. 1: Cast with effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Fight with effectiveness of .75
rd. 3: Cast with effectiveness of 1

rd. 1: Fight with effectiveness of 1
rd. 2: Cast with effectiveness of .75
rd. 3: Fight with effectiveness of 1

Pathetic:

rd. 1: Cast with effectiveness of .75
rd. 2: Fight with effectiveness of .75
rd. 3: Cast with effectiveness of .75

rd. 1: Fight with effectiveness of .75
rd. 2: Cast with effectiveness of .75
rd. 3: Fight with effectiveness of .75

rd. 1: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of .75
rd. 2: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of .75
rd. 3: Cast and Fight with sum effectiveness of .75

LotharBot
2007-02-08, 12:57 AM
I never said it was wrong to want improvement. I just don't think this is the way to do it. Brainstorm like some people have done.

Ahhh... but this thread isn't "how would you balance the Fighter", it's "why do you want to balance the classes?"

It happens that I and many others have brainstormed possible fighter-balance ideas in this thread, but primarily, I've spent my energy responding to His_Holiness' original question.

I think Raum made the best summary argument thus far: every class should be playable, helpful to the party, and actually good at its core task. (I don't think they necessarily need to be the "best", but they should at least be good enough to be worth playing.) How exactly we accomplish that is the subject of several other threads, many of which are presently running.

Narmoth
2007-02-08, 03:44 AM
Wait, how does a Second Edition Ranger get five Melee Attacks a Round? Is that part of the House Rule? Is that five Melee Attacks a Round at Levels 1-6?

He is a 12th level specialist, 5/2 round attacks as a specialist, players option feat giving him no off-hand, so both swords countas wielded with the main hand and therefore giving him the full range of attacks.

The group is balanced in its unbalancing, giving each player some avesome unique skills to improve their characters might. Of course, I have a hell of a time finding (or more corect making) monsters they wont slay at once (since the group has a lot of magic and the fighter needs to encounter monsters with AC -10 or better (armouor bonus +20 in 3.5) to be challenged.

Green Bean
2007-02-08, 04:38 AM
Quite true. Don't forget constitution though, there's not exactly a lot fighters need, whereas Cleric/Druid have to work for at least 1 19+ stat to get their full spellcasting ability. Fighters usually roll with Strength first, so Con is often 2nd or 3rd priority with either class, but in my experience fighters seem more willing to neglect strength and increase con as they level than clerics or druids are to neglect wisdom.


Are you kidding? Melee fighters need a bunch of different stats to do well. They need STR to do damage, CON to take it, and DEX to have a decent AC. Not to mention INT for skills and WIS to shore up their Will save whereas Druids and Clerics just need to worry about WIS, because they have Wildshape or self-buffs.

Marius
2007-02-08, 05:35 AM
Yes, same AC as fighters, but less HP. Now, a cleric can cast defensively and heal themselves, but odds are there's something more constructive a cleric could do with that spell slot..such as heal someone else or summon a monster to tank instead.

Divine Favor + Divine Power + Righteous Might = Now your cleric has the same BAB of the fighter, a +3 to attack, +1 hp x level, +10 Str, +2 Con, +2 natural armor, Damage reduction 3/evil or good (or more depends on his level) and he grows one size category. Now he could beat ANY fighter and he's still a full caster. He did that with only 3 spells (levels 1, 4 and 5).
The druid just got to wildshape.



As for monk damage... Monk damage is small. So is wizard HP. Plus monks have the whole spell resistance thing going for them..it's not a lot but it helps. Please remember, monks usually pick up feats like Improved Trip and such (it's one of their possible bonus feats after all..). That's pretty good at making sure you either keep your enemy on the run at all times or get in regular flurries.

Yes they get "improved Trip" the problem is that they don't have the Strenght to trip anyone. He can't fly so reaching the wizard is a problem for him and his attack bonus probably sucks so despite all his attack he won't be hitting anything too often.
Good saves help but there are like a million spells that don't let you save and by the time they get spell resistance and wizard can just forcegage you.



As for the fighters being sniped... hiding after a snipe is a -20 penalty to the hide check. I'd say after the first shot, the fighter's going to be actively looking for the sniper..which gives him a pretty good chance to spot all but the highest level rogues. If he does bother to get cross-class ranks in spot, then the rogue needs to come up with a new tactic or pray for exceptional dice rolls on his part and poor ones on the fighter's.

The rogue can use a scroll of "invisibility, greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilityGreater.htm)" and he now has a +20 to hide and let's face it, no fighter will put cross class skill points in spot.
And besides the rogue is still useful in a lot non-combat situations.



Use Magic Device is always a problem. Fortunately, magic items that pose a significant threat tend to be slightly on the expensive side.

Really? That scroll is worth 700gp not really cheap but not too expensive, now he doesn't have to expend money on potions. And if he's hurt he just need scrolls and they are cheaper than potions too.

Raum
2007-02-08, 08:41 AM
The quintessential requirement is flavor rather than balance. Yes it is. You'll note I purposely avoided using the term "balance".


Characters in fiction both fight and cast and still fight as effectively as companions or enemies that only fight. Immaterial. You can find examples in fiction for anything you want. But we're talking about the mechanics of gameplay.


Players want to play those types of characters too. If you want to bash stuff all the time, a character who wants to both bash and cast shouldn't have to bash less effectively just because you don't want to cast. Similarly, a character possessing out-of-combat (or primarily out-of-combat) abilities like healing and trapfinding shouldn't be penalized in combat. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by quintessential. It's not an exclusive quality, there are too many classes for that. However, games attempting to start from an even playing feild normally do need to avoid making a class "best" at multiple roles. Remember, we're talking games here not fiction. In fiction you can have sorcery destroy the world and a single caster create a spell to enable life on the fragments. In games that only works as a plot device, and even then it's fraught with potential problems.


A balanced character should be able to do something fun and meaningful on each of their turns in combat (fighting, offensive casting, a buff plus fighting, a maneuver and fighting or whatever it takes to get there) and in a fair share share of situations out of combat (via skills, class abilities, spells or whatever). I agree. I also think a good class should be capable of doing something meaningful on each of those turns.


I think Raum made the best summary argument thus far: every class should be playable, helpful to the party, and actually good at its core task. (I don't think they necessarily need to be the "best", but they should at least be good enough to be worth playing.) How exactly we accomplish that is the subject of several other threads, many of which are presently running.Thanks! And I probably should have stated it explicitly, but a class being best at it's essential role wasn't meant to be exclusive...no more than the roles are exclusive.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 02:41 PM
He is a 12th level specialist, 5/2 round attacks as a specialist, players option feat giving him no off-hand, so both swords countas wielded with the main hand and therefore giving him the full range of attacks.

The group is balanced in its unbalancing, giving each player some avesome unique skills to improve their characters might. Of course, I have a hell of a time finding (or more corect making) monsters they wont slay at once (since the group has a lot of magic and the fighter needs to encounter monsters with AC -10 or better (armouor bonus +20 in 3.5) to be challenged.

That happens at Thirteenth Level. 1-6: 3/2, 7-12: 2/1, 13+ 5/2. There is no Feat (or rather ability / skill / whatever) that allows what you are talking about in the Player's Option Series, as far as I can see. If you could point it out, though, I would be very interested, as it would be something I completey overlooked.

Misat
2007-02-08, 03:16 PM
I'm just going to say that I finally get what you all mean, or maybe I did before and just wanted to argue. Not the point though. I understand that a fighter should be the best at fighting, maybe not against a barbarian but definately against the hippy or the healer. I think they are balanced though. Their power curve continues to be relatively similar throughout the game, it's casters that seem to be ruining gameplay for everyone else.

Narmoth
2007-02-08, 03:21 PM
That happens at Thirteenth Level. 1-6: 3/2, 7-12: 2/1, 13+ 5/2. There is no Feat (or rather ability / skill / whatever) that allows what you are talking about in the Player's Option Series, as far as I can see. If you could point it out, though, I would be very interested, as it would be something I completey overlooked.

Oh, so he was 13th level then.
The rule used is "When wearing studded leather or lighter armor, a ranger can fight two-handed with no penalty to his attack rolls"
that with the addition of
"Ambidexterity: This character is equally skilled with the use of either hand. This trait carries over into training, so that the PC can use weapons, bear a shield, and perform acts of strength equally well with the right or left hand. The character is good at the two weapon fighting style, suffering no penalty for the first hand, and only a –2 penalty for off-hand use."
and
"Two Weapon
The proficiency slot spent to specialize in this difficult style requires 1 additional character point when it is first acquired—except for rangers, who can buy it for the same cost as any other fighting style specialization.

A character who specializes in the two weapon style counters some of the penalties inherent in using two weapons. Normally, a character suffers a –2 to attacks with the primary hand, and –4 to attacks with the secondary hand; this specialization reduces the penalty to 0 for the primary hand, and –2 for the secondary hand. Additionally, if a character has the trait of ambidexterity coupled with this specialization, he suffers no penalty for either hand.
The secondary weapon must be one size smaller than the primary weapon—unless the primary weapon is size S. If a character spends 2 additional character points on this specialization, however, he can learn to use two weapons of equal size, so long as each of the weapons can be wielded in one hand."
allows him to wiled 2 one handed weapons (longswords) without any penality, and since he is specialised in longswords, he get a specialist attack with his main hand, wich in his case is both of his hands.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 03:32 PM
Yeah, that doesn't mean no Off Hand, though if it is a House Rule it's understandable. I was interested because Drizzt is listed in 2.x as having 5 Attacks a round and I cannot figure out why.

Arceliar
2007-02-08, 03:36 PM
I still think fighters seem underpowered largely because of poor DMing. It's part of the DM's job to ensure that each of the basic character types are useful sometimes and useless at others. If the DM fails to prevent the wizard for pulling a Time Stop + Delayed Fireball(s) + Forcecage combo during a significant encounter, then that's the DM's fault, not Wizards of the Coast.

Though WotC didn't help the situation any. Melee is genuinely underpowered in several respects, but frankly I for one thing that could be fixed with better combat oriented feats. Hell, Improved Power Attack and Supreme Power Attack as feats would go a long way to doing that IMHO.

Jack Mann
2007-02-08, 03:43 PM
Arc, short of holding every adventure in a massive anti-magic field, there's very, very little the DM can do to set up encounters that the fighter can find challenging but the casters won't go right though. And for the record, if the wizard is bothering with delayed blast fireballs in that scenario, he's already gimping himself. Just not enough to make the fighter relevant.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-08, 03:46 PM
I still think fighters seem underpowered largely because of poor DMing. It's part of the DM's job to ensure that each of the basic character types are useful sometimes and useless at others. If the DM fails to prevent the wizard for pulling a Time Stop + Delayed Fireball(s) + Forcecage combo during a significant encounter, then that's the DM's fault, not Wizards of the Coast.

Antimagic Fields are rare. If half the encounters take place in one--sure, the fighter will do better than the wizard (although he'll still be hurting against CR-appropriate monsters).

Outside of an AMF... well, name me some encounters in which the fighter has a significant advantage over the wizard. I can name you dozens of the reverse.
Then, couple this with the fact that the wizard is also undisputably better at absolutely everything that doesn't involve combat, except maybe intimidating (for that, you need a Spell Compendium spell).

Narmoth
2007-02-08, 04:07 PM
Yeah, that doesn't mean no Off Hand, though if it is a House Rule it's understandable. I was interested because Drizzt is listed in 2.x as having 5 Attacks a round and I cannot figure out why.

I modified my post, you might want to re-read it :smallsmile:

Marius
2007-02-08, 04:08 PM
I still think fighters seem underpowered largely because of poor DMing. It's part of the DM's job to ensure that each of the basic character types are useful sometimes and useless at others. If the DM fails to prevent the wizard for pulling a Time Stop + Delayed Fireball(s) + Forcecage combo during a significant encounter, then that's the DM's fault, not Wizards of the Coast.

Really? So how would you DM a high level party were everyone is better than the fighter? (Yes even the Rogue).



Though WotC didn't help the situation any. Melee is genuinely underpowered in several respects, but frankly I for one thing that could be fixed with better combat oriented feats. Hell, Improved Power Attack and Supreme Power Attack as feats would go a long way to doing that IMHO.

Not really, even if you give them feats that allow them to do more damage they would still suck. A caster can do a lot more in a round than a fighter and the fighter has lots of weaknesses. They have no way to defend themselves.

Orzel
2007-02-08, 04:13 PM
Nonmagical classes are not masters of the mundane. They can't reach the upper limits of the rules that spellcasters constantly break. Fighters can get angry, cut the air, and start a hurricane. The DC for balancing on air and climibing a perfectly flat wall is too high for a nonepic rogue. Spellcasters take the elevator, non-casters take the stairs. You can't have the elvator out of order all the time. Powerbuffing the "reality trapped" classes to awe inspiring beasts or allowing crazily powerful items seem like the only way.

Raum
2007-02-08, 04:16 PM
I still think fighters seem underpowered largely because of poor DMing. It's part of the DM's job to ensure that each of the basic character types are useful sometimes and useless at others. The DM's "job", if you will, is to provide a setting and antagonists for the PCs to interact with. It isn't to compensate for inadequate game mechanics.

Compensating (or attempting to compensate) for innadequate mechanics is something the gaming community tends to do on forums such as this...hence this discussion. And many others. :)

Matthew
2007-02-08, 04:17 PM
I modified my post, you might want to re-read it :smallsmile:

Okay, you have to reread the Two Weapon Fighting Rules in 2.x. You never ever get more than 1 extra attack with Two Weapon Fighting. It is clearly the case in the Player's Option Series, Fighter's Handbook and Player's Handbook. It doesn't matter what you do to reduce the penalties, you never gain the benefits of specialisation.

Player's Handbook



Attacking with Two Weapons
A tricky fighting style available only to warriors and rogues is that of fighting with two weapons simultaneously. The character chooses not to use a shield in favor of another weapon, granting him a greater number of attacks, with a penalty to his attack rolls (rangers are exempt from the attack roll penalty).
When using a second weapon in his off-hand, a character is limited in his weapon choice. His principal weapon can be whatever he chooses, provided it can be wielded with one hand. The second weapon must be smaller in size and weight than the character's main weapon (though a dagger can always be used as a second weapon, even if the primary weapon is also a dagger). A fighter can use a long sword and a short sword, or a long sword and a dagger, but he cannot use two long swords. Nor can the character use a shield, unless it is kept strapped onto his back.
When attacking, all characters but rangers suffer penalties to their attack rolls. Attacks made with the main weapon suffer a -2 penalty, and attacks made with the second weapon suffer a -4 penalty. The character's Reaction Adjustment (based on his Dexterity, see Table 2) modifies this penalty. A low Dexterity score will worsen the character's chance to hit with each attack. A high Dexterity can negate this particular penalty, although it cannot result in a positive modifier on the attack rolls for either weapon (i.e., the Reaction Adjustment can, at best, raise the attack roll penalties to 0).
The use of two weapons enables the character to make one additional attack each combat round, with the second weapon. The character gains only one additional attack each round, regardless of the number of attacks he may normally be allowed. Thus, a warrior able to attack 3/2 (once in the first round and twice in the second) can attack 5/2 (twice in the first round and three times in the second).

Skills and Powers


Ambidexterity: This character is equally skilled with the use of either hand. This trait carries over into training, so that the PC can use weapons, bear a shield, and perform acts of strength equally well with the right or left hand. The character is good at the two weapon fighting style, suffering no penalty for the first hand, and only a –2 penalty for off‑hand use.



Two‑weapon style (5): A ranger can fight with two weapons and suffer no penalties to his attacks rolls. No shield can be used when a ranger fights in this manner. If the ranger wears armor heavier than studded leather, the standard penalties fro two‑weapon fighting apply.



Two Weapon Style
The proficiency slot spent to specialize in this difficult style requires 1 additional character point when it is first acquired—except for rangers, who can buy it for the same cost as any other fighting style specialization.
A character who specializes in the two weapon style counters some of the penalties inherent in using two weapons. Normally, a character suffers a –2 to attacks with the primary hand, and –4 to attacks with the secondary hand; this specialization reduces the penalty to 0 for the primary hand, and –2 for the secondary hand. Additionally, if a character has the trait of ambidexterity coupled with this specialization, he suffers no penalty for either hand.
The secondary weapon must be one size smaller than the primary weapon—unless the primary weapon is size S. If a character spends 2 additional character points on this specialization, however, he can learn to use two weapons of equal size, so long as each of the weapons can be wielded in one hand.



Weapon Specialization
A character receives extra bonuses for using a specific weapon by spending character points on specialization. Single‑classed fighters can become weapon specialists at any point in their careers simply by spending a second weapon proficiency slot on a weapon with which they are already proficient.
Characters of a fighter subclass, or multi‑classed fighters, can specialize in weapon use, though at an increased cost in character points. In addition, other characters must achieve certain minimum levels of experience before they can attain a weapon specialization. These costs, and the minimum experience level, are shown on Table 53: Gaining Weapon Specialization.

A character who receives a weapon specialization during a campaign must be trained by a character with a specialization (or higher) level of skill in that same weapon. The training requires a number of months equal to the character point cost to purchase the specialization, and this training is a full‑time occupation.
The effects of weapon specialization vary by the type of weapon, as follows. If a specialist weapon (such as a spear) can be used as a melee or a missile weapon, the character gets the appropriate benefits for each type of use.
Melee Weapons: The character gets a +1 bonus to attack rolls and +2 to damage rolls when using the weapon. Also, the character gets one extra attack every two rounds. At first level, for example, a specialist with the long sword would be able to make three attacks every two rounds.


Combat and Tactics



Two Weapon
Not to be confused with the two-handed weapon style, two weapon style uses a weapon in each of the character's hands. The advantage of this is clear: the character either has more attack power or can use the secondary weapon defensively to block incoming blows. Another benefit lies in the fact that even if the character loses a weapon, he's still armed.
The character can use any one-handed weapon in his primary hand, but his secondary weapon must be a size smaller than his primary weapon. Knives and daggers can always be used, regardless of the primary weapon's size. The character suffers a -2 penalty to attacks with the primary weapon, and a -4 to attacks with the secondary weapon. This penalty is offset by the character's reaction adjustment for high Dexterity.
Important Note: While the character receives his normal number of attacks for class, level, and specialization with his primary weapon, he only receives one additional attack with his secondary weapon. Warriors and rogues know two weapon fighting style.



Two-Weapon Style
This is a difficult style to master, since it requires exceptional coordi­nation and skill. Normally, characters who fight with a weapon in each hand suffer a -2 penalty to attacks with their primary hand and a -4 penalty to attacks with the off-hand weapon. This can be partially or com­pletely negated by the character's reaction adjustment for Dexterity (or Dex/Aim if you're also using Skills & Powers). Characters who specialize in this style reduce their penalty to 0 and -2, respectively. Ambidextrous characters who specialize in this style suffer no penalty with either attack.
The character's secondary weapon must be one size smaller than his primary weapon—but knives and dag­gers can always be used as secondary weapons, regardless of the size of the primary weapon. Note that this means that for Man-sized characters, the secondary weapon has to be size S. However, if a character spends a second proficiency slot on two-weapon style specialization, he gains the ability to use two weapons of equal size, as long as he can use each one as a one-handed weapon. Rangers are considered to have the first slot of this style specialization for free as a character ability.



Ambidexterity(1 slot/4 CP)
Dexterity/Aim
Groups: Warrior, Rogue
Ambidextrous characters are able to use either hand with equal coordination and skill. They are neither right-handed nor left-handed. When fighting in two-weapon style, an ambidextrous character has two "primary" hands, and suffers a -2 penalty to hit with either weapon. If the ambidextrous character spends a slot to specialize in two-weapon fighting style, he suffers no penalty to attacks with either weapon.

Arceliar
2007-02-08, 04:24 PM
It's not exactly hard to throw a golem in here or there you know.. that's by far the most obvious example I can think of where a fighter can excel where a wizard and rogue don't. I mean, sure, a wizard who knows there's going to be an iron golem is going to have rusting grasp ready and such, but for the most part it's one of those encounters that the fighter has a clear advantage in. Unless you just avoid the thing, but if it's somehow plot significant then problem solved. (In my experience anyway)

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-08, 04:54 PM
Not really. There are lots of things that can be done against golems--from Disintegrating the floor to Solid Fog (combine with a Ventriloquism scroll to keep it busy for as long as you like, it'll chase your voice around) to the Orb spells from CArc. Plus, the fighter has to melee it; the wizard can be safely flying out of harm's way. Mmm, Overland Flight.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 05:18 PM
Immaterial. You can find examples in fiction for anything you want. But we're talking about the mechanics of gameplay.


Not immaterial. Players want to play characters that are like the heroes they read about and see in movies in the game. There is no mechanical reason a character can't do multiple things really well. Kind of hard to see how you can admit that the quintessential idea is flavor rather than balance, then use, "But we're talking about the mechanics of gameplay," as an argument. There's a difference between mechanical balance and using mechanics to enforce a particular flavor.


Remember, we're talking games here not fiction. In fiction you can have sorcery destroy the world and a single caster create a spell to enable life on the fragments. In games that only works as a plot device, and even then it's fraught with potential problems.


Sorcery on a level that works only as a plot device has nothing to do with discussion of the "quintessential" role as you described it in your original post. The fact that this doesn't work mechanically does nothing to further your argument that a class needs to be the best at one archetypal role. You may not have meant quintessential to be exclusive, but best is pretty exclusive... There's only one best.



I agree. I also think a good class should be capable of doing something meaningful on each of those turns.

A character has a class, that class determines in large part what the character can do on his turns. A class doesn't do anything on any turn, the character does.

Rigeld2
2007-02-08, 05:45 PM
It's not exactly hard to throw a golem in here or there you know.. that's by far the most obvious example I can think of where a fighter can excel where a wizard and rogue don't. I mean, sure, a wizard who knows there's going to be an iron golem is going to have rusting grasp ready and such, but for the most part it's one of those encounters that the fighter has a clear advantage in. Unless you just avoid the thing, but if it's somehow plot significant then problem solved. (In my experience anyway)
Golems only ignore spells that allow spell resistance. Theres lots that dont. If it doesnt allow spell resistance, it hits the Golem. Things like http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidArrow.htm and more. It gets worse with the Orb line from CArc.

Indon
2007-02-08, 06:17 PM
Having a good idea how these kinds of threads go, I didn't bother to read after it degraded into the fighter vs. wizard PvP fight. So I apologize if I missed something valuable or useful posted by someone else who actually has been reading this thread.

Having played multiplayer games in which balance was a more significant factor than creative license, I can honestly say that I don't care in the least about balance in a pen and paper game. I play for storytelling, not PvP battles; if I wanted a PvP battle, there are thousands of computer-driven games that can give me that much faster, prettier, and with less bookkeeping.

But hey, I'll humor, let's say someone wants to play such a game in pen and paper format. D&D isn't even a PvP Pen and Paper game in the first place. Warhammer 40K is. Battletech is (and I admit, both are good games). D&D may have mechanics that were drawn from a wargame, but it stopped being a wargame when the objective changed from 'win the war' to 'explore the dungeon', and it never went back.

D&D is a game in which there is no 'victory' objective (barring having fun, anyway). In terms of what you 'play the game to do', dying from having your head exploded by a polar bear is equally valid as conquering the universe as pun-pun. In fact, the polar bear scenario is probably more interesting for most players.

If you're a DM and your players aren't having fun because one's doing the Batman thing, then stop him. The ways in which you may do so are limited by your imagination. Even the rules aren't absolute, they're conventions at best, because the game is about storytelling, not rules.

Not that this 'balance' hubbub has been entirely bad. It's certainly offered countless new and creative ideas that many prospective DM's could put into a game. But we should stop talking like the rules as-printed go against the spirit of the game.

And we should stop making multi-page posts involving wizard/fighter duels. Even if two classes are unbalanced in a campaign environment, dueling between them wouldn't demonstrate that... unless it was some kind of gladitorial campaign, anyway.

Or to summarize this rant:

-Balancing things is boring.
-New ideas are still good, though.
-DM's can and should do what they want, and not care about, well, any of the opinions in threads like this (including mine).
-Let's leave the poor fighter and wizard alone. What if they just want to be friends?

Jack Mann
2007-02-08, 06:27 PM
Indron, we are not talking about that kind of balance, for the most part. The question is not whether wizards can beat fighters. It's whether or not fighters can contribute in high level games. Because of the way the rules work, it's very difficult to play a meaningful high level warrior who isn't a cleric or druid. That wizards can beat fighters isn't really that big a problem. It's that everything else in high-level D&D can too, or else it isn't much of a challenge for the casting classes.

Raum
2007-02-08, 06:28 PM
Not immaterial. Players want to play characters that are like the heroes they read about and see in movies in the game. Players also want to play therianthropes…or demonkin…or even gods. It is immaterial. What does it have to do ensuring each individual class is viable, useful, and good at it’s role?


There is no mechanical reason a character can't do multiple things really well. Well, not if the character takes the cleric class at least…or druid…but fighter? The RAW fighter class has difficulty doing a single thing as well as some other classes, much less multiple. And yes, the reason is game mechanics.


Kind of hard to see how you can admit that the quintessential idea is flavor rather than balance, then use, "But we're talking about the mechanics of gameplay," as an argument. There's a difference between mechanical balance and using mechanics to enforce a particular flavor.Why? As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’m not limiting myself to the term “balance”. It’s used to mean too many different things. As for the mechanics of game play, they should support the class’ role. Not enforce, but support and enable.


Sorcery on a level that works only as a plot device has nothing to do with discussion of the "quintessential" role as you described it in your original post. The fact that this doesn't work mechanically does nothing to further your argument that a class needs to be the best at one archetypal role. Hmm, I think you missed my point. To put it simply, trying to learn game play from fiction is like trying to learn life from “reality” TV. Fiction is too varied and has no need to subscribe to game mechanics.


You may not have meant quintessential to be exclusive, but best is pretty exclusive... There's only one best. Why? We have ties and draws all the time. Basically, any classes with “beat things into submission” as their primary role should be roughly equal to each other and better at beating things than classes with differing primary roles.


A character has a class, that class determines in large part what the character can do on his turns. A class doesn't do anything on any turn, the character does.True. But a character isn’t limited to a single class. And we’re talking class viability not character viability.

AllisterH
2007-02-21, 02:58 AM
For me, its not even "high level".

I've done GMing using only 1 specific class with the original 3.0 adventures (the ones with the iconic characters on them). Just using the 3.5 PHB, the cleric and the druid have NEVER had a problem in any adventure.

Even a 4 person rogue party seems able to do "more" thanks to their skills while the fighter and barbarians pretty much can't complete any of the adventures after level 8.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-21, 05:40 AM
... That's what happens when I stay away from the board for a few days...
Did you guys forgot to take your remedy? Will you guys simply stop tearing apart each other? You sound like immature kids.
Yeah, complain all you want about me now, and call me all the names you want.
You still sounds like kids.

Points made:

Fighters are weak from mid level to high level.
Fighters need better high level feats/powers.
No, fighter is not a blabbing idiot that'll stay away drinking tea while the wizard and the cleric fight.
No, no monster with a minimum of Inteligence 3 will ignore the guy with the metal pointy stick, that is simply hacking away his Hit Points.
People need to drop the personal and general offenses. And need to stop the sarcastic posts. They are simply stupid, and make you sound silly.

I'll be back when you all stop acting as little children tossing toys at each other.

Rigeld2
2007-02-21, 06:58 AM
... That's what happens when I stay away from the board for a few days...
Did you guys forgot to take your remedy? Will you guys simply stop tearing apart each other? You sound like immature kids.
Yeah, complain all you want about me now, and call me all the names you want.
You still sounds like kids.

Points made:
Fighters are weak from mid level to high level.
Fighters need better high level feats/powers.
No, fighter is not a blabbing idiot that'll stay away drinking tea while the wizard and the cleric fight.
No, no monster with a minimum of Inteligence 3 will ignore the guy with the metal pointy stick, that is simply hacking away his Hit Points.
People need to drop the personal and general offenses. And need to stop the sarcastic posts. They are simply stupid, and make you sound silly.I'll be back when you all stop acting as little children tossing toys at each other.
The hypocricy is dripping.

ZekeArgo
2007-02-21, 07:09 AM
The hypocricy is dripping.

Dripping? Seems more like gushing to me. Heres an idea: when you complain about "personal and general offenses" make sure your post isn't total flamebait.

I mean hey, nothing better shows that your superior and above all of the "kids" than unprovoked ridicule. Truly a mark of maturity that.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-21, 08:59 AM
I never claimed I was more mature than anyone here :smallamused:
And if that's the best defense you guys have, then I'm done with this thread.

AllisterH
2007-02-21, 09:34 AM
For me, the classes aren't that unbalanced.

For example, I've found that sorcerors thanks tot heir limited spell selection tend not to outshine the other classes in out of combat situations a la the wizard.

Throw in that Quickened is not useful for them plus the above restriction of limited spell selection means that many of the tactics used in the wizard vs fighter showdons on this board are not valid and voila, the classes seem better balanced.

Indon
2007-02-21, 10:06 AM
I think a significant problem is that the vulnerabilities of the full spellcasting classes (Wizard spellbooks, Clerics having to do what their gods want, Druids, well, being druids) are either too extreme for a DM to use against them (without his spellbook, the wizard goes from pretty useful to pretty much useless, for example) or distracting to many DM's plotlines (a Cleric needing to perform a task to maintain the favor of their deity is going to get the party off-track, as another example).

So, these vulnerabilities don't really ever get explored. Meanwhile, the vulnerabilities of, say, the fighter, are numerous, but individually small, so they seem much more reasonable to exploit.

Dan8uillin
2007-02-21, 10:06 AM
i like the idea of a pounce feat, posted somwhere. there's an epic feat that let's you pull a full-attack off of a charge, as long as it's in the first round. Of course, warblades can do that at level 9, any time they want, then recover it as a swift action. Go fighter epic feats, wheras a wizard can cast any 9th level spell or lower quickened, and multiple times per round with the expenditure of epic feats.
so yeah, not balanced.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-21, 01:06 PM
Aaaaaaah! Thread zombie!
Kill it with Mod-Shotgun!

ZekeArgo
2007-02-21, 01:32 PM
I never claimed I was more mature than anyone here :smallamused:
And if that's the best defense you guys have, then I'm done with this thread.

First of all yes, by calling the maturity of others into question you set yourself up as the person who is "more mature" which obviously you are not. As for your points, nevermind that they have been refuted time and again, but here you go:


Fighters are weak from mid level to high level

Not even mid to high, from about level 3-4 they're outshined


Fighters need better high level feats/powers.

They need a way to maintain effectiveness against monsters who can simply bypass their abilities


No, fighter is not a blabbing idiot that'll stay away drinking tea while the wizard and the cleric fight

No, but how does your fighter contribute in an encounter with, as the argument goes, a balor? Charge in and try for a swing against the flying, SLA using teleporting badass? It isnt like he could, say, quicken dimensonal anchor then forcecage and dispose of the problem whenever he felt like it, knowing which spells he would need via divination.


No, no monster with a minimum of Inteligence 3 will ignore the guy with the metal pointy stick, that is simply hacking away his Hit Points

Hit point damage is simply not the way to go in DnD. It is less effective: attacks that bypass SR and Saves are what wizards/sorcs/clerics/druids hold above all the other classes, and it is why they are overpowered when compared to the others.


People need to drop the personal and general offenses. And need to stop the sarcastic posts. They are simply stupid, and make you sound silly.

Creating an offending post to complain about offending posts brands you as a hypocrite.

Rigeld2
2007-02-21, 01:48 PM
I'll be back when you all stop acting as little children tossing toys at each other.


And if that's the best defense you guys have, then I'm done with this thread.

We never changed how we were, and you came back. Please dont be done with this thread.

LotharBot
2007-02-21, 03:54 PM
Not even mid to high, from about level 3-4 [fighters are] outshined

Really? What kind of campaign do you run? Does your DM just let you rest whenever, so you can spam multiple spells every encounter? Does your DM just throw single monsters with random bad saves at you? I keep hearing people say things like this, and I just can't figure out how they're playing the game such that they find melee types "underpowered" so quickly.

In my experience, fighters don't really get to be underpowered until about level 13-15. Up until then, the HP damage they deal is still a very viable way to end combats (or at least remove some members of the combat), and they can generally draw the attention of all but the most intelligent and well prepared opponents. That doesn't stop being relevant until you're dealing with level 7 or 8 spells.


how does your fighter contribute in an encounter with, as the argument goes, a balor?

I don't think it can contribute much against a balor. But it can contribute a fair bit against most creatures up to CR 15 or so. It's those last 5-7 pre-epic levels where melee classes really fall off in comparison to casters.

Jack Mann
2007-02-21, 04:45 PM
Well, that's the point at which melee stops mattering so much, Loth. But even before then (I'd peg it at around level seven or so) the clerics and druids begin to outshine the fighter in that area. By that point, they have some of their best melee abilities (spells in the cleric's case, wildshape in the druid's), and they can start making the fighter more of a back-up instead of the primary combatant he's supposed to be. And at that level, by the time the casters run out of spells, the fighter is running out of hit points, his limited resource.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-21, 06:50 PM
Aaaaaaah! Thread zombie!
Kill it with Mod-Shotgun!
Dude, it hasn't even been two weeks.


Thread Necromancy
Bringing a thread back from “the dead.” If a thread has fallen to page three and hasn’t been posted in for a month and a half, don’t post in it. Start a new topic if you want to discuss the subject.
(emphasis mine)

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-21, 09:24 PM
It was still past page three. Night of the living thread!

Well, I think it was. Oh well. *puts away the chainsaw*

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-21, 09:48 PM
It was still past page three.
And. And. It has to meet both conditions.

Especially on high-activity forums, such as Gaming.

:tongue:

ShadowYRM
2007-02-21, 11:37 PM
Many people don't believe this, but, we play every campaign from Level One to near Level Twenty, and we've never seen a class that wasn't effective over several sessions.

There is no class that can't contribute effectively to a party over the entirety of that span if the DM presents a mixed and balanced campaign. At least, that's what our experience has been.

The MVP of our last campaign finale turned out to be a Ranger + Order of the Bow Initiate with an Oath Bow after a lucky Dispel Magic opened up one chink in the enemy armor to make that enemy vulnerable to bows.

The game isn't broken and every class can be effective across the course of a campaign in nearly equal doses.

Personally, I think Druids are the most powerful class, but, one of the best things a high level caster can do is buff the rest of the party. The synergy gives everyone a boost.

It seems like everyone gets their time to shine.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-02-22, 05:52 AM
I can think of two ways of upping the noncasters against the casters.

1. Sanity rules. While these aren't always appropriate for every setting, it makes being a CoDzilla more of a sacrifice, and makes you think twice before autobuffing ahead of every fight.

2. Something I learnt from (gasp!) games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights - limited spell slots are awful. Sure, you can unleash gribbly doom on your enemies ... four times per day. And then you have to rest to recover those spells. What if you can't rest, because if you do, the gelatinous cubes are coming to get you. If he can't get 8 hours sleep, even the mighty cleric will begin to have trouble, whereas the characters who rely on more mundane methods, such as the scout, fighter, and rogue become more important - they can keep hacking away all day.

Jack Mann
2007-02-22, 06:39 AM
Illiterate, that's far less true in regular D&D. By the time the cleric and druid are creeping past the fighter--indeed, a large part of the reason why they creep past the fighter--they have enough spells per day to last them as long as the fighter and other classes. Fighters do have a limited resource: hit points. Those do run out. Sure, the cleric can heal him. But it's actually a more efficient use of the cleric's resources to do the tanking instead. His best buffs he doesn't need for every battle, so he probably does have them when the going gets really tough. If there have been enough battles that the cleric doesn't have any spells left, the fighter is probably down to his last few hit points.

Besides, the cleric doesn't have to rest for eight hours to get his spells back. He just needs one hour of meditation. Wizards and sorcerors can cast rope trick once they're level eight, and be assured of sleep.

The "fighters can go all day" story is just a myth.

Now, you want a melee type who can last as long as necessary? Try a warforged crusader.