Is Magic itself Overpowered? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Masakan

2015-09-25, 01:12 PM

I've noticed a pattern since i started posting here about discussions regarding magic and it being a broke and overpowered system.
Personally, I feel that many are just jumping the gun and lumping them all together. Me? I don't think magic is OP the system itself is fine....the problem comes from who's casting it.
So let's get started with the Bard, the bard is considered the jack of all trades class can do most anything but nothing particularly well other than being the team skill monkey and face. Most of the bards spells tend to be illusion and enchantment based as well as a few blasting spells and boosts.
It's considered very weak in comparison to the higher casters, but the fact that it can use magic in the first place makes it useful in any group, but far from broken.

Next we have the Sorcerer and the Favored soul(The charismatic counter parts to wizards and clerics respectively)
Same access to the same spells, but how many they know are incredibly limited making them easy to predict and while potentially campaign breaking, still has limits that need to be adhered to.

Which brings me to my point. Magic itself isn't broken or overpowered...but prepared casters are. I know many probably already realize that, but when i hear people talking about banning magic from campaigns altogether i can't help but shake my head.

The problem isn't magic itself..it's the fact that certain classes simply get too much of it for no real explainable reason, or downside. Now I know wizards have to deal with how costly it is to maintain their spellbook, Clerics effectively only get one shot to get it right, and druids..well no matter what it's very hard to mess up a druid. But really those aren't significant drawbacks at all, by the time you get to the mid/high levels, you effectively already have all the spells you need for any given situation.

Now to be fair Wu Jen's and Shugeria's are prepared too...but they don't have nearly the expansive list that wizards or clerics do.

And let's be real here, whenever magic is discussed. It always goes back to Wizards, Clerics and Druids. And unless they are a super high tier powergaming campaign(In which these 3 will most likely be the only classes used.) They basically just amount to an "I win" bot in most cases.
Druid magic is just unneeded, they would still be incredibly powerful even if they couldn't use magic. Clerics can just prestige into 2-3 different classes while still getting the benefit of having access to all spells at their level. And wizards imo are just straight obnoxious. believe me when I say I get how irritating it is knowing that you are considered fundamentally weaker for not going a full caster or even a prepared one.

What im saying is for the most part prepared casters are the reason why magic is considered unbalanced, now I would like to think most people here have the decency not to metagame to hell and back as a batman wizard when your companions are a barbarian, a rouge, and a ranger.

It really comes down to what your definition of fun is, However if your definition of fun is making life miserable for others, you really need to rethink a few things.

Now I've already suggested making people run the spontaneous versions of Cleric and Druid, and flat out banning wizard, Spell to power Erudite, and archivist.(I still don't quite get how the ability to make anything can break a game though[Artificer])
Don't like it? Guess what you gotta find another table.

Now maybe the guy is willing to hold himself back for the sake of the party good on him, but can you honestly suggest in good conscious any of the non eastern prepared casters?

If anyone needs any clarity don't be afraid to ask, I know I suck at finding the right words.

eggynack

2015-09-25, 01:26 PM

Magic definitely isn't intrinsically overpowered. Even prepared casting isn't necessarily. Take the healer, for example, with its sanctified spells removed for the sake of argument. You have a pretty standard tier five class which fits in just fine with fighters and monks. Outside of some particular extremes, systems of this sort are rarely going to be intrinsically overpowered, because it tends to be trivial to construct a reasonably powered class that uses the system in question.

Flickerdart

2015-09-25, 01:28 PM

Prepared casters aren't the problem, because it doesn't really matter how much magic you have. Sorcerer is still broken, even if it only gets one spell known per level, because that spell can be shapechange and solve every encounter. Wizard is still broken even if it can only prepare one spell per day, because that spell can be planar binding and now the wizard has an army of demons. A mage who casts at-will fireball or who can spontaneously cast any 1st level spell from any list will get wrecked by either of the first two guys, every time.

The problem is that there are individual spells that are better than entire classes.

martixy

2015-09-25, 01:29 PM

Not inherently, no.

Neither are prepared spellcasters, as you say.
Not in a sensibly built campaign anyway.

Yes, RAW and mechanically you might argue they are OP.
However, who is to say that the balancing mechanisms for different mechanics have to be ALL the same.

If you have something that breaks your campaign because it has a ready solution to every problem, start limiting access to those solutions.
Make magic more expensive to maintain. Don't do 15-minute adventuring days.

Sacrieur

2015-09-25, 01:29 PM

I literally just got into a discussion with someone about material components and how they're overlooked, which leads to breaking the game.

Yes, RAW and mechanically you might argue they are OP.
However, who is to say that the balancing mechanisms for different mechanics have to be ALL the same.

If you have something that breaks your campaign because it has a ready solution to every problem, start limiting access to those solutions.
Make magic more expensive to maintain. Don't do 15-minute adventuring days.

Actually by RAW they're more restricted rather than less. In pathfinder the spell component pouch has a defined limited size (1/8 cu ft.) and defined weight limit. While the RAW says not to keep track of things with a negligible cost (i.e., things without a listed price), that still means some spells do need to be kept track of.

This includes such favorite spells like Nondetection, Arcane Lock, Stone Skin, Wall of Iron, True Seeing, and specific use of Gate.

Brova

2015-09-25, 01:36 PM

Honestly, it's not even like you can't compete with full casters. Up to like 12th level or so you can have a party that is Warblade/Wizard/Rogue/Druid and be basically fine, if casters don't do any active shenanigans. I don't think you can even hold those shenanigans against them, because none of them are better than the Candle of Invocation, and Candles of Invocation are things you can just buy. Given that the game already requires people to work to not break it, I think it is totally fine that casters have to do that. Especially as a lot of the "broken" options allow you to tell unique stories if you happen to allow them.

Oko and Qailee

2015-09-25, 01:41 PM

I literally just got into a discussion with someone about material components and how they're overlooked, which leads to breaking the game.

Overlooking material components isn't the problem.

A 1.5k jade circlet to cast shapechange is 100% worth it and you can still break the game regardless of whether you spend 1.5k or not.

Some spells just have effects that are too absurdly powerful, that as long as the cost is attainable, the spell is broken.

Flickerdart

2015-09-25, 01:44 PM

Don't do 15-minute adventuring days.
The main reason casters run out of spell slots is because the fighter is expensive to heal and buff. A campaign that enforces attrition-type encounters is a campaign that ends up with dead front-liners and wizards rummaging through their knapsacks for diamonds.

Ellowryn

2015-09-25, 01:45 PM

Magic in DnD is inherently OP and broken. This is because if you take someone who can use magic (say Sorcerer) and someone who can't (say fighter), the sorcerer can do everything the fighter can do in addition to doing things the fighter can't. And there really aren't any in-game checks and balances to this. Sure, a wizard without his spellbook is just a commoner with some good skill points but unless there is GM railroading then this situation isn't going to come up in many campaigns, and the cleric or druid? You can take away their divine focuses but that takes all of 5 minutes of ingame time to replace, and even then not all their good spells require it in the first place.

On to the prepared vs spontaneous casters. Yes banning all prepared casters brings down to total possible optimization level, but pun-pun can be a sorcerer so don't think that removes everything and there is always rainbow servant to muck things up. But you cannot say that prepared casters are everything wrong with the magic system, as the fighter wills till lose to sorcerers, favored souls, and the like. As i pointed out above, its magic in general that is broken, not the classes that use them.

Does this mean that DnD is an unplayable game? No. It is just fine as it is, and if this forum is any indication then most people enjoy playing it. Which is what is important. The inherent imbalance in classes allows for a wide range of playstyles and optimization.

Sacrieur

2015-09-25, 01:46 PM

Overlooking material components isn't the problem.

A 1.5k jade circlet to cast shapechange is 100% worth it and you can still break the game regardless of whether you spend 1.5k or not.

Some spells just have effects that are too absurdly powerful, that as long as the cost is attainable, the spell is broken.

Why don't enemies, intelligent ones, know to go after a spellcaster's component pouch?

Der_DWSage

2015-09-25, 01:49 PM

The problem is twofold-prepared casting just makes it more obvious.

The issue isn't just that Clerics, Wizards, and Druids can cast from their entire list with some preparation time, and it isn't just that they're able to overcome the hurdles of limited selection by the time they've got 3rd or 4th level spells. The issue is that, at every spell level, there are some really good spells that make mundane options cry. And it's a lot of work to go through spell lists and go 'Okay, so we need to nerf that option down or remove it altogether, but Magic Missile is okay, so let's go on to Invisibility, we still want a way to be invisible but not make it the automatic 'Make Rogues Cry' option...'

So yeah. I'd honestly say magic itself is overpowered in regards to mundane options.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 01:49 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2015-09-25, 01:50 PM

Ellowryn

2015-09-25, 01:55 PM

To which i have to ask, what the hell are you doing playing a straight fighter? That comparison is just unfair..a straight fighter is just bad regardless of whether magic is involved or not.

I wasn't comparing straight fighter (i could have chosen any non-casting class for my example), but rather non-casters in general. Sure fighter into Sual Archanamach is far more powerful than straight fighter and competes with bards in power, but at that point you are a caster like the bard.

Flickerdart

2015-09-25, 01:59 PM

Why don't enemies, intelligent ones, know to go after a spellcaster's component pouch?
Because it's a 5gp item. Buy five! Buy ten! Any turn that an enemy spends trying to sunder your pouch is a turn the enemy doesn't spend trying to murder you - and in a wizard-slaying plan, the stage where you're next to the wizard and able to attack him with weapons is among the last stages of the plan, because if you blow it by attacking his items, you lost your chance and soon will be dead.

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-25, 02:00 PM

I have a problem with the premise of this topic. The idea of "overpowered" means that we are comparing it to a base power and in a discussion like this it seems like the base are the martial classes.

Personally, I feel like the martial classes are not that well designed and overly narrow in scope and that many other classes are much more appealing just because they give more solutions, more options, and more variability in playstyle for the person controlling the character. Personally, I would make the argument that the martial classes are, in the purely theoretical realm, UNDERPOWERED and deserve some love and attention to make sure that they are a little more enjoyable. I think a great example of this approach is the Pathfinder Unchained book that introduced a lot of stuff to make playing a martial character a little more varied and a little more fun. Sure, it doesn't make them a wizard but it does a lot of help at bringing them up to better tiers and making them a more attractive option.

I think another point to address is that "overpowered" is a metric that is not consistent and will vary widely based on the DM, the campaign limitations, the books being used, and the players themselves. For example, some DMs don't like to use a lot of magical items and this results in an unfair bias against the martials who need these tools to catch up. But other examples of this kind of swings are home rules, lack of splat books or important splat books for your concept, or things like EC6 games that dramatically reduce the kind of builds are available.

But let me move beyond the vast overarching concepts of the topic and discuss the crux of the discussion: magic. Magic isn't overpowered. There are some spells that are absolutely stupid (like polymorph) and there are certainly builds that can abuse magic to high hell and make it unfun to be around. Heck, there are even singular feats that can be annoying (Sacred Geometry from Pathfinder is a great example). But none of these things point out how magic itself is broken. A blaster sorcerer, a gish build, a support character. These are all implementations of magic that are typically very much "on par" with most other characters and I would argue are far from overpowered. It really boils down to the specific build and the character controlling it.

*Bonus round edit* There are also variant systems out there that are very different views of magic that are far from overpowered. Look up "spheres of power" for my personal favorite. Very accessible and well designed.

Thrice Dead Cat

2015-09-25, 02:08 PM

Why don't enemies, intelligent ones, know to go after a spellcaster's component pouch?

While I doubt this is the case everywhere, I've made it a habit to buy a minimum of two component pouches at character creation. I mean, if I have belt space/encubrance, why not have more than one pouch? At low levels, it means having burying at least one round if someone does swipe at a pouch.

Sacrieur

2015-09-25, 02:11 PM

While I doubt this is the case everywhere, I've made it a habit to buy a minimum of two component pouches at character creation. I mean, if I have belt space/encubrance, why not have more than one pouch? At low levels, it means having burying at least one round if someone does swipe at a pouch.

So do you split expensive components half and half between the two?

eggynack

2015-09-25, 02:13 PM

Magic in DnD is inherently OP and broken. This is because if you take someone who can use magic (say Sorcerer) and someone who can't (say fighter), the sorcerer can do everything the fighter can do in addition to doing things the fighter can't. And there really aren't any in-game checks and balances to this. Sure, a wizard without his spellbook is just a commoner with some good skill points but unless there is GM railroading then this situation isn't going to come up in many campaigns, and the cleric or druid? You can take away their divine focuses but that takes all of 5 minutes of ingame time to replace, and even then not all their good spells require it in the first place.
This argument is fallacious. Just because there exists a broken class that uses magic, that doesn't strictly imply that all magic classes will inherently be overpowered. In point of fact, one can trivially disprove the assertion that magic is intrinsically broken, an assertion that relies on its products always being broken, by constructing a counterexample class. Hence my pointing out of the healer.

As for the general claim that it all comes down to a few particular spells, rather than the vast breadth of choice, I think it's really both. Yes, you can break the game with shapechange, and similar high tier spells, but if you wipe away the top tier of spells, you still have a massive pile that, as a collection, grants about the same level of power as that top tier. In other words, these spells are a sufficient but not necessary condition for the power of these classes.

Troacctid

2015-09-25, 02:18 PM

I'm just surprised you picked Healer as your counterexample instead of, like, Hexblade. Now there's a class that's not overpowered.

Magic isn't overpowered, spells are overpowered. Which spells? Basically anything starting around 5th or 6th level, more or less, and a fair few below that as well.

Fouredged Sword

2015-09-25, 02:25 PM

So do you split expensive components half and half between the two?

Nah, you keep those each in their own pouch. That way, if the enemy DOES sunder or steal one, it only deprives you of a single spell. Things like the shapechange focus should be worn, preferably under other items to prevent anyone from having line of effect to it. The focus is non-magical. Nothing stops you from wearing a non-magical item under your magic hat.

Brova

2015-09-25, 02:28 PM

The main reason casters run out of spell slots is because the fighter is expensive to heal and buff. A campaign that enforces attrition-type encounters is a campaign that ends up with dead front-liners and wizards rummaging through their knapsacks for diamonds.

Yup. It turns out that the best melee combatant is just a spellcaster who Persisted (or in some cases just Extended) a bunch of good spells. And that guy is totally capable of winning as many encounters as you happen to want.

Magic in DnD is inherently OP and broken. This is because if you take someone who can use magic (say Sorcerer) and someone who can't (say fighter), the sorcerer can do everything the fighter can do in addition to doing things the fighter can't.

I personally don't think this is a problem. If you character concept is that you are a mundane guy who does stuff that is "not magic", you deserve to be worse than someone with magic. Because you are a lower level character. Just as the Sorcerer who can summon a badger is lower level than one who can summon a dragon, a Fighter who can kick down a door is lower level than one who can kick down a mountain. The idea that "guy with magic" and "guy without magic" should or even can be balanced is, more than any other issue, the reason Wizards are better than Fighters.

On to the prepared vs spontaneous casters. Yes banning all prepared casters brings down to total possible optimization level, but pun-pun can be a sorcerer so don't think that removes everything and there is always rainbow servant to muck things up.

Honestly, it's not even much of a drop. If the Wizard is a 10/10, the Sorcerer is still an 8/10 or a 9/10. Honestly, even in a party with a Wizard, a Sorcerer can still basically pull his weight just by showing up with web, cloudkill, and planar binding.

Why don't enemies, intelligent ones, know to go after a spellcaster's component pouch?

Because if you are in a position to break the Wizard's spell component pouch and stop him from casting spells, you are also in a position to stab him in the kidneys and stop him from being alive.

Personally, I would make the argument that the martial classes are, in the purely theoretical realm, UNDERPOWERED and deserve some love and attention to make sure that they are a little more enjoyable.

This is true. If you compare Fighters not to Wizards, but to level appropriate challenges, they come up short by about 10th level. That's almost definitionally underpowered.

legomaster00156

2015-09-25, 02:31 PM

Magic isn't overpowered, spells are overpowered. Which spells? Basically anything starting around 5th or 6th level, more or less, and a fair few below that as well.
Color Spray, for example. Good Gygax, Color Spray.

Troacctid

2015-09-25, 02:59 PM

Color Spray, for example. Good Gygax, Color Spray.

Really? I haven't been super impressed with it. Short range, Will negates, and only effective against weak enemies. That's not unreasonable for a significant expenditure of daily resources, especially considering the risk involved in putting yourself (and your squishy d4 hit die with no armor) at the front lines. Math-wise, it doesn't come out much better than a Barbarian with Cleave, and Cleave doesn't require any resource expenditure at all.

Dondasch

2015-09-25, 03:10 PM

Really? I haven't been super impressed with it. Short range, Will negates, and only effective against weak enemies. That's not unreasonable for a significant expenditure of daily resources, especially considering the risk involved in putting yourself (and your squishy d4 hit die with no armor) at the front lines. Math-wise, it doesn't come out much better than a Barbarian with Cleave, and Cleave doesn't require any resource expenditure at all.

Actually, being a Pattern (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#pattern), anything that sees it is affected. Though this does include your allies.

Troacctid

2015-09-25, 03:18 PM

Actually, being a Pattern (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#pattern), anything that sees it is affected. Though this does include your allies.

Only creatures within the cone suffer the effects.

Each creature within the cone is affected according to its Hit Dice.

torrasque666

2015-09-25, 03:28 PM

Really? I haven't been super impressed with it. Short range, Will negates, and only effective against weak enemies. That's not unreasonable for a significant expenditure of daily resources, especially considering the risk involved in putting yourself (and your squishy d4 hit die with no armor) at the front lines. Math-wise, it doesn't come out much better than a Barbarian with Cleave, and Cleave doesn't require any resource expenditure at all.
Same with stuff like Cone of Cold. You want to know why its a 5th level spell? Because back in AD&D, it didn't run the risk of destroying your loot. It froze potions and scrolls, as opposed to boil/incinerating them like Fireball or Lightning Bolt.

MorgromTheOrc

2015-09-25, 03:48 PM

I would say magic is powerful, but I'm definitely in the camp of people who say mundanes are underpowered. I mean you're comparing people with literal magic powers to regular guys, in a fantasy setting. Magic is meant to be the number one solution and fantasy stories are usually about important people in these games, someone who is literally magic is pretty important, and comparatively someone who isn't, well isn't.

Expecting magic to follow the same guidelines as everything else is just absurd, it's literally magic, the thing that doesn't follow guidelines and solves all problems MAGICALLY with no explanation needed in just about all classic fantasy stories. Of course the guy who can only swing a sword around isn't as good, if anyone's accusing the game of being unrealistic in this way just apply it real life, would you be more powerful with magic powers, or if you were part of a HEMA group?(nothing against HEMA)

I can't believe anyone believes that setting out to be Gandalf(or actually much better than him) is ever going to put at the same power level as Thorin or Aragorn, when Gandalf was literally some lesser god sent to help deal with the trouble caused by other lesser gods. When you look at the series as a whole the only reason anyone cared about anyone but Gandalf was because he was essentially an NPC who wasn't around that often(comparatively). So if you don't want your Gandalf to overshadow everyone else, don't have him around as much, either by making him an NPC, or having him spend his time buffing/debuffing and controlling for the mundanes. Otherwise play all casters and have some greater being(an actual god?) be your Gandalf NPC.

In my most recent game I was a level 4 barbarian leveling to 5 and said, "You know what, lets take a level of sorcerer." Because I would still be a decent "tank" :smallamused: and from my characters perspective access to even just a couple 1st level spells was a huge buff, and looking at just SRD alone there is nothing his class will ever get him that will be worth more than just 3 or 4 spells per day of anything 2nd level and above.

Flickerdart

2015-09-25, 03:58 PM

Expecting magic to follow the same guidelines as everything else is just absurd, it's literally magic, the thing that doesn't follow guidelines and solves all problems MAGICALLY with no explanation needed in just about all classic fantasy stories.
Actually, if you think about all the classics, we have non-magical heroes (say, Hercules or Perseus) exploiting magic items (the Nenean Lion's pelt, or the winged sandals of Hermes) and cunning to outsmart enemies that are frequently magical (such as dragons, gods, or demons). There's absolutely no reason that a game should have mundane characters weaker than their magical counterparts of the same level, because that's what a level means.

If you have a problem with a wizard being just as strong and skilled as swordguy, then have level 1 wizard represent the most rookie of apprentices, and level 1 swordguy represent the hardened veteran of more wars than he can count.

Brova

2015-09-25, 04:02 PM

Actually, if you think about all the classics, we have non-magical heroes (say, Hercules or Perseus)

Hercules is pretty magic. He's the son of Zeus, and has superhuman strength. If that's not magic, I'm not sure what is.

eggynack

2015-09-25, 04:10 PM

I'm just surprised you picked Healer as your counterexample instead of, like, Hexblade. Now there's a class that's not overpowered.
I like healer because it's prepared and goes to 9th's. While the question here was presented in a way that could be answered with hexblades, or hell, even with paladins, the question is often expanded to, "Is 9th level prepared casting intrinsically powerful?" which demands something like the healer. In that fashion, the healer is a class capable of answering more questions, and thus serves as a more general counterexample. I suppose I could more tailor my responses to the individual questions at hand, but starting at a relatively deep level allows flexibility, such that you don't have to say, "Fine, well in that case, I'll go with the healer, which does fit all of your new requirements."

Troacctid

2015-09-25, 04:11 PM

Same with stuff like Cone of Cold. You want to know why its a 5th level spell? Because back in AD&D, it didn't run the risk of destroying your loot. It froze potions and scrolls, as opposed to boil/incinerating them like Fireball or Lightning Bolt.

It's not really the same. Cone of Cold has a pretty long range, works on enemies regardless of their level, and is save-half instead of save-negates, so none of the drawbacks of Color Spray apply to it. I mean, it has drawbacks, but they're totally different drawbacks.

torrasque666

2015-09-25, 04:15 PM

It's not really the same. Cone of Cold has a pretty long range, works on enemies regardless of their level, and is save-half instead of save-negates, so none of the drawbacks of Color Spray apply to it. I mean, it has drawbacks, but they're totally different drawbacks.
Crap. I meant to put that in the "spell that are too high level thread." crossed my wires.

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-25, 04:16 PM

Actually, if you think about all the classics, we have non-magical heroes (say, Hercules or Perseus) exploiting magic items (the Nenean Lion's pelt, or the winged sandals of Hermes) and cunning to outsmart enemies that are frequently magical (such as dragons, gods, or demons). There's absolutely no reason that a game should have mundane characters weaker than their magical counterparts of the same level, because that's what a level means.

If you have a problem with a wizard being just as strong and skilled as swordguy, then have level 1 wizard represent the most rookie of apprentices, and level 1 swordguy represent the hardened veteran of more wars than he can count.

The problem with translating mythological or fantasy figures is that it becomes very difficult to differentiate exactly what they are and what "abilities" they use. Hercules has massive strength that FAR exceeds a humans, is this a reflection of a gish with all day buffs? A fighter? A ToB fighter? Maybe just a totemist? The point is: it's up to interpretation and your perception of a hero may not be the same as mine.

BTW. I totally think Perseus is a gished out favored soul.

Taelas

2015-09-25, 04:22 PM

You can build a character that, through magic, can do the same thing as the mythological characters, but seeing as they don't, y'know, cast spells in those myths to do their thing, then they aren't casters.

Flickerdart

2015-09-25, 04:25 PM

Hercules is pretty magic. He's the son of Zeus, and has superhuman strength. If that's not magic, I'm not sure what is.
It's not magic because he's only a guy with abs. The amount of abs is irrelevant.

The problem with translating mythological or fantasy figures is that it becomes very difficult to differentiate exactly what they are and what "abilities" they use. Hercules has massive strength that FAR exceeds a humans, is this a reflection of a gish with all day buffs? A fighter? A ToB fighter? Maybe just a totemist? The point is: it's up to interpretation and your perception of a hero may not be the same as mine.

BTW. I totally think Perseus is a gished out favored soul.
Doesn't really matter how you stat him out, as long as your guy does what Hercules does - solve problems with muscle power and wit. Perseus is fine as a Favored Soul so long as he never casts a single spell in battle.

Brova

2015-09-25, 04:33 PM

It's not magic because he's only a guy with abs. The amount of abs is irrelevant.

Magic doesn't mean casting spells. It means doing things that are supernatural. Like punching a lion to death. Or rerouting a river to clean out some guy's stables. Those aren't spells, but they're totally magic.

AvatarVecna

2015-09-25, 05:02 PM

This is starting to sound an awful lot like the "Guy at the Gym" fallacy.

I'm just going to clarify: a Core-only, by-the-book Monk 20 has 23 ranks in Jump, synergy bonus from Tumble, ~16 Str, 90 ft movement, and a +30 competence bonus to Jump from an item. That gives them a total Jump check of +82, for an average check of 92. That gives them a high jump of ~23 ft, with another 8 ft of reach from his own personal height. That's a pretty high jump...for a normal person. The Olympic record IRL is 8 ft 1/4 in, a DC 32 check in D&D. A 2nd level character with 5 ranks in Jump and Tumble, Skill Focus: Jump, and 16 Str, given 20 chances, can match that once and beat it once. I'll say that again: Olympic level athletics can be accomplished by a second level character. That should put into perspective what I expect out of high level non-magic characters. And what do I get? A mere 23 ft high jump. The absolute kings of Jumping from a fluff point of view, and Monks can't even triple Olympic records.

Sounds whiny, right? Oh, boo hoo, a 20th level Monk can't make Olympic athletes look like toddlers, so what? A Monk 20 shouldn't look like Jackie Chan; a Monk 20 shouldn't look like Bruce Lee. A Monk 20 should look like Kung Fu Panda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltbzLZHIK4I). A Monk 20 should look like a ****ing Super-Saiyan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmvRJOHMhaw). A Monk 20 shouldn't just be Jumping 20 ft up, they should be jumping up a couple hundred feet, and fighting on the way down...assuming they don't just hold themselves there through sheer force of will.

Magic is overpowered in comparison, but I think it's operating on the right level...maybe a little too high, but it's closer to the right ballpark than most any non-magic option. A fight between 20th level characters should be an epic battle that can't be ended through cheap tactics...and it should reshape the battlefield, or maybe even the local climate.

Hecuba

2015-09-25, 05:06 PM

Which brings me to my point. Magic itself isn't broken or overpowered...but prepared casters are. I know many probably already realize that, but when i hear people talking about banning magic from campaigns altogether i can't help but shake my head.

Well, I don't quite agree, but I think that you're reasonably close to the root problem.

The issue isn't that, in the abstract, having spells is a problem.
The issue is that:

Certain specific spells are too flexible (wish/miracle, shapechange, Shadow X, etc).
The non-specialist class lists, taken as a whole, are too flexible.

Admittedly, removing 1 would probably do much more to bring Spontaneous casters in line with T3 classes than it would Prepared casters. But Spontaneous Casters still have enough spell availability to make 2 an issue.

Essentially, the key is to make the lists narrower.

Assume we've killed or nerfed the big offenders indicated in 1 above and consider this wizard mod:

Level 1: Access to all cantrips & one school of magic for other spells.
Level 5: Access to another school, but only for spells 2 levels lower than your highest level spell known.
Level 10: As level 5, but 3 levels lower
Level 15: As level 5, but 4 Levels lower
Level 20: As level 5, but 5 levels lower

We still have a prepared caster. We still, given the wizard's ability to acquire scrolls, have a caster with the capacity to exceed the number of spells known that a Sorcerer has. But we have likely reduced the RAW flexibility enough that the character is closer to the low Tier 2 or high Tier 3 range than easily sitting in the Tier 1 range.

And all we really did was limit the scope of spell selection.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 05:14 PM

Well, I don't quite agree, but I think that you're reasonably close to the root problem.

The issue isn't that, in the abstract, having spells is a problem.
The issue is that:

Certain specific spells are too flexible (wish/miracle, shapechange, Shadow X, etc).
The non-specialist class lists, taken as a whole, are too flexible.

Admittedly, removing 1 would probably do much more to bring Spontaneous casters in line with T3 classes than it would Prepared casters. But Spontaneous Casters still have enough spell availability to make 2 an issue.

Essentially, the key is to make the lists narrower.

Assume we've killed or nerfed the big offenders indicated in 1 above and consider this wizard mod:

Level 1: Access to all cantrips & one school of magic for other spells.
Level 5: Access to another school, but only for spells 2 levels lower than your highest level spell known.
Level 10: As level 5, but 3 levels lower
Level 15: As level 5, but 4 Levels lower
Level 20: As level 5, but 5 levels lower

We still have a prepared caster. We still, given the wizard's ability to acquire scrolls, have a caster with the capacity to exceed the number of spells known that a Sorcerer has. But we have likely reduced the RAW flexibility enough that the character is closer to the low Tier 2 or high Tier 3 range than easily sitting in the Tier 1 range.

And all we really did was limit the scope of spell selection.

that's pretty much the long and short of it, just don't give them so many types of spells to use.

Necroticplague

2015-09-25, 05:35 PM

No. Magic isn't overpowered. The problem is that martials are underpowered.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-25, 05:49 PM

As others have said, the problem (if you want to call it that) is not with spontaneous vs prepared casting, or magic in general, or, I even daresay, with casters vs non-casters.

The problem lies with a relative handful of spells and overly broad access to spells in general. All of the T1 and T2 classes are "overpowered" when compard to any baseline intended to include non-caster classes and disregarding the game's base CR guidelines for creatures and obstacles.

The real problem, however, lies here; there is no universal standard for baseline competence in these discussions. If casters are overpowered and non-casters are underpowered then -no one- is at the "correct" level of power and varying degrees of optimizational skill make the whole thing even more of a useless morass. Then the whole problem gets exacerbated by the near complete disregard for proper use of WBL excepting in regards to artificers. There aren't even any guides on the matter save a few resources for getting desirable effects as cheaply as possible.

That people bandy about terms like "broken" and "over/underpowered" as though they were objective truth is baffling.

Dread_Head

2015-09-25, 05:49 PM

In my opinion there are two ways in which casting is over powered in comparison to mundanes. Note that I'm mainly referring to tier 1 and 2 casting here as like eggynack and Troacctid pointing out there are plenty of casting classes which are balanced against fighters and monks.

1) The breadth and versatility of spells available to wizards, clerics, druids and archivists. Given a days notice (or by being well prepared, or with good use of divinations etc.) one of these casters can have spells ready providing a solution to any (vaguely level appropriate, we're not talking lvl 1's against great wyrms here) problem you could present them with. This is something that a mundane just can't achieve, a day later they will at best have slightly different options and they can't guarantee a solution to any problem.
2) Certain spells (polymorph line, planar binding line, etc.) available to these classes can solve many if not all problems presented to them. These spells will solve or help with just about any problem presented. A mundane will have tools available to it but even the most optimised mundanes options aren't even in the same league as polymorph.

The first problem can be solved by banning prepared casters and only using spontaneous casters such as sorcerer, favoured soul and spontaneous druid/cleric. This doesn't solve the second problem though as they can still choose the most powerful spell at each level and leave mundanes behind in the dust. To solve the second problem you need to identify the most op spells and ban or nerf them all. This is quite a lot of work so my preferred suggestion is to replace all tier 1/2 classes with thematic fixed list casters along the lines of the Beguiler, Warmage and Dread Necromancer. By making sure the lists you choose have none of the broken spells on you can balance the casters to be around tier 3 / 4 and at such a level mundanes (eg. ToB, well optimised rogues, scouts, barbarians and even fighters) and other subsytems (binders, incarnum, etc) can compete.

Its also worth noting that tier 1 casters are only overpowered when compared to classes like fighter and monk. Most reasonable people playing a wizard won't be noticeably op when in a party composed of a warblade, wildshape ranger and cleric. And a party composed of a Wizard, Cleric, Archivist and Druid will be well balanced within itself and provided the DM is throwing higher CR challenges at them can enjoy a fun and challenging campaign. Balance problems only exist when you have a party which looks something like wizard, druid, battledancer and ninja and this is as much due to the low power of some classes as it is to the high power of spellcasting.

martixy

2015-09-25, 07:12 PM

There are spells that are too powerful. That's true regardless of who casts them or how. Let's set aside the Shapechanges and Gates of the world for the moment.

The real issue is OPTIONS. Linear wizards, quadratic warriors. Some classes in the game get more as they level up than others. More options, more choices, more tools. A 20th level wizard is a different character than a 1st level wizard in ways that really aren't comparable to a fighter or rogue's progression. Most of the game's issues stem from that fact.

Can you have fun with a mundane character? Sure. Can you build a party where mundanes and casters are both relevant in combat? Again, sure. But they are not, and will never be, truly balanced.

Let me note that that in itself is not an inherently bad thing either, both as far as potential power disparity and realized disparity. Not with the scope of table-top RPGs.
(At least that's my opinion.)

Also, I believe you meant Linear Warriors Quadratic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards)Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameBreaker).

Arbane

2015-09-25, 07:29 PM

Hercules is pretty magic. He's the son of Zeus, and has superhuman strength. If that's not magic, I'm not sure what is.

I knew that reply was coming. Greek myth is a bad argument for this, since EVERYONE important in it is descended from Zeus somehow.

How about Beowulf, then? Allegedly a 'normal' human, but he kills monsters with his bare hands and goes swimming in full armor... for three days straight.

Part of the problem is that fighters and rogues are 'realistically' limited to what That Guy At The Gym can do. Wizards are limited to what magic can do... which is, apparently, EVERYTHING.

Troacctid

2015-09-25, 07:35 PM

How about Beowulf, then? Allegedly a 'normal' human, but he kills monsters with his bare hands and goes swimming in full armor... for three days straight.

Sure, he says he does. You don't have to be a Wizard to put skill ranks in Bluff.

AvatarVecna

2015-09-25, 07:40 PM

Sure, he says he does. You don't have to be a Wizard to put skill ranks in Bluff.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a Construct could do it. In fact, my new personal headcanon is that Beowulf is just an Ahnold-esque Terminator who got sent back way too far...and also into the wrong dimension.

Anlashok

2015-09-25, 07:48 PM

Hercules is pretty magic. He's the son of Zeus, and has superhuman strength. If that's not magic, I'm not sure what is.

Fighter with a fancy inherited template is still a fighter.

Magic doesn't mean casting spells. It means doing things that are supernatural. Like punching a lion to death. Or rerouting a river to clean out some guy's stables. Those aren't spells, but they're totally magic.

unarmed strike is apparently an SU ability now.

AvatarVecna

2015-09-25, 07:51 PM

unarmed strike is apparently an SU ability now.

Also, IIRC, he killed the Nemean Lion by shooting it in the mouth with a bow. Actually, that's probably a sign of how awesome Heracles was: he was a legendary switch-hitter.

Brova

2015-09-25, 07:53 PM

This is starting to sound an awful lot like the "Guy at the Gym" fallacy.

Part of the problem is that fighters and rogues are 'realistically' limited to what That Guy At The Gym can do. Wizards are limited to what magic can do... which is, apparently, EVERYTHING.

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to do stuff that's physically impossible if you're a Fighter or a Rogue. Fighters should totally be able to punch lions to death or kill dragons with their bare hands. Rogues should be able to teleport through shadows or turn invisible. But those things are not mundane. They are super obviously not mundane, and trying to pass of those classes as mundane makes people try to nerf them. People complain about "Rogue space" in a way that they just don't about color spray or gate.

The issue isn't that, in the abstract, having spells is a problem.
The issue is that:

Certain specific spells are too flexible (wish/miracle, shapechange, Shadow X, etc).
The non-specialist class lists, taken as a whole, are too flexible.

No, it's not. The issue is that spells are too good. A Wizard isn't powerful because he can cast color spray and sleep and silent image. He is powerful because he can cast any one of those spells, and they win encounter while other people are killing single enemies. Versatility isn't power. Power is power.

The problem lies with a relative handful of spells and overly broad access to spells in general. All of the T1 and T2 classes are "overpowered" when compard to any baseline intended to include non-caster classes and disregarding the game's base CR guidelines for creatures and obstacles.

Assuming I'm understanding the bolded part correctly, I disagree with that. If you run a competently built and played but not heavily optimized (i.e. casting cloudkill and glitterdust, but not abusing planar binding or Persistent Spell) Wizard through a gauntlet of level = CR encounters, he bats about 50%. Or, exactly and mathematically level appropriately.

The first problem can be solved by banning prepared casters and only using spontaneous casters such as sorcerer, favoured soul and spontaneous druid/cleric.

But none of those characters are actually broken. They can do broken things, but so can everyone. Candles of Invocation exist and have a price in gold. The game is already broken from the word go if you aren't willing to accept some bans. If casters just don't abuse polymorph/simulacrum/gate, they aren't overpowered. They're just better than mundanes. The problem shouldn't be solved by nerfing casters in general. It should be solved by nerfing specific spells, and buffing mundanes in general.

NichG

2015-09-25, 07:58 PM

I have to agree that the way this question is asked is somewhat nonsensical, but the reason for that is actually at the heart of a lot of the balance problems that you find with magic in D&D.

That is to say, what the heck does 'magic itself' even mean in D&D?

D&D encourages people to treat 'magic' as a catchall phrase that can and should be able to do literally anything. This is the kitchen sink fantasy thing kicking in - 'magic' has to cover the range of any kind of supernatural thing any kind of character ever did or could do in any fiction out there. So the result is that labeling something 'magic' is pretty much meaningless in D&D. Classes where their main design constraint is 'they use magic' become broken and overpowered because that isn't actually a design constraint, so you have a class which is defined as 'this character can do things'. Classes that have other strong design constraints, such as 'this class only has abilities which manipulate shadows' or 'this class only has abilities which create and control undead', don't create nearly as many problems.

But saying that something is about 'magic itself' in D&D is kind of meaningless, because 'magic' doesn't really mean anything.

Aldrakan

2015-09-25, 08:23 PM

There's nothing inherently overpowered about D&D's magic system. Far less restrictive casting systems have been far less powerful in other games. I think it's more down to two fundamental issues: heroic fantasy and equal opportunities.

A staple of heroic fantasy is the evil wizard in his dark tower, with his armies of monsters and dread magic and so on. To properly allow all variations of this archetype requires someone with an incredibly wide range of powerful abilities. And once you've devoted yourself to giving wizards such a diverse set of abilities, the question of why they don't have more shows up, since the limitations placed upon them are quite arbitrary, until basically every weakness a wizard could have has a specific spell to counter it.

Then there's the general assumption of at least equal abilities between PCs and NPCs. PCs and NPCs are built using the same systems. Anything an NPC can do, a PC can do too, usually better. The reason players don't take NPC classes is cause they're worse. This doesn't apply to races like demons of course, but you can hardly expect the main enemy to never be human.

What's missing here is that in heroic fantasy stories, the heroes are generally underdogs, who for reasons or morality, or opportunity, or inherent ability, don't have access to the powers of their enemies. Sometimes they're still really powerful, but the main enemy usually has something that puts them on a different level.

But there are evil groups, PCs tend to have vastly more opportunities than your average person because they write their own backstories and gain power automatically by fighting people, and there's no such thing as a "super-wizard" for them to face.

So the only thing that really separates the big bad evil sorcerer, who for plot reasons needs the capacity to create and destroy armies and create worlds, from the PC wizard, is level. And that gap needs to start closing for the PCs to stand a chance.
You could come up with fixes to this, but I think they'd involve massive reworking of the spells available and still mean treating PC and NPC advancement and abilities differently, which there aren't good rules for doing.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 08:24 PM

Necroticplague

2015-09-25, 08:36 PM

.....That is an absolute load and you know it.

Not entirely. Even if the only spell you could cast was Shapechange, you'd still be among the most powerful classes. The problem is spellcasters get both versatility with a large amount of available powers, and the powers they get are immensely strong.

Of course, this isn't true of all spellcasters. Fixed-list casters and bards are pretty balanced, despite being casters, healers are still rather weak (outside of Sanctified Spells or Gate abuse). This is generally accomplished by limiting both the scope (smaller spell list) and the power (of spells that are generally weaker).

Masakan

2015-09-25, 08:42 PM

Not entirely. Even if the only spell you could cast was Shapechange, you'd still be among the most powerful classes. The problem is spellcasters get both versatility with a large amount of available powers, and the powers they get are immensely strong.

Of course, this isn't true of all spellcasters. Fixed-list casters and bards are pretty balanced, despite being casters, healers are still rather weak (outside of Sanctified Spells or Gate abuse). This is generally accomplished by limiting both the scope (smaller spell list) and the power (of spells that are generally weaker).

So it would really come down to spellcasters choosing not to use the spells that would so obviously break the game.
This is why i would never touch poly-morph with a 10 foot pole

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-25, 08:45 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-25, 08:48 PM

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to do stuff that's physically impossible if you're a Fighter or a Rogue. Fighters should totally be able to punch lions to death or kill dragons with their bare hands. Rogues should be able to teleport through shadows or turn invisible. But those things are not mundane. They are super obviously not mundane, and trying to pass of those classes as mundane makes people try to nerf them. People complain about "Rogue space" in a way that they just don't about color spray or gate.

That level of realistic mundanity isn't what anyone is talking about when referring to mundanes. They mean classes that, at the very least, lack spellcasting ability or its equivalent or, at most, lack any spell-like, supernatural, or spellcasting ability of any kind. They mean fighters and rogues and, sometimes, even things like ninjas or monks or even up to paladin and ranger, despite their limited spellcasting abilities. The context and culture at play here changes the meaning of the word "mundane" to something other than its literal, dictionary definition.

Conversely, "magic" is usually referring to the spellcasting mechanic or one of its loose equivalents (invocation use, psionics, shadowcasting, and/or even truenaming or meldshaping) or often any form of spell-like, supernatural or spellcasting ability at all.

In this particular thread, it's rather obviously referring to the spellcasting system.

No, it's not. The issue is that spells are too good. A Wizard isn't powerful because he can cast color spray and sleep and silent image. He is powerful because he can cast any one of those spells, and they win encounter while other people are killing single enemies. Versatility isn't power. Power is power.

This is extremely short-sighted. Having a dozen ways to solve a situation is inherently more powerful than having just one. Even after eliminating the most obviously powerful spells (whose power comes from their versatility, ironically enough) like the polymorph line, summoning spells, and calling spells, you can still crush encounters readily enough by simply choosing the most appropriate spell or even combinations of spells that can be cast in a single turn or two. Some of the best options can solve a number of different encounters.

Assuming I'm understanding the bolded part correctly, I disagree with that. If you run a competently built and played but not heavily optimized (i.e. casting cloudkill and glitterdust, but not abusing planar binding or Persistent Spell) Wizard through a gauntlet of level = CR encounters, he bats about 50%. Or, exactly and mathematically level appropriately.

This is just plain wrong. The polymorph and summon X spell lines alone can decimate most encounters. Nevermind, most encounters will have a silver bullet spell that can utterly unravel them even when the DM tries to close off all such options. This latter point can be avoided by players intentionally rushing head-long through adventures without even trying to find out what's ahead and/or the DM throwing what amounts to entirely random encounters at the party. This amounts to players, either deliberately or not, running their spellcasters pretty foolishly and very deliberately avoiding the most obviously powerful/versatile options every time they could learn a new spell.

Just because individual groups can fix a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. In fact, I believe that's the essence of the oberoni fallacy.

Brova

2015-09-25, 09:16 PM

Fighter with a fancy inherited template is still a fighter.

He's not "mundane" though. I mean, is Superman mundane because his class is "Reporter" and his race gives him flight, invincibility, super strength, hyperspeed, and lazer vision?

unarmed strike is apparently an SU ability now.

You think "punch a lion to death" is a thing people can do in the real world?

Again, I'm not saying that Fighters shouldn't be able to do supernatural stuff. I'm just saying that they aren't mundane if they do.

That is to say, what the heck does 'magic itself' even mean in D&D?

That's a legitimate question. The answer is probably two things.

First, there's just "magic" as a catchall for supernatural powers. And you need those to compete in a high level playing field. They don't need to involve chanting or ancient tomes, but they need to be mechanically and conceptually "not natural". That can be because you have trained super hard (a lot of Anime/Manga characters), because you happen to be a creature which is sufficiently badass to play at the appropriate level (Thor), or because you have an artifact that gives you mystical powers (Kylar Stern).

Second, there's "magic" as a power source, which generally means Wizards or Sorcerers or whatever. That's a thing that exists, but it's not really super meaningful absent a bunch of other power sources you believe in.

.....That is an absolute load and you know it.

Not really. Imagine the least versatile character possible. He has one ability, and that ability is "deal infinity damage to any number of targets within line of sight". That character has zero versatility, but he is incredibly powerful.

Obviously, Wizards aren't quite that dramatic. But I don't think you can seriously claim that the reason Wizards are good is their versatility. I mean, it is a factor, but it's not nearly as important as factors like "getting to cast cloudkill" or "learning solid fog". It ultimately comes down to this: you only ever do one thing in response to any problem. And if you have something that solves all your problems, it doesn't really matter what else you can do.

It's why (single classed) Rogues are good and (single classed) Bards aren't. The Rogue is capable of doing level appropriate damage with a lot of attacks that consistently hit flat-footed touch AC. The Bard isn't. He's capable of doing a wide variety of stuff, but most of it is not very good past ~10.

That level of realistic mundanity isn't what anyone is talking about when referring to mundanes.

That's just not true. Seriously, people still believe that Tome of Battle is "too anime" and "not mundane" despite the fact that the abilities it gives mundanes are barely level appropriate at 10th level and are (almost) all just "I hit it with a sword, but it hurts more than normal."

This is extremely short-sighted. Having a dozen ways to solve a situation is inherently more powerful than having just one.

No, it's not. If you have a solution to a problem, the problem is solved. Whether you had a bunch of other solutions or not does not make the problem any more or less solved.

The polymorph and summon X spell lines alone can decimate most encounters.

So you think polymorph doesn't constitute serious optimization? Using that spell at all requires you to read four books, several web articles, all the relevant errata, and any other changes.

Also, summon monster? Really? The thing that summons chaff at CR = 1/2 level?

Nevermind, most encounters will have a silver bullet spell that can utterly unravel them even when the DM tries to close off all such options.

But the Wizard doesn't get all the silver bullets. He gets what he prepares. That's it. Seriously, run the SGT. No cheese, Core + 2 books, level 5/10/15. The Wizard over-preforms, but he does not sweep.

Ssalarn

2015-09-25, 09:17 PM

No. Magic isn't overpowered. The problem is that martials are underpowered.

I think it's a little bit of both. High level wizards have powers that would put the mythological exploits of deities from some real world pantheons to shame. You've got to go to really high power anime to find characters capable of emulating the abilities of 9th level casters (maybe some of the most powerful casters from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series?), but the only way to gauge whether a martial is 1st level or 20th level through a description of his abilities is to look at what he's fighting and how successfully he's doing so.

Martials need a leg up, magic needs a couple steps down. Or, the game needs to more clearly define the expectations of what a level X character means. Things like "A 7th level character should have reliable access to flight", and then ensuring that each class has the tools to meet that expectation.

Also, summon monster? Really? The thing that summons chaff at CR = 1/2 level?

The summon monster line of spells is actually the best set of spells in the game (going from good to ridiculous in the hands of a class like the PF Summoner). At the end of the day, as long as you have access to all 9 versions of the spell, you've got all the tools you need to be Tier 1. At low level you can summon up creatures that provide you with alternate methods of travel, as well as portable walls and meat shields, at high levels you can dial-a-cleric by summoning up your very own Solar angel. If you don't know what you're doing and you just throw the summoned monsters at the enemy, sure, it's not great, but that's not a weakness of the spell, it's a weakness of the player.

Milo v3

2015-09-25, 09:20 PM

Magic is not overpowered. Some implementations of magic are overpowered. I mean, look at bards, binders, incarnum, mesmerists, hunters, magus, investigators, or shadow-casting.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 09:27 PM

Not really. Imagine the least versatile character possible. He has one ability, and that ability is "deal infinity damage to any number of targets within line of sight". That character has zero versatility, but he is incredibly powerful.

Obviously, Wizards aren't quite that dramatic. But I don't think you can seriously claim that the reason Wizards are good is their versatility. I mean, it is a factor, but it's not nearly as important as factors like "getting to cast cloudkill" or "learning solid fog". It ultimately comes down to this: you only ever do one thing in response to any problem. And if you have something that solves all your problems, it doesn't really matter what else you can do.

It's why (single classed) Rogues are good and (single classed) Bards aren't. The Rogue is capable of doing level appropriate damage with a lot of attacks that consistently hit flat-footed touch AC. The Bard isn't. He's capable of doing a wide variety of stuff, but most of it is not very good past ~10.

....WHAT?! What in the actual hell are you talking about? Sure rouges can do a lot of sneak attack damage...but by the time you get past level 10 your gonna run into monsters who simply will not care every other encounter, suddenly the bard is infinitely more useful because the rouge can't do anything.
If all you needed was high amounts of damage, then barbarians wouldn't be considered weak.

This is the mindset of someone who thinks bards are good for nothing but inspiring courage all day long.

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-25, 09:32 PM

....WHAT?! What in the actual hell are you talking about? Sure rouges can do a lot of sneak attack damage...but by the time you get past level 10 your gonna run into monsters who simply will not care every other encounter, suddenly the bard is infinitely more useful because the rouge can't do anything.
If all you needed was high amounts of damage, then barbarians wouldn't be considered weak.

This is the mindset of someone who thinks bards are good for nothing but inspiring courage all day long.

Is the metric for "overpowered" how much damage a character can do or how much they can contribute to a party outside of damage?

If it's damage, there are many martial builds that work fine.
If it's usefulness, we need to provide further definition.

Ssalarn

2015-09-25, 09:34 PM

Magic is not overpowered. Some implementations of magic are overpowered. I mean, look at bards, binders, incarnum, mesmerists, hunters, magus, investigators, or shadow-casting.

Again, part of determining what "overpowered" means, is deciding on what you consider the baseline. Bards are easily better classes in general than virtually any non-spellcasting class, and that's at pretty much whatever role(s) they choose. Hunters are almost unequivocally better than any martial class I can think of at the moment at literally almost everything, Mesmerists are better Swashbucklers than Swashbucklers while still having a suite of solid utility and buffing spells, etc.

I personally kind of think that classes like Bards and Inquisitors should be the baseline of determination for what is or is not "overpowered". If it's significantly stronger than a well-built Bard at doing whatever that Bard was built for, as Wizards and Clerics can be, it's probably too strong. If it has to specialize to the exclusion of all else to even begin to compete with the Bard at something, like a Rogue trying to be as good a skill-monkey, it's probably too weak.

....WHAT?! What in the actual hell are you talking about? Sure rouges can do a lot of sneak attack damage...but by the time you get past level 10 your gonna run into monsters who simply will not care every other encounter, suddenly the bard is infinitely more useful because the rouge can't do anything.
If all you needed was high amounts of damage, then barbarians wouldn't be considered weak.

This is the mindset of someone who thinks bards are good for nothing but inspiring courage all day long.

Wow, I looked right over that statement. Single classed Bard rapes single classed Rogue face. Bards are better skill-monkeys natively, their combat options are significantly more reliable than the Rogue's Sneak Attack, and generally speaking, whenever they make themselves better at something, they elevate the whole party along with themselves. A Bard's contributions to the group will almost always be significantly superior to the Rogue's, assuming moderately knowledgeable players of equal skill.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 09:37 PM

Is the metric for "overpowered" how much damage a character can do or how much they can contribute to a party outside of damage?

If it's damage, there are many martial builds that work fine.
If it's usefulness, we need to provide further definition.

That's a good question actually. Personally i think how useful a person is amounts to more than how good they are in a fight.

Rouges fall horribly flat if they run into anything that is immune to their sneak attacks, Bards don't really have that issue.

And I would say if both would be equal if they built to be skill monkeys. To me what makes a person over powered is determined by not how useful they are in a fight, but what they can do outside of combat, because sometimes the best way to go about things isn't just to bust down the door and fight everybody. That's my belief.

Again, part of determining what "overpowered" means, is deciding on what you consider the baseline. Bards are easily better classes in general than virtually any non-spellcasting class, and that's at pretty much whatever role(s) they choose. Hunters are almost unequivocally better than any martial class I can think of at the moment at literally almost everything, Mesmerists are better Swashbucklers than Swashbucklers while still having a suite of solid utility and buffing spells, etc.

I personally kind of think that classes like Bards and Inquisitors should be the baseline of determination for what is or is not "overpowered". If it's significantly stronger than a well-built Bard at doing whatever that Bard was built for, as Wizards and Clerics can be, it's probably too strong. If it has to specialize to the exclusion of all else to even begin to compete with the Bard at something, like a Rogue trying to be as good a skill-monkey, it's probably too weak.

So bards are basically the standard as to whether a class or a build is balanced or not?

AvatarVecna

2015-09-25, 09:38 PM

So you think polymorph doesn't constitute serious optimization? Using that spell at all requires you to read four books, several web articles, all the relevant errata, and any other changes.

You don't need anything more than Core to see how broken Polymorph can be. If a particular DM hunts down more recent and official rulings, that's fine, but it doesn't change the inherent broken-ness of some forms. Polymorph is a spell so utterly broken it has its own handbook for breaking it as much as possible, and you don't even need to read the handbook to find broken stuff, because one of the most broken combat forms available comes right out of Core: at level 7, when you first get the spell, you can turn into a 7-headed Hydra. Between decent AC, decent HP, fast healing, limited limb regeneration, 7 attacks on a standard action, and passable damage this thing makes an equal-level fighter look terrible unless the Fighter is optimized to hell and back. Oh yeah, and there's a tougher stronger deadlier version available to you every time you level up. It's a gift that keeps on giving.

Oh, and that thing about Bards not being as awesome as rogues, because rogues get SA damage? Yeah, bards can give the same number of bonus damage dice as a gift to a group of people by singing. AFAICT, it's a pretty popular bardic music, precisely because it's so awesome. Oh yeah, and it's fire damage instead of precision damage, so it works against things that are SA-immune. Of course, there's fire-immune creatures, but the fact that you give it to the entire party offsets that rather nicely.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 09:40 PM

You don't need anything more than Core to see how broken Polymorph can be. If a particular DM hunts down more recent and official rulings, that's fine, but it doesn't change the inherent broken-ness of some forms. Polymorph is a spell so utterly broken it has its own handbook for breaking it as much as possible, and you don't even need to read the handbook to find broken stuff, because one of the most broken combat forms available comes right out of Core: at level 7, when you first get the spell, you can turn into a 7-headed Hydra. Between decent AC, decent HP, fast healing, limited limb regeneration, 7 attacks on a standard action, and passable damage this thing makes an equal-level fighter look terrible unless the Fighter is optimized to hell and back. Oh yeah, and there's a tougher stronger deadlier version available to you every time you level up. It's a gift that keeps on giving.

Oh, and that thing about Bards not being as awesome as rogues, because rogues get SA damage? Yeah, bards can give the same number of bonus damage dice as a gift to a group of people by singing. AFAICT, it's a pretty popular bardic music, precisely because it's so awesome. Oh yeah, and it's fire damage instead of precision damage, so it works against things that are SA-immune. Of course, there's fire-immune creatures, but the fact that you give it to the entire party offsets that rather nicely.

Dragonfire inspiration is infact so good, it gets to the point where some dm's ban it, because seeing the entire team getting a 10d6 power boost can make some dm's piss themselves if they have no idea how to deal with it.

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-25, 09:42 PM

That's a good question actually. Personally i think how useful a person is amounts to more than how good they are in a fight.

Rouges fall horribly flat if they run into anything that is immune to their sneak attacks, Bards don't really have that issue.

And I would say if both would be equal if they built to be skill monkeys. To me what makes a person over powered is determined by not how useful they are in a fight, but what they can do outside of combat, because sometimes the best way to go about things isn't just to bust down the door and fight everybody. That's my belief.

So bards are basically the standard as to whether a class or a build is balanced or not?

I'm going to ignore the damage comment. Because there are tons of martial setups that can do stupid amounts of damage so it's unnecessary to really look into it.

But what exactly is a bard doing out of combat that you want a martial to do? Skill checks? Because rogues do that and there are some pretty handy PrCs that give them even more nifty abilities. And really, at this point, there isn't even a fair balance amongst the martials. Considering that using your metric the rogue is going to FAR outperform a fighter or monk to extreme degrees. This suggests that the problem lies with the martial classes, not with everyone else in the world. And I feel like Pathfinder Unchained further demonstrates this.

AvatarVecna

2015-09-25, 09:45 PM

Also, I saw somebody mention a person who can deal infinite damage, but can't do anything else, and that would be considered powerful. The problem is that damage can be mitigated and/or circumvented in a lot of ways, depending on the exact method. For instance, you can cheese a Hulking Hurler to the moon and back, and give them the ability to lift an asteroid, and have them throw their asteroid at a caster, only missing on a 1 and having a 1/day reroll, and dealing enough damage that it's easiest to record it using scientific notation...and yet, because that Hulking Hurler can only throw his huge rock once per round as a full round action, a caster with enough Wings of Cover spells available can't be targeted by the huge moon throw, and can't be killed with it. Sure, they'll run out eventually...but if the mage is on the HH's level, they have enough firepower to waste the HH while the HH is busy waiting for them to run out of Wings of Cover.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 09:45 PM

I'm going to ignore the damage comment. Because there are tons of martial setups that can do stupid amounts of damage so it's unnecessary to really look into it.

But what exactly is a bard doing out of combat that you want a martial to do? Skill checks? Because rogues do that and there are some pretty handy PrCs that give them even more nifty abilities. And really, at this point, there isn't even a fair balance amongst the martials. Considering that using your metric the rogue is going to FAR outperform a fighter or monk to extreme degrees.

Oh I don't know how about actually being able to talk to someone?! Sure rouge can do this, but there is almost no reason to make a charismatic rouge over a dexterous one.

Also, I saw somebody mention a person who can deal infinite damage, but can't do anything else, and that would be considered powerful. The problem is that damage can be mitigated and/or circumvented in a lot of ways, depending on the exact method. For instance, you can cheese a Hulking Hurler to the moon and back, and give them the ability to lift an asteroid, and have them throw their asteroid at a caster, only missing on a 1 and having a 1/day reroll, and dealing enough damage that it's easiest to record it using scientific notation...and yet, because that Hulking Hurler can only throw his huge rock once per round as a full round action, a caster with enough Wings of Cover spells available can't be targeted by the huge moon throw, and can't be killed with it. Sure, they'll run out eventually...but if the mage is on the HH's level, they have enough firepower to waste the HH while the HH is busy waiting for them to run out of Wings of Cover.

Love wings of cover man, it's the reason i consider sorcerers a better base for a gish than wizards.

Ssalarn

2015-09-25, 09:51 PM

So bards are basically the standard as to whether a class or a build is balanced or not?

I think that since Bards are basically the epitome of Tier 3 and can excel at almost any role in the game, they make a really good "check". Obviously there's some room in there for sacrificing utility to specialize, but if you're going to be significantly better than a Bard at something it's built for, you should see noticeable drop-off in its ability to perform other functions, while still meeting basic expectations of the game at a given level range. The Fighter fails at this, because while he's theoretically capable of exceeding a combat focused Bard at combat, he fails to meet basic competency at any other aspect of the game. The Wizard fails at the opposite end of the spectrum, because he's generally able to exceed the Bard's performance both at something the Bard has specialized in, and in multiple other areas of the game.

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-25, 09:52 PM

Oh I don't know how about actually being able to talk to someone?! Sure rouge can do this, but there is almost no reason to make a charismatic rouge over a dexterous one.

Are we talking about a purely optimized setup? Because there is no reason why a rogue can't be the party face and have a good charisma. Heck. Charisma is a great stat for a rogue and should probably be kept at a reasonable level anyway.

Are we talking strictly about 3.5 or is pathfinder allowed? Because there are pathfinder build specifically for this.

If we're using bard as our baseline, I don't feel like rogue is too far off.

AvatarVecna

2015-09-25, 10:02 PM

Are we talking about a purely optimized setup? Because there is no reason why a rogue can't be the party face and have a good charisma. Heck. Charisma is a great stat for a rogue and should probably be kept at a reasonable level anyway.

Are we talking strictly about 3.5 or is pathfinder allowed? Because there are pathfinder build specifically for this.

If we're using bard as our baseline, I don't feel like rogue is too far off.

Part of the reason that Rogue is generally considered T4 and Bard is generally considered T3 is because they both have some fairly powerful options that are roughly on par with each other, but the Bard just has more options. Rogue has TONS of skills (and maybe rogue talents, if PF), and Bards have Tons of skills and Spells (and maybe Versatile Performance). Furthermore, a rogue is more balanced around the combat application of Sneak Attack; there's things it can be traded out for if you're playing a noncombat game, but Bard doesn't have to trade things away, it can make the choices on the spot. A rogue in 3.5 has to choose between Sneak Attack and Fighter Bonus Feats (via the Martial Rogue ACF) at level 1, and that choice follows them for the rest of their career; a Bard can choose utility spells for the first couple spell levels and focus in Knowledge skills, but can switch to Diplomancy, UMD, and combat spells at the higher levels.

Part of the Tier system is how many choices you get to make, how stuck you are with those decisions, and how ****ed you are if you're stuck with them. And if the Rogue is doing some serious book-diving for good ACFs, and is pushing Abuse Magic Device to its limits, they can push their way into T3...where the Bard is waiting for them, because they have access to a large variety of broken **** naturally (UMD, built-in Diplomancy, spells, Glibness, bardic music, etc.).

Ssalarn

2015-09-25, 10:03 PM

Brova

2015-09-25, 10:04 PM

@Rogue Debate: The Rogue is capable of getting a bunch of attacks, all of which hit flat-footed touch AC, for massive damage. He's capable of doing that in core, and at 10th level roughly 10% of core monsters are immune to that tactic. I don't know what the core Bard is doing to compete with that, but I haven't seen anything that does. Obviously, if you allow expansion material, stuff moves around, but the basic principle remains the same.

You've got to go to really high power anime to find characters capable of emulating the abilities of 9th level casters (maybe some of the most powerful casters from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series?),

Not sure whether you mean people casting 9th level spells, or 9th level spellcasters, but I don't think that's true. Here are some examples of characters from that power level (most) from stuff I've read/watched.

The Lord Ruler in Mistborn: The Final Empire is immortal, can soothe peoples emotions to the point of catatonia, has very high level super strength/speed/healing factor, can personally destroy armies, and literally gained his power by abusing a loophole in the laws of magic to gain enough power to conquer the world.

Other characters Mistborn are no slouches either. Mistborn have flight, superhuman strength/speed/healing, emotional control, and precognition. Steel Inquistors are similar, and various characters can control armies (upwards of 20,000) of Koloss, which are probably in the CR 4ish range.

Mahasamatman from Lord of Light has flight, energy control, and the ability to bind demons. He also comes back from the dead twice, although he has a great deal of help the second time.

Again, other characters from Lord of Light are similarly powerful. Agni's wand scarred the moon when he first used it, and it burns incorporeal demons out of reality. Ratri has the power to turn day into night and (I believe) some sort of shadow teleportation. Yama is basically a mid level Artificer, except he has a gaze attack that kills people on a failed save. Nirriti is just a necromancer, with armies of undead and everything.

Various characters from the Powder Mage Trilogy probably come close. Predeii are nasty strong (busting through antimagic, destroying buildings, functional immortality), Bone Eyes have voodoo powers (red stripes can hurt gods, they can control people with blood samples), Powder Mages aren't quite there despite some unique capabilities (basically gunpowderbenders, also get super strength and speed from ingesting black powder). Wardens aren't really that good, but the ability to create them is.

I haven't read much of it, but the Dresden Files apparently runs up nearly as much of a power gradient as D&D does.

Benders don't have much in the way of noncombat power (mostly healing), but they get some good stuff as far as combat goes. Gazan's lavabending is hugely destructive, bloodbending is straight nasty, and airbending gives functional flight.

The Codex Alera is about a nation where basically everyone has Avatar level bending powers. And they can summon elementals. High Lords can fly, turn invisible, call lightning, control fire, and have superhuman physicals. Their enemies are even nastier, including the Zerg and eight foot tall wolfmen with blood magic.

The hero of the Night Angel trilogy has magic item that lets him turn invisible and disintegrate anything he touches. Other people in the series can turn people insane just by passing nearby, create undead-ish monstrosities, and summon demons.

If you want to go higher level, the pickings get a little slimmer, but you still have Creatures of Light and Darkness (combat time travel, the Prince Who Was A Thousand's teleportation, The Hammer That Shatters Suns, the Houses of Life and Death, and the Skagganauk Abyss), MTG (plane devouring elder abominations, oldwalkers could create worlds, Bolas's scheme to collide five worlds to harvest their power, Yawgmoth using an artificial plane as a ramming device), and the Shards from the Cosmere (a fraction of one's power allowed the Lord Ruler to mover his planet in its orbit, they create magic systems).

The Wheel of Time fits in there somewhere, but it is over three million words long and even the author couldn't be bothered to finish it.

Or, the game needs to more clearly define the expectations of what a level X character means. Things like "A 7th level character should have reliable access to flight", and then ensuring that each class has the tools to meet that expectation.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. The game needs a better and more internally consistent explanation of what people are supposed to be capable of and challenged by at various levels.

at high levels you can dial-a-cleric by summoning up your very own Solar angel.

That is not on the summon monster list. How are you getting a Solar out of summon monster IX? Are you thinking of gate?

You don't need anything more than Core to see how broken Polymorph can be.

You're kind of proving my point. If polymorph is broken, it's obviously not worth discussing in the context of a Wizard who is doing things that aren't broken.

Also, I saw somebody mention a person who can deal infinite damage, but can't do anything else, and that would be considered powerful. The problem is that damage can be mitigated and/or circumvented in a lot of ways, depending on the exact method.

I'm not talking about a character that has some existent ability. He has the new ability "Do Damage" it has the effect of doing as much damage as you want to any target you want whenever you want. The target does not get immunities, and if something would keep them alive after taking the damage, instead it doesn't.

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-25, 10:06 PM

Part of the reason that Rogue is generally considered T4 and Bard is generally considered T3 is because they both have some fairly powerful options that are roughly on par with each other, but the Bard just has more options. Rogue has TONS of skills (and maybe rogue talents, if PF), and Bards have Tons of skills and Spells (and maybe Versatile Performance). Furthermore, a rogue is more balanced around the combat application of Sneak Attack; there's things it can be traded out for if you're playing a noncombat game, but Bard doesn't have to trade things away, it can make the choices on the spot. A rogue in 3.5 has to choose between Sneak Attack and Fighter Bonus Feats (via the Martial Rogue ACF) at level 1, and that choice follows them for the rest of their career; a Bard can choose utility spells for the first couple spell levels and focus in Knowledge skills, but can switch to Diplomancy, UMD, and combat spells at the higher levels.

Part of the Tier system is how many choices you get to make, how stuck you are with those decisions, and how ****ed you are if you're stuck with them. And unless the Rogue is doing some serious book-diving for good ACFs, and is pushing Abuse Magic Device to its limits, they can push their way into T3...where the Bard is waiting for them, because they have access to a large variety of broken **** naturally (UMD, built-in Diplomancy, spells, Glibness, bardic music, etc.).

I absolutely agree with every single thing that you are saying. Everything. But I don't believe it is a horrendous problem to have t4s in a world where you also have t3s. That's variance on the low end but comes with the territory. The difference exists, but it's not like you're the monk in a party of wizards.

So at this point we have Fighters and Monks as the "broken" classes and they are pretty widely accepted to be broken and horrible designed.

Troacctid

2015-09-25, 10:16 PM

Not really. Imagine the least versatile character possible. He has one ability, and that ability is "deal infinity damage to any number of targets within line of sight". That character has zero versatility, but he is incredibly powerful.

Are you joking? That's a ridiculously versatile ability. You can do it to anything. It's like a bazillion different abilities all in one. Kill a human, kill a bear, kill a demon, kill ten humans, kill a hundred humans, kill a wall, kill a mountain, kill a swarm of bees, kill a hydra, kill an elder evil, kill a ghost, kill an entire horde of zombies, kill an enemy's weapon, disrupt an enemy's spell, steal whatever you want...I mean, come on. There's basically no common adventuring situation where that ability is not useful.

You want a character with zero versatility, give her that ability, except it can only target Bob, the blacksmith down the street. Now she's actually not versatile and, surprise, not very powerful either.

Brova

2015-09-25, 10:20 PM

Are you joking? That's a ridiculously versatile ability. You can do it to anything. It's like a bazillion different abilities all in one. Kill a human, kill a bear, kill a demon, kill ten humans, kill a hundred humans, kill a wall, kill a mountain, kill a swarm of bees, kill a hydra, kill an elder evil, kill a ghost, kill an entire horde of zombies, kill an enemy's weapon, disrupt an enemy's spell, steal whatever you want...I mean, come on. There's basically no common adventuring situation where that ability is not useful.

You want a character with zero versatility, give her that ability, except it can only target Bob, the blacksmith down the street. Now she's actually not versatile and, surprise, not very powerful either.

Bull.

glitterdust is not a bazillion different abilities because you can cast it on anything you happen to encounter. "Do Damage" is not more abilities, it is more effective.

Troacctid

2015-09-25, 10:21 PM

When it can solve almost any encounter you come across, you can't say it's not versatile.

Brova

2015-09-25, 10:23 PM

When it can solve almost any encounter you come across, you can't say it's not versatile.

Why?

Imagine a 20th level character who can cast meteor swarm at will. He's not versatile at all. He's also not powerful.

Now imagine that character is instead 3rd level. Has he (relatively speaking) gained versatility or power?

Ssalarn

2015-09-25, 10:25 PM

Lord Ruler is essentially a mid-level caster with a special template. He could still be utterly annihilated by a wizard with access to 9th level spells. Nobody else in Mistborn even comes close to a high level caster.

The only characters in Dresden Files that come even remotely close to 9th level casting power are essentially fey deities.

Don't think I'm familiar with Lord of Light, so I won't presume to comment.

Powder Mage characters again, don't come close to the power of casters with things like gate and wish at their disposal.

Codex Alera characters are essentially high fantasy Pokemon trainers, and again, don't come even remotely close to the power of 9th (or even 7th) level spells.

The hero of the Night Angel trilogy is a Rogue/Fighter/Assassin with an artifact. Nothing Kylar does comes close to matching the power of even 7th level spells. His coolest tricks are both functions of the artifact and emulate 2nd and 6th level spells, respectively.

As far as benders go, not even the Avatar gets close to the power of 9th level spells.

Magic the Gathering is inspired by, informed by, and written by the same people as D&D. It's like telling someone you can tell how big a badass Boromir was by looking at Thorin Oakenshield. But sure, old school Planeswalkers are the equivalent of 9th level spellcasters, because the two have informed each other's design and development for about 20 years.

Most Wheel of Time Channelers don't even come close to 9th level spell power. Rand and the Forsaken, who essentially have super special templates, get a few powers in that realm.

My mistake on the solar; I was thinking of Pathfinder's Trumpet Archon, who casts spells as a 14th level cleric and is on the summon monster list. You are correct that a solar would require gate.

Psyren

2015-09-25, 10:30 PM

Part of the problem is that fighters and rogues are 'realistically' limited to what That Guy At The Gym can do. Wizards are limited to what magic can do... which is, apparently, EVERYTHING.

Not "EVERYTHING." Anything. The difference is subtle, but key.

I would like to think most people here have the decency not to metagame to hell and back as a batman wizard when your companions are a barbarian, a rouge, and a ranger.

Sure rouges can do a lot of sneak attack damage...

but by the time you get past level 10 your gonna run into monsters who simply will not care every other encounter, suddenly the bard is infinitely more useful because the rouge can't do anything.

Rouges fall horribly flat if they run into anything that is immune to their sneak attacks, Bards don't really have that issue.

*twitch*

So bards are basically the standard as to whether a class or a build is balanced or not?

Well, they are the only T3 class in core...

Milo v3

2015-09-25, 10:33 PM

Interestingly, pathfinder's paladin is also considered tier 3 in core. Despite being much much less versatile than the bard.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-25, 10:33 PM

You think "punch a lion to death" is a thing people can do in the real world?

Very, very few people but yes. That is a thing a very rare few people could do.

Again, I'm not saying that Fighters shouldn't be able to do supernatural stuff. I'm just saying that they aren't mundane if they do.

In D&D worlds the things that people can do without any magical power sources dramatically outstrips anything that can be done in reality. That it does outstrip reality so very badly doesn't make it magical or supernatural. There's nothing magical about a high level fighter or barbarian putting his bare fist through an inch thick sheet of steel. There's nothing magical about those same fellows leaping across 30ft chasms with moderate effort. These feats are certainly extraordinary, even for those worlds, but they're not supernatural or magical at all. Unbelievable =/= magical.

That's a legitimate question. The answer is probably two things.

First, there's just "magic" as a catchall for supernatural powers. And you need those to compete in a high level playing field. They don't need to involve chanting or ancient tomes, but they need to be mechanically and conceptually "not natural". That can be because you have trained super hard (a lot of Anime/Manga characters), because you happen to be a creature which is sufficiently badass to play at the appropriate level (Thor), or because you have an artifact that gives you mystical powers (Kylar Stern).

Second, there's "magic" as a power source, which generally means Wizards or Sorcerers or whatever. That's a thing that exists, but it's not really super meaningful absent a bunch of other power sources you believe in.

Poppycock.

As I said above, unbelievable and magical are not synonyms. Neither are unbelievable and supernatural. Preturnatural? Maybe. Magical or supernatural? No. The physical limitations of reality are not the same as the physical limitations of the game world, plainly.

Not really. Imagine the least versatile character possible. He has one ability, and that ability is "deal infinity damage to any number of targets within line of sight". That character has zero versatility, but he is incredibly powerful.

Obviously, Wizards aren't quite that dramatic. But I don't think you can seriously claim that the reason Wizards are good is their versatility. I mean, it is a factor, but it's not nearly as important as factors like "getting to cast cloudkill" or "learning solid fog". It ultimately comes down to this: you only ever do one thing in response to any problem. And if you have something that solves all your problems, it doesn't really matter what else you can do.

It's why (single classed) Rogues are good and (single classed) Bards aren't. The Rogue is capable of doing level appropriate damage with a lot of attacks that consistently hit flat-footed touch AC. The Bard isn't. He's capable of doing a wide variety of stuff, but most of it is not very good past ~10.

That "incredibly powerful" character is doable within the rules of the game, though he will have a few other incidental abilities. He's also trivially easy to shutdown and/or kill.

A wizard's power does come from his versatility. With a few, very limited exceptions, there's almost no single spell that allows them to smash most encounters. It's the fact that they can prepare numerous spells that are capable of shutting down whole classifications of encounter that gives them their power.

That you think a bard is less dangerous than a rogue at high levels is telling.

That's just not true. Seriously, people still believe that Tome of Battle is "too anime" and "not mundane" despite the fact that the abilities it gives mundanes are barely level appropriate at 10th level and are (almost) all just "I hit it with a sword, but it hurts more than normal."

An idea that is rebuffed every time it comes up. There are a handful of maneuvers that probably should've been tagged as supernatural that weren't but beyond that most of what's in the book is certainly extraordinary, perhaps even unbelievable, but hardly supernatural or magical.

No, it's not. If you have a solution to a problem, the problem is solved. Whether you had a bunch of other solutions or not does not make the problem any more or less solved.

Indeed, but there is almost never just one situation in a given day and different solutions carry different after-effects. No solution is necessarily more powerful than another but having more than one makes the character more powerful in that it allows him to solve more problems more frequently.

So you think polymorph doesn't constitute serious optimization? Using that spell at all requires you to read four books, several web articles, all the relevant errata, and any other changes.

Casting one spell from one spell slot without having to enter any prestige class or take any feat is, indeed, low op. You don't have to be familiar with all six books of monsters to get the most use out of the spell, just a handful of creatures for which you can consult guides made by those that have already done the research.

Even just within the MM there are a handful that can cover most circumstances. Off the top of my head, hydra covers most bruiser encounters quite handily, either cast on yourself or an ally. Anything with wings bypasses any kind of physical barrier along a road or other overland route, though overland flight does it better. Burrow speeds get you past most other obstacles, though passwall does it better in some cases.

The major problem with the spell isn't that it's the perfect solution to every problem, it's that it's far too often a good solution to almost every problem and knowing how to use it for such isn't difficult knowledge to acquire even incidentally. All it takes is thinking, "if only I could do X," and then remembering some creature you've encountered that could do X. You could stumble into it completely by accident and -that- is as low as low op gets.

Also, summon monster? Really? The thing that summons chaff at CR = 1/2 level?

A) sometimes chaff is exactly what you need.

B) many of the summonable creatures available have very useful extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural abilities and movement capabilities that a clever player can exploit quite easily.

But the Wizard doesn't get all the silver bullets. He gets what he prepares. That's it. Seriously, run the SGT. No cheese, Core + 2 books, level 5/10/15. The Wizard over-preforms, but he does not sweep.

Were you aware that, unlike most prepared casters, wizards (and archivists) can leave slots open in the morning and fill them later in the day with a 15 minute break? If he knows the silver bullet spell and he's not in the middle of combat, the obstacle in front of you is a non-issue. Preparing what's necessary for combat is as simple as looking into where you're going and what kind of foes are likely to be there barring, of course, the uncanny forethought feat.

As I said, foolish strategic choices from the player and/or the DM deliberately rushing things and being as random as possible are the only way to stop a wizard that's being played half-decently from squashing whatever you put in front of him if he's determined to handle things himself. Nevermind what he can do with a half-decent party of allies to pick up whatever little slack he leaves. Imagine that hydra form on the party barbarian or invisibility and silence on the party rogue.

Ssalarn

2015-09-25, 10:36 PM

Well, they are the only T3 class in core...

I think if you look at Pathfinder, Paladin and Ranger come reasonably close, thought they're still kind of straddling the line between high Tier 4 and Tier 3.

Weirdly, I can't think of any Ranger archetypes that actually boost his Tier (in fact, most actually drop him into solid Tier 4 through enforced specialization or flavor abilities that aren't as versatile as what's traded away), but the Paladin can get there pretty easily with options like Hospitaler or Sacred Servant.

Psyren

2015-09-25, 10:37 PM

Interestingly, pathfinder's paladin is also considered tier 3 in core. Despite being much much less versatile than the bard.

It's not; archetypes and non-core spells/items can get it there, but not the core pally (though it is at least up a tier from 3.5's core paladin.)

Troacctid

2015-09-25, 10:49 PM

Why?

Imagine a 20th level character who can cast meteor swarm at will. He's not versatile at all. He's also not powerful.

Now imagine that character is instead 3rd level. Has he (relatively speaking) gained versatility or power?

Meteor Swarm is a lot less versatile than "Infinity damage to anyone or anything". There are huge swathes of creatures that are unaffected by it, it doesn't work so well at short range, and it can't damage objects at all, for example. But yes, your 3rd level character has gained significant amounts of both power and versatility; raw HP damage is an inherently versatile effect, useful in a wide variety of encounters, and the fact that it deals a lot of damage at once means you can pick fights you couldn't otherwise pick, which expands your options quite a bit. It also provides excellent crowd control and AoE debuffing (applying the "dead" condition).

Brova

2015-09-25, 10:50 PM

Lord Ruler is essentially a mid-level caster with a special template. He could still be utterly annihilated by a wizard with access to 9th level spells. Nobody else in Mistborn even comes close to a high level caster.

Oh absolutely. I just assumed by "9th level caster" you meant "guy who is 9th level in a casting class", not "guy who casts 9th level spells". Basically all the characters I listed are supposed to be equivalent to the former rather than the later.

But there are examples of the latter. I've mentioned a few (Creatures of Light and Darkness, Cosmere Shards).There are actually kind of a lot of people at that level in comics. Thanos, Superman, Martian Manhunter, Galactus, Marvel's Abstracts, various Gods, and a few other characters.

Some gods (or god tier characters) are floating around in various settings. For example, while the actual gameplay of WoW is fairly banal, the lore has some hardcore stuff going on. The ancient elves had a gate ritual to summon Sargeras (who was, I believe, statted up as a circa 20th caster in the Warcraft d20 splat), Gul'dan raised the elven homeland from the depths of the ocean, Illidan's plan in Frozen Throne would have torn apart the setting's north pole, one of the orc Warlocks cast enough gates to tear apart Outland, and one of the backstory races created the world.

I assume Exalted fits in somewhere high on the power scale, but I know next to nothing about it.

That's about all I know off the top of my head (barring some weaker cases like counting WH40k).

As I said above, unbelievable and magical are not synonyms. Neither are unbelievable and supernatural. Preturnatural? Maybe. Magical or supernatural? No. The physical limitations of reality are not the same as the physical limitations of the game world, plainly.

You're splitting hairs. If people in the game world can do things that are not actually possible in the real world, those people are not mundane.

That you think a bard is less dangerous than a rogue at high levels is telling.

The Rogue deals level appropriate damage. The Bard does not. It's that cold, hard fact that makes one level appropriate and the other not. If you can play at a level appropriate balance point, you can benefit from versatility. If you can't, versatility won't get you there.

An idea that is rebuffed every time it comes up. There are a handful of maneuvers that probably should've been tagged as supernatural that weren't but beyond that most of what's in the book is certainly extraordinary, perhaps even unbelievable, but hardly supernatural or magical.

My point isn't that I agree with them, or that they are right. It is that those people represent what the D&D community thinks "mundane" characters should be able to do.

Casting one spell from one spell slot without having to enter any prestige class or take any feat is, indeed, low op. You don't have to be familiar with all six books of monsters to get the most use out of the spell, just a handful of creatures for which you can consult guides made by those that have already done the research.

planar binding is one spell. The most powerful thing you can do with it is 100% core. Is that low op?

Were you aware that, unlike most prepared casters, wizards (and archivists) can leave slots open in the morning and fill them later in the day with a 15 minute break? If he knows the silver bullet spell and he's not in the middle of combat, the obstacle in front of you is a non-issue. Preparing what's necessary for combat is as simple as looking into where you're going and what kind of foes are likely to be there barring, of course, the uncanny forethought feat.

Dude. Go run the SGT. State your assumptions, write up the character to whatever degree you feel is fair, and actually logic it out. Core + 0 - 2 books, minimal optimization, and competent play.

you can pick fights you couldn't otherwise pick

If this is your standard, it is literally impossible to gain power without gaining versatility. A +10 bonus to attack/AC/damage lets you pick fights you couldn't otherwise, but I don't think anyone is seriously going to call that increased versatility.

Ssalarn

2015-09-25, 11:02 PM

The Rogue deals level appropriate damage. The Bard does not. It's that cold, hard fact that makes one level appropriate and the other not. If you can play at a level appropriate balance point, you can benefit from versatility. If you can't, versatility won't get you there.

This is not a "cold hard fact". This is an unproven assumption that I've yet to see proven out. Bard has innate accuracy boosters, Rogue has 3/4 BAB just like the Bard but no innate options for increasing his accuracy. Bard gets spells like haste for additional attacks, Rogue does not. If you expand into splatbook options, the Bard actually gets performances that allow him to give every one of his allies bonus damage dice equal to the Rogue's Sneak Attack. The Bard's higher chance to hit also means he has a higher chance to confirm a critical hit, giving him another source of damage that the Rogue lacks a counterpart to.

Brova

2015-09-25, 11:04 PM

This is not a "cold hard fact". This is an unproven assumption that I've yet to see proven out. Bard has innate accuracy boosters, Rogue has 3/4 BAB just like the Bard but no innate options for increasing his accuracy. Bard gets spells like haste for additional attacks, Rogue does not. If you expand into splatbook options, the Bard actually gets performances that allow him to give every one of his allies bonus damage dice equal to the Rogue's Sneak Attack. The Bard's higher chance to hit also means he has a higher chance to confirm a critical hit, giving him another source of damage that the Rogue lacks a counterpart to.

This build (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Halfling_Hurler_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)).

Anlashok

2015-09-25, 11:15 PM

You think "punch a lion to death" is a thing people can do in the real world?

Again, I'm not saying that Fighters shouldn't be able to do supernatural stuff. I'm just saying that they aren't mundane if they do.
I don't know enough about real life lion punching to comment, but in the context of D&D a sufficiently high level character (depending on optimization) can punch a lion to death and a sufficiently more well equipped martial can go beyond that and kill a lion with a single punch.

And within the context of D&D it's a completely nonmagical feat anyone with the right training can perform. So is being able to take dozens of gunshot wounds without slowing down or wading through a pool of lava.

This build (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Halfling_Hurler_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)).

I'm not sure you can actually take Perfect TWF with special ability. The monster manual specifies that you can use bonus feats you don't meet the prerequisites for, but does not give the ability to select a bonus feat you don't qualify for in the first place.

Brova

2015-09-25, 11:22 PM

I don't know enough about real life lion punching to comment, but in the context of D&D a sufficiently high level character (depending on optimization) can punch a lion to death and a sufficiently more well equipped martial can go beyond that and kill a lion with a single punch.

And within the context of D&D it's a completely nonmagical feat anyone with the right training can perform. So is being able to take dozens of gunshot wounds without slowing down or wading through a pool of lava.

How is that different from the fact that anyone in D&Dland can train hard enough to create fireballs? Neither of those things is physically possible in the real world, but in D&Dland you can train murderhobo your way into being able to do that.

I'm not sure you can actually take Perfect TWF with special ability. The monster manual specifies that you can use bonus feats you don't meet the prerequisites for, but does not give the ability to select a bonus feat you don't qualify for in the first place.

I disagree with that, but this particular tangent is like four tangents down from the original discussion even without arguing about that. Fortunately, it's not super important to build efficiency, particularly if it's not a core only variant.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-25, 11:25 PM

You're splitting hairs. If people in the game world can do things that are not actually possible in the real world, those are not mundane.

Why? No seriously, why aren't they?

Webster defines mundane as either of the world, as opposed to otherworldly or heavenly, or commonplace. In these worlds, the things that the "mundane" classes do are not otherworldly but they are as commonplace as the classes that perform them; millions of times a day in a reasonably populace world. Just because they can't be performed in reality doesn't relieve them of being mundane.

The Rogue deals level appropriate damage. The Bard does not. It's that cold, hard fact that makes one level appropriate and the other not. If you can play at a level appropriate balance point, you can benefit from versatility. If you can't, versatility won't get you there.

That the only metric you can think of to determine level appropriateness is damage dealing capability is even more telling than considering the rogue the more "powerful" class. Nevermind that one book puts their damage capability far, far beyond a rogue's.

My point isn't that I agree with them, or that they are right. It is that those people represent what the D&D community thinks "mundane" characters should be able to do.

They make up a gross minority and do -not- represent the feelings of the community on the whole, regardless of the fact that they are, by any objective measure, provably wrong.

planar binding is one spell. The most powerful thing you can do with it is 100% core. Is that low op?

Unlike polymorph, you have to spend at least 20 minutes to make a skill check, cast 2 preparatory spells, and know the personality of the creature you're going to interact with in addition to knowing which creature is capable of doing the thing you want it to do -and- you have to deal with any possible consequences of dealing with that NPC. It's not something you're just going to stumble into by accident and requires some research to use effectively, nevermind that the wish abuse I have no doubt you're referring to requires an even deeper understanding of the rules in regards to both wish as a spell and how it interacts with being used as a spell-like ability rather than being cast normally.

So, in review, one spell vs a skill check, 3 spells, a -negotiation-, and a charisma check. Also, incidental knowledge vs specificaly researched knowledge. This was a terrible comparison.

Dude. Go run the SGT. Run out your assumptions, write up the character to whatever degree you feel is fair, and actually logic it out. Core + 0 - 2 books, minimal optimization, and competent play.

Minimal optimization by whose standard? Also, if you really want to see it, I suppose I could make my point that way if someone other than you is willing to run the test.

Hell, if you want to see something spectacular, I'd hazard I could do it with an NPC class as the base (no accelerated casting PrC's either) if you'll drop the arbitrary book restriction.

Svata

2015-09-25, 11:39 PM

But there are examples of the latter. I've mentioned a few (Creatures of Light and Darkness, Cosmere Shards).There are actually kind of a lot of people at that level in comics. Thanos, Superman, Martian Manhunter, Galactus, Marvel's Abstracts, various Gods, and a few other characters.

Eh, high-op use of 9ths could beat any of these, given enough time.

You're splitting hairs. If people in the game world can do things that are not actually possible in the real world, those people are not mundane.

Then no high-level character is mundane. Which is as it should be.

The Rogue deals level appropriate damage. The Bard does not. It's that cold, hard fact that makes one level appropriate and the other not. If you can play at a level appropriate balance point, you can benefit from versatility. If you can't, versatility won't get you there.

Sure, unless the enemy is undead, a construct, an elemental, a plant, wearing Heavy Fortification armor, invisible, in the dark, or any one of several other incredibly common factors, sure. The rogue deals alright damage. Also, since when does the bard not deal enough damage? DFI, or even just regular Inspire Courage on summons or Dominated or Diplomanced allies adds up quickly. Sure, it isn't all done personally, but that's not his job. And besides that, Snowflake Wardance.

*twitch*

Seriously. Everyone else is talking about rogues, and he keeps bringing up that overpowdered bull. Some people just can't stay on topic.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 11:41 PM

Why? No seriously, why aren't they?

Webster defines mundane as either of the world, as opposed to otherworldly or heavenly, or commonplace. In these worlds, the things that the "mundane" classes do are not otherworldly but they are as commonplace as the classes that perform them; millions of times a day in a reasonably populace world. Just because they can't be performed in reality doesn't relieve them of being mundane.

That the only metric you can think of to determine level appropriateness is damage dealing capability is even more telling than considering the rogue the more "powerful" class. Nevermind that one book puts their damage capability far, far beyond a rogue's.

They make up a gross minority and do -not- represent the feelings of the community on the whole, regardless of the fact that they are, by any objective measure, provably wrong.

Unlike polymorph, you have to spend at least 20 minutes to make a skill check, cast 2 preparatory spells, and know the personality of the creature you're going to interact with in addition to knowing which creature is capable of doing the thing you want it to do -and- you have to deal with any possible consequences of dealing with that NPC. It's not something you're just going to stumble into by accident and requires some research to use effectively, nevermind that the wish abuse I have no doubt you're referring to requires an even deeper understanding of the rules in regards to both wish as a spell and how it interacts with being used as a spell-like ability rather than being cast normally.

So, in review, one spell vs a skill check, 3 spells, a -negotiation-, and a charisma check. Also, incidental knowledge vs specificaly researched knowledge. This was a terrible comparison.

Minimal optimization by whose standard? Also, if you really want to see it, I suppose I could make my point that way if someone other than you is willing to run the test.

Hell, if you want to see something spectacular, I'd hazard I could do it with an NPC class as the base (no accelerated casting PrC's either) if you'll drop the arbitrary book restriction.

Ok, its fairly safe to assume, that brova is determining this under the pretense that you would only be fighting Humanoids and animals, as well as diving deep into the 2 weapon fighting tree. Now assuming that they are vulnerable to sneak attacks, can get all their hits in, and wouldn't be borked afterwards. Then yes Rouge is more powerful combat wise, however this requires multiple conditions to be met, leaving the entire concept very situational at best.

This also is under the mindset, that if something can deal a massive amount of damage in a short amount of time, that makes them powerful.....Well if that's the case then that would mean that a two weapon fighting rouge is stronger than a wizard, considering dealing out high amounts of damage is the one thing wizards can't do reliably.

And we all know that's BS.

Brova

2015-09-25, 11:50 PM

Why? No seriously, why aren't they?

People in D&D live in a world where you can train until you can take a bullet to the face. But they also live in a world where you can train until you shoot fireballs from your hand. Why is the first of those mundane and the second not?

That the only metric you can think of to determine level appropriateness is damage dealing capability is even more telling than considering the rogue the more "powerful" class. Nevermind that one book puts their damage capability far, far beyond a rogue's.

The metric that makes you level appropriate is defeating level appropriate encounters. You can do that with things that aren't damage, but you can also do that with damage.

And no, one book doesn't but you ahead. Dragonfire Inspiration is in Dragon Magic. That means you don't get Words of Creation, so you get +4d6 at level 20. It also means you don't get to pick a splat dragon with a Sonic or Force breath weapon, so some stuff is going to have immunity to the energy type you pick. Plus, if you want that energy type to not be fire, you have to blow another feat. Oh, and you lose your attack bonus. Minor, but people were trumpeting it earlier.

They make up a gross minority and do -not- represent the feelings of the community on the whole, regardless of the fact that they are, by any objective measure, provably wrong.

They make up a gross minority of people who post on CharOp boards. After the edition has been dead for almost a decade. And there have been two (or more, depending on how you count) new editions of D&D. They, in my experience, make up a substantial portion of D&D players in general.

Unlike polymorph, you have to spend at least 20 minutes to make a skill check, cast 2 preparatory spells, and know the personality of the creature you're going to interact with in addition to knowing which creature is capable of doing the thing you want it to do -and- you have to deal with any possible consequences of dealing with that NPC. It's not something you're just going to stumble into by accident and requires some research to use effectively, nevermind that the wish abuse I have no doubt you're referring to requires an even deeper understanding of the rules in regards to both wish as a spell and how it interacts with being used as a spell-like ability rather than being cast normally.

I'm sure someone with a genius intellect who studies magic for a living would have no idea how any of that works.

That said, even using planar binding to just bind demon minions is totally nuts. You can cast that spell in downtime and accumulate a substantial number of demon minions.

Minimal optimization by whose standard?

A build that you would reasonably bring to an unknown table, expecting to play it with minimal changes, assuming no houserules.

if someone other than you is willing to run the test.

No one runs the SGT. It's set of challenges, and you evaluate how a build performs against them.

I'd hazard I could do it with an NPC class as the base (no accelerated casting PrC's either) if you'll drop the arbitrary book restriction.

I can do it with a 1st level character with the given book restrictions. But that's not the point. The point is to test power in a realistic setting. So that you don't get stuff like JaronK ranking Factotums high because he personally lets them do crazy crap.

Eh, high-op use of 9ths could beat any of these, given enough time.

Combat time travel is considered a basic martial art in Creatures of Light and Darkness. That alone puts them in a fairly good position, as D&D basically doesn't have time travel. Anyway, you're shifting the goalposts. No one said high op in the beginning.

Then no high-level character is mundane. Which is as it should be.

Yes. You are agreeing with me.

Sure, unless the enemy is undead, a construct, an elemental, a plant, wearing Heavy Fortification armor, invisible, in the dark, or any one of several other incredibly common factors, sure.

gravestrike, golem strike, Crippling Strike, Crippling Strike, Crippling Strike, any vision ability, any vision ability, do I need to go on?

Ok, its fairly safe to assume, that brova is determining this under the pretense that you would only be fighting Humanoids and animals,

No, I'm not. There are seriously two CR 10 creatures which are immune to sneak attack in core. The Clay Golem and the Colossal Animated Object. That's it. I'm assuming a 10th level Rogue that is fighting level appropriate monsters.

Masakan

2015-09-25, 11:53 PM

People in D&D live in a world where you can train until you can take a bullet to the face. But they also live in a world where you can train until you shoot fireballs from your hand. Why is the first of those mundane and the second not?

The metric that makes you level appropriate is defeating level appropriate encounters. You can do that with things that aren't damage, but you can also do that with damage.

And no, one book doesn't but you ahead. Dragonfire Inspiration is in Dragon Magic. That means you don't get Words of Creation, so you get +4d6 at level 20. It also means you don't get to pick a splat dragon with a Sonic or Force breath weapon, so some stuff is going to have immunity to the energy type you pick. Plus, if you want that energy type to not be fire, you have to blow another feat. Oh, and you lose your attack bonus. Minor, but people were trumpeting it earlier.

They make up a gross minority of people who post on CharOp boards. After the edition has been dead for almost a decade. And there have been two (or more, depending on how you count) new editions of D&D. They, in my experience, make up a substantial portion of D&D players in general.

I'm sure someone with a genius intellect who studies magic for a living would have no idea how any of that works.

That said, even using planar binding to just bind demon minions is totally nuts. You can cast that spell in downtime and accumulate a substantial number of demon minions.

A build that you would reasonably bring to an unknown table, expecting to play it with minimal changes, assuming no houserules.

No one runs the SGT. It's set of challenges, and you evaluate how a build performs against them.

I can do it with a 1st level character with the given book restrictions. But that's not the point. The point is to test power in a realistic setting. So that you don't get stuff like JaronK ranking Factotums high because he personally lets them do crazy crap.

Combat time travel is considered a basic martial art in Creatures of Light and Darkness. That alone puts them in a fairly good position, as D&D basically doesn't have time travel. Anyway, you're shifting the goalposts. No one said high op in the beginning.

Yes. You are agreeing with me.

gravestrike, golem strike, Crippling Strike, Crippling Strike, Crippling Strike, any vision ability, any vision ability, do I need to go on?

No, I'm not. There are seriously two CR 10 creatures which are immune to sneak attack in core. The Clay Golem and the Colossal Animated Object. That's it. I'm assuming a 10th level Rogue that is fighting level appropriate monsters.

1. Assuming we are going pure rouge, you are effectively relying on your team wizard to be even remotely relevant.
2. I'm assuming there's a reason your not including the monster manuals?

Brova

2015-09-25, 11:55 PM

1. Assuming we are going pure rouge, you are effectively relying on your team wizard to be even remotely relevant.

You are relying on buying magic items, yes. Unless you are proposing that character power should not include items.

2. I'm assuming there's a reason your not including the monster manuals?

What?

Masakan

2015-09-26, 12:01 AM

You are relying on buying magic items, yes. Unless you are proposing that character power should not include items.

What?

I knew it...if you actually read up on your material you would know that there are WAY more than just 2 monsters at level 10 that can easily screw sneak attack over.

Brova

2015-09-26, 12:11 AM

I knew it...if you actually read up on your material you would know that there are WAY more than just 2 monsters at level 10 that can easily screw sneak attack over.

There are two monsters in core that are immune. CR 10 Core Monsters include:

Bebilith - Not Immune
Brass Dragon (Young Adult) - Not Immune, Immune Fire
Clay Golem - Immune: Construct
Colossal Animated Object - Immune: Construct
Couatl - Not Immune
Eleven-Headed Hydra - Not Immune
Fire Giant - Not Immune, Immune Fire
Formian Myrmarch - Not Immune, Resists Acid and Fire
Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion - Not Immune
Guardian Naga - Not Immune
Nine-Headed Hydra (Pyro or Cyro) - Not Immune, Possibly Immune Fire
Noble Salamander - Not Immune, Immune Fire
Rakshasa - Not Immune
Red Dragon (Juvenile) - Not Immune, Immune Fire
Silver Dragon (Juvenile) - Not Immune
White Dragon (Adult) - Not Immune

I count two instances of things which are immune to sneak attack. There's one monster that resists both Acid and Fire, and several that are vulnerable to fire. The Flask Rogue is in a pretty good place.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 12:16 AM

There are two monsters in core that are immune. CR 10 Core Monsters include:

Bebilith - Not Immune
Brass Dragon (Young Adult) - Not Immune, Immune Fire
Clay Golem - Immune: Construct
Colossal Animated Object - Immune: Construct
Couatl - Not Immune
Eleven-Headed Hydra - Not Immune
Fire Giant - Not Immune, Immune Fire
Formian Myrmarch - Not Immune, Resists Acid and Fire
Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion - Not Immune
Guardian Naga - Not Immune
Nine-Headed Hydra (Pyro or Cyro) - Not Immune, Possibly Immune Fire
Noble Salamander - Not Immune, Immune Fire
Rakshasa - Not Immune
Red Dragon (Juvenile) - Not Immune, Immune Fire
Silver Dragon (Juvenile) - Not Immune
White Dragon (Adult) - Not Immune

I count two instances of things which are immune to sneak attack. There's one monster that resists both Acid and Fire, and several that are vulnerable to fire. The Flask Rogue is in a pretty good place.

Why do i even bother? you aren't even trying to listen......

Svata

2015-09-26, 12:16 AM

Combat time travel is considered a basic martial art in Creatures of Light and Darkness. That alone puts them in a fairly good position, as D&D basically doesn't have time travel. Anyway, you're shifting the goalposts. No one said high op in the beginning.

My bad. Wasn't aware we had set an optimization limit. Also, sorry, meant to say most. I got a bit carried away. Sorry.

Yes. You are agreeing with me.

Ah, good.

gravestrike, golem strike, Crippling Strike, Crippling Strike, Crippling Strike, any vision ability, any vision ability, do I need to go on?

Sure, sure. How are you getting these? Also, weren't you complaining about the use of multiple splats earlier?

No, I'm not. There are seriously two CR 10 creatures which are immune to sneak attack in core. The Clay Golem and the Colossal Animated Object. That's it. I'm assuming a 10th level Rogue that is fighting level appropriate monsters.

You know that encounters can be made of multiple lower-cr creatures, correct? So, 3 Cloud Giant Skeletons or Two Greater Shadows and a normal Shadow are level-apropriate and would likely faceroll your rogue.

Brova

2015-09-26, 12:16 AM

Why do i even bother? you aren't even trying to listen......

To what? What are those monsters doing to screw your sneak attack over?

Sure, sure. How are you getting these? Also, weren't you complaining about the use of multiple splats earlier?

Well, Crippling Strike is core. grave strike and golem strike are within the splat limit I proposed. Vision is a bit more variable, but you can probably either fit it in core or accept that you will lose a couple of encounters on that.

I'd also point out that the pro-Bard arguments in that paragraph drew on a lot more sources.

You know that encounters can be made of multiple lower-cr creatures, correct? So, 3 Cloud Giant Skeletons or Two Greater Shadows and a normal Shadow are level-apropriate and would likely faceroll your rogue.

Sure. But he'll faceroll the encounter of "Traps" that the Bard can't beat (no trapfinding), or swarms of low level monsters with low HP that can be sneak attacked. The fact that some things beat a character don't make it not level appropriate.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 12:23 AM

To what? What are those monsters doing to screw your sneak attack over?

Well, Crippling Strike is core. grave strike and golem strike are within the splat limit I proposed. Vision is a bit more variable, but you can probably either fit it in core or accept that you will lose a couple of encounters on that.

I'd also point out that the pro-Bard arguments in that paragraph drew on a lot more sources.

Sure. But he'll faceroll the encounter of "Traps" that the Bard can't beat (no trapfinding), or swarms of low level monsters with low HP that can be sneak attacked. The fact that some things beat a character don't make it not level appropriate.

Why in the name of bob the builder did you put in a splat limit? That's basically botching the analysis just so you can prove a point.
I think the only thing you've proven here is how hopelessly bias you are.

Svata

2015-09-26, 12:28 AM

Well, Crippling Strike is core. grave strike and golem strike are within the splat limit I proposed. Vision is a bit more variable, but you can probably either fit it in core or accept that you will lose a couple of encounters on that.

I'd also point out that the pro-Bard arguments in that paragraph drew on a lot more sources.

Fair enough.

Sure. But he'll faceroll the encounter of "Traps" that the Bard can't beat (no trapfinding)

Summon Monster I.

Brova

2015-09-26, 12:30 AM

Why in the name of bob the builder did you put in a splat limit? That's basically botching the analysis just so you can prove a point.

Why? What is inherently fairer about an analysis with more splats? If we accept your premise (Rogue wins with Core + 0 - 2 splats, Bard win with all splats), why is it biased for me to advocate for a core only test, but not for you to advocate for an all splats test?

Summon Monster I.

A level appropriate 10th level trap is an auto-resetting trap of a 9th level spell. It does not seem to me that a CR 1/2 monster is going to be much use in bypassing a wail of the banshee trap that triggers every round.

Svata

2015-09-26, 12:37 AM

Masakan

2015-09-26, 12:38 AM

Why? What is inherently fairer about an analysis with more splats? If we accept your premise (Rogue wins with Core + 0 - 2 splats, Bard win with all splats), why is it biased for me to advocate for a core only test, but not for you to advocate for an all splats test?

Because your effectively ignoring obvious data, just to say that your right. In a way your actually admitting that rouge is worse than bard, unless the bard is effectively gutted of everything that makes them good. That the only way the rouge can be better than the bard is if the bard is reduced to a buff bot.

Brova

2015-09-26, 12:43 AM

Right. Forgot the trap rules were quite that absolutely stupid. Also, you can go through the space that same round, be out before it resets. One can go 90' in a straight line with no sort of speed boost. Stay 35-40' behind the summon, after a trigger, run through the disabled trap.

Maybe. Depends on how the wail of the banshee is set up to trigger. If the area is "trailing", so that the center of the 40ft spread is between you and your summon, you're screwed. If it's centered or leading, your survive that, but there are other traps. For example, a bunch of traps that stack power word pain on you. Or that summon stuff, or drop bigger AoEs. The safest course is going to be to disarm the trap in question, particularly given the variety of nasty ones that exist.

Because your effectively ignoring obvious data, just to say that your right. In a way your actually admitting that rouge is worse than bard, unless the bard is effectively gutted of everything that makes them good. That the only way the rouge can be better than the bard is if the bard is reduced to a buff bot.

But the only way the Bard can compete with the Rogue is if they are allowed to use superior splat material to gain an asymmetric advantage. Why is one of those more fair than the other?

Also, this is not about Bard versus Rogue. This is about both versus being level appropriate. The Rogue doesn't stop being level appropriate because there are more sources to draw on, so if he is level appropriate under stricter conditions, he is a better class.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 12:45 AM

Maybe. Depends on how the wail of the banshee is set up to trigger. If the area is "trailing", so that the center of the 40ft spread is between you and your summon, you're screwed. If it's centered or leading, your survive that, but there are other traps. For example, a bunch of traps that stack power word pain on you. Or that summon stuff, or drop bigger AoEs. The safest course is going to be to disarm the trap in question, particularly given the variety of nasty ones that exist.

But the only way the Bard can compete with the Rogue is if they are allowed to use superior splat material to gain an asymmetric advantage. Why is one of those more fair than the other?

Why are YOU saying it's more fair for stuff to be taken away, just so you can feel important?
Ok fine you think rouges are better than bards no matter what.....good luck convincing the entire forum of that.

Brova

2015-09-26, 12:47 AM

Why are YOU saying it's more fair for stuff to be taken away, just so you can feel important?

Because it gives you a base level of optimization. It's more useful when evaluating the power of the class. Fundamentally, the reason to do class evaluations is for new players. If your class evaluation assumes all splats and full optimization, it's only useful to dedicated optimizers and those people already know which classes are good.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 12:49 AM

Because it gives you a base level of optimization. It's more useful when evaluating the power of the class. Fundamentally, the reason to do class evaluations is for new players. If your class evaluation assumes all splats and full optimization, it's only useful to dedicated optimizers and those people already know which classes are good.

Why do i imagine you having this smug **** eating grin when you typed this...
By that logic, it basically means that All mundanes are better than any caster classes, because every single martial class dominates until level 10. If we completely take away every thing every single splat and only leave core, and then assume that we aren't doing any remote optimization like your suggesting and only using what the classes got....Mundane classes are pretty much always gonna outshine their caster coutner parts until they get 9th level spells.

Brova

2015-09-26, 12:50 AM

* Needlessly provocative post removed *

Brova

2015-09-26, 12:56 AM

By that logic, it basically means that All mundanes are better than any caster classes, because every single martial class dominates until level 10.

Except that's not true. Casters get options that are at worst comparable to mundanes starting at level one in core games. The Cleric is almost exactly a Fighter, except he also gets to cast spells. The Druid gets a pet Fighter. The Wizard gets sleep and color spray.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 12:57 AM

People in D&D live in a world where you can train until you can take a bullet to the face. But they also live in a world where you can train until you shoot fireballs from your hand. Why is the first of those mundane and the second not?

Because the fireball isn't just a matter of training. There's something beyond the character's body at work, else other effects couldn't interact with it such as globe of invulnerability or naturally occuring dead magic zones. How about the fact that there are dead magic planes where the fighter's abilities function unchanged and conjuration calling, summoning, teleportation and even some creation effects call on other worlds or otherworldly material? Magic is something that doesn't come from the character himself unless he's a magical creature in his own right, the ability to perform herculean feats of strength and preternatural feats of skill does not. Magic is otherworldly, physical skills do.

The metric that makes you level appropriate is defeating level appropriate encounters. You can do that with things that aren't damage, but you can also do that with damage.

Overcoming, not defeating. The latter has connotations of direct opposition while the former does not. Given that the above statement is true, are you so unfamiliar with bard optimization that you can't see it overcoming most high level encounters or trivializing them for any allies?

And no, one book doesn't but you ahead. Dragonfire Inspiration is in Dragon Magic. That means you don't get Words of Creation, so you get +4d6 at level 20. It also means you don't get to pick a splat dragon with a Sonic or Force breath weapon, so some stuff is going to have immunity to the energy type you pick. Plus, if you want that energy type to not be fire, you have to blow another feat. Oh, and you lose your attack bonus. Minor, but people were trumpeting it earlier.

So you're not counting the 4d6 he's adding to all his allies as damage he's responsible for then?

He has summon monster after all. Also, invisibility is a much more effective attack booster for a single target than inspire courage anyway. A fighter in the party makes it 8d6, a cleric that fights in melee makes it 12d6 and a rogue makes it 16d6. Each summon is another 4d6 a piece. DFI also has the bard doing damage on several other characters turns in addition to his own unless he is, for reasons beyond comprehension, travelling alone and choosing not to use any of a myriad of options to produce allies outside of other PC's.

They make up a gross minority of people who post on CharOp boards. After the edition has been dead for almost a decade. And there have been two (or more, depending on how you count) new editions of D&D. They, in my experience, make up a substantial portion of D&D players in general.

First off, each edition of D&D is a separate game with a few shared product identity items. We're discussing 3.X. The players of 4th and 5th edition have no bearing here.

Second, the game has only been out of production for 7 years and given that PF is essentially the same game and near completely cross-compatible suggests it is -very- far from dead.

Finally, the group of players that comment on these message boards make up the largest, most accessible subgroup of 3.X players. There is no more representative group for the game as a whole short of a funded study that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been conducted yet. Enough so that WotC used the feedback from such communities in making both of those later games where the influence of ToB can still be felt. Paizo did the same in making pathfinder while deliberately tuning out the most skilled optimizers and released or licensed their own version of ToB in the path of war supplement for that game. All evidence points to ToB and its ilk to being wildly popular and, at least with ToB, it's provably non-magical by any objective measure.

They're a vocal minority you don't even entirely agree with since they usually use those arguments from emotion as a reason to ban the book.

I'm sure someone with a genius intellect who studies magic for a living would have no idea how any of that works.

That said, even using planar binding to just bind demon minions is totally nuts. You can cast that spell in downtime and accumulate a substantial number of demon minions.

That is entirely irrelevant. What is or isn't high or low-op has nothing at all to do with the character's potential knowledge or reasoning skill.

Minion mastery, as opposed to summoning, is inherently high-op in that it requires both greater study of the game to use at all, requiring knowledge of both what creatures to ensnare and, with enchantment based minion mastery, how to conceal the fact you've ensnared them, as well as greater organizational skill to use well, requiring that you know what your minions can do and how to deploy and employ them quickly and effectively.

You can't effectively use minions by accident but you can stumble right into crushing encounters with polymorph entirely by accident. The former, in any form, is of a higher optimization level than the latter.

A build that you would reasonably bring to an unknown table, expecting to play it with minimal changes, assuming no houserules.

That answer is meaningless. Different tables have different tolerances for optimization and they often vary within a group in regards to what kind of character is being built. Some tables allow chargers and ban planar binding while the reverse is also true.

If we're going by what I define as being mid-op then you could very easily call it high-op while I could call your mid-op very low-op. Neither of our metrics is appropriate for either of us to convince the other. We either need to come to an agreement or ask for a third party to arbitrate.

No one runs the SGT. It's set of challenges, and you evaluate how a build performs against them.

I've seen the same game test page. The challenges are insufficiently defined and withdraw and regroup is expressly forbidden when it's one of the most basic strategems ever. For such a test to be meaningful it -requires- a party separate from the character builder to better define the listed challenges and officiate. If my run is to be considered a fair run then that party cannot be the person I'm trying to convince, I.E.; you.

I can do it with a 1st level character with the given book restrictions. But that's not the point. The point is to test power in a realistic setting. So that you don't get stuff like JaronK ranking Factotums high because he personally lets them do crazy crap.

Not with 1st level WBL you can't. Not without calling pazuzu and just pun-pun-ing out of it anyway. I'd be doing it as an exercise in proving that WBL supplemented with relatively low-power character options is sufficient to survive into and thrive at higher levels.

Also, why do you insist on screwing non-ToB non-casters by limiting books instead of eliminating the relatively small number of "overpowered" options directly?

Masakan

2015-09-26, 12:59 AM

I couldn't tell you.

Sorry, that's wrong.

I couldn't tell you without using language that would get me banned from here.

.....Wow. That is....yeah. That just speaks for itself doesn't it? It has become clear that any further discussion with you would be nothing more than a waste of my time and energy.
You have an absolutist mentality that I very much resent, not to mention intentionally botching facts just so you can be right and everyone else is wrong. You know your skewing facts and you don't care just because you want what I assume is your favorite class to be superior when it clearly isn't.

I wish to say so much....but I can't due to the risk of being banned. So I will instead just leave this here and apply it to all the posts you have made thus far in this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto
Thank you and have a nice day.

TheCrowing1432

2015-09-26, 01:11 AM

Because if you are in a position to break the Wizard's spell component pouch and stop him from casting spells, you are also in a position to stab him in the kidneys and stop him from being alive.

This is sigable, do you mind?

Brova

2015-09-26, 01:12 AM

Because the fireball isn't just a matter of training. There's something beyond the character's body at work, else other effects couldn't interact with it such as globe of invulnerability or naturally occuring dead magic zones. How about the fact that there are dead magic planes where the fighter's abilities function unchanged and conjuration calling, summoning, teleportation and even some creation effects call on other worlds or otherworldly material?

You're missing the point. Those things are all "how the world behaves" in D&D. It may seem weird to us that someone's abilities would stop working because he showed up in the wrong world, but why would that seem weird to people who live in a world where that happens?

Overcoming, not defeating. The latter has connotations of direct opposition while the former does not. Given that the above statement is true, are you so unfamiliar with bard optimization that you can't see it overcoming most high level encounters or trivializing them for any allies?

Run it.

So you're not counting the 4d6 he's adding to all his allies as damage he's responsible for then?

Yes, I'm counting all the damage he adds to the Wizards attacks. Every single extra point of damage the Wizard deals with polymorph any object has been completely accounted for.

He has summon monster after all.

Does he? I haven't seen a write up. I assumed he learned only downtime spells.

First off, each edition of D&D is a separate game with a few shared product identity items. We're discussing 3.X. The players of 4th and 5th edition have no bearing here.

Second, the game has only been out of production for 7 years and given that PF is essentially the same game and near completely cross-compatible suggests it is -very- far from dead.

Finally, the group of players that comment on these message boards make up the largest, most accessible subgroup of 3.X players. There is no more representative group for the game as a whole short of a funded study that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been conducted yet. Enough so that WotC used the feedback from such communities in making both of those later games where the influence of ToB can still be felt. Paizo did the same in making pathfinder while deliberately tuning out the most skilled optimizers and released or licensed their own version of ToB in the path of war supplement for that game. All evidence points to ToB and its ilk to being wildly popular and, at least with ToB, it's provably non-magical by any objective measure.

There is just so much wrong with all of this. Quickly:

1. I'm not sure what the point is about edition shifts. Both of those games moved closer to realistic mundanes.
2. PF has close to zero cross compatibility. Also, the PF devs are some of the most "realism" driven people I have ever seen.
3. This board is not representative, and it's insane you think it is. This board attracts people who want to discuss the game, a trait which correlates super hard with optimization.
4. You have the causality backwards on ToB. It's a scrapped version of an earlier iteration of 4e Mearls hacked out. Similarities are a result of naming conventions mostly.

*SGT whining*

Post a build. Post your standards. Post your strategies. At this point, I don't even care what standards you hold yourself to. Just put your money where your mouth is.

WBL: Dude, Profession checks.

This is sigable, do you mind?

Go for it.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 01:19 AM

Okay, just.... no.

Nothing can be gained from further interaction between us Brova. I'm adding you to my ignore list, I suggest you do the same.

Seriously, between the shifting goal posts, the cherry picking, the outright fallacious "logic," and the generally superior attitude, you're just not worth the headache. Goodbye.

Brova

2015-09-26, 01:20 AM

Masakan

2015-09-26, 01:23 AM

Arbane

2015-09-26, 01:25 AM

That's a good question actually. Personally i think how useful a person is amounts to more than how good they are in a fight.

YES. Consider all the obstacles in a story that a spellcaster with the right spell can completely negate.

Murder mystery? Speak with dead.
Someone poisoned and dying slowly? Neutralize Poison.
Ancient inscription in an unknown language? Comprehend Languages.
Corridor full of traps? Wall of stone, wall of force, Teleport....
Room full of deadly snakes? Cloudkill, Fly....
Need to get cross-country in a short time? Teleport.
Prisoner has info you desperately need? Detect Thoughts.
And so on and so forth.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 01:25 AM

While I no longer have any desire to prove anything, I'd still be willing to run through the SGT if anyone else is interested in officiating just for the hell of it.

Brova

2015-09-26, 01:27 AM

While I no longer have any desire to prove anything, I'd still be willing to run through the SGT if anyone else is interested in officiating just for the hell of it.

Wait, did you put me on ignore without reading my posts? People don't officiate SGTs. You run them, then if people think it's unreasonable in one direction or another they can criticize it. Maybe if you bothered to read my posts, you wouldn't have to ignore them...

Masakan

2015-09-26, 01:28 AM

Brova

2015-09-26, 01:37 AM

Now here's the big issue i have with all of them.....every single one of those solutions is anticlimactic, and i don't think anybody wants that.

Sure I do. Those are low level plots. If I'm hopping around the planes, dealing with devils and smiting extraplanar monsters, I have no interest in adjudicating a cross country trip. If I fight dragons and elder elementals, I don't want to slow down because there are a bunch of snakes in the next room, let alone have to fight them. If I'm solving the same problems at level 20 I solved at level 1, I'm still level 1.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 01:42 AM

Sure I do. Those are low level plots. If I'm hopping around the planes, dealing with devils and smiting extraplanar monsters, I have no interest in adjudicating a cross country trip. If I fight dragons and elder elementals, I don't want to slow down because there are a bunch of snakes in the next room, let alone have to fight them. If I'm solving the same problems at level 20 I solved at level 1, I'm still level 1.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120922215052/creepypasta/images/a/ab/Jesus_facepalm.jpg
Because normal facepalm isn't enough........

Brova

2015-09-26, 01:43 AM

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120922215052/creepypasta/images/a/ab/Jesus_facepalm.jpg
Because normal facepalm isn't enough........

Okay seriously. If you are not going to reply to my post content, why are you replying at all?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 01:45 AM

YES. Consider all the obstacles in a story that a spellcaster with the right spell can completely negate.

Murder mystery? Speak with dead.
Someone poisoned and dying slowly? Neutralize Poison.
Ancient inscription in an unknown language? Comprehend Languages.
Corridor full of traps? Wall of stone, wall of force, Teleport....
Room full of deadly snakes? Cloudkill, Fly....
Need to get cross-country in a short time? Teleport.
Prisoner has info you desperately need? Detect Thoughts.
And so on and so forth.

A couple of these aren't as obviously auto-wins as they first appear.

Speak with dead, useless if the dead guy didn't see it coming.

Comprehend languages; magical or coded writing.

Detect thoughts; misinformation. The knowledge the minion has is incomplete or false in part or in whole.

Traps are intended as resource drains unless there's a rogue to counter them so mission accomplished.

It's a poor DM that doesn't take teleport into account for overland travel starting at level 9 and he deserves what he gets for neglecting to ban it if he didn't want it. It's a fantasy staple for pete's sake.

The others are pretty rock solid though.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 01:49 AM

Okay seriously. If you are not going to reply to my post content, why are you replying at all?

Because words can't describe how stupid it is. The more i listen to you the more i can imagine how much of a massive power gamer you are, and to be perfectly honestly I wasn't entirely sure if you were actually serious or not.

A couple of these aren't as obviously auto-wins as they first appear.

Speak with dead, useless if the dead guy didn't see it coming.

Comprehend languages; magical or coded writing.

Detect thoughts; misinformation. The knowledge the minion has is incomplete or false in part or in whole.

Traps are intended as resource drains unless there's a rogue to counter them so mission accomplished.

It's a poor DM that doesn't take teleport into account for overland travel starting at level 9 and he deserves what he gets for neglecting to ban it if he didn't want it. It's a fantasy staple for pete's sake.

The others are pretty rock solid though.
Still makes a campaign horribly dull, only one I would accept is the teleport one and only if we had to get half way across the world in like 2 mins because **** is going down in the capital.

Brova

2015-09-26, 01:51 AM

Because words can't describe how stupid it is. The more i listen to you the more i can imagine how much of a massive power gamer you are, and to be perfectly honestly I wasn't entirely sure if you were actually serious or not.

Wait, you think that people should play the same game with the same plot at level one and level twenty? Why are you here? 4e totally exists, and it provides that exact experience.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 01:53 AM

Wait, you think that people should play the same game with the same plot at level one and level twenty? Why are you here? 4e totally exists, and it provides that exact experience.

No Ding bat, I'm saying you shouldn't intentionally break a campaign just because you think it's boring. It's called tabletop etiquette.

I mean what if the DM has a story to tell? You just gonna break the immersion just because you can?

Brova

2015-09-26, 01:57 AM

No Ding bat, I'm saying you shouldn't intentionally break a campaign just because you think it's boring. It's called tabletop etiquette.

And I'm saying if you run a campaign, you need to run it at a level where it works. Just as you can't expect people to defeat a great wyrm gold dragon at 1st level, you can't expect them to be challenged by travel at 11th level.

I mean what if the DM has a story to tell? You just gonna break the immersion just because you can?

The DM is just a player. He does not have more of a right to tell his story than you do. If he wants to have fun at the expense of other people, he should not DM. If he wants to tell a story where you can't cast speak with dead, he should tell that story before you can cast speak with dead.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 01:59 AM

Brova

2015-09-26, 02:03 AM

In short **** everyone else the only thing that matters is that I'M enjoying myself.

No. If other people want to have a murder mystery story at 15th level, you either play that game or don't play. But the idea that if the DM wants to tell a murder mystery story, the players are obligated to cooperate is bull.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 02:03 AM

Still makes a campaign horribly dull, only one I would accept is the teleport one and only if we had to get half way across the world in like 2 mins because **** is going down in the capital.

Really? Speak with dead is negated almost entirely, giving clues at best. Comprehend languages negated a decipher script check to determine what the tablet says but not the one to decipher its possible meaning which could well require further info regardless. Detect thoughts is being used to further the plot not bypass it and is a lovely avenue for the enemy to -attack- the party through disinformation. What's the problem?

Traps are pretty binary and boring by themselves but they still make a good resource drain for attrition attacks. I can see dumping them before getting upset over them being trivially bypassed.

I guess I just don't get the mentality by which spells are the problem when working with them, instead of against them, opens up so many more possibilities.

There are also few enough things they can do before the highest levels that a non-caster can't also do with a bit more time and effort.

Sacrieur

2015-09-26, 02:06 AM

Everything you can do the DM can do better.

In my campaigns my players experience frustration that many opponents, especially intelligent ones, are often a step ahead of them and go out of their way to render many magical spells which would make the game easy completely moot. It's because it's magic warfare, and you want to disable the other guy before he can disable you. It's just adding another level to the game's strategy.

In the last session the party thought they were smart and could figure out who was spying on them by setting up a counterintelligence ambush. It went awry when they realized that they made several critical mistakes along the way and the intelligence contact they were trying to capture was in fact a dominated NPC. Right now they're prime suspects for killing an innocent person.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 02:08 AM

No. If other people want to have a murder mystery story at 15th level, you either play that game or don't play. But the idea that if the DM wants to tell a murder mystery story, the players are obligated to cooperate is bull.

Wait wait are you saying that the DM should have absolutely no control over how a campaign goes?
What is he suppose to just sit back and watch as you roflstomp everything he set up?
Good lord could you be....anymore selfish?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 02:14 AM

In my campaigns my players experience frustration that many opponents, especially intelligent ones, are often a step ahead of them and go out of their way to render many magical spells which would make the game easy completely moot. It's because it's magic warfare, and you want to disable the other guy before he can disable you. It's just adding another level to the game's strategy.

Exactly this. You don't want to go overboard, of course, but in a world so rife with magic, ignoring it entirely is just begging to get curb-stomped.

On a personal note, I -love- playing under a DM that knows the magic system well. The ploys and counter-ploys that open up are things of beauty.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 02:17 AM

Exactly this. You don't want to go overboard, of course, but in a world so rife with magic, ignoring it entirely is just begging to get curb-stomped.

On a personal note, I -love- playing under a DM that knows the magic system well. The ploys and counter-ploys that open up are things of beauty.

Thank you! All is fair in love and war, Fight fire with fire! I get the feeling that people who feel they can abuse magic to such a grand degree are used to DM's not actually using their own powers against them.

Troacctid

2015-09-26, 02:19 AM

Post a build. Post your standards. Post your strategies. At this point, I don't even care what standards you hold yourself to. Just put your money where your mouth is.

Dude that's like super off-topic. And besides, Bards pass easily even in core. All the one-on-one encounters in the level 10 SGT have about +9 to Will, so Suggestion alone gives you a 50/50 win rate without expending any resources beyond a single use of bardic music. It can't be used in combat, but even assuming the enemy initiates a fight before you can fascinate them, you can calm them down from Hostile to Indifferent on a rushed Diplomacy check. On the off chance that fails, Charm Monster has a slightly lower save DC, but it's good enough to pick up the slack in a pinch, at least enough to push you to favorable odds. Up to four enemies can be dispatched simultaneously with this tactic, since you can fascinate all of them at once and Suggestion them one by one. The larger groups of weaker enemies can be beaten by Invisibility (or Greater Invisibility if you prefer), since they can't see past it, and traps are easily bypassed with Dimension Door.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 02:21 AM

Dude that's like super off-topic. And besides, Bards pass easily even in core. All the one-on-one encounters in the level 10 SGT have about +9 to Will, so Suggestion alone gives you a 50/50 win rate without expending any resources beyond a single use of bardic music. It can't be used in combat, but even assuming the enemy initiates a fight before you can fascinate them, you can calm them down from Hostile to Indifferent on a rushed Diplomacy check. On the off chance that fails, Charm Monster has a slightly lower save DC, but it's good enough to pick up the slack in a pinch, at least enough to push you to favorable odds. Up to four enemies can be dispatched simultaneously with this tactic, since you can fascinate all of them at once and Suggestion them one by one. The larger groups of weaker enemies can be beaten by Invisibility (or Greater Invisibility if you prefer), since they can't see past it, and traps are easily bypassed with Dimension Door.

I was honestly trying to avoid the magic arguement, but the fact that bards can cast magic and rouges can't already makes bards more useful than rouges could ever hope to be.

Troacctid

2015-09-26, 02:27 AM

I was honestly trying to avoid the magic arguement, but the fact that bards can cast magic and rouges can't already makes bards more useful than rouges could ever hope to be.

Rogues get Use Magic Device, so they have access to some magic, they just have to spend money on it. Wands of low-level spells are very affordable, and the DC 20 check isn't too tough, so any savvy Rogue should be expected to have a decent suite of low-level utility spells available to them.

Also, I guess you didn't pick up on it before, but those guys earlier were trying to subtly point out that you've spelled "rogue" wrong every single time.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 02:29 AM

Rogues get Use Magic Device, so they have access to some magic, they just have to spend money on it. Wands of low-level spells are very affordable, and the DC 20 check isn't too tough, so any savvy Rogue should be expected to have a decent suite of low-level utility spells available to them.

Also, I guess you didn't pick up on it before, but those guys earlier were trying to subtly point out that you've spelled "rogue" wrong every single time.

I do that often, I stopped caring at this point.

Milo v3

2015-09-26, 02:30 AM

No Ding bat, I'm saying you shouldn't intentionally break a campaign just because you think it's boring. It's called tabletop etiquette.

I mean what if the DM has a story to tell? You just gonna break the immersion just because you can?

I do find it abit confusing that using speak with dead to solve a murder mystery is concerned "intentionally breaking the campaign" rather than "acting like a character with an intelligence score over 9"... I don't like it when writers and GM's forget the abilities of the characters when they make a story, if you leave a situation perfectly shaped for one of my tools, I'm going to use that tool.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 02:38 AM

Svata

2015-09-26, 02:40 AM

ryu

2015-09-26, 02:42 AM

Wait wait are you saying that the DM should have absolutely no control over how a campaign goes?
What is he suppose to just sit back and watch as you roflstomp everything he set up?
Good lord could you be....anymore selfish?

While I will agree that most of what he's saying is nonsense, I will agree that there should be a rise in the strength of opponents that get faced as the game progresses. This is one of the few times I'll ever say this bluntly rather than stating preference, but a DM facing a level 20 party with piddly CR 1-5 encounters is Doing It Wrong. It's such a fundamentally one sided conflict as to be both a boring forgone conclusion and a waste of the player's time.

By contrast truly excellent DMs actually craft legitimately challenging but possible scenarios regardless of the level or competence of the players. When I play D&D I want to play high-complexity tactical and strategical chess with the most well designed opponent possible and have an honest chance of losing. It's not about stomping everything. It's about having battles instead of pest extermination sessions.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 02:44 AM

I do find it abit confusing that using speak with dead to solve a murder mystery is concerned "intentionally breaking the campaign" rather than "acting like a character with an intelligence score over 9"... I don't like it when writers and GM's forget the abilities of the characters when they make a story, if you leave a situation perfectly shaped for one of my tools, I'm going to use that tool.
It's one thing when you have a spell that can make a quest easier, you can find out who did it and still have a hard time actually finding the guy because he fled the city or something.
Its another thing when you have someone who has literally built his character, so that he can solve any problem thrown at them with a snap of their fingers. I mean the **** is everyone else even there for? Meat Shields? you might as well make it a solo campaign since the wizard has an answer for every thing because h's powergaming like a madman.

Svata

2015-09-26, 02:45 AM

While I will agree that most of what he's saying is nonsense, I will agree that there should be a rise in the strength of opponents that get faced as the game progresses. This is one of the few times I'll ever say this bluntly rather than stating preference, but a DM facing a level 20 party with piddly CR 1-5 encounters is Doing It Wrong. It's such a fundamentally one sided conflict as to be both a boring forgone conclusion and a waste of the player's time.

By contrast truly excellent DMs actually craft legitimately challenging but possible scenarios regardless of the level or competence of the players. When I play D&D I want to play high-complexity tactical and strategical chess with the most well designed opponent possible and have an honest chance of losing. It's not about stomping everything. It's about having battles instead of pest extermination sessions.

Look guys! Its my exact sentiment expressed far more eloquently than I could ever say it! Of course its a ryu post.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 02:48 AM

While I will agree that most of what he's saying is nonsense, I will agree that there should be a rise in the strength of opponents that get faced as the game progresses. This is one of the few times I'll ever say this bluntly rather than stating preference, but a DM facing a level 20 party with piddly CR 1-5 encounters is Doing It Wrong. It's such a fundamentally one sided conflict as to be both a boring forgone conclusion and a waste of the player's time.

By contrast truly excellent DMs actually craft legitimately challenging but possible scenarios regardless of the level or competence of the players. When I play D&D I want to play high-complexity tactical and strategical chess with the most well designed opponent possible and have an honest chance of losing. It's not about stomping everything. It's about having battles instead of pest extermination sessions.

How do you challenge someone who can literally be like " I wish all my enemies were destroyed"?

Besides...what kind of DM is gonna throw anything short of Orcan/draconic variant of Tucker's Kobalds at you by that point?

Brova

2015-09-26, 02:48 AM

Wait wait are you saying that the DM should have absolutely no control over how a campaign goes?

No. I'm saying that the DM is just a player. He happens to play the world, but that doesn't mean he should dictate the power level the game occurs at. He should have a say in it absolutely. But he shouldn't control it. Just like any other player. If it is unacceptable for you to ruin a murder mystery the rest of the group wants to run by casting speak with dead and scry, it is equally unacceptable for the DM to ruin the high power story the rest of the players want to run by not letting them cast speak with dead.

D&D is at its heart a cooperative storytelling game. It is not exclusively the story of any one participant, and no participant should be allowed to dictate what kind of story unfolds, whether that player is the DM or not.

What is he suppose to just sit back and watch as you roflstomp everything he set up?

No. He's supposed to play the world. If the group wants to play a low power game, maybe that involves the local duke, a couple tribes of evil humanoids, the local death cult, and the wandering monsters in the area. If the group wants to play a high power game, maybe that involves the princes of hell, some gods, the elemental lords, and the interplanar conspiracy of souleaters. Just as you shouldn't play in a group if you don't want to play a character at their power level, you shouldn't DM a group if you don't want to DM a group at their power level.

Good lord could you be....anymore selfish?

It's the exact opposite of selfish. The selfish idea is that being DM makes you a tyrant who is allowed to determine exactly how the game plays out. If you want to do that, write a book. Don't make me a pawn in your story.

Dude that's like super off-topic.

It was topical to the discussion at hand.

All the one-on-one encounters in the level 10 SGT have about +9 to Will, so Suggestion alone gives you a 50/50 win rate without expending any resources beyond a single use of bardic music.

suggestion is close range. Meaning 70ft at level 10. The Fire Giant gets to pelt you with boulders from way outside range, and likely matches your speed meaning he can maintain distance. The dragon can kite you down with its breath weapon. The Vrock can fly and has telekinesis at-will, which is Long range. You're okay to beat the Bebilith that way, but that's about it. Oh, and the Necromancer crushes that save.

It can't be used in combat, but even assuming the enemy initiates a fight before you can fascinate them, you can calm them down from Hostile to Indifferent on a rushed Diplomacy check.

You'll need +25 to get a 50% shot to pull that off. That's not super hard, but it's shaking in a few places (language barriers, winning initiative) and it's still only 50% to work.

The larger groups of weaker enemies can be beaten by Invisibility (or Greater Invisibility if you prefer), since they can't see past it,

Trolls at least have scent.

and traps are easily bypassed with Dimension Door.

You get one 4th level spell. You just spent it moving into a heavily trapped area.

I'm seeing likely losses to the Fire Giant, Blue Dragon, Vrock, Trolls, and Mind Flayers. You're 50/50 to beat everything else. That's a 25% win rate in aggregate.

eggynack

2015-09-26, 02:49 AM

Hell, with the limits of the spell I'm surprised it works as often as it does. You'd think that with that spell existing, no one serious about murder would go straight at somebody without a mask if they weren't gonna sneak up on their victim anyway.
Or they could just steal the head. Realistically, for any murder backed by a halfway decent plan, getting even the slightest amount of information out of speak with dead should be impossible. It'd probably work well enough for a crime of passion, and it works fine for things that aren't murder mysteries at all, but this specific scenario would only let the caster catch the dumbest of criminals, and the mysteries they introduce would be unlikely to be all that interesting. You could even heavily damage the body, and then use the relevant clause of the spell to give purposefully misleading answers.

In any case, because this is apparently what the discussion is now, bards are significantly better than rogues, even in core. Rogues can damage stuff, sure, but bards have a fantastic spell list that Arbane's post didn't even fully lay out. They get frigging silent image at first. One of the most versatile and crazy spells in the game, right out of the gates. Then they just keep going with stuff like grease, glitterdust, alter self, invisibility, mirror image, and frigging glibness, along with a ton more. Their casting makes them better out of combat, sure, but it also makes them way better in combat. It's just a really excellent spell list, and one often underestimated by people who see it stack up unfavorably compared to the ludicrous casters in the same book.

Edit:
How do you challenge someone who can literally be like " I wish all my enemies were destroyed"?
Putting them up against an opponent with the same ability is the trivial case. Giving their foes a set of defenses that work against some of those methods, and giving them an offense that can't be easily defended against, works well too. That characters can't really do the thing you're claiming, unless they're on pun-pun level, makes the latter solution more plausible than it initially seems to be. Pretty much everything has some defense, and most any defense has some way to pierce it.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 02:52 AM

No. I'm saying that the DM is just a player. He happens to play the world, but that doesn't mean he should dictate the power level the game occurs at. He should have a say in it absolutely. But he shouldn't control it. Just like any other player. If it is unacceptable for you to ruin a murder mystery the rest of the group wants to run by casting speak with dead and scry, it is equally unacceptable for the DM to ruin the high power story the rest of the players want to run by not letting them cast speak with dead.

D&D is at its heart a cooperative storytelling game. It is not exclusively the story of any one participant, and no participant should be allowed to dictate what kind of story unfolds, whether that player is the DM or not.

No. He's supposed to play the world. If the group wants to play a low power game, maybe that involves the local duke, a couple tribes of evil humanoids, the local death cult, and the wandering monsters in the area. If the group wants to play a high power game, maybe that involves the princes of hell, some gods, the elemental lords, and the interplanar conspiracy of souleaters. Just as you shouldn't play in a group if you don't want to play a character at their power level, you shouldn't DM a group if you don't want to DM a group at their power level.

It's the exact opposite of selfish. The selfish idea is that being DM makes you a tyrant who is allowed to determine exactly how the game plays out. If you want to do that, write a book. Don't make me a pawn in your story.

It was topical to the discussion at hand.

suggestion is close range. Meaning 70ft at level 10. The Fire Giant gets to pelt you with boulders from way outside range, and likely matches your speed meaning he can maintain distance. The dragon can kite you down with its breath weapon. The Vrock can fly and has telekinesis at-will, which is Long range. You're okay to beat the Bebilith that way, but that's about it. Oh, and the Necromancer crushes that save.

You'll need +25 to get a 50% shot to pull that off. That's not super hard, but it's shaking in a few places (language barriers, winning initiative) and it's still only 50% to work.

Trolls at least have scent.

You get one 4th level spell. You just spent it moving into a heavily trapped area.

I'm seeing likely losses to the Fire Giant, Blue Dragon, Vrock, Trolls, and Mind Flayers. You're 50/50 to beat everything else. That's a 25% win rate in aggregate.

You've never Dm'ed have you?

ryu

2015-09-26, 02:53 AM

Look guys! Its my exact sentiment expressed far more eloquently than I could ever say it! Of course its a ryu post.

Why thank you. I do try not to turn off the skills I learned in all manner of post high-school writing and public speaking courses. I still can't believe people still think ''charisma'' is a natural talent rather than a learned skill.

Masakan: Tucker's Kobolds and Orcus? FUN! That's actually putting work into making enemies challenging rather than pasting statblocks.

Svata

2015-09-26, 02:57 AM

eggynack

2015-09-26, 02:58 AM

You've never Dm'ed have you?
Could you stop doing whatever... this is? Y'know, the weird combination ad hominem+arbitrary dismissal tactic you seem to favor? At best, you're presenting a case that's very unconvincing. At worst, you wind up with folks starting to dismiss your arguments out of hand, or at least wind up biased against them.

ryu

2015-09-26, 03:01 AM

Honestly, I think its a mix. Your natural ability is a good foundation, but practice and knowledge take you further than just about any amount of talent. Combine the rwo, and you have some fearsome force of personality going.

I suppose that's a more agreeable stance than people just ''not being good at it.'' There was a time where I preferred solitude, because I didn't like talking to people. Now I prefer solitude or small groups of intelligent people, because they tend to make for the best conversation.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 03:05 AM

Why thank you. I do try not to turn off the skills I learned in all manner of post high-school writing and public speaking courses. I still can't believe people still think ''charisma'' is a natural talent rather than a learned skill.

Masakan: Tucker's Kobolds and Orcus? FUN! That's actually putting work into making enemies challenging rather than pasting statblocks.

Actually I was talking more like Orcs that function the same way tuckers kobalds do but yeah that works.

Could you stop doing whatever... this is? Y'know, the weird combination ad hominem+arbitrary dismissal tactic you seem to favor? At best, you're presenting a case that's very unconvincing. At worst, you wind up with folks starting to dismiss your arguments out of hand, or at least wind up biased against them.
I'll start an actual debate the moment he stops being so bloody pigheaded.

ryu

2015-09-26, 03:09 AM

Actually I was talking more like Orcs that function the same way tuckers kobalds do but yeah that works.

I'll start an actual debate the moment he stops being so bloody pigheaded.

Why should he hold himself to a higher standard than you? While he certainly says more disagreeable things his debate style is also much less toxic than yours has shown to be so far. Is it perfect? No. Still less rude than yours though.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 03:15 AM

Its another thing when you have someone who has literally built his character, so that he can solve any problem thrown at them with a snap of their fingers. I mean the **** is everyone else even there for? Meat Shields? you might as well make it a solo campaign since the wizard has an answer for every thing because h's powergaming like a madman.

If you're familiar with the spell system then you quickly come to realize that -everything- can be countered, surprisingly often without recourse to other spells.

Combat encounters should almost never involve a single large entity that can be focus fired to nothing. That really will leave a skillfully played caster's allies little to do most of the time. One powerful or tricky enemy leading a few more direct minions makes for a more interesting encounter. Mobs of little mooks are great for occupying summoners and makes BFC (battlefield control) almost necessary. Varied terrain and mixtures of different types of enemies are also good. Bottom line: you don't throw linear encounters at quadratic mages.

For non-combat stuff, just remember the limitations of the spells. Information gathering magic can be used to feed limited or bad information to the players. Skill "replacers" often have sharp limits or would be more useful for the class that actually has the skill. For more utilitarian magic like teleport or create food and water you just have to accept that those mundane limitations are no longer a factor for the party.

Now there are -some- effects that demand the party's enemies either have the counter or eat pavement. A good DM will watch out for his caster PC's picking these up and sprinkle some important encounters with hard counters to them but otherwise let the players have their shinies.

There's no denying that a high-end caster player changes the nature of how a DM runs his game but that's just the nature of 3.5.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 03:15 AM

Why should he hold himself to a higher standard than you? While he certainly says more disagreeable things his debate style is also much less toxic than yours has shown to be so far. Is it perfect? No. Still less rude than yours though.

What is this patticake preschool time? I shouldn't have to sugarcoat something just because someone feels "Offended"
My manner of tone, does not diminish the validity of my words. You don't like how I say things? That's your problem, not mine.

If you're familiar with the spell system then you quickly come to realize that -everything- can be countered, surprisingly often without recourse to other spells.

Combat encounters should almost never involve a single large entity that can be focus fired to nothing. That really will leave a skillfully played caster's allies little to do most of the time. One powerful or tricky enemy leading a few more direct minions makes for a more interesting encounter. Mobs of little mooks are great for occupying summoners and makes BFC (battlefield control) almost necessary. Varied terrain and mixtures of different types of enemies are also good. Bottom line: you don't throw linear encounters at quadratic mages.

For non-combat stuff, just remember the limitations of the spells. Information gathering magic can be used to feed limited or bad information to the players. Skill "replacers" often have sharp limits or would be more useful for the class that actually has the skill. For more utilitarian magic like teleport or create food and water you just have to accept that those mundane limitations are no longer a factor for the party.

Now there are -some- effects that demand the party's enemies either have the counter or eat pavement. A good DM will watch out for his caster PC's picking these up and sprinkle some important encounters with hard counters to them but otherwise let the players have their shinies.

There's no denying that a high-end caster player changes the nature of how a DM runs his game but that's just the nature of 3.5.

So it just comes down to inexperienced DM's that make things too easy?

Brova

2015-09-26, 03:23 AM

What is this patticake preschool time? I shouldn't have to sugarcoat something just because someone feels "Offended"
My manner of tone, does not diminish the validity of my words. You don't like how I say things? That's your problem, not mine.

I don't care how you say things at all. I personally find open hostility far less offensive than the passive aggressive behavior that happens on these boards. I don't care if you insult me. I am a thick-skinned enough person that anything you say over the internet will not hurt my feelings. I promise. What pisses me off is that you post things without content. Be offensive if you want. That's fine by me. Just contribute to the conversation.

I don't care what you say or how you say it. I care that you say something at all.

Svata

2015-09-26, 03:25 AM

What is this patticake preschool time? I shouldn't have to sugarcoat something just because someone feels "Offended"
My manner of tone, does not diminish the validity of my words. You don't like how I say things? That's your problem, not mine.

No, it's "being respectful and polite towards other people" time. And no one asked you to sugarcoat things, just to try not being such an ass about them. I believe that it's something generally referred to as "being a mature, responsible person who wants others to take you seriously". Being polite, rather than rude, will generally make people actually consider what you're saying, rather than just getting defensive, and is highly conducive to having a meaningful debate.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 03:27 AM

I don't care how you say things at all. I personally find open hostility far less offensive than the passive aggressive behavior that happens on these boards. I don't care if you insult me. I am a thick-skinned enough person that anything you say over the internet will not hurt my feelings. I promise. What pisses me off is that you post things without content. Be offensive if you want. That's fine by me. Just contribute to the conversation.

I don't care what you say or how you say it. I care that you say something at all.

What would be the point? It's not like you'll listen to anything I have to say so why even bother trying when I know it will just fall on deaf ears?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 03:28 AM

What is this patticake preschool time? I shouldn't have to sugarcoat something just because someone feels "Offended"
My manner of tone, does not diminish the validity of my words. You don't like how I say things? That's your problem, not mine.

No one is saying you should "sugar coat" anything but coating your words in a thick coat of salt is just as ineffective.

What's being called for is civility. Rational discourse almost invariably gets better results than being acerbic unless your goal is to make the other party angry or dismissive. The best way to deal with people you've concluded you -can't- have a reasonable discussion with is to simply ignore them until they go away. That doesn't mean they've "won" the discussion, just that they aren't worth your time and energy. Let them rant and rave until their fingers bleed. As long as you don't let their words get to you, you "win."

ryu

2015-09-26, 03:29 AM

What is this patticake preschool time? I shouldn't have to sugarcoat something just because someone feels "Offended"
My manner of tone, does not diminish the validity of my words. You don't like how I say things? That's your problem, not mine.

So it just comes down to inexperienced DM's that make things too easy?

Ah but it is your problem. Would you like to know why? Literally no one will take you seriously if you continue like that. Even other people who would have otherwise agreed with you will distance themselves on principle. Talking properly with people is a skill that's necessary for even basic function, and you'll just have to deal with that reality, lose public credibility before fading into obscurity, or go out with a bang by lashing out in response to the second before eventually getting banned. To be clear you've done nothing fully ban worthy yet. I'm just trying to warn you, because I've watched this cycle many times before.

Brova

2015-09-26, 03:29 AM

What would be the point? It's not like you'll listen to anything I have to say so why even bother trying when I know it will just fall on deaf ears?

I am totally willing to listen to what you say. You remember that post of mine about how the story is a product of both the DM and the players? The one you block quoted then followed with an insult? That was a response to you. It involved me listening to what you had to say.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 03:35 AM

No one is saying you should "sugar coat" anything but coating your words in a thick coat of salt is just as ineffective.

What's being called for is civility. Rational discourse almost invariably gets better results than being acerbic unless your goal is to make the other party angry or dismissive. The best way to deal with people you've concluded you -can't- have a reasonable discussion with is to simply ignore them until they go away. That doesn't mean they've "won" the discussion, just that they aren't worth your time and energy. Let them rant and rave until their fingers bleed. As long as you don't let their words get to you, you "win."

Ah but it is your problem. Would you like to know why? Literally no one will take you seriously if you continue like that. Even other people who would have otherwise agreed with you will distance themselves on principle. Talking properly with people is a skill that's necessary for even basic function, and you'll just have to deal with that reality, lose public credibility before fading into obscurity, or go out with a bang by lashing out in response to the second before eventually getting banned. To be clear you've done nothing fully ban worthy yet. I'm just trying to warn you, because I've watched this cycle many times before.

....Your both right It's probably best that I cut my losses before the DM's start breathing down my neck again. And I think this topic has been side tracked enough as it is. So let's try to put the discussion back on track and let him do whatever.

Thurbane

2015-09-26, 03:37 AM

You've never Dm'ed have you?

Without taking sides, I think this is a valid (if snarky) observation.

A lot of the time people push the whole "DM should have no more say in the game than players" angle, I wonder if they realize just how much work a DM puts in to make the game possible?

As a default, I always respect my DM and defer to him in campaign guidelines, because more than anyone else, he is what makes the game possible...

I realize other game dynamics might be different than my table, but sometimes the lack of respect for DMs I see on some forums saddens me.

ryu

2015-09-26, 03:39 AM

....Your both right It's probably best that I cut my losses before the DM's start breathing down my neck again. And I think this topic has been side tracked enough as it is. So let's try to put the discussion back on track and let him do whatever.

Very well, and congratulations on taking the path of rationality. You'd be surprised at the number of people who fail to actually take that warning to heart when given.

eggynack

2015-09-26, 03:44 AM

I was talking more in terms of rhetorical style than topic, but either way. Generally speaking, if you're not trying to convince the person you're arguing with, then you're trying to convince outside observers of the argument, and if you're not trying to do that either, I suppose you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. But, if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, that's probably the situation where you should care the most about the quality of your arguments, because the quality is the entire point instead of a means to an end. And, in any of those cases, you should always keep in mind what you're trying to prove, and make sure that the things you say pretty much universally push towards that end result. Not to say that you can't push forward something opposed to your side, because that's both a thing of intellectual honesty and a perfectly valid rhetorical tactic, or that you can't have multiple points you're trying to push at once, but your writing should always have a goal, and said goal is something you have to keep constantly in mind.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 03:57 AM

If you're familiar with the spell system then you quickly come to realize that -everything- can be countered, surprisingly often without recourse to other spells.

Combat encounters should almost never involve a single large entity that can be focus fired to nothing. That really will leave a skillfully played caster's allies little to do most of the time. One powerful or tricky enemy leading a few more direct minions makes for a more interesting encounter. Mobs of little mooks are great for occupying summoners and makes BFC (battlefield control) almost necessary. Varied terrain and mixtures of different types of enemies are also good. Bottom line: you don't throw linear encounters at quadratic mages.

For non-combat stuff, just remember the limitations of the spells. Information gathering magic can be used to feed limited or bad information to the players. Skill "replacers" often have sharp limits or would be more useful for the class that actually has the skill. For more utilitarian magic like teleport or create food and water you just have to accept that those mundane limitations are no longer a factor for the party.

Now there are -some- effects that demand the party's enemies either have the counter or eat pavement. A good DM will watch out for his caster PC's picking these up and sprinkle some important encounters with hard counters to them but otherwise let the players have their shinies.

There's no denying that a high-end caster player changes the nature of how a DM runs his game but that's just the nature of 3.5.

I suspect this got overlooked in the rapid responses so I'll just repeat it here.

Killer Angel

2015-09-26, 04:04 AM

What is this patticake preschool time? I shouldn't have to sugarcoat something just because someone feels "Offended"
My manner of tone, does not diminish the validity of my words. You don't like how I say things? That's your problem, not mine.

You're wrong.
The fact that I don't care explaining why, doesn't diminish the truth of this sentence.

....Your both right It's probably best that I cut my losses before the DM's start breathing down my neck again. And I think this topic has been side tracked enough as it is. So let's try to put the discussion back on track and let him do whatever.

annnd... you're right. I should read the whole page before posting criticisms. Sorry.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 04:13 AM

You're wrong.
The fact that I don't care explaining why, doesn't diminish the truth of this sentence.

He already conceded the point. There's no need to beat him over the head with it.

Killer Angel

2015-09-26, 04:17 AM

He already conceded the point. There's no need to beat him over the head with it.

Noticed it now. I'm going to edit my previous post, tnx.

ryu

2015-09-26, 04:18 AM

He already conceded the point. There's no need to beat him over the head with it.

Indeed. This is why I made such a point of complimenting him for it. Learning to concede points rather than needlessly escalating is a skill whose learning should be a heavily positively reinforced and rewarded as is practical.

Troacctid

2015-09-26, 05:59 AM

suggestion is close range. Meaning 70ft at level 10. The Fire Giant gets to pelt you with boulders from way outside range, and likely matches your speed meaning he can maintain distance. The dragon can kite you down with its breath weapon. The Vrock can fly and has telekinesis at-will, which is Long range. You're okay to beat the Bebilith that way, but that's about it. Oh, and the Necromancer crushes that save.
90 feet. You can move in closer while they're fascinated.

If the encounter starts at a distance, take your pick of stealth or diplomacy. Diplomacy can be used at any range. For stealth, the vrock and the dragon have decent perception, but distance penalties will be in your favor, and they can neither see through invisibility nor target you while you're invisible. As for the fire giant, its Listen is garbage, so if you max out your Move Silently, you should auto-succeed against it (your +15 against their -7), and the +20 Hide for being invisible is probably enough to beat their Spot check even if you don't have ranks.

You'll need +25 to get a 50% shot to pull that off. That's not super hard, but it's shaking in a few places (language barriers, winning initiative) and it's still only 50% to work.
+25 is nothing, that's your mod just from skill ranks (13 ranks + 6 synergy) and Charisma (probably around +6). Circlet of Persuasion and Skill Focus or Negotiator will put you in the low 30s, and you can use Heroism and/or Alter Self to push it up some more if you're worried.

Language is no problem, since Speak Language is a class skill. Winning initiative isn't a big factor for Diplomacy unless they can OHKO you in the first round, which is pretty unlikely--I might be missing something, but I think only the Vrock can do it, and only with a pretty lucky damage roll on Telekinesis, and if you boost your Con to 16 you should be out of range of even that.

Trolls at least have scent.
It doesn't pinpoint your location and it has a pretty short range. Don't stand upwind and you'll be fine. Once you're hidden, a good Bluff should be able to send them off in the wrong direction, since trolls are gullible morons (you have +22 against their -1).

You get one 4th level spell. You just spent it moving into a heavily trapped area.
Or out of one. The test doesn't say. All you have to do is get through the hallway to pass. *shrug*

You could also dispel the runes with Dispel Magic or set them off remotely with Summon Monster I, depending on the specifics of the trap. And of course, outside of core, you get Dimension Leap as a 2nd level spell, so that's, like, easy mode.

torrasque666

2015-09-26, 09:28 AM

Without taking sides, I think this is a valid (if snarky) observation.

A lot of the time people push the whole "DM should have no more say in the game than players" angle, I wonder if they realize just how much work a DM puts in to make the game possible?

As a default, I always respect my DM and defer to him in campaign guidelines, because more than anyone else, he is what makes the game possible...

I realize other game dynamics might be different than my table, but sometimes the lack of respect for DMs I see on some forums saddens me.
Thank you for this. Hell in my group our DM has enough to do, what with real life and giving structure to the world, that he doesn't have time for mechanical arguments. (That falls to me) It's a matter of respect. He may be a player as well, but a player who is indispensable to the campaign. And the hard truth of it is, is that PCs are (usually) replaceable. I will say that yes, if it's the majority of the group who desires to play a certain style that the DM should try to accommodate them. But it's also entirely within their bounds to say "I'm not comfortable playing in this style" (whether it's because they can't/don't want to) and step down.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 10:42 AM

Sacrieur

2015-09-26, 10:44 AM

Now there are -some- effects that demand the party's enemies either have the counter or eat pavement. A good DM will watch out for his caster PC's picking these up and sprinkle some important encounters with hard counters to them but otherwise let the players have their shinies.

There's no denying that a high-end caster player changes the nature of how a DM runs his game but that's just the nature of 3.5.

In my worlds the virtue of being a high-end caster means other high-end casters are interested in you, so you enter a higher level of play.

But system mastery aids greatly in the creation of a challenging encounters. The ability to efficiently use such tactics like readied actions and contingent spells change the nature of the game entirely. Even a low level mage controlled by a highly competent player can win against a power gamer. Because ultimately, D&D combat plays like an exquisitely complicated game of chess. And if you know your DM theory, there are players who play specifically because of this.

In a campaign setting, magic isn't as overpowered as some might think.

So this got me thinking How do you make an senario in which your resident mage can't just auto win or something like that.

I thought up an encounter and I want you guys to tell me if there are any holes in it...ok?

So...you have been tasked with breaking and entering a High Ranking Barons Manor, He has a specific item or parchment that could help turn the tide of things for the rebel forces and if you can it would be great if he was killed.

Ok no problem just activate invisibility sphere everyone sneaks in kills the baron and inviso sphere back out right?

Problem. The Barons Walls are surrounded by Persisted Nodes of Detect magic, each set up by a caster with a caster level of at least 12, and you would probably get a mission like this at level 7 at the latest.

If by some miracle you do manage to get inside, multiple rooms are littered with antimagic fields, but since those things are expensive to even maintain let alone persist. They are only active in areas of the manor that are considered important, as well as various traps in the ones he couldn't get antimagic fields in.

And the guards are competent enough to deal with any stray thief that gets any bright ideas.

SO! The manor is well protected, and remember every big kahuna in said city would have a security system similar to this, and the big baddies themselves are no slouches in a fight.

At this point you could destroy the nodes but doing that would definitely cause a commotion, You could just charge in there but the guards are more than likely 3 levels higher than your party at the very least with the big guy being a good 6 levels higher, you could have someone sneak in who is completely non magical, but that would practically be a suicide mission.

is it at least decent?

If I put my spin on it the high level magic isn't even necessary.

The Baron isn't a moron and he knows people are after the item. The true item location is hidden elsewhere, and through some clever mundane deception, he lets the word leak that the item is hidden in some well guarded area of the castle. Because why defend something that's basically blank parchment?

The Baron wishes to make an example of the rebels, so to do that he sets up a honey pot. He hires some mages to set up silent alarm spells. Once a spell has been triggered, a stealthy character turns himself invisible and attempts to discern the disturbance, using see invisibility/detect magic, or other lower level methods of detection. While the party uses their invisible sphere and sneaks in, presumably undetected, they're led deeper into the castle where once they obtain the scroll, a trap is sprung and they're all captured using any number of spells at any mage's disposal and quickly surrounded.

The way to avoid this fate is to use proper intel and detect magic of your own, to identify any magical traps, like alarm, and then navigate around them while avoiding mundane traps and patrolling guards. The challenge isn't necessarily high level magic, but rather the need for stealth which places heavy restrictions on how the party can act. But it doesn't in there, because that only leads you to the trap undetected. What the players do from there is up to them, but needless to say setting up a counter-ambush would be one very viable scenario. For instance, you could spring the trap to create a diversion to go after some other items in the Baron's possession, such as much of his hidden wealth.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 10:46 AM

In my worlds the virtue of being a high-end caster means other high-end casters are interested in you, so you enter a higher level of play.

But system mastery aids greatly in the creation of a challenging encounters. The ability to efficiently use such tactics like readied actions and contingent spells change the nature of the game entirely. Even a low level mage controlled by a highly competent player can win against a power gamer. Because ultimately, D&D combat plays like an exquisitely complicated game of chess. And if you know your DM theory, there are players who play specifically because of this.

In a campaign setting, magic isn't as overpowered as some might think.

I tend to think of DnD campaigns Playing out like a game of Super Robot Wars.

Necroticplague

2015-09-26, 11:56 AM

I tend to think of DnD campaigns Playing out like a game of Super Robot Wars.

I dunno what Super Robot Wars is, but I find x-com to be a good analogy. Everyone is the squad (party) has a certain role, and carries specialized equipment to do such. Over time, you slowly gain more information and equipment from fallen enemies, supplementing this by spending funds. And generally, you want to make sure a fight is won before it starts. A fair fight is one you didn't prep sufficiently for.

Hecuba

2015-09-26, 12:58 PM

No, it's not. The issue is that spells are too good. A Wizard isn't powerful because he can cast color spray and sleep and silent image. He is powerful because he can cast any one of those spells, and they win encounter while other people are killing single enemies. Versatility isn't power. Power is power.

Non-casters can end encounters too: just not as many different kinds of encounters. If a sleep can end encounters reliably for you, your encounters aren't varying much in terms of layout and enemies.

There are, of course, some spells that are too good enev in isolation (polymorph line, wish, shapechange). I don't personally think sleep or color spray qualify

Mendicant

2015-09-26, 02:24 PM

And I'm saying if you run a campaign, you need to run it at a level where it works. Just as you can't expect people to defeat a great wyrm gold dragon at 1st level, you can't expect them to be challenged by travel at 11th level.

The DM is just a player. He does not have more of a right to tell his story than you do. If he wants to have fun at the expense of other people, he should not DM. If he wants to tell a story where you can't cast speak with dead, he should tell that story before you can cast speak with dead.

Taking basically everything you're saying here as granted, my problem with D&D magic isn't so much that it trivializes certain obstacles by certain levels, it's that it frequently trivializes them too soon.

Many builds ("mundane" or otherwise) are only really going to start feeling like the character the player wants to play after several levels, but by that point the capabilities of casters are starting to close the door on certain stories, and the bleeding only accelerates as time goes on.

While those higher level spells open up other stories, I think the lion's share of players and DM's would be happier with a wider band of levels where "low-level" stuff happens.

Masakan

2015-09-26, 02:28 PM

If I put my spin on it the high level magic isn't even necessary.

The Baron isn't a moron and he knows people are after the item. The true item location is hidden elsewhere, and through some clever mundane deception, he lets the word leak that the item is hidden in some well guarded area of the castle. Because why defend something that's basically blank parchment?

The Baron wishes to make an example of the rebels, so to do that he sets up a honey pot. He hires some mages to set up silent alarm spells. Once a spell has been triggered, a stealthy character turns himself invisible and attempts to discern the disturbance, using see invisibility/detect magic, or other lower level methods of detection. While the party uses their invisible sphere and sneaks in, presumably undetected, they're led deeper into the castle where once they obtain the scroll, a trap is sprung and they're all captured using any number of spells at any mage's disposal and quickly surrounded.

The way to avoid this fate is to use proper intel and detect magic of your own, to identify any magical traps, like alarm, and then navigate around them while avoiding mundane traps and patrolling guards. The challenge isn't necessarily high level magic, but rather the need for stealth which places heavy restrictions on how the party can act. But it doesn't in there, because that only leads you to the trap undetected. What the players do from there is up to them, but needless to say setting up a counter-ambush would be one very viable scenario. For instance, you could spring the trap to create a diversion to go after some other items in the Baron's possession, such as much of his hidden wealth.

Yeah yeah that's good that's really good.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 04:28 PM

So this got me thinking How do you make an senario in which your resident mage can't just auto win or something like that.

I thought up an encounter and I want you guys to tell me if there are any holes in it...ok?

Yeah, alright. Let's dig into it.

So...you have been tasked with breaking and entering a High Ranking Barons Manor, He has a specific item or parchment that could help turn the tide of things for the rebel forces and if you can it would be great if he was killed.

Assassination and intel gathering. Typical war-time challenge.

Ok no problem just activate invisibility sphere everyone sneaks in kills the baron and inviso sphere back out right?

No. Without even digging into the other defenses you've listed inv. sphere does nothing to silence your movements and fighter types tend to be pretty clanky. A silence spell would make it impossible to hear guards you don't have LoS to and you'd have a nasty chance of stumbling right into one who will certainly notice the sudden dead silence if he accidently enters the AoE. The party's casters can't cast verbal component spells in there either. Finally, invisible characters that aren't actively hiding while they move (at half their base speed) can be detected with a dc 20 spot check. Characters with no skill in hiding can push that to 30-ish but an elite guard might still notice.

Always remember the spells' limitations.

Problem. The Barons Walls are surrounded by Persisted Nodes of Detect magic, each set up by a caster with a caster level of at least 12, and you would probably get a mission like this at level 7 at the latest.

Does the party know this? If they don't look into the target's residence, don't tell them. Info gathering is on the players and you don't have to spoon feed them crap. If they have an intelligence team working for the rebels that might've gathered this info previously then you could give it to them but the interior defenses listed below should be unknowns or at least incomplete information.

That said, magic aura can conceal the party if their not too deep under the christmas tree and dispel magic can temporarily disable the sensors. Supressing ray can shut them down for quite a while if the party is high enough level or willing to drop some cash on an expendable item of the same.

If by some miracle you do manage to get inside, multiple rooms are littered with antimagic fields, but since those things are expensive to even maintain let alone persist. They are only active in areas of the manor that are considered important, as well as various traps in the ones he couldn't get antimagic fields in.

Stronghold builders guide has the sigils of antimagic wondrous architecture. These blanket a 20X20 room in a permanent null magic effect. They are fairly expensive though so only a few such chambers makes sense.

Unless one of the targets is in such a chamber, it's just a matter of working around them, turning the mansion into a defacto maze. Of note, however, is that anyone under inv. sphere other than its primary target who moves into the dead magic room will no longer be affected by inv. sphere and will either have to be rendered invisible individually or do without. A rogue type would likely be okay but a fighter would be thoroughly hosed.

And the guards are competent enough to deal with any stray thief that gets any bright ideas.

Could you define this a bit better?

SO! The manor is well protected, and remember every big kahuna in said city would have a security system similar to this, and the big baddies themselves are no slouches in a fight.

Decent but not insurmountable obstacles, good so far.

At this point you could destroy the nodes but doing that would definitely cause a commotion, You could just charge in there but the guards are more than likely 3 levels higher than your party at the very least with the big guy being a good 6 levels higher, you could have someone sneak in who is completely non magical, but that would practically be a suicide mission.

Suppressing the nodes would be better than destroying them and you could disable them with a silence effect if its just an audible alarm. Having them so densely packed as to have overlapping fields 3 or more deep would get expensive fast so I would presume that taking out one or two would suffice if you could otherwise get around or through the wall quickly and quietly.

Having the entire force of guards several levels higher than the party seems a bit much unless you're determined to make fighting any of them a non-option, in which case you need to give the party ample warning that this is the case. Otherwise, put most of the guards at the party's level or just below and sprinkle a few elite guard captains into the bunch at 2 or 3 levels higher. Whacking a guard or two as necessary is a staple of the stealth genre.

Making the big bad at the end, presumably the hit target, 6 levels higher is okay if he'll be alone but if guards quickly respond to the sound of battle the encounter could quickly become unwinnable especially if you leave them in the "do not fight" setup you mentioned.

is it at least decent?

As it stands, it's doable but a little death-trappy. Ideally, a highly skilled rogue with the right tool-set could pull it off himself without a hitch but that wouldn't be much fun for the rest of the party. The fighting types are left with nothing to do at all with the current enemy setup.

There's room for improvement but it's a pretty good start.

Morty

2015-09-26, 04:36 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 04:43 PM

D&D magic is fundamentally designed as to obviate other rules and outshine other means of problem-solving due to its power and ease of use. Also, it often can't be interacted with except using other magic. I thought it was all pretty obvious.

I disagree. Magic can often be used as an -alternative- to other options within its own limits and foibles and it's not at all uncommon to be able to overcome without other magics.

Ideally, however, it is used to -supplement- other options to make them more effective than either the alternative or magic could be on their own.

Aside from a few well known outliers in the spell lists, the problem is that T1 and T2 classes just get too many options compared to more specialized classes.

Gemini476

2015-09-26, 05:18 PM

One of the problems with D&D magic being overpowered is that, to some degree, it's meant to be overpowered. It's just that the restrictions have disappeared over the years/editions and people somehow actually began playing in those high levels that were really just meant to be for the BBEGs. (Name Level (9ish) with fortress-building being the natural point to retire a character back in the day.)

For example, let's look at a low-level wizard. This is going to be a bit edition-agnostic with an emphasis on pre-3E.

Magic Missile is a spell that lets you get a guaranteed hit in on a foe in a game where the most common enemies won't survive much more than that. It's a spell slot for neutralizing a single target.
Sleep is a spell that lets you maybe defeat an entire encounter, depending on the outcome. It'll probably let you flee, at least, although if you manage to actually get everyone then you're just outright won.
Charm is a spell that lets you maybe defeat a single enemy and get them as a follower for the rest of the dungeon-delve.
Knock is a spell that lets you open a locked door without needing a Thief or someone to loudly knock it down. (It's also older than the Thief/Rogue, IIRC, and mostly meant for avoiding wandering monster rolls from noise. The Fighter can probably knock it down without issue.)

The cost for this, then, is that you only have a very limited number of these encounter-ending "grenades" - more than that, you're useless in a fight without them. Your weapons, armor and hit points are abysmal, meaning that you probably won't participate in combats much at all except for keeping an eye out for an opportunity to use your Get Out Of Jail Free cards.

Which, again, are extremely limited with "per day" meaning "per adventure". And you only get what, two? Tree at third level, with one being a second-level spell? No bonus spells back then.

That changed, though, although the power of the spells mostly didn't - Wizards got more spell slots and weapons so that they'd feel less useless in combat (not even their niche to begin with, they're emergency problem-solvers, that's the Fighter and Cleric's niche), spells got faster and easier to cast and harder to resist, the game shifted away from dungeon-crawls and towards narratives, meaning that the characters got better at surviving to high levels and could make it there faster (mainly through CR guidelines and PC-friendly suggestions in the DMG), getting new spells got easier and went from the DM to the player (specializing was extremely good in 2E since it let you guarantee spells known, from what I've heard - otherwise you needed to rely on treasure rolls for scrolls), preparing spells got faster (10min/spell level to 60min total)...

And that's just for Magic-Users/Mages/Wizards! Clerics got two entire spell levels, domains, spontaneous healing and buffed combat prowess, while Druids got scaling Wildshape and Animal Companions.

All the while making mundanes less useful since monsters have more hit points and skills are limited and feats are weak and the Cleric can now fight as well as you can while also casting spells and the Wizard now has enough spell slots to see them through the day. Also WBL messing with mundanes due to them needing more than casters.

There's a lot of problems with the magic system, but most of them are very deeply rooted. I don't think that there's any inherent problem with the overly powerful encounter-ending spells themselves - the problem, IMHO, is that you get too many of them. If the player can shortcut an encounter or puzzle, you just need to add another to compensate - the problem is that they can shortcut all encounters and all puzzles, and you can't keep adding more since the other PCs can't keep up.

Another side to the problem might also be that people keep trying to use incompatible playstyles for high levels - wilderness exploration works, but only before Teleport. Murder mysteries work, but only before stuff that can get the answer. Death is scarier before Raise Dead is on the table, being unable to find a certain magic item to buy works before Teleport and also a bit after that until Plane Shift comes online. Stuff like that.

StriderITP

2015-09-26, 06:03 PM

Ssalarn

2015-09-26, 06:17 PM

The sad fact is that even though magic is broken, removing magic breaks it even more.

I would probably amend that to say "The sad fact is that even though magic is broken, removing magic without introducing a balanced alternative breaks it even more"'

You can use a more balanced option like Incarnum or Pathfinder's Spheres of Power to achieve the necessary abilities that the game requires without opening up doors to abilities that are difficult to balance or which completely eclipse similar mundane options.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 06:20 PM

StriderITP

2015-09-26, 06:23 PM

I would probably amend that to say "The sad fact is that even though magic is broken, removing magic without introducing a balanced alternative breaks it even more"'

You can use a more balanced option like Incarnum or Pathfinder's Spheres of Power to achieve the necessary abilities that the game requires without opening up doors to abilities that are difficult to balance or which completely eclipse similar mundane options.
Doesn't necessarily help either, since one of the key problems I mentioned about magic is that everyone needs it, replacing it with Incarnum causes the same problem where mundanes are left with nothing while the new kids on the block (Incarnum users) are the mostly versatile powerhouses, albeit far far weaker than the current caster alternative. Admittedly, I cannot say anything about spheres of power because I've never gotten quite a good look at it

Ssalarn

2015-09-26, 06:56 PM

Doesn't necessarily help either, since one of the key problems I mentioned about magic is that everyone needs it, replacing it with Incarnum causes the same problem where mundanes are left with nothing while the new kids on the block (Incarnum users) are the mostly versatile powerhouses, albeit far far weaker than the current caster alternative. Admittedly, I cannot say anything about spheres of power because I've never gotten quite a good look at it

There's lots of little things you can do to divorce martials from that need though. The primary two would be things like inherent bonus progression to axe the need for the Big 6, and ready access to things like flying mounts. Companions of the Firmament is a great Pathfinder supplement that introduces a special type of companion mount that gets some extra durability.

Really, just a few tweaks to the Heal skill could obviate the need for magical healing as well. At the end of the day, there's actually very little you have to have magic for.

Psyren

2015-09-26, 07:14 PM

D&D magic is fundamentally designed as to obviate other rules and outshine other means of problem-solving due to its power and ease of use. Also, it often can't be interacted with except using other magic. I thought it was all pretty obvious.

This is false, magic solutions to problems have plenty of drawbacks that make not-magic solutions viable. It's the GM's job to make those drawbacks matter from time to time.

In addition, if you really feel that magic's "ease of use" is a problem, there are oodles of variants you can inject into your games with little effort to make magic more costly, limited or dangerous. Add Spellblights. Add Limited Magic. Add Wild Magic. Add Esoteric Components and Scrounging. Add Spell Fumbles. Strip out bonus spells. All the tools are there for a GM to make magic grittier if they want, simply sitting back and complaining that magic is too easy without changing anything about it solves nothing.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 07:23 PM

This is false, magic solutions to problems have plenty of drawbacks that make not-magic solutions viable. It's the GM's job to make those drawbacks matter from time to time.

In addition, if you really feel that magic's "ease of use" is a problem, there are oodles of variants you can inject into your games with little effort to make magic more costly, limited or dangerous. Add Spellblights. Add Limited Magic. Add Wild Magic. Add Esoteric Components and Scrounging. Add Spell Fumbles. Strip out bonus spells. All the tools are there for a GM to make magic grittier if they want, simply sitting back and complaining that magic is too easy without changing anything about it solves nothing.

Not only is what psyren has said here true (although the second paragraph smacks a little of oberoni fallacy) but ease of use isn't even a valid complaint outside of combat. Most of the utility spells just shorten or obviate parts of the game that would've been slow, boring, and/or tedious anyway, while the real game changers involve a lot more than just fire-and-forget castings.

Psyren

2015-09-26, 07:33 PM

Okay, can I just say that I've never seen the point of that "fallacy." The whole idea behind variant rules is that most people have fun playing the game without them. If that wasn't the case, they'd be errata. In short, the magic superiority problem by and large isn't a problem.

But the designers sat down and said "hey, there's a number of players out there who do consider {thing that everyone else is fine with} to be a problem. How about we do most of the legwork, and give them something they can drop into their games to solve that, without mucking the gears up for everyone who is happy with the status quo? Best of all, we put our logo on it, so that those players have a buffer they can point to. Instead of "Bob's Magic Rules" it can be "WotC/Pathfinder variant magic" and the players will at least feel more comfortable that Bob didn't yank it all out of his ample posterior."

I dunno, maybe it's just my love of options, but I can't see this as anything but the best of both worlds.

StriderITP

2015-09-26, 07:39 PM

There's lots of little things you can do to divorce martials from that need though. The primary two would be things like inherent bonus progression to axe the need for the Big 6, and ready access to things like flying mounts. Companions of the Firmament is a great Pathfinder supplement that introduces a special type of companion mount that gets some extra durability.

Really, just a few tweaks to the Heal skill could obviate the need for magical healing as well. At the end of the day, there's actually very little you have to have magic for.

You're missing the fact that a large portion of defensive options are magic based. How will you fight that dragon without any energy protection? Or that beholder without any anti-death effect protection? Enjoy getting eaten by that one super large beast now that you don't have access to freedom of movement. The best way to get an idea of just how dependant mundanes are on magic, look at the thread List of Necessary Magic Items. It's a comprehensive list of must have items for just about any character. There are quite a few things like immunities to things that most mundanes have little to no option to defend against other than a slight boost to the save it commonly targets. And this isn't even going into items that are must haves on a class by class basis. So it may seem like a few minor tweaks, but it's actually a lot of stuff to go over.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 07:44 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 08:04 PM

You're missing the fact that a large portion of defensive options are magic based. How will you fight that dragon without any energy protection? Or that beholder without any anti-death effect protection? Enjoy getting eaten by that one super large beast now that you don't have access to freedom of movement. The best way to get an idea of just how dependant mundanes are on magic, look at the thread List of Necessary Magic Items. It's a comprehensive list of must have items for just about any character. There are quite a few things like immunities to things that most mundanes have little to no option to defend against other than a slight boost to the save it commonly targets. And this isn't even going into items that are must haves on a class by class basis. So it may seem like a few minor tweaks, but it's actually a lot of stuff to go over.

Here's the thing about that though. No matter how you look at it, warriors and skill monkeys rely entirely on their equipment to function even in the complete absence of magic. A fighter is pretty useless without a weapon and armor and a rogue can't pick a lock without at least makeshift picks, etc and so on.

Given that this is the case, why is upgrading to magical equipment such a bugaboo?

That said, tower shield for for blocking dragon breath seems rather obvious. :smallbiggrin:

StriderITP

2015-09-26, 08:08 PM

Here's the thing about that though. No matter how you look at it, warriors and skill monkeys rely entirely on their equipment to function even in the complete absence of magic. A fighter is pretty useless without a weapon and armor and a rogue can't pick a lock without at least makeshift picks, etc and so on.

Given that this is the case, why is upgrading to magical equipment such a bugaboo?

That said, tower shield for for blocking dragon breath seems rather obvious. :smallbiggrin:

Because the idea was to distance mundanes from magical reliance so that a weaker magical replacement would be viable, my point was simply that's not as easy as it seems. And ideally, mundanes should be able to function with the bare minimum in equipment. A fighter with his weapon and armor, a rogue with her lockpick and daggers, etc... After that, upgrading to magic items would be exactly what it should be, a bonus rather than a necessity.

Psyren

2015-09-26, 08:17 PM

The oberoni fallacy states that just because the DM can fix a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. Official variant rules are one thing but several of the options you suggested are just common ideas that people come up with which don't necessarily fix the "problem."

1) Every last thing I suggested is an official variant - I can provide the page references if you like.

2) You're right, an easily-fixable problem is still technically a problem. But to me, acknowledging that bit of pedantry doesn't add anything meaningful to discussions about the game. It's like saying "I have a problem - the store I need to get to is on the other side of the street. I have to cross the street to get there." And while I'm halfway across, someone leaps out of a nearby alley and yells "Aha! By taking the conveniently provided crosswalk and pedestrian signals, you've acknowledged that you have a problem! Your destination is in fact on the other side of the street from where you started!"

Hey, Kelb, do you know who actually uses variants and houserules in their games? These guys. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRIr9MNmCwU)

ryu

2015-09-26, 08:19 PM

Having the entire force of guards several levels higher than the party seems a bit much unless you're determined to make fighting any of them a non-option, in which case you need to give the party ample warning that this is the case. Otherwise, put most of the guards at the party's level or just below and sprinkle a few elite guard captains into the bunch at 2 or 3 levels higher. Whacking a guard or two as necessary is a staple of the stealth genre.

Making the big bad at the end, presumably the hit target, 6 levels higher is okay if he'll be alone but if guards quickly respond to the sound of battle the encounter could quickly become unwinnable especially if you leave them in the "do not fight" setup you mentioned.

As it stands, it's doable but a little death-trappy. Ideally, a highly skilled rogue with the right tool-set could pull it off himself without a hitch but that wouldn't be much fun for the rest of the party. The fighting types are left with nothing to do at all with the current enemy setup.

There's room for improvement but it's a pretty good start.

All in all an interesting tactic. Depending on what class the guards are I'd still find them pretty fair in a fight. I'm assuming mundanes of some sort at this point. My strat for this mission would involve a few days of prep, divination, and some hilariously large scale minionmancy. This isn't a mission that demands a light touch. The fact we have time to prepare, the initiative as the attackers, and presumably decent spellwork demands overwhelming force.

Ssalarn

2015-09-26, 08:23 PM

You're missing the fact that a large portion of defensive options are magic based.

I'm not missing anything, I disagree with the supposed "necessity" of many magical solutions.

How will you fight that dragon without any energy protection?
Good Reflex saves and party members with Evasion / Improved Evasion who can trick the beast into wasting its attack. Unless the party is grouped up within a single breath weapon's area (which does happen), the breath weapon is one of a dragon's least frightening offensive tools. The last three times I've seen a group take on a dragon, none of them have had the ability to give the group energy protection.

Or that beholder without any anti-death effect protection?

Good Fort saves.

Enjoy getting eaten by that one super large beast now that you don't have access to freedom of movement.

Again, freedom of movement isn't a necessity, and I've been part of many groups that had to figure out how to deal with a super large beast without it. The last time it came up we just powered through and killed it before it killed the character (me actually) caught in its tentacles.

The best way to get an idea of just how dependant mundanes are on magic, look at the thread List of Necessary Magic Items. It's a comprehensive list of must have items for just about any character.

It's a list of things that are nice, but not necessary.

There are quite a few things like immunities to things that most mundanes have little to no option to defend against other than a slight boost to the save it commonly targets.

Immunities to various effects are nice, not necessary. Truthfully, a caster's ability to mitigate so many effects is the biggest part of the issue with magical supremacy. In earlier editions of the game, the Fighter had the best saves and the way you beat the beholder was by relying on him to thug his way through the storm of death rays and punch its eye out. Granted, the massive nerfs the Fighter tool in 3.0 make that scenario a bit more unlikely, but you've still got Rangers and Paladins, and you can always fix your Fighter with tweaks like returning him to all good saves.

And this isn't even going into items that are must haves on a class by class basis. So it may seem like a few minor tweaks, but it's actually a lot of stuff to go over.

With the exception of a few poorly designed classes, there's no "must have" class items that can't be replaced by automatic bonus progression. The idea that there are items you "must have", essentially items that you are entitled to, is a false one in no small part perpetuated by the fact that classes like Wizards and Clerics get to have whatever they want. Removing broken magic also means excising this false sense of entitlement and taking away these "easy win" buttons.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 09:24 PM

Because the idea was to distance mundanes from magical reliance so that a weaker magical replacement would be viable, my point was simply that's not as easy as it seems. And ideally, mundanes should be able to function with the bare minimum in equipment. A fighter with his weapon and armor, a rogue with her lockpick and daggers, etc... After that, upgrading to magic items would be exactly what it should be, a bonus rather than a necessity.

Except that was explicitly the opposite of the point when the game was designed. Members of the game's design team have outright explained that they intentionally made WBL and the equipment you purchase with it an integral part of the game.

Whether this appeals to any individual play group or DM isn't really a matter for debate as it's a subjective matter but removing it as a design element is working directly contrary to how the game was designed.

It can certainly be done, albeit with some effort, but the simple fact is that it doesn't -need- to be done. If you want to do it, more power to you, but I don't really see the point. The world is so rich in magic that entire categories of creatures are either made of it entirely or could not exist without it why deny it to the PC's?

1) Every last thing I suggested is an official variant - I can provide the page references if you like.

Spell fumbles as an official variant rule for 3.X?

In any case, many of those have official rules to explain how they work but almost none of them are actually ever suggested as a means to blanket limit spellcasting power in any official capacity. They are, as I said, common ad-hocs to a general setting that people apply.

2) You're right, an easily-fixable problem is still technically a problem. But to me, acknowledging that bit of pedantry doesn't add anything meaningful to discussions about the game. It's like saying "I have a problem - the store I need to get to is on the other side of the street. I have to cross the street to get there." And while I'm halfway across, someone leaps out of a nearby alley and yells "Aha! By taking the conveniently provided crosswalk and pedestrian signals, you've acknowledged that you have a problem! Your destination is in fact on the other side of the street from where you started!"

Maybe I am being excessively pedantic but that's only because if some people aren't this pedantic others will ignore these problems or make light of how disruptive they can be.

Also, if fixing it was so easy then why do so many people still have problems with magic, as it is, in the game?

Hey, Kelb, do you know who actually uses variants and houserules in their games? These guys. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRIr9MNmCwU)

That was a bit snarky. Of course everyone plays with houserules and variants, but who's being overly pedantic now?

StriderITP

2015-09-26, 09:24 PM

With the exception of a few poorly designed classes

That's kind of the issue with the game entirely, most classes are poorly designed. Although this statement is untrue in the fact that some poorly designed classes are not necessarily weak, just very poorly thought out on its limitations.

Milo v3

2015-09-26, 09:31 PM

Spell fumbles as an official variant rule for 3.X?

In any case, many of those have official rules to explain how they work but almost none of them are actually ever suggested as a means to blanket limit spellcasting power in any official capacity. They are, as I said, common ad-hocs to a general setting that people apply.
Well the ones he listed from Unchained are specifically to limit spellcasting. Also, spell fumbles is on page 149 of Pathfinder Unchained.

Edit: Aside from Scaling Items, the Magic chapter is basically just official rules variants about weakening casters or reducing reliance on magic items.

StriderITP

2015-09-26, 09:35 PM

Except that was explicitly the opposite of the point when the game was designed. Members of the game's design team have outright explained that they intentionally made WBL and the equipment you purchase with it an integral part of the game.

Whether this appeals to any individual play group or DM isn't really a matter for debate as it's a subjective matter but removing it as a design element is working directly contrary to how the game was designed.

It can certainly be done, albeit with some effort, but the simple fact is that it doesn't -need- to be done. If you want to do it, more power to you, but I don't really see the point. The world is so rich in magic that entire categories of creatures are either made of it entirely or could not exist without it why deny it to the PC's?

Sorry, I had meant ideally for what I was suggesting. They also designed it poorly considering most classes with good spellcasting at their disposal don't really need those items that they assumed every mundane character would have. Lastly, I am not entirely suggesting that removing magic items entirely is what should happen, but that magic items just make your awesome character more awesome rather than having your character start being awesome as a result of the magic items they managed to get.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-26, 09:36 PM

Well the ones he listed from Unchained are specifically to limit spellcasting. Also, spell fumbles is on page 149 of Pathfinder Unchained.

That explains why I never heard of it. I stuck to 3.X in all it's ridiculous unbalanced and needlessly complex glory.

Milo v3

2015-09-26, 09:43 PM

That explains why I never heard of it. I stuck to 3.X in all it's ridiculous unbalanced and needlessly complex glory.

If you want all the ridiculous unbalanced and needlessly complex glory I'd go for 3.P over 3.X :smalltongue:

Brova

2015-09-27, 07:45 AM

90 feet. You can move in closer while they're fascinated.

That's still shorter range than every attack option which isn't the Dragon's breath weapon.

If the encounter starts at a distance, take your pick of stealth or diplomacy. Diplomacy can be used at any range.

I should have called you on this earlier, and it's sort of dishonest to do it now, but really? Diplomacy? That's not really what anyone is going to consider "reasonable optimization". Also, the Rogue is better at it than you, because he has more skill points and can pick "take 10" as a Rogue ability.

Stealth is more reasonable, but it sill has a fundamental problem that when you actually get into range, you're just going to use a disable that doesn't let you attack them. That doesn't really translate into "winning" at any reasonable rate.

For stealth, the vrock and the dragon have decent perception, but distance penalties will be in your favor, and they can neither see through invisibility nor target you while you're invisible.

They can also fly. If they are not interested in being attacked, they aren't going to be.

It doesn't pinpoint your location and it has a pretty short range. Don't stand upwind and you'll be fine. Once you're hidden, a good Bluff should be able to send them off in the wrong direction, since trolls are gullible morons (you have +22 against their -1).

The Troll encounter occurs in a closet, as they are the origin of the phrase "closet troll".

Or out of one. The test doesn't say. All you have to do is get through the hallway to pass. *shrug*

I mean, you could up it to possible win I guess.

Thank you for this. Hell in my group our DM has enough to do, what with real life and giving structure to the world, that he doesn't have time for mechanical arguments. (That falls to me) It's a matter of respect. He may be a player as well, but a player who is indispensable to the campaign. And the hard truth of it is, is that PCs are (usually) replaceable. I will say that yes, if it's the majority of the group who desires to play a certain style that the DM should try to accommodate them. But it's also entirely within their bounds to say "I'm not comfortable playing in this style" (whether it's because they can't/don't want to) and step down.

I think the bolded parts are basically an agreement with my argument. In your game, power level is socially policed, meaning that it's not the DM deciding what story he wants to tell. And then you say point blank that if the DM isn't comfortable running the story players want, he should run a different story.

Many builds ("mundane" or otherwise) are only really going to start feeling like the character the player wants to play after several levels, but by that point the capabilities of casters are starting to close the door on certain stories, and the bleeding only accelerates as time goes on.

I think that's less a problem with casters and more a problem with mundanes being boring/poorly designed. If your character concept is one that is supposed to be challenged by low level obstacles, it is presumably a low level character concept. As such, the inability of you to achieve that concept before plot solving spells come online is a result of mundanes not getting the tools to self-actualize, not of casters getting the tools to solve plotlines too soon.

Sorry, I had meant ideally for what I was suggesting. They also designed it poorly considering most classes with good spellcasting at their disposal don't really need those items that they assumed every mundane character would have. Lastly, I am not entirely suggesting that removing magic items entirely is what should happen, but that magic items just make your awesome character more awesome rather than having your character start being awesome as a result of the magic items they managed to get.

I agree with this, particularly the latter part. Needing magic items to be level appropriate sucks, particularly if they are bonus items. If you get them, it doesn't do anything, because it's just like you continued to be level appropriate normally. But if you don't get them, you fall behind and that sucks. People should just get level appropriate bonuses and abilities. And then magic items should be cool stuff. A fire sword should shoot firebolts or create walls of fire or summon fire elementals or whatever, not deal slightly more damage some of which is fire damage.

Mara

2015-09-27, 07:58 AM

I would say tier one classes are just too strong.

They are just disruptive in the hands of a competent player. Someone's girlfriend started out with a druid. By the end of the campaign She was stomping all over Age of Worms. One campaign of experience before she learned how to snap the game in half.

Tier 2 takes far more effort to get half of the results.

Andreaz

2015-09-27, 08:29 AM

Because it's a 5gp item. Buy five! Buy ten! Any turn that an enemy spends trying to sunder your pouch is a turn the enemy doesn't spend trying to murder you - and in a wizard-slaying plan, the stage where you're next to the wizard and able to attack him with weapons is among the last stages of the plan, because if you blow it by attacking his items, you lost your chance and soon will be dead.I love Combat Brute so much.

But yeah, magic itself isn't broken. The brokeness comes from several spells that are individually broken, and spellcasters' capacity to have multiple spells.
You take ou 80% of the brokeness by removing full casters from the equation. Half Casters are fine with their 6th level spells. Quite damn powerful, but fine.
(I also ban any teleportation that doesn't have line of sight. TRAVEL the travel >: D)

Gemini476

2015-09-27, 08:34 AM

One of the problems with the system is that some of the pretty powerful options are also pretty low-op.

Like, for instance, the Bear-riding Bear Druid Summoning Bears. That's a dumb little thing, but it's also a cool enough concept that it's easy to accidentally make. And then the Fighter feels irrelevant as you turn into a Fighter and summon more Fighters while riding a Fighter.

Or Planar Binding a genie to give you wishes. Really, that should probably be maybe third on the list of stereotypical reasons to summon something: summon to get information, summon to get it on (Succubi, yo), summon to get your three faustian wishes, summon to fight a dude. All you need to do, then, is figure out that wishing demons and devils are out of your league but genies (the other stereotypical wishing entity) aren't - you don't even need to know how spell-like abilities work with experience costs, since you'd be pretty sure that it wouldn't be your problem either way.
At which point you read through the description of Wish to figure out what you can wish for and find out that there's a safe list.

Polymorph and Shapechange also have similar problems, since all it takes is for the party to be in one encounter with a Hydra or whatever before they start recognizing how dangerous such a thing is and start putting one and one together when they find out that they can turn into one.

And then there's non-spell optimization tricks that can be stumbled upon like Stormtrooper, which just requires the idea that if you kill the guy you won't care about the loss of AC. Or the old 3.0 bag-of-rats Whirlwind Attack+Great Cleave, which just required you to realize that you get a bonus attack for every thing you kill and you have a thing that lets you kill everything that's weak and near you.

Magic wouldn't be a problem if the overpowered stuff was limited to high-op tricks and combos. As is, though, it's just fortunate that groups that are aware of it can get around it by banning problem spells/feat or just not using them in abusive ways. (Looking at you, Divine Metamagic.)

P.F.

2015-09-27, 10:26 AM

I think that's less a problem with casters and more a problem with mundanes being boring/poorly designed. If your character concept is one that is supposed to be challenged by low level obstacles, it is presumably a low level character concept. As such, the inability of you to achieve that concept before plot solving spells come online is a result of mundanes not getting the tools to self-actualize, not of casters getting the tools to solve plotlines too soon.

It's really the same thing: casters ramp up too quickly and/or mundanes don't ramp up quickly enough. My ninja, for example, gets really interesting around the time she can use two or three Master Jutsus, around 12th to 14th level. Unfortunately, that's also the time that full casters get high-level spells. So my ghost step ability, for example, while it has some definite advantages, is vaguely comprable to a super-low-grade knock-off of ethereal jaunt (a 13th-level ability), but in practice is closer to dimension door (a 7th-level ability). Similarly, while the ninja's vanishing trick is arguably superior to casting invisibility, the Master version (minimum level 10th) is rather more comparable to greater invisibility (a 7th level ability), and still thwarted by all the increasingly common spells and abilities which negate invisibility.

It doesn't really matter if we make the level 7 ninja have all the abilities that a 13th level ninja has now (earlier self-actualization), or if we make the level 13 cleric have the powers that a 7th level cleric has now (postponed plotline tools). The problem is the mismatch between what constitutes a "low-level obstacle" for casters versus non-casters.

I agree with this, particularly the latter part. Needing magic items to be level appropriate sucks, particularly if they are bonus items. If you get them, it doesn't do anything, because it's just like you continued to be level appropriate normally. But if you don't get them, you fall behind and that sucks. People should just get level appropriate bonuses and abilities. And then magic items should be cool stuff. A fire sword should shoot firebolts or create walls of fire or summon fire elementals or whatever, not deal slightly more damage some of which is fire damage.

Seconded.

Psyren

2015-09-27, 10:53 AM

@ Kelb: I want to preface by saying that none of this is directed at you specifically, I'm only responding to the points you brought up. Rather, my frustration is towards players of the games in this subforum who complain about magic supremacy while not trying any of the many, many official suggestions for toning it down.

Spell fumbles as an official variant rule for 3.X?

Pathfinder - in fact, there are two spell fumble variants (one for critical fails, and one for active spellcasting, and you can even combine them.) Possibly for 3.x as well, though I don't know or particularly care if there are, spellcasting is even further out of whack there. If the 3.5 folks wish, they can port these two back easily, along with the others I mentioned.

In any case, many of those have official rules to explain how they work but almost none of them are actually ever suggested as a means to blanket limit spellcasting power in any official capacity. They are, as I said, common ad-hocs to a general setting that people apply.

If they're put in a first-party book by the official designers then yes, they are being suggested. Books are expensive to make - they aren't printing these rules out of charity, they do it because they feel there is a demand for whatever made the final cut to go on the page. It is therefore the responsibility of the players who make up that demand (read: the ones complaining about caster supremacy) to give those suggestions a try rather than wailing that nothing is being done.

Or... they can just keep complaining forever and not do anything about it, but personally I find that approach to be counterproductive.

Maybe I am being excessively pedantic but that's only because if some people aren't this pedantic others will ignore these problems or make light of how disruptive they can be.

Yes, I fully admit to making light of the problems with no apology, because they are so easy to mitigate or fix. To be blunt, I have no sympathy or patience for folks who feel otherwise, especially when they won't even try what is being offered. Even if they don't work out fully in those players' games, they are a jumping-off point for their own perhaps more drastic tweaks, and it's a lot easier to sell your players on "For the feel I wanted, I took the Limited Magic variant from Unchained and did X to it" rather than "I can't stand wizards so here is how magic works in my world, take it or leave it."

Also, if fixing it was so easy then why do so many people still have problems with magic, as it is, in the game?

I honestly don't know. All I can do is point out the solutions that are there, in the perhaps vain hope that those people will crack open the book and read some of them.

That was a bit snarky. Of course everyone plays with houserules and variants, but who's being overly pedantic now?

You're right, that was a bit snarky and I apologize. But it's hard not to get frustrated when the designers are doing everything they can short of rewriting the whole system to accommodate this vocal minority.

Let me turn your earlier question around on you - if so many people have such serious problems with magic, why are both games still popular at all? Why aren't T1 and T2 casters outright banned in sanctioned play? Why are Magi and even Gunslingers the subject of more forum complaints than wizards and druids?

Hell, the only T1 caster I've seen get a significant amount of balance complaints is the Witch, and that is due to her Slumber Hex far more than her spells.

Brova

2015-09-27, 11:15 AM

(I also ban any teleportation that doesn't have line of sight. TRAVEL the travel >: D)

Why? Shouldn't part of leveling up be being able to ignore low level obstacles like "get from point A to point B"?

It doesn't really matter if we make the level 7 ninja have all the abilities that a 13th level ninja has now (earlier self-actualization), or if we make the level 13 cleric have the powers that a 7th level cleric has now (postponed plotline tools). The problem is the mismatch between what constitutes a "low-level obstacle" for casters versus non-casters.

On the surface of it, that's a pretty reasonable perspective. Cutting down the powerful people makes this balanced, and so does raising up the weak people. But I think it misses an important point. If you power down casters, you lose some of the power levels of the game, but that doesn't happen if you power up mundanes. I would personally prefer that the game scaled from Lord of the Rings to Mistborn to Lord of Light to Magic: the Gathering, just with martial characters also getting to scale to those levels.

Also, I think there's a lot of support for mundane people getting magical power ups when the story demands it. Once Mistborn stops being about politics and infiltration and starts being about saving the world and fighting armies, Elend gets upgraded from "foppish noble" to "superpowered hero". Kylar Stern's heroic arc for the first book is basically about him becoming magic. Ditto the Warded Man. MTG's core story-line conceit is that people sometimes get randomly upgraded from "normal human" to "planeswalking superwizard" and go off to travel through time, create planes, or battle world-eating horrors.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-27, 11:44 AM

Let me turn your earlier question around on you - if so many people have such serious problems with magic, why are both games still popular at all?

I would imagine it's a combination of factors but the most compelling of them, IMO, would be that the flexibility and generally robust mechanics allow myriad kinds of stories to be told, challenges to be presented and overcome, and strange and wondrous worlds to be explored at various levels of power in ways that almost no other single game can. In spite of all their flaws they offer a fairly unique experience each mimicked only loosely by the other and virtually nothing else.

Why aren't T1 and T2 casters outright banned in sanctioned play?

And admit to the public that they really screwed the pooch? Incidentally, aren't some of the most problematic spells banned or heavily modified for such games? I never have been one to attend such events but it was my understanding they have specialized rules, some of them meant to limit the most egregious effects of caster superiority.

Why are Magi and even Gunslingers the subject of more forum complaints than wizards and druids?

I honestly haven't the fogiest. If I were pressed for an answer I'd take a shot in the dark that the T1 overpoweredness has been hashed and rehashed so many times over the last 15 years that people have grown tired of arguing it or so succint in dealing with it that the arguments are less notable or even that we've, personally, seen them so many times that we unconsciously mark them off as unimportant compared to newer, more interesting discussions. But, as I said, those are just shots in the dark.

And in the interest of continued excessive pedantry, that was three questions so you returned one and asked two extras. :smalltongue:

Hell, the only T1 caster I've seen get a significant amount of balance complaints is the Witch, and that is due to her Slumber Hex far more than her spells.

'S that so? I tend to pass over anything tagged as PF or that mentions one of its classes or titles in the thread title. I simply have no interest or intention of changing over and the things I have read generally confirm for me that I've not erred in that decision.

FWIW, I've seen you around for quite some time now, Psyren, and I have no small amount of respect for you. I don't always agree but your arguments are typically quite well thought out and well presented even in the face of trolls, grognards, and other disagreeable persons like me. I salute you, sir.

In this case, I do agree that the "problem" is often overblown and people complaining about it who've been around long enough to have heard of the various options to "fix" it deserve no sympathy. Newer players, on the other hand, do need these things pointed out and/or explained when caster supremacy sneaks up and bites them in the backside.

Psyren

2015-09-27, 11:55 AM

I would imagine it's a combination of factors but the most compelling of them, IMO, would be that the flexibility and generally robust mechanics allow myriad kinds of stories to be told, challenges to be presented and overcome, and strange and wondrous worlds to be explored at various levels of power in ways that almost no other single game can. In spite of all their flaws they offer a fairly unique experience each mimicked only loosely by the other and virtually nothing else.

Great, it sounds like we agree then - whatever issues magic may or may not have, they clearly aren't show-stopping enough to cause people to stop playing. Hence my trivializing the outrage over them.

And admit to the public that they really screwed the pooch? Incidentally, aren't some of the most problematic spells banned or heavily modified for such games? I never have been one to attend such events but it was my understanding they have specialized rules, some of them meant to limit the most egregious effects of caster superiority.

I doubt such pride plays the role you think it does. They were plenty happy to ditch the original Summoner from PFS after all, and that was an "admission." They also banned Sacred Geometry instantly, another "admission."

And no, many of the spells that are identified as being powerful on these forums are left intact. Granted, PFS stops at 12 so things like Gate and Time Stop are unlikely to come up, but Planar Ally/Binding are still there, as is Polymorph and Blessing of Fervor etc.

I honestly haven't the fogiest. If I were pressed for an answer I'd take a shot in the dark that the T1 overpoweredness has been hashed and rehashed so many times over the last 15 years that people have grown tired of arguing it or so succint in dealing with it that the arguments are less notable or even that we've, personally, seen them so many times that we unconsciously mark them off as unimportant compared to newer, more interesting discussions. But, as I said, those are just shots in the dark.

Which goes right back to my first point, T1 supremacy is so minor a concern in practice that we just kept right on playing around it. There are a handful of folks continuing to bang on about it on message boards, sure, but whether they eventually get over it or drop the game, it ultimately won't matter either way.

FWIW, I've seen you around for quite some time now, Psyren, and I have no small amount of respect for you. I don't always agree but your arguments are typically quite well thought out and well presented even in the face of trolls, grognards, and other disagreeable persons like me. I salute you, sir.

In this case, I do agree that the "problem" is often overblown and people complaining about it who've been around long enough to have heard of the various options to "fix" it deserve no sympathy. Newer players, on the other hand, do need these things pointed out and/or explained when caster supremacy sneaks up and bites them in the backside.

Salutes to you as well. As for newer players, I'm of the opinion that if it becomes a problem they will find a way to deal with it, just like most of us did. But calling it out as one when we don't even know if their own tables see it that way feels like yelling that the sky is falling to me.

Anlashok

2015-09-27, 12:01 PM

Brova

2015-09-27, 12:04 PM

Salutes to you as well. As for newer players, I'm of the opinion that if it becomes a problem they will find a way to deal with it, just like most of us did. But calling it out as one when we don't even know if their own tables see it that way feels like yelling that the sky is falling to me.

Stop concern trolling. It is a quantifiable, provable problem that Fighters are worse than Wizards. Finding a solution to that problem is a good thing. If you don't want to solve that problem, fine. But don't tell people they're wrong for trying to.

Psyren

2015-09-27, 12:25 PM

"You're not important so your opinion doesn't matter" seems like an obnoxious way to try to defend a position.

"People still play it anyways so obviously you're wrong" seems likewise. Liking a game in spite of problems with it doesn't mean those problems doesn't exist and doesn't mean that things can't be done to fix them. Some of which has already been done, some of which has not.

I don't think it's obnoxious to hold the opinion that the designers have provided all the tools necessary to solve this problem, and that a complete system rewrite is a waste of time.

Stop concern trolling. It is a quantifiable, provable problem that Fighters are worse than Wizards. Finding a solution to that problem is a good thing. If you don't want to solve that problem, fine. But don't tell people they're wrong for trying to.

Wait, what? I've pointed out several solutions in this very thread, have you even read what I've been typing? :smallconfused:
I'm as interested in a solution as you are. Where we differ is that I happen to think a viable one already exists - by mixing, matching, and in rare cases iterating on the variants that have been developed.

Brova

2015-09-27, 12:34 PM

Wait, what? I've pointed out several solutions in this very thread, have you even read what I've been typing? :smallconfused:
I'm as interested in a solution as you are. Where we differ is that I happen to think a viable one already exists - by mixing, matching, and in rare cases iterating on the variants that have been developed.

"Spell fumbles" is not a solution. Any kind of fumbles are a thing that should never exist in the game. Any of the various "make magic risky" solutions are worse than the problem. And the specific position you're articulating is that when new players have the problem of casters being better, we should ignore it because they will fix it themselves. And that is concern trolling.

Masakan

2015-09-27, 12:41 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-27, 01:03 PM

Great, it sounds like we agree then - whatever issues magic may or may not have, they clearly aren't show-stopping enough to cause people to stop playing. Hence my trivializing the outrage over them.

It is a greater obstacle to some playstyles and preferences than others. Long-time DM's introducing new players have already made their work-arounds but new DM's need to know what to look out for and, often, need help getting around it.

I'm actually of the opinion that this discussion popping up at least somewhat frequently is a good sign of the health of the game. If there weren't new players coming and kicking this off over and over, it would mean that the stream of new players joining the game would have dwindled to nothing.

I doubt such pride plays the role you think it does. They were plenty happy to ditch the original Summoner from PFS after all, and that was an "admission." They also banned Sacred Geometry instantly, another "admission."

That's a T1 ban right there.

Professional pride does play some role, I'm sure, but it's hardly the only factor at play. Removing a significant portion of the core classes would alienate players that prefer those classes and that would be bad for business.

I suppose the pride jab might just be some lingering malice toward Paizo reducing my already small player pool with what I consider undesirable tweaks to "my" game. I acknowledge that this is a psychological bias on my part but you can't get rid of all your personality ticks, just try to control the unpleasant ones.

And no, many of the spells that are identified as being powerful on these forums are left intact. Granted, PFS stops at 12 so things like Gate and Time Stop are unlikely to come up, but Planar Ally/Binding are still there, as is Polymorph and Blessing of Fervor etc.

Planar binding was never as abusable as theory crafters like to believe it is and PF nerfed the crap out of polymorph from what I understand. What about the summon X spells though? It's also telling that they cap the game at 6th level spells.

Which goes right back to my first point, T1 supremacy is so minor a concern in practice that we just kept right on playing around it. There are a handful of folks continuing to bang on about it on message boards, sure, but whether they eventually get over it or drop the game, it ultimately won't matter either way.

I work around it directly with only a few tweaks, others houserule to varying extremes from banning difficult to account for spells to limiting spell level access to 6th level and lower and giving the material plane the impeded magic trait and a whole host of other things to enable or push back magic as they see fit. Given the wide range of suggestions both on how to adjust magic's power and how to work within it (wish I saw more of the latter) it seems rather disingenuous to say that it's a "minor" issue.

Salutes to you as well. As for newer players, I'm of the opinion that if it becomes a problem they will find a way to deal with it, just like most of us did. But calling it out as one when we don't even know if their own tables see it that way feels like yelling that the sky is falling to me.

As levels increase the likelihood of it becoming a problem increases. Many groups will suddenly find themselves standing against a monolithic "problem" that they will hodgepodge answers to that may or may not garner the desired results. A heads up from a community that has been dealing with this game and its foibles for over a decade can be used to prevent the issue from ever arising during play.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, eh?

Andreaz

2015-09-27, 01:18 PM

Why? Shouldn't part of leveling up be being able to ignore low level obstacles like "get from point A to point B"?And spellcasters get toys to do that without teleport anyway. The loss of travel time and the addition of the most powerful dungeon bypass kinda sucks in my book.

Gemini476

2015-09-27, 01:29 PM

...How would Planar Binding be a problem in an organized game with minimal downtime, no crafting, an ever-changing DM/player pool, and strict limits on what the DM can give you? Also, for what it's worth, the first search result for "wish pathfinder society" gave me this:

Spells
The following spells found in the Core Rulebook are not
legal for play and may never be used, found, purchased,
or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder Society
Scenarios: awaken, permanency, and reincarnate. All spells and effects end at the end of a scenario with
the following exceptions:
• Spells and effects with permanent or instantaneous
duration that heal damage or remove harmful
conditions remain in effect at the end of the scenario.
• Afflictions and harmful conditions obtained during
a scenario remain until healed and carry over from
scenario to scenario.
• A character may have one each of the following spells that
carries overs from scenario to scenario: continual flame,
masterwork transformation, secret chest, and secret page.

In other words, even if you got a creature to Wish all your stats up +3 that buff would disappear at the end of the scenario. (And magic items can't be Wished for in Pathfinder, so the other big abuse is gone.)

Psyren

2015-09-27, 01:31 PM

"Spell fumbles" is not a solution. Any kind of fumbles are a thing that should never exist in the game. Any of the various "make magic risky" solutions are worse than the problem. And the specific position you're articulating is that when new players have the problem of casters being better, we should ignore it because they will fix it themselves. And that is concern trolling.

Why are they "worse than the problem?" Simply asserting that they are is not much of a debate. In addition, you addressed only one of the multiple variants I called attention to.

Also, you do know it's against the forum rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) to accuse other posters of trolling here right?

Planar binding was never as abusable as theory crafters like to believe it is and PF nerfed the crap out of polymorph from what I understand. What about the summon X spells though? It's also telling that they cap the game at 6th level spells.

I don't think it's all that telling, actually. Very few games in practice get higher than 6th-level spells anyway, and of those that do, generally the folks in them have been playing long enough that they can't credibly be considered "new players" anymore. In short, by the time you get to 7ths+, either you should be fine with the magic paradigm or you should have a way of dealing with it at your table. Either way, problem solved, and the "fallacy" is easily dismissed.

I work around it directly with only a few tweaks, others houserule to varying extremes from banning difficult to account for spells to limiting spell level access to 6th level and lower and giving the material plane the impeded magic trait and a whole host of other things to enable or push back magic as they see fit. Given the wide range of suggestions both on how to adjust magic's power and how to work within it (wish I saw more of the latter) it seems rather disingenuous to say that it's a "minor" issue.

Isn't the mere fact that there are a wide range of solutions a good thing? You have all these options for dealing with it, none of which demanded much of your own design time or brainpower to devise. The community is a marvelous thing.

As levels increase the likelihood of it becoming a problem increases. Many groups will suddenly find themselves standing against a monolithic "problem" that they will hodgepodge answers to that may or may not garner the desired results. A heads up from a community that has been dealing with this game and its foibles for over a decade can be used to prevent the issue from ever arising during play.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, eh?

Again, as levels increase the more obvious it should be that having magic is intended to be superior than not. And at that point the group has a choice to make - whether they are okay with the paradigm as presented, or whether they should do something about it. For that latter, they have the further choice of using one (or more) of the adjustments to magic that was developed for them, or tweaking same, or coming up with something all their own.

But simply posting about it doesn't solve anything. I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't, just pointing out that it doesn't serve any practical purpose (that I can discern) besides venting.

Brova

2015-09-27, 01:36 PM

Why are they "worse than the problem?" Simply asserting that they are is not much of a debate. In addition, you addressed only one of the multiple variants I called attention to.

On a very basic level, fumbles are screw ups that have some chance of happening when you do a thing. High level people do more things. That means, in a game with fumbles, archmages and angels make more catastrophic errors than apprentices and adepts. That's stupid and it's bad design. Magic as it exists is (mostly) merely overpowered. And the rest of your solutions are (as far as I can tell) "what if we made mages screw up periodically?" Which is the same thing.

Psyren

2015-09-27, 01:57 PM

On a very basic level, fumbles are screw ups that have some chance of happening when you do a thing. High level people do more things. That means, in a game with fumbles, archmages and angels make more catastrophic errors than apprentices and adepts. That's stupid and it's bad design. Magic as it exists is (mostly) merely overpowered. And the rest of your solutions are (as far as I can tell) "what if we made mages screw up periodically?" Which is the same thing.

As I suspected, you haven't bothered to actually read any of these variants at all. Yet I have 10gp that says you're one of the ones who considers magic to be overpowered. (See Kelb, this is exactly the kind of post I mean.)

1) The Unchained fumble variant only applies when active spellcasting, which you can cause to apply only when overclocking spells, which high-level mages/angels/dragons/Dumbledore would need to do less not more. Most of the time, they can get by with the more limited nature of base casting, and they'd only need to overclock when they're trying to solve the entire encounter through magic - precisely the kind of behavior this system is meant to discourage. So that throws your first concern out the window.

2) No, "what if we made mages screw up periodically" is not what the other variants do at all. Spellblights don't make you screw up - the spell you wanted still goes off, it just causes side effects to you the caster more serious than "I have one fewer spell slot now" if you spam magic, forcing you to be more surgical about its use. Wild Magic adds a risk/reward factor, and again you can cause this to only apply when overclocking spells if you wish. Esoteric Components just makes your spells weaker without the right ammunition, and you can use these limited and GM-controllable items as a way to overclock spells without risk when such is warranted. That's the beauty of it, it's all so mutable to fit your campaign's tastes.

And to be blunt, this is why I don't envy the designers their task; they come up with solutions that can be used singly, in concert or anything in between - that don't even get read. Why bother trying? Better to just continue making the game as-is and let forums be forums. (Or in WotC's case, abandon it completely and try to make the next thing.)

Brova

2015-09-27, 02:11 PM

As I suspected, you haven't bothered to actually read any of these variants at all.

No, I haven't. Those are PF variants, and I have better things to do than read what PF designers put out. I'll admit to a certain degree of judging by cover, but based on your explanations, I don't think I was generally inaccurate.

Yet I have 10gp that says you're one of the ones who considers magic to be overpowered.

I think magic is fine. With the exception of a few spells, magic does things that are level appropriate. That can't be overpowered because it is the exact definition of appropriately powered.

1) The Unchained fumble variant only applies when active spellcasting, which you can cause to apply only when overclocking spells, which high-level mages/angels/dragons/Dumbledore would need to do less not more.

As someone who has not actually bothered to read a trailing supplement of a variant edition of D&D that I have no desire to play, that is word salad to me.

Spellblights don't make you screw up - the spell you wanted still goes off, it just causes side effects to you the caster more serious than "I have one fewer spell slot now" if you spam magic, forcing you to be more surgical about its use.

No, that's a form of screw up. You intended to cast summon monster, but you gave yourself cancer as well.

Wild Magic adds a risk/reward factor, and again you can cause this to only apply when overclocking spells if you wish.

How is that not "sometimes screw up"?

Esoteric Components just makes your spells weaker without the right ammunition, and you can use these limited and GM-controllable items as a way to overclock spells without risk when such is warranted.

Do I really need to explain why "make casters play mother may I" is a bad plan?

Psyren

2015-09-27, 02:21 PM

I think magic is fine. With the exception of a few spells, magic does things that are level appropriate. That can't be overpowered because it is the exact definition of appropriately powered.

So then... what's the problem? You're happy with magic as-is, therefore none of these variants need apply to you. That's why they're variants, therefore it's all working as intended and they're not for you to begin with.

No, that's a form of screw up. You intended to cast summon monster, but you gave yourself cancer as well.

Cancer that can be cured once you get some downtime. In the meantime, the problem you intended to solve via summon monster still got solved, so you and your party have a better chance of living long enough to get to that downtime. Magic therefore goes from being the silver bullet to being one possible solution among many with its own pros and cons. As intended.

How is that not "sometimes screw up"?

Because it's your choice whether to overclock or not, or simply deal with toned-down yet risk-free magic. As intended.

Do I really need to explain why "make casters play mother may I" is a bad plan?

They're not being forced to do anything - they can overclock or deal with weaker yet componentless magic. As intended.

Brova

2015-09-27, 02:25 PM

So then... what's the problem? You're happy with magic as-is, therefore none of these variants need apply to you. That's why they're variants, therefore it's all working as intended and they're not for you to begin with.

Two reasons:

a) Noncasters are underpowered.
b) If I don't have this discussion, people like the Pazio devs will push out gimped versions of magic rather than developing a game I want to play.

Masakan

2015-09-27, 02:30 PM

Two reasons:

a) Noncasters are underpowered.
b) If I don't have this discussion, people like the Pazio devs will push out gimped versions of magic rather than developing a game I want to play.

So you WANT to play a game where your effectively a Mary Sue.....we could have wrapped this entire thing up if you just said that 3 pages ago.

Brova

2015-09-27, 02:38 PM

So you WANT to play a game where your effectively a Mary Sue.....we could have wrapped this entire thing up if you just said that 3 pages ago.

For the hundredth time, no.

I want to play a game where I'm Elend Ventrue and my fellow party members are Kylar Stern, Mahasamatman, and Taniel Two-Shot. I want to play a game where I'm Urza and my fellow party members are Set, Archimonde, and Martian Manhunter. None of those characters are Mary Sues. All of them face real and legitimate challenges. All of them are involved in interesting stories.

What I don't want to do is be told I have to play Gandalf because casting teleport or overland flight would "break the game". If I play Gandalf, I want it to be because I want to tell a story that involves Gandalf, not because the system only supports Wizards as powerful as Gandalf. If you want to play with characters who are level 6, you can play E6. But don't demand that we rewrite the game to only include E6.

Tvtyrant

2015-09-27, 02:43 PM

Psyren

2015-09-27, 02:48 PM

a) Noncasters are underpowered.

While a legitimate viewpoint, that's not the subject of this thread. This thread is asking whether magic is too powerful. Your stance, and correct me if I'm wrong, appears to be that magic is where it should be and that the non-magic classes need to a boost.

In which case my solution to broaden the sources in your game still applies. PoW is a thing, Combat Stamina is a thing, Skill Unlocks are a thing. You can implement all three without touching spells at all.

b) If I don't have this discussion, people like the Pazio devs will push out gimped versions of magic rather than developing a game I want to play.

This is not a serious concern at all. Every rule they've put out that weakens magic has been an optional variant. You are safe.

Brova

2015-09-27, 02:52 PM

While a legitimate viewpoint, that's not the subject of this thread. This thread is asking whether magic is too powerful. Your stance, and correct me if I'm wrong, appears to be that magic is where it should be and that the non-magic classes need to a boost.

Why not? It's the same subject - the discussion of the power of magic.

This is not a serious concern at all. Every rule they've put out that weakens magic has been an optional variant. You are safe.

It's not a concern because I think the scary Pazio Devs are going to come to my home game and rip up my glitterdusts and webs. After all Pathfinder is a variant rule. It's a concern because design work is not being done on things I want to exist. If Pazio and WotC have both decided to design games where things get nerfed down rather than powered up - and they have - games I want to play are not getting designed. And that's bad.

Psyren

2015-09-27, 02:56 PM

It's a concern because design work is not being done on things I want to exist. If Pazio and WotC have both decided to design games where things get nerfed down rather than powered up - and they have - games I want to play are not getting designed. And that's bad.

Even if this were true (again, Combat Stamina and Skill Unlocks are a thing, and a recent thing at that), the solution is to vote with your wallet and support DSP, who are even more in the "power up mundanes" camp.

eggynack

2015-09-27, 02:58 PM

I would say that magic is overpowered by definition. It breaks the normal rules of the game, while mundanes are expected to remain within them. If mundanes also get to ignore the rules than magic is not so bad.
This isn't really true. In point of fact, whether magic breaks the rules of reality (depending on how you define magic, because that is its own discussion), it is physically incapable of breaking the rules of the game, because its powers are explicitly defined by said rules. Or, looked at another way, where we consider a commoner as the baseline and everything above that a breaking of commoner rules, magic does break the rules of the game, and so does mundane stuff. After all, the theoretical commoner cannot make multiple AoO's in a round, or launch into attack-trip-attack chains.

The core question isn't one of power source, or rule breaking, or anything. The only thing that matters is what you actually do. If a caster over there is flying while you jump in a way that perfectly imitates flying, it doesn't matter whether you consider one rule breaking and the other not. You can even make the jump-flying superior, giving it unlimited duration or making standard flying weak to AMF's. You could say, "No, it doesn't make sense for jumping to let you fly," but I could equally say that, in this arbitrary rule system, magic doesn't let you fly either.

Masakan

2015-09-27, 03:11 PM

For the hundredth time, no.

I want to play a game where I'm Elend Ventrue and my fellow party members are Kylar Stern, Mahasamatman, and Taniel Two-Shot. I want to play a game where I'm Urza and my fellow party members are Set, Archimonde, and Martian Manhunter. None of those characters are Mary Sues. All of them face real and legitimate challenges. All of them are involved in interesting stories.

What I don't want to do is be told I have to play Gandalf because casting teleport or overland flight would "break the game". If I play Gandalf, I want it to be because I want to tell a story that involves Gandalf, not because the system only supports Wizards as powerful as Gandalf. If you want to play with characters who are level 6, you can play E6. But don't demand that we rewrite the game to only include E6.

How about you actually get creative and start making your own original characters, rather than trying to emulate the equivalent of greater gods?
But the more i talk to you and the more i see how blatently biased you are the more obvious i be comes that
Tiers 1,2 and 3 Should be COMPLETELY separated from Tiers 4,5 and 6 or at the very least no campaign should have classes and characters where the classes or character concepts are more than 2 tiers apart from each other. The sad reality is the only way to make this game balanced....is to segregate class types.

If you have a fighter in your party then the highest tier class should be a bard or a warblade. If you have a warblade then it's feasible to have a wizard in your party. if you have a sorcerer in your party as the highest tier then the lowest you can feasibly have is either a barbarian or a rouge.

Gemini476

2015-09-27, 03:17 PM

Magic "breaks the rules of the game" in the same way that some cards from Magic: the Gathering (also developed by WotC, appropriately enough) "break the rules of the game" - each one adds a quirk that lets you do something outside of the standard ruleset that everyone plays with. (For example, Relentless Rats allows you to have more than four copies of it in your deck, there's a card that makes you not lose at 0 health, there's a card that lets you win when you draw out your deck rather than lose...)
The same thing goes for feats like Power Attack, which lets you do something you couldn't before, but it's much more noticeable with spells. Teleportation, Summoning, Awaken X, Raise Dead, Astral Projection - all of these add in special exceptions that let you do stuff you otherwise couldn't.

For a big obvious example, the rules of the game say that if you drop to -10HP you die. A Frienzied Berserker has an ability that makes it not die when at -10HP, breaking that rule. That's fine, since that's how the game is intended to work.

It's an exception-based ruleset.

eggynack

2015-09-27, 03:21 PM

How about you actually get creative and start making your own original characters, rather than trying to emulate the equivalent of greater gods?
I don't think it's strictly about emulation. The point is the desire to make a specific character in your head, one that has this sort of ability set. I also think you're being really hyperbolic about the power of casters. Yes, tier one classes reign supreme, with versatility and power alike that puts low tier classes to shame, but that doesn't mean that they can just solve any problem with a wave of their hand. A lot of casting is less wish and more glitterdust, providing above average effects but not ones that really break things in half.

Also, while you seem to dislike high power play, that's not going to be true of everyone. Personally, I tend to like it a bunch. It's incredibly complex and dense, with power that scales up as you gain knowledge. I find low tier classes boring, by contrast, having only limited mechanically driven options. I have a drive towards optimization, but it's a drive that exists independent of any sort of desire to break games.

Tvtyrant

2015-09-27, 03:22 PM

This isn't really true. In point of fact, whether magic breaks the rules of reality (depending on how you define magic, because that is its own discussion), it is physically incapable of breaking the rules of the game, because its powers are explicitly defined by said rules. Or, looked at another way, where we consider a commoner as the baseline and everything above that a breaking of commoner rules, magic does break the rules of the game, and so does mundane stuff. After all, the theoretical commoner cannot make multiple AoO's in a round, or launch into attack-trip-attack chains.

The core question isn't one of power source, or rule breaking, or anything. The only thing that matters is what you actually do. If a caster over there is flying while you jump in a way that perfectly imitates flying, it doesn't matter whether you consider one rule breaking and the other not. You can even make the jump-flying superior, giving it unlimited duration or making standard flying weak to AMF's. You could say, "No, it doesn't make sense for jumping to let you fly," but I could equally say that, in this arbitrary rule system, magic doesn't let you fly either.

Okay, let me put it another way. Magic creates thousands of specific subrules which are not otherwise available. A wizard still gets BaB, still gets intimidate, still gets to climb and swim, etc. At least in 3.5 (I don't know or really care about Pathfinder) the caster gets to shuffle between these rule clauses while a mundane is stuck with a few given out by their class. Take the Rogue and Barbarian. They get Rage, sneak attack, uncanny dodge, etc. These are unchanging, while a wizard can pick up and drop most of these rules as they wish using spells.

Even the later mundanes with more choices like ToB are limited to a smaller subset which effects fewer rules. Only MoI really competes with casters in the "choosing to change the rules" ability.

Brova

2015-09-27, 03:23 PM

How about you actually get creative and start making your own original characters, rather than trying to emulate the equivalent of greater gods?

I don't literally want to play Kylar Stern or Martian Manhunter. I'm using those characters as examples because they are characters who exist and display a baseline of power people can discuss. If I start "making my own original characters" I shut down the possibility of meaningful discussion about what power levels I desire, because no one knows what the powers of those characters are.

I want to do things like control armies (Elend, Mahasamatman, sort of Taniel, Urza, Archimonde), defeat dozens or hundreds of baseline humans at once (all of them, maybe not Kylar), fight gods (all of them for certain values of god), conquer countries or worlds (Elend, Mahasamatman, Urza, Archemonde), travel between planes or planets (Urza, Set, Archimonde, Martian Manhunter), and generally do things that are amazing. I'm talking about those characters because they do things I would like to be able to do in game and because they are involved in stories I would like the game to be able to tell.

Tiers 1,2 and 3 Should be COMPLETELY separated from Tiers 4,5 and 6 or at the very least no campaign should have classes and characters where the classes or character concepts are more than 2 tiers apart from each other.

That sentiment is basically correct. The only way to balance a game that contains power levels as divergent as 3.5 is to either wholly redesign it or to ban things at the power level you don't want. While wholly redesigning it is clearly better, it's more work and I don't actually trust any game design company to do that work and end up with something good.

P.S. Could you stop editing new content into your posts after you post them? It makes you really annoying to reply to.

Masakan

2015-09-27, 03:28 PM

I don't think it's strictly about emulation. The point is the desire to make a specific character in your head, one that has this sort of ability set. I also think you're being really hyperbolic about the power of casters. Yes, tier one classes reign supreme, with versatility and power alike that puts low tier classes to shame, but that doesn't mean that they can just solve any problem with a wave of their hand. A lot of casting is less wish and more glitterdust, providing above average effects but not ones that really break things in half.

Also, while you seem to dislike high power play, that's not going to be true of everyone. Personally, I tend to like it a bunch. It's incredibly complex and dense, with power that scales up as you gain knowledge. I find low tier classes boring, by contrast, having only limited mechanically driven options. I have a drive towards optimization, but it's a drive that exists independent of any sort of desire to break games.

I don't mind High Tier I don't mind Low tier...I DO mind when someone tries to play a high tier game in a low tier campaign.

eggynack

2015-09-27, 03:30 PM

Okay, let me put it another way. Magic creates thousands of specific subrules which are not otherwise available. A wizard still gets BaB, still gets intimidate, still gets to climb and swim, etc. At least in 3.5 (I don't know or really care about Pathfinder) the caster gets to shuffle between these rule clauses while a mundane is stuck with a few given out by their class. Take the Rogue and Barbarian. They get Rage, sneak attack, uncanny dodge, etc. These are unchanging, while a wizard can pick up and drop most of these rules as they wish using spells.

Even the later mundanes with more choices like ToB are limited to a smaller subset which effects fewer rules. Only MoI really competes with casters in the "choosing to change the rules" ability.
But that's a different thing, and still not a thing that leads to anything like definitional power. I could make a long argument why not, but instead I'll just point at the healer. It's a class that acts in a manner roughly identical to that of the wizard, but despite its pile of subrules and thing swapping, it's still a weak class. It doesn't matter if you can do dozens of things if those dozens of things suck, and it doesn't matter if you can swap out those things for a set of different things out of thousands if those thousands of things aren't all that different.

Edit:
I don't mind High Tier I don't mind Low tier...I DO mind when someone tries to play a high tier game in a low tier campaign.
Sure, that's fine. But, as long as everyone's aware of what they're getting into, I don't see much problem with it. If a person's fine with playing a crappy fighter in a party of wizards, and the wizards are also fine with that, then there's nothing much wrong with that, and the same is true in the reverse case. What's important is that people are aware of the power differences that exist.

P.F.

2015-09-27, 04:04 PM

Cutting down the powerful people makes this balanced, and so does raising up the weak people. But I think it misses an important point. If you power down casters, you lose some of the power levels of the game, but that doesn't happen if you power up mundanes. I would personally prefer that the game scaled from Lord of the Rings to Mistborn to Lord of Light to Magic: the Gathering, just with martial characters also getting to scale to those levels.

Agreed. However, I think that what changes is not which power levels are available, but the arc of what power levels are available when and for how long. Rather than an either/or, I would posit that the preferable solution would be both/and. This would prolong the Lord of the Rings through Mistborn power levels, and compress the Magic: the Gathering levels toward the top (where the game might be approaching epic-level anyway).

Also, I think there's a lot of support for mundane people getting magical power ups when the story demands it. Once Mistborn stops being about politics and infiltration and starts being about saving the world and fighting armies, Elend gets upgraded from "foppish noble" to "superpowered hero". Kylar Stern's heroic arc for the first book is basically about him becoming magic. Ditto the Warded Man. MTG's core story-line conceit is that people sometimes get randomly upgraded from "normal human" to "planeswalking superwizard" and go off to travel through time, create planes, or battle world-eating horrors.

Part of the problem is that it is quite exclusively the magic system (and by extension, magic items, spell-like abilities, etc) that facilitates the shift from low to mid to high level capabilities. Nothing outside the 7th through 9th level spells even comes close to the kind of high-level abilities you're talking about. A 20th-level character modeled after Etienne de Navarre or Conan the Cimmerian isn't going to be even remotely competitive with one modeled after Ged the Dragonlord or Merlin l'Enchanteur.

I mean sure, we could suddenly say, "An Angel of the Lord grants you the ability to cast spells as a Cleric with a level equal to your Hit Dice" or "Your ancient Atlantean blood gives you the ability to cast spells as a Sorcerer of the same level," but if it were my character, I might respond with something like "Can't we just do an adventure where my character's force of personality and martial prowess are still relevant instead?"

I don't think there's any easy answer for that.

P.F.

2015-09-27, 04:14 PM

Tiers 1,2 and 3 Should be COMPLETELY separated from Tiers 4,5 and 6 or at the very least no campaign should have classes and characters where the classes or character concepts are more than 2 tiers apart from each other. The sad reality is the only way to make this game balanced....is to segregate class types.

Essentially this two-tiered party structure was my gaming group's experience with Star Wars d20. Because any flavor of Jedi was so vastly superior to any non-Jedi class, there were essentially three options:

1. All characters in the party are Jedi
2. No characters in the party are Jedi
3. Exactly one character in the party is a Jedi and he is the out-and-out hero of the story and all the other characters are the hero's friends.

Of course in that system playing a Jedi class was essentially like taking a gestalt full-caster//mundane, and the other classes were either mundanes or an NPC spellcasting class.

Masakan

2015-09-27, 04:15 PM

Agreed. However, I think that what changes is not which power levels are available, but the arc of what power levels are available when and for how long. Rather than an either/or, I would posit that the preferable solution would be both/and. This would prolong the Lord of the Rings through Mistborn power levels, and compress the Magic: the Gathering levels toward the top (where the game might be approaching epic-level anyway).

Part of the problem is that it is quite exclusively the magic system (and by extension, magic items, spell-like abilities, etc) that facilitates the shift from low to mid to high level capabilities. Nothing outside the 7th through 9th level spells even comes close to the kind of high-level abilities you're talking about. A 20th-level character modeled after Etienne de Navarre or Conan the Cimmerian isn't going to be even remotely competitive with one modeled after Ged the Dragonlord or Merlin l'Enchanteur.

I mean sure, we could suddenly say, "An Angel of the Lord grants you the ability to cast spells as a Cleric with a level equal to your Hit Dice" or "Your ancient Atlantean blood gives you the ability to cast spells as a Sorcerer of the same level," but if it were my character, I might respond with something like "Can't we just do an adventure where my character's force of personality and martial prowess are still relevant instead?"

I don't think there's any easy answer for that.

A large part of that falls to the DM making sure that magic isn't the answer to everything, or at the very least make it so the players don't wanna just spam spells everytime they come across a roadblock, and convince them that it may be a good idea to actually talk to people rather than just spam geas everytime someone is disagreeable.
For example, it's a good idea to fight magic with magic so it wouldn't be lopsided, also introduce the threat of mage hunters, effectively those that would hunt down and arrest mages who use their powers too haphazardly.