Quick fix for wizards.

[frogglesmash]

So the fix works like so: We take the mechanics of specialist Wizards and we inverts them i.e. instead of choosing a couple of schools you can't cast from, you choose a couple you can cast from.

I haven't worked out too many of the specifics yet, but I'm thinking you'd have the schools divided into three tiers based on the versatility of each school. You'd then have the option of choosing up to three schools of magic that you can cast from (1 from t1, or 1 from t2 and 1 from t3, or 3 from t3). These (and universal spells) would be the only spells you'd be allowed to add to your wizard spellbook, all other schools would then be treated as prohibited schools.

I'm pretty sure that a system like this would make it significantly more difficult for wizards to be able to do everything while also forcing them to be far more varied than they typically are.

So, what's the verdict. Would this work? Are their any consequences that I may have overlooked?

[gooddragon1]

So the fix works like so: We take the mechanics of specialist Wizards and we inverts them i.e. instead of choosing a couple of schools you can't cast from, you choose a couple you can cast from.

I haven't worked out too many of the specifics yet, but I'm thinking you'd have the schools divided into three tiers based on the versatility of each school. You'd then have the option of choosing up to three schools of magic that you can cast from (1 from t1, or 1 from t2 and 1 from t3, or 3 from t3). These (and universal spells) would be the only spells you'd be allowed to add to your wizard spellbook, all other schools would then be treated as prohibited schools.

I'm pretty sure that a system like this would make it significantly more difficult for wizards to be able to do everything while also forcing them to be far more varied than they typically are.

So, what's the verdict. Would this work? Are their any consequences that I may have overlooked?


Spell Versatility (Ex) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#spellVersatility)

A 5th-level transmuter using this variant can adapt magic of other schools to his own style of spellcasting. For every five class levels that the transmuter gains, he can select one spell of any spell level that he has access to and treat it as if it were a transmutation spell. This means, for example, that the specialist can learn the spell normally and even prepare it as a bonus spell from the transmutation school. This spell can even be from a school that he has chosen as a prohibited school. Once a spell is chosen to be affected by this ability, it cannot be changed.

For example, a transmutation specialist using this variant has selected abjuration and necromancy as his prohibited schools. At 5th level, he gains access to 3rd-level spells. He chooses dispel magic and forever after treats dispel magic as if were a transmutation spell.

A transmuter using this variant does not gain bonus feats for advancing as a wizard.

Alter Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm)
Polymorph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm)
Polymorph Any Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm)
Shapechange (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm)

[frogglesmash]

I was not aware that Spell Versatility existed, it would definitely need to be replaced with something else so as to avoid rendering my system useless.

Concerning the polymorph line of spells: That's a whole other, admittedly related issue that I am not trying to fix here. I am simply trying to decrease the size to the wizard's bag of trick in a simple and thematically appropriate manner.

[ryu]

I was not aware that Spell Versatility existed, it would definitely need to be replaced with something else so as to avoid rendering my system useless.

Concerning the polymorph line of spells: That's a whole other, admittedly related issue that I am not trying to fix here. I am simply trying to decrease the size to the wizard's bag of trick in a simple and thematically appropriate manner.

There are literally dozens if not hundreds of ways of using spells to emulate or grant other spells. Like, seriously. No quick fix is going to remove caster versatility. It oozes from their every pore.

[frogglesmash]

There are literally dozens if not hundreds of ways of using spells to emulate or grant other spells. Like, seriously. No quick fix is going to remove caster versatility. It oozes from their every pore.

That's great and all, but these abilities can and should be dealt with on a case by case basis. What I am looking for is some feedback on the mechanics I have presented, not the best ways to ignore them.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It'll help some, one supposes, but schools of magic are still huge. It's better to push on to the ultimate manifestation of forced specialization and write fixed lists (or classes!) in the vein of the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer. Like so. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-(3-5))

[LTwerewolf]

Transmutation wizards and conjuration wizards aren't really touched by this rule.

[nedz]

I ran something similar in 2E.

Characters either take the powerful schools {Conjuration, Transmutation} and don't lose much or they take the weak schools and suffer. In short you haven't changed the low floor, high ceiling aspect of Wizard, you have just fixed it in place.

[Pluto!]

It wouldn't hurt.

What I like to consider is replacing Wizard with multiple Warmage-styled casting classes, giving all casters fixed spell lists. Spells from outside that list would have to be picked up through Eclectic Learning. Otherwise, casters would need to find scrolls. Spellbooks wouldn't need to be abandoned as a trope, but they would be treated as compilations of multiple scolls - each a 1-off effect that coupdn't be reused.

[Troacctid]

I don't like it. A Wizard with only one school of magic might as well be a Sorcerer. I don't play Wizards so that I can not have a wide range of spells known. That's practically the whole point of a Wizard. If this rule were in play, I would probably just never play the class--I'd be a Cleric or Druid or Archivist instead.

If you want to increase diversity among arcane casters, this is just a worse version of "Make specialization mandatory" or "Make all specialists use at least two of their Unearthed Arcana variants." It's also going to be less impactful than buffing the Sorcerer--as the rules stand, the Sorcerer is ridiculously nerfed compared to the Wizard, to the point where it's just depressing to compare the two. If you bring the Sorcerer up to par with the Wizard (just give it bonus feats and boost its casting progression up a level), then suddenly you have a meaningful choice between them instead of "Oh, yeah, obviously Wizard every time."

[KillianHawkeye]

I would consider looking at the 3.0 version of specialization for inspiration, since it at least made an attempt at recognizing that the schools of magic aren't equal as written.

[frogglesmash]

I don't like it. A Wizard with only one school of magic might as well be a Sorcerer. I don't play Wizards so that I can not have a wide range of spells known. That's practically the whole point of a Wizard. If this rule were in play, I would probably just never play the class--I'd be a Cleric or Druid or Archivist instead.

If you want to increase diversity among arcane casters, this is just a worse version of "Make specialization mandatory" or "Make all specialists use at least two of their Unearthed Arcana variants." It's also going to be less impactful than buffing the Sorcerer--as the rules stand, the Sorcerer is ridiculously nerfed compared to the Wizard, to the point where it's just depressing to compare the two. If you bring the Sorcerer up to par with the Wizard (just give it bonus feats and boost its casting progression up a level), then suddenly you have a meaningful choice between them instead of "Oh, yeah, obviously Wizard every time."

I think you've missed the point, I'm trying to have fewer overpowered god mages, not more.

[Andezzar]

I would consider looking at the 3.0 version of specialization for inspiration, since it at least made an attempt at recognizing that the schools of magic aren't equal as written.How did it work?


I think you've missed the point, I'm trying to have fewer overpowered god mages, not more.What he's trying to say, you will get fewer god mages, but more god archivists/clerics/druids.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What he's trying to say, you will get fewer god mages, but more god archivists/clerics/druids.
To be fair, the wizard list is the most powerful, and there exist similar easy/obvious nerfs for most of the others.

[Andezzar]

To be fair, the wizard list is the most powerful, and there exist similar easy/obvious nerfs for most of the others.Cleric and Druid are still tier 1 and the OP did not propose any nerf alongside the wizard nerf. So it is a valid concern.

[KillianHawkeye]

How did it work?

Each school had a list of options for what you gave up when you specialized, and the more powerful schools made you give up more than the weaker ones. Actually, it was sort of ordered into three tiers like the OP proposed.

Basically, if you wanted to specialize in Conjuration, Evocation, or Transmutation, you could either a) give up one of those same three schools which you didn't specialize in, b) give up two of the following: Abjuration, Enchantment, or Illusion, or c) give up any three schools.

If you wanted to specialize in Abjuration, Enchantment, or Illusion, you could either a) give up one of those same three schools which you didn't specialize in, b) give up Conjuration, Evocation, or Transmutation, or c) give up both Divination AND Necromancy.

If you wanted to specialize in Divination or Necromancy, you just had to pick any single other school of magic to give up.

Now this might need to be re-examined to take into consideration the changes made in the 3.5 conversion as well as there just being a lot more spells added over the years. Also, there are some noobish misconceptions evident which arose from the 3E play-testers failure to deviate from the standard party roles established by older editions of D&D, such as over-valuing Evocation and possibly under-valuing Necromancy. At the very least, I'd say it's a decent starting point.

[AvatarVecna]

There is no "quick fix" for this problem; it goes down too many layers. Firstly, while taking away access to broken BS is a good idea, this rule doesn't do that, it just slightly reduces the amount of broken BS a single mage can access. Secondly, I don't think we should be taking wizards down a peg, but rather boosting up non-casters to caster level awesomeness. Thirdly, no blanket fix will actually fix anything, and this is no different because a broken school of magic is not the same thing as a broken class/build; is the Illusion School T3 because it's rendered pointless by one of the most common immunities in the game, T2 because it has lots of combat and utility effects with a variety of uses, T1 because a good portion of the school is only limited by your imagination and creativity, or T-1 because Shadowcraft Mages who use Arcane Disciple (Luck) to abuse hyper-realistic Miracles can accomplish literally anything, despite technically only using one school of magic? Finally, and this is the biggest issue, its nerfing power does more to screw over non-optimizers than optimizers; veteran munchkins have lots of tricks around little fixes like this, but less obsessive players will be stuck being mediocre at best, and borderline monk-incapable at worst (if they have no idea what they're doing).

[frogglesmash]

~snip~

I personally feel that bringing everyone up to the level of t1 casters is not a good direction for the game to take, mainly because it generates more of a workload that I, as a DM, am willing to shoulder. I should also address the the fact that when people read "quick fix" they seem understand it to mean "quick, easy, and perfect." What I mean when I say "quick fix," is something that is quick and dirty, and helps fix the game in a way that requires a modicum of player co-operation.

[Cosi]

The idea that Wizards are powerful because they are "versatile" is wrong. The reason 2nd level spells are powerful isn't because you can use glitterdust, cloud of bewilderment, or web to win encounters. It's because alter self lets you do stupid things with spellcasting and inheritance structures.

And this fix manages to nerf the cool parts of Wizards (casting a variety of spells), but not the broken parts. You can do Chain Binding with Abjuration and Conjuration. With Necromancy (or is summon undead Conjuration?) you can do the Shadow Over The Sun. And shapechange is totally capable of breaking the game all on its own.

[ryu]

The idea that Wizards are powerful because they are "versatile" is wrong. The reason 2nd level spells are powerful isn't because you can use glitterdust, cloud of bewilderment, or web to win encounters. It's because alter self lets you do stupid things with spellcasting and inheritance structures.

And this fix manages to nerf the cool parts of Wizards (casting a variety of spells), but not the broken parts. You can do Chain Binding with Abjuration and Conjuration. With Necromancy (or is summon undead Conjuration?) you can do the Shadow Over The Sun. And shapechange is totally capable of breaking the game all on its own.

No no, it's actually both. That is unless you'd like to claim that a sorcerer boosted to wizard caster progression is wizard equivalent. Versatility is power in itself.

[Troacctid]

I think you've missed the point, I'm trying to have fewer overpowered god mages, not more.

Nerfing the Wizard is unlikely to reduce the number of god mages--it will just push them over to the other T1 classes. Then you end up with lower diversity overall because there are fewer viable options.

[Cosi]

No no, it's actually both. That is unless you'd like to claim that a sorcerer boosted to wizard caster progression is wizard equivalent. Versatility is power in itself.

It's closer than you seem to think. The Wizard still has a bunch of advantages, but they're mostly structural (bonus feats, Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster, and so on). If you bumped things up so that the Sorcerer actually got more base spells (like 4/level or something) and gave them actual class features, they would be basically competitive.

[nedz]

It's closer than you seem to think. The Wizard still has a bunch of advantages, but they're mostly structural (bonus feats, Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster, and so on). If you bumped things up so that the Sorcerer actually got more base spells (like 4/level or something) and gave them actual class features, they would be basically competitive.

You can't build a Batman Sorcerer.

Actually the reason I did this in 2E was to create more Thematic Wizards.

[ryu]

It's closer than you seem to think. The Wizard still has a bunch of advantages, but they're mostly structural (bonus feats, Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster, and so on). If you bumped things up so that the Sorcerer actually got more base spells (like 4/level or something) and gave them actual class features, they would be basically competitive.

You do not get to say sorcerers aren't weaker for versatility and then posit your fix as directly improving their gimped versatility. Do you not see the inherent logical flaw in that argument?

[Cosi]

You do not get to say sorcerers aren't weaker for versatility and then posit your fix as directly improving their gimped versatility. Do you not see the inherent logical flaw in that argument?

The suggested fix is still less versatile than the Wizard. Well, strategically. It's more versatile than the Sorcerer, but the thesis "versatility == power" would suggest that it shouldn't matter unless the character in question is at least as versatile as the Wizard.

[ryu]

The suggested fix is still less versatile than the Wizard. Well, strategically. It's more versatile than the Sorcerer, but the thesis "versatility == power" would suggest that it shouldn't matter unless the character in question is at least as versatile as the Wizard.

Wrong. If versatility is the primary benefit of your fix you've already ceded that the sorcerer is weaker with versatility as a significant factor. Literally my point was that you can't just give a sorcerer a wizard's power to make them equal. The other significant gimped area is versatility. Yes the bonus feats and superior ACFs are also there and they are real points, but they aren't the main points by any stretch of the imagination.

[johnbragg]

Hmm What if we use Grod The Giant's idea of Tier 1 casters being limited to the BArd spell progression, advanced one level (so a Wizard 1 still starts with a first level spell). Divine casters have the option of Spontaneous Divine Caster from UA.

That way there is a serious tradeoff between versatility and raw power.

Obviously the problem of broken spells still exists, but I'm going to let Mr. Oberroni handle that.

[Beheld]

Wrong. If versatility is the primary benefit of your fix you've already ceded that the sorcerer is weaker with versatility as a significant factor. Literally my point was that you can't just give a sorcerer a wizard's power to make them equal. The other significant gimped area is versatility. Yes the bonus feats and superior ACFs are also there and they are real points, but they aren't the main points by any stretch of the imagination.

You are wrong, no really.

If Sorcerers with 3-5 spells of each spell level who get spells at the same level as Wizards who can cast 40 spells of each level is equally as strong, then versatility clearly isn't the power you think it is.

Sorcerers who have can spontaneously cast from one spell are not strong, sure whatever, but that's not because versatility is not power, it's because one level appropriate spell isn't going to help in all level appropriate challenges. But the difference between 5 and 50 known spells of each level is super minor.

[Amphetryon]

So the fix works like so: We take the mechanics of specialist Wizards and we inverts them i.e. instead of choosing a couple of schools you can't cast from, you choose a couple you can cast from.

I haven't worked out too many of the specifics yet, but I'm thinking you'd have the schools divided into three tiers based on the versatility of each school. You'd then have the option of choosing up to three schools of magic that you can cast from (1 from t1, or 1 from t2 and 1 from t3, or 3 from t3). These (and universal spells) would be the only spells you'd be allowed to add to your wizard spellbook, all other schools would then be treated as prohibited schools.

I'm pretty sure that a system like this would make it significantly more difficult for wizards to be able to do everything while also forcing them to be far more varied than they typically are.

So, what's the verdict. Would this work? Are their any consequences that I may have overlooked?

Consider a Wizard who takes only Conjuration and Necromancy spells, in addition to those Universal spells that are always available. Which situations do you see this Wizard hampered in, aside from contrived social situations where a Wizard with Necromancy spells may be considered to be dabbling in Teh Evulz.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hmm What if we use Grod The Giant's idea of Tier 1 casters being limited to the BArd spell progression, advanced one level (so a Wizard 1 still starts with a first level spell). Divine casters have the option of Spontaneous Divine Caster from UA.

That way there is a serious tradeoff between versatility and raw power.

Obviously the problem of broken spells still exists, but I'm going to let Mr. Oberroni handle that.
You probably want to weaken T2 casters as well, since the power discrepancy is quite close, but yeah- it's goofy that wizards et al are both the most powerful AND most versatile classes. That's just poor design. It probably wouldn't hurt to have unrestricted-access casters top out at, oh, 7th level spells, specialists and spontaneous casters at 8th, and focused specialist classes at 9th.

[johnbragg]

You probably want to weaken T2 casters as well, since the power discrepancy is quite close, but yeah- it's goofy that wizards et al are both the most powerful AND most versatile classes. That's just poor design. It probably wouldn't hurt to have unrestricted-access casters top out at, oh, 7th level spells, specialists and spontaneous casters at 8th, and focused specialist classes at 9th.

OP wants a quick fix. "You want good, you want it fast and you want it cheap--the best you can do is two of those."

Looking more closely at my (I'd say our but I don't know if you want credit.) Let's call the "prepared arcane caster with the bard's spell progression + 1 level" the Generalist.

Just looking at highest spell level, and assume everyone's rocking an 18 casting stat, and raises some other attribute as they level.
1-2 G 1, S 1
3. G 2, S 1. Generalist is casting 3 1sts, 1 2nd per day, Specialist is spamming 6 1sts from 3 spells known.
4-5. G 2, S 2.
6, 7 G 3 S 3.
8 G 3, S 4.
9. G 4, S 4.
10-11 G 4, S 5.
12-13 G 5, S 6.
14. G 5, S 7.
15. G 6, S 7.
16-17. G 6, S 8.
18-20. G 6, S 9. (You might let the generalist have 7th level spells at this point with the same 0 1 2 progression.

Good or bad, that's what the comparison looks like.

[Cosi]

The quick fix for Wizards in 3.5 is to ban the really annoying/powerful spells (polymorph, planar binding, etc) and give the people who under-perform special bonuses. So if the Rogue insists on moving into melee to flank, he gets the Cloak of Shadows which gives him telepouncing, shadow conjuration, and a 50% miss chance. When the Fighter stops measuring up, he discovers that he is secretly the incarnation of Thor, so he can fly and hit people with lightning bolts. And so on.

Any explicit fix is going to end up missing things (which looks like endorsing those things as okay) and still not resolve major issues with most characters.

[Grod_The_Giant]

OP wants a quick fix. "You want good, you want it fast and you want it cheap--the best you can do is two of those."
Eh, both of my methods work pretty quickly, I feel like. I think the slightly-modified-bard progression



Level
0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th


1st
3
0
—
—
—
—
—
—


2nd
3
1
—
—
—
—
—
—


3rd
3
2
0
—
—
—
—
—


4th
3
3
1
—
—
—
—
—


5th
3
3
2
—
—
—
—
—


6th
3
3
2
0
—
—
—
—


7th
3
3
3
1
—
—
—
—


8th
3
3
3
2
—
—
—
—


9th
3
3
3
2
0
—
—
—


10th
3
3
3
3
1
—
—
—


11th
3
3
3
3
2
—
—
—


12th
3
3
3
3
2
0
—
—


13th
4
3
3
3
3
1
—
—


14th
4
4
3
3
3
2
—
—


15th
4
4
4
3
3
2
0
—


16th
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
—


17th
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
—


18th
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
0


19th
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1


20th
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2


Casters with low BAB get bonus spells/day (+1 spell/day/spell lv), as do spontaneous casters (+1 spell known/spell lv and +1 spell/day/spell lv), with the two bonuses stacking in cases like the Sorcerer.

You might also limit the size of a wizard's spellbook(s) and the number of different spells a cleric or druid can potentially prepare (5 spells/class level, isn't bad, working out to around 15 spells known/spell level) but that's a different issue from the progressions.

is the closest thing to a successful quick-and-dirty caster fix you can get. You have a few issues with healing spells lagging behind CR, but it's not terribly difficult to either adjust their levels back ("any spell on the Healer's list is one level lower, to a minimum of 1st," "spells that restore HP or remove conditions are one level lower," etc) or just be a bit more careful with what monsters you use. 6th level casters very rarely overshadow decently-made T3/T4 characters, while still having enough magic to feel magic.

[johnbragg]

Eh, both of my methods work pretty quickly, I feel like. I think the slightly-modified-bard progression

Casters with low BAB get bonus spells/day (+1 spell/day/spell lv), as do spontaneous casters (+1 spell known/spell lv and +1 spell/day/spell lv), with the two bonuses stacking in cases like the Sorcerer.

You might also limit the size of a wizard's spellbook(s) and the number of different spells a cleric or druid can potentially prepare (5 spells/class level, isn't bad, working out to around 15 spells known/spell level) but that's a different issue from the progressions.

is the closest thing to a successful quick-and-dirty caster fix you can get. You have a few issues with healing spells lagging behind CR, but it's not terribly difficult to either adjust their levels back ("any spell on the Healer's list is one level lower, to a minimum of 1st," "spells that restore HP or remove conditions are one level lower," etc) or just be a bit more careful with what monsters you use. 6th level casters very rarely overshadow decently-made T3/T4 characters, while still having enough magic to feel magic.

Adding 7th level spells is a pretty natural fit, and would probably be more popular if Sublime Chord didn't make it irrelevant for Bards.

I'm not sure about the bonus spell per spell level. Mid level casters aren't running out of spells anyway. Low level casters are supposed to run out of spells. I think it adds more complexity than it's worth for a quick-and-dirty fix. But if you're running the fix as "Here's the table" it's probably fine. (If you're running the fix as "look up the bard progression in the SRD, add one level, and then add one spell per day and one spell known per spell level", you're now probably confusing a new player and irritating a veteran player.)

I say leave the Tier 2 casters alone, Oberoni is enough to handle Tier 2 problems. Oberoni, like the poor, will always be with us if we're not rewriting the spell list or banning generalist casters entirely.

I like the idea of limiting the spellbook to 5 spells per caster level, but I've just made the Generalist trade off firepower for versatility. Maybe instead of the bonus spell known/spell per day per spell level, we just go ahead and let the versatile spellcasters cast spontaneously from their list of 5-15 spells per spell level, since they're gimped on spells per day?
A 5th level Sorcerer with 18 Charisma is casting 12 spells per day from a list of 6. A 5th level Arcane Generalist would be casting...7 spells from a list of 25.
A 10th level Sorcerer with 18 Ch is casting 30 spells, 9 of them 4th and 5th, from a list of 15, the Arcane Generalist is casting 14 spells, two of them 4th level, from a list of 50.

That's not a bad balance at first glance. I do think there should be a provision for the generalist caster to adjust his or her "spells known". The standard rule of spending a day learning a new spell seems like a decent brake on promiscuous list-swapping, now that learning a new spell requires unlearning and old one. (Of course you can re-learn the old spell later.) Arcane casters spend the day studying their spellbook, divine casters spend the day praying (or meditating). That means I'd tweak the 5 spells per caster level to "5 new spells of your highest spell level."

That adds a neat aspect to the generalist casters--they can do a lot of things, but only a few times. And they can do pretty much ANYTHING (level appropriate), but they need extra time to do it.

Limiting spellcasters to 15 spells per spell level also helps Mr Oberoni, as he only has 15-30 possible level-appropriate headaches instead of the entire Spell Compendium. (Plus whatever spell your player is currently working on swapping into his spellbook.)

Healing is a pretty easy fix if you find you need it--declare the vigor line to be an aspect of the cure wounds line, or bump up the cure wounds dice from d8 to d12 or 2d6--or just make it a flat value. How long has it been since rolling to see how many hit points you cure during combat was fun?

[johnbragg]

Hmm, so how long is my "quick fix" now?

Arcane Generalist (replaces Wizard).

Use Bard spells-per-day progression, moved up one level. (So 1st level AG starts with his Int bonus spell only.)
The Arcane Generalist can cast any spell from your spells known as long as you have a spell slot available.
At each level, your Arcane Generalist can learn 5 spells of the highest spell level you can cast (spells known), as long as you have the spell in your spellbook.

If your ARcane Generalist wants to change his or her Spells Known, he or she can spend one full day studying the new spell. He or she must have access to the spell (from a scroll or other spellbook), to add to his or her spellbook. When the Arcane Generalist learns the new spell, he or she drops one Spell Known of that level so that she is still at 5, 10 or 15. The old Spell Known is still in the spellbook, and the AG can later re-learn it, dropping a spell of the same level.

[Cosi]

I don't understand why people think it's more important to screw around with the rate at which Wizards get spells, or the number of spells which they know, than to fix the spells which are actually broken. This system still lets a Wizard with planar binding break the world. It still doesn't tell you what polymorph even nominally does. I'm pretty sure you can jack the "versatility" constraints all to hell by using alter self or polymorph to turn into a creature with innate casting and pick different spells than the ones you know.

Seriously, "Wizards cast too many spells" should be the last thing you look at when trying to balance magic in 3.5, not the first. Fundamentally, any fix that thinks getting evard's black tentacles at 7th level is a bigger deal than getting planar binding ever at all is not worth the time it took to type it.

[johnbragg]

I don't understand why people think it's more important to screw around with the rate at which Wizards get spells, or the number of spells which they know, than to fix the spells which are actually broken. This system still lets a Wizard with planar binding break the world. It still doesn't tell you what polymorph even nominally does. I'm pretty sure you can jack the "versatility" constraints all to hell by using alter self or polymorph to turn into a creature with innate casting and pick different spells than the ones you know.

Seriously, "Wizards cast too many spells" should be the last thing you look at when trying to balance magic in 3.5, not the first. Fundamentally, any fix that thinks getting evard's black tentacles at 7th level is a bigger deal than getting planar binding ever at all is not worth the time it took to type it.

That's an Oberoni problem. "Oberoni, like the poor, will always be with us if we're not rewriting the spell list or banning generalist casters entirely."

[Cosi]

That's an Oberoni problem. "Oberoni, like the poor, will always be with us if we're not rewriting the spell list or banning generalist casters entirely."

What? That's not a counter argument. If it is in fact true, as I have alleged, that the problem with Wizards is the broken spells on their list and not, as you seem to believe, the fact that they can at the beginning of the day prepare black tentacles or minor creation or wall of fire or polymorph, then how are we supposed to justify nerfing the number of spells they know, but not the broken spells they know?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't understand why people think it's more important to screw around with the rate at which Wizards get spells, or the number of spells which they know, than to fix the spells which are actually broken. This system still lets a Wizard with planar binding break the world. It still doesn't tell you what polymorph even nominally does. I'm pretty sure you can jack the "versatility" constraints all to hell by using alter self or polymorph to turn into a creature with innate casting and pick different spells than the ones you know.

Seriously, "Wizards cast too many spells" should be the last thing you look at when trying to balance magic in 3.5, not the first. Fundamentally, any fix that thinks getting evard's black tentacles at 7th level is a bigger deal than getting planar binding ever at all is not worth the time it took to type it.
Because the problem with casters isn't just a few stand-out broken spells. If that was the case, we wouldn't be spending years arguing-- we'd just ban the handful and be done. The problem is bigger than that. It's that magic provides more power, faster, and in more flavors than anything else. It's that wizards get encounter-ending spells when fighters are just getting extra attacks. It's that the cleric can play 20 questions with god when the rogue is still making sneak attacks. It's that fly makes melee types cry, it's that wind wall shuts down archery, it's that knock can open even the toughest lock. It's not that they cast too many spells-- I want them to have enough spells to throw them around like candy. The problem is linear warriors, quadratic wizards. Reducing the rate of spells available makes that curve shallower, extends the sweet spot when different classes are on roughly the same footing.

And stopping "planar binding to break the world" is a lot less important than black tentacles. The former is a high-op thing. It takes time and knowledge and system mastery to make it really strong-- it's an expert's tool, and experts are either polite enough to follow gentlemen's agreements, or rude enough that you'll have problems anyway. The latter is much easier to use. No book delving, no op-fu, nothing but noticing that it makes it much harder for small enemies to do anything. To look at things through the lens of my own law: The munchkin still uses broken spells, but they come online later and some of the worst are completely unavailable. His power is delayed.
The reasonable player still has plenty of toys to play with. His power is reduced, but his enjoyment is not.
The new player still throws around fireballs and invisibility. He doesn't really get any weaker, and he doesn't really notice the change.


Why is 6th level casting a good solution? Because it weakens without hurting. It reduces power, but doesn't use irritating restrictions. You can still throw around most of your favorite spells. With the boost to spells/day, you can do it just about as freely as you could before. The feel of playing a mage is still there, but raw strength is objectively reduced. Look at classes in that range-- Bards, Psychic Warriors, Psychic Rogues, Duskblades, Hunters, Warpriests, Alchemists, Investigators, Skalds, the Magus... those are all great classes. They're all balanced classes. Maybe that should tell you something.

Of course there are other solutions. there always are. Buff the **** out of mundanes, go through ginormous lists and pull out spells that you deem imbalanced, create specialized caster classes... they're all valid. But reducing the progression is one of the simplest.

[Beheld]

Because the problem with casters isn't just a few stand-out broken spells. If that was the case, we wouldn't be spending years arguing-- we'd just ban the handful and be done. The problem is bigger than that. It's that magic provides more power, faster, and in more flavors than anything else. It's that wizards get encounter-ending spells when fighters are just getting extra attacks. It's that the cleric can play 20 questions with god when the rogue is still making sneak attacks. It's that fly makes melee types cry, it's that wind wall shuts down archery, it's that knock can open even the toughest lock. It's not that they cast too many spells-- I want them to have enough spells to throw them around like candy. The problem is linear warriors, quadratic wizards.

And your inability to see that this is a problem with warriors not wizards is the reason you will never actually come up with a successful solution.

One level 1 PC is supposed to be able to beat a level 1 Orc. One level 3 PC is supposed to be able to beat 2 orcs. One level 5 PC is supposed to be able to beat 4 orcs. One level 7 PC is supposed to be able to beat 8 Orcs. Once level 9 PC is supposed to be able to beat 16 Orcs, and one level 12 PC is supposed to be able to beat infinity Orcs.

The rules say that a single Fire Giant is worth 7 Ogres. The solution is not, and never has been, to nerf all the classes that are capable of dealing with level appropriate opposition until no one can.


Look at classes in that range-- Bards, Psychic Warriors, Psychic Rogues, Duskblades, Hunters, Warpriests, Alchemists, Investigators, Skalds, the Magus... those are all great classes. They're all balanced classes.

Those are mostly terrible classes and they either 1) Aren't balanced against the the actual challenges you face at all, 2) Are only balanced because of class features that are at least as good as their casting.

[Anlashok]

And your inability to see that this is a problem with warriors not wizards is the reason you will never actually come up with a successful solution.
It's quite clearly a problem with both. Warriors lack necessary tools to deal with a good chunk of the threats they're intended to face innately, but it's still very evident that spellcasting his horrendously poorly tuned and full of extremely disruptive, problematic spells and mechanics even if you ignore their martial counterparts entirely.




Those are mostly terrible classes and they either 1) Aren't balanced against the the actual challenges you face at all, 2) Are only balanced because of class features that are at least as good as their casting.

Terrible classes? That list tends to be some of the better designed ones in the game, with a few exceptions. Certainly better executed than your traditional fighter or wizard.

[johnbragg]

What? That's not a counter argument. If it is in fact true, as I have alleged, that the problem with Wizards is the broken spells on their list and not, as you seem to believe, the fact that they can at the beginning of the day prepare black tentacles or minor creation or wall of fire or polymorph, then how are we supposed to justify nerfing the number of spells they know, but not the broken spells they know?

I have no objection to nerfing the broken spells they know. But even though "the most broken spells are in Core"(TM), not all of the broken spells are in Core. And a non-broken spell can become broken if you're not reading it correctly, or carefully.

Limiting the Arcane Generalist to 5/10/15 Spells Known of their highest spell level means that the DM only has to worry about adjudicating that many spells. If polymorph shows up on the players' Spells Known, then the DM has to talk to the player about polymorph in his or her campaign and set limits. Or not, and be prepared for polymorph abuse. But there's some predictability, if the Arcane Generalist has charm monster, shadow conjuration, enervation, polymorph, mnemonic enhancer, the DM doesn't have to worry too much about summon monster IV shenanigans, or stone shape. Or at least the DM has a day's warning game time of what's coming, since AG has to spend a day learning summon monster IV and dropping charm monster

[Grod_The_Giant]

And your inability to see that this is a problem with warriors not wizards is the reason you will never actually come up with a successful solution.
Yes, warriors need more toys. Casters need fewer toys. Leaving one side alone isn't ideal, but you might have noticed that this thread is about fixing wizards, not the entirety of the game. An ideal solution (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions) would certainly attack the problem from all fronts, but you might have noticed that it's not quick. In fact, it's pretty much a complete system rewrite. You're not exactly playing the same game anymore.


Those are mostly terrible classes and they either 1) Aren't balanced against the the actual challenges you face at all, 2) Are only balanced because of class features that are at least as good as their casting.
You are objectively wrong. Psychic Warriors, for instance, have feats and powers-- where are the "class features as good as casting?" Magus and Duskblade get spells and ways to use spells. The Bard without magic would be pretty crappy, even with a pumped Inspire Courage/DFI thing (hooray, you can spend most of your build resources to get a full-BAB class' numbers!)

(Also, johnbragg, I wasn't talking about "prepared casters cast spontaneous from a list of X spells known/level;" I meant that they have a limited list of spells available, from which they select what to prepare every day)

[CharonsHelper]

One easy fix for casters for in-combat, is to increase casting times. Make nearly all spells take a full round, with a few of the most potent taking 2-3 rounds (ex: teleportation would be in the latter category).

This allows foes to react to spells before they're cast if they have Spellcraft (duck for cover or shoot the caster to try and break their concentration) and has the added benefit of making counter-spelling viable.

Admittedly - this doesn't do much to keep them from craziness out of combat, though more mundane ways to counter spells would help there. (lead-lined buildings are about the only current mundane method of stopping any spell-casting)

[johnbragg]

(Also, johnbragg, I wasn't talking about "prepared casters cast spontaneous from a list of X spells known/level;" I meant that they have a limited list of spells available, from which they select what to prepare every day)

Yes, that was my idea. It makes the Arcane Generalist almost like a fixed-list caster.

[Necroticplague]

One easy fix for casters for in-combat, is to increase casting times. Make nearly all spells take a full round, with a few of the most potent taking 2-3 rounds (ex: teleportation would be in the latter category).

This allows foes to react to spells before they're cast if they have Spellcraft (duck for cover or shoot the caster to try and break their concentration) and has the added benefit of making counter-spelling viable.

Admittedly - this doesn't do much to keep them from craziness out of combat, though more mundane ways to counter spells would help there. (lead-lined buildings are about the only current mundane method of stopping any spell-casting)


The craziness out of combat is where I find most of the problem lies, though.

[LTwerewolf]

There's no quick fix that will actually work because it's a complex problem. If you want to actually fix wizards, you need to overhaul the system. Quite a fan of spheres of power's take on it.

[Beheld]

It's quite clearly a problem with both. Warriors lack necessary tools to deal with a good chunk of the threats they're intended to face innately, but it's still very evident that spellcasting his horrendously poorly tuned and full of extremely disruptive, problematic spells and mechanics even if you ignore their martial counterparts entirely.

By what metric? Full casters are very well tuned to the opposition they face. Aside from Polymorph and Minion granting spells (And even there, Summon Monster if fine), there are basically no spells in the entire game that is poorly tuned to the actual opposition you will face.


Yes, warriors need more toys. Casters need fewer toys. Leaving one side alone isn't ideal, but you might have noticed that this thread is about fixing wizards, not the entirety of the game. An ideal solution (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions) would certainly attack the problem from all fronts, but you might have noticed that it's not quick. In fact, it's pretty much a complete system rewrite. You're not exactly playing the same game anymore.

Except that if you attack the game from only the fronts needed (buffing crap classes) then you don't have to redesign the whole game.

Your plan to nerf the casters, then rewrite the entire MM to match the nerfed casters is in fact, a lot of work, but you can just choose to not do either of those things, and the balance is fine.


You are objectively wrong. Psychic Warriors, for instance, have feats and powers-- where are the "class features as good as casting?" Magus and Duskblade get spells and ways to use spells. The Bard without magic would be pretty crappy, even with a pumped Inspire Courage/DFI thing (hooray, you can spend most of your build resources to get a full-BAB class' numbers!)

Psychic Warriors are a terrible class that can't keep up. Same for Duskblade. I don't know specifically about the Magus, but I suspect the same. Yeah, a Bard who only DFIed and dived a bunch of splats to do as much with music as possible would, alone be a terrible character you wouldn't even bother playing, because it's at best half a class, but so is Bard spellcasting. If you had a choice between being a Bard with no music and just Bard spellcasting, and literally lighting your character sheet on fire, you should pick the second one. Which is my point, two half characters can approximate whole character to some degree, but that only works when you recognize that the bard progression casting is half of a real character, and you need a class feature or set of class features that add another half character to the class.

What you are doing is proposing that you turn all the casting classes into half of a character, and then just walk away. That's a terrible idea if you aren't going to add a bunch of class features to compensate.

[dascarletm]

DnD was designed as a team game. Characters need not be able to face challenges alone. Their ability to contribute to a team is a better metric to look at. If a class has the ability to fulfill all/most roles, it is too wide-sweeping.

[Cosi]

Because the problem with casters isn't just a few stand-out broken spells. If that was the case, we wouldn't be spending years arguing-- we'd just ban the handful and be done.

That doesn't follow at all. People could continue to argue that Wizards are broken for any number of other reasons. For example, Wizards are better than Fighters. If you think it is axiomatically true that the game should be balanced to the Fighter, you're going to demand Wizard nerfs. For another example, look at the logic that gave the world 4e. Wizards can do stuff to influence the plot. If you think players aren't supposed to influence the plot, that's bad.


It's that fly makes melee types cry,

D&D is a fantasy game. The characters in it are parts of fantasy stories. If you can't deal with flight, an ability possessed by Harpies, Dragons, and Rocs the world over, that's because you are not a real character. Not because people shouldn't get flight.


it's that wind wall shuts down archery,

Yes, and evasion shuts down fireball. But Wizards don't complain about that, because they are real characters and have more than one way to attack people.


it's that knock can open even the toughest lock.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. knock and Open Lock represent an ideal balance between casters and non-casters. knock is single use and trades off with combat spells. Open Lock is multi-use and trades off with other skills. It's trivial to imagine situations where the advantages of one or the other might make the party Wizard or the party Rogue come out ahead.


Reducing the rate of spells available makes that curve shallower, extends the sweet spot when different classes are on roughly the same footing.

You're forgetting that it's not just casters that pull ahead at high levels. If the Fighter can't deal with the Wizard casting fly at 5th, how is he supposed to deal with the Trumpet Archon at 14th, who flies all the time and has full Cleric casting?


And stopping "planar binding to break the world" is a lot less important than black tentacles.

Why? You have yet to show that the Wizard who casts black tentacles is too good. If the Wizard who casts color spray at 1st is fine, and the Wizard who casts web at 3rd is fine, why is the gap that develops between casters and non-casters the fault of the Wizard? Is stinking cloud more than appropriately better than web in a way that web isn't when compared to color spray?


It's quite clearly a problem with both. Warriors lack necessary tools to deal with a good chunk of the threats they're intended to face innately, but it's still very evident that spellcasting his horrendously poorly tuned and full of extremely disruptive, problematic spells and mechanics even if you ignore their martial counterparts entirely.

I wouldn't say "full of". It's really polymorph abuse, minions, and maybe breaking the economy. Most of the spells people call out as "disruptive" are just ways for players to gain agency in a story.


If polymorph shows up on the players' Spells Known, then the DM has to talk to the player about polymorph in his or her campaign and set limits. Or not, and be prepared for polymorph abuse. But there's some predictability, if the Arcane Generalist has charm monster, shadow conjuration, enervation, polymorph, mnemonic enhancer, the DM doesn't have to worry too much about summon monster IV shenanigans, or stone shape. Or at least the DM has a day's warning game time of what's coming, since AG has to spend a day learning summon monster IV and dropping charm monster

But that doesn't limit the power of casters at all. If you are allowed to abuse polymorph or charm monster, you are going to rapidly become more powerful than even a normal progression Wizard without those options. You are refusing to fix the actual problem in favor of hitting balanced characters with the nerf stick.


Yes, warriors need more toys.

Yes.

That's why the quick fix is the same it's always been. When the Fighter falls behind, he gets an artifact sword. Not one of the BS Weapons of Legacy, an honest to go magic sword. Like the Subtle Knife, which is Vorpal, cuts holes between dimensions, and can cut time itself to mimic celerity. Or an Otataral Sword that eats magic in a battlefield sized area. Or any number of other pity items mundanes need to compete. That is the quick solution, not heavy handed nerfs to casters.


Casters need fewer toys.

No.

Casters need a few of their toys altered (polymorph, minions), and they could certainly have some of their toys fiddled with (for example, I would be okay with teleport type effects being moved around). You could make a case that casters should be more themed, but the overall package of "things casters can do" is fine.


There's no quick fix that will actually work because it's a complex problem. If you want to actually fix wizards, you need to overhaul the system. Quite a fan of spheres of power's take on it.

Kind of. If you want martials to be viable, and want the system to be explicitly functional (as opposed to having valves for the DM to fix stuff), then no you can't. But if you're willing to put release valves on that demand, you can fix things easily. The Artifact Sword solution I've been pushing works. There are problems with it, and I've discussed them in other threads, but it does let martials do something. You can also ban non-casters. That works too. It's mechanically better, but people get riled up at the idea of not being able to write Fighter on their character sheet, despite the fact that Fighters are terrible.

[dascarletm]

Wizards can do stuff to influence the plot. If you think players aren't supposed to influence the plot, that's bad.

...:smallconfused:
Literally anyone can influence the plot. Talking/making decisions influences it. I'm curious how you define plot if you think non-casters cannot influence it. Have you read any book/seen any movie where a character influences the plot that lacks wizard casting? I mean, that's just objectively incorrect.



D&D is a fantasy game. The characters in it are parts of fantasy stories. If you can't deal with flight, an ability possessed by Harpies, Dragons, and Rocs the world over, that's because you are not a real character. Not because people shouldn't get flight.


1. DnD is a team game. If your team can deal with flight, then you can deal with flight. Not every character needs a tool to handle a situation. It is fine for a team game if certain situations need an X. Then the character with X can handle the situation. If your team lacks X, then luckily the game has a living, breathing, thinking, person to adjust what situations you face.
2. I guess every character in every piece of fiction lacking flight isn't "real" (assuming we are using some definition of your design instead of the traditional usage of real. As fiction none of them are "real"). That's ludicrous.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Psychic Warriors are a terrible class that can't keep up. Same for Duskblade. I don't know specifically about the Magus, but I suspect the same. Yeah, a Bard who only DFIed and dived a bunch of splats to do as much with music as possible would, alone be a terrible character you wouldn't even bother playing, because it's at best half a class, but so is Bard spellcasting. If you had a choice between being a Bard with no music and just Bard spellcasting, and literally lighting your character sheet on fire, you should pick the second one. Which is my point, two half characters can approximate whole character to some degree, but that only works when you recognize that the bard progression casting is half of a real character, and you need a class feature or set of class features that add another half character to the class.

What you are doing is proposing that you turn all the casting classes into half of a character, and then just walk away. That's a terrible idea if you aren't going to add a bunch of class features to compensate.
You're playing a very different game than I am. A very different game than anyone I've ever talked to or interacted with in real life, in fact, along with most forum-goers. If only full casters are strong enough to contribute in your games, then yes, anyone who's not a full caster will look bad by comparison, but I don't think that's anything remotely resembling the common experience. 6th level spellcasting is easily enough to contribute to encounters.

[johnbragg]

You're playing a very different game than I am. A very different game than anyone I've ever talked to or interacted with in real life, in fact, along with most forum-goers. If only full casters are strong enough to contribute in your games, then yes, anyone who's not a full caster will look bad by comparison, but I don't think that's anything remotely resembling the common experience. 6th level spellcasting is easily enough to contribute to encounters.

I think it's pretty obvious that there is a style of 3X that's evolved around Tier 1 casters. OTher classes may not fit too well, but the CR system does. If that's the game you're playing, then it's nonsensical to try to slow down Tier 1s to match characters who aren't contributing or are barely contributing.

[Cosi]

Literally anyone can influence the plot.

Direct is probably a better term. Wizards have abilities that actively allow them to do things. Compare teleport for travel and overland travel. If you have teleport and want to go to the Ice Rift, you just do that. Whereas if you have to take a boat or walk, getting there is an adventure in and of itself.


1. DnD is a team game. If your team can deal with flight, then you can deal with flight. Not every character needs a tool to handle a situation.

What situations does the Fighter handle?


2. I guess every character in every piece of fiction lacking flight isn't "real" (assuming we are using some definition of your design instead of the traditional usage of real. As fiction none of them are "real"). That's ludicrous.

A "real character" in the sense in which I am using it means one who is able to effectively contribute to all parts of an adventure at all levels of the game. As opposed to characters like Barbarians, who stop mattering by 10th level absent DM pity.


I think it's pretty obvious that there is a style of 3X that's evolved around Tier 1 casters. OTher classes may not fit too well, but the CR system does. If that's the game you're playing, then it's nonsensical to try to slow down Tier 1s to match characters who aren't contributing or are barely contributing.

That's the default game. Absent some other balance point (no T3 does not count as a balance point, do not make me do that again), that's the only one you can constructively aim for. Also, probably the best balance point to aim for because it means you can just use standard monsters without worry.

[johnbragg]

That's the default game. Absent some other balance point (no T3 does not count as a balance point, do not make me do that again), that's the only one you can constructively aim for. Also, probably the best balance point to aim for because it means you can just use standard monsters without worry.

That's a really legitimate position. It's the game by RAW and by CR. Players need to adapt to the game as-it-is.

It might be generational, but I think it's also possible to aim at a pre-3E balance point, where an OOTS style party saw everyone contributing. I suppose we want to extend the range of levels where the Tier 4 classes contribute, from level 10 to say level 15. (Possibly because we can't convince enough people to play E6 with us.)

[Beheld]

1. DnD is a team game. If your team can deal with flight, then you can deal with flight. Not every character needs a tool to handle a situation. It is fine for a team game if certain situations need an X. Then the character with X can handle the situation. If your team lacks X, then luckily the game has a living, breathing, thinking, person to adjust what situations you face.

If you as a member of your team contribute **** and All to your team, then no one really cares if the team can handle it without you. If you as a character can contribute to one out of every 10 encounters, no one really cares that the team can handle the other 9 without your help. You are not a member of the team, you are basically that arena champion fanboi from Oblivion, useless, annoying, but present.

Now, because it's a cooperative storytelling game you play with your friends, and your friends are presumably not *******s, they will graciously modify their characters personality to pretend you count as an equal team member. Just like you can totally play a Cleric of Hextor and a Cleric of Hieronious in the same party without them killing each other because you choose to alter them to make it work because you don't want to tell your friend he can't play the character he wants.


2. I guess every character in every piece of fiction lacking flight isn't "real" (assuming we are using some definition of your design instead of the traditional usage of real. As fiction none of them are "real"). That's ludicrous.

1) The statement was "deal with flight" depending on the goals, situation, and powers of the respective parties, there are lots of ways to deal with flight without being able to fly. Fighters have zero of those, but they can exist.
2) Or you know, they are low level characters. If you are a character that loses every time no matter what to harpy archer, you are a low level character.


That's a really legitimate position. It's the game by RAW and by CR. Players need to adapt to the game as-it-is.

It might be generational, but I think it's also possible to aim at a pre-3E balance point, where an OOTS style party saw everyone contributing. I suppose we want to extend the range of levels where the Tier 4 classes contribute, from level 10 to say level 15. (Possibly because we can't convince enough people to play E6 with us.)

You could also just make the characters that don't match better. And then Roy can lead the party as he is in a low level adventure, and then when the party gets to level 7+ he can get actual abilities, so that it's not an ongoing joke by readers and even characters in the strip that he's actually super incapable of doing anything.

You can still play a character who is like Roy at low levels, he just has to get better when he faces better opposition.

[dascarletm]

Direct is probably a better term. Wizards have abilities that actively allow them to do things. Compare teleport for travel and overland travel. If you have teleport and want to go to the Ice Rift, you just do that. Whereas if you have to take a boat or walk, getting there is an adventure in and of itself.

In both of your scenarios the characters have directed the plot. They both decided "go to the Ice Rift." If the DM wants there to be no adventure in reaching that place then there isn't either way. If he/she wants an adventure where they try to reach this fictional place, then there will be one. Both characters can direct the plot away from the Ice Rift, by virtue of deciding not to go there.

Built in abilities that allow you to just do things aren't necessarily good for the game. Struggling to achieve your goals is the point of playing. In this scenario the Wizard cut-out part of the game, while our hypothetical non-caster has influenced the story by choosing the method of travel.
I would argue that not having an ability to instantly achieve a goal is better story-wise.

What situations does the Fighter handle?

I'm not an expert on what fighters can or cannot do. Either way it is irrelevant to my point. There are plenty of classes in-between Fighters and Wizards. The dichotomy presented is a false one.


A "real character" in the sense in which I am using it means one who is able to effectively contribute to all parts of an adventure at all levels of the game. As opposed to characters like Barbarians, who stop mattering by 10th level absent DM pity.

Adventures are created by the DM. (unless it is a published one). I have as a DM created plenty of scenarios where Barbarians above level 10 are relevant. A DM can make any character irrelevant at any level.

[Cosi]

It might be generational, but I think it's also possible to aim at a pre-3E balance point, where an OOTS style party saw everyone contributing.

You can still do that. It's just that the party is Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Rogue (and the Rogue ends up gimped out of combat at high levels).


I suppose we want to extend the range of levels where the Tier 4 classes contribute, from level 10 to say level 15.

I think using the language of the tiers is a mistake. Both because they are pointless, and because the definitions they give are unhelpful. Making the Fighter good shouldn't be about keeping him useful, it should be about making him compete with Wizards.

There are a variety of ways to do that, but the only one that is really narratively satisfying and easy to write is to force the Fighter to pick up some casting. Either actual casting, or SLAs. The progression should probably look like this:

1 - 5: Guy with sword (Aragon, Conan)
6 - 10: Guy with sword and superhuman strength. (Hercules, Captain America)
11 - 15: Guy with sword and magic. (Elric, Tool)
16 - 20: Guy with magic who sometimes uses a sword. (Rand al'Thor, Anomander Rake)

And you can keep casters to that with minimal modification. You can go from LotR to Chronicles of Amber to Malazan to Dominions. And given that those are all things people want to do, and all things the game at least sort of does, I see no reason to abandon them.


(Possibly because we can't convince enough people to play E6 with us.)

This is also a solution. The classes are nearly perfectly balanced if you don't let people get past 6th, so you could just do that.


In both of your scenarios the characters have directed the plot. They both decided "go to the Ice Rift." If the DM wants there to be no adventure in reaching that place then there isn't either way.

No. If the Fighter wants to go to Ice Rift, the DM can stop him by declaring that there are pirates, or bad weather, or no passage because of ice. If the Wizard wants to go there, he just does. Traveling and teleporting are fundamentally narratively different.


I would argue that not having an ability to instantly achieve a goal is better story-wise.

Unless all your goals are "go to a location you know and do a thing there", teleport does not do that. It simply allows you to achieve different goals. Unless you want to suggest that Creatures of Light and Darkness or the Malazan Book of the Fallen are not good stories because the characters in them can teleport.


Adventures are created by the DM. (unless it is a published one). I have as a DM created plenty of scenarios where Barbarians above level 10 are relevant.

Such as?

[dascarletm]

If you as a member of your team contribute **** and All to your team, then no one really cares if the team can handle it without you. If you as a character can contribute to one out of every 10 encounters, no one really cares that the team can handle the other 9 without your help. You are not a member of the team, you are basically that arena champion fanboi from Oblivion, useless, annoying, but present.
I'd appreciate you not inventing arguments on my behalf.
Nowhere did I say that this hypothetical character doesn't contribute at all, or 1/10 times. In fact if you read what I said, I said:

It is fine for a team game if certain situations need an X. Then the character with X can handle the situation. If your team lacks X, then luckily the game has a living, breathing, thinking, person to adjust what situations you face.
This implies there are certain situations where one character can shine. Did I say this is 9/10 times? No. I did not. In fact the implication is that it is not the norm.



Now, because it's a cooperative storytelling game you play with your friends, and your friends are presumably not *******s, they will graciously modify their characters personality to pretend you count as an equal team member. Just like you can totally play a Cleric of Hextor and a Cleric of Hieronious in the same party without them killing each other because you choose to alter them to make it work because you don't want to tell your friend he can't play the character he wants.




1) The statement was "deal with flight" depending on the goals, situation, and powers of the respective parties, there are lots of ways to deal with flight without being able to fly. Fighters have zero of those, but they can exist.
2) Or you know, they are low level characters. If you are a character that loses every time no matter what to harpy archer, you are a low level character.
Flight honestly isn't a really good example of things non-wizards (note: I'm saying non-wizards. Anytime you are bringing up a fighter that is your own invention) can handle. Anyone can grab a ranged weapon, or have an item/mount capable of flight. Characters need not be able to intrinsically have the capability to do any one thing. Having inherent weaknesses is fine, and makes characters more interesting.

I'm sure this is all really pointless to explain. I imagine I'll get some more toxic responses, but this is my viewpoint take it as you wish.

[johnbragg]

You could also just make the characters that don't match better. And then Roy can lead the party as he is in a low level adventure, and then when the party gets to level 7+ he can get actual abilities, so that it's not an ongoing joke by readers and even characters in the strip that he's actually super incapable of doing anything.

You can still play a character who is like Roy at low levels, he just has to get better when he faces better opposition.

The problem is that it's hard to figure out abilities that help Roy keep up with V that also fit narratively. Thematically, I'd say a high-level fighter should be able to do anything that you could see Chuck Norris doing with a roundhouse kick or Hulk Hogan doing by flexing extra hard. (Dispel Magic delivered by roundhouse kick, Iron Heart Surge, [i]break enchantment[/b] delivered by a sharp slap to the face still don't do much to stop a Time Lord, or for that matter to help a Time Lord stop another Time Lord.

[Cosi]

Flight honestly isn't a really good example of things non-wizards (note: I'm saying non-wizards. Anytime you are bringing up a fighter that is your own invention) can handle.

1. Grod brought up flight.
2. If you're not going to defend the Fighter, you do need to defend something. What class is designed appropriately?


The problem is that it's hard to figure out abilities that help Roy keep up with V that also fit narratively. Thematically, I'd say a high-level fighter should be able to do anything that you could see Chuck Norris doing with a roundhouse kick or Hulk Hogan doing by flexing extra hard. (Dispel Magic delivered by roundhouse kick, Iron Heart Surge, [i]break enchantment[/b] delivered by a sharp slap to the face still don't do much to stop a Time Lord, or for that matter to help a Time Lord stop another Time Lord.

Roy is good at planning right? Sound like he could pick up Wizard spellcasting. Or turn into Thor. Or go the gadget route and become Iron Man. It's not really a hard problem.

[johnbragg]

(Possibly because we can't convince enough people to play E6 with us.)


This is also a solution. The classes are nearly perfectly balanced if you don't let people get past 6th, so you could just do that.

Actually even at 1st level the druid and his pet run rings around the Fighter. But that's a different thread.



There are a variety of ways to do that, but the only one that is really narratively satisfying and easy to write is to force the Fighter to pick up some casting. Either actual casting, or SLAs. The progression should probably look like this:

1 - 5: Guy with sword (Aragon, Conan)
6 - 10: Guy with sword and superhuman strength. (Hercules, Captain America)
11 - 15: Guy with sword and magic. (Elric, Tool)
16 - 20: Guy with magic who sometimes uses a sword. (Rand al'Thor, Anomander Rake)


Forced rebuild at level 10 as a cleric? That's not a terrible idea.

[dascarletm]

No. If the Fighter wants to go to Ice Rift, the DM can stop him by declaring that there are pirates, or bad weather, or no passage because of ice. If the Wizard wants to go there, he just does. Traveling and teleporting are fundamentally narratively different.
They don't have to be.

DM wants you to get there unhindered.
"You cast teleport and arrive at the Frozen Rift."
"You take a boat and arrive at the Frozen Rift."
DM doesn't want you to get there unhindered
"You teleport, but are stopped/diverted by <Halaster's teleport cage, Forbiddence etc, or a Weirdstone>."
"You travel by boad, but there is too much ice."



Unless all your goals are "go to a location you know and do a thing there", teleport does not do that. It simply allows you to achieve different goals. Unless you want to suggest that Creatures of Light and Darkness or the Malazan Book of the Fallen are not good stories because the characters in them can teleport.
I see you thought I meant teleport specifically. That's not what I was saying. I was expanding, and to be clear I'm not saying characters having/not having certain abilities makes stories good or bad. On the contrary, I'm saying it doesn't matter.


Such as?
:smallsigh:
My most recent game which involved a barbarian had them competing against various outsiders in a Highland-Gamesesque tournament held by Kord. The barbarian (level 17, pathfinder) won, and advanced the plot by gaining Kords favor.


EDIT: "If you're not going to defend the Fighter, you do need to defend something. What class is designed appropriately?"

I was talking about characters without intrinsic abilities not being able to partake in the plot. That is what I responded to.

[Cosi]

Actually even at 1st level the druid and his pet run rings around the Fighter. But that's a different thread.

Yup. Druids are good at 1st. Although the Fighter can still contribute, at least somewhat. He has a reasonable attack, and his thumbs and rope solve a diverse set of non-combat problems.


Forced rebuild at level 10 as a cleric? That's not a terrible idea.

Sort of. My vision of it has ten level base classes, some of which are casters and some of which are not. At 10th, the non-casters get a pile of casting (so the Rogue becomes a Beguiler, the Marshal becomes a Warmage, and so on), and then you pick up a PrC that takes you to twenty. So the Fighter gets to just be a Fighter at 1st, then graduates to Captain America at 6th, and then at 11th he becomes a Planar Champion or something and gets magic powers.


DM wants you to get there unhindered.
"You cast teleport and arrive at the Frozen Rift."
"You take a boat and arrive at the Frozen Rift."
DM doesn't want you to get there unhindered
"You teleport, but are stopped/diverted by <Halaster's teleport cage, Forbiddence etc, or a Weirdstone>."
"You travel by boad, but there is too much ice."

Yes, the DM is able to screw you regardless of what nominal abilities you have. Why does that make your abilities irrelevant?

Seriously, Creatures of Light and Darkness versus Lord of the Rings. Read them and observe the difference that teleport makes on possible stories.


My most recent game which involved a barbarian had them competing against various outsiders in a Highland-Gamesesque tournament held by Kord. The barbarian (level 17, pathfinder) won, and advanced the plot by gaining Kords favor.

But how does any part of the Barbarian class enable that at all? What ability did he have written on his character sheet that made that uniquely possible for him?

[Beheld]

The problem is that it's hard to figure out abilities that help Roy keep up with V that also fit narratively. Thematically, I'd say a high-level fighter should be able to do anything that you could see Chuck Norris doing with a roundhouse kick or Hulk Hogan doing by flexing extra hard. (Dispel Magic delivered by roundhouse kick, Iron Heart Surge, [i]break enchantment[/b] delivered by a sharp slap to the face still don't do much to stop a Time Lord, or for that matter to help a Time Lord stop another Time Lord.

No, it's really easy to figure out what abilities would make Roy keep up with V, he just has to stop being a Fighter. It's really time we all admitted that "Guy with no magic powers who hits things within 5ft of him" is a low level concept, and Roy would have to upgrade to something else which does have supernatural powers. Whether he gets those powers from magic blood like Superman, or by using cool gadgets that for some reason only work for him (I actually hate this system for a cooperative storytelling medium, but whatever) like Batman, or through training that unlocks super techniques that allow him to do crazy things, like Benders, or by deals with the figurative or literal devil, he needs to get cool abilities that help him beat level appropriate challenges, and those abilities do not need to be Finger of Death at will, they can totally be things that let him deal with challenges while still holding and using a sword. Maybe he stabs people's shadows instead of them, and he can teleport through shadows and look out of other shadows. That's fine, Cool stuff, and he's still a guy who stabs things with a sword, it's just that sometimes you need to be able to hurt a giant Dragon 100ft overhead with that sword, so you might need to stab his shadow instead of trying to fly up and catch him (even though he's way faster than you).


I'd appreciate you not inventing arguments on my behalf.
Nowhere did I say that this hypothetical character doesn't contribute at all, or 1/10 times. In fact if you read what I said, I said:

This implies there are certain situations where one character can shine. Did I say this is 9/10 times? No. I did not. In fact the implication is that it is not the norm.

I wasn't attributing an argument to you. I was rebutting your argument. Your argument was that "If the Team can do it, it doesn't matter if a character is a useless piece of crap." That's a bad argument. If a character isn't contributing they aren't contributing, and that's what we have been talking about this whole time, characters that do not contribute. It is in fact 9/10, which is why I used that number.


Flight honestly isn't a really good example of things non-wizards (note: I'm saying non-wizards. Anytime you are bringing up a fighter that is your own invention) can handle. Anyone can grab a ranged weapon, or have an item/mount capable of flight. Characters need not be able to intrinsically have the capability to do any one thing. Having inherent weaknesses is fine, and makes characters more interesting.

Flight is a great example, because it becomes a thing you need to deal with at level 5 when Harpies are a thing. At level 5, some classes can use range weapons to deal with harpies and some can't. At level 8 some characters get class feature mounts that can fly, and that can work sometimes and not others when facing dragons, avorals, arrowhawks, genies, vrocks, bone devils, and zelekauts. But it's a only the first of many hurdles, and the number of character concepts that just flat refuse to raise to that mediocre bar while demanding that they keep getting to play all the way to level 15-20 is unfortunately, staggeringly large.

Whether or not you can deal with a specific flying challenge without flying is dependent on a number of factors, and it's fine if there are some characters that can't deal with all of those challenges, but man, it would be great if people didn't say "No! I should be able to play a character that doesn't fly and can't use ranged weapons with appropriate skill and be a level 15 character." Which is a whole lot of what people actually say.


I'm sure this is all really pointless to explain. I imagine I'll get some more toxic responses, but this is my viewpoint take it as you wish.

I think this might go better if you stop assuming everything I say is a toxic, since there was nothing in the last post that was toxic.

[dascarletm]

Yes, the DM is able to screw you regardless of what nominal abilities you have. Why does that make your abilities irrelevant?

Seriously, Creatures of Light and Darkness versus Lord of the Rings. Read them and observe the difference that teleport makes on possible stories.
I have read similar stories. I like both. Neither is better than the other. That is my opinion. Do you believe that Lord of the Rings was a terrible story, and all the characters were irrelevant to the plot? Did their decisions not direct the plot in any way?
This leads me to believe otherwise:

Wizards can do stuff to influence the plot. If you think players aren't supposed to influence the plot, that's bad.



But how does any part of the Barbarian class enable that at all? What ability did he have written on his character sheet that made that uniquely possible for him?

Rage, and the Auspicious Mark Rage Power.

[dascarletm]

"If the Team can do it, it doesn't matter if a character is a useless piece of crap." That's a bad argument. If a character isn't contributing they aren't contributing, and that's what we have been talking about this whole time, characters that do not contribute. It is in fact 9/10, which is why I used that number.
Ah yes, I remember saying that

[Cosi]

I have read similar stories. I like both. Neither is better than the other. That is my opinion. Do you believe that Lord of the Rings was a terrible story, and all the characters were irrelevant to the plot? Did their decisions not direct the plot in any way?

Lord of the Rings is a low level story. The characters don't have the option to take the Ring to Mount Doom by teleporting there, or by flying there, or by tunneling there, or by in any way bypassing the plot. They can't attempt a military conquest of Mordor, or negotiate with Sauron, or call up an army. They can take the Ring to Mount Doom by walking there, and do some holding actions in the meantime.

The point of high level is that you have new and different options (as well as new and different challenges) than you did at low level. You can teleport past obstacles, which means that you are challenged by a different set of obstacles (specifically, obstacles you can't circumvent with teleport). You can direct the plot more than you could when your choice was "brave the blizzard or brave the Mines of Moria".


Rage, and the Auspicious Mark Rage Power.

No, none of those abilities allow you to invoke Kord's favor by calling a tournament. Try again.

[Hal0Badger]

On the topic:

Making casters choose a school (which something I have tried earlier) tends to lead casters into most powerful schools there is, because schools are not balanced to each other. Abjuration for example, may hold essential spells (like dispel magic), but being a conjurer brings much more to the table for the player, especially on combat terms.

Another similar fix could be fixed spell lists, like beguiler's or dread necromancer's, though it requires too much work. Right now I am just openly banning polymorph, binding and some more spells, with a quick note that I may alter how the spells works in the future since there can be some spells I am missing out or potential abuses with some metamagic feats. Though I rarely shot down good and clever uses of spells, especially if they are used out of their written structure but still in a logical way.

As a side note: It amuses me that how Cosi and Beheld hijacks every balance thread, brings up fighters vs wizard arguments and get into engaged long discussion with long posts and quotes.

[dascarletm]

No, none of those abilities allow you to invoke Kord's favor by calling a tournament. Try again.

Appantly they did. Since it happened.

[Cosi]

Appantly they did. Since it happened.

No, they don't. DM pity caused it. Just like it's DM pity if the DM allows you to use your basket weaving skill to solve any challenge you face because you rolled a Commoner.

Seriously, how does that story play out any differently if the Barbarian is a Cleric? Oh, I know, he can actually ask Kord for a favor instead of jumping through DM pity hoops.

[Beheld]

As a side note: It amuses me that how Cosi and Beheld hijacks every balance thread, brings up fighters vs wizard arguments and get into engaged long discussion with long posts and quotes.

If a thread is about balancing the game, it hardly counts as hijacking to talk about balancing the game.

[dascarletm]

No, they don't. DM pity caused it. Just like it's DM pity if the DM allows you to use your basket weaving skill to solve any challenge you face because you rolled a Commoner.

Seriously, how does that story play out any differently if the Barbarian is a Cleric? Oh, I know, he can actually ask Kord for a favor instead of jumping through DM pity hoops.

You asked when the barbarian in my game was relevant. He was relevant in my game during that situation. In case you were wondering I never felt pitty for the guy.

[Cosi]

You asked when the barbarian in my game was relevant. He was relevant in my game during that situation. In case you were wondering I never felt pitty for the guy.

But he was relevant for reasons completely disconnected from abilities he has. If the actions characters take are not effected by the abilities those characters have, why have rules at all?

[dascarletm]

But he was relevant for reasons completely disconnected from abilities he has. If the actions characters take are not effected by the abilities those characters have, why have rules at all?

The powers I listed directly enabled him to win.

[Cosi]

The powers I listed directly enabled him to win.

Would he have won if he was a Cleric? That seems obvious, given that Clerics are better than Barbarians. Then clearly, his Barbarian-ness did not in fact contribute to his ability to achieve his goal. What's more, the Cleric could have directly achieved the goal in question (whatever Kord did for them) by casting one of his spells.

The characters ability to be Barbarian literally contributed less than nothing to solving this problem. Compare that to the Cleric's plane shift, the Druid's control weather, and the Wizard's teleport, all of which allow characters to actively and directly achieve their goals.

Seriously, where is the disconnect here? What part of the difference between "having abilities" and "not having abilities" has not been sufficiently explained?

[dascarletm]

Would he have won if he was a Cleric? That seems obvious, given that Clerics are better than Barbarians. Then clearly, his Barbarian-ness did not in fact contribute to his ability to achieve his goal. What's more, the Cleric could have directly achieved the goal in question (whatever Kord did for them) by casting one of his spells.

The characters ability to be Barbarian literally contributed less than nothing to solving this problem. Compare that to the Cleric's plane shift, the Druid's control weather, and the Wizard's teleport, all of which allow characters to actively and directly achieve their goals.

Seriously, where is the disconnect here? What part of the difference between "having abilities" and "not having abilities" has not been sufficiently explained?

The disconnect is you asked when did a barbarian contribute. I answered. His abilities let him do a thing. Others being able to do it better does not negate what happened. You didn't ask when was a barbarian the best suited for a task. Again, You asked when was one able to contribute. I answered.

Also in regards to literally contributing less than nothing, I'll tell you that his abilities did not make the problem harder to solve. So you are factually incorrect on that one.

[johnbragg]

I don't like it. A Wizard with only one school of magic might as well be a Sorcerer. I don't play Wizards so that I can not have a wide range of spells known. That's practically the whole point of a Wizard. If this rule were in play, I would probably just never play the class--I'd be a Cleric or Druid or Archivist instead.


How would you feel about the "Arcane Generalist", who learns 5 spells/ level and casts them spontaneously, but can take a day and swap them out for others in his spellbook?

(I'd give divine prepared casters the same nerf)


On the topic:
Another similar fix could be fixed spell lists, like beguiler's or dread necromancer's, though it requires too much work.

Arcane Generalist is practically a fixed list caster, and pretty much every AG will have a different list.


As a side note: It amuses me that how Cosi and Beheld hijacks every balance thread, brings up fighters vs wizard arguments and get into engaged long discussion with long posts and quotes.

It's not a hijack in a thread titled "Quick Fix For Wizards." I don't think they're having this argument in the psion thread or the throw-based ranger thread or the Underdark homing pigeon thread.

[Troacctid]

How would you feel about the "Arcane Generalist", who learns 5 spells/ level and casts them spontaneously, but can take a day and swap them out for others in his spellbook?

(I'd give divine prepared casters the same nerf)

I'd actually consider that an overall buff. Spontaneous casting is quite a bit better than preparing each slot individually, and you no longer have to spend gp to learn new spells. Probably more fun to play than the standard Wizard. I don't know how you're treating specialists in this system, though—if you're just removing that option, I'd be sad, because specialization is a great way to add flavor to a character and there are some cool options that go with it. Also, I'm not sure I like that this marginalizes Sorcerers even further by giving Wizards spontaneous casting.

[Beheld]

How would you feel about the "Arcane Generalist", who learns 5 spells/ level and casts them spontaneously, but can take a day and swap them out for others in his spellbook?

How is this note just a better Wizard (and Sorcerer). If they can cast 5 spells per level and change it each day, then that's already what Wizards do, except they don't cast spontaneously from the 5 they prepare.

[johnbragg]

I'd actually consider that an overall buff. Spontaneous casting is quite a bit better than preparing each slot individually, and you no longer have to spend gp to learn new spells. Probably more fun to play than the standard Wizard. I don't know how you're treating specialists in this system, though—if you're just removing that option, I'd be sad, because specialization is a great way to add flavor to a character and there are some cool options that go with it. Also, I'm not sure I like that this marginalizes Sorcerers even further by giving Wizards spontaneous casting.

Well, you'd still have to spend the gp to get a hold of the spell in the first place for your library. But that's not a huge cost.

Specialist wizards. Hmmm. Extra spell per spell level per day doesn't change. how about 6 spells known per level, 2 of which must be in the chosen school.

When I came up with this, the idea was that the Arcane Generalist was using the bard spells per day progression plus one level, so the Sorcerer is casting a lot more spells than his Arcane Generalist brother (likewise for their cleric equivalents), and from level 10 up, the Sorcerer has a higher max spell level. Especially at low levels, the Arcane Generalist needs something so that he's not looking at a 6 second adventuring day.

If you're using the Arcane Generalist idea with the Wizard spells per day, I think it replaces both the Wizard and the Sorcerer. If you really like the Sorcerer fluff, you could maybe use the Warlock chassis, and use your favorite spells as Invocations.

[johnbragg]

How is this note just a better Wizard (and Sorcerer). If they can cast 5 spells per level and change it each day, then that's already what Wizards do, except they don't cast spontaneously from the 5 they prepare.

Not each day. IF they want to swap out spells, it takes an entire day to learn each new spell. It brings the wizard closer to the fixed-list casters, who cast spontaneously from about 12-18 spells per spell level. The AG was conceived with the idea of using the Bard + 1 spells per day progression.

So setting aside bonus spells, a while a 5th level sorcerer is casting 10 1st and 2nd level spells (from a list of 6). A 10th level AG is casting 10 spells (1 4th level spell) from a list of 50, while a 10th level Sorcerer is casting 20 (8 4th and 5th) from a list of 15.

Setting aside bonus spells:
A 5th level AG can cast 5 1st & 2nd level spells (from a list of 25), a 10th level AG can cast 10 spells (1 4th) from a list of 50, a 15th level AG can cast 16 (2 5th, 0 6th).
A 5th level Sor can cast 10 1st and 2nd level spells (from a list of 6), a Sorcerer 10 is casting 20 (8 4th and 5th) from a list of 15.
A 5th level Wizard can cast 6 1st-3rd, a 10th level Wizard can cast 12 (5 4th and 5th), a 15th level Wizard can cast 26 (6 6th-8th).

The Arcane Generalist has a much harder time swapping out spells than the Wizard, is slower to gain new spell levels, and is capped at 6th level spells. (You could easily add 7th level spells to the progression at 18th level.) He has fewer spells per day than the Sorcerer, but has a lot more options.

(And he needs something to make him useful for more than one round per day at 1st level.)

[Beheld]

Oh it has the Bard Progression, then whatever, throw it in the trash can next to all the other 6th level casters with no class features.

He can spontaneously cast 0 4th level spells from 5 spells known.
He can spontaneously cast 2 3rd level spells from 5 spells known.

A Sorcerer with a Bloodline feat can cast 3 5th level spells from 2 spells known.
5 4th level spells from 3 spells known.
and 6 3rd level spells from 4 spells known.

The Sorcerer has like 500 times the spell slots and basically the same spells known, except they are significantly more varied because he has higher level ones, and it only gets worse from there.

So in addition to your class not having level appropriate abilities, and not having enough spell slots to go through the day, it also doesn't even have a wider spell selection than the Sorcerer.

[Troacctid]

If the spell progression is nerfed, then it's not worth it. I would not play that class.

[johnbragg]

Oh it has the Bard Progression, then whatever, throw it in the trash can next to all the other 6th level casters with no class features.

He can spontaneously cast 0 4th level spells from 5 spells known.
He can spontaneously cast 2 3rd level spells from 5 spells known.

A Sorcerer with a Bloodline feat can cast 3 5th level spells from 2 spells known.
5 4th level spells from 3 spells known.
and 6 3rd level spells from 4 spells known.

The Sorcerer has like 500 times the spell slots and basically the same spells known, except they are significantly more varied because he has higher level ones, and it only gets worse from there.

So in addition to your class not having level appropriate abilities, and not having enough spell slots to go through the day, it also doesn't even have a wider spell selection than the Sorcerer.

2 3rd level spells from 15 known. HE learns 5 at 6th, 5 at 7th, 5 at 8th. So he has about the same number of spells available as the fixed-list casters, but later.

[Cosi]

His abilities let him do a thing.

No, they didn't. His abilities and contingent circumstances let him do a thing.

Consider...

How would his Rage ability gain Kord's favor absent a tournament to win? It wouldn't.

How would the Fighter's sailing ranks take him to the edge of the world absent a boat?* They wouldn't.

How would the Ranger's Track feat find evidence of a demon's retreat from a teleport assault which leaves no tracks? It doesn't.

Compare...

How does a Druid's ability to raise the dead work absent a tournament? The Druid uses it, and the dead are raised.

How does the Wizard's teleport take him to the edge of the world absent a boat? The Wizard uses it, and he goes there.

How does the Cleric's ability to use divinations to contact the gods find evidence of a demon's retreat from a teleport assault which leaves no tracks? The Cleric uses it, and he receives confirmation.

It's fine to have some situations where characters can't reliably use their abilities to overcome a particular challenge. But that situation is low level. It does not become high level if a 17th level character does it, that 17th level character is just lame.

*: This is a somewhat weak example, as you can generally expect to buy boats. Insert a bit about "without fighting the pirates/dragon turtle/other wandering monster" if you really care.


Also in regards to literally contributing less than nothing, I'll tell you that his abilities did not make the problem harder to solve. So you are factually incorrect on that one.

Have you heard of opportunity cost? A Cleric could win the tournament and still be able to see the future and summon angels. What is the Barbarian bringing to the table that is role protected?

[Beheld]

2 3rd level spells from 15 known. HE learns 5 at 6th, 5 at 7th, 5 at 8th. So he has about the same number of spells available as the fixed-list casters, but later.

Oh, then that's still terrible, because he has really low level effects, but he does carry around more utility. But like, you have to realize, when people say versatility is power, they are wrong. Casting 5 spells of a given spell level makes you really strong if that's a level appropriate spell level, casting 15 isn't 3 times as strong, its 1.1 times as strong. So if you are still casting from way too few spells per day off spell levels that are way too low, then you are still not level appropriate.

Basically, that's a great Adept class, because it belongs with all the other NPC classes.

[Exemplis]

Amusing dispute...
Each side argues for the concept that objectively exist only in their heads and refuses to understand opposing one. It's apples to oranges again.
One side states that non-spellcasting classes are poorely designed to adress appropriate-CR threats by RAW, which is undoubtly true. But fails to understand that RAW arent rules of physics and cannot prevent any character from contributing to any story. The game that is played by a group of people is a system of immensely higher meta-level than RAW system. RAW give you tools - you choose which ones to use, and which not. The only limitation is one's imagination. If one imagines that high-level games must include demon-bindings, teleports, angelic summonings and chatting with gods and finds this types of games intersting - that's fine. But his preferences do not restrict others from having their high-level games with more mundane flavor even if they are based on the same set of rules.

Back on the topic - I think the idea to slow down casting progression to bard+1 for all full-CL casters is a nice one, but then we must move bards to ranger+1 progression and so on.. And give all full-BAB classes fighter feat progression...:smalltongue:

[ekarney]

To be fair, the wizard list is the most powerful, and there exist similar easy/obvious nerfs for most of the others.

I'd actually argue that Archivist at least has the potential to be far more powerful, depending on your reading of what spell's they're allowed.

[johnbragg]

Amusing dispute...
Each side argues for the concept that objectively exist only in their heads and refuses to understand opposing one. It's apples to oranges again.
One side states that non-spellcasting classes are poorely designed to adress appropriate-CR threats by RAW, which is undoubtly true. But fails to understand that RAW arent rules of physics and cannot prevent any character from contributing to any story. The game that is played by a group of people is a system of immensely higher meta-level than RAW system. RAW give you tools - you choose which ones to use, and which not. The only limitation is one's imagination. If one imagines that high-level games must include demon-bindings, teleports, angelic summonings and chatting with gods and finds this types of games intersting - that's fine. But his preferences do not restrict others from having their high-level games with more mundane flavor even if they are based on the same set of rules.

Except they're not playing by the same set of rules. If you're playing by WOTC RAW, then the non-casters (or tertiary casters) are, mechanically, standing around while the full casters move the plot forward. The DM can always integrate the noncasters into the plot by manipulating the plot, but you could do the same if the noncasters were playing Commoners or Aristocrats. I think Cosi has a point that at a certain level, he picks 11, the game changes. I'd say it's story-appropriate at that point to declare that, to continue levelling, mundanes need spellcasting or the equivalent. I kind of like my idea that they get chosen by a patron of some sort, and rebuild their first ten levels as a gish. I don't have details, but I'd look at the UA battle sorcerer spell progression?

The alternative is some set of homebrewed class rules where the full casters dont get (as much) access to demon-binding and angel summoning and planar shenanigans, and the mundanes get something that keeps the spotlight on them in combat, at least.


Back on the topic - I think the idea to slow down casting progression to bard+1 for all full-CL casters is a nice one, but then we must move bards to ranger+1 progression and so on.. And give all full-BAB classes fighter feat progression...:smalltongue:

Well, the Bard is a level behind the Arcane Generalist. The Bard's spell list is comparable to the cleric or wizard list, but he or she is restricted to the normal Spells Known table. IF the Arcane Generalist (or cleric counterpart) needs a spell she doesn't have, she can buy it at the MAgic MArt today, spend tomorrow studying it and cast it the next day. The difference between the AG and the RAW wizard is that the AG has to "forget" a spell to add one.

I could see tweaking the rule that it takes one day to add a spell to the spellbook (RAW), and *another* day to add it to Spells Known.

If you're giving all full-BAB classes the Fighter feat progression, we need a class or two to replace the old sad fighter. OTOH, we already did.

[Necroticplague]

In both of your scenarios the characters have directed the plot. They both decided "go to the Ice Rift." If the DM wants there to be no adventure in reaching that place then there isn't either way. If he/she wants an adventure where they try to reach this fictional place, then there will be one. Both characters can direct the plot away from the Ice Rift, by virtue of deciding not to go there.

Built in abilities that allow you to just do things aren't necessarily good for the game. Struggling to achieve your goals is the point of playing. In this scenario the Wizard cut-out part of the game, while our hypothetical non-caster has influenced the story by choosing the method of travel.
I would argue that not having an ability to instantly achieve a goal is better story-wise.

Only if the cut out part is actually of interest. I find that too frequently, the adventure in just getting somewhere is essentially tedious busy work. So 'cutting out' that part is basically the equivalent of 'just get to the good part'. Screw the overly long descriptions of middle-of-nowheresville I don't care about, skip the monotonous battle against mundane bandits we could beat sleeping, disregard the plot-irrelevant fetchquest to do a favor to pass through a bridge. Just get to the dungeon crawl I came here for. As a wizard, that's an option, while it isn't for the fighter (barring magic items).

[Andezzar]

And once you get there, the mundanes have the same problem. If the opposition involves for example a dragon, the mundanes will have problems dealing with its mobility, its breath weapon and its spellcasting. Countering them will most likely require magic items and/or caster support and magic items must be made by casters in the first place.

The dragon is only an example. All monsters that have non-walking movement, SU/SP abilities (especially those that involve SOL) are particularly hard to deal with for mundanes.

[Apricot]

I'm fairly certain that arcane spellcasters at the very least and possibly also divine spellcasters would be far more balanced if they just didn't have access to summoning magic, domination magic, and shapeshifting magic. The reason for this is that these three types of magic allow the character to gain access to anything that their character can't put out directly. For example, wizards have a serious problem with dealing damage over a long period of time. They just don't have enough spell slots for it, usually. They have to either nova through an encounter and then rest or devote far too many of their spells to dealing damage and nothing else. Summoning creatures, dominating creatures, or turning into creatures lets you get around that problem entirely. Similarly, sorcerers have an issue with flexibility. They can put out enough damage to end encounters, but will struggle to have the right spells to handle every situation. But with the right spell knowledge, they can just summon, dominate, or shapeshift into a creature with the shark repellent of the day. Summoning, domination, and shapeshifting lets you get around one of the most fundamental features of the game, which is needing to have party members.

So, in conclusion, restrictions here would mean that your arcane spellcasters can't just render their meat shields obsolete, even if they're still technically "higher-power" than the others. It's hard to say how one could accomplish this same change for, say, druids, who have summoning and shapechanging as primary class features, so I'll just leave it here. Oh, and it'd be best to ban Leadership as well, but I think that goes for all cases. One thing I left out in this analysis is skill-obsoleting spells such as Knock. Perhaps those need some restriction as well, to make skillmonkeys important.

[Beheld]

I'm fairly certain that arcane spellcasters at the very least and possibly also divine spellcasters would be far more balanced if they just didn't have access to summoning magic, domination magic, and shapeshifting magic. The reason for this is that these three types of magic allow the character to gain access to anything that their character can't put out directly. For example, wizards have a serious problem with dealing damage over a long period of time. They just don't have enough spell slots for it, usually. They have to either nova through an encounter and then rest or devote far too many of their spells to dealing damage and nothing else. Summoning creatures, dominating creatures, or turning into creatures lets you get around that problem entirely. Similarly, sorcerers have an issue with flexibility. They can put out enough damage to end encounters, but will struggle to have the right spells to handle every situation. But with the right spell knowledge, they can just summon, dominate, or shapeshift into a creature with the shark repellent of the day. Summoning, domination, and shapeshifting lets you get around one of the most fundamental features of the game, which is needing to have party members.

You do need to ban or modify domination, and shapeshifting, you also need to ban or modify calling and undead animation, you really don't need to ban summoning at all. But the reason isn't "Because it replaces meat shields!" or "Because it does sustained damage!" You don't need meatshields or sustained damage at all. If you want to make a party of 4 Wizards who nova everything in two rounds or die trying, you can do that, if you want to make a tank wizard who has so many defense spells that he tanks well, you can do that. If you want to be a Cleric, and have more sustained damage and meat shielding ability than a fighter, you can do that. People shouldn't have to play some specific role in the party, it was bad when it was "Someone has to be the healbot so that we can play at all, I don't care if you don't want to, suffer so we can enjoy it" and it's bad now when people say "Someone should have to be the meatshield so we need to make sure that Wizards die if they are ever attacked! (Wait, what's that you say, there is no aggro mechanic and a bunch of ambush monsters, teleport monsters, giant fire breathing cone monsters will attack the party either at random, intelligently, or all at once! No!)"

The reason you need to ban those things that you do need to ban, and not those things you don't is because:
1) Domination as currently written allows you to spend zero spell slots today in return for between 1 and 500 minions each of which could individually be higher than your level.
2) Planar Binding as currently written allows you to spend zero spell slots today in return for between 1 and 100 minions, each of which could individually be higher than your level.
3) Gate allows you to instantly no save no SR kill any single creature you know the name of in the multiverse.
4) Gate also allows you to spend one spell slot today in return for 10-20 minions each of which is individually higher than your level.
5) Gate also allows you to spend one spell slot this combat for a single minion who is so much higher level than you that he's actually CR 54, which, according to CR rules, means he's capable of beating infinity CR 37 enemies. Since this combat is likely to be against a finite number of enemies under CR 30, that means he wins the combat for you automatically.
6) Animate Dead can, from levels 5-12, produce a number of minions between 1 and about 6 each of which could individually be higher than your level in return for zero spell slots today.
7) Shapeshifting is a game in which you take some parts of your character and some parts of a monster, and combine them to create a new character. In addition to being a book keeping nightmare that no two people actually agree on the rules for, this is a process that you can apply to any one of 6000 or more monsters. If you can't find a monster in that set of 6000 that is broken with some specific combination, then you aren't trying.
8) Summoning is fine, because each summon is so low level and weak, and costs spell slots today, that you basically can't pull out any game breaking effects with summons ever under any circumstance.

So the lessons we can learn from that, in determining what is or isn't broken are:
1) If something costs literally nothing, and gives you minions, it's probably broken.
2) If something costs very little, but gives you minions stronger than you, it's definitely broken.
3) If something gives you minions that are weaker than you, and requires actual in combat action cost and/or spell slots today, it's probably fine.
4) Some part of player+Some part of Monster (choose from 6000) is going to be a problem, because a few of those 6000 are going to be a problem.


Shapechanging in concept isn't that big a deal, which is why Druids, who basically just get to not care about Str and Dex ever, are still only "pretty powerful" but not broken, and when you looks at "why is Alter Self broken?" the answer is "Xorns and Dwarf Ancestors, and NOTHING ELSE." And why is polymorph broken is followed by "Pyro/Cryo Hydras, War Trolls, and nothing else." Shapechange is just broken no matter what, because there are lots of broken supernatural abilities all the way up to 25HD.

But for Alter Self and Polymorph, it's like, maybe 1% of all forms, or even .1% of forms that are actually broken, but since those .1% exist and become the only thing anyone tranforms into, and .1% of 6000 is still 6, that's still broken.

[Apricot]

You're raising the bar far past where I had set it with that post. I was talking about things simply being too strong to the point where they make other solutions obsolete or in other ways irrelevant; you're talking about outright destroying the game. Everything you mention fits within the framework of what I was objecting to, even if your level of objecting to things doesn't find certain things objectionable which I consider to be the case. Or, to put it another way, Gate is RAW something that no character should ever have access to, while Summon spells just mean that you can have a Wizard solo a huge variety of enemies without having to devote the kind of financial or character-concrete resources that a mundane would have to use in order to do the same. While we both think Gate simply should not exist, with its simple transit use possibly being kosher, you're much more comfortable with the idea of a Wizard being able to reliably solo a lot of things above its level than I am.

The healbot objection is a fair one, though, and so I'll try and frame the entire issue that it brings up. One of the problems with any party-based game is making sure that everyone gets to do what they want to do without having every character be identical. This means that there need to be multiple roles available in a party, and that people are free to pick and choose between them with enough flexibility that they can end up doing the things they want to do. Systems tend to hit difficulties when sent too far in one direction or the other: either they're too static and everyone is forced to play a certain role whether they want to or not, or they're too loose and the players lose all sense of themselves as offering unique and vital contributions to the party. 3.5 answers this problem by trying to be insanely flexible: you can use spells or magic items to get a huge portion of class features onto the characters you want them to be on, and you can use multiclassing and Leadership to handle the rest. The weakness of 3.5 is that as a result of this, the magic-using classes end up being much stronger because they have more direct access to spells and magic items. This means that a large portion of classes are more or less "obsolete," and the players using them can end up feeling like they aren't contributing anything. At tables where nobody wants to play a Barbarian or what have you, it's perfectly acceptable to leave this imbalance in place. At tables where someone does, however, it's simply polite and wise to limit Wizardly access to spells that can replace the Barbarian. After all, the only (steep exaggeration, but bear with me) thing preventing the Barbarian from doing the same in return is the steep price point of most magic items. If money were no issue, a Barbarian could quite possibly replace a Wizard, even if you have to deck him out in so many Rings of Three Wishes that it looks like he's compensating for something. Just as Barbarians aren't allowed in RAW to get as many Rings of Three Wishes as they want, so too is it a good idea to stop the Wizards from summoning, dominating, or turning into Barbarian replacements.

And a brief note about healing: it's just generally one of the dumbest things in the game. They correctly modeled the system of natural healing to reflect that it takes a long time, but neglected to consider that it's boring as sin in a game where you really just want to get back to action. So instead they had to put in a ton of magical healing, which now means that everyone has to rely on this sort of static need for health regeneration in order to continue playing the game they want to be playing in any case. It probably would have been a lot better if they limited healing to town clerics and potions. Some people like healing even so, which personally baffles me, but more power to them. I'm not going to badwrongfun them.

[Beheld]

while Summon spells just mean that you can have a Wizard solo a huge variety of enemies . . . you're much more comfortable with the idea of a Wizard being able to reliably solo a lot of things above its level than I am.

Summon Monster does not help Wizards solo anything. A Wizard that never summons anything is going to be better at soloing than one that does. There are zero instances in which Summon Monster is going to help a Wizard beat an encounter he otherwise wouldn't be able to.

There is nothing the Barbarian brings to the table that the Wizard can't just do himself, without summoning monsters. He is better doing that, because Summon Monsters spells are not strong at all.


At tables where nobody wants to play a Barbarian or what have you, it's perfectly acceptable to leave this imbalance in place. At tables where someone does, however, it's simply polite and wise to limit Wizardly access to spells that can replace the Barbarian.

1) The Barbarian isn't useless because the Wizard can cast summon spells. The Barbarian is objectively many times better than summon spells.
2) The Barbarian is useless because he gets no meaningful class features that make him an actual character and everyone else does.

3) There really aren't the roles you think there are. Taking damage is not a role. There is no aggro mechanic, there are no tanks. Most monsters possess the ability to make decisions about targets, and the Barbarian has no ability to effect those decisions (Anticipate Teleport may affect a Glabrezu's targeting choices, existing in a 5ft square really doesn't). If Wizards want to tank damage they can do that better by not casting summon monster, if Wizards want to kill the enemy, they can do that better by not casting summon monster. If Clerics want to exist at all, just by existing they do everything the Barbarian does better.

Taking away the ability to summon a weak monster for a limited duration does literally nothing for the barbarian. It doesn't make his role less infringed, it doesn't make him valuable in any way.


And a brief note about healing: it's just generally one of the dumbest things in the game. They correctly modeled the system of natural healing to reflect that it takes a long time, but neglected to consider that it's boring as sin in a game where you really just want to get back to action. So instead they had to put in a ton of magical healing, which now means that everyone has to rely on this sort of static need for health regeneration in order to continue playing the game they want to be playing in any case. It probably would have been a lot better if they limited healing to town clerics and potions. Some people like healing even so, which personally baffles me, but more power to them. I'm not going to badwrongfun them.

I think for the most part "You have a bunch of wands of Lesser Vigor, and you use them to heal, but you still don't want to take damage, because you are using up a resource" is the best method of healing for the game of D&D.

[Apricot]

All right, let's put it to the test. How would you, as a core-only Wizard20 with no summoning/domination/shapeshifting, reliably solo a Pit Fiend as RAW without becoming so specialized that you're just the Pit Fiend slayer? No using Wish or Leadership to cheat. I'm pretty sure the only real way of doing it is using Energy Drain and the like to reduce its levels fast enough that you don't have to worry too much about the things it summons getting you. Second question: how much easier would it have been if you could use basic Summoning to just have dudes who can grapple the various enemies, and who can possibly overcome the Regeneration and DR without you physically having to walk up and coup-de-grace it with a silver dagger?

Yes, adding in a Barbarian20 is better, but at a certain point you can use enough scrolls to handle things acceptably.

[Beheld]

All right, let's put it to the test. How would you, as a core-only Wizard20 with no summoning/domination/shapeshifting, reliably solo a Pit Fiend as RAW without becoming so specialized that you're just the Pit Fiend slayer? No using Wish or Leadership to cheat. I'm pretty sure the only real way of doing it is using Energy Drain and the like to reduce its levels fast enough that you don't have to worry too much about the things it summons getting you. Second question: how much easier would it have been if you could use basic Summoning to just have dudes who can grapple the various enemies, and who can possibly overcome the Regeneration and DR without you physically having to walk up and coup-de-grace it with a silver dagger?

Yes, adding in a Barbarian20 is better, but at a certain point you can use enough scrolls to handle things acceptably.

1) So your example is a fight that by definition I have a 50% chance to lose. Now, I can definitely overcome that by optimization, but the rules actually state that you have a 50% chance to lose that fight.
2) Uhhh... this is sort of skipping ahead, but "how much easier would it have been if you could use basic Summoning to just have dudes who can grapple the various enemies, and who can possibly overcome the Regeneration and DR without you physically having to walk up and coup-de-grace it with a silver dagger?" It would be harder. Much harder. If I prepared even a single spell slot as summoning spell that has a 20 round duration, requires one full round to cast (allowing anyone to interrupt me), and can be instantly murdered no save in a standard action by the Pit Fiend, things would be harder.

Answer: I'm a high level Wizard, so I go whereever I want to go in a single standard action, I have Superior Invisis cast, so none of his minions can even see me, and neither can he. I have Elemental Body (Air), Mindblank, Greater Ancitipate Teleport I have the Fire subtype, and Energy Immunity (Cold, Lightning, Acid) (or just Cold if the DM chooses to apply the overlapping spells rules in a silly way). I also have Viel of Undeath, because why not? Before I TP, I cast Magic Circle Against Evil, because I'm going to kill some evil outsiders.

I show up in the air, totally invisible (or I fly there invisibly at 400ft per round, whatever), and he has no idea I'm there, and neither do any undead, and if for some reason, he has a bunch of summoned devils around, I have magic circle against evil which hedges them out. All my buffs are cast at like, CL 26 or higher against dispelling (Ring of Enduring Arcana, Ioun Stone, Create Magic Tattoo) but there are plenty of ways to get that even higher, and he probably can't do anything about it but cast AoE effects anyway, because he can't actually target me.

In the Surprise Round (because none of them even can detect me) I either: Cast Wail of the Banshee on all of them, if I for some reason care about killing his summons.

He has SR 32, so Arcane Mastery+CL 22 I already have means I auto succeed. I probably also have other SR beating items and feats, because beating SR is important, but whatever. Theoretically, if I don't have the Arcane Mastery feat, I can swift action Assay Resistance and get the same effect on a 1.

My Int is PB 18, +2 Race, +5 levels, +5 Inherent, +6 Enhancement: 36 (+13). So the DC is 10+13+9: DC 32, his Fort save is +19 natural +4 from unholy aura he always has on him=+23. So he succeeds on a 9 and fails on an 8. 40% chance he dies that action. Then we roll init, and I cast it again. Then he has to try to find a completely invisible enemy that he and his minions can't see, and kill me, even though I'm immune to pretty much anything that he or any of his minions can do. Then I cast Wail of the Banshee again. Ect.

Now, this only uses spells, it doesn't use a lot of items (Belt of Battle? Circlet of Rapid Casting?). I could have had my familiar there firing off enervations every round, by Imbuing Familiar, and shareing all my buffs with him.

I could have opened with a Disjunction, to strip his buffs, which lowers his save by 4 amongst other effects.

I could have used better spells (Sphere of Destruction, which allows me to spend standard actions casting a spell and then move actions directing the spheres. Even better if he teleports in my Greater Anticipate Teleportation radius, I can stack 3 or more spheres into the same square so that he has to make a bunch of saves the second he comes out).

I could have prestige class features of any kind at all.

I could have, god forbid, spent actual feats on metamagic and metamagic reduction, and fire off a Split Rayed, Twinned, Repeating Avasculate on the first round, followed by Power Word Kill.

I could have put any amount of effort at all into boosting my DCs.

Or I could bypass the entire concept of playing the game at all, and have just cast Contact Other Plane to find out his name, then used Shades every day for months to create Shadowy Trap the Soul Gems keyed to his specific name, and then when I arrive, just dump them on his head, the first time he fails a will save, he dies. Even if he makes all the will saves, each successful will save has an 80% chance of him being trapped forever in the shadow gem anyway.

Notice how at no point did I, as a level 20 Wizard, give even the slightest **** about his minions, aside from some buffs I would have cast anyway to deal with him, and at no point did I concern myself with how hard it is to kill someone, because I need a "silver dagger" to coup de grace (I would use a silver Scythe if I was going to use anything).

Now, how much easier if I had been able to cast Summon Monster IX and summon a... CR 10 Beblith? The kinds of guys that he kills in one round and can summon minions that can kill in one round? But it lasts 23 rounds and takes a long time to cast? A Celestial Roc that can't even approach him because of his magic circle? The Barbed Devils that he can summon two of in a standard action and his last for an hour instead of two minutes?

At lower levels, my defenses would be less powerful, my offense might be less powerful (Finger of Death is the same as Wail of the Banshee if you are only facing one enemy), but so would be my opposition. If my opposition isn't a Pit Fiend, and it's some other devil, they don't have Create Undead, and they don't have a 100% of summoning, so it might literally be a one on one.

But levels 3-6 you might need someone else to help kill things, or you might not. Every other level, you can just kill the things yourself with your big bad Wizard spells and move right on. Although, even levels 3-6, you don't want a Barbarian, you want a Rogue to do the killing for you.

[Andezzar]

I thought the Pit Fiend had true seeing, but it's the Balor that has that ability.

[Gün]

Doesn't Mindblank counters True Seeing anyway?

[Beheld]

Doesn't Mindblank counters True Seeing anyway?

1) By Raw, probably, (although people will do anything they can to come up with convoluted interpretations that it doesn't because see 2).

2) It shouldn't though, because that's absolutely ridiculous.

[Gün]

We used raw interpretation in our group. It didn't change things that much, just increased the importance of the blindsight and stuff like that.

It is ridiculous though.

[Andezzar]

Doesn't Mindblank counters True Seeing anyway?Only if you count seeing as information gathering. Mindblank does not explicitly say it blocks true seeing, true seeing however explicitly states that it lets you see invisible creatures.

[Apricot]

Christ, Beheld, you failed before you even started. It's core-only. I said so very clearly. Rewrite that without using non-core material.

Why do I not allow splatbooks? Because splatbooks have things like Greenbound Summoning. You have to run them through a whole new sieve to get rid of all the blatantly overpowered stuff, and I don't feel like exploring everything on its own to see how insane it is.

[ryu]

Only if you count seeing as information gathering. Mindblank does not explicitly say it blocks true seeing, true seeing however explicitly states that it lets you see invisible creatures.

Seeing is the most important form of information gathering. You learn your enemy's location, general appearance, can track what they're doing, and make predictions based upon what you see. Information gathering is literally the purpose of having eyes. Well... I suppose you could also say our species also uses decorations upon them to attract mates, but mostly information gathering.

[Hal0Badger]

Bunch of ways to defeat a pit fiend

Can you do that at level 17 (when you get your first level 9 spell)? Is there any reason that you cannot defeat 2 pit fiend+their summons in that manner?

[Andezzar]

Sorry I misspoke. I meant only if you consider seeing while true seeing is active as information gathering by a divination spell or effect. The gathering of information is not achieved by the true seeing spell but by the character's eyes. The spell merely ensures that the information gathered is correct. So mind blank does not block true seeing.

[Gün]

Christ, Beheld, you failed before you even started. It's core-only. I said so very clearly. Rewrite that without using non-core material.

Why do I not allow splatbooks? Because splatbooks have things like Greenbound Summoning. You have to run them through a whole new sieve to get rid of all the blatantly overpowered stuff, and I don't feel like exploring everything on its own to see how insane it is.

And other overpowered stuff like druids, wizards, clerics, wish, gate and shapechange in splatbooks right? Oh wait...

[Beheld]

Christ, Beheld, you failed before you even started. It's core-only. I said so very clearly. Rewrite that without using non-core material.

Did you say "summoning should be disallowed in Core only games because my opinion does not extend to any other games!" No, you didn't. You made a statement about games people actually play (all the ones that aren't Core only) so justifying it based on prohibiting the SpC is pretty silly.

I mean, you can still do exactly the same thing, because Greater Invisibility exists, you can ride around with a CL of 31 from Spell Power, Ioun Stone, Deathknell, and UMDed Prayer Beads, and everything else I described was a buff that doesn't even come up because none of your enemies can even locate you. (Superior Invis protects against a bunch of effects they don't have and has a better duration, your fly speed is reduced to a mere 40ft good instead of 100ft Perfect, not that it even matters.)

I mean yeah, so you have higher saves because you blow feats on Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, you have a higher CL if that even mattered, and you Disjunction him on the surprise round and then Wail of Banshee him while your Raven Familiar fires a wand of Solid Fog on the other enemies twice instead of casting Enervation, because it's really important to ban non core things or something.

So he has a saving throw of +19 against your DC 34 Wail of the Banshee. He dies. The end.

Or you can just pour Shades of Soul Trap Gems on him just like before while laughing manically.

If you want to completely take back your previous claim and say "All Core only games should ban summon so Barbarians can feel good" then I will of course, point out that you are still wrong Summon Monster does literally nothing to help Core Wizards fight Pit Fiends either, because Summon Monster is terrible as a combat spell, but I will also say that no one cares because no one plays Core only anyway, I certainly would never join such a game, and that probably applies to most people who play a specific 13 year old version of a D&D.


Can you do that at level 17 (when you get your first level 9 spell)? Is there any reason that you cannot defeat 2 pit fiend+their summons in that manner?

Well, at level 17 it's a lot harder to get auto pass on SR, you have less gold and a lower Caster level. It's also harder to make the fail the save, you have a lower Int because of both less gold and missing one extra +1 from leveling. Your CL being lower increases the chance that AoE dispels will strip your buffs.

You could probably still pull the Shades Trap the Soul trick, because that basically brute forces down SR by the fact that you are dropping like 20-100 gems on him that each kill him 80% of the time on a successful save.

If there are two of them, it greatly increases the chances that one of them will just leave and start information gathering to track you down and kill you. You can probably still do it, because Superior Invisibility against creatures that can't use True Seeing is basically easy mode, but if they come back with True Seeing next time (and you ignore the Mind Blank True Seeing interactions) then things get a lot harder.

[Cosi]

And other overpowered stuff like druids, wizards, clerics, wish, gate and shapechange in splatbooks right? Oh wait...

All (well, almost all) of the stuff that breaks the game into small pieces is in core. planar binding, shapechange ability stacking, simulacrum, polymorph dumpster diving, gate, and so on. There are a few exceptions (spirit binding is planar binding for different creatures, ice assassin), but that mostly holds.

All of the stuff where you put a bunch of buffs, or feats, or PrCs or whatever that enhance the same thing in a pile and get something crazy good are in splats. The ability to put various obscure spells that grant bonuses that stack because people forgot what bonus types exist is the province of splatbooks.

The stuff that destroys the game is core. The stuff that breaks the game is in splats.

[johnbragg]

And other overpowered stuff like druids, wizards, clerics, wish, gate and shapechange in splatbooks right? Oh wait...

Those are devils old grognards know. Core gives you Wizards. Splatbooks give you spellhoarding loredrake dragonwrought kobold Wizards.

Splatbooks are probably less broken overall than core. But it's the broken stuff (or apparently broken) that gets the attention.

[ryu]

Sorry I misspoke. I meant only if you consider seeing while true seeing is active as information gathering by a divination spell or effect. The gathering of information is not achieved by the true seeing spell but by the character's eyes. The spell merely ensures that the information gathered is correct. So mind blank does not block true seeing.

Filtering information is still a part of information gathering. Anything which directly changes the information your eyes receive is information gathering. That is unless you want tortured readings like it still being your eyes that see whatever your scrying or some similar stupidity.

[Andezzar]

Scrying is notably different from true seeing. The former gives you new information, the latter only ensures that the information you get is not manipulated. Also the eyes still gather all the normal information, whether an illusion spell is present or not. The illusion spell merely causes the viewer not to process the information properly. If Invisibility actually manipulated light, no save would help against it and it wouldn't be an illusion spell.

[Beheld]

Scrying is notably different from true seeing. The former gives you new information, the latter only ensures that the information you get is not manipulated. Also the eyes still gather all the normal information, whether an illusion spell is present or not. The illusion spell merely causes the viewer not to process the information properly. If Invisibility actually manipulated light, no save would help against it and it wouldn't be an illusion spell.

Except the specific type of illusion that does exactly what you say they don't do, and usually doesn't offer a save:

"Glamer
A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear."

Guess what type of illusion Invisibility is?

As I said in my first post on the subject, yes, obviously True Seeing is gathering information you otherwise would not gather. That's what it explicitly does. But people will do their damnedest to come up with some interpretation to avoid just admitting the RAW kind of sucks and should probably just be ignored.

[Andezzar]

The definition of glamer does not contradict what I said. The glamer manipulates the subject (i.e. the viewer), not the target (the creature made invisible) or the light reflected from the target that the viewer sees.

And no, true seeing does not give you different information, it allows you to process the information you always get correctly.

[Beheld]

The definition of glamer does not contradict what I said. The glamer manipulates the subject (i.e. the viewer), not the target (the creature made invisible) or the light reflected from the target that the viewer sees.

No, that is super mega double wrong. The subject of a glamer is the target you cast it on. It even says that right in what I quoted: "A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it ... seem to disappear."

The thing you cast invisibility on is seeming to disappear, because that's what invisibility does, it makes the subject invisible "If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject"

It changes what light literally bounces off of you, which is why Glamers don't allow anyone but the target to make a will save.


And no, true seeing does not give you different information, it allows you to process the information you always get correctly.

No, it doesn't. It lets you see in total darkness in a way that lets you read and see colors. That's new stuff. It lets you see different things than the effects that are giving off.

[ryu]

Scrying is notably different from true seeing. The former gives you new information, the latter only ensures that the information you get is not manipulated. Also the eyes still gather all the normal information, whether an illusion spell is present or not. The illusion spell merely causes the viewer not to process the information properly. If Invisibility actually manipulated light, no save would help against it and it wouldn't be an illusion spell.

Actually the only way the spell can function effecting its target rather than everyone else is to directly effect light. If it's in any way directly effecting the sensory organ or brain of other people THEY would get saves. As they don't the spell is effecting light. The fun part about this is that with all light bent around you you can't see by conventional means, and need either an unconventional form of magical sight to replace that or a sense that isn't even sight.

[Beheld]

Actually the only way the spell can function effecting its target rather than everyone else is to directly effect light. If it's in any way directly effecting the sensory organ or brain of other people THEY would get saves. As they don't the spell is effecting light. The fun part about this is that with all light bent around you you can't see by conventional means, and need either an unconventional form of magical sight to replace that or a sense that isn't even sight.

You don't need it to bend around you, it could just absorb all the light and project on the other side exactly what it absorbed, and have a specific part of it at they eyes adsorb it and project twice, once into your eyes and once out the back of your head.

It's Magic, I ain't got to explain ****.

[Hal0Badger]

If there are two of them, it greatly increases the chances that one of them will just leave and start information gathering to track you down and kill you. You can probably still do it, because Superior Invisibility against creatures that can't use True Seeing is basically easy mode, but if they come back with True Seeing next time (and you ignore the Mind Blank True Seeing interactions) then things get a lot harder.

Just to be sure, you can build a wizard, without consulting gate/binding/shapechange, which can take a CR 20 monster almost all by himself, including his pre summoned minions (which can be a cr 16 horned devil). Even if there are 2 of them (including extra minions), best they can do is to retreat to track you down later, if it is possible to bypass your mind blank in a manner.

And nothing is wrong with a wizard in terms of balance, considering the current CR system with the provided monsters, if you take out binding/gate/shapechange.

[atemu1234]

Just to be sure, you can build a wizard, without consulting gate/binding/shapechange, which can take a CR 20 monster almost all by himself, including his pre summoned minions (which can be a cr 16 horned devil). Even if there are 2 of them (including extra minions), best they can do is to retreat to track you down later, if it is possible to bypass your mind blank in a manner.

And nothing is wrong with a wizard in terms of balance, considering the current CR system with the provided monsters, if you take out binding/gate/shapechange.

Here's the thing - people don't say that wizards are unbalanced for challenges, they claim it's for an unbalanced party mechanic. The fighter contributes little, and the cleric/druid/wizard does everything.

[Hal0Badger]

Here's the thing - people don't say that wizards are unbalanced for challenges, they claim it's for an unbalanced party mechanic. The fighter contributes little, and the cleric/druid/wizard does everything.

Though the given example takes out a CR 20+ encounter all by himself, and makes a CR 22+ encounter in favor of himself, again, all by himself. How is this an example of party mechanics?

[Beheld]

Just to be sure, you can build a wizard, without consulting gate/binding/shapechange, which can take a CR 20 monster almost all by himself, including his pre summoned minions (which can be a cr 16 horned devil). Even if there are 2 of them (including extra minions), best they can do is to retreat to track you down later, if it is possible to bypass your mind blank in a manner.

And nothing is wrong with a wizard in terms of balance, considering the current CR system with the provided monsters, if you take out binding/gate/shapechange.

I can build a level 6 character than can kill the Tarrasque. Some monsters have weaknesses, some of them are huge (the Tarrasque) some of them are small "If you have enough HD, energy immunity, Greater Invisibility, and a very large number of save or dies or a very high DC, you can kill a Pit Fiend that refuses to run away."

Although, looking at it again, you actually have to be evil to be able to even draw against a Pit Fiend. Because otherwise they just permalock you until your spell durations run out and then kill you.

Now, the Shades trick that allows you to kill it in one round instead of like, 5-6 any one of which he could just leave, is broken. Shades emulating Trap the Soul is broken, Archmage SLA trap the soul is also broken.

Anything that bypasses Trap the Soul's material component cost is going to be broken.

But absent broken Shades/Trap the Soul interaction, Broken Gate, Broken Planar Binding, Broken Dominate Person, Broken Shapechange, Broken Incantatrix, Broken Arcane Thesis, yes, skipping out on specifically those things, you actually can't beat a Pit Fiend, and unless you are evil, you die, and if you are evil, then you still have a best case scenario of a Draw.

Of course, all of this is based on you trying to use sleight of hand, A 17th level Wizard is a 20th level Wizard, they are the same character, because they cast the same spells, and that's all the character is, a vehicle for spells. So yes, a 20th level Wizard with sufficient optimization can be an unoptimized straight out of the MM Pit Fiend with no money spent.

Of course, if he as a custom treasure that includes a True Seeing item, then you just die. But you know, whatever.


Though the given example takes out a CR 20+ encounter all by himself, and makes a CR 22+ encounter in favor of himself, again, all by himself. How is this an example of party mechanics?

Actually, he draws against a CR 20 monster without treasure (and probably with treasure) and he draw against an EL 22 encounter, which is not the same thing as a CR 22 encounter. Adding more monsters with the same flaw isn't very impressive, a level 17 Cleric can also easily beat 13 12 headed PyroHydra and 13 12 headed CryoHydras, an EL 22 encounter, because minion clearing spells like Holy Word exist, and immunity spells like Energy Immunity exist. And flight Exists.

[johnbragg]

Though the given example takes out a CR 20+ encounter all by himself, and makes a CR 22+ encounter in favor of himself, again, all by himself. How is this an example of party mechanics?

It's not, that's the point. The Wizard isn't, say, teleporting in an archer whose BAB and feats plus the bard's buffs overcome the Pit Fiend's AC and deliver the Holy Arrow of Asswhooping. The wizard is going in solo.

The Wizard is not imbalanced against the CR system. The Wizard is unbalanced against the Core noncasters. Largely because the game was designed for low-level to mid-level play, with the higher level spells implicitly intended to be tools the BBEG wields against the mid-level heroes.

[Cosi]

Although, looking at it again, you actually have to be evil to be able to even draw against a Pit Fiend. Because otherwise they just permalock you until your spell durations run out and then kill you.

I think you're thinking of the Balor. The Pit Fiend's blasphemy is only CL 18, so it doesn't lock down a 20th level character.

Unless you're talking about a 17th level Wizard, in which case yes you do need to be evil.

[Beheld]

I think you're thinking of the Balor. The Pit Fiend's blasphemy is only CL 18, so it doesn't lock down a 20th level character.

Unless you're talking about a 17th level Wizard, in which case yes you do need to be evil.

Yeah, I was referring to the level 17 Wizard. Though like I said, a level 17 Wizard is functionally a 20the level character, because he casts the same spells.

[Hal0Badger]

It's not, that's the point. The Wizard isn't, say, teleporting in an archer whose BAB and feats plus the bard's buffs overcome the Pit Fiend's AC and deliver the Holy Arrow of Asswhooping. The wizard is going in solo.

The Wizard is not imbalanced against the CR system. The Wizard is unbalanced against the Core noncasters. Largely because the game was designed for low-level to mid-level play, with the higher level spells implicitly intended to be tools the BBEG wields against the mid-level heroes.

It is both actually. CR system assumes you play as 4 player, with distinguished roles. If a class can solo encounters designed for 4 people, it is not balanced against both CR system and to other classes as well. If a party containing 4 of the same class, not just overcomes the level appropriate challenge, but obliterates it, there is definitely a design flaw here. I completely agree with you on the bold part of the quote though.

Let me elaborate why I think wizard is a badly designed class, from example of Beheld:

The wizard in given example has just stated some items to boost his CL and casted spells. No class features(from PRC that advances wizard casting), feats, or any other essential items. Yet still can triumph over a CR 20 pitfiend, with a 40% chance outright killing him on the spot. CR system, as noted by Beheld, assumes he has a chance of losing of 50%, which as it seems, hardly comes into play. While, as a team game, you would need your teammates to cover your weaknesses, a wizard could simply say "Just tag along, I got this by myself".

The spells casted on the wizard are from ranging schools, from necromancy to illusion, probably as well as abjuration. Wail of the banshee is a 9th level spell, while superior invisibility is 8th level. Both are from different schools, with widely different themes and powers, and both are high level. This kind of versatility without giving up any power, with the combination of powerful spells granted by the wizard spell list, what makes wizard class unbalanced and poorly designed, therefore a bad point for balancing the classes.

As a side note; Eventhough I admit tier system is not a good point of view to discuss balance, I do not look any differently to other T1 classes (I hate druid). However, if you block archivist spell selection by banning divine alternatives of arcane classes, wizard spell list is the strongest.


Yeah, I was referring to the level 17 Wizard. Though like I said, a level 17 Wizard is functionally a 20the level character, because he casts the same spells.

This is me being lazy actually. I just wondered if there is a way to overcome Blasphemy with a 17 level full caster, maybe a spell, maybe an item, maybe a way to count your HD higher for spells like this. +3 caster levels, as well as HD increase and 6 more spells known definitely increases the power of wizard.

[ryu]

I would argue for placing the balance point at tier 1 for the sheer benefit of strategic and tactical freedom the tier provides. At any level the players are making more choices, and thus more interesting decisions than any other balance point. Keep in mind playing an optimized wizard even under constraints only seems easy when you have fairly extensive knowledge of the options. The class itself has some of the most complex choices to make. As an added bonus learning spells by scribing means you regret choices that end up being poor less because it's cheaper to find new spells to scribe than get knowstones or equivalent. This is much more friendly a mechanic than a set limit on spells known per level for new players in other words. They can make ''wrong'' choices without being punished as hard. Naturally you'd have to adjust the CR system to the rise in player power, but it's hardly well put together now, and you can do better with a more solid grasp on consistent player power potential.

[johnbragg]

I would argue for placing the balance point at tier 1 for the sheer benefit of strategic and tactical freedom the tier provides. At any level the players are making more choices, and thus more interesting decisions than any other balance point. Keep in mind playing an optimized wizard even under constraints only seems easy when you have fairly extensive knowledge of the options. The class itself has some of the most complex choices to make. As an added bonus learning spells by scribing means you regret choices that end up being poor less because it's cheaper to find new spells to scribe than get knowstones or equivalent. This is much more friendly a mechanic than a set limit on spells known per level for new players in other words. They can make ''wrong'' choices without being punished as hard. Naturally you'd have to adjust the CR system to the rise in player power, but it's hardly well put together now, and you can do better with a more solid grasp on consistent player power potential.

Under that regime, players are pretty much limited to clerics, wizards and druids, maybe Sublime Chord Bards with another ACF to let them have prepared casting from a full list.

Am I wrong? That's a plausible game, but is it the game you intend? (OK, Beheld might still play a Rogue.)

And with that game, do you need anybody else at the table besides a GM?

MAybe as the player base ages and dwindles, that's a feature not a bug, transitioning from a group game to a partner game?

[Amphetryon]

Under that regime, players are pretty much limited to clerics, wizards and druids, maybe Sublime Chord Bards with another ACF to let them have prepared casting from a full list.

Am I wrong? That's a plausible game, but is it the game you intend? (OK, Beheld might still play a Rogue.)

Archivists and StP Erudites are often grouped at T1, also. Alternately, you could play with Frank & K's Tomes, which reads as the balance point some in the thread are coming from anyway.

[johnbragg]

Archivists and StP Erudites are often grouped at T1, also. Alternately, you could play with Frank & K's Tomes, which reads as the balance point some in the thread are coming from anyway.

True. But the point is, with a high-level Tier 1 in the party, do you need any other players?

Or is the game optimization chess with the DM? (Which is a perfectly fine game and not Badwrongfun if that's what you like.)

I'm just wondering what gameplay is like with high system-mastery players running Tier 1 characters in upper-level games.

[Beheld]

It is both actually. CR system assumes you play as 4 player, with distinguished roles.

This is incorrect on an explicit level and an implicit level. First, the game is not balanced on 4 players with different roles, the rules explain how ELs apply to parties of 1 and parties of 10. 4 Characters of the same "role" are balanced the same way as 4 parties of different "roles" because no part of the rules state that balance is predicated on "roles" at all.

Implicitly, you are wrong because you are trying to imply that those 4 roles have to be covered by different classes, but they really don't, any possible role in the game can be covered by the Cleric, and they clearly intended that, because you don't give a class Divine Power and Find Traps and Banishment if you don't want him to be able to do all those things.


The wizard in given example has just stated some items to boost his CL and casted spells. No class features(from PRC that advances wizard casting), feats, or any other essential items. Yet still can triumph over a CR 20 pitfiend, with a 40% chance outright killing him on the spot. CR system, as noted by Beheld, assumes he has a chance of losing of 50%, which as it seems, hardly comes into play. While, as a team game, you would need your teammates to cover your weaknesses, a wizard could simply say "Just tag along, I got this by myself".

1) Optimization matters, I can do the same thing with a Rogue and Fighter. I also explained how a Pit Fiend can kill the Wizard by having custom item choices that cover for his huge glaring weakness. Hell if he has constant Mindblank from an item, then the Wizard may never find him and he can just assail locations with summons and undead from safety.
2) Level 20 always has and always will be a bad example. The game becomes a fundamentally different game that breaks down at level 15. High level characters are not playing the same game at all, and they basically operate entirely based on the concept of dictating the terms of engagement. Level 20 is also never played. If you want to complain about how Wizards are broken, because they are too strong for the CR system, use an example that involves a Wizard from level 1-14. If you can't, then the argument you make based on a CR 20 is flawed.

[atemu1234]

True. But the point is, with a high-level Tier 1 in the party, do you need any other players?

Or is the game optimization chess with the DM? (Which is a perfectly fine game and not Badwrongfun if that's what you like.)

I'm just wondering what gameplay is like with high system-mastery players running Tier 1 characters in upper-level games.

Usually I focus on making enemies fit to the players (I helped pretty much all my players save three make T1 characters, and all but one have run T1 characters) but also focus on RP. Most of the time it's just a fun thought experiment and combat is secondary to halfway decent RP.

[Beheld]

True. But the point is, with a high-level Tier 1 in the party, do you need any other players?

If you are under level 15, yeah you need other players. Level 15+ is a bad example, because it is fundamentally not the same kind of game anymore.

If a level 1-14 Wizard needs the party to deal with challenges of CR = his level without dying, I'm fine with that, because I've only played one game in the last 3 years at higher level than that anyway.

[Jay R]

Let me elaborate why I think wizard is a badly designed class, ...

Your point is a good one, but there's one point I think needs to be slightly modified.

The original wizard class had fewer hit points in a game in which area effects could (and did) kill characters. They didn't get an army of followers like Fighting Men (yes, that was the class name) in a game that was intended to lead to large scale battles. And spells only went up to level 6. And against anything but spells, their saving throws were not as good.

Wizards had higher power (though not horribly), paid for by higher risk.

Over time, however, the power level kept trending up, and the risk level kept trending down.

Wizard was a moderately well designed class. It has been badly updated.

[atemu1234]

Your point is a good one, but there's one point I think needs to be slightly modified.

The original wizard class had fewer hit points in a game in which area effects could (and did) kill characters. They didn't get an army of followers like Fighting Men (yes, that was the class name) in a game that was intended to lead to large scale battles. And spells only went up to level 6. And against anything but spells, their saving throws were not as good.

Wizards had higher power (though not horribly), paid for by higher risk.

Over time, however, the power level kept trending up, and the risk level kept trending down.

Wizard was a moderately well designed class. It has been badly updated.

Even in earlier editions, it was much more powerful than other classes.

[johnbragg]

Even in earlier editions, it was much more powerful than other classes.

Only at high levels, where you had enough HP as a cushion against whatever. A 2E wizard at 5th level had 5d4 hit points, with a max +2/level for Con, for 30 hp max. Pretty squishy. Average Wizard 5 with 15 Con (+1/level, IIRC) 4 (max) + 4d4 + 5 = 19 hp. At level 10, 9d4 + 9 + 3 = max of 48 hp.

High level wizards had enough HP to get by, and enough power to more or less rule the world. But the idea was that most wizards would not survive to those levels. The idea was that the wizard was balanced over a campaign--he spent the first few levels hiding behind the fighter and casting one or two spells per day, before becoming a BBEG in his own right at double-digit levels.

And Amazon magic mart was not a thing. (It existed depending on your DM, but was basically limited to the items in the DMG--there weren't generic rules for a permanent item of SL X at CL Y for Z,000 gp.) The default assumption that any magic item is available boosts everyone, but as usual, the casters have the best ways to take advantage.

[Andezzar]

I'm pretty sure that encounter enders like sleep and color spray already existed in 2E. Also defenses that blocked access to the wizard's measly HP like mirror image did also exist then.

[johnbragg]

I'm pretty sure that encounter enders like sleep and color spray already existed in 2E. Also defenses that blocked access to the wizard's measly HP like mirror image did also exist then.

Mirror image is and was an excellent 2nd level spell. But, so many 1st level wizards ran
"I cast sleep on the 4 Goblins!"
"3 of them save"
"Crud. I'm out of spells."

[nedz]

I'm pretty sure that encounter enders like sleep and color spray already existed in 2E. Also defenses that blocked access to the wizard's measly HP like mirror image did also exist then.

Yes, but a high level Fighter would take down a Wizard should they close to combat.

[atemu1234]

Mirror image is and was an excellent 2nd level spell. But, so many 1st level wizards ran
"I cast sleep on the 4 Goblins!"
"3 of them save"
"Crud. I'm out of spells."

Fairly certain that's statistically unlikely, but ok.

[Cosi]

Yes, but a high level Fighter would take down a Wizard should they close to combat.

That's not really balance though.

First, the ability of Fighters to kill Wizards is just one data point in terms of Fighter/Wizard balance. Because Fighters don't fight Wizards, they fight monsters. And yes, some of those monsters are Wizards. But the vast majority aren't.

Second, "should they close to combat" is glossing over huge swaths of what high level Wizards could achieve even then in terms of summons and defensive preparations.

Third, as levels go up combat is an increasingly small part of what you actually do. A 1st level party might be called upon to go to the town graveyard and kill some zombies, a task which is wholly dependent on personal combat ability. A 10th level party might be called upon to conquer and administer an enemy nation, a task for which simply "being good at fighting" is woefully inadequate.

That's a good jumping off point to a much deeper issue, actually. As long as the Fighter is defined by "fighting" he is going to be ineffective in the face of higher level challenges which can be bypassed, negotiated with, bribed, investigated, tricked, built, or any verb other than "fought".

[Andezzar]

Yes, but a high level Fighter would take down a Wizard should they close to combat.If that is so, didn't the wizard already have the tools to prevent the fighter from getting close?

[Jay R]

Even in earlier editions, it was much more powerful than other classes.

Yes, but that was (somewhat) balanced by higher risks, and those risks have been reduced or eliminated.

[atemu1234]

Yes, but that was (somewhat) balanced by higher risks, and those risks have been reduced or eliminated.

Not really, at least in my experience. Everyone had basically the same risk of dying. That doesn't balance anything.

[Jay R]

Not really, at least in my experience. Everyone had basically the same risk of dying. That doesn't balance anything.

Yes, well, in my experience, a 17-hit point fireball kills a 14-hit-point magic-user but not a 25-hit-point fighting man.

[nedz]

First, the ability of Fighters to kill Wizards is just one data point in terms of Fighter/Wizard balance. Because Fighters don't fight Wizards, they fight monsters. And yes, some of those monsters are Wizards. But the vast majority aren't.
NPCs were always more of a threat than monsters mainly because of a wider set of options. I guess it depends upon the game, but in the AD&D games I ran this sort of combat was common.


Second, "should they close to combat" is glossing over huge swaths of what high level Wizards could achieve even then in terms of summons and defensive preparations.
True, but less so than in 3.5. There were no immediate actions, or Quicken, and I would expect a Fighter to shrug off most spells thrown at them. During the combat the Fighter would doggedly aim to close, whilst the casters would keep each other occupied.


Third, as levels go up combat is an increasingly small part of what you actually do. A 1st level party might be called upon to go to the town graveyard and kill some zombies, a task which is wholly dependent on personal combat ability. A 10th level party might be called upon to conquer and administer an enemy nation, a task for which simply "being good at fighting" is woefully inadequate.

That's a good jumping off point to a much deeper issue, actually. As long as the Fighter is defined by "fighting" he is going to be ineffective in the face of higher level challenges which can be bypassed, negotiated with, bribed, investigated, tricked, built, or any verb other than "fought".
There wasn't a skill system so Fighters were not stopped from pursuing other options - at least not quite so much. One of the problems with Fighter in 3.5 is the poor selection of class skills to the extent that the 2 skill points per level isn't even a restriction.


That's not really balance though.
Well I always regarded playing a Fighter as dull, whereas in 3.5 they just become irrelevant.

[ryu]

True. But the point is, with a high-level Tier 1 in the party, do you need any other players?

Or is the game optimization chess with the DM? (Which is a perfectly fine game and not Badwrongfun if that's what you like.)

I'm just wondering what gameplay is like with high system-mastery players running Tier 1 characters in upper-level games.

You bet your hide you need the other players. While all tier 1s will eventually learn literally everything and have a wide array of answers to any given problem, different classes get different answers faster/better/more cheaply and that MATTERS for a long time even at really high levels of optimization. Similarly you're likely to face more enemies who cast or have casting equivalent abilities and you need more caster bodies just to keep the resources on both sides somewhat even for most of the game.

At high level, while everyone could easily answer any problem from even a level or two earlier alone, competently played caster enemies on a somewhat even level keel are scary enough for a team to be desired.

Now lets assume you've reached a point where all the classes could in theory solve any problem alone. Thing is four heads think of ways of making their solutions HILARIOUS much more efficiently than just one.

[bean illus]

Ettins and titans and trolls, oh my.

Devout skillmonkey checking in.
This has been a good thread. Among my peers I'm considered a pretty good optimizer of rofyes n clerics. But around this bunch i sometimes haven't much to add. I play clerics because "we need a healer" and rogues because i love it. My favorite thing is to void or win major encounters with paying attentio, and creative use of mundane abilities. I certainly can't beat everything that way, but I'm pretty good at it. Our party once beat a dragon because i grappled it, lol.


Though the given example takes out a CR 20+ encounter all by himself, and makes a CR 22+ encounter in favor of himself, again, all by himself. How is this an example of party mechanics?

This is really one of the best line s in this thread.


True. But the point is, with a high-level Tier 1 in the party, do you need any other players?

Or is the game optimization chess with the DM? (Which is a perfectly fine game and not Badwrongfun if that's what you like.)

I'm just wondering what gameplay is like with high system-mastery players running Tier 1 characters in upper-level games.

I don't enjoy games past mid op 15th level, and like 3 to12 best. I also like story better than combat.


Mirror image is and was an excellent 2nd level spell. But, so many 1st level wizards ran
"I cast sleep on the 4 Goblins!"
"3 of them save"
"Crud. I'm out of spells."

I swear this has happen ed TOO many times, lol.

I like Grod's style, and his fix(es). But the important thing to remember the market. People WANT to have simple options
Like fighters.

[Jay R]

True. But the point is, with a high-level Tier 1 in the party, do you need any other players?

A. You can't develop a high-level Tier 1 without other players. Three kobolds killed her at level 1, or some such.

B. A good DM keeps finding ways to involve all the characters. Eventually they should find themselves stuck in an anti-magic field, and need the fighter to break down the door or the Rogue to pick the lock.

[ryu]

A. You can't develop a high-level Tier 1 without other players. Three kobolds killed her at level 1, or some such.

B. A good DM keeps finding ways to involve all the characters. Eventually they should find themselves stuck in an anti-magic field, and need the fighter to break down the door or the Rogue to pick the lock.

He was asking about games where tier one is the balance point. In other words the world is some horrible combination of dark souls, dwarf fortress, and the darkest dungeon.

[johnbragg]

A. You can't develop a high-level Tier 1 without other players. Three kobolds killed her at level 1, or some such.

B. A good DM keeps finding ways to involve all the characters. Eventually they should find themselves stuck in an anti-magic field, and need the fighter to break down the door or the Rogue to pick the lock.

A. Tell that to the other Supremes, the non-Beyonce/Timberlake/Sting/etc members of Destiny's Child, Backstreet Boys, the Police, etc.

B. Isn't it bad design that the DM has to keep such a heavy thumb on the scale to keep half to 3/4 of the players relevant? And how many times can the BBEG hire a crew of mid-level mundanes to help him stick the McGuffin on a mountain in Mundania?

EDIT: Ehh, people are clearly having fun, and there is no Badwrongfun. It's not my fun, but I'd take that campaign over no gaming. (BAd gaming is worse than no gaming applies to players, not games.)

[Andezzar]

A. You can't develop a high-level Tier 1 without other players. Three kobolds killed her at level 1, or some such.Possible but the same can happen to the fighter. If an orc rolls well with his great axe the fighter is just as dead as the wizard.


B. A good DM keeps finding ways to involve all the characters. Eventually they should find themselves stuck in an anti-magic field, and need the fighter to break down the door or the Rogue to pick the lock.An AMF is only 20 ft in diameter centered on a creature. The caster can just drop a miniaturized rock on that creature. If that does not work he just calls a BSF/skill monkey to do his bidding. So again no need for other PCs.