Tiers, Caster/Noncaster Disparity, and the Point of the Game [Archive]

Lord Raziere

2016-12-18, 03:27 PM

Ah, but if the classes were balanced, you would not need the tier list. things would actually be simpler:

The power of the classes would actually depend on your level rather than whether your a Wizard or not. If you wanted to play the Wizards cosmic-tier super high level ultra game of epic shenanigans you could do that but here is the awesome part: you could do that with any class rather than just one. You would be able to get the same thing out of a fighter or a rogue with flavorful variations because they are a fighter or a rogue. All you'd need to do is set them at level 20 or something similarly high level to get that, no need for complicated class builds, workarounds and multiple books to get a character even remotely near the same playing field.

While if you wanted to remain low level and not have any of those shenanigans, just don't level up after a certain point. Just stop at I dunno, level 6, thats what E6 does. No need to worry whether which class is more powerful than other or whether they are appropriate for the level of power your going for. thats the ideal of a balanced system, the same fun you have now in play, but achieving it a simpler way that isn't biased against certain character archetypes, because maybe I wanted to do all the Wizardly-like stuff as a fighter without becoming a Wizard, you ever think of that? Any concerns about fighters being realistic is a low level fighter thing that I don't care for. Most games apparently don't even get to high levels, so I don't see why Fighters would be ruined by making them powerful enough to play with wizards at high level anyways.

I mean you can have fun with a thing, that doesn't mean it can't be better or that it doesn't have flaws that it needs working on, a bunch of character archetypes getting the shaft because "realism" or whatever isn't good no matter how much fun your having with it.

and before anyone goes "tome of battle" I have to disagree, ToB/PoW are, as people have said, only tier 3. they don't fix the problem. furthermore needing a supplement at all is already a problem for something that should be basic and already achieved. While I like them, many people don't just because its a supplement, and it simply doesn't do enough.

While using magic items is like telling people who want to play Batman to go pick up a Green Lantern ring and start using unlimited green space magic, Batman being a Green Lantern is cool, thats not really the point of wanting to play Batman while everyone else is playing the rest of the Justice League. The point is to win because your a FIGHTER, the point is to win because your a ROGUE. Thats why I would choose the class. because I rogue'd the problem into nothing. Wizards can wizard any problem away, but I can't say the same for rogues. I want to actively Rogue my problems away. I want to Rogue All The Things. Any wizard based invisibility or magic items is Wizarding it. I don't want to Wizard it, I want to Rogue it. Just like how Batman wins because he is batman and not because I asked Green Lantern for a spare ring.

Anlashok

2016-12-18, 03:28 PM

One of the problems the OP misses is that while the cleric can play down, it's much harder for the fighter or rogue to play up.

So if I have no problem with my friend's amazing CODzilla cleric but I want to play a rogue... I can't, because it's virtually impossible to bring a rogue up to that level and even if I can the end result won't resemble a rogue at all.

GilesTheCleric

2016-12-18, 03:51 PM

One of the problems the OP misses is that while the cleric can play down, it's much harder for the fighter or rogue to play up.

That's a great point, and I'd like to add that even when trying to "play down" a high-tier class, things can get out of hand.

Eg. Cleric: it's exactly the same as the fighter, minus a point or two of weapon damage on average. But it can also self/ heal, and completely obviate any encounter involving undead. Druid is just like the ranger, only it gets a fighter as a companion from level one, and using nearly any of its spells or wildshape instantly allows it to solve things the ranger cannot, even if the player is picking shapes or spells at random. Wizards only get spells, but as pointed out above, they outdamage a rogue just by using Burning Hands, Cone of Cold, Fireball, or any other unoptimised spell.

The PHB classes are just balanced so incredibly poorly that it's difficult not to outshine others even when you're trying not to. It doesn't help that a majority of optimised spells are all in core, so an unwitting player picking them at random has a decent chance to ruin the game for everyone else.

Troacctid

2016-12-18, 04:00 PM

Maybe not Burning Hands. That spell is pretty janky.

GilesTheCleric

2016-12-18, 04:01 PM

Okay, fair point. I was trying to remember what damaging spells wizards had at first level in core beyond Shocking Grasp.

Troacctid

2016-12-18, 04:04 PM

Chill Touch is where it's at, but most new players probably won't realize that you make all the attacks in one standard action.

martixy

2016-12-18, 04:09 PM

Case in point:
I can criticize 3.5 up, down and all around the block.
I'm not moving away from it.

All of the balance is, in the end, just a tool.

A tool towards the goal of allowing every one of the players to exercise their agency in the game in fun and effective ways. You do not have to use that tool. Other tools can be employed to achieve the same results. As long as you firmly keep your eyes on the prize, you can use any approach or combination thereof to run the game.

A balanced party does however make it easier on the DM to achieve said goal, by being mutually interchangeable to a sufficient degree, such that the opportunities for agency he presents can always be exploited by a variety of characters.

Manyasone

2016-12-18, 04:37 PM

Okay, but you realize a wizard who only tosses fireballs is still outdamaging the fighter without even trying, right?

Well yes, off course, but that's not really the point, is it. Point is that that wizard isn't really playing to his strengths. 'Playing down' as mentioned earlier in this thread

Gnaeus

2016-12-18, 04:38 PM

There can also be the issue, which I have seen come up in real games, where any threat to the caster is OP to fight the fighter, and the game becomes a DM slog in which every encounter has to be weighed between those extremes without invalidating the wizards build by giving every monster flight and true seeing and +20 to all saves

Strigon

2016-12-18, 04:39 PM

First off, what you said is true; you can make an agreement to play at a certain power level, and have a blast. Most groups do this, as far as I'm aware - at least, the successful ones do so, either formally or informally.

The issue is that a T1 player who puts literally no thought into their build will quite possibly be as good as a decent T5 player. If you want to go lower than that, a T1 player will have to deliberately torpedo their build.

Likewise, if a T1 player wants to do a medium level of optimizing, the martials will have to play serious hardball to catch up. If you want to go even further, then that limits what classes you can play.

Even worse, however, is what the tier level actually represents. It's not just about power, it's about usefulness. Consider this; a Wizard and Fighter that are meant to be on the same power level.
The Wizard's class features can deal lots of damage to a large group of foes, lots and lots of damage to a single foe, buff himself, debuff his enemies, SoS encounters into submission, charm someone in a social scenario, teleport the party, feed the party, give the party a safe place to sleep, scry an enemy that has disappeared,protect the party from scrying, lay a trap for opponents...

The fighter's class features, however, can:
Deal lots of damage to an opponent.

That's one of the issues I don't know if you're considering. Even if you agree to play at the same power level, casters get to do so much more cool stuff than non-casters. Even a rogue, the martial class specifically meant to do cool things out of combat, can't hold a candle to any of the casters.

Kelb_Panthera

2016-12-18, 05:30 PM

What's the big deal? Seriously, what's the big deal?

The big deal is being aware of a potential pit-falls to avoid , nothing more.

The point of the game is to have fun. If some people like to play rogues, beguilers, warmages, and fighters, fine. If another party member is having a blast as a wizard, fine. Why is it such a big deal?

It's not a huge deal... Until it is. As long as everybody is aware of the potential imbalances, accepts that they may come up at some point, and isn't bothered when it does, it doesn't matter at all. The problem is that many people don't conform to all three of those points.

Some people aren't even aware of the possibility and it can catch them by surprise. If it's the DM then you find yourself in situations where one player cannot contribute to an encounter or another must not contribute or its a steamroll. More on this shortly.

Some people refuse to accept the disparity exists. They tend to find themselves increasingly frustrated when reality slaps them in the face. A frustrated player is bad enough but if the DM is in this camp it can result in knee-jerk bannings of fairly moderate effects as they defacto try to bring the casters down to the melee par. Something that can only frustrate the casters' players as things continue.

Many people are seriously bothered by finding themselves in circumstance where they feel they can't contribute or that they have to hobble themselves. It takes a fairly skilled DM to design encounters that adequately take into account wild disparities in capability between party members so it often happens that the disparity shines through and frustrates somebody. Yes, yes, "don't compete with your friends" is fine advice but you eventually reach a point of asking "why is my character even here but to witness that guy's adventure." Hardly the stuff you reminisce over months after it happens.

Let's say one player makes a cleric that outshines every other party member by miles and singlehandedly destroys encounters. Why is that a problem with the class? Isn't that a problem with the player? A different, equally rules-literate player could make a character that doesn't blow all the others out of the water.

It's problem for the group with several ways out that all require, and this is important, compromise.

Option A) Cleric-zilla tones it down. Either he rejiggers the charcacter so it can't steamroll encounters (difficult for a cleric) or he deliberately holds himself back and you and he both have to deal with knowing he's condescending to your weaker character. The first can work but the latter tends to silently grate on some people.

Option B) The rogue/fighter steps up his game. No mean feat but the narrower the gap in capability the easier it is to design encounters for the group. Clever magical-gear-kung-fu can go a long ways. This option is ultimately limited by just how far ahead the cleric actually is, though. The ceiling for non-casters is undeniably lower than it is for casters.

Option C) The DM improves his encounter design. It is possible to plan for and accomodate to very different characters in the same party. The bigger the difference, the harder it gets though. Making CoDzilla work well alongside a completely green player's monk is a hell of a tall order.

Now this is the important bit of this matter; no one of these is the unambiguously correct answer. Any one of the three or some combination can reach the desired result of everyone having a good time but everyone has to compromise in such a social game sometimes. It's up to the players and DM in the individual instance to figure out which compromise works best for them.

Why do the classes NEED to be equal? Why not just make a gentlemen's pact and play to discover the story?

They don't and most people do, even if only implicitly.

Why does it matter?

Because a potential problem you're aware of and have prepared for is much easier to deal with than one that catches you completely off-guard.

Madara

2016-12-18, 05:37 PM

In the traditional psuedo-academic way that this community seems to love, Jaronk preference his "paper" so to speak with a discussion on these very inquiries. Unlike other games that are competitive and have tier lists, this one isn't a list of things to play but a way to describe what is being played.

My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versitliity of classes for balance purposes.

Klara Meison

2016-12-18, 05:43 PM

Because if a newbie wants to play an awesome martial in Pathfinder, a sort of "Master Swordsman" concept, that can stand their ground against an army of demons because they are just that good with a sword, they might choose Fighter as their class, and then be very very dissapointed when their character just can't do things they want him to do.

Because the only thing I can think of that is worse than having the whole point of your character concept casually turned into a joke by another player (e.g. a sneaky-sneaky rogue being unable to sneak as good as a bookworm wizard with Invisibility) is knowing that the only reason other player isn't doing that has nothing to do with their character's abilities, or cost of that action, or any other in-game argument you can come up with, and is solely because the other player is being extremely patronizing for metagaming reasons.

Because it's seriously bad when two complete newcomers can pick two classes, try their best to pick character design choices that sound good to them, and end up with one character that is completely useless in combat (e.g. medium-level Fighter without optimisation-fu) and one character that is pretty decent and can handle their job in combat just fine (e.g. Sorcerer with a big CHA and a halfway-decent spell selection) just because one class is way easier to build. Perhaps more importantly, those newcomers won't even know about this issue, since classes aren't labeled according to some sort of system (e.g. simple difficulty to optimise/max OP ceiling/min OP floor/overall utility ratings would be great).

Personally, I look at tier systems because I want to enjoy the game more, not less.

Alent

2016-12-18, 06:11 PM

What's the big deal? Seriously, what's the big deal?

The point of the game is to have fun. If some people like to play rogues, beguilers, warmages, and fighters, fine. If another party member is having a blast as a wizard, fine. Why is it such a big deal?

Let's say one player makes a cleric that outshines every other party member by miles and singlehandedly destroys encounters. Why is that a problem with the class? Isn't that a problem with the player? A different, equally rules-literate player could make a character that doesn't blow all the others out of the water.

Why do the classes NEED to be equal? Why not just make a gentlemen's pact and play to discover the story?

Why does it matter?

Let me turn that around to you with a problem I've had in real play.

What happens when you have two options, given to you because a player obsessed with Tier 5 classes has, either because he's acting out in frustration or has decided to prove he can perform at the level of the party casters, placed you in a situation where you can either TPK or break the gentlemen's agreement to save everyone?

Most will call this an OOC problem to be solved OOC, but a Gentlemen's Agreement is an OOC solution to what is effectively an IC have/have-not problem. Why does this IC problem have to exist? Why shouldn't we fix the system so that people aren't looking over at the party bard/cleric/druid/wizard with a pointed gaze when they lose control of the situation, saying either "Okay, when are you going to save us?" or "Why are we even here?"

What's wrong with taking what is obviously an incredibly strong and enjoyable system (3.5), and attempting to iron out it's faults in a way that keeps the fun aspects of the system? It seems to me a better option than finding new friends.

Darth Ultron

2016-12-18, 06:37 PM

What's the big deal? Seriously, what's the big deal?

The point of the game is to have fun. If some people like to play rogues, beguilers, warmages, and fighters, fine. If another party member is having a blast as a wizard, fine. Why is it such a big deal?

Not everyone has fun in the same way. You might think fun is just getting together and playing a game. Some people think of an RPG as a ''problem to be solved'' so they ''use the rules '' to ''solve the problem'' and ''win the game''. And some people think it is fun to ''build'' a character and show off their ''knowledge of the rules'' and rub it in everyone's face.

Let's say one player makes a cleric that outshines every other party member by miles and singlehandedly destroys encounters. Why is that a problem with the class? Isn't that a problem with the player? A different, equally rules-literate player could make a character that doesn't blow all the others out of the water.

The player that makes this type of problem would say they are innocent. They are just using the rules as written, and it's not like they are doing anything...almost like they get possessed by the rules. If something is written on page 44, the problem player ''has to'' do it.

If the rules were fair and balanced, the player would follow them....but if not the player will just go crazy wild and break the game.

Why do the classes NEED to be equal? Why not just make a gentlemen's pact and play to discover the story?

Why does it matter?

Some would say ''everything must be equal''. And such a player can't make things ''equal'' themselves, they need rules and laws to tell them how to make things equal.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-18, 07:47 PM

It can be difficult. I speak from personal experience. It's difficult for me to enjoy a game where I don't have the sense that I'm doing well. DND can be difficult in this regard because there is no "winning" in any real sense. I enjoy feeling competent and skillful within the boundaries of the system and the game world itself. As a result, it is hard for me to justify making objectively poor build choices, because I feel like it devalues my character for him to willfully weaken himself. Not every choice has to be the most optimal by any means, but it pains me a little too make choices that are to far below that.

After all, if you truly lived in a world of demons and monsters, wouldn't you strive to be powerful, if only to survive? As a result, I usually make one crazy story driven choice and then let make relax and optimize it back to competence.

It still makes me a difficult person to play with sometimes, and limits my own fun at times as well. As noted by someone earlier, everyone involved knows I'm simply *allowing* them to be almost as good as me. Outside of an optimization heavy game, I'm always gandalf leading around the hobbits and giggling to make at their troubles before solving everything.

Zanos

2016-12-18, 07:47 PM

Milo v3

2016-12-18, 08:01 PM

To be fair, standing your ground solo against any army of demons that isn't just dretches isn't exactly something I would expect a non-epic character to be able to do.

.... And then wizard just sends in army of angel simulacrums to fight them.

And some people think it is fun to ''build'' a character and show off their ''knowledge of the rules'' and rub it in everyone's face.
I have never met such an individual, but I'm not really sure what such a person has to do with the current conversation.

The player that makes this type of problem would say they are innocent. They are just using the rules as written, and it's not like they are doing anything...almost like they get possessed by the rules. If something is written on page 44, the problem player ''has to'' do it.
Wait, you've never seen people make powerful characters by accident? I've seen players pick wizard because they wanted to be the fragile mage who has to be protected by the two mighty warriors of the group... and then they ended up being the strongest member of the group to the extent the warriors didn't have much reason to be there, which disappointed both the overshadowed characters and person who played the caster.

If the rules were fair and balanced, the player would follow them....but if not the player will just go crazy wild and break the game.
Wha?

Some would say ''everything must be equal''. And such a player can't make things ''equal'' themselves, they need rules and laws to tell them how to make things equal.
Players with a low amount of system mastery don't know where the pitfalls are. Do you expect them to psychically know the effectiveness of every character options? Also, balance isn't just for players. The way encounters, XP, wealth, and CR works all depend on NPC's of the same CR being about the same challenge, but a level 20 fighter is never going to be anywhere close in power to a level 20 wizard.

stanprollyright

2016-12-18, 08:07 PM

Real world example: A player in my group really likes Fighters. Every time he makes one he plays it for a session or three before getting frustrated and scrapping the character. He gets bored and sometimes disruptive out of combat. He's been playing with us for a little over a year and he hadn't played PF before but was familiar with other RPGs. He started out playing a Paladin, but we acquired a pirate ship early, so as we became more pirate-y, he didn't want to be the lawful wet blanket or the guy that always drowns in heavy armor. So he made a duelist fighter (I suggested a swashbuckler or unchained rogue), but he didn't understand the rules very well at that point so it wasn't very good and he replaced it after two sessions with (after much convincing) a switch-hitter ranger with the freebooter archetype. He still plays that ranger, nearly a year later, and seems like he has a lot of fun with the character, since he can do ranged and melee equally well, he has some minor buffs to himself, the freebooter party buff to a single enemy which he uses every combat, and a bunch of skills to use out of combat. That game went on haitus, we started a new one (we now alternate between them). So in the second game his fist character was...another duelist fighter. Replaced with a nodachi fighter. He got really upset with the nodachi fighter's poor performance, which was in part caused by a run of bad luck, but was exacerbated by lack of tactical options in combat and nothing really to do out of combat. He wanted to quit altogether, so I talked to him for a while and suggested he try something different. He made a witch. We had a decent controller wizard in the party already and they conflicted a bit, and also he wasn't used to playing a squishy character at the beginning so he had to be saved a few times. He only really played the witch a few sessions before it ended, and he admitted it was a good class but was rather nonplussed with the experience. We played We Be Goblins, and his goblin was a barbarian. We made characters for a game that hasn't started yet; before session zero he said he was going to try an unchained rogue or vivisectionist, but when we actually rolled up our characters he made a Samurai. *sigh*

tl;dr guy in my party really needs PoW to be allowed

Zanos

2016-12-18, 08:18 PM

.... And then wizard just sends in army of angel simulacrums to fight them.
I didn't say it was impossible, just that it isn't something that you should be able to do if you want any of the base assumptions of the games combat system to hold. You're pretty far past the point of actually playing the game in that scenario.

Shackel

2016-12-18, 08:48 PM

Cosi

2016-12-18, 09:49 PM

The point of the game is to have fun. If some people like to play rogues, beguilers, warmages, and fighters, fine. If another party member is having a blast as a wizard, fine. Why is it such a big deal?

Because some people want to play a Rogue, but to have the kinds of abilities that the game reserves for Wizards. They want the kind of magical infiltration powers that various characters in fiction (e.g. Night Angel, Mistborn) have.

Let's say one player makes a cleric that outshines every other party member by miles and singlehandedly destroys encounters. Why is that a problem with the class? Isn't that a problem with the player? A different, equally rules-literate player could make a character that doesn't blow all the others out of the water.

First, if using a capability is being a bad player, why should the game allow you to have that capability? What is the benefit of a shiny "destroy the game" button that you're never supposed to push?

Second, no one is suggesting that you should destroy unoptimized games. They're suggesting that people want to play optimized games, and the game artificially constrains the playspace of those games by making some classes useless in them.

Third, it's generally not the player's fault. It's the fault of the designers and/or the group for having multiple balance points and not disambiguating them. This is also the problem with Gentleman's Agreements. What's the correct amount of planar binding? One minion? As much utility as you want, but one combat minion? As many minions as you want, but no chaining? Chaining, but no wish abuse? Unless your Gentleman's Agreement is extensive enough to qualify as houserules, it's not going to help.

Why do the classes NEED to be equal?

Flip that around. Why does the game need to be unequal? What are we getting when we decide the Fighter shouldn't get utility abilities?

DND can be difficult in this regard because there is no "winning" in any real sense. I enjoy feeling competent and skillful within the boundaries of the system and the game world itself.

I think this can be alleviated with well designed adventures and encounters. Adventures should have more encounters with large groups of minions, which give a better sense of scaling than single enemies. You can always fight one guy, but you can't always fight a hundred guys. There should also be more challenges where the expected solution is that you will use an ability like teleport or raise dead to sidestep something that would previously have been an adventure in and of itself. Honestly, there should just have been a lot more thought given to high level play as a whole. If the designers had sat down and figured out what a 15th level adventure was supposed to entail, they never would have tried to go to print with a class that gets a 1/week save-or-die as their 15th level ability.

To be fair, standing your ground solo against any army of demons that isn't just dretches isn't exactly something I would expect a non-epic character to be able to do.

Per the XP charts, you could reasonably expect to face an army of Vrocks at 17th level (when they are no longer worth individual XP). If you're willing to fight devils, you could beat down an army of Bearded Devils at 13th (perhaps with Barbed Devil officers and a Horned Devil general). If we open things up to non-core, there are a huge variety of demons in the CR range where you can fight them in armies at mid to high levels.

That said, it is true that D&D doesn't scale out as well as it should. Fighting armies of demons is unwieldy and poorly supported, but it really shouldn't be because it is super cool. The game scales from "some bandits" to "some giants" to "some demons" pretty well, but it doesn't scale from "some bandits" to "an army of bandits" very well. That should be fixed.

JoshuaZ

2016-12-18, 10:07 PM

To an extent, I don't think that the problem is that the rules are unbalanced as much as it is to the levels of which it is unbalanced. Were it only a spread of one or two tiers I doubt there would be as many issues... but having a Fighter and Wizard in a party after level 10 or so is going to end in a lot of annoyance unless the Fighter is highly optimized and the Wizard's all but run by someone new.

Very much this. Even 2 tiers apart isn't an issue. A party with T1,T2 and T3 characters (especially if they are T3 characters with a high optimization floor like warblade) can be fine. And a set that's a bunch of characters all one tier away from each other also is generally fine. But when you have something like a T5 character along with mainly a bunch of T1s and T2s (this happened in the last campaign I DMed), it can be a real problem. Worse, a lot of the T4 and T5 classes are mechanically simpler and so are things that new players are more likely to take.

Darth Ultron

2016-12-18, 11:10 PM

I have never met such an individual, but I'm not really sure what such a person has to do with the current conversation.

Sadly I have met many. And the jerks who can only have fun by hurting or putting down others has a lot to do with this all.

Wait, you've never seen people make powerful characters by accident? I've seen players pick wizard because they wanted to be the fragile mage who has to be protected by the two mighty warriors of the group... and then they ended up being the strongest member of the group to the extent the warriors didn't have much reason to be there, which disappointed both the overshadowed characters and person who played the caster.

I've never seen a clueless, innocent player do this, no. I've seen tons of jerks who try and claim they accidentally optimized. There are really two types of ''optimizing'', the roll playing rule using number crunching types and the role playing common sense type. It's rare that a player is both types.

Players with a low amount of system mastery don't know where the pitfalls are. Do you expect them to psychically know the effectiveness of every character options? Also, balance isn't just for players. The way encounters, XP, wealth, and CR works all depend on NPC's of the same CR being about the same challenge, but a level 20 fighter is never going to be anywhere close in power to a level 20 wizard.

Balance is really one of the ''in the eye of the beholder'' things. The top 100 ''balance problems'' that most people have I can ''fix'' with a word or two, but that is just me.

Milo v3

2016-12-19, 12:34 AM

Sadly I have met many.
Then you should stop hanging around with horrible people?

And the jerks who can only have fun by hurting or putting down others has a lot to do with this all.
How?

I've never seen a clueless, innocent player do this, no.
You should just stop hanging around with horrible people then rather than assuming the rest of the world is like that.

I've seen tons of jerks who try and claim they accidentally optimized.
And I've never seen one. Again, why are you playing with jerks?

There are really two types of ''optimizing'', the roll playing rule using number crunching types and the role playing common sense type. It's rare that a player is both types.
Every optimiser I've ever met must be rather rare then (including myself).

Balance is really one of the ''in the eye of the beholder'' things. The top 100 ''balance problems'' that most people have I can ''fix'' with a word or two, but that is just me.
And you don't see an issue with the fact that people could make a list of the top 100 balance problems in D&D without scratching the surface of how many problems exist?

Fizban

2016-12-19, 02:09 AM

Flip that around. Why does the game need to be unequal?
Because what many people instinctively desire, even if they don't realize it themselves, is for dedicated casters to be decisively more powerful as a rule. It is a standard fantasy trope that magic is just better, you can't have scrappy low-magic underdogs fighting the big bad casters without big bad casters, you can't have the one party wizard feeling like a boss for being a caster if he's not actually more powerful than the fighter, and you can't play the wizard's lackey without being a lackey (some people do want to play characters defined by their lack of options). DnD 3.5 wants that all to be available, so it has big bad casters and limited non-casters, and leaves it up to the players and DM to choose weather they want to stick to the standard 1/2 casting +1/2 non-casting party, or go all casters for maximum power, or have fewer casters for less power.

The problem, as you already mentioned, is that even if the designers realized some of the implications of the system they made (they certainly had expectations after all), they didn't actually give any significant advice on how to realize it. Nothing about how to build encounters/adventures/campaigns so that casters spend/conserve their spells in ways that support the party rather than overshadowing them. I think it's fairly clear between core and older modules that casters are supposed to spend lots of spells on resistances and immunities to protect the party from magically powerful monsters while the mundanes grind through lots and lots of mooks that aren't worth the spells/just keep pouring out of the walls, but between non-core blasting options that make it easier and a lack of direction on how to prevent it, it's much easier for the casters to just blast everything. And if this style is mentioned anywhere it's clearly not in big enough letters for anyone to be paying attention to it.

Milo v3

2016-12-19, 02:18 AM

It is a standard fantasy trope that magic is just better, you can't have scrappy low-magic underdogs fighting the big bad casters without big bad casters, you can't have the one party wizard feeling like a boss for being a caster if he's not actually more powerful than the fighter, and you can't play the wizard's lackey without being a lackey (some people do want to play characters defined by their lack of options).
You could just have all the classes be equal-ish in power and then use different levels to say "x character is more powerful than y" because... that's literally what level is for.

That way if you want underdogs vs. big bad casters, have them be lower level than the big bad caster. If you want x character to be more powerful than y character, then have it actually work with the rules for building encounters rather than pretending the issue doesn't exist and just have y be higher level.

Characters of the same level should be on the same level, if you want characters of different levels just make them different levels. Simple as that. You don't need to screw over people who don't want to play "Wizards are always better than fighters", to have wizards be of a higher power level than fighters, you just have to deal with the fact that if characters are meant to be different power levels then they should probably be different level.

Fizban

2016-12-19, 02:55 AM

You could just have all the classes be equal-ish in power and then use different levels to say "x character is more powerful than y" because... that's literally what level is for.
At which point you're making special exceptions to allow one person to play an overleved character, who in turn isn't leveling up because they're fighting underleveled opponents. You're breaking two even more fundamental conceits of everyone playing the same game and everyone getting character advancement in order to fix one thing that's only questionably a problem.

You don't need to screw over people who don't want to play "Wizards are always better than fighters", to have wizards be of a higher power level than fighters, you just have to deal with the fact that if characters are meant to be different power levels then they should probably be different level.
Your suggestion here is actually worse: if we rebuild the fighter so it's as strong as a wizard and then say "magic" is supposed to be powerful, now they have to play low level fighters so that their options are restricted enough that the wizard's magic feels special. Whereas currently, the fighter isn't being screwed over at all: the game expects there to be a fighter in every party, it's the players and DM who make that fighter unwelcome by optimizing too hard/writing encounters that the fighter can't contribute in, a feedback loop that an be stopped simply by not doing it.

Forced level gaps are far worse to the underlying fabric of the game than having classes that are intentionally on different power levels. Though I can tell you what fix you actually want: 10 level prestige casters only, like in d20 modern. That way the scary casters don't show up at 1st level, don't get spells until later, and stop at 5th level spells. Works fine if you vet every monster individually based on weather or not you're supposed to have magic for fighting it. So basically go and rebuild the entire game then.

Douglas

2016-12-19, 03:28 AM

The problem is that the game presents a set of labels describing character power, strongly implies that those labels are reliable indicators on their own, and that implication is completely false.

A player who does not have great system mastery will very likely believe that two characters of the same level are near-automatically about as powerful as each other, because that is a pervasive assumption that is presented as unquestioned truth throughout the rule books. He will then be surprised and likely disappointed when actual play experience proves it wrong.

The problem is not that a well built and played wizard or cleric is more powerful and versatile than any fighter could possibly be. The problem is that this disparity is not stated up front so new players would know to account for it, resulting in misleading expectations.

Jormengand

2016-12-19, 03:39 AM

The point of the game is to have fun.

Maybe some players' idea of fun is playing a competent nonmagical character?

Milo v3

2016-12-19, 03:55 AM

At which point you're making special exceptions to allow one person to play an overleved character
Except that character is equal in power to how they would in the game as written. The only difference is that one is more fair and honest, and leaves the possibility of non-weak martials open at high level.

who in turn isn't leveling up because they're fighting underleveled opponents.
The character who is more powerful than to be expected from the level of his group, should be treated as if he is more powerful than expect for the level of his group. To do otherwise is rather ridiculous.

Your suggestion here is actually worse: if we rebuild the fighter so it's as strong as a wizard and then say "magic" is supposed to be powerful, now they have to play low level fighters so that their options are restricted enough that the wizard's magic feels special.
That's already what you have, except the fighter doesn't get the option of being as strong as wizard. Non-magical characters don't gain anything when they gain level outside of higher numbers. You're currently forcing all fighters to be effectively low-level characters just so that mages can be super powerful compared to anything else.

Whereas currently, the fighter isn't being screwed over at all: the game expects there to be a fighter in every party, it's the players and DM who make that fighter unwelcome by optimizing too hard/writing encounters that the fighter can't contribute in, a feedback loop that an be stopped simply by not doing it.
Bull. Fighters have no reason to exist in tonnes of parties, at a certain point they become a liability when they can be better replaced by summoned/called creatures, animal companions, eidolons, simulacrums, shapechanging, or blasting purely by the players picking things they think look cool.

Also, "encounters the fighter can't contribute in" wouldn't be such a problem if fighters actually could contribute in more than 1 type of encounter. Casters slowly gain new ways they can contribute and new types of narratives to engage in. Fighter on the otherhand, he is stuck with the same narratives available to the Commoner class of sufficient level.

Forced level gaps are far worse to the underlying fabric of the game than having classes that are intentionally on different power levels.
I disagree.

Though I can tell you what fix you actually want: 10 level prestige casters only, like in d20 modern. That way the scary casters don't show up at 1st level, don't get spells until later, and stop at 5th level spells. Works fine if you vet every monster individually based on weather or not you're supposed to have magic for fighting it. So basically go and rebuild the entire game then.
Not what I want at all. That suggestion just forces Everyone to be low-level characters, which is the direct opposite of what I want.

I want non-casters to be More useful, not to nerf casters. I want fighters to actually become high-level characters eventually, rather than being commoners with magic gear. I want low-level characters to be useful for low-level, and high-level characters to be useful for high-level. But right now, low-level characters are useful for low-level (generally), and high-level casters are useful for high-level. Why should only half the classes in the game get to play at high level? Why are powerful warrior concepts not allowed?

Darth Ultron

2016-12-19, 07:53 AM

Every optimiser I've ever met must be rather rare then (including myself).

I have no doubt you, the others you have met and the ones here are the exceptions to the rule. I'm talking about all the rest of them.

And you don't see an issue with the fact that people could make a list of the top 100 balance problems in D&D without scratching the surface of how many problems exist?

I agree lots of things in D&D are unbalanced. But ''balance'' means different things to different people.

Gemini476

2016-12-19, 08:12 AM

At which point you're making special exceptions to allow one person to play an overleved character, who in turn isn't leveling up because they're fighting underleveled opponents. You're breaking two even more fundamental conceits of everyone playing the same game and everyone getting character advancement in order to fix one thing that's only questionably a problem.

But why not play with unequal levels, though? Why force a square peg into a round hole by saying that Pippin, Aragorn and Gandalf are all the same level?

Really, the unequal party is a classic and iconic concept in fantasy media. Why on earth wouldn't you include it here as well?

Jormengand

2016-12-19, 08:16 AM

Really, the unequal party is a classic and iconic concept in fantasy media. Why on earth wouldn't you include it here as well?

Because in a role-playing game, someone has to actually be the irrelevant character who serves no real purpose but to knock stuff down wells loudly, get taken to Isengard, and trigger cursed items.

OldTrees1

2016-12-19, 08:22 AM

I have no doubt you, the others you have met and the ones here are the exceptions to the rule. I'm talking about all the rest of them.

Not a very rational rule if 95+% of people sampled are labeled as exceptions to the rule.

Consider this:
You turn away 50% of the prospective players you sample. Let's pretend this means you sample twice as many prospective players as normal (this is being generous in your favor). There are over a hundred other DMs on this site that regularly categorically disagree with you. However let's be generous and only call that 20. The sample size you have been deriving your "rules" from is, when I am being this generous, 2/22 ~= 9.1%. Meaning that the exceptions to your rule vastly outnumber the cases consistent with your rule even when I am being generous.

This is of course before we switch from the generous numbers to realistic numbers and account for the likelihood of user error on your part.

Gemini476

2016-12-19, 08:37 AM

Because in a role-playing game, someone has to actually be the irrelevant character who serves no real purpose but to knock stuff down wells loudly, get taken to Isengard, and trigger cursed items.

And hence if you're willing to part from the fantasy staple of the uneven party, you should probably also not have a more powerful wizard in a party of less powerful hobbits! Or, to word it otherwise, you shouldn't have an Xth-level Wizard be more powerful than an Xth-level Fighter. (Unless you're playing TSR D&D, in which case you should compare by XP rather than level.)

This isn't a knock against you, but rather against Fizban: the two things - the level 1 Hobbits adventuring with the high-level Rangers and a literal angel, and BMX Bandit adventuring with Angel Summoner - are pretty much the exact same thing.

Arguing for uneven martial/magical power within a party but simultaneously arguing against uneven level-based power is baffling.

The Insanity

2016-12-19, 08:44 AM

Darrin

2016-12-19, 08:58 AM

Why not just make a gentlemen's pact and play to discover the story?

1) Not everyone steps up to the table with that goal specifically in mind when they decide to play. Some people have different ideas on what makes an enjoyable game.

2) Regardless of what sort of gentleperson's agreement or whether everyone agrees to focus on narrative elements as the most important part of the game, there are consequences within the rules for making certain character build decisions. The game will actually punish you for deciding to take certain options. Understanding how the game rewards or punishes certain choices can be a pretty important factor in determining whether everyone can have an enjoyable experience.

Klara Meison

2016-12-19, 09:04 AM

Because what many people instinctively desire, even if they don't realize it themselves, is for dedicated casters to be decisively more powerful as a rule.

I'd like to see you prove that.

It is a standard fantasy trope that magic is just better

Last I checked, it was the opposite. Various Warlocks and Dark Wizards all over fiction have historically been taken down not by White Wizards, but by a band of(mostly martial) adolescents shouting obscenities. Lord of the Rings is basically a story about an eldritch demon/angel thing posessing untold infernal magical powers being defeated by a pair of lv 2 halfling fighters.In some fictional worlds(e.g. Dragonball Z) magic is even strictly inferior to martial prowess, being shown to be "cheating" and using it is generally punished by the narrative.

you can't have scrappy low-magic underdogs fighting the big bad casters without big bad casters

Just because you fail to imagine how that might be done doesn't mean it's impossible.

you can't have the one party wizard feeling like a boss for being a caster if he's not actually more powerful than the fighter

Casters already get utility through the roof and untold cosmic powers that make them superior to 99.9% of the population of the world. Why is it also necessary to make them superior to their friends?

and you can't play the wizard's lackey without being a lackey (some people do want to play characters defined by their lack of options)

Take an NPC class then. Warrior is a thing you know.

DnD 3.5 wants that all to be available, so it has big bad casters and limited non-casters, and leaves it up to the players and DM to choose weather they want to stick to the standard 1/2 casting +1/2 non-casting party, or go all casters for maximum power, or have fewer casters for less power.

DnD 3.5 has no options for playing a party of awesome non-magical characters. That reduces possible roleplaying space. That is a big problem for a role-playing game.

At which point you're making special exceptions to allow one person to play an overleved character, who in turn isn't leveling up because they're fighting underleveled opponents. You're breaking two even more fundamental conceits of everyone playing the same game and everyone getting character advancement in order to fix one thing that's only questionably a problem.

But you aren't playing the same game. Non-Caster is never playing the same game as a Caster. At lv 1 Caster can already solve whole encounters with the flick of their wrist, and their resources(i.e. spell slots) run out slower than Non-Caster's(i.e. HP pool), but at least it's generally the same sorts of problems they are solving. At higher levels Caster slowly gets more and more options while Non-Caster doesn't, to the point where it is literally impossible for Non-Caster to even participate, let alone solo the sorts of problems Caster starts to deal with. At levels 10+ Non-Caster can only struggle to keep up with Caster (who can fly, teleport, summon armies, destroy armies with a casual flick of their wrist, converse with gods, evade detection, detect those evading detection, and so on and so forth). Basically all high-level hazards and challenges require you to be able to cast/emulate magic to evade them/defend against them/attack them in a meaningful way/etc.

Your suggestion here is actually worse: if we rebuild the fighter so it's as strong as a wizard and then say "magic" is supposed to be powerful, now they have to play low level fighters so that their options are restricted enough that the wizard's magic feels special.

I...I don't even know what to say. Poe's law?

Whereas currently, the fighter isn't being screwed over at all: the game expects there to be a fighter in every party

#citation needed#. I can make a pretty effective martial out of a Wizard, so even needing someone to be able to deal physical damage doesn't really force you to rely on Non-Casters.

Because in a role-playing game, someone has to actually be the irrelevant character who serves no real purpose but to knock stuff down wells loudly, get taken to Isengard, and trigger cursed items.

And playing a Non-Caster in DnD is basically that.

Define "fun".

^ that. That person gets it.

Rhyltran

2016-12-19, 09:35 AM

I'm going to weigh in here with my own two cents. In most cases I am the dungeon master and I've seen all sides of this situation. Characters who overshadow others, players who could overshadow but hold themselves back, and then there's players who are new and don't know how to build optimized characters while someone else makes a character of a similar tier who completely overshadows them due to knowing the rules. Over time I feel like it should be my responsibility (The DM) to ensure that this happens to the minimum. Some rules I have in play is that if someone is going to be a caster they will be the only caster. Example, per group there will be one Druid, Wizard, Archivist, Psion, Cleric, Sorcerer etc. If there's any at all (unless everyone wants to play nothing but Tier 1's or Tier 2's.) The next thing I do is ask for the player in question to provide a rough outline of character progression that they intend on taking.

If it's VERY sub optimal and poorly built I will help them to the best of my ability to create a working build that won't be easily foreshadowed. If the player is playing a fighter, monk, etc I ensure that their character will at least, progression wise, pull damage. Even if they won't have all the tools at their disposal as a character if they are competing at least with damage generally the players seem to feel somewhat useful. There's many ways to do this, even with monks, to pull this off. Next up if you are careful with your encounters you can easily mix in some easy fights (that the caster in no way will want to go all out and the other "martials" will completely stomp and more challenging fights with multiple challenging opponents. Preferably one with casting.

With proper placement what you will have is the Tier 1 or 2 class person going "I need to stop such and such." and move accordingly. Typically tier 1-2 classes from my experience will immediately go after an enemy spellcaster. Why? Knowing what they can do means they know what the enemy is capable of doing. Then you have the other dangerous enemy or two in proper position in order to force a battle between them and the "mundanes." Everyone fights, everyone feels challenged, someone finishes their target first and assists the other.. everyone feels like they contributed and everyone reminisces about the fight for days to come.

Is it difficult? Yes but I don't feel like it's some impossible hurdle.

Fizban

2016-12-19, 10:14 AM

But why not play with unequal levels, though? Why force a square peg into a round hole by saying that Pippin, Aragorn and Gandalf are all the same level?

Really, the unequal party is a classic and iconic concept in fantasy media. Why on earth wouldn't you include it here as well?
Because it is more natural for the PCs to all be the same level, that's what people expect. Everyone always says that same level should equal same power, so why would you build a system where the PCs are expected to be different levels and thus "obviously" different power? In order for same level=same power to even have meaning you must assume that normally the party is all the same level. (And nevermind that Lord of the Rings is one of the worst examples to use for a dnd party, not the least of which because it never forms a coherent party and none of the abilities are actually on par with dnd spellcasting).

You're essentially saying that the standard trope of magic being *magic* should only apply in asymmetric games where some players are getting special overleveled characters, rather than being a default part of the system. This means anyone who wants that trope to be part of the game has to abandon the normal progression rules in order to accommodate it, despite it being a commonly desired trope. If you don't like games where that's true then you can just keep ignoring classes that aren't powerful enough for your taste, but demanding that *every* class be the same power level reduces versatility in the system, period.

Edit for Spoilers- and if you respond to something I've already addressed in a spoiler the joke's on you.

Except that character is equal in power to how they would in the game as written. The only difference is that one is more fair and honest, and leaves the possibility of non-weak martials open at high level.
The character who is more powerful than to be expected from the level of his group, should be treated as if he is more powerful than expect for the level of his group. To do otherwise is rather ridiculous.
That's already what you have, except the fighter doesn't get the option of being as strong as wizard. Non-magical characters don't gain anything when they gain level outside of higher numbers. You're currently forcing all fighters to be effectively low-level characters just so that mages can be super powerful compared to anything else.
Is it equal in power? There are other things tied to level besides spells, and asymmetric HD can only make that balance worse. Should the "more powerful" character be expected to give up level advancement, when level advancement is expected in every other game with a leveling system? Is it really fair, when the wizard player who expects to have a higher power as a result of crunching a more complex class and aligning their choices with the tropes of the setting is instead told that a beatstick deserves to do all the same things while also being better in all the other ways? You say I'm forcing fighters to be low level characters, without considering the effects of HD, because you simply don't value them. For example, fighter should have around double the hit points of a wizard, a pretty significant resource for surviving all sorts of things, including wizards. I'm not the one forcing "fighters" to be lower level, that's you and your demand of "same power"+asymmetrical levels to replicate a trope that already exists. This system already does what I want it to do, if you think you have a way to rewrite it so that fighters and wizards have the same power without destroying the Magic is Better trope, go ahead.

Non-magical characters don't gain anything when they gain level outside of higher numbers.
And that's just factually untrue, but entirely within expectations from this sort of argument.

Bull. Fighters have no reason to exist in tonnes of parties, at a certain point they become a liability when they can be better replaced by summoned/called creatures, animal companions, eidolons, simulacrums, shapechanging, or blasting purely by the players picking things they think look cool.
Go ahead and read your words again. Now, allow me to refer you back to the line you just quoted and then ignored:

it's the players and DM who make that fighter unwelcome by optimizing too hard/writing encounters that the fighter can't contribute in, a feedback loop that an be stopped simply by not doing it.
Guess who's responsible for making the fighter irrelevant in those parties? That's right, it's. . . the players and DM who are playing a higher-op game that has no place in it for fighters! The actual bull in this exchange is your refusal to accept the fact that the fighter is part of the standard party of fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. The game is designed with a place for the fighter, and it is you who makes the fighter irrelevant by forcing the optimization level of the game higher, demanding that it be challenging enough for parties that have nothing but spellcasters and then complaining that when you turned up the difficulty it screwed up the balance, or just demanding everything be perfectly balanced because it offends you that they're not.

Also, "encounters the fighter can't contribute in" wouldn't be such a problem if fighters actually could contribute in more than 1 type of encounter. Casters slowly gain new ways they can contribute and new types of narratives to engage in. Fighter on the otherhand, he is stuck with the same narratives available to the Commoner class of sufficient level.
Uh, you do realize that DnD grew out of a wargame into a dungeon crawler and had only just barely introduced hard mechanics for non-combat non-magical things of any kind, right? When 75% or more of the game is combat you don't need any other role. Xp and treasure awards for non-combat encounters are entirely up to the DM: treasure and xp are only standard rewards for combat. So tell me again how it's the game's fault that your DM is building encounters that require the fighter to do things other than fight in order to get their rewards.
And hey, let's take a look at reality. Face it: not everyone at the table is the same skill level, maybe your group is perfect but the game needs to work with as many tables as possible. What's going to make for a more resilient game: one where everyone is exactly the same power level but some of them aren't skilled enough and so the party is subtly underpowered and risks sudden annihilation, or one where the skilled players can choose classes with enough power to compensate for their fellow's lack of skill? That's basically the perfect power fantasy appeal to nerds right there. You just made an accusation above that the players picking things that look cool are overpowered, ignoring the fact that plenty of people pick non-casters because they think they look cool. And the game will run just fine if you don't screw it up for them.

DnD is not meant to be a perfectly balanced game, from the very beginning when what classes you could take depended on your stat rolls.. That's a feature, not a bug, though the feature has changed from being screwed based on rolls to empowered with a smorgasbord of classes. The more range it can cover the more people it can appeal to, which is the whole point of a mass marketed product, and for anyone who's willing to take some freaking responsibility for their choices in shaping their characters and campaigns, it works perfectly fine.

Oh dear, here comes another one. Very well then.

I'd like to see you prove that.
Prove what? I've given no numbers that need proof nor can be disproven. It's anecdotal evidence, the same as every other piece of "evidence" anyone can bring to the discussion. I've noticed it, and if you want to ignore it well have fun contributing nothing to that part of the discussion.

Last I checked, it was the opposite.
I said is was a standard trope, not the only trope, you do know how tropes work, right? The fact that dnd has chosen to follow this trope rather than the opposite is why your argument doesn't matter.

Just because you fail to imagine how that might be done doesn't mean it's impossible.
I can't have the phrase that I wrote without the phrase that I wrote? Sure you can abolish full casters and then make the big bad "casters" piles of DM fiat, but then they're piles of DM fiat and people that care about big books full of rules and stats tend not to care about piles of DM fiat.

Take an NPC class then. Warrior is a thing you know.
Forcing them to play a class with literally no features because you don't like the idea of a class with less features than your personal bar, nice.

DnD 3.5 has no options for playing a party of awesome non-magical characters. That reduces possible roleplaying space. That is a big problem for a role-playing game.
Define awesome. Plenty of people think being a fighter or rogue or barbarian is awesome, even in a game with full spellcasters. Your definition of "awesome" is probably "can do things that break the laws of physics/existence/narrative the same way magic does." A character who does magic but doesn't label it magic.

But you aren't playing the same game. Non-Caster is never playing the same game as a Caster.
I knew someone was going to complain about that phrasing. "Game" in that context means "leveling up through xp gains." As for the rest, nebulous much? And I've already stated what I believe is the intended play style above, essentially any argument that hinges on "wah, the caster has all these spells and I don't" ignores the fact that the caster is supposed to be supporting 3 other people with those spells. Add in a dash of DMs letting the casters run the game: never attacked at night, never pressed for resources, never given an unfavorable ruling, never put in a position of any kind where they might be inconvenienced and heaven forbid we use any actual examples because building encounters is hard, all wrapped up in some hyperbole and I'm snoring already.

I...I don't even know what to say. Poe's law?
If you demand that fighters be upgraded so they're effectively non-magical wizards, someone who wants to use those rules for a game invoking the trope of Magic is Better, as is standard in DnD 3.5, has to make the magic users overleveled to invoke that trope. This means that comparatively, anyone in the party not playing a magic user is being forced to play an underleveled character. Considering the standard dnd party is half magic users and half not, two players are playing underleved characters. The situation is rather absurd, but that's what happens when you demand asymmetric leveling as the solution to a problem that isn't a problem.

Further, being able to have some PCs that are stronger if necessary is a good thing, but punishing them with reduced level gains/rubbing it in the noses of the rest of the party by just giving them more levels. What these people actually want is a return to asymmetric xp tables, as in old editions when wizards leveled up slower. But in old editions the game also stopped around 10th depending on your race+class if I remember right, and I doubt it was more than a few levels of difference, not enough to actually make up for the difference between magic and not-magic. You could then do Magic is Better by making wizards level up faster than fighters non-magical wizards, at the cost of ruining the unified xp system that allows easy multiclassing and prestige classing and basically half of 3.5.

#citation needed#. I can make a pretty effective martial out of a Wizard, so even needing someone to be able to deal physical damage doesn't really force you to rely on Non-Casters.
I think that's actually the first time someone has called citation needed on the standard party makeup, which despite being extremely common knowledge is a bit difficult to cite (I went preemptively looking in a past thread). DMG p50 implies it with a list of problems that will be more difficult than normal if the party lacks certain classes, it's easy enough to see the categories you're expected to have. It can also be inferred from the 3.5 starter set that has exactly four characters, one each of fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard, or the 3.0 starter set which was also restricted to those classes (but with human and non-human options), and may have been stated explicitly in the 3.0 version but I've no idea where my book got lost to years ago. I would also guarantee that it's been said in more than one article, magazine or online, and may also have been more forcefully called out in past editions. It's easy to see why it's not explicitly called out of course, to avoid forcing people into those roles if they don't want to. The fact that the designers aren't forcing you to play that way doesn't mean that's not how they designed the game. Once again, just because you'd rather play a martial wizard doesn't mean the game wasn't built with room for the fighter, that's your problem not the game's.

Unless you're actually trying to say they deliberately made the fighter useless and expect people with fighters in the party to fail. I've heard about intentional trap feats vs system mastery rewards, but I think half the base classes as deliberate traps is a bit too large and long of a con.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-19, 11:28 AM

I actually had to just stop reading Fizbans posts because he seems to take his point of view as being the point of view of everyone in the world except for the people telling him he's ridiculous. At some point, when everyone disagrees with you, you have to start wondering if your position isn't as logical and obvious as you think.

That said, AD&D is the first edition I played and the expectation was that players could, and often would, be at wide spread levels of power and experience. You didn't worry about the party all being the same level. That's not an expectation that's been built into the system from the beginning by any means.

Fact is, balance is hard. Every class is essentially a conglomeration of discrete abilities and methods to contribute. Being a fighter is playing a character who fights things. Often big and brawny, though not always. You use a weapon and skill to defeat your foes. It's not a hard concept to realize from a fluff perspective. That's really kind of the problem. It's easily replicated. You can make a strong and believable fighter out of a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric, a psion... Pretty much any number of full casters can use their wide array of abilities to become competent with weapons and strike down their enemies, while retaining even more options.

Since fluff is mutable, and mechanically they are overwhelmingly superior to a fighter. There is no reason for a fighter to exist if I can instead just play a wizard and focus all his abilities on melee combat and a little roleplay stuff. I can fluff it all out as him pushing himself into feats of martial prowess thru sheer willpower, his spell book is a tome of techniques and mind over body secrets, and etc.

That is an objectively negative balance problem. If every facet of one class is able to be replicated by another, with extra, them your class is badly designed.

Fizban

2016-12-19, 12:40 PM

Fair enough that it's a bit hard to chew, I did basically write an entire extra rebuttal post in there instead of double posting. I'll spoiler it as a courtesy.

I actually had to just stop reading Fizbans posts because he seems to take his point of view as being the point of view of everyone in the world except for the people telling him he's ridiculous. At some point, when everyone disagrees with you, you have to start wondering if your position isn't as logical and obvious as you think.
One must also consider the possibility they are wrong: I have, have you? What is it that you take issue with, the general view, or my specific aversion to asymmetrical level systems, or my claim that fighter exists and that's okay?

If it is the fighter, as in:

That is an objectively negative balance problem. If every facet of one class is able to be replicated by another, with extra, them your class is badly designed.
I respond: If a class can replicate every facet of another class, with extra, then that class is badly designed. The fault goes both ways so which is it, are fighters underpowered or are wizards overpowered? More importantly, does it matter? That is the question the thread asks, and it is upon you to prove that this negative balance problem is a negative game problem.

If it is the combined view: Do you really think I've hung around this game for years starting and ending with this exact viewpoint? I have reconsidered my position multiple times, updating it as my understanding of the game has grown by playing and DMing it. I have gone from no expectations to riding all the non-casters are irrelevant and CR is useless hype, read the essays from well known and unknown posters, learned armchair game design by absorption from dnd and non-dnd related sources as well as anyone else, and made my own evaluations. And you're trying to tell me that I should bow to "everyone"s opinion rather than using my own head.

At the end of the day, it is the people at the table who determine the balance of the game. That is the truth behind everything. It doesn't matter what books are printed unless you're actively using them. It doesn't matter that one of the dozens of classes is underpowered in a certain environment, when you can simply choose to change the environment or use a different class. The only problem is people who can't handle the system, be they too skilled, too unskilled, or too hung up on the imperfect balance to notice it doesn't matter. If you want someone else's opinion, take a look at Rhyltran's:

I'm going to weigh in here with my own two cents. In most cases I am the dungeon master and I've seen all sides of this situation. . .
Over time I feel like it should be my responsibility (The DM) to ensure that this happens to the minimum. . .
Is it difficult? Yes but I don't feel like it's some impossible hurdle.
Or how about Kelb, he's a regular face and I've argued quite vehemently against him in the past, what does he have to say?

The big deal is being aware of a potential pit-falls to avoid , nothing more.
It's not a huge deal... Until it is. As long as everybody is aware of the potential imbalances, accepts that they may come up at some point, and isn't bothered when it does, it doesn't matter at all. The problem is that many people don't conform to all three of those points.
Why, even the very OP of the thread, the whole point of the discussion:

What's the big deal? Seriously, what's the big deal?

So no, "everyone" does not disagree with me. There are two people who have disagreed with me vehemently enough to escalate their quotational breakdowns, plus you who said you got sick of reading my post. Here I supply three quotes from people who agree with me on the general premise, is that enough to satisfy your accusation?

John Longarrow

2016-12-19, 12:54 PM

The point is to have fun. It's not very fun when you play a martial non caster and wind up never really getting to smash enemies because they are either too strong or the caster already smoked them wholesale. Balancing the classes means each player gets to feel like their character isn't just a comic relief sidekick. It's fine if that's what you want to play, but it is a problem when everyone wants to have the chance to play the hero and the full caster ends up doing it faster and easier every stinking time.

This sounds like a DM issue that would need to be fixed, not a Caster VS Martial.

If the DM tosses ONE BBEG at the party only after the party has time to research said BBEG, you get this. If the DM tosses multiple encounters per day at the party without giving the party time to prep, Martial (or other non-limited resource) characters shine far more. This becomes very true when you start hitting limits on how long spells last/AMF/what ever slows the casters down.

The best encounters are ones that require both the casters to do their part and the melee to do theirs. If you can craft an encounter that makes EVERYONE feel like they are doing their share your doing your part as the DM.

Telonius

2016-12-19, 12:55 PM

I don't think that the classes "need" to be perfectly balanced. But I do think that the (very real) power imbalance is something that players and DMs need to be aware of. What they do with that information is up to them. They can play as-is, make houserule changes, the DM can tailor the encounters (at least to a point), or do anything else they like.

My biggest problem with the class imbalance is that it's not completely apparent to somebody who's totally new. Nothing illustrates this better than Druid and Monk. Druid is probably the easiest class for a newbie to accidentally break. All it takes is Natural Spell, which is an obvious choice for a Druid even if you don't know the first thing about optimization. Meanwhile, Monk. As Wizards put it (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a), "Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, which boasts the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes." If you don't have any system mastery it looks like it's really powerful and fun. But when you turn out to be less useful than the Druid's Animal Companion, that can really hamper your feeling of agency within the campaign world - especially if you're the sort of player that's attracted by the Monk's shiny class features.

If you know that going in and can work around it, great! But it's something that took a while for the internet to collectively figure out, and obviously there's nothing in the books to let you know it.

Rynjin

2016-12-19, 01:07 PM

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it many times again (just in case the OP was under ANY illusions about this being some kind of new thought instead of over-used flame bait): The TRPG community FASCINATES me.

This is the only community I know of that, rather than collectively accepting the flaws of a game and working around them, actively tries to ignore that any flaw could possibly exist, and spin those flaws as some kind of ADVANTAGE to the system.

Some of you people would rather double down on thinking this game system is perfect than acknowledge you like something that is flawed, and actively tear down any attempt to make it better because...I really don't know. Some kind of pathological need for everything you enjoy to be flawless?

Cosi

2016-12-19, 01:21 PM

Because what many people instinctively desire, even if they don't realize it themselves, is for dedicated casters to be decisively more powerful as a rule.

It's always nice to be told that what I really want is the exact opposite of what I say I want.

It is a standard fantasy trope that magic is just better,

It's a standard fantasy trope that Elves are the ubermensch and Orcs are innately evil. That is incredibly racist, regardless of the fact that it is a "standard fantasy trope", so we should not include it in the game. Similarly, insisting that you can't allow people to have cool abilities as a Fighter is bad design even if it's the way LOTR did things.

Because it is more natural for the PCs to all be the same level, that's what people expect. Everyone always says that same level should equal same power, so why would you build a system where the PCs are expected to be different levels and thus "obviously" different power?

We're not building a system that expects that, we're building a system that allows us to play a balanced game and you to live out your fantasies of stomping on jocks.

You're essentially saying that the standard trope of magic being *magic* should only apply in asymmetric games where some players are getting special overleveled characters, rather than being a default part of the system.

Yes, and I also think the standard fantasy trope of Orcs being irredeemable monsters should only apply to games where people are comfortable with 19th century racial stereotypes being explicitly true.

What's going to make for a more resilient game: one where everyone is exactly the same power level but some of them aren't skilled enough and so the party is subtly underpowered and risks sudden annihilation, or one where the skilled players can choose classes with enough power to compensate for their fellow's lack of skill?

C. Produce classes that unskilled players can play effectively and balance the game so that default encounters are easy enough to beat that differences in player skill won't turn cakewalks into TPKs.

I respond: If a class can replicate every facet of another class, with extra, then that class is badly designed. The fault goes both ways so which is it, are fighters underpowered or are wizards overpowered? More importantly, does it matter? That is the question the thread asks, and it is upon you to prove that this negative balance problem is a negative game problem.

It's a problem because some people want to play character concepts in the "weak" pile (e.g. Barbarian) at the "strong" level. If a character concept isn't appropriate for a given level, the game should tell you that and not let you play it, instead of lying to you and screwing over your party.

At the end of the day, it is the people at the table who determine the balance of the game.

Unless, apparently, they determine a balance point higher than what the Fighter can cope with. If they do that, they're doing it wrong even if three players and the DM want to play that way. Because the right to suck is absolute and inviolate.

Fizban

2016-12-19, 01:50 PM

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it many times again (just in case the OP was under ANY illusions about this being some kind of new thought instead of over-used flame bait): The TRPG community FASCINATES me.
I genuinely can't tell which side you're talking about, since I can read this as applying to either or both, which could be intentional though my instinct says it's more directed at me since I'm the one saying it works fine as-is.

This is the only community I know of that, rather than collectively accepting the flaws of a game and working around them, actively tries to ignore that any flaw could possibly exist, and spin those flaws as some kind of ADVANTAGE to the system.

Some of you people would rather double down on thinking this game system is perfect than acknowledge you like something that is flawed, and actively tear down any attempt to make it better because...I really don't know. Some kind of pathological need for everything you enjoy to be flawless?
To clarify, I acknowledge the game is not perfect (as anyone with eyes can see) and work around the flaws while also looking to see which flaws may have been intentional and even advantageous. To see a potential flaw and refuse to look any deeper before "fixing" it has even more potential for damage than the known flaw had in the first place. How many people have changed something only to realize later there were unforeseen consequences? Think about stuff long enough instead of raging about the RAW balance and you can notice all sorts of things. Getting people to understand the game, make informed decisions, and take responsibility for them, improves the game far more than Fighter Fix #10,032 and is more portable between tables. I would also point out that the subject of this thread is not fixes (Cosi has a thread for that running right now, which I have specifically stayed out of as I have nothing to add): the question here is, what's the big deal?

I find your words quite applicable to what I see of the high-op, casters are perfect and everyone should be as good as them camp. Rather than acknowledge that their power is the result of a flawed system which never expected them to be that strong, they refuse to accept anything less than all RAW all the time, like some sort of pathological need for their preferred power level to be accepted as flawless. I've brought this up in previous threads, my armchair psycology of how it's impossible to get a char-OPer to admit the CR system could possibly be valid, because doing so would force them to admit their characters are in fact overpowered and they're just too personally invested in the idea that their characters are exactly the right power level. Here we have the refusal to accept that it's okay for not everything to be on par with a wizard's power and versatility, as if admitting it's okay to have less power means they'll be punished for having taken more.

Klara Meison

2016-12-19, 01:58 PM

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it many times again (just in case the OP was under ANY illusions about this being some kind of new thought instead of over-used flame bait): The TRPG community FASCINATES me.

This is the only community I know of that, rather than collectively accepting the flaws of a game and working around them, actively tries to ignore that any flaw could possibly exist, and spin those flaws as some kind of ADVANTAGE to the system.

Some of you people would rather double down on thinking this game system is perfect than acknowledge you like something that is flawed, and actively tear down any attempt to make it better because...I really don't know. Some kind of pathological need for everything you enjoy to be flawless?

Well, I personally am helping a friend of mine design a Pathfinder-based RPG system that fixes a lot of the prevalent issues, like Caster/Noncaster disparity, so it's not like everyone is like that.

Fizban

2016-12-19, 02:31 PM

It's always nice to be told that what I really want is the exact opposite of what I say I want.
You know, I'd expected you to take a bite even though I was agreeing with your solution (the "tell the DM to git gud" solution), but that's not the one I was expecting. In what part of that sentence did I say "you?" Congratulations, that's not a thing you want, other people do, and since it's something most people would consider negative they don't think about it and don't realize. The difference is that the system already supports this thing that they want, and not the thing that you want. Luckily as a human you have the power to change this for your game, but it doesn't change the fact that the game works fine to begin with.

It's a standard fantasy trope that Elves are the ubermensch and Orcs are innately evil. That is incredibly racist, regardless of the fact that it is a "standard fantasy trope", so we should not include it in the game.
Uh, have you read dnd 3.5? I guess the point is that you want to change lots of things, that's nice, so do I.

We're not building a system that expects that, we're building a system that allows us to play a balanced game and you to live out your fantasies of stomping on jocks.
That seems a fairly specific and personal attack, but regardless I'm tired of arguing about asymmetrical leveling. The amount of changes you have to make for that to work means you've firmly left 3.5 dnd and I don't care what you're doing anymore. It's not even the point.

C. Produce classes that unskilled players can play effectively and balance the game so that default encounters are easy enough to beat that differences in player skill won't turn cakewalks into TPKs.
Which has already been done to greater or lesser extents, they just aren't the core class named Fighter, what's your point? If you don't like Fighter don't allow it, pretty simple, only someone mindlessly bound to RAW would insist there's a problem with its mere existence.

It's a problem because some people want to play character concepts in the "weak" pile (e.g. Barbarian) at the "strong" level. If a character concept isn't appropriate for a given level, the game should tell you that and not let you play it, instead of lying to you and screwing over your party.
And so you sit down and use your words to communicate and tell them why it's not going to work, or maybe even compromise. Though your use of "level" might imply that you think some characters are actually unplayable at certain levels, which is patently false and leads me to expect you're about to force your optimization level down my throat rather than look at the facts. (And no I'm not telling you the facts because you won't listen and I've already covered it 1 1/2 times in other threads previously). A second read and it sounds like what you want is for the game to call out and enforce the tiers explicitly. Yay, less freedom, more being told your characters is bad? Have fun further rebuilding the CR system to account for your official tiers.

Unless, apparently, they determine a balance point higher than what the Fighter can cope with. If they do that, they're doing it wrong even if three players and the DM want to play that way. Because the right to suck is absolute and inviolate.
I believe the usual response is to kick them out for refusing to work with the rest of the group, but that would be a social solution to a social problem in a social game, rather than completely rebuilding the entire system from scratch because you can't abide the existence of anything that's not perfectly balanced.

Cosi

2016-12-19, 02:47 PM

That seems a fairly specific and personal attack,

So if it's not "because fantasy trope" (or if it is, may I point again at the "Orcs are a racist caricature" thing) and it's not a nerd power fantasy, why exactly do you want imbalance?

but regardless I'm tired of arguing about asymmetrical leveling. The amount of changes you have to make for that to work means you've firmly left 3.5 dnd and I don't care what you're doing anymore. It's not even the point.

You need one change to support asymmetric leveling, and it's a change you should make anyway: fiat leveling. Also, no one actively wants asymmetric leveling, they're just point out that it lets you get your games where Fighters suck without forcing that on everyone.

Which has already been done to greater or lesser extents, they just aren't the core class named Fighter, what's your point? If you don't like Fighter don't allow it, pretty simple, only someone mindlessly bound to RAW would insist there's a problem with its mere existence.

Useless options are a waste of time. Every class that doesn't work comes at the direct and obvious cost of a class that does work. Everyone should be on the same page, because it maximizes the number of potential characters.

Though your use of "level" implies that you think some characters are actually unplayable at certain levels, which is patently false and leads me to expect you're about to force your optimization level down my throat rather than look at the facts.

If you actually believed this, you would run a same game test (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test) with a Fighter. The fact that none of the people telling me Fighters are viable at high level do so is increasingly overwhelming evidence those people know they're wrong.

I believe the usual response is to kick them out for refusing to work with the rest of the group, but that would be a social solution to a social problem in a social game, rather than completely rebuilding the entire system from scratch because you can't abide the existence of anything that's not perfectly balanced.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that instead of playing 3e you should write a new game that's totally balanced. We just think that when you do write a new game (for example, when you release 5e or PF) you should ensure that it's balanced.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-19, 02:58 PM

Fizban, your argument seems to boil down to "Well yeah fighters suck, fighters have always sucked in fantasy. It's clearly intentional that they suck and anyone who wants to change that is wrong and forcing their charOP pwergamer bias on the masses."

Not to mention you didn't actually have the slightest idea of what i was saying you were wrong about, but oh well.

The reason why the fighter is the a balance problem is simple. If everyone in the party decides to play wizards, the game can still function. Between gentlemen's agreements, minor adjustments to encounters, and good campaign design... It's pretty simple to make that function. It would be a powerful party but not excessively so unless the players deliberately try to break the game.

On the other hand, if everyone decided to play a fighter, the game does not function. It would be very difficult to run the game within the intended rules and standard campaign design. It would require a lot of effort, house rules, and redesign work to enable that party to function.

Even all that is ignoring the same simple fact that you seem to be bizarrely immune to. No one is claiming wizards or really any tier one class is the perfect balance point for this game. If anything, the vast majority of people disagree with that. Unfortunately though, fighters provide a far *worse* balance point. They are incapable of actually meeting the challenges inherent in the game. They don't even hold up in a purely combat based scenario.

Togo

2016-12-19, 03:44 PM

The TRPG community FASCINATES me.

This is the only community I know of that, rather than collectively accepting the flaws of a game and working around them, actively tries to ignore that any flaw could possibly exist, and spin those flaws as some kind of ADVANTAGE to the system.

Some of you people would rather double down on thinking this game system is perfect than acknowledge you like something that is flawed, and actively tear down any attempt to make it better because...I really don't know. Some kind of pathological need for everything you enjoy to be flawless?

No, it's simpler than that. This is a hobby that relies on small groups of people interpreting rules in a consistent fashion. People arguing for a different interpretation directly threaten your own experience of the hobby, because if a rival interpretation gains a hold it can literally prevent you from enjoying your own play style, which relies on finding like-minded people. When people are arguing that the existing system is good, what they're arguing is that it shouldn't be seen as something that should be changed. A brief glance at the play-by-post forums, and you'll see a fair few games that have started to use variant rules to get around the problems described here. If you particularly enjoy one style or the other, the extent to which arguements like this one sway people will determine how often you get to play the style you enjoy.

Political arguments have the same issue - convincing people has a real impact on what happens to your future, and thus is considered too important to just agree to disagree.

For what it's worth, I've seen games that sucessfully balance casters and non-casters, and games that don't. So long as you don't simply assume that all games are going to conform to your own opinion, all you really need to do is make sure you're clear about the kind of game you're running or want to play.

Fizban

2016-12-19, 04:23 PM

So if it's not "because fantasy trope" (or if it is, may I point again at the "Orcs are a racist caricature" thing) and it's not a nerd power fantasy, why exactly do you want imbalance?
I already said both multiple times, coupled with the fact that removing things is more of a waste of time than leaving them in?

Also, no one actively wants asymmetric leveling, they're just point out that it lets you get your games where Fighters suck without forcing that on everyone.
Or we could just leave the game where it is. If it's only important for Magic is Better (it's not by the way, other people think it's right and good for more reasons which I still disagree with), then you still have to prove the Fighter must be abolished and replaced with wizard-comparable classes, which you have not, because there's no proof to be had. So yay, no asymmetric leveling.

Useless options are a waste of time. Every class that doesn't work comes at the direct and obvious cost of a class that does work. Everyone should be on the same page, because it maximizes the number of potential characters.
What direct and obvious cost? Page space? Most of the books have been out of print for decade. Your precious time? Clearly you've already read it and are willing to waste more time arguing about it on the internet. Functional game balance? Hell, if a group's still discovering the balance of 3.5 in this year then more power to them and their journey of discovery, while the rest of us already know how it works.

If you actually believed this, you would run a same game test (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test) with a Fighter. The fact that none of the people telling me Fighters are viable at high level do so is increasingly overwhelming evidence those people know they're wrong.

It states that a character of any given level should have, on average, a 50% chance to win an encounter against a creature with a CR equal to the character's level or a group of creatures in a single encounter whose EL equals the character's level.
DnD is not a solo game, your argument is invalid. And at risk of dignifying it by further response: That's also not how CR works, there is nothing in the DMG that says a single character has 50/50 against a monster of equal CR and absolutely not against gangs of monsters, it's all 4 person parties. Single character = party of level-4 is a convenient eyeballing with even less hard weight than full party CR, which is still approximate. Don't try to argue CR against someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Can I turn your phrase around? I think I can: the fact that you say Fighters are unplayable based on this test is overwhelming evidence you know you're wrong, if you actually believed it you wouldn't demand a solo test for a group game. I have never said the fighter is a powerful class, I have said that it's an acceptable class as part of the standard party. Can the fighter fight those foes? Sure, with a proper set of magic items and few spells to support him, as is intended, he will do his part. I find it more suspicious that the rogue is supposedly taking on those same foes solo with better success. But no, I don't consider your test valid and will not waste my time building a character to measure it with precision. I would suggest you build a party to slot the fighter into, but even if you did I can't say I'd care to finish the experiment. So go ahead and mark up another "win" for missing the point.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that instead of playing 3e you should write a new game that's totally balanced. We just think that when you do write a new game (for example, when you release 5e or PF) you should ensure that it's balanced.
. . .
. . .
Then why are you running around 3.5 and PF threads complaining about already published material like it's going to change?

Fizban, your argument seems to boil down to "Well yeah fighters suck, fighters have always sucked in fantasy. It's clearly intentional that they suck and anyone who wants to change that is wrong and forcing their charOP pwergamer bias on the masses."
Close enough. WotC never intended for fighters to suck, but fighters who evidently suck were part of their standards.

Not to mention you didn't actually have the slightest idea of what i was saying you were wrong about, but oh well.
Well you should have said it more clearly then, maybe even right here on this line to clear things up. No? 'K. Based on the line break I assume we're moving on to something else.

The reason why the fighter is the a balance problem is simple. . . On the other hand, if everyone decided to play a fighter, the game does not function.
Mhm, I see, yes, and where does it say that an all-fighter party is supposed to work?

Unfortunately though, fighters provide a far *worse* balance point. They are incapable of actually meeting the challenges inherent in the game. They don't even hold up in a purely combat based scenario.
Then I guess it's a good thing I'm not using fighters as a balance point? I don't even have any idea where you've pulled that from.

I don't know any more ways to say, "If you don't like fighter then don't use fighter." I don't know any more ways to say, "The standard party is fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard and everyone but you seems to know it." I don't know any more ways to say "CR is based on the full standard party, not solo fights against mobs of monsters." These are all incredibly simple concepts that can be found in print, but apparently when I say them they somehow turn into the rantings of a madman.

Well I've wasted entirely too much time arguing with you lot. I particularly liked the parts where the hivemind accused me of being blind to reason for trying to present alternate viewpoints, while simultaneously regurgitating the same drek based on faulty assumptions I've been seeing for years.

People arguing for a different interpretation directly threaten your own experience of the hobby, because if a rival interpretation gains a hold it can literally prevent you from enjoying your own play style, which relies on finding like-minded people.
Ah, matches up well enough with what I was thinking. Underlying fear that if they accept an interpretation where fighters are part of the game and high-op is high instead of standard, they won't be able to play high-op anymore. Completely mad of course but that's life.

Psyren

2016-12-19, 04:40 PM

To summarize the last eleventy-billion threads on this topic:

- Yes, there is a balance disparity. Nobody actually thinks (or should rationally think, anyway) that 3.5 or PF is perfect as-is.

- Yes, the current level presentation is misleading. A level 10 wizard or druid is not equal in power to a level 10 fighter or level 10 rogue in either system, even if all three can ultimately handle a CR 10 monster (with varying degrees of ease.)

- Yes, the largest gulfs can be found in core for both systems.

Having said that:

- Acknowledging that this disparity exists does not justify any and all measures to address said disparity.

- Those who do find the disparity particularly pernicious have all the necessary tools (official variants, 3rd-party, homebrew, gentleman's agreement, even new systems/games entirely) at their disposal to address it themselves, at their tables. The base, successful 3.5/PF game does not need to be modified, and are clearly doing fine without that.

- Level disparity across classes is also not a bad thing. 5e actually went out of their way to reinstate that after 4e tried to rip it out, and 5th ended up far more popular than 4th could dream of. Now, while we can't say for certain that the disparity is a significant source of 5e's popularity, what we can say is that it clearly didn't hurt them. Face it, people just expect casters to be better. We can quibble about how much better but that's all.

Milo v3

2016-12-19, 07:19 PM

Should the "more powerful" character be expected to give up level advancement, when level advancement is expected in every other game with a leveling system?
Sort of. They aren't actually giving up level advancement, they are just treated as being "As powerful as the character is" rather than being under CR'd. "Characters of x power level" being treated as "characters of x power level" is much more sensible than "characters of x power level are treated as characters of y power level because some people like z narrative"

Is it really fair, when the wizard player who expects to have a higher power as a result of crunching a more complex class and aligning their choices with the tropes of the setting is instead told that a beatstick deserves to do all the same things while also being better in all the other ways?
1. Complex class shouldn't equal more powerful.
2. In tonnes of fiction, the wizard actually isn't more powerful than the rest of the group.
3. No one said they want the martials to do all the same things while being better in all the other ways. Don't build up a strawman.

You say I'm forcing fighters to be low level characters, without considering the effects of HD, because you simply don't value them. For example, fighter should have around double the hit points of a wizard, a pretty significant resource for surviving all sorts of things, including wizards.
Oh yay, more hit dice, a higher set of numbers which doesn't change anything from low-level considering everything else in the universe is also mysteriously increasing in hitdice at the same or a faster rate.

I'm not the one forcing "fighters" to be lower level
No, the system is really against high level fighters.

that's you and your demand of "same power"+asymmetrical levels to replicate a trope that already exists.
Except what I'm suggesting get's that trope to work (and to work with the system rather than against it as it currently stands) in addition to the tropes of "Weak casters" and the tropes of "Fantasical warriors" and "Fantastically skilled characters".

This system already does what I want it to do
Congratulations? Turns out there are more people in the world than just you? Not everyone wants non-casters to suck.

if you think you have a way to rewrite it so that fighters and wizards have the same power without destroying the Magic is Better trope, go ahead.
Already said one way. Have level actually = level, and act accordingly. Another method would be to make all characters magical eventually.

And that's just factually untrue, but entirely within expectations from this sort of argument.
Okay, rangers get hide in plain sight. Yay. That one ability somehow fixes all the martial characters and puts martials on the same level of power as casters. /sarcasm.

Go ahead and read your words again. Now, allow me to refer you back to the line you just quoted and then ignored:

Guess who's responsible for making the fighter irrelevant in those parties? That's right, it's. . . the players and DM who are playing a higher-op game that has no place in it for fighters! The actual bull in this exchange is your refusal to accept the fact that the fighter is part of the standard party of fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. The game is designed with a place for the fighter, and it is you who makes the fighter irrelevant by forcing the optimization level of the game higher, demanding that it be challenging enough for parties that have nothing but spellcasters and then complaining that when you turned up the difficulty it screwed up the balance, or just demanding everything be perfectly balanced because it offends you that they're not.
What? I specifically said they did those things simply because of "Oh this option looks cool". My games are Not high-op (one of my player's characters is a fricking paladin monk in armour who throws his long-sword at enemies for godsake). My player's a newbs who just pick what they think is cool. Do not accuse me of ignoring what you say, and then ignore what I actually said. And no my encounters are not made for characters of high-optimization.

Uh, you do realize that DnD grew out of a wargame into a dungeon crawler and had only just barely introduced hard mechanics for non-combat non-magical things of any kind, right?
That's like saying it's wrong to complain that a house I bought has no doors because "you realize when prehistoric humans lived in caves, they didn't have doors". D&D is not a static thing that hasn't changed a single bit since it's inception. D&D has moved from just a hack and slash dungeon crawler. You can still play it as one, but it's not the default style of play as far as I can tell (and it's definitely not the primary style of play suggested by the DMG).

When 75% or more of the game is combat you don't need any other role.
Ah, so my players just be fine with sitting out of 75% (my sessions are generally only 25% combat) of every session because they didn't pick caster?

So tell me again how it's the game's fault that your DM is building encounters that require the fighter to do things other than fight in order to get their rewards.[/spoiler]
It's not even about rewards. It's about being able to actually play rather than being stuck having to not play outside of fights. And yes, it is the games fault if it gives the narrative options to only casters, because it means if I want to actually do something in the narrative that isn't just stabbing things, then my players who can only stab things aren't going to have as much fun since they have to sit out.

[quote]What's going to make for a more resilient game: one where everyone is exactly the same power level but some of them aren't skilled enough and so the party is subtly underpowered and risks sudden annihilation, or one where the skilled players can choose classes with enough power to compensate for their fellow's lack of skill?
That's a ridiculously easy thing to solve. Are you familiar with the concepts of "Floor" and "Ceiling" in regards to how powerful a class/character is? What you do is have the default level of power (the floor) of each class at each level be about the minimum of what's expected to play the game, that way lack of skill doesn't risk sudden annihilation, and then the player's skill basically determines how powerful they are between the "Floor" and "Ceiling" of the class (the ceiling of each class should probably be around the same height, but making it exact would be near impossible).

ignoring the fact that plenty of people pick non-casters because they think they look cool.
I'm not ignoring that. I know that. Many of my players pick martials because they want them to be cool... Me wanting non-casters to be cool outside of low-level rather than trap-options is sorta the origin of my entire argument.

And the game will run just fine if you don't screw it up for them.
Really not necessary.

DnD is not meant to be a perfectly balanced game
No ones asking for it to be perfectly balanced.

That's a feature, not a bug
Feature != Good idea.

The more range it can cover the more people it can appeal to, which is the whole point of a mass marketed product, and for anyone who's willing to take some freaking responsibility for their choices in shaping their characters and campaigns, it works perfectly fine.
This is hilarious considering you're arguing Against the game being more inclusive character-concept and narrative wise.

Hogsy

2016-12-19, 07:41 PM

I keep hearing about these combos a level 18 wizard can pull off with simulacrums and gates and whatnot, and I'm always baffled. Do any of you guys actually do those things, just because you have the power to do so? Because, if not, then the possibility alone means nothing. It holds no value. A wizard being a wizard doesn't mean he has to break the game at level 20, and no matter the contingencies and defensive spells one might have, they need a party in order to defeat the encounter and proceed forward. Surviving lethal blows due to spells also means nothing if they can't proceed forward. If the expectations of the players are similar, and an effort is made so they meet each other halfway, then a wizard and a fighter can co-exist in a game even at level 20. The wizard will do wizard things and the fighter will do fighter things. The notion that a wizard's summons can out-damage a fighter is ludicrous at best, and a fighter who knows what they're doing can 100-0 two enemies in one round. A wizard can damage all of them, sure, but a good reflex save and evasion and all that goes out the window. a +16(11 base + 5 modifier) to a save is enough to stop a wizard's spell that has DC 27(9th level spell and 8 modifier) on average, and it's also enough to stop a spell with a DC of 31 on a less than average basis. At level 18, you can expect your average mook to actually have more than a +16 (in my experience) in a save if it's a good save, and a +15(5 base, 5 modifier, 5 resistance) if it's a bad save. A scroll or a wand can buff those numbers up even more and their cost is minimal. Sure, there are spells that can change the shape of an encounter without requesting saves etc. etc. but a DM can plan accordingly.

All of this is from my own experience in a Pathfinder campaign(and others) where our modifiers range from +5(on a bad stat) to +17(on a good stat) at level 19 with a Fighter(Fighter 15, Chevalier 3, Wizard 1 who can craft anything and averages 600 damage a round, can also hit practically anything), a Saiyan(3.5 homebrew class with ludicrous modifiers that resembles the monk), a Sorcerer 19(casual blaster who averages 400 aoe damage a round), a Bard 19(Inspire Courage focused as well as pouncer, averages 400 damage with the possibility of doubling it through as 12-20 crit range and my -15 attacks can both hit on average unless the enemy has 56+ AC), a DM who has enough experience to challenge us and finally, my understanding of both the 3.5 and Pathfinder system to an extent I think is adequate to begin analyzing it. Sure, the Fighter is a veteran player who mains wizards so he knows how to build his Fighter in order to be useful in combat and out of it, while being able to challenge spell-casters due to his feat selection. Yeah, the Sorcerer is no wizard but he can still pull off crazy shenanigans out of his casting bag and there have definitely been times where the Fighter and the Saiyan couldn't do much but me and the Sorcerer saved the day, but there have also been times where the opposite happened.

That's all because everything in D&D is built upon expectations and a DM who understands their players. The Tier system is there, as others have pointed out, to guide new or veteran players(and DMs) alike in order to make a more joyful experience at the table for all. If a Wizard who plans to use Simulacrums to a ridiculous extend and Gate his problems away joins the same game with a Fighter who's content with power attacking and charging for a single attack, yes, there will be many problems. Such is the game we're playing, and that's why I think a DM must learn to understand the system if he hasn't already in order to run a campaign where difference in power level does not ruin the game for the players. But to be totally frank, I have never encountered a game where the Wizard made the Fighter feel totally and utterly useless, and for that reason, I doubt it happens in games with mature and sympathetic players who understand what a group activity is. Now, I do think the Cleric is a much bigger problem than the Wizard since he can be a Wizard and a Fighter at the same time, but in Pathfinder persistomancy doesn't exist and for good reason. Besides being broken and whoever wrote it had 0 understanding of spell-casters and the class system itself, a mundane character would have to optimize to do something as well as a Cleric who took 3 feats and casted 3 spells yesterday. Luckily for me and other PF players, the Cleric must cast 3 spells in-combat in order to be the Fighter, and that's just a waste of 3 rounds.

It's my firm belief that a T1 class can coexist in a game of T3 and lower classes where it's not all about "Protect the Wizard!". Anyway, when the combat at level 15+ is basically rocket tag, does it really matter if the Wizard shuts down the enemy caster or if the fighter does it? Either way, he'll either contigency away or pull some other trick out of his hat.

Other than that, the second reason for understanding Caster/Noncaster disparity and class tiers, is trying to fix the errors inherent to the game we all love. For example, if somebody wants to play a Fighter or a Barbarian in my campaign, they automatically gain PoW maneuvers and stances at given levels from specific disciplines(such as Primal Fury) so they're always able to do "something else" in combat, or to help them do the damages better, with less investment, thus allowing investment in other areas. Sure, they aren't a Warblade but they are still better than their vanilla versions. Also, a smart player will always be useful outside of combat whether they're a Fighter or a Wizard. You don't need to be a Bard in order to be useful in RP encounters, although being one is always awesome. The real question is why are we all NOT bards?

These have been my two cents on the subject, and on a last note, I believe that minor nerfs to casters(such as DMM and persist, or Gate and Simulacrums/Ice Assassins) and some well-deserved buffs to mundanes and martials go a long way to help the DM create much more impactful and challenging encounters.

Kelb_Panthera

2016-12-19, 08:50 PM

DnD 3.5 has no options for playing a party of awesome non-magical characters. That reduces possible roleplaying space. That is a big problem for a role-playing game.

I take exception to this assertion.

The options the DM has to present an entertaining game necessarily take on some restrictions with a party that has no dedicated casters but the idea that they can't stil be awesome and put together an epic story is just absurd.

Even without ToB/PoW there are so many options for ways to build -acceptably- competent martial types that it's practically a joke to say they have none and skill-based characters have a wild variety of abilities when you go beyond the core classes.

Unless your idea of "awesome" includes world-shattering power ala shounen anime and nothing less, the above statement is just nonsense.

The only way I can see that making sense is if you mean absolutely -zero- magic in the party; no partial casters (ranger, paladin, etc.), no magic items, no supernatural or spell-like abilities whatsoever. Then, yeah, the game breaks down but that's such a radical departure from how the game was expected to be run that you're probably better off with a different game.

Psyren

2016-12-19, 09:07 PM

The only way I can see that making sense is if you mean absolutely -zero- magic in the party; no partial casters (ranger, paladin, etc.), no magic items, no supernatural or spell-like abilities whatsoever. Then, yeah, the game breaks down but that's such a radical departure from how the game was expected to be run that you're probably better off with a different game.

Hell, you can even just keep the magic items and throw out the rest. Still plenty of room for epicness.

Kelb_Panthera

2016-12-19, 09:27 PM

Hell, you can even just keep the magic items and throw out the rest. Still plenty of room for epicness.

Any one of those things is enough with only some relatively minor adjustments.

Cosi

2016-12-19, 10:20 PM

I already said both multiple times, coupled with the fact that removing things is more of a waste of time than leaving them in?

Again, Orcs. Also, if you're in favor of leaving things in, why are you removing Wizard-level Fighters?

What direct and obvious cost? Page space? Most of the books have been out of print for decade.

You seem to have confused the normative question "should we value game balance" with the positive question "does RAW 3e value game balance". A lot of your arguments become much clearer understood in that light.

DnD is not a solo game, your argument is invalid. And at risk of dignifying it by further response: That's also not how CR works, there is nothing in the DMG that says a single character has 50/50 against a monster of equal CR and absolutely not against gangs of monsters, it's all 4 person parties.

Alright, let's go.

Question 1: What CR is a 10th level Human Fighter?
A. 10
B. Some other number
Answer: A

Question 2: What is the overall win rate of CR 10 encounters against CR 10 encounters?
A. 50%
B. Some other percentage
Answer: A

Putting 1 and 2 together, we can reasonably conclude that the 10th level Fighter should win half of encounters with CR 10 opposition, as an individual. Honestly, this is not at all complicated. If a Fighter actually has capabilities in line with a CR 10 monsters, when compared to a representative sample of other CR 10 monsters he would bat 50%.

Don't try to argue CR against someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

I'm not.

Can the fighter fight those foes? Sure, with a proper set of magic items and few spells to support him, as is intended, he will do his part.

But that isn't what is intended. The actual rules actually say that a 10th level Fighter is CR 10, without any party support (DMG, page 39). The SGT isn't some weird construct, its just the reflexive property. If you don't believe in the reflexive property, you have bigger problems than internet arguments.

I would suggest you build a party to slot the fighter into, but even if you did I can't say I'd care to finish the experiment.

If you are going to reject evidence a priori, how is it possible to argue with you? If a test that disproves your hypothesis is insufficient cause for you to reject it, what possible evidence could I or anyone present to get you to change your mind?

Mhm, I see, yes, and where does it say that an all-fighter party is supposed to work?

DMG page 39, a Fighter of Nth level is a CR N opponent. DMG pages 48-49, four Fighters of Nth level are an EL N + 4 encounter. DMG page 49, a party of EL N is supposed to defeat an encounter of EL N 50% of the time. No special pleading for Fighters.

- Level disparity across classes is also not a bad thing. 5e actually went out of their way to reinstate that after 4e tried to rip it out, and 5th ended up far more popular than 4th could dream of. Now, while we can't say for certain that the disparity is a significant source of 5e's popularity, what we can say is that it clearly didn't hurt them. Face it, people just expect casters to be better. We can quibble about how much better but that's all.

The myth that 4e failed because it was balanced, and 5e succeeded because it was is certainly something that people like to repeat. Sadly, it's false coming and going.

4e (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=90324) wasn't (http://charop.wikia.com/wiki/Build:Orbizard) balanced (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50220&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0).

5e (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55635) isn't (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56184) succeeding (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56586).

Accepting nonsense like this at face value is the reason Fighters can't have nice things. 4e failed because it was badly (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49652) designed (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50388), not because it was balanced.

A wizard being a wizard doesn't mean he has to break the game at level 20, and no matter the contingencies and defensive spells one might have, they need a party in order to defeat the encounter and proceed forward.

I (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) hope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm) understand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBinding.htm) this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominateMonster.htm) is (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) not (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm) actually (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) true (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm).

Unless your idea of "awesome" includes world-shattering power ala shounen anime and nothing less, the above statement is just nonsense.

Yes, there are games where Fighters can contribute. If you want to play those games, Fighter is a reasonable (if unexceptional) choice. However, some people want to play higher level games, and it is a cold comfort to them that Fighters are valuable in games they don't play.

Story

2016-12-19, 10:24 PM

Dragonexx

2016-12-19, 11:54 PM

Why do the classes NEED to be equal? Why not just make a gentlemen's pact and play to discover the story?

Why does it matter?

Why does my car need to not release exhaust fumes into the seats? Why do chairs need to have even legs? Why does my burger need to not be smeared with ****? Can't we all just agree to enjoy the experience?

Seriously, in any other industry, if you said things like that, your product would be reviled.

Troacctid

2016-12-20, 12:07 AM

5e (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55635) isn't (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56184) succeeding (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56586).
Why are you citing some random forumites? Do you have any actual data? Are you getting this from the company's financial statements? A statistically rigorous survey of TRPG players?

How about this for data: in Q3 2016, Orr Group reported that a full 44.24% of active games on Roll20.org used the D&D 5e system. That's almost as much as every other system combined. Approximately 3x as much as Pathfinder (16.21%), and approximately 6x as much as D&D 3.5e (7.52%).

Psyren

2016-12-20, 12:24 AM

Why are you citing some random forumites? Do you have any actual data? Are you getting this from the company's financial statements? A statistically rigorous survey of TRPG players?

How about this for data: in Q3 2016, Orr Group reported that a full 44.24% of active games on Roll20.org used the D&D 5e system. That's almost as much as every other system combined. Approximately 3x as much as Pathfinder (16.21%), and approximately 6x as much as D&D 3.5e (7.52%).

Logic and math? Ridiculous! Away with you! :smallbiggrin:

Thank you for quoting that so I could see it, I needed a good laugh. I especially love how each link is a year apart, each one announcing 5e's demise.

Kelb_Panthera

2016-12-20, 12:29 AM

Why does my car need to not release exhaust fumes into the seats? Why do chairs need to have even legs? Why does my burger need to not be smeared with ****? Can't we all just agree to enjoy the experience?

Seriously, in any other industry, if you said things like that, your product would be reviled.

Pinto vs Ferrari

Steel folder from wal-mart vs a Marcel Bruer

Mcdouble vs Custom angus burger from cheeburger cheeburger

There is wide variance in option quality in all of those industries. A game doesn't need its chraracter classes (if it even has them at all) to all be of the same caliber.

A group of fighter, rogue, monk, ranger plays very differently from a group of druid, cleric, wizard, artificer plays very different from the classic fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. That's a feature, not a bug, even if it wasn't entirely intentional. It allows far more options for what kind of games the system can handle than if it was only geared for either extreme or the middle.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-20, 12:46 AM

I think the argument isn't that it's wrong for a group to be able to play fighter/ranger/paladin/monk groups and have it work the way it currently does. The argument is that it's wrong that that is the only way you can play that group. That outside that mix, someone is going to be a sad panda.

A fighter class balanced closer to the caster's doesn't remove your ability to play down to the current level. It adds options, which I have a hard time seeing the downside of.

Side note on 5e, speaking from purely personal experience, 100% anecdotal evidence, frequently the reason people take to roll20 is because they have difficulty finding a local game. For example, it is very hard in my area to find a 5e game, though not impossible at hobby shops and such. 3.PF are pretty easy to find. I'm not really making a statement one way or the other here as I lack sufficient data, but it *is* entirely possible that 5e's popularity on roll20 is more a sign of difficulty finding 5e games rather then a sign of popularity.

Dragonexx

2016-12-20, 12:53 AM

Rynjin

2016-12-20, 01:25 AM

Pinto vs Ferrari

Steel folder from wal-mart vs a Marcel Bruer

Mcdouble vs Custom angus burger from cheeburger cheeburger

There is wide variance in option quality in all of those industries. A game doesn't need its chraracter classes (if it even has them at all) to all be of the same caliber.

A group of fighter, rogue, monk, ranger plays very differently from a group of druid, cleric, wizard, artificer plays very different from the classic fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. That's a feature, not a bug, even if it wasn't entirely intentional. It allows far more options for what kind of games the system can handle than if it was only geared for either extreme or the middle.

Yes. A wide variance in option quality in the INDUSTRY. As in, some options are **** and cause their company to hemorrhage money until they fix the offending problem, and some options are quality. With a little bit of middle ground where options are made intentionally less appealing because they cost less and can be sold for less that way.

The problem is that in this industry people will gladly pay extra for the Pinto (unless you were somehow under the impression that 3.5 and Pathfinder are cheaper options than their competitors) and snub their nose at any suggestion that maybe they should AT LEAST take it to a mechanic and see if they can make it less flammable.

Then they come on the boards with threads like "My Wizard player is a powergaming munchkin how do I solve this problem in the least mature and most needlessly petty way possible?", making it a double threat of bad juju.

Your scenarios have basically no equivalence with the RPG industry, and I'm kind of confused as to how you think they work INSIDE the game as an example.

Kelb_Panthera

2016-12-20, 01:32 AM

Except that the game was clearly not at all designed with that in mind, otherwise it would have come with it's own "tiers". All the products you've described are functional (with the questionable case of the pinto) and meet their own design goals.

There's almost certainly some truth in the idea that it was unintentional (readily admitted that in my previous post) but they certainly met their design goals for the most part. The game -is- functional, in spite of its quirks, and it was a smash-hit on the sales front. So much so that the idea that imbalanced classes are enough of a flaw to be a problem worth noting is certainly a ludicrous one especially in light of its near clone (PF) having been and still being largely as successful Well after these flaws were plainly known.

Rynjin

2016-12-20, 01:35 AM

It was ABSOLUTELY unintentional in the case of Pathfinder ("Caster/Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas", after all), 3.5 it may have been an intentional flaw depending on your interpretation of the "Ivory Tower Design" story.

Milo v3

2016-12-20, 03:01 AM

It was ABSOLUTELY unintentional in the case of Pathfinder ("Caster/Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas", after all).
The setting guy said that. He isn't a rules person. He has no control over the rules (if he did then we wouldn't have Clerics of Concepts because he wanted them removed just so the RPG fit's his setting).

The rules people do things like "Rogue sucks, lets give it a buff", "Skills need a buff so lets make rules for that", "Martials need something more than just stabbing things, lets give them a pool of points which they can spend to do extra stuff which also helps with prerequisites and benefits fighters the most", "lets give fighters skill points", "Lets allow fighters to cut spells in half", "Lets make a monk that can shoot ki lasers and unarmed attack everyone in a room at once", "lets give tonnes of rules which weaken spellcasting because of how powerful it is", "Lets make a class that can be a Fighter but with skill points and out-of-combat abilities", "Lets make it clear that mages cannot just run around charm personing everyone in public", "lets nerf the summoner because it's too powerful", "mages are tonnes powerful so lets make all the occult casters slightly weaker than other casters so there is better balance", etc.

Now, it's true that many of those fixes are hit-and-miss at best. But they are still trying to bridge the gap.

Rynjin

2016-12-20, 04:02 AM

Milo v3

2016-12-20, 05:20 AM

I credit almost all of those to Mark Seifter pushing for them, honestly. He seems like the kick in the ass the Design Team needed to get out of the rut Buhlman and his SKR sockpuppet put them in, at least at first. I think the others may have worn him down a bit recently.

For the rogue stuff maybe (unchained classes where Jason's work iirc), but Mark is even more severe when it comes to balance when he's able. A lot less of those fixes would be misses IMO if Mark has behind them. Just look at the kineticist, it's optimization floor is basically the minimum stats that are mathematically required, and then has a really low ceiling so that it's hard to screw up a kineticist but they have no possible. Personally I prefer a floor abit higher than what he puts things at, but he seems to have much better grasp of the math behind the game (which makes sense considering his background).

If it were ever possible, I'd want to play a heartbreaker made by Mark Seifter, Michael Sayre and Chris Bennet. My views on balance seem closest to those three.

Cosi

2016-12-20, 06:56 AM

Why are you citing some random forumites? Do you have any actual data? Are you getting this from the company's financial statements? A statistically rigorous survey of TRPG players?

If you had actually read the linked posts (often useful when trying to rebut things), you might notice that they make arguments about why 5e is failing that are based on the data. For example, 5e has released a grand total of four rules supplements, which you may notice is the same number of Monster Manual supplements released for 3e. But yes, total success.

I think the argument isn't that it's wrong for a group to be able to play fighter/ranger/paladin/monk groups and have it work the way it currently does. The argument is that it's wrong that that is the only way you can play that group. That outside that mix, someone is going to be a sad panda.

A fighter class balanced closer to the caster's doesn't remove your ability to play down to the current level. It adds options, which I have a hard time seeing the downside of.

Yes, exactly this. If you want weaker Fighters, play lower level Fighters. This is not a complicated concept.

Coretron03

2016-12-20, 07:02 AM

Cosi

2016-12-20, 07:33 AM

Cosi, I don't understand that line of thinking. A failure is if something failed, having less supplements then somone wants is not a failure and not by any means data to prove its failure. Actual percentages on people playing the system and other systems is actually data. Also, they have more then 4 at current date, if you payed any attention.

Again, in the threads I linked, people discuss the sales claims made by WotC about the game. Also, there are (per Wikipedia's list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks#Dungeons_.2 6_Dragons_5th_edition)) four "supplement rulebooks" released for 5e.

Coretron03

2016-12-20, 07:51 AM

Oh, misread that as 4 books, which including core would that up to 7. Anyway, your example that you posted here was their lack of supplements which does not dictate success (by its self at least)of a product/system.

Psyren

2016-12-20, 10:02 AM

The setting guy said that. He isn't a rules person. He has no control over the rules (if he did then we wouldn't have Clerics of Concepts because he wanted them removed just so the RPG fit's his setting).

The rules people do things like "Rogue sucks, lets give it a buff", "Skills need a buff so lets make rules for that", "Martials need something more than just stabbing things, lets give them a pool of points which they can spend to do extra stuff which also helps with prerequisites and benefits fighters the most", "lets give fighters skill points", "Lets allow fighters to cut spells in half", "Lets make a monk that can shoot ki lasers and unarmed attack everyone in a room at once", "lets give tonnes of rules which weaken spellcasting because of how powerful it is", "Lets make a class that can be a Fighter but with skill points and out-of-combat abilities", "Lets make it clear that mages cannot just run around charm personing everyone in public", "lets nerf the summoner because it's too powerful", "mages are tonnes powerful so lets make all the occult casters slightly weaker than other casters so there is better balance", etc.

Now, it's true that many of those fixes are hit-and-miss at best. But they are still trying to bridge the gap.

You really need to stop using verifiable facts and clear trends. They have no place here.

It was ABSOLUTELY unintentional in the case of Pathfinder ("Caster/Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas", after all), 3.5 it may have been an intentional flaw depending on your interpretation of the "Ivory Tower Design" story.

"The disparity exists" is indeed not an agenda, but "the game requires immediate and drastic modification to fix it" definitely is. A misguided one.

Rynjin

2016-12-20, 11:54 AM

For the rogue stuff maybe (unchained classes where Jason's work iirc), but Mark is even more severe when it comes to balance when he's able. A lot less of those fixes would be misses IMO if Mark has behind them. Just look at the kineticist, it's optimization floor is basically the minimum stats that are mathematically required, and then has a really low ceiling so that it's hard to screw up a kineticist but they have no possible. Personally I prefer a floor abit higher than what he puts things at, but he seems to have much better grasp of the math behind the game (which makes sense considering his background).

If it were ever possible, I'd want to play a heartbreaker made by Mark Seifter, Michael Sayre and Chris Bennet. My views on balance seem closest to those three.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. Mark always seems to be completely cognizant of WHAT he's doing when he sets out to do something. Buhlman never set out to make an even stronger full caster with the Shaman, it just HAPPENED. Because he gives little to no thought to how the options he makes interact with each other, much less the rest of the game.

Mark set out, quite clearly, to make the Kineticist babby's first class. Mechanically, he succeeded in that goal (with only the convoluted wording of some of the abilities holding it back from that). It is nigh impossible to **** up a Kineticist, because it has no real options, kind of like an unarchetyped Ranger. A Kineticist with zero Feats and magic items is only about 10% worse than one that does have them.

Mind you I HATE it with a fiery burning passion, and I practically begged him to change it during the playtest, but at least the final result is exactly what he wanted.

A lot of the books that come after feel like too much of a conscious effort to create change to be the work of any of the other designers.

Troacctid

2016-12-20, 01:57 PM

If you had actually read the linked posts (often useful when trying to rebut things), you might notice that they make arguments about why 5e is failing that are based on the data.
Well here (http://investor.hasbro.com) is some data directly from Hasbro that says the opposite, as long as we're expecting other people to dredge through the entirety of multiple long, boring, possibly irrelevant documents instead of quoting the data directly.

For example, 5e has released a grand total of four rules supplements, which you may notice is the same number of Monster Manual supplements released for 3e. But yes, total success.
*Counts on fingers*

I'm coming up with eleven books. I can't for the life of me figure out where you're getting four. I'm starting to suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.

And I certainly have no idea why it's relevant. The Star Wars franchise has only put out two movies in the same amount of time, so I guess it's obviously failing?

AvatarVecna

2016-12-20, 02:01 PM

*Counts on fingers*

I'm coming up with eleven books.

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Cosi

2016-12-20, 02:11 PM

I'm coming up with eleven books. I can't for the life of me figure out where you're getting four. I'm starting to suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.

The fact that you seem to have missed a link to Wikipedia indicates that you aren't actually reading my posts, let alone the links I'm posting. If you follow that link, you will see a list of books released for 5e. Four of them (Elemental Evil Player's Companion, Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, Dungeonology, Volo's Guide to Monsters) are "Supplement Rulebooks" rather than "Adventure Modules". So yes, 5e has had as many rules supplements as 3e had Monster Manuals.

The fact that you are unable or unwilling to read a table on Wikipedia does not bode well for your claims that my other links are "long" and "boring".

Troacctid

2016-12-20, 02:22 PM

The fact that you seem to have missed a link to Wikipedia indicates that you aren't actually reading my posts, let alone the links I'm posting. If you follow that link, you will see a list of books released for 5e. Four of them (Elemental Evil Player's Companion, Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, Dungeonology, Volo's Guide to Monsters) are "Supplement Rulebooks" rather than "Adventure Modules". So yes, 5e has had as many rules supplements as 3e had Monster Manuals.

The fact that you are unable or unwilling to read a table on Wikipedia does not bode well for your claims that my other links are "long" and "boring".
Elemental Evil Player's Companion is a short web document (consisting primarily of excerpts from the "adventure module" Princes of the Apocalypse), not a book, and Dungeonology is a licensed tie-in with a series of popular children's books, not a rules supplement.

Edit: And none of the links in your post are to Wikipedia. It's three links to forum threads.

Psyren

2016-12-20, 02:38 PM

Well here (http://investor.hasbro.com) is some data directly from Hasbro that says the opposite, as long as we're expecting other people to dredge through the entirety of multiple long, boring, possibly irrelevant documents instead of quoting the data directly.

Yep, and here's more actual data (http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35144/top-5-rpgs-spring-2016/), instead of citing irrelevant forumites in obsolete threads.

The people are indeed speaking quite clearly about what they want - in the only language that matters, with their wallets.

stanprollyright

2016-12-20, 02:52 PM

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

STOP SAYING THAT! :smallbiggrin:

Hogsy

2016-12-20, 03:40 PM

Wizards aren't OP because of TO. Wizards are OP because at level 5, they can cast Web and Fly and Invisibility and Knock and Charm Person and so on, while a Fighter can hit things with a stick.

But apart from that, a Wizard really can be a better fighter than a fighter, as can their summons. But it's a lot easier to do with Clerics and Druids. In fact, a Druid gets a free fighter as a class feature at level 1, and it's easy to do that on accident.

I've never played a high level game, but even at the low levels, I had to deliberately hold back as a caster in order to give weaker players a chance to shine.

I mainly play 3.P(3.5 ported to PF) and in a pure PF game I play where we have ridiculous DCs and powers, the challenges scale accordingly. If the wizard has to pass a SR of 32(Costs like 100k-120k in PF) in order for his offensive spells to work, against an Enemy with spell-turning, then the Wizard will most likely fail to move forward. Magic is part of D&D, and it's Magic, so magic options will naturally be more powerful than mundane options. Mundanes & Martials using magical options to enhance their fighterness aren't being pseudo-wizards. They're being fighters trying to enhance their abilities through magic, because it's D&D. Magic exists. You'd be a fool not to use it. I love playing Monks. I once played a Monk archetype that allowed me to turn into a Warcat at level 8(or 12, can't remember). That and whirlwind attack made me a better aoe spell than the blaster considering an enemy can easily get evasion. I'm not disagreeing with the notion that Wizards are inherently more powerful than Fighters. I'm disagreeing with the notion that a Fighter must feel powerless in the presence of a Wizard. (Wizard and Fighter used as words to describe a type, not the actual classes). If that's how things work in your games, then that's cool, but it's not how it works in mine. Pathfinder has actually fixed many issues that 9th level spells had that allowed a Wizard to gate 50 solars or to polymorph into a being with stupid SLAs and whatnot. Then they released the mythic book *shrugs*.
I personally fail to see how the Druid's animal companion is a Fighter, seeing as how a decent at the game player who likes Fighters can dish out lots of more pain(granted, to a single target, that's their bane after all) while being able to sustain more as well. The same is true for summons. The fighter will always have a higher tto-hit, dish out more damage in a round that the summon or companion will dish out in an entire fight, or at least a big portion of it and be a better frontliner, albeit the summons might do that one better since they're expendable (Again, granted, in 3.5 there are some stupid summoning feats like Greenbound.).

Disclaimer: I am not a fan of the Fighter. Its class features practically amount to no class features except he doesn't get 9th level spells like the Wizard does and the Wizard's school focus class feature in Path actually gives meaningful bonuses. That's why I like Initiators. They're the fighter done right(or at least somewhat right), as they're not all about "big juicy numbers" but being actually useful in combat and out of it without relying on a 600 damage charge which can be blocked by 1 level 2 sorc spell(and much, much more).

I hope you understand this is not actually true.

Well, I did mention my experience comes from Pathfinder where those spells are tweaked and/or nerfed. Besides, I already mentioned how all the "offensive" spells on that list aren't 100% ending encounters, since there's a chance they'll do nothing. A level 18 wizard with 40 intelligence(because why not), Spell Focus(and Greater) AND Spell Perfection on the spell he's casting will have a DC of 38 on one spell, and 36 on the others of his chosen school. Getting +27 at level 18 is equal to: a +5 resistance bonus, +12 from a good save, or +5 from a bad one, (if the wizard managed to have 40 int somehow at level 18, then the baddie he wants to destroy might as well have a 30 to his save) so that's +27 for a good save(so on average, he will make it) or a +22 on a bad save(in which case, just cast one of the many buffs that grant +4 on saves) so he'll still make it on average with a roll of 12+. And the wizard still has to pass a substantial SR to get to that. So, on average, the Wizard will pass the SR, and on average his enemy will make the save. Sure, this is for elite monsters or whatnot, and he might as well end your everyday random encounter on a whim, but at least in my games, we stop having truly random encounters at level 20 and it's usually not your average mook that plane shifts to get us.

And as I have already said once, I'm not saying that a Wizard can't do those things. He definitely can, and probably will. All I'm saying is that from how I've seen it play out in my games, among friends and generally sensible people, the Fighter does not feel powerless in those scenarios. If the plan is to keep the Wizard alive so he can end the encounter, and failing to do so means you don't move forward(even if the Wizard doesn't die due to whatever the hell he has casted), that makes the Fighter valuable and responsible for 50% of the job. If the Wizard contigencies out and comes back 1 round later, only to have found his group decimated, and somehow manages to win, he has not actually succeeded. His party is dead. This is a group activity, not the Chronicles of Wizard McMagical.

My entire arguement is based on the idea that the players and DM play accordingly to their own expectations, and that the system and its rules themselves are there for each group's liking. It's not a holy gospel to be followed as written. Theoretically, yes the game is crazily unbalanced and the Wizard is the king of all while the Fighter can be beaten by a commoner who has a few wands. Practically? The game is whatever each group wants it to be. That's all I'm saying. Is Gate enough of a spell to ruin an encounter and turn it into "Solar does wizard's bidding(for some weird reason, even I do not understand"? Remove the ability of summonsed creatures to be able to use their summon abilities. There. There is a simple fix to many of the problems a level 9 spell has, while still keeping it at a sufficient power level for it to qualify as a 9th level. Yes, if you tweak the system then it's no longer 3.5 and for the matter of discussion, it means nothing as I'm technically bringing in Homebrew as valid evidence. But that's not what I and most others are playing. It's a home-made version of 3.5. And I'm not trying to prove anything on the subject of Caster vs Noncaster. I'm merely saying that it may seem to be one way, with all evidence showing it to be that way, but in reality? I doubt many of these problems appear in real-life scenarios where the individuals involved have some knowledge of the game system, and have analyzed the tiers etc. etc. in order to create a fun experience both for a Wizard player and a Fighter player.

PS: In Pathfinder, there's a line of spells that allows a Fighter to stick to you once he has gotten close to you. 5-ft stepping and attempting to teleport results in a smack in the face by his fighter-stick. And that's cool. Just wanted to put this out there.

zergling.exe

2016-12-20, 03:55 PM

Remove the ability of summonsed creatures to be able to use their summon abilities. There. There is a simple fix to many of the problems a level 9 spell has, while still keeping it at a sufficient power level for it to qualify as a 9th level.

I recall there being some rule that a summoned creature cannot use any summon abilities for 1 hour after its arrival. Is this specific to the demon/devil ability to call others of their kind?

Rynjin

2016-12-20, 04:21 PM

Well, I did mention my experience comes from Pathfinder where those spells are tweaked and/or nerfed. Besides, I already mentioned how all the "offensive" spells on that list aren't 100% ending encounters, since there's a chance they'll do nothing. A level 18 wizard with 40 intelligence(because why not), Spell Focus(and Greater) AND Spell Perfection on the spell he's casting will have a DC of 38 on one spell, and 36 on the others of his chosen school. Getting +27 at level 18 is equal to: a +5 resistance bonus, +12 from a good save, or +5 from a bad one

Feel free to look over my math but last I checked 5+12=17, not 27.

You DO know that saves, unlike AC, don't get a 10 point boost, right?

(if the wizard managed to have 40 int somehow at level 18, then the baddie he wants to destroy might as well have a 30 to his save) so that's +27 for a good save(so on average, he will make it) or a +22 on a bad save(in which case, just cast one of the many buffs that grant +4 on saves) so he'll still make it on average with a roll of 12+. And the wizard still has to pass a substantial SR to get to that. So, on average, the Wizard will pass the SR, and on average his enemy will make the save. Sure, this is for elite monsters or whatnot, and he might as well end your everyday random encounter on a whim, but at least in my games, we stop having truly random encounters at level 20 and it's usually not your average mook that plane shifts to get us.

Unless you're fighting the ****ing Tarrasque, almost nothing you face will have a +30 to a save. Or even a +27. Just actually take a quick look at the bestiary. Saves above +25 are nearly unheard of, and creatures with ALL saves above 25 (or 20 for that matter) are completely nonexistent. And if they have ONE bad save (like, say, a Great Wyrm Red Dragon's pitiful +15 Reflex save) you have them by the balls.

Even taking a worst case scenario and you're fighting, I dunno, a level 20 Antipaladin for every fight. And they have really high stats on NPC wealth somehow, so we're looking at 30 Cha, 16 Dex, 16 Wis, 20 Con or summat you're still looking at saves on the order of Fort +32, Ref +24, Will +30. Giving even THAT very niche example a not insignificant chance of falling to your hypothetical DC 38 spells. Slap a Chains of Light on that bitch and watch 'im writhe.

And as I have already said once, I'm not saying that a Wizard can't do those things. He definitely can, and probably will. All I'm saying is that from how I've seen it play out in my games, among friends and generally sensible people, the Fighter does not feel powerless in those scenarios. If the plan is to keep the Wizard alive so he can end the encounter, and failing to do so means you don't move forward(even if the Wizard doesn't die due to whatever the hell he has casted), that makes the Fighter valuable and responsible for 50% of the job. If the Wizard contigencies out and comes back 1 round later, only to have found his group decimated, and somehow manages to win, he has not actually succeeded. His party is dead. This is a group activity, not the Chronicles of Wizard McMagical.

What exactly does the Fighter DO to keep the Wizard alive that the Wizard isn't already doing?

Is he blocking a charge lane? Does he do it better than a summon or Animal Companion or Animated Object? Nope. A filled square is a filled square.

Can he deflect ranged attacks against the Wizard? Nope.

Can he take saves for the Wizard or block incoming spells? Nope and nope.

So, really, all the Fighter has contributed is saving the Wizard a spell slot. That's not 50% of the contribution. That is an ever decreasing percentage that STARTS at 50% at 1st level and spirals downward from there.

Just because you can FEEL useful while contributing little does not mean you ARE useful.

Strigon

2016-12-20, 04:44 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2016-12-20, 04:46 PM

I recall there being some rule that a summoned creature cannot use any summon abilities for 1 hour after its arrival. Is this specific to the demon/devil ability to call others of their kind?

It's in the overview of conjuration at the beginning of the magic chapter of the PHB, IIRC. Don't know about PF but I'm pretty sure it was in the SRD so it should be unless paizo deliberately removed it.

Hogsy

2016-12-20, 04:56 PM

Feel free to look over my math but last I checked 5+12=17, not 27.

You DO know that saves, unlike AC, don't get a 10 point boost, right?

Unless you're fighting the ****ing Tarrasque, almost nothing you face will have a +30 to a save. Or even a +27. Just actually take a quick look at the bestiary. Saves above +25 are nearly unheard of, and creatures with ALL saves above 25 (or 20 for that matter) are completely nonexistent. And if they have ONE bad save (like, say, a Great Wyrm Red Dragon's pitiful +15 Reflex save) you have them by the balls.

Even taking a worst case scenario and you're fighting, I dunno, a level 20 Antipaladin for every fight. And they have really high stats on NPC wealth somehow, so we're looking at 30 Cha, 16 Dex, 16 Wis, 20 Con or summat you're still looking at saves on the order of Fort +32, Ref +24, Will +30. Giving even THAT very niche example a not insignificant chance of falling to your hypothetical DC 38 spells. Slap a Chains of Light on that bitch and watch 'im writhe.

Well, I believe that the beastiary is written with an average party in mind, without wild optimization and crazy polymorphs or gate chains that the developers and writers hadn't thought of. The 10 doesn't come from a static bonus like AC, but it comes from an ability modifier? If our wizard gets to have a 15 in his casting modifier, then his enemies will be compensated accordingly. If not going on the extreme, A DC of 19(9th level spell) + 10(Modifier) + 2(spell focus) requires an opposing saving throw of +20 to save on average. That's 5(resistance) + 4(morale) + 6(BAD save) + 5 Modifier. Are you honestly telling me that it's far fetched to assume the average enemy has wands and scrolls in his disposal to counter the mad DCs of a level 20 caster? The enemy doesn't need to be an anti-paladin to have a +20 on his will save. Most baddies will have a good fortitude save as well, meaning their save will be +27. You don't have to put a +5 modifier, +5 resistance and +4 morale buff on all your baddies, but you can put it on those who are able to harm the caster in some way. And now, the caster can't harm them(directly). And like I've already mentioned, my intention is not to downplay the Wizard's power at level 20. Merely to say he isn't GOD and all else will perish before their 31 DC.

What exactly does the Fighter DO to keep the Wizard alive that the Wizard isn't already doing?

Is he blocking a charge lane? Does he do it better than a summon or Animal Companion or Animated Object? Nope. A filled square is a filled square.

Can he deflect ranged attacks against the Wizard? Nope.

Can he take saves for the Wizard or block incoming spells? Nope and nope.

So, really, all the Fighter has contributed is saving the Wizard a spell slot. That's not 50% of the contribution. That is an ever decreasing percentage that STARTS at 50% at 1st level and spirals downward from there.

Just because you can FEEL useful while contributing little does not mean you ARE useful.

Uh, I don't know, maybe the Balor he just killed in 1 turn now won't Power Word Stun the caster, or cast Implosion on him(DC 27, or 28 if you up the Balor's Cha by 1 point up to 28 against a Wizard's SR and potential +20 fort save, and although it's not that valid of a tactic he can quicken it.) and granted, Implosion is a semi-optimal tactic and I'd use it if I wanted to stall in favour of the party, Power Word Stun is a very real threat and on average the Balor's roll against SR will be 31, the same as his own. In addition, you don't care about spell turning when using Power Word Stun as a Balor. This is just one example, and honestly, when playing at a higher optimization level, playing against CR-appropriate creatures has often proven to be... boring at best. When the fighter deals 150+ damage a turn to enemies the Wizard can't afford to waste rounds on, he IS contributing to the encounter. Like I've already said, from my perspective as both a DM and a Player, even if a Wizard manages to solve an encounter by himself, at the expense of a few rounds trying to figure out a solution while his party is being decimated, then the Wizard isn't solving anything. His party just died. That's it for D&D this evening. D&D is not only the rules and the system and all this theory, it's the group and its dynamics. That's what give it life and shape it. That's all I'm trying to get to here, not some theoretical battle between the Wizard and other baddies at level 20. So all this is pointless.

I am just saying, that in MY experience, I've rarely seen a person be consistently useless in games I DM or play in.

Rynjin

2016-12-20, 05:50 PM

Dragonexx

2016-12-20, 06:19 PM

Remove the ability of summonsed creatures to be able to use their summon abilities. There. There is a simple fix to many of the problems a level 9 spell has, while still keeping it at a sufficient power level for it to qualify as a 9th level.

It doesn't matter. Gate is a calling spell, not a summoning, so once they're there, they're there, fully and completely.

Gruftzwerg

2016-12-20, 06:37 PM

.... And then wizard just sends in army of angel simulacrums to fight them.

reminds me of:
Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

describes the situation very well in every detail.

Psyren

2016-12-20, 07:07 PM

reminds me of:
Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

describes the situation very well in every detail.

Okay - I've seen this response a lot and it really doesn't. I mean, I find the sketch as chuckleworthy as everyone else, but it ignores the realities of the game to make its point. The pair of them have a single encounter per day, Angel Summoner's abilities are apparently at-will, BMX Bandit is probably hovering somewhere around T5 or T6 for the types of encounter(s) they're facing (come on, what fighter can't take down a roomful of mooks), they're never up against enemy angel summoners or any situations that would interfere with his powers etc. Of course the disparity is ridiculously pronounced there.

In actual game/narrative situations though, it's quite possible to be able to summon angels and still lose (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dorukan) without a guy with a sword there to tip the balance, without even resorting to direct counters like antimagic or counterspells. Challenging the casters without steamrolling the martials is not only possible, it's the hallmark of a skilled GM. Now, obviously that gets a lot harder when your casters are at Tippy levels of optimization, but at that point your caster player is such a spotlight hog that they've successfully warped the entire game around them, and you need to deal with that OOC.

Milo v3

2016-12-20, 07:26 PM

Mark set out, quite clearly, to make the Kineticist babby's first class. Mechanically, he succeeded in that goal (with only the convoluted wording of some of the abilities holding it back from that).
Mark has abit higher expectation of reading comprehension than the rest of Pathfinder, a lot of people seemed to have difficulties understanding Kineticist and Playtest Medium on their first read.... and then you see the original math behind the Automatic Bonus Progression (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lhdx?Unleashing-Unchained) which leaves many a reader confused.

A lot of the books that come after feel like too much of a conscious effort to create change to be the work of any of the other designers.
Well, a lot of that wasn't Mark. Especially the unchained stuff, because he came in so late in it's development that he only even got Removing Alignment (thank god) and the Automatic Bonus Progression to mitigate the big six in the book because there was some extra pages left over (having such restricted pagecount is also why ABP works in general but has tonnes of little side-things that cause it to not work right).

AvatarVecna

2016-12-20, 07:37 PM

Okay - I've seen this response a lot and it really doesn't. I mean, I find the sketch as chuckleworthy as everyone else, but it ignores the realities of the game to make its point. The pair of them have a single encounter per day, Angel Summoner's abilities are apparently at-will, BMX Bandit is probably hovering somewhere around T5 or T6 for the types of encounter(s) they're facing (come on, what fighter can't take down a roomful of mooks), they're never up against enemy angel summoners or any situations that would interfere with his powers etc. Of course the disparity is ridiculously pronounced there.

In actual game/narrative situations though, it's quite possible to be able to summon angels and still lose (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dorukan) without a guy with a sword there to tip the balance, without even resorting to direct counters like antimagic or counterspells. Challenging the casters without steamrolling the martials is not only possible, it's the hallmark of a skilled GM. Now, obviously that gets a lot harder when your casters are at Tippy levels of optimization, but at that point your caster player is such a spotlight hog that they've successfully warped the entire game around them, and you need to deal with that OOC.

Minor point to all you balance debaters out there: Psyren knows what he's doing. He made sure to not mention all the points of that storyline that detract from his argument, like:

1) The enemy being attacked with Gate being an epic caster.

2) The person summoning the angels being a Wizard who got goaded into a fight he wasn't perfectly prepared for.

3) The Wizard being epic, but deciding not to summon the angels that can summon all the other angels, because his death was preordained.

4) The only martial character to participate in that battle having a plan to defeat a full caster that wouldn't have worked because the caster they were attacking it had prepared for the possibility.

5) The only martial character to participate in that battle getting taken out of the action prematurely by another full caster observing the fight.

The moral of the story: don't waste time clarifying your own arguments by pointing out the potential flaws, because somebody will be kind enough to do that for you! :smallbiggrin:

There have been four powerful caster deaths in the OotS comic (well, more depending on how exactly you count it, but a lot of them are part of the third): Dorukan (killed because he got taunted into a battle through his own stupidity and pride, and got killed by a caster all-but tailor-made to target his weak points that he had uncovered by items for some reason), Lirian (who spent most of her magic poorly buffing an army of minions and depending on an easily-blocked disease for her defense, and would've won anyway if not for Artifact Ex Machina), Girard's clan (who got ganked by an epic spell), Xykon the first time (who was stupid and got ganked by Artifact Ex Machina), Durkon (killed by a more powerful cleric), and Malack. The dragon V fought probably counts as well, and Tsukiko perhaps as well, but both of those still meet the main point I'm making here: every single time a powerful caster has died or been defeated in OotS, it was due to some combination of more powerful magic, Artifact Ex Machina, and their own stupidity/hubris. The only exception is Malack, who was defeated by a half-caster equivalent with the aid of a less powerful full caster - more specifically, by Nale's for-once cunning plan, endless patience, and good luck (with Malack using up his backup casting on an unexpected vampire child).

Also, a Wizard 20 has more than enough slots to pull all of the "Gate in a Solar" tricks necessary to make every point of angel summoning in that video happen in a single day; claiming it's a single encounter a day despite no indication in the entire video of that being the case is misrepresenting the evidence to better support your argument - not to say that it does all take place in the same day, since that's not indicated either, merely that there's no evidence to suggest it does or does not. By the way, for those of you learning to argue from this thread, that last sentence is a good example of that thing I mentioned earlier about pointing out your own argument's flaws; sure, it makes you look like you better understand your argument's pros and cons, and makes you look like you're not glossing over the flaws to try and pretend they don't exist, but that's a lot of work that somebody else will do for you anyway, so why waste time making yourself look more credible?

Rynjin

2016-12-20, 07:50 PM

Mark has abit higher expectation of reading comprehension than the rest of Pathfinder, a lot of people seemed to have difficulties understanding Kineticist and Playtest Medium on their first read.... and then you see the original math behind the Automatic Bonus Progression (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lhdx?Unleashing-Unchained) which leaves many a reader confused.

Well, a lot of that wasn't Mark. Especially the unchained stuff, because he came in so late in it's development that he only even got Removing Alignment (thank god) and the Automatic Bonus Progression to mitigate the big six in the book because there was some extra pages left over (having such restricted pagecount is also why ABP works in general but has tonnes of little side-things that cause it to not work right).

And it kind of shows with how pointless and half-baked a lot of the Unchained stuff was. Seriously, why does the Unchained Barbarian exist?

ShurikVch

2016-12-20, 07:59 PM

I like the flavors of Rogue, but if a Wizard can just pull out Knock on command through a wand or scrollTry to ask Wizard to don't pretend to be a rogue, so you wouldn't pretend to be a wizard
Last time I checked, UMD was on the Rogue's skill list :smallwink:
Also, Knock is limited:
by the size of the door - anything bigger than 200 sq. ft. is beyond the non-epic caster (at least, without optimization)
by the number of locks - no more than 2 per cast
And finally: enemies may be alarmed if door - which was locked from inside - suddenly unlocked on it's own; Rogue may be able to open it silently (or, at least, to inform about "It's locked from inside")

throw a summoned minion at trapsIt may to backfire in a number of ways:
The mildest of problems is rechargeable traps - what's the point to sent minions into them, if after all they still dangerous as ever?
Slightly worse may be a summoning trap - depending on what's it summoning, creature may not attack your minion, but stay hidden and attack the party
Maybe not so dangerous, but really annoying traps are way-blockers - in best case, party will just enter in some other place; if there are no other ways in, fighter may pull out mining pickaxe and clear the road; in the worst case - they would clearing the road while under fire of entrenched enemies
Even worse is traps with huge area and lingering effect - for example, what if the trap will poison the air all other the dungeon, flood it with acid, or just drop the ceiling?
And the most dangerous (because unpredictable) - alarm traps. How it will work is completely up to DM. For example, maybe all encounters would be doubled; or enemies from the whole dungeon would attack at once, without any time to rest and heal; or even "Sorry, heroes, but the princess is in another castle... Oh, and this one would self-destruct at the end of message! :smallcool:"

or solve combat encounters with ease, what role do I fill anymore?Rogue don't even supposed to "solve combat encounters with ease"; he can - but not "with ease" (at least, without relying on UMD)

Who needs a Hide check when you have Invisibility?Somebody who can reliably beat Spot 20

Last I checked, it was the opposite. Various Warlocks and Dark Wizards all over fiction have historically been taken down not by White Wizards, but by a band of(mostly martial) adolescents shouting obscenities.Last I checked, various Warlocks and Dark Wizards much more often suffering from their own projects going Horribly Wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyWrong)/Horribly Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyRight), or betrayal of their own traitorous underlings
Seriously, outside of Conan the Barbarian - how often we see caster beaten by non-casters?

Lord of the Rings is basically a story about an eldritch demon/angel thing posessing untold infernal magical powers being defeated by a pair of lv 2 halfling fighters.Nice try, but no cigar: the most impressive kill of the whole story - Balrog - belonging to Gandalf (unless he lied through his teeth about the battle)

2. In tonnes of fiction, the wizard actually isn't more powerful than the rest of the group.Please, can you list some?
Also, let's differ between "act as not more powerful" and "really isn't more powerful"

3. No one said they want the martials to do all the same things while being better in all the other ways. Don't build up a strawman.Except numerous thread on that site asking to help in building "T1(/T2) Martial character"
T1 character can do anything and everything, and can break the game
T2 can do everything which T1 can - just not at the same time
Martial character is a textbook definition of T5 - good in just one thing, which may be not even that important
For making "T1(/T2) Martial character" we will need either allow "martials to do all the same things while being better in all the other ways", or just take a Cleric with Divine Metamagic and call it a day

That's a ridiculously easy thing to solve. Are you familiar with the concepts of "Floor" and "Ceiling" in regards to how powerful a class/character is? What you do is have the default level of power (the floor) of each class at each level be about the minimum of what's expected to play the game, that way lack of skill doesn't risk sudden annihilation, and then the player's skill basically determines how powerful they are between the "Floor" and "Ceiling" of the class (the ceiling of each class should probably be around the same height, but making it exact would be near impossible).OK, let's see:
Fighter and Wizard
Both are 16th level
Fighter is "Sword and Board", spent all his feats on Toughness and Roll With It, and don't even taken Power Attack - because attack penalty is terrible, and it only 16 damage anyway
Wizard spent all of his feats on Skill Focus (Knowledge), at level-ups always selected to learn spells of 1st level, never bought a single scroll, spent most of his WBL on Robe of Stars (because Wizard), and Skillful Lucky Keen Ghost Touch Adamantine Katana +5 (because Katanas are cool! :smallamused:)
So, who's "Floor" is higher?

digiman619

2016-12-20, 07:59 PM

And it kind of shows with how pointless and half-baked a lot of the Unchained stuff was. Seriously, why does the Unchained Barbarian exist?

I honestly think they could have saved a few pages by simply making the following errata "Hit points gained through temporary bonuses to Constitution (such as bear's endurance or a Barbarian's rage) count as temporary hit points"

AvatarVecna

2016-12-20, 08:03 PM

And it kind of shows with how pointless and half-baked a lot of the Unchained stuff was. Seriously, why does the Unchained Barbarian exist?

Well, look at the changes:

1) The bonuses from Rage were changed from morale to untyped (presumably to prevent people from abusing Courageous (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/courageous) weapons, Moment Of Greatness (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/moment-of-greatness), and other morale boosters that weren't meant to apply to Rage), so I guess you could stack them with other morale bonuses now, but you could do that before, because...

2) The bonuses were changed from a bonus to Str and Con to bonuses directly to melee Attack/melee Damage/thrown damage/HP/Will saves, because heaven forbid rage boost anything else based on Str or Con, I guess. Oh, it also made any skills based on Str worse than regular barbarian, since Rage doesn't increase those.

3) Trap Sense is now called danger sense, and gives its bonus to Perception checks to detect surprised foes...not that the Barbarian needs that very much, what with Uncanny Dodge being a thing they still have, but whatever.

4) Indomitable Will is exactly the same as it was in the original Barbarian; I'm only mentioning it because that means they should've changed the line referencing the morale bonus to Will saves from Rage that Unchained Barbarian Rage no longer gives (it's untyped now). Proofreading!

Some Rage Powers got changed up a bit as well, I assume, but I don't really have the time to go through all those to figure out which ones.

EDIT: So I guess you could say the point was making the Barbarian worse and less versatile.

Hogsy

2016-12-20, 08:49 PM

Oh, never mind, I thought we were actually discussing monsters as the game has built them and not how you houserule them to be.

My mistake, I should have realized all balance discussions should be based on the assumptions of your heavily modified home games.

And for the love of god, format your posts. If you're just going to spout the same gibberish as other people that think their home games and anecdotal evidence trump all, you could at least make it readable.

So when you're using npcs with classes in your games, you take them from the beastiary? How is using magical items from MIC, taking the base saves of a class and then adding the npc's ability modifier to the total of that considered a "heavily modified home game"?

Besides, as I have said, CR and the Beastiary are not written to take into account high-op games. Are you saying a deadly challenge for a high-op ECL 10 party is a CR 14 encounter? I don't consider them deadly even for a mid-op party. We were discussing about how spell-casters can destroy encounters using one spell and me refuting that(as far as offensive spells go) it's not hard to have high saves without being a level 20 anti-paladin. My games use rules used in the Pathfinder game and everything we achieve is legal as RAW. Don't make assumptions for things you have no knowledge of, and there's no reason for you to be so rude either as I haven't insulted you in any way. It's not "my homebrew games" that allow fighters to be useful, it's how we play them and the opportunities the DM gives them. If you can't do that or haven't seen it, it doesn't mean it's gibberish or wrong. Sorry for not being able to format posts very well, I'm trying to fix that.

It doesn't matter. Gate is a calling spell, not a summoning, so once they're there, they're there, fully and completely.

It doesn't matter 'cause Gate in PF doesn't work the same way. You can't control a creature whose HD exceed your CL and if you bring a creature you can't control, it all depends on the DM about how the creature will act or even if it will aid you. If you can control the creature, then it's most likely not as powerful and won't destroy all encounters, even if some creature with less HD has some strong ability you can abuse, you can just rule that even Gated creatures can't use their summons for x rounds or something. If you base the whole power of the spell on the DM's view, then the discussion is vastly different as well since he may rule either way.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-20, 08:58 PM

Now, obviously that gets a lot harder when your casters are at Tippy levels of optimization, but at that point your caster player is such a spotlight hog that they've successfully warped the entire game around them, and you need to deal with that OOC.

Generally your arguments are pretty well reasoned, and your overall correct that you can design your game in a way to make things work for most characters and players. I feel compelled to point out though that pointlessly insulting people who enjoy a play style that you don't is not helpful to making your point. It just makes it clear that you are in fact the one who thinks there is a *right* and *wrong* way to play the game.

Milo v3

2016-12-20, 09:11 PM

And it kind of shows with how pointless and half-baked a lot of the Unchained stuff was. Seriously, why does the Unchained Barbarian exist?
Unchained Barbarian is designed to be a simpler barbarian that doesn't require a separate character sheet for when you rage.

Please, can you list some?
Raistlin before he reached mid level is the first to come to mind, he could be killed by a strong enough breeze if his Fighter brother wasn't in the way.... and then he reached mid-level and went all tier 1 on everyone.

Except numerous thread on that site asking to help in building "T1(/T2) Martial character"
T1 character can do anything and everything, and can break the game
T2 can do everything which T1 can - just not at the same time
Martial character is a textbook definition of T5 - good in just one thing, which may be not even that important
For making "T1(/T2) Martial character" we will need either allow "martials to do all the same things while being better in all the other ways", or just take a Cleric with Divine Metamagic and call it a day
Even in those cases, it's not what you strawman. Compare wizard and druid for example, both are tier 1 classes. Both have different strengths in different areas. They aren't just "Do everything that the other can do, while being better in all other ways".

OK, let's see:
Fighter and Wizard
Both are 16th level
Fighter is "Sword and Board", spent all his feats on Toughness and Roll With It, and don't even taken Power Attack - because attack penalty is terrible, and it only 16 damage anyway
Wizard spent all of his feats on Skill Focus (Knowledge), at level-ups always selected to learn spells of 1st level, never bought a single scroll, spent most of his WBL on Robe of Stars (because Wizard), and Skillful Lucky Keen Ghost Touch Adamantine Katana +5 (because Katanas are cool! :smallamused:)
So, who's "Floor" is higher?
You act as if I said casters have a high floor?

Zanos

2016-12-20, 09:18 PM

Rynjin

2016-12-20, 09:26 PM

Unchained Barbarian is designed to be a simpler barbarian that doesn't require a separate character sheet for when you rage.

Barbarian only ever, at most, required a set of parentheses next to your normal stats. Health: 100/100 (120/120), Attack bonus +16 (+18).

Though I guess if the majority was like you and needed to duplicate every little thing onto a separate sheet, it may have seemed more complicated to them.

I shudder to think how you people handle buff spells. Heroism and Haste must play havoc with your paper supplies.

OK, let's see:
Fighter and Wizard
Both are 16th level
Fighter is "Sword and Board", spent all his feats on Toughness and Roll With It, and don't even taken Power Attack - because attack penalty is terrible, and it only 16 damage anyway
Wizard spent all of his feats on Skill Focus (Knowledge), at level-ups always selected to learn spells of 1st level, never bought a single scroll, spent most of his WBL on Robe of Stars (because Wizard), and Skillful Lucky Keen Ghost Touch Adamantine Katana +5 (because Katanas are cool! )
So, who's "Floor" is higher?

The Wizard. I need to clear up some confusion about what skill/system mastery floors and ceilings mean, apparently.

The "Floor" is the minimum level of skill required for the class to be effective.

The "Ceiling" is how high increased skill or mastery can take the class.

A class with a low skill floor is incredibly easy to get into and be reasonably effective with. The Ranger is a good example. Stupid easy t build, but pretty solid overall.

A class with a high skill floor takes more skill to reach a reasonable level of effectiveness. Like the Wizard, or any prepared Arcane caster. They really largely on higher than average system knowledge and anticipation of dangers.

A class with a low skill ceiling caps out pretty fast. There is very little increased system mastery will do to make it better. The aforementioned Kineticist is a good example. Even with high system mastery there is very little you can do to make a Kineticist especially good (and very little you can do to make it especially BAD either, making it a low skill floor as well).

High ceiling classes have greater potential the better versed you are in the ins and outs of the system. Again, Wizard, for the same reason it has a high floor as well. The better you can anticipate potential perils, the stronger the class is because it has OPTIONS to tackle any challenge in the game.

Milo v3

2016-12-20, 09:58 PM

Barbarian only ever, at most, required a set of parentheses next to your normal stats. Health: 100/100 (120/120), Attack bonus +16 (+18).
Also skills and stuff like carry capacity. But yes, it's rather easy to do that.

Though I guess if the majority was like you and needed to duplicate every little thing onto a separate sheet, it may have seemed more complicated to them.

I shudder to think how you people handle buff spells. Heroism and Haste must play havoc with your paper supplies.

I love how fast people on this board go to insults and assuming someone saying "X perspective is why Y did Z" = "I have X perspective".

Psyren

2016-12-20, 11:00 PM

Minor point to all you balance debaters out there: Psyren knows what he's doing. He made sure to not mention all the points of that storyline that detract from his argument, like:

1) The enemy being attacked with Gate being an epic caster.

2) The person summoning the angels being a Wizard who got goaded into a fight he wasn't perfectly prepared for.

3) The Wizard being epic, but deciding not to summon the angels that can summon all the other angels, because his death was preordained.

4) The only martial character to participate in that battle having a plan to defeat a full caster that wouldn't have worked because the caster they were attacking it had prepared for the possibility.

5) The only martial character to participate in that battle getting taken out of the action prematurely by another full caster observing the fight.

The moral of the story: don't waste time clarifying your own arguments by pointing out the potential flaws, because somebody will be kind enough to do that for you! :smallbiggrin:

All of these bullets are only proving my point. I'll explain if you still don't see it.

Generally your arguments are pretty well reasoned, and your overall correct that you can design your game in a way to make things work for most characters and players. I feel compelled to point out though that pointlessly insulting people who enjoy a play style that you don't is not helpful to making your point. It just makes it clear that you are in fact the one who thinks there is a *right* and *wrong* way to play the game.

What? :smallconfused:

I'm not insulting anyone - if you took offense, that was not my intent and I apologize. What I'm saying is that playing T1s to full potential (e.g. chain-gating solars, ice assassin, nested contingencies etc) does require a certain level of disregard for everyone else at the table with you, unless they too are playing up to this level AND your GM is throwing challenges that warrant that kind of nuclear response. If at least one of those is not true, then yes, the caster player IS hogging the spotlight. How is pointing that out an insult? Genuine question.

Story

2016-12-20, 11:03 PM

I am just saying, that in MY experience, I've rarely seen a person be consistently useless in games I DM or play in.

Good for you, but that doesn't mean your experience reflects the majority of games.

If you want some countering anecdotes, I've been in four groups (3 3.5, 1 PF), and every single DM exclusively used monsters straight out of the monster manual or a published adventure. Customizing and homebrewing takes a lot of work.

Zanos

2016-12-20, 11:04 PM

I love how fast people on this board go to insults and assuming someone saying "X perspective is why Y did Z" = "I have X perspective".
Honestly, people on this board are often so passive aggressive and insult by proxy that I would rather just be directly insulted.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-20, 11:07 PM

Short answer? You did not stipulate any particulars about when and how optimizers of that sort are anything other then "spot light hogs". You made a directly negative and insulting statement about anyone and everyone who plays in that style with no qualifiers. I'm honestly unsure how you could *not* realize that was insulting to anyone who enjoys that level of gameplay.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 01:03 AM

All of these bullets are only proving my point.

Yes, they do help your point of "mages can be challenged", but whether mages can be challenged are not isn't the point od this thread. This thread is about "casters and non-casters can't be even remotely equally relevant in the same story unless somebody's bending over backwards to fix the obvious problems in this game". Your point about mages being capable of dying, and the epic Wizard Dorukan dying in particular, is undercut by the conga line of poor decisions he made along the way, and even when a caster dies legitimately, it's because of another castercaster, their own stupidity, a deity, or an artifact, with non-casters being almost universally inconsequential to the results. There's only onepoint in the entire comic where non-casters actually earned a victory over casters casters rather than havong it handed to them by another caster. The comic is made by a dude who feels a lot of the more powerful magic uses are cheap cheating tricks, who ignores RAW when it suits him, and there's still only a single time where a caster lost because of something other than another caster.

Your point is worthless because it doesn't address the problem, it avoids it. You see the disparity and you consider it a feature instead of a bug? Well that's fine and dandy as long as everybodycs having fun withit, but I think it should be clear by now even to the most thick-skulled members of the board that there are people not having fun with Fighters that get outshone at their own schtick by some spindly nerd jerking his wand around, not having fun playing Bruce Lee when their ally is playing Jesus, not having fun playing Jack Sparrow when their ally is playing the bastard child of Jack Sparrow and Tia Dalma.

"But don't worry, I've got a solution! As long as you make sure to include enemy caster, force the casters to handle the idiot ball on ocassion, hand out artifacts to important NPCs, and sprinkle in the occasional Deus Ex Machina, everything will be fine because the casters are being challenged too!" **** you. Why should the solution to seeing the mage having fun and the non-mage not having fun be to make the mage have less fun? The mage choosing to play down to let the non-mages delude themselves into thinking they're relevant is a nice gesture on the mages part, and can serve as a solution in your games, but some of us want to play at that higher level where we actually have to think strategically at potentially epic scales, rather than just attacking again and hoping for the best.

There's a thread going right now about whether a Fighter 50 can beat a Solar solo, a thread which has devolved into debating how much WBLmancy is acceptable; it's not even being debated whether the Fighter could do it buck naked, because of course he couldn't. Really, it's completely unrealistic to expect any 50th lvl character to beat a crrature with CR less than half their level buck naked...well, unless they have spell, in which case they're golden. Why is a cleric or druid or sorcerer or eidetic wizard less item-dependent than a Monk? If Heracles wanted to kill an angel, he's punch his way into heaven, then just jump up to where one was flying away from him (casually outpacing it) and snap it's neck. But you can't do that. Not without items or DM intervention. But apparently this is a good thing. Itcs a goos thing that the only way to achieve greatness is to either learn magic and takeit,or avoid magic and have it handed to you as a participation trophy. **** that noise, and **** you for saying it's the solution.

I wanna play a game where any fantasy concept is relevant; I was told a long time ago that 3.5 was that system, and layer that Pathfinder solved the problem, but it turns out those were filthy lies perpetuated by people like you insisting the flaws were features, and that the game is only considered unbalanced by delusional people who are being "rules laywers" by actually reading the fine medium print on how mages compare to non-mages.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 01:39 AM

Even when a caster dies legitimately, it's because of another castercaster, their own stupidity, a deity, or an artifact, with non-casters being almost universally inconsequential to the results.

I'm well aware that, past a certain point, magic is necessary to succeed in this game - even if only in the form of items. This is by design. You're well within your rights to disagree with that design, in which case, feel free to go design your own game, but this is the one we have (and that many of us love.)

Your point is worthless because it doesn't address the problem, it avoids it. You see the disparity and you consider it a feature instead of a bug? Well that's fine and dandy as long as everybodycs having fun withit, but I think it should be clear by now even to the most thick-skulled members of the board that there are people not having fun with Fighters that get outshone at their own schtick by some spindly nerd jerking his wand around, not having fun playing Bruce Lee when their ally is playing Jesus, not having fun playing Jack Sparrow when their ally is playing the bastard child of Jack Sparrow and Tia Dalma.

Oh, it's crystal clear that there are people who dislike this paradigm, and the gentleman's agreements that allow them to contribute without getting drowned in solars. And while I feel some measure of pity for those people, all I plan to do is shrug and keep playing.

**** that noise, and **** you for saying it's the solution.

Sorry you feel that way. Lots of games out there.

Jormengand

2016-12-21, 01:46 AM

I'm well aware that, past a certain point, magic is necessary to succeed in this game - even if only in the form of items. This is by design.

No, it isn't, which is why there are plenty of designers who have basically said outright that it doesn't exist, often in the same breath as releasing content which, explicitly or otherwise, fixes it.

Oh, it's crystal clear that there are people who dislike this paradigm, and the gentleman's agreements that allow them to contribute without getting drowned in solars. And while I feel some measure of pity for those people, all I plan to do is shrug and keep playing.

Yes, because telling the caster to sod off and not use any of his abilities so that you can hit things with a stick is really freaking stupid. And please do shrug and continue playing: it's better than pretty much overtly insulting the intellects and the preferences of everyone here.

Sorry you feel that way. Lots of games out there.

Does it never occur to you that people can like some aspects of a game but not others? Not even when people have outright told you that is the case? Or are you just incapable of actually processing the information we're telling you, like some automaton which just blithely repeats the same three already-refuted arguments until judgment day?

Psyren

2016-12-21, 01:56 AM

No, it isn't.

Of course it is. WBL exists for a reason; the game expects you to have magic solutions to magic problems regardless of your class.

Yes, because telling the caster to sod off and not use any of his abilities

"Any?" So if the caster isn't allowed to do things like chain-gate solars, they can't use magic at all? :smallconfused:

Does it never occur to you that people can like some aspects of a game but not others? Not even when people have outright told you that is the case? Or are you just incapable of actually processing the information we're telling you, like some automaton which just blithely repeats the same three already-refuted arguments until judgment day?

Well, when someone flat-out tells me "**** you" it's pretty clear they're not interested in discourse at that point. Nowhere to go from there, really.

Jormengand

2016-12-21, 02:09 AM

Of course it is. WBL exists for a reason; the game expects you to have magic solutions to magic problems regardless of your class.

Well, yes, you have a nice magic sword if you're a fighter. But the idea that you must use magic as a wizard does rather than as a fighter does (hence the name "caster-martial disparity", just for those in the proverbial back) is not intended.

"Any?" So if the caster isn't allowed to do things like chain-gate solars, they can't use magic at all? :smallconfused:

If I randomly rolled for my prepared spells as a 20th-level wizard, I could beat a 20th-level fighter. To ask a caster to play on the fighter's level is to ask him simply not to use the vast majority of his spells.

Well, when someone flat-out tells me "**** you" it's pretty clear they're not interested in discourse at that point. Nowhere to go from there, really.

No, it tells you that he's frustrated by your really, really bull-headed, flippant and derisive style of argumentation which isn't good for the stress levels of anyone who tries to converse with you. The fact that you decided to ignore his arguments, and the fact that you apparently decided to use an argument which you knew was nonsensical because he told you to get bent is honestly pathetic.

Or perhaps you'd like me to repeat his arguments without telling you to get bent?

Yes, my old chum, you are quite right, they do indeed help your point of "mages can be challenged", but whether mages can be challenged are not isn't the point of this thread. You see old chap, this thread is about "casters and non-casters can't be even remotely equally relevant in the same story unless somebody's bending over backwards to fix the obvious problems in this game". Your otherwise quite excellent point about mages being capable of dying, and the epic Wizard Dorukan dying in particular, is undercut by, if I do say so myself, the conga line of rather poor decisions he made along the way, and even when a caster dies legitimately, it's because of another caster, their own poor decisions, a deity, or an artifact, with non-casters being almost universally inconsequential to the results. If you look closely, my old chap, you'll see that there's only onepoint in the entire comic where non-casters actually earned a victory over casters rather than having it jolly well handed to them by another caster. The comic is made by a gentleman who feels a lot of the more powerful magic uses are cheap cheating tricks, who ignores RAW when it suits him, and there's still only a single time where a caster lost because of something other than another caster.

Your point is, I'm very sorry to say, not very valuable, because it doesn't address the problem, it avoids it. You see the disparity and you consider it a feature instead of a bug? Well that's fine and dandy as long as everybody's having fun with it, but I think it should be clear by now even to minds of your calibre that there are people not having fun with Fighters that get outshone at their own schtick by some churlish vagabond thrusting his wand around, not having fun playing Bruce Lee when their ally is playing Jesus, not having fun playing Jack Sparrow when their ally is playing the illegitimate child of Jack Sparrow and Tia Dalma.

"But don't worry, I've got a solution! As long as you make sure to include enemy casters, force the casters to handle the good old idiot ball on ocassion, hand out artifacts to important NPCs, and sprinkle in the occasional Deus Ex Machina, everything will be fine because the casters are being challenged too!" My good sir! Why should the solution to seeing the mage having fun and the non-mage not having fun be to make the mage have less fun? The mage choosing to play down to let the non-mages delude themselves into thinking they're relevant is a jolly good show on the mage's part, and can serve as a solution in your games, but some of us want to play at that higher level where we actually have to think strategically at potentially epic scales, rather than just attacking again and hoping for the best.

There's a thread going right now about whether a Fighter 50 can beat a Solar solo, a thread which has devolved into debating how much use of the fighter gentleman's considerable estate is acceptable; it's not even being debated whether the Fighter could do it buck naked, because of course he couldn't. Really, it's completely unrealistic to expect any 50th lvl character to beat a crrature with CR less than half their level buck naked...well, unless they have spells, in which case they're golden. Why is a cleric or druid or sorcerer or eidetic wizard less item-dependent than a Monk? If Heracles wanted to kill an angel, he's punch his way into heaven, then jolly well just jump up to where one was flying away from him (casually outpacing it) and snap it's neck. But you can't do that. Not without items or DM intervention. But apparently this is a good thing. Itcs a goos thing that the only way to achieve greatness is to either learn magic and takeit,or avoid magic and have it handed to you as a participation trophy. I'm afraid, my old friend, that that isn't the solution. solution.

I would like - if you, my right honourable friend would permit - to play a game where any fantasy concept is relevant; I was told a long time ago that 3.5 was that system, and later that Pathfinder solved the problem, but it turns out those were unscrulptious ruses, perpetuated by gentlemen like yourself insisting the flaws were features, and that the game is only considered unbalanced by delusional people who are being "rules laywers" by actually reading the fine medium print on how mages compare to non-mages.

Are you going to address his bleeding points now?

Psyren

2016-12-21, 02:52 AM

Well, yes, you have a nice magic sword if you're a fighter. But the idea that you must use magic as a wizard does rather than as a fighter does (hence the name "caster-martial disparity", just for those in the proverbial back) is not intended.

How do you define "use magic as a wizard does?" Are potions forbidden? Wondrous items? Rings? Rods? Should fighters only have magic sword + armor and nothing else? Where is that line drawn?

I can tell you where I draw it - anything the fighter does not need UMD to use, and anything s/he can afford using the WBL guidelines, is fair game. And using those guidelines, they can at least put up a fight against anything level-appropriate in the Bestiary, if not win outright.

If I randomly rolled for my prepared spells as a 20th-level wizard, I could beat a 20th-level fighter. To ask a caster to play on the fighter's level is to ask him simply not to use the vast majority of his spells.

If you randomly rolled your spells, you could also lose to that same fighter. Not that this sort of test holds any meaning anyway as this is not a PvP game. What matters are the monsters, not whether Friend Wizard can beat them more easily or Friend Rogue, less so.

No, it tells you that he's frustrated by your really, really bull-headed, flippant and derisive style of argumentation which isn't good for the stress levels of anyone who tries to converse with you. The fact that you decided to ignore his arguments, and the fact that you apparently decided to use an argument which you knew was nonsensical because he told you to get bent is honestly pathetic.

I used Dorukan (and OotS in general) as an example because (a) we're all familiar with it, being here, and (b) it illustrates so well how the game is intended to be run. A non-magic user fighting alone against a magic-user is indeed going to be a difficult fight. But when two magic-using sides face off, the side with the better martial(s) can gain the upper hand. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0928.html) That is contribution. Yeah, Right-Eye's specific gamble would have failed (though, notably, not in Pathfinder) - but that was due to plot, not due to a mechanical inability to make a difference. That's the point I was making.

Or perhaps you'd like me to repeat his arguments without telling you to get bent?

Your superior civility, while appreciated, doesn't really move the needle in any meaningful way. I stand where I stand and the game is what it is. As I said to him, I now say to you - if you're not willing to modify what we have to suit your tastes, there are other games out there. That's not even meant to be dismissive, I genuinely think some of you might be happier playing something with more of the parity you seem to want.

Milo v3

2016-12-21, 03:13 AM

When people say "This isn't a PVP game", how are they factoring in the impact of NPCs?

Jormengand

2016-12-21, 03:13 AM

How do you define "use magic as a wizard does?" Are potions forbidden? Wondrous items? Rings? Rods? Should fighters only have magic sword + armor and nothing else? Where is that line drawn?

I can tell you where I draw it - anything the fighter does not need UMD to use, and anything s/he can afford using the WBL guidelines, is fair game. And using those guidelines, they can at least put up a fight against anything level-appropriate in the Bestiary, if not win outright.

Haha, no, they can't. I mean, yeah, against a Shrieker fungus I guess. But your run-of-the-mill CR 3 shadow can just destroy a 3rd-level fighter who isn't built to take it down, whereas a sorcerer can destroy the shadow by shouting "Magic missile!" at the top of his voice three or four times, whereas the shadow needs to get multiple actual hits with its touch attack against the sorcerer. Ignoring the fact that the wizard will win noncombat encounters more easily than the fighter. Just, you know, as one example.

If you randomly rolled your spells, you could also lose to that same fighter. Not that this sort of test holds any meaning anyway as this is not a PvP game. What matters are the monsters, not whether Friend Wizard can beat them more easily or Friend Rogue, less so.

*Sigh*

When adding class levels to a creature with 1 or less HD, you advance the creature like a character. Otherwise, use the following guidelines.

Class levels that increase a monster’s existing strengths are known as associated class levels. Each associated class level a monster has increases its CR by 1.

Therefore, a 20th level wizard should be fightable by a level 20 fighter. It just isn't.

I used Dorukan (and OotS in general) as an example because (a) we're all familiar with it, being here, and (b) it illustrates so well how the game is intended to be run.

Flagrantly ignoring rules to give casters a chance of death is "How the game is intended to be run"? Even Rich himself admits that it's meant to be a good story, not actually a good game.

Your superior civility, while appreciated, doesn't really move the needle in any meaningful way. I stand where I stand
We'd figured that out by ourselves, thanks. :smallsigh:

As I said to him, I now say to you - if you're not willing to modify what we have to suit your tastes,

I am, I do, and I'm consistently told by the "Mundanes can't have nice things" or "Caster-martial disparity doesn't exist" or "Caster-martial disparity both does (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21508963&postcount=66) and doesn't (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21514963&postcount=129) exist" clans that the result of my work is bad and wrong and shouldn't be enjoyed because it's "Overpowered" when compared to the poor wizard who's rewriting reality on a whim.

there are other games out there.

Incidentally, "This game may be crap, but there are other games you can play!" is a really terrible argument in support of a game.

That's not even meant to be dismissive, I genuinely think some of you might be happier playing something with more of the parity you seem to want.

Then you don't know dismissive when you see it.

Coretron03

2016-12-21, 03:23 AM

When people say "This isn't a PVP game", are they assuming NPC's aren't used in adventures?

Psyrens excuse is something akin to becuase there are no defined rules for running those NPCs the wizard would just prepare all read magic or something like that, I can't find where he said it.

Edit: found it, from Psyren
"Yes but (N)PC class encounters vary far too much based on the specific options selected. So while that guideline exists, you need a specific NPC to truly judge its CR. A Wizard 20 who is naked and prepared Read Magic in every slot is not actually a CR 20 encounter, whereas a balor is a balor is a balor."

Psyren

2016-12-21, 03:50 AM

Haha, no, they can't. I mean, yeah, against a Shrieker fungus I guess. But your run-of-the-mill CR 3 shadow can just destroy a 3rd-level fighter who isn't built to take it down, whereas a sorcerer can destroy the shadow by shouting "Magic missile!" at the top of his voice three or four times, whereas the shadow needs to get multiple actual hits with its touch attack against the sorcerer. Ignoring the fact that the wizard will win noncombat encounters more easily than the fighter. Just, you know, as one example.

You're expected to have a +1 weapon by level 3. This sort of thing is exactly why WBL is important, and why groups that ignore it are going to have a Bad Time.

*Sigh*

Therefore, a 20th level wizard should be fightable by a level 20 fighter. It just isn't.

Key word there being "guidelines."

Flagrantly ignoring rules to give casters a chance of death is "How the game is intended to be run"? Even Rich himself admits that it's meant to be a good story, not actually a good game.

"Not optimizing every single NPC in the story (or in a module for that matter) to be able to solo-clear Test of Spite" is not "ignoring rules."

I am, I do, and I'm consistently told by the "Mundanes can't have nice things" or "Caster-martial disparity doesn't exist" or "Caster-martial disparity both does (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21508963&postcount=66) and doesn't (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21514963&postcount=129) exist" clans that the result of my work is bad and wrong and shouldn't be enjoyed because it's "Overpowered" when compared to the poor wizard who's rewriting reality on a whim.

Incidentally, "This game may be crap, but there are other games you can play!" is a really terrible argument in support of a game.

It seems you're still confused about my position so let me be 100% clear.

Caster-Martial Disparity does exist. I say again, Caster-Martial Disparity exists. I just don't care about it nearly as much as you seem to.

I may add this to my sig for posterity.

Then you don't know dismissive when you see it.

Well, I certainly can't stop you from taking it that way. So I'll ask you instead - what do you hope to accomplish by arguing with me, the 3e/PF/5e designers, and everyone else who either likes these games the way they are, or at the very least, doesn't consider caster-martial disparity to be a deal-breaker? (http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35144/top-5-rpgs-spring-2016) Is there some kind of end-game here?

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 04:00 AM

You also have to remember that the vast majority of campaigns run below level 10, long before disparity peaks. This is why, in practice, warblades and crusaders have a tendency to be more overpowered than wizards and sorcerers in a non-insignificant portion of games—the fact that they're obscenely frontloaded while also scaling well into the mid levels distorts their relative value compared to late-blooming squishy arcanists, who can have real trouble getting off the ground in low-level contexts.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 04:14 AM

Well, I certainly can't stop you from taking it that way. So I'll ask you instead - what do you hope to accomplish by arguing with me, the 3e/PF/5e designers, and everyone else who either likes these games the way they are, or at the very least, doesn't consider caster-martial disparity to be a deal-breaker? (http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35144/top-5-rpgs-spring-2016) Is there some kind of end-game here?

Your argument consistently comes across as "the game is perfect the way it is, anybody who doesn't like it can **** off and find their own game with hookers and booze". I still play a great deal of 3.5 and PF, both IRL and in PbP, and I have plenty of fun as both casters and non-casters...but I've seen too many people have a bad time because of how easily get outshone, even accidentally, by party members throwing around an errant Polymorph without considering just how broken that spell can get. And then when the problem gets discussed, there's always somebody going "the system is supposed to work that way, where casters can break the system and noncasters can't, you're wrong for thinking it's a problem" or "hey, as long as the PCs of different tiers face separate challenges that are equally challenging in proportion to that character's ability to solve problems, nobody will feel useless". I'm all for nobody feeling useless, but I just feel that this approach to encounter design doesn't present an actual solution for the people who feel they're not contributing equally.

"Alright BMX Bandit, I'll summon the angels and have an epic, world-spanning fight with Satan and his army of demons, giving you an opportunity to sneak you way into his castle and use your BMX skills to make off with the McGuffin of Ultimate Power while all his guards are busy fighting the angels". Everybody is contributing, and doing their best, but what happens when BMX Bandit feels he's not really getting his time to shine? What if instead of BMX riding skills, his specialty was supposed to be "kick butt, take names, chew bubblegum", and yet he still is relegated to sneaking into the castle and stealing the McGuffin because that's the best use of his abilities (since the angels can handle the fighting). Obviously, some BMXers would be perfectly happy riding in and stealing the book, in which case your solution works just fine, but for the ones that want to show off their BMX skills on a greater scale...they can't. There is no method, cheap magic char-op bull**** or no, for a Fighter to summon a horde of angels, or really do anything else that even theoretically lets them take out an army of demons.

But hey, if that's not a problem for you, good for you! Because anecdotal evidence from my home group that thinks this is perfectly fine is admissible evidence in an argument. But some of us like most of this system, and wish that parts of it were better; is the only allowed solution "pack up and keep searching for the perfect system"? Personally, I'd prefer "look for ways around the problem you found in the near-perfect system". But of course, that's not allowed, because the system is fine just the way it is, in some people's opinion, so you're not allowed to discuss the flaws as anything but intentional upsides.

Fizban

2016-12-21, 05:25 AM

Alright, I've had a couple day's rest, came back to take a look. Wanted to highlight Psyren's explanation of how when both sides have magic the side with the better martial wins, making participation obvious, but wouldn't have actually posted if I hadn't gone back and seen Cosi's hilarious response to my last post:

Again, Orcs. Also, if you're in favor of leaving things in, why are you removing Wizard-level Fighters?
Hahahaha, oh man, I literally laughed out loud at that one. I haven't argued against removing anything. You lot made up wizard-tier fighters as part of your hypothetical perfectly balanced game, they don't exist bro, there's nothing for you to falsely accuse me of removing in the first place. And if there were a "wizard-tier" fighter I certainly wouldn't be banning erasing and rewriting it for existing- the fightan not-magick would get the same treatment as the wizard's spell list, and the manuever list, and every other list, and there'd be both Fighter and Fightar and no problems because I actually trust my own ability to run the game and the ability of others to play together. I like a nice pretty balanced system as much as the next guy, but it can be boring and it's frankly not all that important when there's a human running the game. Why, I even once read about a game that focused on asymmetric gameplay as feature!

You seem to have confused the normative question "should we value game balance" with the positive question "does RAW 3e value game balance". A lot of your arguments become much clearer understood in that light.
Still fails to grasp the fact that balance is controlled by the gamers.

Alright, let's go.
*Math that doesn't apply to the topic*
Didn't anyone teach you that math properties don't apply to everything? Actually I can step to that metaphor: you are effectively taking a multi-variable equation and ignoring three of the five variables. Your solution isn't.

The actual rules actually say that a 10th level Fighter is CR 10, without any party support (DMG, page 39).
The understanding is weak with this one. The actual rules actually define challenge rating by challenge relative to the party. I noticed it was odd that NPC CR was defined earlier, so I took at look at my 3.0 DMG and found that in the reorganization, that definition was moved. Initially the CR of NPCs was mentioned as part of the rewards chapter along with experience and treasure, long after CR had been defined. For 3.5 they merged encounters and rewards into one chapter, but they wanted the part about story rewards for xp to go under Using the Rules (rather than it's old place in Running the Game). This caused the definition of NPC CR to be moved to a place that's rather out of place, before CR is fully explained. The original order, coupled with the fact that pages of CR definition by party againt monsters should obviously outweigh one line about CR equaling level for NPC foes, makes it obvious which is more important. Simply put: NPC CR is not equal to level in the CR system, it is defined as that afterwards for xp awards and used frequently in building encounters, but leveled NPCs have nothing to do whatsoever with how CR actually works. And for the n+1'th time, CR is by party of adventurers, never a solo adventurer.

You see, instead of mindlessly quoting and miss-applying math properties in order to advance my own agenda, I actually understand the rules. CR and level are not interchangeable at-will. There is a specific situation where one is converted to the other, and no other. Your argument is invalid.

If you are going to reject evidence a priori, how is it possible to argue with you? If a test that disproves your hypothesis is insufficient cause for you to reject it, what possible evidence could I or anyone present to get you to change your mind?
You misunderstand, I'm not rejecting the version of the experiment with a full party, I'm just rejecting the idea of following up on it with you personally.

DMG pages 48-49, four Fighters of Nth level are an EL N + 4 encounter.
You will find, if you actually read DMG pages 48-49, that it does not once mention NPCs or any sort of classed foe. It mentions monsters, with a few instances of creatures.

Your entire argument that fighters are unplayable is predicated on the idea of the SGT. The SGT is based on applying false definitions (NPC CR=level is not involved in the actual definition of CR), and transformations (NPC CR=level applies to NPCs for rewards/low-effort encounter building and has nothing to do with PCs), to a formula which does not exist (guidelines are not formulas), which excludes the majority of the variables that would be required if it did (the three other PCs which are required for a party, which are required to even try to invoke CR).

And then Troacctid and Psyren tore the rest apart. I'm sad but not surprised to hear how overwhelmingly 5e is dominating so much on roll20, though I wonder if it might be easier to convert certain 5e players to 3.5 than it would be to do the same with Pathfinder players.

Apologies to Milo if you're offended at the lack of a full response, but I don't see the point in further going around in circles. While I can break down point by point what Cosi is getting wrong, there's not much more to say for basic concepts. I will say that accusing me of non-inclusiveness is failing the same thing as Cosi's first quote above, as it is you who argues for the removal of something while I am arguing to leave it in as it's not hurting anyone. There are non-fighter classes that do "fighter" better if you don't find it up to snuff. Your insistence that fighter must be improved so that people won't step in the trap, while similar to my own kid-glove approach regarding high power optimization advice in that you don't trust the players, still relies on a boneheaded refusal to communicate and deal with social issues in a social game. The lack of a higher tier fighter is a lack, but changing or removing the existing fighter, even if a higher tier version appears, does not make the game any more inclusive than removing the full spellcasters would.

Milo v3

2016-12-21, 06:00 AM

Being able to run games with weak-martials, weak-mages, and strong-mages is less inclusive to what narratives can be told and what characters are possible than games with weak-martials, weak-mages, strong-martials and strong-mages. The latter allows for every concept and narrative in the former, but the former does not allow for every concept and narrative in the latter.

Removing strong-mages would have less concepts and narratives than either since it would just be weak-martials and weak-mages.

Leaving it as is, does damage the game and cause issues where they aren't necessary IMO because the game does have the assumption of "Characters of x level are around the same power" behind several decisions.

Yes there are martial classes better than Fighter (vigilante/barbarian/ranger for example). But they all never actually get to high-level stuff (they get to do mid-level style stuff though, which is an improvement).

Where are you getting the impression of not trusting players or not being willing to communicate and deal with social issues?

137beth

2016-12-21, 06:27 AM

When people say "This isn't a PVP game", how are they factoring in the impact of NPCs?
Nowadays I suggest people complaining about a "PVP mentality" and such things read this post. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sy83&page=1?Pathfinder-is-PvP)
Then again, the OP pretty clearly hadn't read the introduction to the tier system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?266559-Tier-System-for-Classes-%28Rescued-from-MinMax%29) before commenting on it, so it's possible some people may just read the title and skip the actual post.

You also have to remember that the vast majority of campaigns run below level 10,

[Citation needed]

Fizban

2016-12-21, 07:13 AM

Removing strong-mages would have less concepts and narratives than either since it would just be weak-martials and weak-mages.
Fair enough, but drastically changing the existing fighter tier leaves you with weak-mages, strong-martials, and strong-mages, which isn't any better than it is now and also goes back on what I think is a pretty core trope of the game.

Where are you getting the impression of not trusting players or not being willing to communicate and deal with social issues?
Regardless of only having 3/4 of our outlined options above, the existing game, and the fighter, are still perfectly playable. The view that the classes must be balanced because some people pick things that look cool, but may turn out to be underpowered if the other players pick stronger classes (which I believe you mentioned as one of your main points), is easily remedied by telling them that and working together on party composition/builds/etc. Picking a class that doesn't match the group can be fixed socially, and refusing to compromise (on either side) so everyone can have fun is a social problem. While I can understand a desire for the game to function with as little social engineering as possible, the the chief advantage of playing a TTRPG run by people instead of a videogame run by a computer, is that it's run by people who can negotiate rather than machines which must process code.

The only reason for class balance to be so necessary it requires pages of argument is the fear of inability to fix the problem socially. Well that or "wasting your time," or a conscious or subconscious desire to force the game to be as RAW as possible because it benefits you and to hell with everyone else. I'm going with the first innocent fear of failure, because the second is clearly bogus for anyone arguing on the internet, and the third is one of those dark desires people often don't know about and will lash out against. As evidenced in this very thread, when I suggested it as a general occurance and ate immediate backlash.

Jormengand

2016-12-21, 07:17 AM

Fair enough, but drastically changing the existing fighter tier leaves you with weak-mages, strong-martials, and strong-mages, which isn't any better than it is now and also goes back on what I think is a pretty core trope of the game.

You can leave the fighter in for players who want to suck while also having the veteran for players who don't want to suck. It's not a binary fix-it-or-don't-fix-it choice.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-21, 09:23 AM

I struggled for minutes on end to find a word other then *pathetic* to use as a label for people's apparently desperate need to categorize anyone who thinks that the system could use organized and careful changes to fix things as "being afraid to handle things socially".

There's a level of arrogance, presumption, and pure pig headed stubborn refusal to acknowledge other people's concerns as valid going on here. Does it somehow diminish your game if you admit that there's reason for other people to be concerned or want to fix something that doesn't bother you personally?

Here's the real question, if you think the system works great, there are real problems, it's all be design.... WHY are you in this debate, arguing with people who are trying to find workaround for problems you don't think exist? You don't get to waltz in and tell me that problems I've seen happen do not exist because you always solve them in your game with polite discourse and group delusion.

This it all pretty simple. Some people, including myself obviously, enjoy rules. We like having them, we like playing within them. We try not to change or flout them on a whim. I am always going to try to play a game within the official rules as much as possible. When I think something is truly in need of a change, I'll work with my group and try to come up with a clear, concise, and minimal house rule that we can all agree on, then we will type it up and it will become a solid rule for us. And truth be told, I still hate that, because we're still cheating.

That's my mentality with games, it informs hour I play. Your feelings may be different, and that's fine. You don't get to tell me I'm wrong for wanting the game to be better designed as a result however.

If you're argument eventually breaks down to "Yeah well... Even if you are right and there is technically a problem, you wouldn't have found it if you weren't a crazy spot light hog optimizer, and it wouldn't bother you if you could just fix things with conversation and gentleman's agreements like a normal person!" Then you're a jerk who just doesn't want to acknowledge other people's concerns valid.

Cosi

2016-12-21, 10:00 AM

Edit: And none of the links in your post are to Wikipedia. It's three links to forum threads.

It's like I've made more than one post in this thread or something. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21511233&postcount=88)

Besides, I already mentioned how all the "offensive" spells on that list aren't 100% ending encounters, since there's a chance they'll do nothing.

dominate person isn't used to end encounters. It's used to pokemon defeated enemies so you walk into every encounter with an army.

All I'm saying is that from how I've seen it play out in my games, among friends and generally sensible people, the Fighter does not feel powerless in those scenarios.

If "sensible people" play the game in a way that is balanced, why include the imbalanced components?

This is a group activity, not the Chronicles of Wizard McMagical.

You're solving an in-game problem out-of-game. This is not a good idea.

My entire arguement is based on the idea that the players and DM play accordingly to their own expectations, and that the system and its rules themselves are there for each group's liking.

What if the Wizard's player comes in expected The Chronicles of Amber but the Fighter's player comes in expecting Conan the Barbarian? What if the Fighter's player wants to play Corwin, but really likes the flavor of the Fighter (more realistically, really likes the flavor of Barbarian)?

Hahahaha, oh man, I literally laughed out loud at that one. I haven't argued against removing anything. You lot made up wizard-tier fighters as part of your hypothetical perfectly balanced game, they don't exist bro, there's nothing for you to falsely accuse me of removing in the first place.

First, please explain why we should drop the standard fantasy trope of "Orcs are racist caricatures" but not "Fighters suck".

Second, in a normative discussion (which "does disparity matter" absolutely is) the position "don't have X" is the same as "remove X". You keep making empirical responses to normative questions, and it doesn't make sense.

Didn't anyone teach you that math properties don't apply to everything?

Okay, I'll bite. What is a CR 10 monster equivalent to if not a CR 10 monster?

The actual rules actually define challenge rating by challenge relative to the party.

No, they don't. The define challenge rating, then the define rules for getting the EL of an encounter, then they define how to compare ELs to determine the party's odds of victory (DMG, page 49). The only way for those rules to actually work is if PCs have calculable CRs, so that party EL can be calculated and compared to encounter EL.

The original order, coupled with the fact that pages of CR definition by party againt monsters should obviously outweigh one line about CR equaling level for NPC foes, makes it obvious which is more important.

First, CR isn't used that way, and even if it was you can't outweigh a definition.

Second, not only is NPC CR defined as equaling level, the CRs of various NPCs equal their level (delta templates or LA). For example, the sample Half-Fiend is a level 7 Cleric with the Half-Fiend template (MM, page 147-148). It is CR 9, having a CR from levels of 7 and adding 2 for its template. Or, exactly what it would be following the rules on page 39.

And for the n+1'th time, CR is by party of adventurers, never a solo adventurer.

Citation needed.

You see, instead of mindlessly quoting and miss-applying math properties in order to advance my own agenda, I actually understand the rules.

People citing the rules: me.

People waving their hands about how if the other side just understood they would win: you.

CR and level are not interchangeable at-will. There is a specific situation where one is converted to the other, and no other. Your argument is invalid.

Citation needed.

You will find, if you actually read DMG pages 48-49, that it does not once mention NPCs or any sort of classed foe. It mentions monsters, with a few instances of creatures.

Yes, it mentions creatures with CR. Such as characters with Fighter levels (per DMG page 39). Specifically, such as the Hobgoblin Fighter 15, which is CR 15 (DMG, pages 117-118).

Psyren

2016-12-21, 10:32 AM

Your argument consistently comes across as "the game is perfect the way it is, anybody who doesn't like it can **** off and find their own game with hookers and booze". I still play a great deal of 3.5 and PF, both IRL and in PbP, and I have plenty of fun as both casters and non-casters...but I've seen too many people have a bad time because of how easily get outshone, even accidentally, by party members throwing around an errant Polymorph without considering just how broken that spell can get. And then when the problem gets discussed, there's always somebody going "the system is supposed to work that way, where casters can break the system and noncasters can't, you're wrong for thinking it's a problem" or "hey, as long as the PCs of different tiers face separate challenges that are equally challenging in proportion to that character's ability to solve problems, nobody will feel useless". I'm all for nobody feeling useless, but I just feel that this approach to encounter design doesn't present an actual solution for the people who feel they're not contributing equally.

First off, I've never once said the game is perfect. No game is.

Second, for the folks who feel that they are not contributing with martial classes, that is what things like ToB and PoW are for - incorporate them into your games. If they're still feeling left behind, it's likely because the casters are going whole hog, which as I said above necessitates an OOC conversation.

Also, are you using PF polymorph? That's still useful without being nearly as broken.

"Alright BMX Bandit, I'll summon the angels and have an epic, world-spanning fight with Satan and his army of demons, giving you an opportunity to sneak you way into his castle and use your BMX skills to make off with the McGuffin of Ultimate Power while all his guards are busy fighting the angels". Everybody is contributing, and doing their best, but what happens when BMX Bandit feels he's not really getting his time to shine? What if instead of BMX riding skills, his specialty was supposed to be "kick butt, take names, chew bubblegum", and yet he still is relegated to sneaking into the castle and stealing the McGuffin because that's the best use of his abilities (since the angels can handle the fighting). Obviously, some BMXers would be perfectly happy riding in and stealing the book, in which case your solution works just fine, but for the ones that want to show off their BMX skills on a greater scale...they can't. There is no method, cheap magic char-op bull**** or no, for a Fighter to summon a horde of angels, or really do anything else that even theoretically lets them take out an army of demons.

Why in the hell should a Fighter be able to summon a horde of angels? For every one fighter player that would be happy about that, you'd have 10 other players/DMs quitting in disgust/disbelief.

But hey, if that's not a problem for you, good for you! Because anecdotal evidence from my home group that thinks this is perfectly fine is admissible evidence in an argument. But some of us like most of this system, and wish that parts of it were better; is the only allowed solution "pack up and keep searching for the perfect system"? Personally, I'd prefer "look for ways around the problem you found in the near-perfect system". But of course, that's not allowed, because the system is fine just the way it is, in some people's opinion, so you're not allowed to discuss the flaws as anything but intentional upsides.

No, I wish parts of it were better too. Just not the same parts as you, or perhaps not to the same degree. Removing the disparity entirely is certainly not on my list.

Rhyltran

2016-12-21, 11:36 AM

"Alright BMX Bandit, I'll summon the angels and have an epic, world-spanning fight with Satan and his army of demons, giving you an opportunity to sneak you way into his castle and use your BMX skills to make off with the McGuffin of Ultimate Power while all his guards are busy fighting the angels". Everybody is contributing, and doing their best, but what happens when BMX Bandit feels he's not really getting his time to shine? What if instead of BMX riding skills, his specialty was supposed to be "kick butt, take names, chew bubblegum", and yet he still is relegated to sneaking into the castle and stealing the McGuffin because that's the best use of his abilities (since the angels can handle the fighting).

What if when the "BMX Guys" get there to steal the Mc Guffin and realize that the object isn't unguarded? What if while the Wizard is summoning his angels and fighting off some demons elsewhere the BMX Guys get their chance to shine by defeating the monstrosity guarding the Mc Guffin? Now you have a situation where the wizard feels happy, the BMX Guys feel happy, and everyone contributed.

*Edit* As for the one poster talking about CR is meant to represent a group? Right here: Page 48 DMG - Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels: A monster's challenge rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th-level characters.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 11:38 AM

What if when the "BMX Guys" get there to steal the Mc Guffin and realize that the object isn't unguarded? What if while the Wizard is summoning his angels and fighting off some demons elsewhere the BMX Guys get their chance to shine by defeating the monstrosity guarding the Mc Guffin? Now you have a situation where the wizard feels happy, the BMX Guys feel happy, and everyone contributed.

But that would require a creative GM who cares about his players' fun. Clearly this is unprecedented and you should feel ashamed for even thinking of it.

Schattenbach

2016-12-21, 11:43 AM

0815 fighters have their place in high fantasy worlds ... the same way commoners do. In the end, they're just there and are decent character concepts that fill in archetypical roles ... but without actually aquiring quite a lot of psionic/magical/supernatural/extraordinary power from somewhere, they might at best become some Knight of the Round Table or (if they are lucky) some slightly more blessed individual of mythology well known for their martial capabilities, but that's it ... that's their limit. They aren't Xianxia characters with Kung Fu so strong that it bends space-time or the very fabric of reality (though ventually, Epic Skill usage comes remotely close to that) ... and if they want to be, they have to either have (due to noteable lack of martial classes that can do something like that just fine) to change their prospects by aquiring weapons/tools that allow them to do just that (DnD 3.5 is slightly lacking in that regard, though, as well) or either take prestige classes with significant psionic/magical/supernatural/extraordinary power in their grasp in their attempt to somehow obtain such power to become a legendary figure that shakes the heaven and the earth or take some classes with significant features that provide such things (psionic/magical/supernatural/extraordinary power) in the first place (i.e. T3 classes and such). Not all mythological heroes are equal, some of them (like, for example, plenty of knights and ordinary folk heroes and common tricksters) are "weak" compared to others but still manage to accomplish their tasks one way or another ... but they would've utterly failed if they were supposed to accomplish the deeds of one of these highly powerful mythological heroes or tricksters (most of which have significant supernatural or divine pedigree to hep them up, too).

Without supernatural or divine pedigree (or classes that provide significant psionic/magical/supernatural/extraordinary features) or ... someone (deities/the world itself/the DM) somehow rewarding their martial accomplishments (or trickster-like accomplishments) despite their lacking (supernatural/magical/ecetera) power by granting them power in one form or another ... or access equipment/tools/classes that allow them to put their accomplishments to use, I guess.

137beth

2016-12-21, 12:17 PM

But that would require a creative GM who cares about his players' fun. Clearly this is unprecedented and you should feel ashamed for even thinking of it.

Yes, obviously the issue is a lack of creativity. There is no other reason one could possibly fail to grasp the divine perfection of holy Paizo.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 12:39 PM

Yes, obviously the issue is a lack of creativity. There is no other reason one could possibly fail to grasp the divine perfection of holy Paizo.

It's funny to me that the only folks saying "perfection" are you. Nobody actually defending the system is doing so.

And yes, lack of creativity is indeed an issue. It's possible for both to be true (that the system is flawed, but also that the flaws are exacerbated by lazy GMing.)

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 12:57 PM

First off, I've never once said the game is perfect. No game is.

You've been pretty adamant that the game doesn't need to be changed, it's only my attitude, and that of people like me, that needs to change, and that if we don't like it, we can **** off and find some other system. "This system doesn't need to change" isn't explicitly calling it perfect, but if you read carefully between the lines you'll see it.

Second, for the folks who feel that they are not contributing with martial classes, that is what things like ToB and PoW are for - incorporate them into your games.

Aaaaand another tick on the bingo chart. "I'll solve the problem by giving martials magic and calling it 'maneuvers', that way nobody has any right to complain ever again". Doesn't solve anything for people who don't wanna learn magic systems, the same way the mere existence of the UMD skill doesn't magically make Rogues just as good as Wizards.

As a side note, in an attempt to do something other than just bitch and moan about clueless morons insisting everything is perfect the way it is, I'll actually put forth a potential partial solution: why not make skills actually awesome, and give non-casters even more of them? It probably still wouldn't solve the disparity unless martial just got an enormous number of skills and skill got a ridiculous boost in power and versatility, but even a significant boost to both would help make Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and other non-casters far more relevant outside of combat and make them feel better, even if everything they can do with skills can still be done better with spells. It's worked at least partially for the Rogue, why not open skills up so that all the non-casters can have fun with them?

If they're still feeling left behind, it's likely because the casters are going whole hog, which as I said above necessitates an OOC conversation.

Because heaven forbid somebody play a mage and actually want to be something more than a glorified fireball dispenser. Scrying your foe through a crystal ball? Teleporting to the enemy base? Opening a hole in the wall to bypass most of the defenses? Turning yourself into a dragon because it's ****ing awesome? You powergaming *******, how dare you want to be cool!

Also, are you using PF polymorph? That's still useful without being nearly as broken.

Yes, yes, we're all aware of your massive PF hard-on, no need to jerk off in public. Congratulations, you can splooge yourself safe in the knowledge that you can no longer change into a Hydra. But what's this? Pathfinder didn't solve Polymorph? HERETICAL BLASPHEMY. Instead, they replaced it with an entire line of spells, so that mages of all levels can have access to bull**** forms. The Polymorph Handbook is alive and well, and now instead of that bull**** coming online at lvl 7, it comes online at lvl 3! PERFECT PATHFINDER ONCE AGAIN.

Why in the hell should a Fighter be able to summon a horde of angels? For every one fighter player that would be happy about that, you'd have 10 other players/DMs quitting in disgust/disbelief.

Now see, if you read very carefully, there's actually a second part to that sentence you looking at, which contains this magical thing called "the point": it reads "or really do anything else that even theoretically lets them take out an army of demons". The problem isn't "Fighters should be able to summon a horde of angels", the problem is "wizards are capable of dealing with an army of demons using angel summoning, why can't the Fighters deal with it at all?" Presuming that BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner are of the same character level, why can't they deal with the same challenges? Maybe BMX Bandit doesn't need to be as efficient at it as angel summoner (since angels are probably super-effective against demons), but against a foe where angels aren't at a particular disadvantage, shouldn't BMX Bandit be kicking as much ass as Angel Summoner, particularly if it's a BMX Trick Riding Contest? Call me crazy if you wish, but I think that a Wizard being better than a Fighter AT FIGHTING is a problem.

No, I wish parts of it were better too. Just not the same parts as you, or perhaps not to the same degree. Removing the disparity entirely is certainly not on my list.

I don't think the disparity can ever be fully gone, and being honest, I don't want it gone. I kinda like that magic is inherently superior. I just think that inherent superiority should be something that's a little harder to prove without serious statistical comparisons, rather than "this guy is really good at shooting a bow, and this guy can reshape space and time on a whim".

What if when the "BMX Guys" get there to steal the Mc Guffin and realize that the object isn't unguarded? What if while the Wizard is summoning his angels and fighting off some demons elsewhere the BMX Guys get their chance to shine by defeating the monstrosity guarding the Mc Guffin? Now you have a situation where the wizard feels happy, the BMX Guys feel happy, and everyone contributed.

That's the solution Psyren is pushing: separate challenges that are equally challenging. And if that works for you, that's perfectly fine. It doesn't matter what challenge BMX Bandit is dealing with if he's having fun doing it; if the big foe is also a BMX Bandit, they can have a BMX-off while Angel Summoner deals with the army of demons. The problem comes up if BMX Bandit decides they wanna take a crack at switching places some time:

"Alright, BMX Bandit, I'll get the angels to bless me with great power so that I can ride a BMX well enough to out-perform the boss demon; you use your BMX tricks and plucky sticktoitivness to take out that army of demons."

"Will do, Angel Summoner!"

And then BMX Bandit died.

Separate-but-equal challenges like Psyren is suggesting work just fine as long as the lesser PC knows their place and stays where they're supposed to. I just think that PCs of equal level should be able to deal with the same challenges, or at least shouldn't feel totally useless dealing with a challenge not tailor-made for them. And I don't see why that's apparently such a controversial opinion.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 12:59 PM

It's funny to me that the only folks saying "perfection" are you. Nobody actually defending the system is doing so.

And yes, lack of creativity is indeed an issue. It's possible for both to be true (that the system is flawed, but also that the flaws are exacerbated by lazy GMing.)

It's called hyperbole, it's something people use to make points more obvious to people who have a tendency to miss the point when arguing.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 01:05 PM

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 01:16 PM

Look Vecna, if all you're going to do in every post is swear at me then I think emotions on this topic are running too high for any meaningful exchange of ideas to occur. We're clearly at an impasse here, and I hope one day at least an optional (and preferably 3rd-party) version of 3.PF gets printed that meets your needs if the homebrew approach is unpalatable, but otherwise we'll probably just have to leave it there from a discussion standpoint.

All I wanted was for you to admit there's a problem with adding "but it's not actually a problem, you guys just think it's a problem", because that kind of arrogant dismissal of other people's view points is why I have you blocked.

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 01:21 PM

It's like I've made more than one post in this thread or something. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21511233&postcount=88)
*waves hand dismissively* Whatever. It's still factually incorrect. There is no way of slicing it where there are four supplemental rulebooks out for 5e right now. If you count adventures, there are 11. If you only count rulebooks that have content usable by PCs, there are 10. If you count core rules and splatbooks but not adventures, there are 5. If you exclude the core rules, there are 2. If you exclude the core rules and count EEPC as a splatbook, there are 3. But 4 is nonsense.

You also have to remember that the vast majority of campaigns run below level 10,
[Citation needed]
WotC Survey (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/april-survey-results)

Zanos

2016-12-21, 01:24 PM

WotC Survey (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/april-survey-results)
While I do agree anecdotally that most games start at lower levels and attrition out before people really start hitting 8th and 9th level spells, I'm not sure that survey is a fair citation. Mostly because it was taken towards the beginning of the release of a new edition, and when you play once a week characters don't tend to level very quickly.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 01:26 PM

All I wanted was for you to admit there's a problem with adding "but it's not actually a problem, you guys just think it's a problem", because that kind of arrogant dismissal of other people's view points is why I have you blocked.

Oh well. Another one bites the dust.

*waves hand dismissively* Whatever. It's still factually incorrect. There is no way of slicing it where there are four supplemental rulebooks out for 5e right now. If you count adventures, there are 11. If you only count rulebooks that have content usable by PCs, there are 10. If you count core rules and splatbooks but not adventures, there are 5. If you exclude the core rules, there are 2. If you exclude the core rules and count EEPC as a splatbook, there are 3. But 4 is nonsense.

WotC Survey (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/april-survey-results)

And even if he were correct and they only had 4 books out, has he even managed to tie that in any meaningful way to 5e struggling? Because the actual industry/gameplay data that we have linked says otherwise.

(Honestly, I almost hope some version of D&D where they resolve this disparity completely manages to take off, just so the folks who are unwilling to houserule / gentleman's agreement can just go play that and leave Pathfinder and 3.5 alone once and for all. I was actually rooting for Legend for this reason.)

Cosi

2016-12-21, 01:29 PM

I mostly agree with Vecna, but I've focused on my disagreements in the interest of having a valuable conversation, rather than playing yet another game of "listen to people misread the CR rules so they can pretend Fighters are good".

Aaaaand another tick on the bingo chart. "I'll solve the problem by giving martials magic and calling it 'maneuvers', that way nobody has any right to complain ever again". Doesn't solve anything for people who don't wanna learn magic systems, the same way the mere existence of the UMD skill doesn't magically make Rogues just as good as Wizards.

Could you expound on this a little? Having something that is broadly "like magic" in that it is a long list of leveled abilities you can select from seems basically good to me. Having eight abilities to pick from at each level is (IMHO) and important tool for customization, and I don't see the reason to deny sword characters that tool. I can see where some people might want a simpler character, but I think those people are as likely to want to play a Wizard that just blasts things as a Fighter than just stabs things.

As a side note, in an attempt to do something other than just bitch and moan about clueless morons insisting everything is perfect the way it is, I'll actually put forth a potential partial solution: why not make skills actually awesome, and give non-casters even more of them?

Buffing skills works okay, although I think the whole edifice of non-combat abilities (everything from Diplomacy to teleport) should probably be taken apart and rebuilt with a firmer set of design goals.

Because heaven forbid somebody play a mage and actually want to be something more than a glorified fireball dispenser. Scrying your foe through a crystal ball? Teleporting to the enemy base? Opening a hole in the wall to bypass most of the defenses? Turning yourself into a dragon because it's ****ing awesome? You powergaming *******, how dare you want to be cool!

Also, the attitude that Psyren (and the Paizo devs) have towards utility spells puts lie to the idea that they don't really care if Wizards do awesome stuff. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have claimed teleport was always already nerfed. Their goal seems to be to put everyone in the same boat as the Fighter: unable to influence the story unless the DM lets them.

Call me crazy if you wish, but I think that a Wizard being better than a Fighter AT FIGHTING is a problem.

It depends on how you define "fighting". If you mean "killing people with a sword", sure. If you mean "making the party win combats", no. Combat is a major part of D&D, and people's contributions to it need to be reasonably equal.

I don't think the disparity can ever be fully gone, and being honest, I don't want it gone. I kinda like that magic is inherently superior. I just think that inherent superiority should be something that's a little harder to prove without serious statistical comparisons, rather than "this guy is really good at shooting a bow, and this guy can reshape space and time on a whim".

"Magic" is better than "not magic", but the solution to that is to give everyone magic once you get past the point where magic is necessary. Trying to warp things so that "not magic" competes with "magic" for the whole game just ends up pissing off the people who want mundane characters.

Separate-but-equal challenges like Psyren is suggesting work just fine as long as the lesser PC knows their place and stays where they're supposed to. I just think that PCs of equal level should be able to deal with the same challenges, or at least shouldn't feel totally useless dealing with a challenge not tailor-made for them. And I don't see why that's apparently such a controversial opinion.

Separate-but-equal doesn't even really fix the problem. Having another Wizard is still better than having a Fighter. Yes, you have to actually use the Fighter if there are two separate challenges, but you could deal with those challenges better by replacing him with a Wizard (or Cleric, or Beguiler, or Druid, or Dread Necromancer, or Psion, or Sorcerer).

Cosi

2016-12-21, 01:33 PM

But 4 is nonsense.

4 is the number of books WotC has released that they describe as "Supplement Rulebooks" rather than some other thing. I do not understand how this is complicated for you.

And even if he were correct and they only had 4 books out, has he even managed to tie that in any meaningful way to 5e struggling? Because the actual industry/gameplay data that we have linked says otherwise.

Well, if you had read the thread where people made that argument, perhaps you would have seen people make that argument. But you seem quite unwilling to engage with anyone who disagrees with you, so there you go.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 02:01 PM

Could you expound on this a little? Having something that is broadly "like magic" in that it is a long list of leveled abilities you can select from seems basically good to me. Having eight abilities to pick from at each level is (IMHO) and important tool for customization, and I don't see the reason to deny sword characters that tool. I can see where some people might want a simpler character, but I think those people are as likely to want to play a Wizard that just blasts things as a Fighter than just stabs things.

I agree that giving Fighters (and Barbarians and Monks and Paladins and so on) a list of things they can select each level to enhance their capabilities in a way that increases their ability to contribute both in and out of combat in a way that doesn't leave them falling behind. I just think that the skills system could handle this better than giving players who avoided playing wizards "because the magic system is complicated" a totally-not-magic system of their own. More powerful uses for skills would be an interesting way to deal with the problem, particularly if you took away the cap on skill ranks by level. Then you could have characters with a wide variety of skills that are on-par with the existing skill maximums, and you could also have characters with non maximum limitation on skills who pour themselves into a couple skills so much that they can pull off epic stunts without being epic, or having epic gear. One of the things I really like about Pathfinder is that they took away the weird "cross class skills cost double" rule, making skills much more available to characters with limited class skill lists.

Buffing skills works okay, although I think the whole edifice of non-combat abilities (everything from Diplomacy to teleport) should probably be taken apart and rebuilt with a firmer set of design goals.

This is a fair point; neither 3.5 nor PF is really designed as a non-combat system, combat is where most of the balance focus is - which in part is why Fighters suffer while mages can get away with dethroning gods after a point: utility spells for mages are pretty common, whereas utility abilities for fighters are unfortunately rare. Still, utility akin to Teleport would likely be easier to balance than utility akin to Diplomacy, just because social encounters are an entirely different can of worms. The skill system could use a major boost to make skilled people able to contribute in higher-level challenges.

Also, the attitude that Psyren (and the Paizo devs) have towards utility spells puts lie to the idea that they don't really care if Wizards do awesome stuff. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have claimed teleport was always already nerfed. Their goal seems to be to put everyone in the same boat as the Fighter: unable to influence the story unless the DM lets them.

I guess that kind of approach to system design makes it easier on the DM, but if that's the way you like your games, I'm of the opinion that one of the things 4e did right was balance everybody on exactly the same metric and make encounter design almost insultingly easy on the DM. Everybody was equally limited in their ability to influence the story, so the DM could design their story without fear of ******* players putting pennies on the track.

It depends on how you define "fighting". If you mean "killing people with a sword", sure. If you mean "making the party win combats", no. Combat is a major part of D&D, and people's contributions to it need to be reasonably equal.

If the Fighter was able to contribute equally to the fighting part of things at the higher levels, it wouldn't be a problem; as it stands, the wizard is better at "making the party win combats", and (if they buff themselves up sufficiently) better at "killing people with a sword" too. I'd prefer for the Fighter to be superior at the latter, and for them to contribute more or less equally to the former. 5e does this well, making non-casters more relevant while making casters less bonkers (in particular the concentration system is wonderful). In 5e, two fighters or two wizards is almost always going to be less efficient in dealing with challenges than a Fighter and a Wizard working together, except for the highest levels where the dual mages start pulling ahead due to particularly powerful 1/day spells (but even then, that's far more preferable than the "lol just dethroned the gods" that 3.5/PF has going on).

"Magic" is better than "not magic", but the solution to that is to give everyone magic once you get past the point where magic is necessary. Trying to warp things so that "not magic" competes with "magic" for the whole game just ends up pissing off the people who want mundane characters.

I think revamping the skills system so that high level/epic use could keep mundanes relevant could be done without upsetting the people who like mundane warriors. Just make it so that. Epic mundanes should be capable of epic things.

Separate-but-equal doesn't even really fix the problem. Having another Wizard is still better than having a Fighter. Yes, you have to actually use the Fighter if there are two separate challenges, but you could deal with those challenges better by replacing him with a Wizard (or Cleric, or Beguiler, or Druid, or Dread Necromancer, or Psion, or Sorcerer).

I don't disagree. I just think that letting the Fighter play in the kiddie pool and think he's contributing is technically a way to make sure everybody has fun, even if only because they've been allowed to delude themselves into thinking they're competent.

Dragonexx

2016-12-21, 02:48 PM

Fizban

2016-12-21, 02:51 PM

First, please explain why we should drop the standard fantasy trope of "Orcs are racist caricatures" but not "Fighters suck".
I'm fairly certain I never agreed that we should drop orcs being racist caricatures. I said that you want to change lots of things and so do I. I am perfectly fine with orcs being racist caricatures as the default.

Second, in a normative discussion (which "does disparity matter" absolutely is) the position "don't have X" is the same as "remove X". You keep making empirical responses to normative questions, and it doesn't make sense.
The question of the thread is not if it matters, but why it matters. Based on the definitions I'm reading, I don't see how an empirical response wouldn't make sense to a normative question. I'm sure there's probably some fancy official debate rule you're operating on, but I'm fairly certain those rules don't make sense for this discussion and if if they did, from what I know of official debate it's more about winning than being right.

Okay, I'll bite. What is a CR 10 monster equivalent to if not a CR 10 monster?
Failed to understand the point. Again.

No, they don't. The define challenge rating, then the define rules for getting the EL of an encounter, then they define how to compare ELs to determine the party's odds of victory (DMG, page 49). The only way for those rules to actually work is if PCs have calculable CRs, so that party EL can be calculated and compared to encounter EL.
Hey, this does indicate some actual reading. Though you still seem to think party level is CR instead of party level.

The only way for those rules to actually work is if PCs have calculable CRs
Citation needed.

First, CR isn't used that way, and even if it was you can't outweigh a definition.
I'm not "using" CR for anything in that sentence, and your refusal to look at anything beyond that sentence is why you are wrong.

Second, not only is NPC CR defined as equaling level, the CRs of various NPCs equal their level (delta templates or LA). For example, the sample Half-Fiend is a level 7 Cleric with the Half-Fiend template (MM, page 147-148). It is CR 9, having a CR from levels of 7 and adding 2 for its template. Or, exactly what it would be following the rules on page 39.
Your proof of CR=level is that CR=level, is what you're saying. Because the delta part is part of the same section, and you then refer back to the same thing. And it does, for NPCs. Which has nothing to do with PCs.

Citation needed.
I'll point out that for all your occasional page numbers, you aren't actually citing anything more than I am: the same two pages, which I have also referenced. But hey, I can quote the full sentences.

DMG p37: "When the party defeats monsters, you award the characters experience points (XP). . . Each monster in that book has a Challenge Rating (CR) that, when compared to party level, translates directly into an XP award.
Party party party. The line you want seem to focus on is the one that sounds like a definition, but with less information:

p37: "A Challenge Rating is a measure of how easy or difficult a monster or trap is to overcome."
Note how previous and subsequent sentences continue to refer to party and PCs, in the plural:

p37: "Did the PCs defeat the enemy in battle? . . . Suppose the PCs sneak past the sleeping minotaur. . ."
There has yet to be anything supporting the idea of a solo adventurer. Continuing on:

p48: "A monster's Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th-level characters."
Here is the definition of party size.

p48: "Parties with five or more members can often take on monsters with higher CRs, and parties of three or fewer are challenged by monsters with lower CRs.
The game rules account for these facts by dividing the XP earned by the number of characters in the party (see Rewards, pg36)."
Here is the first indication that a party of one is possible, though from what I understand it would be considered weak evidence at best. There is also a direct statement of how changing the number of PCs affects the math-by altering the xp, not the party level. So the usual math of -4 EL for cutting the numbers in half twice explicitly does not function-but I'm getting ahead of myself, since you didn't even bring that up and we haven't dealt with the fact that EL has not once been used to refer to the PCs.

Question 2: What is the overall win rate of CR 10 encounters against CR 10 encounters?
A. 50%
B. Some other percentage
Answer: A
Citation needed. Moving on.

p48: "Obviously if one monster has a given Challenge Rating, more than one monster represents a greater challenge than that. You can. . . determine the Encounter Level of a group of monsters, as well as to determine how many monsters equate to a given Encounter Level, (useful in balancing an encounter with a PC party). To balance an encounter with a party, determine the party's level (the average of all the member's character levels) "
Still nothing about EL or CR applying on the party side of things or any sort of reverse equivalencies. More statements that EL, and thus CR applies to monsters and is used in comparison to PC party level. The rest of that section goes on to describe calculating the EL for multiple monsters/creatures. Let's skip down a bit.

p49: "An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PC's level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources."
That is the definition of encounter levels. Note that for anyone actually using the game in practical terms, this is the only important definition of anything using CR. If using the CR and EL calculations does not result in around 20% resource expenditure on encounters equal to the party level (and party has already been defined as four PCs), then you need to adjust something, PCs or monsters or CR values. This is also the proof that if your characters are beating encounters against printed monsters without expending that many resources, they are by definition overpowered. Varies based on coursebook as always.

p49: "The party should be able to take on many encounters lower than their level, but fewer encounters with ELs higher than their level. . . an encounter of even one or two levels higher than the party's level might tax the PCs to their limit. . ."
Considering that parties of fewer than four characters are challenged by monsters of lower CR, a party of one facing an encounter of equal level to their own is almost certainly within that range. Still nothing about single PC vs single monster being a 50/50 fight though, or even a single monster vs the same EL being a 50/50 fight.
Ah, the Difficulty section, maybe it's in here?

p49, Table 3-2: "15%, Very Difficult, EL 1-4 higher than party level."
Well, while there's no official support for a party of one, we know it would be at least challenged by things of party level-1, which means we can infer that things equal to its level would probably count at EL 1 or more higher, so we should look at Very Difficult.

p50: "Very Difficult: One PC might very well die."
Huh, nothing about their odds at all. Citation needed.

Now, have I been using CR in reference to EL previously? Sure, because the only uses of CR are to calculate rewards and calculate expected EL. The practical definition of CR is given in the encounter level section, where you find out how many of what CR of foes are considered what degree of challenge. Without the EL section that challenge is undefined and CR is meaningless. If you want to prove the fighter is useless, you must do so in practical terms, and the practical terms give no formula to support you, because they are for parties only. Let's go back to your favorite passage, Challenge Ratings for NPCs:

p37: "An NPC with a PC class has a Challenge Rating equal to the NPC's level. Thus an 8th-level sorcerer is an 8th-level encounter. . . A party of four NPC 8th-level characters is an EL 12 encounter."
Note the bolding. This passage refers to NPCs and groups of NPCs, not parties of PCs. Your idea that you can use the EL equations to evaluate a single PC in spite of single PCs not being explicitly supported seems to be rooted in the fact that PC classed NPCs are subject to the EL equations, and thus you believe you should be able to flip everything around if you want. PCs are not NPCs.

You cannot say that a single PC has an EL, because PCs do not have ELs.

You cannot use the NPC rules to give them an EL, because PCs are not NPCs.

You cannot say that an encounter pitted against another encounter of the same EL has a 50% chance of winning by definition, because encounters do not fight each other and the difficulty is not defined.

You cannot say that a single character pitted against an encounter of equal level has a 50% chance of winning by definition, because the odds of winning are not even defined for parties, only the intended resource expenditure at a precise matchup against a group of four PCs.

You cannot apply the rules backwards, because they only work in one direction. Parties of PCs fight monsters. Monsters can be NPCs, and NPCs can have CR defined by their class level.

Every part of your argument is wrong.

People citing the rules: Me. People flailing about false equivalencies: you.

I mostly agree with Vecna, but I've focused on my disagreements in the interest of having a valuable conversation, rather than playing yet another game of "listen to people misread the CR rules so they can pretend Fighters are good".
Another false equivalency. I have never said the fighter is good, I in fact agreed that it was not good, and this is the second time I have pointed that out in this thread after saying it. Accepting that the game works with them, indeed, in spite of them, and acknowledging their uses in spite of poor design, is not the same thing as saying they are good. I look forward to seeing you try to twist your way out of a line by line breakdown of the CR rules you claim I am misreading, remember to cite your sources.

Rhyltran

2016-12-21, 03:00 PM

I mostly agree with Vecna, but I've focused on my disagreements in the interest of having a valuable conversation, rather than playing yet another game of "listen to people misread the CR rules so they can pretend Fighters are good".

What? I hope you're not referring to me but if you are several things. I never claimed "Fighters are good." however, I disagree that they're broken or "unplayable." I didn't misread the CR rules. I posted them word for word. Truth is the way we play and at the optimization levels the players on this forum are capable of were probably never considered by Wizard's. What we consider "Normal play" and "Low optimization" is probably already higher than what Wizard's really anticipated. Going by their logic? A fighter does contribute. I mean, a Fighter can be made to solo enemies if the same CR as their level. To wizard's that means fighters can be made to be as strong as they anticipate the entire party to be.

Strigon

2016-12-21, 03:44 PM

I mean, a Fighter can be made to solo enemies if the same CR as their level. To wizard's that means fighters can be made to be as strong as they anticipate the entire party to be.

Well, that's simply not true.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your general point that at low OP, fighters can contribute, but that's not how CR works at all.
A creature of CR X is meant to be as powerful as a party member of that level. That's why 4-person parties can reliably take on CR-appropriate challenges without worrying about a TPK. I believe it's CR +4 that's meant to be as powerful as the entire party (could be wrong. Probably am, as a matter of fact, but the exact number's irrelevant.)

Saying a fighter can solo an enemy of CR = Fighter level just says that fighters can be made as good as Wizard's expected the average character to be.
Actually, considering how much of a mixed bag CR is, it isn't even necessarily saying that.

Zanos

2016-12-21, 03:50 PM

Note the bolding. This passage refers to NPCs and groups of NPCs, not parties of PCs. Your idea that you can use the EL equations to evaluate a single PC in spite of single PCs not being explicitly supported seems to be rooted in the fact that PC classed NPCs are subject to the EL equations, and thus you believe you should be able to flip everything around if you want. PCs are not NPCs.
If I take a PC and create an identically built character as an NPC, what is it's CR?

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 03:56 PM

If I take a PC and create an identically built character as an NPC, what is it's CR?

This makes a good point that some people here are overlooking: one of the advantages 3.5 and PF have over other versions of the game is that monsters and PCs are built using similar rules; it's not quite as universal a system as Mutants and Masterminds, as an example, but there's plenty enough evidence to show that PCs are equivalent to a particular CR.

Kelb_Panthera

2016-12-21, 04:01 PM

Psyren

2016-12-21, 04:09 PM

What? I hope you're not referring to me but if you are several things. I never claimed "Fighters are good." however, I disagree that they're broken or "unplayable." I didn't misread the CR rules. I posted them word for word. Truth is the way we play and at the optimization levels the players on this forum are capable of were probably never considered by Wizard's. What we consider "Normal play" and "Low optimization" is probably already higher than what Wizard's really anticipated. Going by their logic? A fighter does contribute. I mean, a Fighter can be made to solo enemies if the same CR as their level. To wizard's that means fighters can be made to be as strong as they anticipate the entire party to be.

Well, that's simply not true.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your general point that at low OP, fighters can contribute, but that's not how CR works at all.
A creature of CR X is meant to be as powerful as a party member of that level. That's why 4-person parties can reliably take on CR-appropriate challenges without worrying about a TPK. I believe it's CR +4 that's meant to be as powerful as the entire party (could be wrong. Probably am, as a matter of fact, but the exact number's irrelevant.)

Saying a fighter can solo an enemy of CR = Fighter level just says that fighters can be made as good as Wizard's expected the average character to be.
Actually, considering how much of a mixed bag CR is, it isn't even necessarily saying that.

You two are roughly saying the same thing (which I agree with) - namely that there is a minimum standard in the Bestiary (and the Monster Manual, though prior to MM3 there are definitely calibration errors) that any PC class can hit using expected WBL, Fighters included. Some hit it more easily than others (Wizards) but all can get there.

I also want to raise the point that for a lone fighter X vs. lone monster of CR X, the expected rating there is "Challenging." Meaning there is a chance of failure. It is not meant to be auto-win 100% of the time, though of course with high optimization you can make it that (at least against certain foes.)

That is; can a dire lion, for example, 50/50 all of the CR 5 monsters in the monster manual?

I posit that this is not the case in most instances and that there is inherently a variance, sometimes dramatic, in the actual challenge presented by creatuers of a given CR.

All right, I've said it now. Let the hate flow.

Monsters don't get WBL (and neither do NPCs for that matter - they get "treasure" instead, which they can't even use freely) so this question is kinda moot. The CR system assumes WBL.

Rhyltran

2016-12-21, 04:14 PM

I suspect I will regret adding to what is quickly becoming a total cluster-**** but here goes;

To those who understand that a level X PC should be able to 50/50 the creatures listed as CR X based on the fact they are, themselves, ostensibly CR X by the guidelines given in the DMG, is that even true of the creatures listed as explicitly being of a given CR?

That is; can a dire lion, for example, 50/50 all of the CR 5 monsters in the monster manual?

I posit that this is not the case in most instances and that there is inherently a variance, sometimes dramatic, in the actual challenge presented by creatuers of a given CR.

All right, I've said it now. Let the hate flow.

This is another problem and you're right. There are creatures way below their CR would imply and others that are much higher.

Well, that's simply not true.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your general point that at low OP, fighters can contribute, but that's not how CR works at all.
A creature of CR X is meant to be as powerful as a party member of that level. That's why 4-person parties can reliably take on CR-appropriate challenges without worrying about a TPK. I believe it's CR +4 that's meant to be as powerful as the entire party (could be wrong. Probably am, as a matter of fact, but the exact number's irrelevant.)

Saying a fighter can solo an enemy of CR = Fighter level just says that fighters can be made as good as Wizard's expected the average character to be.
Actually, considering how much of a mixed bag CR is, it isn't even necessarily saying that.

That's kind of my point. I think everyone in this thread understands the fact that a Wizard can far surpass what a Fighter is capable of. I don't think anyone here is disputing it. The point I am making and maybe I am not making it correctly is that a Fighter can perform exactly at the level Wizard's anticipated them to perform as well as the average party member is meant to perform. With Optimization, they can even greatly exceed that performance. I am not using this to argue that the game is balanced. I am saying if the Fighter for instance can perform at and above the expectations of the average party then the fighter can function just fine on a team and handle encounter appropriate challenges.

Zanos

2016-12-21, 04:38 PM

I suspect I will regret adding to what is quickly becoming a total cluster-**** but here goes;

To those who understand that a level X PC should be able to 50/50 the creatures listed as CR X based on the fact they are, themselves, ostensibly CR X by the guidelines given in the DMG, is that even true of the creatures listed as explicitly being of a given CR?

That is; can a dire lion, for example, 50/50 all of the CR 5 monsters in the monster manual?

I posit that this is not the case in most instances and that there is inherently a variance, sometimes dramatic, in the actual challenge presented by creatures of a given CR.

All right, I've said it now. Let the hate flow.
Yeah, that's fair. The CR system isn't meant to pit monsters against one another, and monster CR and ECL are specifically not equal because the designers realized that at-will dominate isn't as useful to an NPC who's function is to fight one encounter and then die, versus a PC who will make liberal use of it.

Still, I think a core point of this discussion is that "fighters and wizards aren't meant to be equal", but an enemy squad of x level y fighters is assumed to be equal in challenge to a squad of x level y wizards. This seems to be being rejected because "PCs aren't NPCs so that doesn't matter", but the fact that players explicitly receive level adjustment for more powerful racial options and CR implying roughly equal challenges pretty squarely establishes for me that CR and ECL are both rough measures of combat capability, and it's easily observable that equal CR or ECL wizards and fighters are not equally capable.

Monsters don't get WBL (and neither do NPCs for that matter - they get "treasure" instead, which they can't even use freely) so this question is kinda moot. The CR system assumes WBL.
I believe class leveled NPCs normally have a CR of Class Levels -1, but can be bumped up to CR=Class Levels by giving them PC WBL. I could be wrong about that. I agree that in general monsters cannot use treasure freely, since most of that stuff is supposed to be randomly generated based on provided tables.

Since I haven't stated my general opinion on this, I do agree that 3.5 balance is broken. I don't think this is an intended feature. I am fine with this 13 year old game in it's current unbalanced state. I would play a different game if I wanted something more balanced. I admit I play a lot of wizards.

Lord Raziere

2016-12-21, 05:05 PM

They still can't do anything anyone else can't do. As I said, Clerics and Druids simply have more interesting things they can do, and can affect the world and alter the plot in ways that martials are incapable of doing.

Purify a corrupted lake or pond. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/purifyFoodAndDrink.htm)
End world thirst. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createWater.htm)
understand any language (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/comprehendLanguages.htm)
Stop lies. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/zoneOfTruth.htm)
Create epidemics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contagion.htm)
Make lasting structures (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneShape.htm)
Ask murder victims about their killer. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithDead.htm)
See the future (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divination.htm)
Call spirits from beyond our world. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm)
Ask the gods a question. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm)
Bless/curse an area. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hallow.htm)
Travel through the multiverse. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeShift.htm)
Triumph over death. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm#)
See things far away. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm)
Be better than modern medicine. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureMinorWounds.htm)
Create your own weather. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureMinorWounds.htm)
Manipulate Souls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm)
Boost Crops (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/plantGrowth.htm)
Do anything. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/miracle.htm)

Ok then, lets try coming up with ways a martial could theoretically replicate these feats if you homebrew the feats for it:
-feat to punch the corruption out of the lake
-feat using a sleight of hand to steal a certain amount of water from the Plane of Water
-Just be THAT good at linguistics, if Batman can understand any language without magic, your mundane character should
-strike their brain in a way that makes the target unable to lie
-create a plague using alchemy
-lots of applied super-strength and super speed to build stuff really fast.
-be a really good detective to the point where he can figure it out himself, like sherlock-levels of detective expertise
-just be that good at mathematics to predict what will happen
-reach and grab a spirit from another plane with your fist then beat them until they obey you
-be so good at putting themselves in the gods shoes that their mind can give them the accurate answer of what the god WOULD say to you if you ask that question, just because your mundane doesn't you can't be smart enough to figure stuff out
-again, steal a soul using your hands from beyond the grave and shove the person back in their body.
-have REALLY good eyes
-reverse engineer magic itself to come up with a mundane way to achieve the same fast-healing effect through applying a salve
-massage the clouds to change the weather
-again, steal a soul using your hands and shove it into a gem
-be really good at farming, just astronomically good at it.
-do anything? just punch the part of reality that needs punching and that anything will happen. or grab that part of reality and throw it at people for the effect you want.

Its not as if reality allowing you to do all this because you said a few words and made a few gestures is more realistic, people are just used to that more. Whats the harm if you can also do it by simply punching and grabbing everything and being strong enough to do that at the same level?

Jormengand

2016-12-21, 05:08 PM

If I take a PC and create an identically built character as an NPC, what is it's CR?

Technically, vampires (CR +2 LA +8) should be able to defeat themselves relatively trivially.

Hurnn

2016-12-21, 05:47 PM

If I take a PC and create an identically built character as an NPC, what is it's CR?

Unless you are using npc wealth by level it should have a higher cr how much higher i don't know.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 05:56 PM

Technically, vampires (CR +2 LA +8) should be able to defeat themselves relatively trivially.

Walk outside? :smalltongue:

I believe class leveled NPCs normally have a CR of Class Levels -1, but can be bumped up to CR=Class Levels by giving them PC WBL. I could be wrong about that. I agree that in general monsters cannot use treasure freely, since most of that stuff is supposed to be randomly generated based on provided tables.

Even if we take that rule at face value though, it isn't relevant for Dire Lions.

Since I haven't stated my general opinion on this, I do agree that 3.5 balance is broken. I don't think this is an intended feature. I am fine with this 13 year old game in it's current unbalanced state. I would play a different game if I wanted something more balanced. I admit I play a lot of wizards.

I firmly believe some level of disparity was intended. After all, there's an entire chapter full of options that the martials were expected to skip over. No one rational could look at something like Miracle or Astral Projection and conclude that martials were meant to keep pace every step of the way. I do however think they vastly overestimated the levels at which spellcasters would begin to pull away.

Rynjin

2016-12-21, 07:38 PM

It's that it really doesn't do anything to increase the capabilities of martial characters. It's all still under the category of "swing's sword". In truth you can make a martial character who can handle themselves decently in combat (ubercharger, tripstar, dungeoncrasher) but those builds end up being one trick ponies compared to other classes (that's another discussion though). It's not that you can make a cleric or druid that can fight better than the fighter (you can more easily), it's that the cleric and druid are simply better adventurers than the fighter (or the wizard for that matter). They can do healing, blasting, battlefield control, summoning, melee, ranged, and worldbuilding.

What exactly does the fighter bring to the table concept wise? They fight? D&D is a game about fighting, everyone needs to fight. They're the best at fighting? Then you've broken the game at the conceptual level.

It's not the the fighter can't fight well (although past the low levels they can't without heavy optimization or MC-pity artifact swords) it's that the class doesn't bring anything interesting to the table. Things like maneuvers don't really change that at all. They still can't do anything anyone else can't do. As I said, Clerics and Druids simply have more interesting things they can do, and can affect the world and alter the plot in ways that martials are incapable of doing.

Purify a corrupted lake or pond. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/purifyFoodAndDrink.htm)
End world thirst. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createWater.htm)
understand any language (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/comprehendLanguages.htm)
Stop lies. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/zoneOfTruth.htm)
Create epidemics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contagion.htm)
Make lasting structures (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneShape.htm)
Ask murder victims about their killer. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithDead.htm)
See the future (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divination.htm)
Call spirits from beyond our world. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm)
Ask the gods a question. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm)
Bless/curse an area. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hallow.htm)
Travel through the multiverse. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeShift.htm)
Triumph over death. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm#)
See things far away. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm)
Be better than modern medicine. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureMinorWounds.htm)
Create your own weather. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureMinorWounds.htm)
Manipulate Souls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm)
Boost Crops (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/plantGrowth.htm)
Do anything. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/miracle.htm)

It's easy to argue (and I will) that the problem on this end of the scale is that casters shouldn't be able to do a lot of those too, at least not as casually.

Maneuvers fix the problem of martial characters being able to overcome even basic obstacles though. Is that locked adamantine door in your way, or you need to scout without being caught by the plethora of skills that go "Lol Stealth"? There's Maneuvers for that to let you teleport past it or become Incorporeal and invisible. Just as an example of out of combat problems that Maneuvers make martials instantly more capable at. Some of the Disciplines even dip into condition removal and healing, like Riven Hourglass (which gets an Immediate action "Cure any condition besides death free" card available once per encounter at a relatively low level) and Silver Crane (infinite healing power).

Some of the rest could be fixed if skills didn't suck so much ass (Sense Motive should be able to overcome most liars at a certain point, but of course even the Skill Unlocks meant to fix that tack on absurd skill penalties and restrictions) and had more emphasis in the game. If the Heal skill were the primary means of resurrection via ancient medicines and rituals instead of spellcasting.

But regardless Maneuvers are a BIIIIIIG step in the right direction.

If the game were changed so only SOME things were the purview of powerful casters and them only, with specific classes having their niche (like only Wizards can Plane Shift and only Clerics can Call Outsiders and only Druids can Control Weather, etc. but the majority of problems can be solved in different ways by anyone) then at the least on the day to day of the game there would be parity between the classes, with each class offering a few new narrative options. You could come up with some for martials as well, but it took me more than 30 seconds to think of them so a lot of developers probably wouldn't take the time.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 07:57 PM

I rolled a fighter to be good at hitting things, not to "end world thirst," "boost crops," or "ask the gods questions." Anyone who rolls fighter to do things like that deserves to be disappointed.

Now, some of the other things on that list are things I'd be okay with high-level martials doing, at least in limited ways. "See the future" for example - not full-on divination, but a skilled martial should definitely be able to predict the flow of a battle, or be immune to getting caught flat-footed. "Triumph over death" - I'm fine with high-level martials being particularly hard to keep down (though less in favor of them raising other people.) "Stop lies" - I'm okay with a high-level martial being extremely difficult to fool, including with illusions, though it should still be possible for a very powerful or skilled liar to do so. (For instance, I don't think it should be possible for any mortal to be immune to lies from the likes of, say, Vecna or Norgorber.)

JoshuaZ

2016-12-21, 08:18 PM

AvatarVecna, you've made a lot of valid points, and I'm generally more inclined to agree with your position here, but there's one thing that seems off enough to be worth replying explicitly to:

Aaaaand another tick on the bingo chart. "I'll solve the problem by giving martials magic and calling it 'maneuvers', that way nobody has any right to complain ever again". Doesn't solve anything for people who don't wanna learn magic systems, the same way the mere existence of the UMD skill doesn't magically make Rogues just as good as Wizards.

There are supernatural maneuver systems, but many disciplines are not, and one can make highly effective martial maneuver users without anything remotely magical seeming in their behavior. Moreover, it isn't unreasonable to expect for people to learn how to use an additional system which isn't that complicated. The maneuver system is one of the simplest systems in the game, which is likely connected to why of the non-core subsystems it is also one of the things most popular to homebrew (certainly more popular than incarnum, or binding, or shadowmagic or truenaming).

AnachroNinja

2016-12-21, 08:28 PM

Psyren, I get that you don't personally want to play martial characters that do things other then fight well. Does it seem reasonable though to state that giving martials abilities beyond that is unlikely to ruin your game (since you just won't use them) but may improve the game for people who do want more options?

Psyren

2016-12-21, 09:08 PM

Psyren, I get that you don't personally want to play martial characters that do things other then fight well.

Not only is this -not- what I said, I even explicitly listed examples of non-fighting things from Dragonexx's list that I'd be totally okay with martials having - things like being able to more easily defeat liars/illusions, and shrugging off afflictions.

Does it seem reasonable though to state that giving martials abilities beyond that is unlikely to ruin your game (since you just won't use them) but may improve the game for people who do want more options?

I think it's perfectly reasonable, and supplements like Path of War and Weapon Master's Handbook and Mythic Adventures have done just that. I fully support such efforts, including financially (I've bought all three books and more besides.) So I'm not sure where our disconnect, if any, lies.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-21, 09:16 PM

I rolled a fighter to be good at hitting things, not to "end world thirst," "boost crops," or "ask the gods questions." Anyone who rolls fighter to do things like that deserves to be disappointed.

My apologies, I got a little too focused on that section and not enough on the rest. I guess in essence the disconnect seems to be that while we both do agree that there is no problem with martials having more options, I do feel like it is a problem that they don't have them currently. My take on your position, apologies if I've misread it, is that you don't really feel that the current situation is really a *problem* perse, because it is fixable by the DM out gentleman's agreements and what have you.

Honestly i think that's about it. We mostly just disagree on how much of a problem current situation is.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 09:27 PM

Thing is, they do have more options currently. Weapon Master's Handbook and Armor Master's Handbook actually retroactively patched all PF Fighters - you don't even need a feat to use the goodies in these books, you can just pick them up when you level or retrain into them. Both are first-party. Path of War is from a well-known enough publisher that you can at least get your GM to consider it, especially if they are okay with ToB.

And it is additions like this that, yes, make me fine with the situation overall. I mean, I was fine with it from the beginning, but the nice things martials have gotten since then have made things even better.

But do they need things like Miracle and Scrying? I would argue, no.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-21, 09:35 PM

I can't really speak to those options, I personally find PF... Distasteful. I don't necessarily think martials need miracle, I just think they need options that actually make them comparable casters. Not necessarily doing the same things, but at least doing something they can't replicate, having their own niche besides doing damage with a stick.

Cosi

2016-12-21, 09:36 PM

I agree that giving Fighters (and Barbarians and Monks and Paladins and so on) a list of things they can select each level to enhance their capabilities in a way that increases their ability to contribute both in and out of combat in a way that doesn't leave them falling behind. I just think that the skills system could handle this better than giving players who avoided playing wizards "because the magic system is complicated" a totally-not-magic system of their own. More powerful uses for skills would be an interesting way to deal with the problem, particularly if you took away the cap on skill ranks by level. Then you could have characters with a wide variety of skills that are on-par with the existing skill maximums, and you could also have characters with non maximum limitation on skills who pour themselves into a couple skills so much that they can pull off epic stunts without being epic, or having epic gear.

I see several problems with this:

1. 3e skills don't have anywhere particularly good to put combat abilities, which the Barbarians and Monks of the world need. You either need to give them some more class abilities, or add some new skills.
2. Assigning skill ranks is pretty complicated, and doesn't seem like it would appeal to people who wanted a simpler character.
3. I think there are plenty of people who want complex martial characters or simple casters, so having the sword/spell divide mirror the simple/complicated divide isn't idea for them.
4. Skills are wildly divergent, and your suggestion to uncap ranks makes them more so. I get what you're trying to do (mirroring the divide between specialist and non-specialist casters), but in practice uncapping bonuses will end up letting people get high level abilities at low or mid levels. There are basically no 9th level spells it is safe to give a 9th level character, and if you make skill abilities gated by checks, optimized 9th level characters will be able to grab the things intended to compete with 9th level spells.
5. While skills are heavily divergent when optimized, they are not at all divergent by level. The difference between a 5th level Rogue and a 9th level Rogue is 4 ranks, while the difference between a 5th level Wizard and a 9th level Wizard is stinking cloud to cloudkill.

This is a fair point; neither 3.5 nor PF is really designed as a non-combat system, combat is where most of the balance focus is - which in part is why Fighters suffer while mages can get away with dethroning gods after a point: utility spells for mages are pretty common, whereas utility abilities for fighters are unfortunately rare. Still, utility akin to Teleport would likely be easier to balance than utility akin to Diplomacy, just because social encounters are an entirely different can of worms. The skill system could use a major boost to make skilled people able to contribute in higher-level challenges.

If the Fighter was able to contribute equally to the fighting part of things at the higher levels, it wouldn't be a problem; as it stands, the wizard is better at "making the party win combats", and (if they buff themselves up sufficiently) better at "killing people with a sword" too. I'd prefer for the Fighter to be superior at the latter, and for them to contribute more or less equally to the former.

These are good points. My solution would be something like this:

1. Non-combat abilities (mostly) come from skills, and are gated by level or ranks, e.g. teleport requires 12 ranks in Survival.
Exceptions: Each class should get some unique non-combat options for flavor reasons, e.g. the Necromancer gets something like speak with dead.
2. Combat abilities come from your class, and (mostly) work like spells that you pick of a list, e.g. the Marshall has a bunch of Stratagems, which are at-will abilities that key off a specific tactical situation.
Exceptions: There should be some classes that don't require any meaningful choices to play as some people want something simple, e.g. the Berserker flies into a Rage which gives him enough buffs to be effective.

Ideally, each class would contribute roughly equally in combat and get an equal number of skills.

I think revamping the skills system so that high level/epic use could keep mundanes relevant could be done without upsetting the people who like mundane warriors. Just make it so that. Epic mundanes should be capable of epic things.

Maybe. This is possible, but it depends. As you go up in power, it becomes harder to find useful mundane abilities (which risks alienating the pro-mundane people), and those abilities can warp the genre (which risks alienating some other people).

What exactly does the fighter bring to the table concept wise? They fight? D&D is a game about fighting, everyone needs to fight. They're the best at fighting? Then you've broken the game at the conceptual level.

This is without a doubt the biggest problem with the Fighter. "Fights things" is a bad concept. It's too narrow on one end (what do you do when "stab them" is not the correct solution?) and too wide on the other (what do you actually do in a fight?).

I am perfectly fine with orcs being racist caricatures as the default.

Well, that's horrifying. I'm not sure how much I value the opinion of someone who wants to play in a world where racism is objectively correct.

Your proof of CR=level is that CR=level, is what you're saying.

Well, the proof that NPC CR is determined by level is that it says exactly that on page 37 of the DMG (I appear to have misremember the page).

An NPC with a PC class has a Challenge Rating equal to the NPC's level. Thus, an 8th-level Sorcerer is an 8th-level encounter. As a rule of thumb, doubling the number of foes adds 2 to the Encounter Level. Therefore, two 8th-level Fighters are an EL 10 encounter. A party of four NPC 8th-level characters is an EL 12 encounter

The thing where classed NPCs follow that rule is helpful, but the actual rule is the reason that it's true.

And it does, for NPCs. Which has nothing to do with PCs.

So an 8th level Fighter played by the DM is a completely different animal than one played by a PC? That's certainly a new argument.

So the usual math of -4 EL for cutting the numbers in half twice explicitly does not function

Yeah, it doesn't say that at all. The only difference between "doubling twice adds four" and "halving twice subtracts four" is your starting point.

Citation needed. Moving on.

If you have a bunch of fights between CR 10 monsters, assuming no draws, for each of those fights one CR 10 monster will win and the other will lose. As a result, the overall win rate for CR 10 monsters will be 50%. What else could it possibly be? Each fight produces one win for a CR 10 monster and one loss for a CR 10 monster.

Still nothing about EL or CR applying on the party side of things or any sort of reverse equivalencies.

The party is a group of creatures with PC class levels. Creatures with PC class levels have a CR equal to their class level. A 10th-level Wizard is a CR 10 monster and an EL 10 encounter.

Considering that parties of fewer than four characters are challenged by monsters of lower CR, a party of one facing an encounter of equal level to their own is almost certainly within that range. Still nothing about single PC vs single monster being a 50/50 fight though, or even a single monster vs the same EL being a 50/50 fight.

Okay, this seems like the best place to lay things out.

Suppose a group of 10th-level PCs fight an exact mirror match. For the sake of the argument, let's say that they're all 10th-level Fighters. That is, a party with the exact same levels, feats, classes, spells, and gear. What CR are these duplicates? Well, as page 37 helpfully informs us, they are CR 10.

What is their EL? Well, looking at the table on page 49, we can see that it is 14 (or, 10 base +2 twice for two doublings).

Now, recalling that these are exact duplicates of the PCs, it seems fair to say that whatever their EL is, the PCs also have that EL. So the PC's EL can be said to be 14.

So, a fight which the PCs have a 50% chance of winning is one where EL = Party Level + 4.

Now, let's change the encounter, replacing one of the enemies with a Fire Giant (a CR 10 monster). Looking back at the EL table, we see that this has no effect on the encounter's EL. It still consists of four CR 10 monsters, so it is still an EL 14 encounter.

Repeating this process three times, we have a group of four Fighters facing a group of four Fire Giants.

Now, divide both sides number's by 4 (reducing EL by 4), we have a 10th level Fighter facing a Fire Giant with a 50% chance of victory.

Obviously, by moving from an exact mirror match, we added some noise. Some classes are more effective against certain encounters than others (for example, a Cleric of Pelor is super-effective against Undead), so the SGT has multiple encounters, hoping to produce a representative sample of possible threats.

I posit that this is not the case in most instances and that there is inherently a variance, sometimes dramatic, in the actual challenge presented by creatuers of a given CR.

Sure. The SGT isn't making the claim all monsters are perfectly balanced, just that if you extrapolate from the rules for encounters and CR, a Xth-level character should generally go 50/50 with CR X monsters.

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 09:43 PM

While I do agree anecdotally that most games start at lower levels and attrition out before people really start hitting 8th and 9th level spells, I'm not sure that survey is a fair citation. Mostly because it was taken towards the beginning of the release of a new edition, and when you play once a week characters don't tend to level very quickly.
The question, if I recall correctly from way back when I took the survey, was either about what level your campaigns have typically ended, or what level you generally expect them to end.

4 is the number of books WotC has released that they describe as "Supplement Rulebooks" rather than some other thing.
It is absolutely not. Dungeonology was released by Templar Publishing/Candlewick Press, not WotC, and to my knowledge it is never described by WotC as a rulebook. If you look at the actual D&D website's product page, Volo's Guide to Monsters is "A Dungeons & Dragons Supplement"; Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is a "Sourcebook for Players and DMs"; EEPC isn't listed at all, and is relegated to the DM's Guild alongside the equivalent document for Curse of Strahd (yeah, that's a thing too).

I suspect I will regret adding to what is quickly becoming a total cluster-**** but here goes;

To those who understand that a level X PC should be able to 50/50 the creatures listed as CR X based on the fact they are, themselves, ostensibly CR X by the guidelines given in the DMG, is that even true of the creatures listed as explicitly being of a given CR?

That is; can a dire lion, for example, 50/50 all of the CR 5 monsters in the monster manual?

I posit that this is not the case in most instances and that there is inherently a variance, sometimes dramatic, in the actual challenge presented by creatuers of a given CR.

All right, I've said it now. Let the hate flow.
There's a Rock/Paper/Scissors effect that makes this unattainable—monsters will necessarily have some matchups that are good and some that are bad.

I rolled a fighter to be good at hitting things, not to "end world thirst," "boost crops," or "ask the gods questions." Anyone who rolls fighter to do things like that deserves to be disappointed.
Yes. As a game designer, it's important to know what each class is trying to accomplish. You don't want to be putting your power points into stuff outside the class's focus.

In other words, you don't need fighters to be as good at casting as the casters. You just need them to be better at fighting than the casters. Which they're not, but hey, that's why the class is such a design failure.

Zanos

2016-12-21, 09:46 PM

The question, if I recall correctly from way back when I took the survey, was either about what level your campaigns have typically ended, or what level you generally expect them to end.
The article linked talked about fifth edition specifically and refers to modules published for fifth, but if that wasn't the nature of the initial question then I concede the point.

Dragonexx

2016-12-21, 10:21 PM

I rolled a fighter to be good at hitting things, not to "end world thirst," "boost crops," or "ask the gods questions." Anyone who rolls fighter to do things like that deserves to be disappointed.

Except that being good at hitting things should not be a protected role at all. D&D is a game about combat primarily, everyone needs to be good at hitting things.

Psyren

2016-12-21, 10:38 PM

Except that being good at hitting things should not be a protected role at all. D&D is a game about combat primarily, everyone needs to be good at hitting things.

I'm confused - did I say otherwise somewhere?

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 10:48 PM

Except that being good at hitting things should not be a protected role at all. D&D is a game about combat primarily, everyone needs to be good at hitting things.
And someone has to be the best at hitting things. It is healthiest for the game if that someone is the hitting-things specialist, rather than the squishy backline mage.

Zanos

2016-12-21, 10:57 PM

And someone has to be the best at hitting things. It is healthiest for the game if that someone is the hitting-things specialist, rather than the squishy backline mage.
Yeah, why are people saying "hitting things" shouldn't be a dedicated role? I assume since we're talking about fighters we actually mean "durable melee combatant", which definitely should be a niche, although one a variety of classes could fill. Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, etc.

Dragonexx

2016-12-21, 11:15 PM

Zanos

2016-12-21, 11:18 PM

I'm talking combat in general. The only thing the fighter brings to the table is fighting whether that's swording things or shooting things or whatever all of which are nothing unique. Which is why I maintain that there shouldn't even be a fighter class.
There shouldn't be a class that fills the role of a durable armored warrior? Hitting things is just a comedic simplification.

Dragonexx

2016-12-21, 11:23 PM

There shouldn't be a class that's only shtick is fighting, when most of the game is about fighting.

Coretron03

2016-12-21, 11:23 PM

There shouldn't be a class that fills the role of a durable armored warrior? Hitting things is just a comedic simplification.

Who saying we should get rid of the warrior?

stanprollyright

2016-12-21, 11:38 PM

Except that being good at hitting things should not be a protected role at all. D&D is a game about combat primarily, everyone needs to be good at hitting things.

I think you're confusing "hitting things [with a melee weapon]" with "dealing damage." Everyone should be good at the latter, only specialized classes should be good at the former. "Single target striker" is a niche. "Ranged AoE" is a niche. One could make a Rogue or Sorcerer that easily has higher maximum damage than your average (non-ubercharging) melee martial. This is fine. I've never heard anyone complain that clearing a room full of mooks with Fireball is stepping on the Fighter's toes somehow. In fact, the Fighter is probably thanking that Sorcerer for clearing a path to the BBEG.

Yeah, why are people saying "hitting things" shouldn't be a dedicated role? I assume since we're talking about fighters we actually mean "durable melee combatant", which definitely should be a niche, although one a variety of classes could fill. Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, etc.

I'd call that "frontlining"

There shouldn't be a class that's only shtick is fighting, when most of the game is about fighting.

There shouldn't be a class that's only schtick is magic, when most of the game is about magic.

Lord Raziere

2016-12-21, 11:43 PM

There shouldn't be a class that's only shtick is fighting, when most of the game is about fighting.

On the contrary, there should be a class exactly for that, a generic everyman role so that all the other classes stand out in contrast. Its just that the Fighter, this generic everyman, is designed real poorly, not given enough skills and abilities to be a good adventurer with interesting abilities without needing magic. the Fighter class is not just weak, its boring. to anyone who doesn't like just hitting things. The solution should be to fix it so that its a more interesting class, not to get rid of it.

Zanos

2016-12-21, 11:47 PM

There shouldn't be a class that's only shtick is fighting, when most of the game is about fighting.
First of all, I feel like you're using "fighting" in a different context in each post. Someone says they want to be good at hitting things, and you respond that "fighting" shouldn't be a protected role. But it's clearly in reference to the fighter which is a:

I'd call that "frontlining"
Yeah, that. Frontliner sounds good. And I 100% think that's a niche that not every class should be able to perform.

Now, if you want to argue that every class should have out of combat utility, then sure, I also agree. But if you run a game that is mostly or all about fighting as you seem to, I'm not sure why that's overly important.

Who saying we should get rid of the warrior?
I never said the Fighter was good at this roll, just that it should be a filled roll.

Coretron03

2016-12-21, 11:56 PM

I was (in case you didn't realize) I was making a joke that the chracter you said could eaisly have been the warrior npc class instead of a fighter. The only difference between the 2 is really numbers (unless you include the weapon training stuff and his armour speed improvement).

Zanos

2016-12-21, 11:56 PM

Dragonexx

2016-12-22, 12:26 AM

Zanos

2016-12-22, 12:33 AM

The manner in which a fighter contributes(or doesn't because it's broken) is more nuanced than "fights well."

Milo v3

2016-12-22, 12:35 AM

First of all, I feel like you're using "fighting" in a different context in each post. Someone says they want to be good at hitting things, and you respond that "fighting" shouldn't be a protected role.
I once wrote a joke draft of a Fighter fix which made them the best at Fighting rather than Combat. Didn't matter if it was combat, an opposed skill roll, mass combat, or social arguments, but they were the best when it came to "Fighting".

javcs

2016-12-22, 12:39 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2016-12-22, 12:40 AM

What I'm referring to is that most of the games rules are about things in combat. Most of your character sheet is about things that affect combat. D&D is a game mainly about fighting things. Everyone in the party is expected to fight, thus having someone who's shtick is "fighting" is pointless.

Note that this a problem with RPG's in general. Some games don't have as much of a focus on fighting, thus, having one character who's role is "fights well" isn't a problem.

What if that's all the player is really interested in and is otherwise a wall-flower? What if, like me, they -want- a class that's nothing special so they can stretch their creativity with limited resources but going all the way down to the warrior NPC class is too much? I already have to go to NPC classes for a dedicated caster that's not utterly dominant unless I deliberately hold it back.

stanprollyright

2016-12-22, 12:49 AM

I think the crux of the issue - something these threads rarely touch upon, because maybe it's just that obvious - is that the default D&D setting is too high magic for its own good. It's not just that martial characters don't stand up to high level casting, it's that the setting itself (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?222007-The-Definitive-Guide-to-the-Tippyverse-By-Emperor-Tippy) can't handle it either. The Tippyverse and the C/MD are really part of the same problem, which is why the simplest - if not very elegant - solution is to halt advancement at level 6 or 8. That's not to say, "bonus feats count as class features, right?" isn't terrible design; it definitely is. Putting a full-level animal companion, a powerful and versatile long-term polymorph effect, 9th level casting, and a medium chassis into the same class is also poor design. But you could give the Fighter 10 skills/level and a full list of talents designed to make him the most versatile combatant on the field, and he'd still be tier 3-4 at best. Take away a Druid's animal companion and wild shape and she'd still be tier 1-2.

Zanos

2016-12-22, 12:52 AM

As far as I'm concerned, the Fighter base class is functionally an NPC/non-adventurer class. And even most of them will multiclass and/or PRC out.

Let's go for a little thought experiment, you live in a world where magic is real, dragons are real, and you want to be an adventurer.

Magic is as fundamental a part of the world as computers and the internet is today.

As an analogy, mages and the like are the people who write computer code and/or can build a computer from scratch. Functionally everyone in the Information Age has some degree of computer literacy, even if it's relatively limited.

If you're going to be an adventurer, you need some degree of magic knowledge. Maybe it's not advanced theory, but some degree of knowledge and practical applications of that knowledge is vital.
You've put the cart before the horse, and assumed that magical knowledge is necessary to contend with it. In many settings, understanding and using magic is difficult and unrewarding, and/or you can become stronger than normal humans via non-magical training.

I also disagree that everyone has some degree of computer literacy. Being able to repeat sentences of a language but not understanding the words does not make one literate, and repeating what they were shown without understanding it is how many people in business settings use computers these days.

137beth

2016-12-22, 01:01 AM

WotC Survey (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/april-survey-results)
Interesting data, thanks for that.
I'm not sure whether it's relevent: in the post I quoted you in you talked about warblades and crusaders, so I assumed you were talking about 3.5 when you said that most play took place below 10th level. The survey you linked to is about a different game system. If you were talking about 5e the whole time, then I misunderstood you.

Nonetheless, thanks for the link to the survey, I think it's interesting:smallsmile:

I firmly believe some level of disparity was intended. After all, there's an entire chapter full of options that the martials were expected to skip over. No one rational could look at something like Miracle or Astral Projection and conclude that martials were meant to keep pace every step of the way. I do however think they vastly overestimated the levels at which spellcasters would begin to pull away.

It's possible that some of the systems' creators wanted a reasonably balanced game, and others didn't. At the very least, some of the designers periodically stated their intent for classes to be balanced with each other. Consider, for example, the sidebar on page 210 of the DMG (in the section on epic progression):

The classes of the D&D game are balanced at levels 1st through 20th, but simply continuing the power escalation of each class beyond 20th level would eventually imbalance the game system.
Now, maybe you believe that whoever wrote that sidebar was lying and actually knew their classes weren't balanced from levels 1-20. Or, maybe whoever wrote that sidebar thought all classes were balanced with each other, but another author who actually designed some classes intentionally made some over- or under-powered. The system wasn't just created by one author, after all, so they may not have shared all their intentions.

Coretron03

2016-12-22, 01:09 AM

Whats also odd is that their spell creator guidelines have benchmark spells. Burning hands a is a benchmark spell and is said by them to be better then sleep because dealing 1d4 fire damage at a incredibly close range with a save for half for a squishy wizard is better then knocking them out for coup de graces.

stanprollyright

2016-12-22, 01:13 AM

Burning Hands is better than Sleep, at any level above 2nd.

Coretron03

2016-12-22, 01:20 AM

Its still 4hd total for a save or lose so it has its uses, maybe for a single target save or lose, while 3d4 damage is still relatively bad anyway.

Psyren

2016-12-22, 01:27 AM

I'm talking combat in general. The only thing the fighter brings to the table is fighting whether that's swording things or shooting things or whatever all of which are nothing unique. Which is why I maintain that there shouldn't even be a fighter class.

Good luck with that :smalltongue:

I don't understand this concept of "needing niche protection" to begin with. A class does not have to be the best possible permutation at something to warrant existence. Warlocks are decent at a lot of different things without being the best at any of them, yet they remain one of the most popular classes in the game. Same with Alchemists in PF.

It's possible that some of the systems' creators wanted a reasonably balanced game, and others didn't. At the very least, some of the designers periodically stated their intent for classes to be balanced with each other. Consider, for example, the sidebar on page 210 of the DMG (in the section on epic progression):

Now, maybe you believe that whoever wrote that sidebar was lying and actually knew their classes weren't balanced from levels 1-20. Or, maybe whoever wrote that sidebar thought all classes were balanced with each other, but another author who actually designed some classes intentionally made some over- or under-powered. The system wasn't just created by one author, after all, so they may not have shared all their intentions.

That sidebar doesn't say a thing about classes being balanced with each other. It talks about "the game system," which is (as I have been saying throughout this thread) a combination of PC class X + PC WBL X vs. Monster CR X.

Fizban

2016-12-22, 04:22 AM

Well, that's horrifying. I'm not sure how much I value the opinion of someone who wants to play in a world where racism is objectively correct.
Another false equivalence: being okay with the default doesn't mean that I don't change it (I would in fact ask the players how they want orcs to be when establishing the setting, and if the majority preferred caricature orcs then sure, why not?), nor do I condone it in real life as you might be implying. There's probably a named fallacy for the "this person is roleplaying a horrible person therefore they must be horrible," which can be extended to "this person is running a horrible world therefore they must be horrible." I wonder where you're drawn your non-canon lines. I assume you would be horrified to see someone who wanted to play an Evil character, or run an evil campaign. I wonder if you balk at the murder of demons. For you see, racism against demons is also perfectly standard in dnd, and far more objectively correct than it is against orcs with there mere 40-50% "often" chaotic evil. Eh, whatever. If you wish to disregard my proof because you don't understand the difference between fantasy and reality, your loss.

So an 8th level Fighter played by the DM is a completely different animal than one played by a PC? That's certainly a new argument.
An NPC 8th level Fighter is indeed completely different from a player character 8th level Fighter. It has NPC WBL for one, but primarily the difference is that it is run by the DM. The fact that an NPC has a challenge rating does not mean EL calculations apply to PCs. But I'm repeating myself, and since you didn't read it the first time I don't know why I'm bothering.

Yeah, it doesn't say that at all. The only difference between "doubling twice adds four" and "halving twice subtracts four" is your starting point.
You have missed the point again. There is no doubling or halving, because there is no operation to perform, because changing the number of PCs does not affect the party level. Which I already said.

If you have a bunch of fights between CR 10 monsters, assuming no draws, for each of those fights one CR 10 monster will win and the other will lose. As a result, the overall win rate for CR 10 monsters will be 50%. What else could it possibly be? Each fight produces one win for a CR 10 monster and one loss for a CR 10 monster.
Hahahaha, ah. The man who demands I run his little test now tells me what the only possible result of this question could be, without testing. Or a citation. Failed again.

The party is a group of creatures with PC class levels. Creatures with PC class levels have a CR equal to their class level. A 10th-level Wizard is a CR 10 monster and an EL 10 encounter.
The party is not NPCs, have no challenge ratings, and have no EL. Again.

Okay, this seems like the best place to lay things out.
The party is not NPCs, have no challenge ratings, and have no EL. Again, again.

You have also failed to notice from my mentioning part of the calculation that I already know the whole calculation you just outlined there- I discovered it myself ages ago without prompting (not that that's anything special). It's a nice reasonable idea, and plenty useful in practice. It is also not a supported use of the rules, as I have already demonstrated in great detail. It does not prove anything on its own, nor does it form a solid foundation for any sort of test, because the EL rules do not not apply to PCs, nor do they apply to encounter vs. encounter. Which I already said.

You have failed to provide any citations, aside from the very passage that disproves your theory, trying to write off the use of *NPC* in the definition of CR for *NPCs* as "helpful, but the actual rule is the reason that it's true." What actual rule? You just cited the rule, and it does not support your attempted use of it. In short, you are blatantly ignoring the text. With your claim that the fighter is unplayable at high levels based on the SGT, and the SGT violating just about every rule there is governing challenges, your entire argument collapses.

I think we're done here.

Jormengand

2016-12-22, 05:15 AM

Walk outside? :smalltongue:

Okay, to rephrase: should be able to defeat an equivalent and opposed vampire.

Coretron03

2016-12-22, 05:42 AM

An NPC 8th level Fighter is indeed completely different from a player character 8th level Fighter. It has NPC WBL for one, but primarily the difference is that it is run by the DM.

Well, a level 8 fighter with NPC wealth is only CR 7 and would require a extra level of fighter to be CR 8 (Bull that a fighter level is equal to the huge increase in wealth though) one with PC wealth by level is CR 8, just to nitpick. How does being run by the dm change how the fighter is played exactly, compared to PCs? The fighter does use the heroic array for stats though.

Jormengand

2016-12-22, 05:46 AM

Well, a level 8 fighter with NPC wealth is only CR 7, one with PC wealth by level is CR 8, just to nitpick. How does being run by the dm change how the fighter is played exactly, compared to PCs?

Because using your abilities increases your CR.

Mordaedil

2016-12-22, 07:35 AM

Too often it feels like the fighter is more of a "dip" class for extra fighting feats, rather than a class you focus wholeheartedly into. Not all classes can even take full advantage of it, but it's fairly popular for rogues, barbarians, rangers, paladins and monks. I sometimes think the solution would be to axe the fighter class and increase the amount of feats warriors can learn by default, but I do like the added challenge of having to pick when you do it and the sacrifices you make doing it. These classes also fix the main problem with the fighter, which is his limited options in combat. A fighter/rogue always goes for flanking positions, a fighter/barbarian can rage and really dish out massive damage, a fighter/ranger can be just as terrifying at range as in melee combat, a fighter/paladin channels his turning ability into pure energy and the fighter/monk can get a lot of options open to him relatively quickly. If I could change anything, I'd just make feats occur more in higher levels since those levels are otherwise sort of a deadzone of utility for any class that isn't a caster.

But enough about the disparity between them, let's address the faux paus; the spells that let the wizard do stuff the other classes have as their primary jobs, which is why the tier list exists in the first place.

Things like:
-Knock. Opening doors when the rogue should be the one doing it.
-Arcane lock. It is like the reverse of Knock, but somehow also steals the classic barbarian knocking a shelf infront of the door to block pursuit trope.
-Rope trick. Isn't being safe 100% of the time kind of boring for a game?
-Fly. Maybe this one isn't quite good to ban, flying is a big deal, but I think a flying broom or even just delaying it a spell level could allow the rogue to remain relevant with climbing a little longer. You could arguably make the same argument with Levitation however, but it has limitations and a DM can still muck things up for you.
-Summons. Specifically, summoning monsters with spellcasting abilities.
-Wish. Not all uses of Wish are necessarily disrupting to a game, but after reading these forums I was made aware of far more abuses and free reading of the rules than I was getting from my friends.

Pleh

2016-12-22, 09:27 AM

I think we're done here.

That would be amazing if it were the case.

I'd like to call out the few productive points I've seen in this thread:

- AGAIN: Disparity is not always a problem at every table. It is a problem at some tables. It is not only ever a problem simply because some people are jerks (sometimes the problem of disparity can be difficult to avoid for people who are trying to fight it).

Just reiterating again for reference, since it seems like most people agree with this point and find ways to argue about it anyway.

- Tomb of Battle made the problem of making martial classes just as complicated and magically based as casters (to a certain degree), where players that choose to use martial characters don't want complex structure nor ham fisted magic bonuses to compensate for how bad they are at killing things with their big heavy sticks.

Fair point. Martial classes may deserve a better solution than maneuvers, BUT it's hard to argue that maneuvers haven't been a good alternative to the disparity problem (even if it isn't the alternative everyone wants yet). The two problems to fighters seems to be that they lack skills and abilities for non-combat scenarios and that all of their abilities are more or less locked in place preventing them from choosing the combat abilities they need for a given scenario.

Unfortunately, if we're locking in the Fighter to be a mundane warrior who shouldn't have to be concerned with preparing maneuvers or relying on pseudo-magic, then we are almost DEFINING them to not be good in non-combat scenarios.

In a literary sense, we're talking only about characters like Rambo or John McClane. Broken soldier types like you'd find in day to day soldiers, who have been so broken in to the subject and study of fighting and killing that they really sometimes AREN'T well suited to civilian social life, nor are many of them trained in computer hacking or other utility skills beyond survival.

Now, maybe upper level fighters should gradually grow into Commandos, Marines, or Navy Seals. People who learn just about EVERY skill imaginable, but almost exclusively to the application of their tactical use. They may not know how to write software that could be sold for profit, but they might have enough technical savvy to bypass a security system in short order. They might not be a bomb expert, but they know how to handle explosives when they need to and can rely on radio instructions even in a hostile environment without the pressure making them seize up. They roughly know how to pilot most vehicles and are experts in stealth and psychological tactics.

Porting this into a magical rather than technological universe seems easy enough. Fighters should probably know how to evade a standard issue Fireball effectively, and Mage Slayer should be a class feature. They may not be able to See Invisibility, but they might have a keen sense of when they are being followed or observed. They would be able to analyze their surroundings and evaluate potential environmental hazards and the probability of ambush. They would be masters of tactical cover and awareness of their surroundings.

Most importantly, the wouldn't be at odds with a wizard, generally speaking. Encountering an enemy wizard would put them calling in reinforcements (hopefully their OWN wizard to back them up).

- You could possibly fix the disparity by making better use of the Skill system and giving Fighters more access to it.

This sounds like a wonderful alternative to fixing disparity and makes me think about Skill Tricks. I doubt Skill Tricks, by themselves as written, are everything you had in mind here, but they might have the right idea.

Imagine if instead of/in addition to all of the Fighter's Bonus Feats, if they also got Bonus Skill Tricks? Maybe ones that aren't limited to 1/encounter and were instead just limited to "did you make your skill check?"

OldTrees1

2016-12-22, 10:10 AM

I'd like to call out the few productive points I've seen in this thread:

-snip-

- You could possibly fix the disparity by making better use of the Skill system and giving Fighters more access to it.

This sounds like a wonderful alternative to fixing disparity and makes me think about Skill Tricks. I doubt Skill Tricks, by themselves as written, are everything you had in mind here, but they might have the right idea.

Imagine if instead of/in addition to all of the Fighter's Bonus Feats, if they also got Bonus Skill Tricks? Maybe ones that aren't limited to 1/encounter and were instead just limited to "did you make your skill check?"

Question: What is the mechanical difference, besides character creation cost, between an unlimited/encounter skill trick and a feat with the same trigger(successful skill check) and benefit?

I am not seeing the mechanical difference outside of the character creation cost which is waived for the proposed Fighter by them getting these via a "Bonus ___" class feature.

Fizban

2016-12-22, 10:30 AM

That would be amazing if it were the case.
Oh I just meant me and Cosi, thread is eternal.

Well, a level 8 fighter with NPC wealth is only CR 7 and would require a extra level of fighter to be CR 8 (Bull that a fighter level is equal to the huge increase in wealth though) one with PC wealth by level is CR 8, just to nitpick.
You are incorrect sir: Table 4-23 NPC Gear is given as part of the premade PC-classed NPC section, NPCs do not use PC WBL. Nothing says it is restricted to certain classed NPCs or modifies their CR, it is simply the only value. Since the rules treat NPC classes as equivalent in level to PC classes for all purposes except CR, an NPC-classed NPC of the same level has the same gear, but is rated at one CR lower, allowing you to get slightly more gear for the same CR but still nowhere near that of PC past 3rd level. PCs do not have CR, and there is no given CR modifier for increasing NPC gear, so an NPC with PC wealth is the same CR with a nebulous increase in difficulty that could be accounted for with an xp bonus, while one with standard NPC gear has CR=level*.

How does being run by the dm change how the fighter is played exactly, compared to PCs? The fighter does use the heroic array for stats though.
Like Cosi, you are focusing on the wrong thing. It's not about a change in challenge because the DM is running it, it's about the fact that unless the DM is running the character, it's not part of the CR and EL rules. You wish to claim PCs and NPCs are equivalent, because it seems intuitive and supports your argument, but they are not the same thing. The definition of CR for NPCs only applies to NPCs, and there is nothing that says a PC can be treated as an NPC under those rules. There is no equivalency. Unless you can find a rule somewhere that says there is, but it will not be in those pages, I have looked many times.

*(Though the true practical CR of classed NPCs is of course all over the place and is useless for balancing compared to the hundreds of standard pre-built and CR'd monsters, so by the definition of challenge and any practical use the fact that NPC CR=level really doesn't mean anything. This is the second argument I would use if someone managed to prove those false equivalencies to be true, but it is currently unnecessary- I just can't help bringing it up at every opportunity).

Pleh

2016-12-22, 11:21 AM

Question: What is the mechanical difference, besides character creation cost, between an unlimited/encounter skill trick and a feat with the same trigger(successful skill check) and benefit?

I am not seeing the mechanical difference outside of the character creation cost which is waived for the proposed Fighter by them getting these via a "Bonus ___" class feature.

Good point. Maybe the point is that we could give fighters a lot more versatility of their feat selection supported more than strictly combat feats. Maybe if they gained free skill tricks alongside their free feats, then they might have more utility outside combat without taking away what utility in combat they already have.

Not a complete solution by itself. Just brainstorming a bit.

Oh I just meant me and Cosi, thread is eternal.

Oh, I am aware. I was lamenting that it is not the kind of conversation that ever ends until people are just tired of it and it's not actually doing anything productive in the subject matter.

The issue of CR and solo testing was always a bit of a sidenemy point to why disparity matters and it was effectively going nowhere.

Psyren

2016-12-22, 11:33 AM

Okay, to rephrase: should be able to defeat an equivalent and opposed vampire.

I know, I was mostly kidding.

In Pathfinder they don't have +8 LA though, so you can chalk that up to wonky WotC math.

Fair point. Martial classes may deserve a better solution than maneuvers, BUT it's hard to argue that maneuvers haven't been a good alternative to the disparity problem (even if it isn't the alternative everyone wants yet). The two problems to fighters seems to be that they lack skills and abilities for non-combat scenarios and that all of their abilities are more or less locked in place preventing them from choosing the combat abilities they need for a given scenario.

Unfortunately, if we're locking in the Fighter to be a mundane warrior who shouldn't have to be concerned with preparing maneuvers or relying on pseudo-magic, then we are almost DEFINING them to not be good in non-combat scenarios.

I would argue that Advanced Weapon Training, Advanced Armor Training, and Stamina have given Fighters useful non-maneuver solutions to out of combat problems. If you're a Martial Master Fighter, you can even cherry-pick many of these options on the fly. This includes the greater access to the skill system you mentioned.

Porting this into a magical rather than technological universe seems easy enough. Fighters should probably know how to evade a standard issue Fireball effectively, and Mage Slayer should be a class feature. They may not be able to See Invisibility, but they might have a keen sense of when they are being followed or observed. They would be able to analyze their surroundings and evaluate potential environmental hazards and the probability of ambush. They would be masters of tactical cover and awareness of their surroundings.

I would say Blind-Fight should be a Fighter class feature (or at least a non-feat talent of some kind that they can pick up at minimal cost) and then have that get upgradeable to some form of blindsense via a feat higher up.

Pleh

2016-12-22, 11:59 AM

I would argue that Advanced Weapon Training, Advanced Armor Training, and Stamina have given Fighters useful non-maneuver solutions to out of combat problems. If you're a Martial Master Fighter, you can even cherry-pick many of these options on the fly. This includes the greater access to the skill system you mentioned.

A quick Google search tells me why I'm not familiar with the options. I know PF and 3.5 are cousins, if not siblings, but is it really good to say pathfinder options are a good alternative to a 3.5 splat book?

Also, I was having trouble finding many combat tricks or advanced weapon options that didn't seem hardwired into combat. Maybe one or two things each. Maybe you could point out a few examples you were thinking of?

I would say Blind-Fight should be a Fighter class feature (or at least a non-feat talent of some kind that they can pick up at minimal cost) and then have that get upgradeable to some form of blindsense via a feat higher up.

Agreed. That combined with Mage Slayer would be a strong step in the right direction.

Psyren

2016-12-22, 12:32 PM

A quick Google search tells me why I'm not familiar with the options. I know PF and 3.5 are cousins, if not siblings, but is it really good to say pathfinder options are a good alternative to a 3.5 splat book?

I was talking specifically about Pathfinder; 3.5 is pretty much fait accompli at this point and thus not really capable of solving anything more than it already has.

Also, I was having trouble finding many combat tricks or advanced weapon options that didn't seem hardwired into combat. Maybe one or two things each. Maybe you could point out a few examples you were thinking of?

Versatile Training is the big one, letting them use their BAB in place of skill ranks for 4 skills (effectively getting 6+Int skills.) Combine with Pathfinder's plethora of ways to get class skill bonuses and their skill consolidation, and you can end up with a Fighter who can actually do reasonably well as the party face, sentry, scout and more. The fighter can then do this again via Adaptable Training for four more skills, getting up to 10+Int.

From the same book comes Magic Item Mastery, which allows you to gain additional power from your magic items based on BAB and the spells used in the items creation. This allows fighters to gain access to flight, telekinesis and teleportation, even from items that don't normally grant these abilities (or to gain additional uses per day from items that do.)

Lastly is Weapon Mastery, which gives your weapon utility uses out of combat, like triggering traps, activating levers/switches, picking locks and repositioning objects at range - handy when combined with the first option.

All this of course is in addition to the combat goodies in these books (which should be your primary focus anyway.)

Rynjin

2016-12-22, 12:39 PM

The problem with those is they don't let you pick your skills, certain weapon groups have their skills chosen for them. Apparently archers aren't diplomatic people.

Plus it still has the same problem as archetypes, trading in class features for other (and usually better) ones, but still a trade when a gift was called for. That's something they won't fix without a new edition (which everyone seems vehemently opposed to) or an Unchained 2: We Actually Fixed The Things You Guys Wanted In Book 1 Boogaloo.

Fizban

2016-12-22, 12:45 PM

The issue of CR and solo testing was always a bit of a sidenemy point to why disparity matters and it was effectively going nowhere.
True enough, I didn't follow the conclusion of that branch back to the primary topic, which is bad form. Without proof that fighters, and thus a significant portion of the game, is unplayable, there is no argument other than personal preference as to why classes must be balanced. If classes don't need to be balanced to play the game, then the only reason disparity and tier descriptions matter is to speed up the effort of finding what matches your preference and making sure the group is on the same page. Pleh was explaining it as early as post #4, though I believe Kelb's post #22 stated the conclusion most succinctly while also providing a full enough explanation to end the thread, and of course the preface to the tier system pretty much says it to begin with. Apologies if the length of my keyboard combat was dragging the thread down for you.

Psyren

2016-12-22, 12:56 PM

The problem with those is they don't let you pick your skills, certain weapon groups have their skills chosen for them. Apparently archers aren't diplomatic people.

1) The idea is to use Versatile Training to pick up the skills for your chosen mode of combat, and then use your regular ranks to pick up the things it can't cover. So the archer for instance would use VT to get Perception, and use the free retrain to move their normal ranks into Diplomacy instead. It's not difficult.

2) Adaptable Training (the Armor Training one) does let you choose your skills more freely regardless of armor type. So use that one to pick up things like Intimidate, Acrobatics, and Ride, again freeing up your own ranks/intelligence for other skills.

Plus it still has the same problem as archetypes, trading in class features for other (and usually better) ones, but still a trade when a gift was called for. That's something they won't fix without a new edition (which everyone seems vehemently opposed to) or an Unchained 2: We Actually Fixed The Things You Guys Wanted In Book 1 Boogaloo.

Trading a single +1 bonus for a free 20 ranks in a chosen skill isn't a gift?

Jama7301

2016-12-22, 01:00 PM

I've been staring to wonder why Feinting isn't part of the Fighter's repertoire, skill-wise. Seems like something an established fighter would be able to do to get an upper hand in combat fairly easily, but CHA can be a dump stat, Bluff isn't a class skill, and the fighter doesn't have spare skill points to burn on it, so their modifier is, from what I've seen, terrible.

Pleh

2016-12-22, 01:36 PM

Without proof that fighters, and thus a significant portion of the game, is unplayable, there is no argument other than personal preference as to why classes must be balanced. If classes don't need to be balanced to play the game, then the only reason disparity and tier descriptions matter is to speed up the effort of finding what matches your preference and making sure the group is on the same page.

It also matters when it catches players who aren't familiar with the system unaware and players and moderators get frustrated why their game isn't as much fun as it should be. Makes it still a subject matter worth talking about on a regular basis.

I've been staring to wonder why Feinting isn't part of the Fighter's repertoire, skill-wise. Seems like something an established fighter would be able to do to get an upper hand in combat fairly easily, but CHA can be a dump stat, Bluff isn't a class skill, and the fighter doesn't have spare skill points to burn on it, so their modifier is, from what I've seen, terrible.

Excellent point. It would be great if there was a bonus fighter feat that let them use their BAB to their bluff check to feint. Then they could pop into a PrC that lets them feint with better action economy and badda boom, feinting no longer sucks at doing what it's supposed to do.

JNAProductions

2016-12-22, 02:01 PM

Excellent point. It would be great if there was a bonus fighter feat that let them use their BAB to their bluff check to feint. Then they could pop into a PrC that lets them feint with better action economy and badda boom, feinting no longer sucks at doing what it's supposed to do.

Except now the Fighter is good at feinting and that's about it. That's an issue with Fighters-Schrodinger's Wizard exists. Schrodinger's Fighter does not.

Cosi

2016-12-22, 02:10 PM

There shouldn't be a class that's only shtick is fighting, when most of the game is about fighting.

Yes. Instead, there should be classes like Berserker (rages, gets various "savage" type abilities), Paladin (smites, gets various "holy" type abilities), and so on. Because those classes have a theme, which allows them to contribute to multiple situations.

There shouldn't be a class that's only schtick is magic, when most of the game is about magic.

Perhaps. But having the shtick "does magic" is different from having the shtick "fights", because "magic" is a widely applicable solution. You can use "magic" to travel, or negotiate, or research, or deceive. You can't "fight" information out of a book. The reason to not have a "does magic" class is more conceptual than balance.

I think the crux of the issue - something these threads rarely touch upon, because maybe it's just that obvious - is that the default D&D setting is too high magic for its own good. It's not just that martial characters don't stand up to high level casting, it's that the setting itself (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?222007-The-Definitive-Guide-to-the-Tippyverse-By-Emperor-Tippy) can't handle it either.

I don't think that's fundamental to having high magic. You just have to actually think about the setting when designing your abilities. Really, the root cause of 99% of 3e's problems is that no one gave any thought to what the game was supposed to look like at 15th level, so the game is all over the place at 15th level.

I think that every single utility spell can be worked into the setting (with lesser or greater modifications, and the possible exception of ice assassin), and will gladly type up explanations of how I'd do it for any spell you care to request.

On the contrary, there should be a class exactly for that, a generic everyman role so that all the other classes stand out in contrast. Its just that the Fighter, this generic everyman, is designed real poorly, not given enough skills and abilities to be a good adventurer with interesting abilities without needing magic. the Fighter class is not just weak, its boring. to anyone who doesn't like just hitting things. The solution should be to fix it so that its a more interesting class, not to get rid of it.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The choice to have an everyman class depends on how narrow classes are supposed to be. If classes are fairly broad, with few protected niches, then the everyman is appropriate. If they are narrower, it is less so.

What if that's all the player is really interested in and is otherwise a wall-flower? What if, like me, they -want- a class that's nothing special so they can stretch their creativity with limited resources but going all the way down to the warrior NPC class is too much? I already have to go to NPC classes for a dedicated caster that's not utterly dominant unless I deliberately hold it back.

If you want to stretch you creativity with limited resources, why not just not use some of your resources? It seems to me that the alternative requires that at least one concept be made explicitly and intentionally underpowered, which seems like an unnecessary punishment for people who like that concept.

I do agree that there should be simpler classes for people who don't want to deal with complexity, but I don't think that needs to have a particularly large effect on power or utility.

Another false equivalence: being okay with the default doesn't mean that I don't change it (I would in fact ask the players how they want orcs to be when establishing the setting, and if the majority preferred caricature orcs then sure, why not?), nor do I condone it in real life as you might be implying.

So your position is that the default should be something you don't support, and personally change. You can see how that might be confusing.

An NPC 8th level Fighter is indeed completely different from a player character 8th level Fighter. It has NPC WBL for one, but primarily the difference is that it is run by the DM. The fact that an NPC has a challenge rating does not mean EL calculations apply to PCs. But I'm repeating myself, and since you didn't read it the first time I don't know why I'm bothering.

Okay, so your objection is that you believe the "N" before "PC" is what makes it possible to talk about EL. Sure. So run the test with NPC Fighters (who, as noted, are identical to PC Fighters). If you want to get hung up on the wealth, you can give them PC wealth. It's higher than NPC wealth, so it's not going to make them look worse than they actually are.

You have missed the point again. There is no doubling or halving, because there is no operation to perform, because changing the number of PCs does not affect the party level. Which I already said.

This is not coherent, as it suggests that a party of level N of any size can face the same encounters, as changes in party size apparently do not effect party level, which is apparently the only relevant variable.

Hahahaha, ah. The man who demands I run his little test now tells me what the only possible result of this question could be, without testing. Or a citation. Failed again.

Do you not understand math? If two creatures fight, one wins and one loses. If you want to look at that sample and ask about the win rate of some category that includes both creatures (perhaps "creatures"), it will be 50%. Because there were two instances where a creature fought, and one where it won. One divided by two is one half, or 50%. Are you with me so far?

Now, the rules identify a category of creatures called "CR 10 Monsters". These are those monsters that have a CR of 10. If you have a bunch of CR 10 monsters fight, the average win rate for CR 10 monsters will be 50%. This can be proved quite simply by dividing up the fights into single fights between CR 10 creatures (which will always produce a 50% win rate for CR 10 creatures), then averaging the win rates. As the win rates are all 50%, the average will be 50%.

This does not mean each particular monster will bat 50%. Some may do better or worse. But it is a mathematically provable fact that the overall win rate for CR 10 monsters is 50%. Okay?

On its own, this doesn't get us anywhere. But the rules state that two CR 10 monsters are an equivalent challenge (admittedly, they do so implicitly). Therefore, if they are in fact equally challenging, they should have roughly equal win rates. There is only one possible universal win rate consistent with a 50% average win rate: 50%. Therefore, if CR 10 monsters are balanced as the DMG suggests, any individual one should bat 50%.

Is this the case? No, not really. Some things do worse (e.g. Fighters), some things do better (e.g. Wizards). But whether this is actually true is a positive claim (a claim about how the world is), while the SGT is making a normative claim (a claim about how the world ought to be) about how things would behave if the game was consistent with its guidelines.

I think we're done here.

I certainly hope so, as you seem to have decide that "putting the letter N in front of PC fundamentally changes the power of a character" is the hill you want to die on.

Klara Meison

2016-12-22, 03:04 PM

Oh I just meant me and Cosi, thread is eternal.

You are incorrect sir: Table 4-23 NPC Gear is given as part of the premade PC-classed NPC section, NPCs do not use PC WBL. Nothing says it is restricted to certain classed NPCs or modifies their CR, it is simply the only value. Since the rules treat NPC classes as equivalent in level to PC classes for all purposes except CR, an NPC-classed NPC of the same level has the same gear, but is rated at one CR lower, allowing you to get slightly more gear for the same CR but still nowhere near that of PC past 3rd level. PCs do not have CR, and there is no given CR modifier for increasing NPC gear, so an NPC with PC wealth is the same CR with a nebulous increase in difficulty that could be accounted for with an xp bonus, while one with standard NPC gear has CR=level*.

NPC Gear Adjustments: You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR.

For someone who flaunts their knowledge of the rules at every possible opportunity, you sure don't seem to know much about them, mm.

Has the issue of C/MD being a roleplaying problem been raised yet? The idea that BMX Bandit wouldn't want to go into battle and risk their own life for no reason when their friend the Angel Summoner can deal with their opponents with a single flick of the wrist just fine? Or the idea that BMX Bandit might be the one suggesting to the Angel Summoner to go into full mass-angel-army mode in character (because that's the sensible choice), while being utterly unhappy with this out of character (because they now have nothing of value to do)?

Zanos

2016-12-22, 03:06 PM

For someone who flaunts their knowledge of the rules at every possible opportunity, you sure don't seem to know much about them, mm.
I'm AFB, but I'm pretty sure the quote you posted is Pathfinder specific. I'll check my 3.5 books when I get home, but I don't think it's in there and I was originally remembering the PF rules when I brought it up in this thread.

Klara Meison

2016-12-22, 03:12 PM

I'm AFB, but I'm pretty sure the quote you posted is Pathfinder specific. I'll check my 3.5 books when I get home, but I don't think it's in there and I was originally remembering the PF rules when I brought it up in this thread.

Could be. Although, I seem to see a lot of people quoting Pathfinder in this thread. Did you specify this discussion was 3.5 only at some point?

Zanos

2016-12-22, 03:17 PM

Could be. Although, I seem to see a lot of people quoting Pathfinder in this thread. Did you specify this discussion was 3.5 only at some point?
There's a Pathfinder tag for Pathfinder threads and not a corresponding one for 3.5, so I think the intended forum default is that most discussions assume 3.5. That said it isn't exactly my discussion, and I don't have the authority to enforce what people are allowed to discuss. I suspect that you know this, and are simply mocking me.

In any case, accusing people of flaunting knowledge of the rules without knowing much about them when people people are correct in different contexts is pretty silly.

137beth

2016-12-22, 03:21 PM

I'm AFB, but I'm pretty sure the quote you posted is Pathfinder specific. I'll check my 3.5 books when I get home, but I don't think it's in there and I was originally remembering the PF rules when I brought it up in this thread.

A CTRL+F through the official PDF version of the DMG returns no results for "You can significantly increase or decrease". Same goes for the PHB, MM, and Rules Compendium. It could be a layout bug in WotC's PDFs that causes my computer to miss that string of text in the PDFs, but from a cursory glance it seems like Zanos is correct to me.

Psyren

2016-12-22, 03:26 PM

For someone who flaunts their knowledge of the rules at every possible opportunity, you sure don't seem to know much about them, mm.

Has the issue of C/MD being a roleplaying problem been raised yet? The idea that BMX Bandit wouldn't want to go into battle and risk their own life for no reason when their friend the Angel Summoner can deal with their opponents with a single flick of the wrist just fine? Or the idea that BMX Bandit might be the one suggesting to the Angel Summoner to go into full mass-angel-army mode in character (because that's the sensible choice), while being utterly unhappy with this out of character (because they now have nothing of value to do)?

The source of the disconnect is that real casters in this game aren't Angel Summoner1. His powers appear to be at-will, perfectly applicable to any obstacle, and have no possible countermeasure; of course it would be ridiculous to adventure alongside a godlike figure like that. Meanwhile in D&D/PF, even high-level casters have to spend their resources just keeping pace with equally high-level threats (many of whom have casting of their own), and CharOp mainstays like Contact Other Plane or Planar Binding are in reality fraught with risk.

1: Using TO they can get there, e.g. with things like chain-gating, but not in practical play.

There's a Pathfinder tag for Pathfinder threads and not a corresponding one for 3.5, so I think the intended forum default is that most discussions assume 3.5.

There is in fact a 3e tag for threads that want to exclude Pathfinder discussion; this one doesn't have it. Furthermore, the topic itself is not specific to one game or the other since this kind of disparity exists in both.

Zanos

2016-12-22, 03:32 PM

There is in fact a 3e tag for threads that want to exclude Pathfinder discussion; this one doesn't have it. Furthermore, the topic itself is not specific to one game or the other since this kind of disparity exists in both.
I always thought that the 3e tag was for 3.0 exclusive discussion. The tag doesn't see much use.

Klara Meison

2016-12-22, 03:37 PM

There's a Pathfinder tag for Pathfinder threads and not a corresponding one for 3.5, so I think the intended forum default is that most discussions assume 3.5. That said it isn't exactly my discussion, and I don't have the authority to enforce what people are allowed to discuss. I suspect that you know this, and are simply mocking me.

In any case, accusing people of flaunting knowledge of the rules without knowing much about them when people people are correct in different contexts is pretty silly.

>I suspect that you know this, and are simply mocking me.

I didn't, as a matter of fact, thanks for that information. A relative newcomer on these boards.

>accusing people...

I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am stating facts.

Don't try to argue CR against someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

You see, instead of mindlessly quoting and miss-applying math properties in order to advance my own agenda, I actually understand the rules.

Claiming knowledge of the rules that absolutely surpasses that of your opponents is quite arrogant on a subforum featuring three different rulesets.

Zanos

2016-12-22, 03:42 PM

Fair enough. I admit I largely skim some of the longer more incoherent posts in this topic.

Hurnn

2016-12-22, 04:57 PM

The disparity is not a problem at all tables, those tables are the ones people play as wizards intended you to, you only dungeon crawl, fighters punch things, clerics are heal bots, wizards throw fire balls and rogues do something I dunno. At all other tables the disparity runs between not oppressive to why are you bothering go play smash bros. As much as Pazio and the PF fan boys like to blow themselves with all the talk of PF "fixed 3.5" it's just not true. Did they improve fighters sure, but they are still terrible. It's like saying we made 0 better its now 1, great to bad everyone else is 4-10.

To fix fighter they should at the minimum get a few feats free at 1st level, Power attack or weapon finesse, and Combat expertise, or rapid shot and point blank shot in addition to your 1st level feat and fighter bonus feat. They should have at the minimum 6 skill points per level and 8 is honestly a better number. They should have more than 7 class skills, half of which should be combined anyway. If you want to go crazy give them maneuver progression I did and It makes them fairly competitive.

As to the question of why should classes be balance, because its a cooperative game, if you don't contribute whats the point. Frankly the designers were just terrible in some regards Monte Cook even talks about "Timmy feats", that's terrible design there shouldn't be trap choices but to make it worse they made "Timmy classes" that are traps too.

I love the 3.5 system but I openly admit it was executed poorly in many many places.

Psyren

2016-12-22, 05:03 PM

I always thought that the 3e tag was for 3.0 exclusive discussion. The tag doesn't see much use.

Filtering for it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?59-D-amp-D-3e-3-5e-d20&prefixid=3rd_Ed), I see plenty of 3.5 threads using it. So I'd say, if such a broad topic was meant to be just for 3.5, someone (particularly the OP) should say so. Since nobody did, we'll just go on discussing PF's approach to the "problem."

Zanos

2016-12-22, 05:13 PM

Filtering for it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?59-D-amp-D-3e-3-5e-d20&prefixid=3rd_Ed), I see plenty of 3.5 threads using it. So I'd say, if such a broad topic was meant to be just for 3.5, someone (particularly the OP) should say so. Since nobody did, we'll just go on discussing PF's approach to the "problem."

I never suggested that anyone shouldn't.

Pleh

2016-12-22, 05:41 PM

To be fair, I've been confused by the 3.x tagging system on the forum (especially since many people don't even use it and just notate the system in the op).

But I guess that makes it fair game to compare 3.5 solutions to PF for reference to each other.

It sounds like PF took some helpful measures.

What do you guys think if martial classes got feats like Blind-Fight, PF advanced weapon/armor training, and PF combat tricks as class features, then get access to martial maneuvers in top of that?

Psyren

2016-12-22, 05:47 PM

I never suggested that anyone shouldn't.

Great, we're on the same page!

It sounds like PF took some helpful measures.

What do you guys think if martial classes got feats like Blind-Fight, PF advanced weapon/armor training, and PF combat tricks as class features, then get access to martial maneuvers in top of that?

I'd want that stuff (the first three in particular) to be either specific to Fighters or more easily accessible by Fighters than anyone else. The other martials (Barbarians and Rangers in particular) get enough of their own toys.

javcs

2016-12-22, 06:11 PM

You've put the cart before the horse, and assumed that magical knowledge is necessary to contend with it. In many settings, understanding and using magic is difficult and unrewarding, and/or you can become stronger than normal humans via non-magical training.
While that's certainly true in many fictional settings, that is very much not the case in the context of the 3.x/Pathfinder ruleset. Magic is baked into all of the assumptions in the rules, even if the designers assumed casters would be poorly optimized.

I also disagree that everyone has some degree of computer literacy. Being able to repeat sentences of a language but not understanding the words does not make one literate, and repeating what they were shown without understanding it is how many people in business settings use computers these days.
Most people are limited to fairly minimal practical applications as a user. Most people can use a computer/tablet/ipad/whatever and/or their smartphone, although if something went wrong, they'd probably need help fixing it.

However, the point was, using electronic devices is largely a matter of convenience, and that's an extremely common skillset, albeit it to a limited extent, not a matter of life and death and personal survival as magic would be.

The source of the disconnect is that real casters in this game aren't Angel Summoner1. His powers appear to be at-will, perfectly applicable to any obstacle, and have no possible countermeasure; of course it would be ridiculous to adventure alongside a godlike figure like that. Meanwhile in D&D/PF, even high-level casters have to spend their resources just keeping pace with equally high-level threats (many of whom have casting of their own), and CharOp mainstays like Contact Other Plane or Planar Binding are in reality fraught with risk.

1: Using TO they can get there, e.g. with things like chain-gating, but not in practical play.

The thing is, even if you discard the Theory Optimization peaks of caster power, and limit it to Practical Optimization levels, a caster is wildly beyond anything a noncaster can do.

Oh, sure, the caster can't out-ubercharger an ubercharger build, but an ubercharger isn't particularly versatile, and the caster can still make said ubercharger entirely irrelevant in any situation where anything other than ubercharging is a practical solution.

Here's a thought experiment, invert the Wealth By Level for a level 20 and a level 10 character of the same class. Or a Level 5 and a Level 10. Or whatever. On a noncaster, I'm going to be hard pressed to decide which is preferable. On a caster, it's easy - the higher level one, even with the WBL of the lower level one.
Cross it up and compare the lower level caster with higher level WBL to the higher level noncaster with the lower level's WBL? That's a bit tougher, but I'm inclined to say that the lower level caster with higher level WBL is going to do better.