Curiosity: How much of the Tier 1 classes' power is due to metamagic?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having read many of the caster vs martial and tier-related threads here, I have to wonder--how much would it change the overall situation if either of the following were true:

1) Metamagic does not exist. All such feats and items are abolished.

OR

2) Metamagic is a PrC feature along with any caster level boosts (practiced spellcaster, etc). These PrCs would be at most 5/10 spellcasting advancement.

My guess (as a semi-informed layman, assuming non-TO scenarios): It would remove the DMM/nightstick cheese. At most, now-tier-1 classes would move down to the bottom of tier 1 or the top of tier 2. Wizards and clerics would be worst hit. Druids would be less affected due to wildshape and animal companions. If option 2 were taken, few if anyone would actually take those hypothetical classes. Players of wizards and high-op games would qq much.

Of course this does not bring up the poor martial classes at all. That's a separate matter.

Thoughts? I'm curious if I'm even close here.

[heavyfuel]

Metamagic does very little to their power.

A lv 7 Wizard can still cast Black tentacles, and a same level Cleric call a Planar Ally with a bunch of spell-like abilities way beyond its HD

These classes are really strong regardless of metamagic.

[ngilop]

to answer your query

1) would not affect anything

2) would not affect anything


The power of tier 1 and tier 2 classes is the spells themselves not any metamagic or metamagic reducers

being able to completely and utterly IGNORE whole parts of an adventure or bypass them in a standard action is what makes them tier 2 or tier 1 NOT getting feats

if something with spells never ever got feats of any sort. they can still completely break the game with hardly trying...if at all.

[Beheld]

Metamagic hardly matters at all.

The occasional Extend trick is nice, and there are a few different TO builds with metamagic. But 95% of the actual power that a Wizard or Druid or Cleric has has nothing to do with metamagic.

If you made metamagic require giving up any caster levels at all, no one would ever take that class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Metamagic hardly matters at all.

The occasional Extend trick is nice, and there are a few different TO builds with metamagic. But 95% of the actual power that a Wizard or Druid or Cleric has has nothing to do with metamagic.

If you made metamagic require giving up any caster levels at all, no one would ever take that class.


to answer your query

1) would not affect anything

2) would not affect anything


The power of tier 1 and tier 2 classes is the spells themselves not any metamagic or metamagic reducers

being able to completely and utterly IGNORE whole parts of an adventure or bypass them in a standard action is what makes them tier 2 or tier 1 NOT getting feats

if something with spells never ever got feats of any sort. they can still completely break the game with hardly trying...if at all.


Metamagic does very little to their power.

A lv 7 Wizard can still cast Black tentacles, and a same level Cleric call a Planar Ally with a bunch of spell-like abilities way beyond its HD

These classes are really strong regardless of metamagic.

Ah. I see. So the difference in power between a sorcerer (who can cast most of the same spells as a wizard) and that wizard is due to the inability to customize his set of spells for each situation?

If so, then the solution to pulling the T1 classes down to T2 will have to involve removing that versatility.

On that vein, what about this solution? I presume that the schools would have to be rebalanced for this to make any sense.

All classes that grant 9-th level spells must specialize in a school of magic.
1st - 3rd level spells act as normal: you can't cast a spell from your opposed school.
For 4-6th level spells, define two associated schools for each school. Your spells of these levels can only come from these 3 schools (specialization + 2 others).
For 7-9th level spells, you can only cast from your own specialization.


Thanks for the insight.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Correct. Metamagic helps in terms of raw power, to be sure-- removing or sharply limiting it certainly won't HURT game balance-- but the T1/T2 boundary is very much defined by strategic flexibility.

The schools are way too varied in terms of power to be a practical balance tool. Keeping Conjuration, Transmutation, and Divination maintains 95% of your power, and even "Conjuration only" or "Transmutation only" can blow other classes away.

The best way to limit casters is to create custom lists along the lines of the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage, AND limit/remove ways to expand them. That lets you dictate exactly what sort of power a character has, and allows you to include fun things at the same time as blocking abusive things. I think there's a link to my Fixed List Caster Project in my signature where I did just that

[Gildedragon]

You push people to Conjuration or Illusion
As is Evocation and Necromancy are often dropped, and from Enchantment There's precious few spells that are all that reliable.

[eldskald]

Ah. I see. So the difference in power between a sorcerer (who can cast most of the same spells as a wizard) and that wizard is due to the inability to customize his set of spells for each situation?

If so, then the solution to pulling the T1 classes down to T2 will have to involve removing that versatility.

On that vein, what about this solution? I presume that the schools would have to be rebalanced for this to make any sense.

All classes that grant 9-th level spells must specialize in a school of magic.
1st - 3rd level spells act as normal: you can't cast a spell from your opposed school.
For 4-6th level spells, define two associated schools for each school. Your spells of these levels can only come from these 3 schools (specialization + 2 others).
For 7-9th level spells, you can only cast from your own specialization.


Thanks for the insight.

There is also the fact that Charisma sucks while Intelligence and Wisdom don't. You could do that to prepared spellcasters only, leaving the spontaneous casters alone.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Correct. Metamagic helps in terms of raw power, to be sure-- removing or sharply limiting it certainly won't HURT game balance-- but the T1/T2 boundary is very much defined by strategic flexibility.

The schools are way too varied in terms of power to be a practical balance tool. Keeping Conjuration, Transmutation, and Divination maintains 95% of your power, and even "Conjuration only" or "Transmutation only" can blow other classes away.

The best way to limit casters is to create custom lists along the lines of the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage, AND limit/remove ways to expand them. That lets you dictate exactly what sort of power a character has, and allows you to include fun things at the same time as blocking abusive things. I think there's a link to my Fixed List Caster Project in my signature where I did just that


You push people to Conjuration or Illusion
As is Evocation and Necromancy are often dropped, and from Enchantment There's precious few spells that are all that reliable.

I see. I guess I'm coming around to your position @Grod. There are too many interactions to balance it any other way. Would it be possible to make a class that had access to a set of fixed lists? Kind of a metasorcerer (can switch lists once per level rather than at the individual spell level)? I'm trying to preserve as much flexibility as possible without the combinatorial explosion of interactions we have currently.


There is also the fact that Charisma sucks while Intelligence and Wisdom don't. You could do that to prepared spellcasters only, leaving the spontaneous casters alone.

INT is better than CHA because of skill points (mostly), right? I thought of another fix there--every class gets a class feature that grants them automatic max ranks in $N of $LIST skills; martials and skill monkeys get bigger $N and broader $LISTS. Skill points then don't scale by INT as much if at all.

This is an interesting game--I don't play 3.X so I have no personal investment in it. I'm just treating it as a theoretical meta-optimization game--optimizing the system. Thanks everyone for humoring me.

[Gildedragon]

Re: Fixed lists. They're incompatible with flexibility.
For something between the sorcerer and wizard in terms of flexibility there's the Sha'ir where time is the big squeeze.

One could sort of flip the Sha'ir around. Give "Fast" access to a handful of cleric or shaman or arcane domains, and then medium access "learned" spells, ie spells that one has seen and understood, ie spells the DM has approved by exposing the PCs to them, and drop the slow access tier completely.
The Sha'ir becomes then a mostly fixed list caster, that can still access a wider variety of spells... But only with more explicit DM permission

[Godskook]

1.Metamagic is not a problem. Metamagic *REDUCERS* are the problem. Almost universally, look at the builds that actually break metamagic, versus builds that just use it as a neat bonus. They're cheating metamagic onto stuff that the metamagic could not have been cast on normally. Hence, my great metamagic rule:

You must be able to cast a metamagic'ed spell without reducers before you're allowed to apply reducers to it.

So.....if you're a level 6 Wizard, you can only Maximize cantrips, can Empower up to 1st level spells, and Extend up to 2nd level spells. Reducers allow you to Empower/Maximize/Extend for -free-, but they don't let you cast things you'd not normally be able to cast.

2.Tier 1s aren't really affected by nerfs to metamagic overall. Certain builds are, but overall, the classes don't rely on metamagic enough for that to be a sufficient way of fixing them. Its the overall design of spells, notably at high level, compared to the overall design of martial classes. And the worst offenders are often spells that either don't require metamagic or can't utilize it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I see. I guess I'm coming around to your position @Grod. There are too many interactions to balance it any other way. Would it be possible to make a class that had access to a set of fixed lists? Kind of a metasorcerer (can switch lists once per level rather than at the individual spell level)? I'm trying to preserve as much flexibility as possible without the combinatorial explosion of interactions we have currently.
Depends on the lists. You can absolutely have non game-breaking classes that can switch up their options a lot day-to-day-- look at things like the Binder or Totemist. The trick is making sure that the options being switched around are less powerful than a focused specialist, if that makes sense. A Wizard or Cleric can be problematic because they're very strong at many thing; reducing either one of those terms should help balance considerably.



INT is better than CHA because of skill points (mostly), right? I thought of another fix there--every class gets a class feature that grants them automatic max ranks in $N of $LIST skills; martials and skill monkeys get bigger $N and broader $LISTS. Skill points then don't scale by INT as much if at all.
Int gives you skill points, and Wis adds to useful skills (Spot/Listen) and saves (Will). I don't know if I'd call Cha the weakest, though; leaving aside the (campaign-dependent) power of social skills themselves, Cha is by far the score with the most associated *stuff*. I'd probably say Int > Cha > Wis for spellcasters, simply because of how many things you can do with the stat with a bit of work. (And it's not like you won't already have a good Will save)

[Melcar]

Having read many of the caster vs martial and tier-related threads here, I have to wonder--how much would it change the overall situation if either of the following were true:

1) Metamagic does not exist. All such feats and items are abolished.

OR

2) Metamagic is a PrC feature along with any caster level boosts (practiced spellcaster, etc). These PrCs would be at most 5/10 spellcasting advancement.

My guess (as a semi-informed layman, assuming non-TO scenarios): It would remove the DMM/nightstick cheese. At most, now-tier-1 classes would move down to the bottom of tier 1 or the top of tier 2. Wizards and clerics would be worst hit. Druids would be less affected due to wildshape and animal companions. If option 2 were taken, few if anyone would actually take those hypothetical classes. Players of wizards and high-op games would qq much.

Of course this does not bring up the poor martial classes at all. That's a separate matter.

Thoughts? I'm curious if I'm even close here.

So I want to first say a few things and the ask a question.

Firstly, since I joined this forum I have read many a post about banning or leashing spell casters and they ability to deatroy the gameworld many times over. Its either the class or the spells or the feats... Again and again there is a need to stifle the tier 1's to make sure magical holocaust doesn't ensue. I have always found this utterly weird. Now I want to say that I only play D&Dwit close friends and never at some table, with people I don't care for, nor any gen-con-tables or anything like that. But I has surprised me and does to this day all the talk about stifling the tier 1 classes... The reason for this is, that I have yet to have encountered in my 19 years of playing D&D someone who would 1) destroy the setting and consequently destroy the fun for all to be had, and 2) wanted to become a invisible character.

I 100% respect what ever is done or whatever each gaming table options for when it comes to house-rules and what not, but I must admit, that I have never needed to ban anything. The only thing I have altered was homebrew material, which the designer was not skilled at.

Now to your post. I think it would make some of the optimization harder, but still not impossible. I don't remember all the power-builds out there, but I seem to remember some of them having persist spell. Most likely many a spell could be made permanent, considering the list of official spells possible and the lack of clearly defined theme for these... most spell could probably be made permanent, with the correct research. At least research and home-brew spells are a core concept of the game. Cant remember the page number, but its there. So it would be well within the rules to have much longer list of spells affected by the permanent spells. There are also epic options: Epic spells, and epic feats that does this. Therefore I think that meta-magic in general would not stop most abusive builds. They would however make it less fun to play a spell caster in my opinion. To me those classes are all about options. Taking away options are less fun for me.

Making them PrC abilities and thus not cost a feat would probably be a fine options if that class did not have obscene or random prerequisites (as many do). I don't like that they flat out only have 50% spell casting progression.

Now to my question: Have anyone actually played with someone who actively sought to destroy/destabilize or otherwise abuse to rules in such a way as to eliminate all fun to be had? I assume banning stuff is to ensure the wizard does not go infinity loop on you... Sometimes I get the feeling that a simple: "Don't abuse the rules" has been more than enough to both have shapechange, gate, zodars and supernatural spells present in my epic games without anyone turning into Pun Pun... If its to balance the classes and not to make optimization harder, I suggest giving the mundanes nice stuff. More and better feats or or PrC than increase damage, to hit or abilities like trip, SR, AC, Fast Healing and resistances, so to not make the sword and board fighter feel like a imba noob at every level. Create something unique with the player...


Well that was my 50 cent... bottle full of bub

[Florian]

@PhoenixPhyre:

Remember how the old "spheres" for divine spells worked in AD&D? Spheres came in three tiers: Full access, half access, limited access, setting the cap at 9th, 5th and 3rd (converted to d20).
(Spells were categorized into the "Sphere" they belong, not by classic arcane schools, so they are what Domain spells are what we have now).

If you want to bring T1 down to T2 without forcing them into a spells known/limited list territory, drop the Universalist and replace Specialists with "Colleges" based on the Spheres mechanic.

The "Grand Order of Magical Knowledge" has full: Divination, Evocation, half: Conjuration, Necromancy, limited: Rest. And so on.

[Sam K]

Bunch of totally awesome stuff!



Completely agree! Here is how I see it:

If a player is ruining everyone's fun by throwing rocks at the DM and the other players, would you say the main problem is:

1. Rocks are OP and need to be nerfed so it doesn't hurt when you get hit with them.
2. That guy is a jerk and needs to stop.

It's quite possible to play a T1 class in a T5 party, without over shadowing them. In fact, this seems to be the case in most games. You have blaster wizards and healing clerics in a lot of parties. The problem occurs when a player is using the strategic flexibility of T1 classes to break the game, intentionally or unintentionally.

If someone intentionally breaks your game, nerfing T1 classes won't fix that. Smart people can break the game with anything. You need to deal with that person.

If someone (or everyone) is unintentionally breaking the game using T1 magic, you need to talk about expectations. If the players like playing T1 classes to their full power, and the DM wants to do a traditional "kick the door down" dungeon crawl, they have different expectations. The solution to that is to talk about your expectations. Reasonable conversations can be far more powerful than many T1 tricks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

good stuff


more good stuff

I agree (from a practical point of view). I was taking the imbalance ideas as given for this post, but I've always wondered how much people really play those tricks. Blasters and healers I'm guessing outnumber Batman or God wizards considerably. I'm sure that even at reasonable levels of optimization it's messy at high levels, but most don't get there.

[ngilop]

Most of the abuse from the casters come from a very, very specific source.

The internet.

You see people in the internet just assume that everything is ago and nobody is going to stop them doing anything at all.


Then you get a forum that is dedicated to a specific topic.

So, now you have all these people that are like 'do this and this and this' there is no way a DM would ever allow a character to actually become PUN PUN at a real life table (well, there is Tippy)

Also, if most of you 'this is how game work' comes from this Forum you are going to be waay waay off kilter.

Just take a gander at the advice threads people post.
You have people literally saying 'we are allowed this book, this book, and that book, and I am thinking of taking the PrC from this book #2'

Then most GiTPers hop in and start demeaning said poster for not properly optimizing and that unless you are playing a caster you are worthless as a character.

You can be as specific as you want to be but they honestly will do that. then when called out on being non-helpful they are going to become very angry.

There are a few helpful people on this site for those of us who are non optimizers, But for the most part its the opposite.


in real life at real tables ( possibly even tippy's) I am sure they play with a gentleman's agreement (GA) in play. and by the G.A. I mean they just know not to be complete jerks and Donkey-Holes, and quickly corret said actions if they accidently do such.

of course here in the internet world. There is no such thing as a G.A. so everybody justa ssumes the worse and that everything is good to go.

[eldskald]

There is also the point that T1 classes overshadow other classes. I'm not talking about a player overshadowing the other players or breaking the world and ruining other people's fun, I'm talking about creating character concepts and finding that a class or combination of classes does everything you want to do in a better way than a more suited class for your concept would.

For example, I love the concept of the sorcerer. But if I play a sorcerer, I can't get the fact out of my head that everything I am doing a wizard can also do, like, everytime I end up doing something awesome, I will feel like another class can do exactly the same and thus I am not unique. And then there will be moments where I won't be able to do something good but if I were a wizard I would, like doing knowledge checks or, as you all know, casting the right spell for a certain situation. So why even play the sorcerer at all? Fluffwise I can always say that my magic comes from my blood and one of my ancestors was a dragon/demon/wtv and that I am studying to control my powers.

The same could be said about the paladin, like, do you really need those bad spells to be a hero? Just play a lawful good fighter, buy a horse and if you want to, you can worship some god. Or even better, play a cleric and get proficiencies in heavy armor and in some martial weapon if your race does not do it already. Fluffwise, it's all the same. Mechanically, you will be far more superior and there won't be a moment where you will feel like a paladin could do something you couldn't. Okay, maybe not fail this will save against a fear effect if you are a fighter...

[Psyren]

Lack of metamagic will certainly make casters weaker, but not enough to change their tiers.

There is no quick fix, you have to change the spells.

[Hackulator]

If you removed EVERY feat that buffs casting that might bring them more into line with other classes.

[Psyren]

If you removed EVERY feat that buffs casting that might bring them more into line with other classes.

Not really. A wizard who takes Toughness for every single feat is still T1.

[Gildedragon]

The big thing of T1s is that spells, each spell, is close to a full class feature.
Sure not as long lived in general, but it means that every day the wizard can, effectively, be a different class, one customized to the challenges ahead.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Lack of metamagic will certainly make casters weaker, but not enough to change their tiers.

There is no quick fix, you have to change the spells.

Question about this--is it
a) that there are <finite list> of spells that are inherently broken (as in "completely replaces party members without any non-trivial optimization") that could be axed or un-broken by changing wording
or is it
b) the interactions between spells that is the problem (as in, if you combine spell 1 and spell 2, now no one else contributes)
or is it
c) both a and b?

As I understand it the polymorph line of spells, pieces of the summoning lines (call planar ally, etc) and ???? are inherently broken. Hypothetical--if minionmancy (all summoning/calling spells) were off limits , how much would that change the overall power levels? It certainly(?) wouldn't be enough to bring them down to T2...

Other problems involve things like fly, teleport, knock, etc that replace or make irrelevant more mundane party members.

Edit:


The big thing of T1s is that spells, each spell, is close to a full class feature.
Sure not as long lived in general, but it means that every day the wizard can, effectively, be a different class, one customized to the challenges ahead.


Hypothetical--changing spell lists now takes a week of uninterrupted downtime. You can refresh slots on a long rest, but to change prepared spells takes time. Does this make it worse (more sitting around) or better (less on-the-spot optimization for circumstances)?

[Psyren]

If you tossed out all summoning, calling, shapeshifting, illusory imitations of previous, reanimations, and compulsions/charms/possessions, then yes - that would weaken casters.

I mean, it would also be extremely boring - you'd be turning casters into glorified archers - but I suppose it's an option.

My personal suggestion would be instead to design encounters that more directly exploit the weaknesses of those approaches. Throw in enemy casters that can dispel, or summon creatures of their own, or wrestle for mental control, or debuff/battlefield control the extra muscle your casters are bringing along etc. Have those techniques still matter (since they use up enemy caster actions that would otherwise be spent targeting the party) but not dictate the flow of combat completely in the PCs' favor.

[Zanos]

Int gives you skill points, and Wis adds to useful skills (Spot/Listen) and saves (Will). I don't know if I'd call Cha the weakest, though; leaving aside the (campaign-dependent) power of social skills themselves, Cha is by far the score with the most associated *stuff*. I'd probably say Int > Cha > Wis for spellcasters, simply because of how many things you can do with the stat with a bit of work. (And it's not like you won't already have a good Will save)
Cha is a weak main stat without investment, but you can find a way to add it to pretty much anything. Cha to Saves and AC are both pretty common, which probably takes it a fair bit above Int.


There is no quick fix, you have to change the spells.
This.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you tossed out all summoning, calling, shapeshifting, illusory imitations of previous, reanimations, and compulsions/charms/possessions, then yes - that would weaken casters.

I mean, it would also be extremely boring - you'd be turning casters into glorified archers - but I suppose it's an option.

My personal suggestion would be instead to design encounters that more directly exploit the weaknesses of those approaches. Throw in enemy casters that can dispel, or summon creatures of their own, or wrestle for mental control, or debuff/battlefield control the extra muscle your casters are bringing along etc. Have those techniques still matter (since they use up enemy caster actions that would otherwise be spent targeting the party) but not dictate the flow of combat completely in the PCs' favor.

But that just feeds the "it takes a wizard to counter a wizard" problem. It's an arms race that those who can't [summon/call/shapeshift/duplicate/reanimate/charm] can't participate in and lose by fiat.

I probably would limit the damage by making so each caster can only do a limited subset of the problematic things. Basically limiting the flexibility of casters. That is, someone who can summon can't also do X, etc. This is in addition to fixing the truly broken spells.

Maybe (and this is just an idea) set fixed lists of creatures that can be summoned/called/polymorphed into that doesn't have any of the really problematic ones. Might want to require some kind of recurring action cost to maintaining control of summoned (called, reanimated, etc) creatures. As a DM I'm not a fan of minionmancy due to the massively-increased play-time cost. One added creature is (mostly) fine, but two is bad and three is horrific. It also leads to unbalanced turns (and thus spotlight issues)--one player takes 30 minutes and the rest take 1.

[ryu]

But that just feeds the "it takes a wizard to counter a wizard" problem. It's an arms race that those who can't [summon/call/shapeshift/duplicate/reanimate/charm] can't participate in and lose by fiat.

I probably would limit the damage by making so each caster can only do a limited subset of the problematic things. Basically limiting the flexibility of casters. That is, someone who can summon can't also do X, etc. This is in addition to fixing the truly broken spells.

Maybe (and this is just an idea) set fixed lists of creatures that can be summoned/called/polymorphed into that doesn't have any of the really problematic ones. Might want to require some kind of recurring action cost to maintaining control of summoned (called, reanimated, etc) creatures. As a DM I'm not a fan of minionmancy due to the massively-increased play-time cost. One added creature is (mostly) fine, but two is bad and three is horrific. It also leads to unbalanced turns (and thus spotlight issues)--one player takes 30 minutes and the rest take 1.

Okay point of language here that's not victory by fiat. Fiat victory would involve a third party not under the direct control of either of the participants directly weakening or buffing one of the participants to decide the outcome. What you're actually describing is a situation where one side is just demonstrably inferior in resources and capabilities and will only ever win by fiat, in this case you nerfing the caster side.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Okay point of language here that's not victory by fiat. Fiat victory would involve a third party not under the direct control of either of the participants directly weakening or buffing one of the participants to decide the outcome. What you're actually describing is a situation where one side is just demonstrably inferior in resources and capabilities and will only ever win by fiat, in this case you nerfing the caster side.

I was responding to someone who proposed that the DM should counter "broken" spells by adding things that target the weaknesses of those spells. The proposals mostly included just ramping up the things--summoning more creatures to deal with the party's menagerie, dispelling the illusions, etc. None of those help the people who can't use the broken spells contribute. Since those are spell-vs-spell situations, you need other spells to counter those. Thus you get an arms race which the non-casters can't even participate in. And thus they lose, by DM fiat (the DM got into an arms race against half the party, said arms race doesn't even include the other half who just stand around and are useless).

The situation isn't Casters VS Non-Casters, it's (group of T1 PCs vs challenge) compared to (mixed tier group vs same challenge). If the challenge is tuned for the T1, the mixed tier group is in serious trouble. If the challenge is tuned for the mixed group, the T1 group rofl-stomps the challenge. The same applies within a group--groups would be substantially more powerful regardless of the circumstance by replacing (or even removing and not replacing) a lower-tier party member. The solution I was responding to would make this incentive even worse by tuning the challenges for the T1 members and ignoring the lower ones. There'd be less slack in the encounters and thus the deadweight would have to be pruned.

True, you could "fix" the problem by buffing the non-casters to T1 instead, but I'm focusing (in this thread) on bringing T1 casters down to T2. I don't accept that T1 (can do all the things expertly all the time) is a good thing for a game (outside of very specific circumstances that involve everyone playing T1). T2 can play well with T3, T1 can't play nice with anything but T1 (and maybe the very top of T2).

The only thing that can take on a T1 caster is another T1 caster. Thus, the idea is to cut T1 off and stop the curve at T2. Same goes (for PC classes anyway) for chopping off T5 (and most of T4) and bringing those up to T3.5/T3 at the worst.

Exact balance is a pipe dream, but at least you can make everyone relevant most of the time. You can't if you insist that the defining characteristic of a wizard is that he can do anything better than anyone else can (beating the specialists in their specialty). Presuming rough balance is a goal, T1 has to go.

[ngilop]

You premise on the above post is 100% wrong.

the tier 1 character ONLY makes the other lower tier classes moot IF the player in charge of said character intentionally is being a jerk about it.

CASE IN POINT: look up treantmonk's guide for wizards. It is all about how you can 'break the game' but not outshine any of your other party members



I have no idea why you feel that somehow banning, nerfing or what not certain classes when it is never the lcasses themselves' fault.

Its the player, if player A is going to break the game as class 1. But you ban class 1, he will still break the game as class 2.


What you need to do is stop it at the source and just tell your players to not be jerks, to work as a team and don't purposely do anything to render another player invalid.

Just tell them to be nice, not a bunch of French word for showers and then you will no thave to cut the game up 8 ways to sunday to 'make it work' when that will not really do anything at all to solve the issue.

[Telonius]

I don't think that metamagic does nothing, exactly. At the very least removing metamagics would prevent casters from breaking action economy with Quicken spells. It also removes some of the higher-op direct damage tricks, like from the Mailman (and other related builds). It also takes away several of their "No!" buttons, like still and silent spell. You'd still have to get to the caster, but being grappled or Silenced would be a more dangerous proposition.

[Psyren]

But that just feeds the "it takes a wizard to counter a wizard" problem. It's an arms race that those who can't [summon/call/shapeshift/duplicate/reanimate/charm] can't participate in and lose by fiat.

Not really. Summons and minions can be beat up, charms can be resisted. In Patfhinder, if a shapeshifter neglects their physical stats they'll get pummeled. These aren't the spells you need to worry about, rather you need to be concerned with things like Forcecage and Solid Fog (which, incidentally, PF nerfed as well.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will admit, this is entirely theoretical on my part, an attempt to understand the rules both as written and as designed and experiment with changes. I'll probably never run a 3.X game or even play in one. I'm looking at it as a game design challenge--what minimal set of changes would be required to reach a certain goal.


You premise on the above post is 100% wrong.

the tier 1 character ONLY makes the other lower tier classes moot IF the player in charge of said character intentionally is being a jerk about it.

CASE IN POINT: look up treantmonk's guide for wizards. It is all about how you can 'break the game' but not outshine any of your other party members

<SNIP>

What you need to do is stop it at the source and just tell your players to not be jerks, to work as a team and don't purposely do anything to render another player invalid.

Just tell them to be nice, not a bunch of French word for showers and then you will no thave to cut the game up 8 ways to sunday to 'make it work' when that will not really do anything at all to solve the issue.

So a T1 caster can play nice by emulating a lower-tier character. That feels somewhat condescending to me , personally. The caster is graciously allowing the lower life forms to solve problems, in much the same way a parent lets a little kid "help" wash the dishes. He could do it all himself, better, faster, and everyone knows it. That's gonna go over well.

It also doesn't take a jerk to break things--playing a druid in the obvious ways still obviates the need for a fighter. That is, a druid (even near the optimization floor) is still better at the fighter's specialty than the fighter (unless the fighter is highly optimized and thus narrowly specialized) and also has a multitude of other things he does well that the fighter can't even attempt. He gets a pet fighter as a class feature for goodness sake! It's not purposeful, but it still makes the fighter useless. It's inherent in playing the class unless you anti-optimize or handicap yourself.

I prefer to bring the tiers closer together so that the classes are all mixed together at the middle of the power curve. That makes power differences a matter of player skill and desire rather than picking a strong class at game start. Equality isn't important (and is an illusion anyway), but rough parity where everyone has strengths and weaknesses makes the game more organically playable without constantly being worried you're going to break things. Part of that is squishing T1 into T2 and T4/5 into T3. Bring the floor up and the ceiling down and you won't have as many problems.

As a matter of design intent, I don't believe that the WoTC designers had in mind that casters should rule. Fixes to bring the game in line with design intent aren't hacks, they're patches. Optional ones at that.

[Nifft]

I don't think that metamagic does nothing, exactly. At the very least removing metamagics would prevent casters from breaking action economy with Quicken spells. It also removes some of the higher-op direct damage tricks, like from the Mailman (and other related builds). It also takes away several of their "No!" buttons, like still and silent spell. You'd still have to get to the caster, but being grappled or Silenced would be a more dangerous proposition.

There are other ways to break the action economy, though.

Arcane Spellsurge (spell) is one of them. Sorcerers often combo a 0-level metamagic feat to cast arbitrary spells as their standard action, but any spell with a longer-than-standard casting time can fill that gap: the Summon Monster line, for example.

Enhance Wild Shape (spell) + Aberration Wild Shape (feat) + Choker (monster) => extra standard action each turn.

Casters retain all their best tricks, they just have a couple fewer ways to execute those tricks.

[Karl Aegis]

Tier 1 classes will walk up to you and punch you to death. There is really nothing you can do about it.
Tier 2 classes will walk up to you and punch you to death. There is really nothing you can do about it.

Most players won't play their Tier 1 and Tier 2 characters to full potential. In reality, most of them will sit around Tier 3. Believing that metamagic has anything to do at all with Tier 1 power makes me wonder if you truly know what it is to be a Tier 1 character.

[Gildedragon]

I will admit, this is entirely theoretical on my part, an attempt to understand the rules both as written and as designed and experiment with changes. I'll probably never run a 3.X game or even play in one. I'm looking at it as a game design challenge--what minimal set of changes would be required to reach a certain goal.



So a T1 caster can play nice by emulating a lower-tier character. That feels somewhat condescending to me , personally. The caster is graciously allowing the lower life forms to solve problems, in much the same way a parent lets a little kid "help" wash the dishes. He could do it all himself, better, faster, and everyone knows it. That's gonna go over well.
Not so much that as "building around the party's weaknesses and strengths"
Party has a rogue: don't bother prepping knock; instead prep a summon that will make flanking easier.
Instead of prepping Magic Missile, Magic Weapon the archer's bow... Etc
Spell slots are limited. A T1 can obviate the party OR make it more effective



It also doesn't take a jerk to break things--playing a druid in the obvious ways still obviates the need for a fighter. That is, a druid (even near the optimization floor) is still better at the fighter's specialty than the fighter (unless the fighter is highly optimized and thus narrowly specialized) and also has a multitude of other things he does well that the fighter can't even attempt. He gets a pet fighter as a class feature for goodness sake! It's not purposeful, but it still makes the fighter useless. It's inherent in playing the class unless you anti-optimize or handicap yourself.

I prefer to bring the tiers closer together so that the classes are all mixed together at the middle of the power curve. That makes power differences a matter of player skill and desire rather than picking a strong class at game start. Equality isn't important (and is an illusion anyway), but rough parity where everyone has strengths and weaknesses makes the game more organically playable without constantly being worried you're going to break things. Part of that is squishing T1 into T2 and T4/5 into T3. Bring the floor up and the ceiling down and you won't have as many problems.

As a matter of design intent, I don't believe that the WoTC designers had in mind that casters should rule. Fixes to bring the game in line with design intent aren't hacks, they're patches. Optional ones at that.

Thing is... There's not many of those "squash the roles together tierwise" options. Caster dominance got baked into the system when mundanes were kept in the realm of "plausible" (see the reaction against ToB)
long combat feat chains kinda made the problem worse.

One could, plausibly, lower T1s by establishing chains for the spells to be learned in.

[Psyren]

Not so much that as "building around the party's weaknesses and strengths"
Party has a rogue: don't bother prepping knock; instead prep a summon that will make flanking easier.
Instead of prepping Magic Missile, Magic Weapon the archer's bow... Etc
Spell slots are limited. A T1 can obviate the party OR make it more effective


This. Quite franky, the wizard players who have so many spell slots left over that they can do the whole party's job are the ones whose GMs are simply not trying hard enough to challenge them.

[Gildedragon]

This. Quite franky, the wizard players who have so many spell slots left over that they can do the whole party's job are the ones whose GMs are simply not trying hard enough to challenge them.

That or the super paranoid ones who have had so many restrictions slapped onto the wizard (say... each spell cast inflicts upon the caster <spell level> points of damage that can't be healed with magic; or they can only use any spell once or twice per week) that it makes them not use their spells at all (to the detriment of the party)

[Sam K]

I will admit, this is entirely theoretical on my part, an attempt to understand the rules both as written and as designed and experiment with changes. I'll probably never run a 3.X game or even play in one. I'm looking at it as a game design challenge--what minimal set of changes would be required to reach a certain goal.

As a matter of design intent, I don't believe that the WoTC designers had in mind that casters should rule. Fixes to bring the game in line with design intent aren't hacks, they're patches. Optional ones at that.

Ban T1+T2. Ban T5 and lower.

Casters are now fixed-list casters (warmages, dread necros, healers, beguilers, bards), mundanes are martial adepts and factotums. And you have some hybrids like souped-up rangers, A-game paladins, Bardblades and Sword sages. Nerf spells as needed. Minimum effort! :)

Still, I'm not sure you should. No doubt, WotC screwed up balance horribly with caster balance. But their screw up actually resulted in something pretty cool: a system where you can play Demons&Demigods and have your characters turn into indestructible planets fighting other planets (by RAW), AND where you can play Destitutes&Drudgery and have your character goal be to weave enough baskets to afford a real weapon to fight the goblins that are raiding his hovel (by RAW), and BOTH PLAY STYLES ARE ACTUALLY FUN. I'm convinced this is one of the reasons why 3.5 remains a fairly popular game even after all these years.

[Melcar]

So, now you have all these people that are like 'do this and this and this' there is no way a DM would ever allow a character to actually become PUN PUN at a real life table (well, there is Tippy)

And as I always tell my players: "you can be sure, that if you thought it up, some extremely old, powerful wise spell-caster has thought of it too!" Essentially I'm just saying, the more you go down this road leading to Pun Pun, the more I will optimize the enemies eventually keeping the difficult level the same... you might as well just play what you think is cool and fun and not necessarily the most powerful Tippy build around.

NB: Don't get me wrong, I totally respect what ever optimization or level you want to play at, and I'm in awe at some of the things Tippy comes op with... I usually cant even understand the builds let alone play them... But from my point of view a simple conversation is much better than saying to some level 17 wizard: "ohh btw, Gate and Shapechange are banned because I simply don't trust you not ruining the game with Chain-gating Solars or Free Zodar wishes." Incidentally, I wonder how many Solars are currently present in Tippyverse....

EDIT: Oh damn... I mentioned his name three times.... no I gone and done it! :smallbiggrin:

[Sam K]

I think it's quite ironic that so many people will refer to Tippy and the Points of Light setting (aka the Tippyverse) when discussing the "problem" with T1s, because to me that setting is a great example of T1 magic played to it's full power and NOT breaking the game. From what I understand, the players and DM had a gentlemans agreement to play a campaign where magic RAW was taken to its logical extent. It seems everyone had fun and the setting was so memorable that it has taken on a life of its own on the forums. How is that not a success?

It would be a problem if one person in a group played like that, while everyone else was playing lvl 1 commoners (without dragon mag), just like it would be a problem if one person insisted on playing a lvl 1 commoner in a Pun-PunVerse game.

[ngilop]

I think it's quite ironic that so many people will refer to Tippy and the Points of Light setting (aka the Tippyverse) when discussing the "problem" with T1s, because to me that setting is a great example of T1 magic played to it's full power and NOT breaking the game. From what I understand, the players and DM had a gentlemans agreement to play a campaign where magic RAW was taken to its logical extent. It seems everyone had fun and the setting was so memorable that it has taken on a life of its own on the forums. How is that not a success?

It would be a problem if one person in a group played like that, while everyone else was playing lvl 1 commoners (without dragon mag), just like it would be a problem if one person insisted on playing a lvl 1 commoner in a Pun-PunVerse game.


I feel that people refer to Tippy when discussing 'issues' with the higher tiers is because that overwhelming vast majority of people who play D&D do not play anywhere near those levels. At least in my almost 30 years of playing I have never seen NOR even heard of a wizard at 7th level capable of one-shotting a great wyrm red dragon with a fireball.

That is a standard at tippy's table. And if you brought what is standard at Tippy's table to the rest of the world there would be huge issues.

Just like you mentioned, EVERYONE at tippy's table was playing at that level and that is great and wonderful. But even though you refuse to accept it, most tables do not play at that level.

AGAIN, the vast majority of actual face to face are at best mid-optimizers, while a number of groups still play the heal-bot, damage sponge, trap monkey, blaster roles.

The only time the issue of higher tiers coming into play is when somebody DOES try tippy stuff at a non tippy table.

[Amphetryon]

Part of the issue is the difference between the abstract and the specific. In the abstract, a T1 Caster has access to all the possible solutions to every problem, and a T25 Caster has access a set number of solutions to every problem. Most of the time, a specific Character doesn't have that same level of access. The gameplay experience puts time restraints on some solutions, and logistical restraints on other solutions. Individual Character design puts yet more restraints on what solutions are available to a particular Character and Adventuring Party.

This means the DM's best solution to the 'High Tier Problem Player' is often finding out what your Players have in mind, and clearly communicating expectations of acceptable power level for your game. This communication should be on-going, as the game progresses and new abilities come online.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just like you mentioned, EVERYONE at tippy's table was playing at that level and that is great and wonderful. But even though you refuse to accept it, most tables do not play at that level.

AGAIN, the vast majority of actual face to face are at best mid-optimizers, while a number of groups still play the heal-bot, damage sponge, trap monkey, blaster roles.

The only time the issue of higher tiers coming into play is when somebody DOES try tippy stuff at a non tippy table.

That's good to hear. I guess this is really a matter for a separate thread, but is there an observed (ie not theoretical, but really in practice) strong difference between the classes (or really of characters of those classes) at most tables?

I'll admit that my interest in this topic is mainly to learn how the system works by poking it with a stick and seeing what happens. I freely concede that at most tables a gentleman's agreement is probably all that is needed.

[ryu]

That's good to hear. I guess this is really a matter for a separate thread, but is there an observed (ie not theoretical, but really in practice) strong difference between the classes (or really of characters of those classes) at most tables?

I'll admit that my interest in this topic is mainly to learn how the system works by poking it with a stick and seeing what happens. I freely concede that at most tables a gentleman's agreement is probably all that is needed.

At most tables eventually casters simply will overshadow non-casters for the simple fact that their class gets much more powerful progression than a mundane would as they level, and even a caster who has absolutely no idea what he's doing only needs to get lucky picking spells at random once to be significantly stronger than any mundane.

[ngilop]

That's good to hear. I guess this is really a matter for a separate thread, but is there an observed (ie not theoretical, but really in practice) strong difference between the classes (or really of characters of those classes) at most tables?

I'll admit that my interest in this topic is mainly to learn how the system works by poking it with a stick and seeing what happens. I freely concede that at most tables a gentleman's agreement is probably all that is needed.

In theory this all happens in a vacuum and there is no body present to weigh in on nay other rules interpretation other than one's own.

That how one can make PUN PUN and all these other 'game breaking' characters which most (if not all) have the 'this will never fly in a normal table' disclaimer.

Of course there do exists table's like tippy's where such is how you have to play or else you will never be able to do anything.

Most tables generally have an unspoken rule about not being a prick, which I define prick as intentionally building a character to completely obviate another player. Of course things do happen, like fidning out that the druids wolf companion is better for than your fighter because AC is worthless, all you can do is roll a d20 then some damage dice, and the wolf gets free buffs everytime the druid buffs himself.

But for the majority of player's who play this game. they play to have fun and just have a good time with friends, NOT saying that optimizing is not fun, I mean just to play a game and get away from their humdrum and stressful lives. So deliberately thinking up combos to ruin a story arch or an entire adventure is NOT something they want to do, but as humans we are fallible so sometimes things come up.

And you can RUIN a campaign and be a damn paladin. I did, there was a super ancient (literally4K+years) blind dragon that due to story reasons was half senile and almost physically unable to do much. I found a pool of water that a drink acted as a HEAL spell, and VIA RPing got the dragon to drink. and cure himself of any and all ailments so now there is this SUPER MEGA powerful dragon that is totally good and of course he proceeded to wreck havoc on the evil big bads in the setting. I took what was supposed to be a 2 or 3 year campaign and ended in after 5th level.

SO like I previously stated, its not the tier of the class, though that makes it easier, its the player and it is not always a deliberate action.

[Godskook]

I think it's quite ironic that so many people will refer to Tippy and the Points of Light setting (aka the Tippyverse) when discussing the "problem" with T1s, because to me that setting is a great example of T1 magic played to it's full power and NOT breaking the game.

1.Tier-based breakage occurs in the Tippyverse, just like everywhere else. There's nothing special about the setting that makes Monks suddenly good.

2."Break the game" partially comes down to what -way- the game is broken. There's lots of calibrating assumptions in 3.5 that are broken assunder by the PoL setting. Prices being among them, hence the requirement of the system to homebrew a new form of meaningful currency that'd actually be relevant inside that setting. Genre is another thing that breaks, going from the fairly normal slight-more-magical-than-Game-of-Thrones genre that D&D is set in to the heights of Final Fantasy 7's pre-apocalyptic era.

[Quertus]

I somehow lost my original post...

Removing Persist is a literal Fighter/Rogue debuff. Don't do that.

In a real game, fixing balance is a fool's errand. As others have said, the correct answer is to address the players. As an academic exercise, however, it's quite the interesting challenge.

However, keep in mind that balance =/= fun. As I've said before, some of my most fun gaming experiences, including running Armus, could never have happened unless balance had been thrown out the window, under the bus, and into the trash. As such, I'm inclined to oppose enforced balance.

Further, the Wizard being able to do (almost) anything is a feature, not a bug. When you don't have your classic party configuration, it is great to have someone who can fill in the gaps. Well, probably. It's also fun to struggle with an inefficient setup. So Tier 1 if you enjoy balance and party success; lower tier if you want the challenge of hacking substitutes for requires roles.

But the key is making sure the Wizard can do anything, but not everything (by himself). Limited resources and action economy go a long way towards ensuring this. 4 Wizards can do most anything, sure. The bug is that there doesn't exist a Tier 1 Fighter that can say the same thing.

[Melcar]

I think it's quite ironic that so many people will refer to Tippy and the Points of Light setting (aka the Tippyverse) when discussing the "problem" with T1s, because to me that setting is a great example of T1 magic played to it's full power and NOT breaking the game. From what I understand, the players and DM had a gentlemans agreement to play a campaign where magic RAW was taken to its logical extent. It seems everyone had fun and the setting was so memorable that it has taken on a life of its own on the forums. How is that not a success?

It would be a problem if one person in a group played like that, while everyone else was playing lvl 1 commoners (without dragon mag), just like it would be a problem if one person insisted on playing a lvl 1 commoner in a Pun-PunVerse game.

I think its super cool what he and his friends does. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing what Tippy does. Again gentlemen agreement. The same goes at our table... its just a different agreement.



AGAIN, the vast majority of actual face to face are at best mid-optimizers, while a number of groups still play the heal-bot, damage sponge, trap monkey, blaster roles.

That can be so much fun. One of my favorite characters is my level 8 healbot! We play those roles often!

[ngilop]

That can be so much fun. One of my favorite characters is my level 8 healbot! We play those roles often!


Indeed, and I agree, it what the entirety of the CR is built on and since a decent chunk of D&D players do not play those roles exactly. that's why the CR system seems borked (which it is to be honest)


Case in point 4 Ogres is a CR 7 encounter. And against a 7 level party that is The fighter taking all the damage the rogue spending a couple of rounds getting into flank position, the cleric healing the fighter and rogue and the wizard casting magic missile and It plays like a CR 7 encounter the fighter ends up losing about 3/4 of his HP, the cleric and wizard a third of their spells.

But if the wizard instead cast Glitterdust and blinded the ogres. so the fighter and rogue and cleric just beat them up for 7 rounds. more than enough time to have a flawless victory. totally not a CR 7 encounter.

[Quertus]

Indeed, and I agree, it what the entirety of the CR is built on and since a decent chunk of D&D players do not play those roles exactly. that's why the CR system seems borked (which it is to be honest)


Case in point 4 Ogres is a CR 7 encounter. And against a 7 level party that is The fighter taking all the damage the rogue spending a couple of rounds getting into flank position, the cleric healing the fighter and rogue and the wizard casting magic missile and It plays like a CR 7 encounter the fighter ends up losing about 3/4 of his HP, the cleric and wizard a third of their spells.

But if the wizard instead cast Glitterdust and blinded the ogres. so the fighter and rogue and cleric just beat them up for 7 rounds. more than enough time to have a flawless victory. totally not a CR 7 encounter.

If the Dark Whisper Gnome rogue decides to solo the encounter, or the Pegasus-mounted Archer fighter decides to solo the encounter, it's one-sidedly easy, too.

But it's still CR EL 7.

Just because the players are smart, and hit things where they're weak, doesn't mean the encounter isn't inherently dangerous.

[King of Nowhere]

That's good to hear. I guess this is really a matter for a separate thread, but is there an observed (ie not theoretical, but really in practice) strong difference between the classes (or really of characters of those classes) at most tables?

I'll admit that my interest in this topic is mainly to learn how the system works by poking it with a stick and seeing what happens. I freely concede that at most tables a gentleman's agreement is probably all that is needed.

gentleman agreement is already a level above what happens at most tables, which is simply the players not being good enough at optimization. Oh, and there's also the matter that tier 1 are only godlike at high levels. I'm sure some super optimizer here will be able to get something good out of a level 1 wizard, but generally speaking, at low levels a fighter trounces a wizard big time.

I was trying to balance my campaign, and so I introduced a few houserules, the main of which is that there is no defensive casting. But I didn't consider a few points: 1) all the players were pretty noob, except the barbarian (ok, he started pretty noob, but he's the only ne trying to learn); 2) they were low levels. As a result, the barbarian would probably be able to kill the whole rest of the party by himself. Now that they're level 10 it's not as bad, but still he's by far the most powerful member, and I must design every encounter with him in mind.
The cleric was playing healbot, and I wanted to give him the chance to do more with his spells, so I had him find the "cleric in a bottle", the spirit of a long-dead low level cleric who refused the afterlife because he wanted to heal more people. basically it's another party member who does nothing but healing, you call him, he manifests and heals you. Guess what? Now the party cleric heals twice per round.
And the druid was fairly useless, so I gifted him an item that granted him two spells of a spell level above his maximum one. Now the druid is learning to play, and those two spells are becoming more and more of an issue. We still haven't figured out what to do with his animal companion, though, except using it as comedy relief.

In the end, though, I stopped trying to balance the party, and I instead tried to balance the encounters to make sure everyone has something to contribute. For example, I made this construct-like monster that was supposed to be a big long fight, I made sure it was vulnerable to the wizard's most liked spells just enough to make the wizard useful but not too much so that she could kill it herself, I gave it just enough damage capability that the cleric would be hard-pressed to keep up, and I gave it a attack with a net that would entangle the barbarian at every round so that the rogue, whose sneak attacks were useless, would cut the net at every round and allow the barbarian to deal full damage. It was a good fight because everybody could meaningfully contribute.

It's unfortunate that most people in this forum will answer any inquiry with "wizards do everything, if you're not playing a wizard you'll never amount to anything good", even when one specifies that one's party is made of casual players. what players are sitting at your table is the most important thing to consider. For example, in my table the wizard and cleric's players are mother and father of the barbarian's player, and so they are perfectly happy with supporting him while he takes the spotlight.

[Quertus]

gentleman agreement is already a level above what happens at most tables, which is simply the players not being good enough at optimization. Oh, and there's also the matter that tier 1 are only godlike at high levels. I'm sure some super optimizer here will be able to get something good out of a level 1 wizard, but generally speaking, at low levels a fighter trounces a wizard big time.

I was trying to balance my campaign, and so I introduced a few houserules, the main of which is that there is no defensive casting. But I didn't consider a few points: 1) all the players were pretty noob, except the barbarian (ok, he started pretty noob, but he's the only ne trying to learn); 2) they were low levels. As a result, the barbarian would probably be able to kill the whole rest of the party by himself. Now that they're level 10 it's not as bad, but still he's by far the most powerful member, and I must design every encounter with him in mind.
The cleric was playing healbot, and I wanted to give him the chance to do more with his spells, so I had him find the "cleric in a bottle", the spirit of a long-dead low level cleric who refused the afterlife because he wanted to heal more people. basically it's another party member who does nothing but healing, you call him, he manifests and heals you. Guess what? Now the party cleric heals twice per round.
And the druid was fairly useless, so I gifted him an item that granted him two spells of a spell level above his maximum one. Now the druid is learning to play, and those two spells are becoming more and more of an issue. We still haven't figured out what to do with his animal companion, though, except using it as comedy relief.

In the end, though, I stopped trying to balance the party, and I instead tried to balance the encounters to make sure everyone has something to contribute. For example, I made this construct-like monster that was supposed to be a big long fight, I made sure it was vulnerable to the wizard's most liked spells just enough to make the wizard useful but not too much so that she could kill it herself, I gave it just enough damage capability that the cleric would be hard-pressed to keep up, and I gave it a attack with a net that would entangle the barbarian at every round so that the rogue, whose sneak attacks were useless, would cut the net at every round and allow the barbarian to deal full damage. It was a good fight because everybody could meaningfully contribute.

It's unfortunate that most people in this forum will answer any inquiry with "wizards do everything, if you're not playing a wizard you'll never amount to anything good", even when one specifies that one's party is made of casual players. what players are sitting at your table is the most important thing to consider. For example, in my table the wizard and cleric's players are mother and father of the barbarian's player, and so they are perfectly happy with supporting him while he takes the spotlight.

So, in trying to balance things, you made the balance worse than if you'd have just left things alone? That... pretty much matches my experience when GMs try to "fix" balance, actually.

Under these rules? Hmmm... I'd probably play a Wizard with +20+ to initiative, so I could cast while all the opposition is hopefully still flat footed. And probably usually rely on Reserve Spell (that doesn't provoke AoO, right?) for round 2+.

[Zanos]

It's unfortunate that most people in this forum will answer any inquiry with "wizards do everything, if you're not playing a wizard you'll never amount to anything good",
Nobody ever says this.

[Nifft]

Nobody ever says this.

Drow parents might.


"Why did you get a B in demonology? Are you a Beastlands mage? No! You are an Abyssal mage! You should get all As!"

[King of Nowhere]

Nobody ever says this.

I used to ask questions here on how fighter types could remain useful against wizards. I stopped because I seldom to never got any useful answer. Everybody was talking about 20th batman wizards trouncing everyone else all the time, and I was utterly unsuccesfull at steering the topic towards normal tables. In the end that left me with the feeling that no amount of helping the poor non-casters would be too much, which, combined with the barbarian's player high charisma and skill at sweet talking his DM, left me in a position where I had to bend over myself to have the tier 1 classes being relevant. So I stopped using this forum for advice. Sad story, but true. This is a great forum for a lot of stuff, but "useful advice for casual player" is not among them, at least in my experience.

[ngilop]

Nobody ever says this.

Actually the majority on this forum says exactly that. Just take a gander at what any 'help/advice/what do?" threads and you will find a nice chunk of 'play a wizard' or 'you are stupid' and a bunch of other less nice things, or have people say Very nasty things to you in a PM for not optimizing.

[Florian]

Nobody ever says this.

That´s a good one!

[Beheld]

I think the problem is that people see statements about how Wizards are good, or how they operate, with "if you're not playing a wizard you'll never amount to anything good."

[Zanos]

That´s a good one!
If you can actually find people consistently saying that you should play a wizard or leave, I'd like to see that.

[Godskook]

I used to ask questions here on how fighter types could remain useful against wizards. I stopped because I seldom to never got any useful answer. Everybody was talking about 20th batman wizards trouncing everyone else all the time, and I was utterly unsuccesfull at steering the topic towards normal tables. In the end that left me with the feeling that no amount of helping the poor non-casters would be too much, which, combined with the barbarian's player high charisma and skill at sweet talking his DM, left me in a position where I had to bend over myself to have the tier 1 classes being relevant. So I stopped using this forum for advice. Sad story, but true. This is a great forum for a lot of stuff, but "useful advice for casual player" is not among them, at least in my experience.

Citation*s*?

The most recent practical fighter optimization thread I can find:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?527616-Need-some-help-for-a-new-character&highlight=wizard+fighter

contains just straight useful advice without the this-thread-accused phrase "wizards do everything, if you're not playing a wizard you'll never amount to anything good"

[King of Nowhere]

Citation*s*?

The most recent practical fighter optimization thread I can find:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?527616-Need-some-help-for-a-new-character&highlight=wizard+fighter

contains just straight useful advice without the this-thread-accused phrase "wizards do everything, if you're not playing a wizard you'll never amount to anything good"

I wanted to go link to a few of my old posts, but activity in my profile is only tracked as far as one month ago, so no luck.

Anyway, the thread you mentioned didn't ask about wizards verus fighters. it was just a request for optimization of a specific build, and for that this forum can give really good advice (by the way, the OP of that thread claimed he was very new, but he appears to know more than me already; i played many years, but never with players that could even remotely be considered pros).
So yeah, you'll get plenty of good fighter optimization, but very little if you ask how a fighter can compete with a tier 1 class.

[Godskook]

I wanted to go link to a few of my old posts, but activity in my profile is only tracked as far as one month ago, so no luck.

Fine, *I* have checked your threads going back to 2008, and your posts going back to 2014 and don't see a thread that fits your description.

You can find these by clicking the "find latest threads" and "find latest posts" links on your profile's front page. 3rd and 4th links down.

[King of Nowhere]

They were six months to one year old, actually, which is why you didn't found them.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?512806-Can-a-fighter-take-off-a-mage-in-a-perfect-fight

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?513152-Introducing-interesting-limitations-to-primary-casters-(houseruling)

several answers here are definitely less than helpful.
I'm sure there must be something more, because I got the idea that wizards are horribky overpowered and I had to do some houseruling to make it at least somewhat of a challenge several years ago, still from reading this forum, but maybe i just lurked the relevant topics.

[ColorBlindNinja]

This is a recent thread that I participated in on the topic of Fighter VS Wizard. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?527478-Most-Optimized-Wizard-a-Fighter-Can-Beat) The idea was to see what's the highest Op Wizard a Fighter can beat.

Edit: More on topic, I agree that taking away Metamagic won't balance the 1st Tier classes. They can still break the game in half, it's just a little harder without Metamagic.

[Mordaedil]

Any wizard played by a DM will operate closer to how Xykon in the comic plays like, while doing PvP and fighting another player wizard is sort of a lost cause, because the wizard is all about being the thing that boosts you to be super-effective instead of an effective mook, and they pack spells to seal away effective mooks until the party is ready to deal with them. That, along with making clerics fun to play was kind of one of the design cores behind 3rd edition.

[Psyren]

That's good to hear. I guess this is really a matter for a separate thread, but is there an observed (ie not theoretical, but really in practice) strong difference between the classes (or really of characters of those classes) at most tables?

I'll admit that my interest in this topic is mainly to learn how the system works by poking it with a stick and seeing what happens. I freely concede that at most tables a gentleman's agreement is probably all that is needed.

It's not just the minimum of what is needed, it's what works best. If a T1 caster is trying to break your game, taking away his metamagic will not be nearly enough to stop him.


If you can actually find people consistently saying that you should play a wizard or leave, I'd like to see that.

And even if they do, then "leave" seems like the far better solution there.



So yeah, you'll get plenty of good fighter optimization, but very little if you ask how a fighter can compete with a tier 1 class.

Why are you competing with your party? Either you're all winning or you're not. If the wizard's player is ruining your fun, then that's exactly what that is - a player problem.

[King of Nowhere]

Why are you competing with your party? Either you're all winning or you're not. If the wizard's player is ruining your fun, then that's exactly what that is - a player problem.

It's not about competing in the party, it's about setting up a wizard npc as an opponent and making sure that the fighter can still do something against it. of course the obvious answer is to avoid the wizard going full batman, but the party wizzard then should not be able to smoke said opponent in one round.

[Coretron03]

It's not about competing in the party, it's about setting up a wizard npc as an opponent and making sure that the fighter can still do something against it. of course the obvious answer is to avoid the wizard going full batman, but the party wizzard then should not be able to smoke said opponent in one round.

If your at "Blaster wizard, Healbot Cleric" levels of optimisation the fighter could deal with summoned minions/mooks and keep them off at the wizard and cleric, plus flanking with the rogue. If the party wizard can smoke the enemy wizard in one round, your DM probably isn't doing something right or the enemy wasn't supposed to be a challenge any or your wizard is too powerful (Which is the players fault).

Really, I don't know what your arguing. That a wizard shouldn't be able to smoke a enemy wizard in one round? Plus, batman wizards aren't "Crush the oppostion while your party takes 5", its more about filling the chinks in your party like casting fly on the fighter or Invis on the Rogue. Its weird that alot of people think of it like the former.

Also, Sleep is great at low levels. Dont scream that it's too high op, Wizards aren't forced to learn and prepare magic missile.

[lord_khaine]

It also doesn't take a jerk to break things--playing a druid in the obvious ways still obviates the need for a fighter. That is, a druid (even near the optimization floor) is still better at the fighter's specialty than the fighter (unless the fighter is highly optimized and thus narrowly specialized) and also has a multitude of other things he does well that the fighter can't even attempt. He gets a pet fighter as a class feature for goodness sake! It's not purposeful, but it still makes the fighter useless. It's inherent in playing the class unless you anti-optimize or handicap yourself.

Replying a bit late. But do disagree about the druid think. You need to move a bit up from the floor to surpass the fighter in his area of specialty. Even in a very low-op case where the fighter only picks PHB feats like Weapon Focus, Weapon specialisation and power attacks with his 2handed sword.


Anyway, the thread you mentioned didn't ask about wizards verus fighters. it was just a request for optimization of a specific build, and for that this forum can give really good advice (by the way, the OP of that thread claimed he was very new, but he appears to know more than me already; i played many years, but never with players that could even remotely be considered pros).
So yeah, you'll get plenty of good fighter optimization, but very little if you ask how a fighter can compete with a tier 1 class.

That could be because that a fighter just simply cant do that? He is simply lacking to many tools.
As i recall though, the majority of suggestions are not to play a wizard instead, but to pick up a ToB class.

[Coretron03]

Replying a bit late. But do disagree about the druid think. You need to move a bit up from the floor to surpass the fighter in his area of specialty. Even in a very low-op case where the fighter only picks PHB feats like Weapon Focus, Weapon specialisation and power attacks with his 2handed sword.
I'm not so sure about that. Animal companions are pretty good and the obvious choices like bears and tigers are pretty good, wild shaping is pretty obvious and unless you only use cure spells, 9th level spells are a big boon. I might stat up a minimum optimisation druid and fighter and see how they compare but I'm pretty sure a druid would be on top.


That could be because that a fighter just simply cant do that? He is simply lacking to many tools.
As i recall though, the majority of suggestions are not to play a wizard instead, but to pick up a ToB class.
I second this. I would like to see quotes though where people tell say to play wizards or not bother. That seems a bit extreme.

[lord_khaine]

I'm not so sure about that. Animal companions are pretty good and the obvious choices like bears and tigers are pretty good, wild shaping is pretty obvious and unless you only use cure spells, 9th level spells are a big boon. I might stat up a minimum optimisation druid and fighter and see how they compare but I'm pretty sure a druid would be on top.

I newer look at level 9 spells. They come into play so rarely that i only think they scew the picture.
But for minimum optimisation druid i looked at level 6 where the Druid can pick Natural spell and turn into a Brown bear. Natural fang last 6 hours, so that can be up for dedicated dungeon exploration. But will likely not be on for random encounters. Or before the druid know that he can expect a lot of fighting. And barkskin are likely to only last 1 or 2 fights, and something the druid will often need to spend the first round of combat on casting.

Comparing that to a fighter 6 who spend his fighter bonus feats on PHB feats to hit harder with a large sword, and i found it to favor the fighter.

Because i have tried the minimum optimisation druid myself in actual play (the GM had placed some limits on additional books allowed) And i did find myself that the general poor ac of wild shapes really hurt in a lot of cases. Just for example, when you only got the brown bears basic ac of 15 then it means a lot of things, like lv 1 orc barbarians can really mess you up.

[Coretron03]

I newer look at level 9 spells. They come into play so rarely that i only think they scew the picture.
But for minimum optimisation druid i looked at level 6 where the Druid can pick Natural spell and turn into a Brown bear. Natural fang last 6 hours, so that can be up for dedicated dungeon exploration. But will likely not be on for random encounters. Or before the druid know that he can expect a lot of fighting. And barkskin are likely to only last 1 or 2 fights, and something the druid will often need to spend the first round of combat on casting.
Ah, My mistake, when I said 9th level spells I meant 9th level casting (0-9). I agree that 9ths skew the picture in power a bit. However, lets have a look at the animal companion. Riding dog, at level 1 have 2 HD (Giving it 13 HP, more then a fighter with 14 con and on elite array (which seems fair for low OP)you can't get more without being a dwarf). It has 16 AC, while a fighter would have is 15 (Chain Shirt+12 dex for a strength based fighter) making it a slight advantage for the Animal Companion. For attacks, the fighter wins out cleary with +4 to hit (15 strength, 1 BaB, Weapon focus) for 2d6+3 vs the AC's +3 for 1d6+3. Favouring the fighter. Against one of the druids class features. Also, I pretty sure the DMG has rules for single scenario prebuffs (the creating and testing monster section IIRC, Don't have my DMG right now.) That says effects with 10 minute/level and higher durations can be used. Not sure if 100% applicable though.

Comparing that to a fighter 6 who spend his fighter bonus feats on PHB feats to hit harder with a large sword, and i found it to favor the fighter.
At level 6, the companion gains 4 more hd, 2 Str/Dex (Plus the every 4 level ability boost giving it 18 str) 2 feats and 4 more Nat Ac, plus some othr minor abilities (I don't know what "Trained for war means" but if you can do it you get free trip attacks) vs what the fighter gets. The fighter obviously pulls ahead the higher level you get but its still another meatsheild on the field. Past that, the druid has 3rd level spells and wildshape. Even cure Spells have a value as its 1d8+5 hitpoints per day. You can get barding for your animal companion or your wildshape form for AC and you'll probably get better dex with your form. Plus, a Pearl of power to get mage armour of your arcane caster can do wonders for your ac if you can't get barding.

Because i have tried the minimum optimisation druid myself in actual play (the GM had placed some limits on additional books allowed) And i did find myself that the general poor ac of wild shapes really hurt in a lot of cases. Just for example, when you only got the brown bears basic ac of 15 then it means a lot of things, like lv 1 orc barbarians can really mess you up.
Fair enough. Outside of combat though, wildshape can be used for scouting and utility. I might add more to this later though, I have to go now.